Who are the Modern

Greeks?

By
Risto Stefov
 Who are the Modern Greeks?

Published by:

Risto Stefov Publications

rstefov@hotmail.com

Toronto, Canada

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval
system without written consent from the author, except for the inclusion of
brief and documented quotations in a review.

Copyright  2012 by Risto Stefov

e-book edition
Index

Index ............................................................................................................3
Part 1 - Introduction.....................................................................................4
Part 2 – Who are the Modern Greeks?.........................................................9
Part 3 - Where did modern Greeks come from? ........................................13
Part 4 - Why Greece and not Arvanitovlachia? .........................................19
Part 5 - Why did the Europeans need a Greece?........................................24
Part 6 – On the way to Hellenism ..............................................................29
Part 7 - Twenty Authors can't all be wrong!..............................................34
Part 8 - Connecting the Past with the Present ............................................40
Part 9 – Language Religion and Identity ...................................................46
Part 10 - Why expose the Greek Fraud? ....................................................50
Part 11 - The curse of Hellenism ...............................................................56
Part 12 – Is there a Misunderstanding?......................................................60
Part 13 – What is Greece up to? ................................................................64
Part 14 – My personal Opinion..................................................................68
Part 15 – More questions ...........................................................................73
Part 16 – On to Macedonia ........................................................................78
Part 17 – Education....................................................................................84
Part 18 – Assimilation ...............................................................................91
Part 19 - Fifty authors can’t still all be wrong!..........................................97
Part 20 – The Macedonian Party?............................................................107
Part 21 – Baiting the Trap........................................................................113
Part 22 – The Greek Macedonians...........................................................117
Part 23 – The Need for Intelligence Gathering........................................122
Part 24 - The Walls are closing in............................................................126
Part 25 – Reacting to Rumours ................................................................131
Part 26 – The Unconvinced .....................................................................138
Part 27 – Time to Stand Up .....................................................................145
Part 28 – Twenty-five more authors ........................................................149
Part 29 – My fascination with Greeks?....................................................156
Part 30 – Who writes my books? .............................................................162
Part 31 – Ilinden 1903..............................................................................167
Part 32 – Conclusion................................................................................176
Part 1 - Introduction

Dear Macedonians, one way to defend ourselves from the Greek

onslaught and gain back our identity and dignity is to fight back to the
level to which the Greeks have reduced us; that is to attack their identity
as they have attacked ours. We need prove nothing to them except to
expose them as the artificial identity they truly are and to uncover their
design to wipe us out in order to usurp our Macedonian heritage.
There are some who say the 1903 Macedonian Ilinden Uprising was
one of the greatest Rebellions Europe has witnessed since the French
Revolution (Giorgio Nurigiani, “Macedonia Yesterday and Today”) yet
there are others today who adamantly claim that Macedonians don’t exist.
If we are to take these people seriously we not only need to examine
their claims but we need to understand their motives for making such
claims.
Modern Greeks, who in 1912, 1913 acquired Macedonian territories by
conquest and imperial means, claim not only that Macedonians don’t exist
but that Macedonia is Greek for historic reasons.
For modern Greeks to make such claims they will need to provide
evidence to (1) prove that Macedonia does not belong to the people that
were living on it before Greece annexed it in 1913 and (2) prove that the
modern Greeks are indeed the rightful heirs of Macedonian lands.
The purpose of this book is to examine the legitimacy of the Modern
Greek claim that “Macedonia is Greek”. To do that we will need to
examine (1) who are the modern Greeks and (2) why is their claim, as they
put it, “the only valid claim?”
When Greeks say that “Macedonia is Greek” do they mean all of
geographic and historic Macedonia or just the part that was annexed by
Greece in 1913?
If they mean only the part of Macedonia that was annexed by Greece
then we need to examine how Greece acquired it. There is plenty of
historic evidence to highlight how Greece acquired Macedonian territories
between Macedonia’s invasion in 1912 and the conclusion of the 1913
Treaty of Bucharest. Evidence shows that the Macedonian lands acquired
by Greece were acquired by war and arbitrary means which has nothing to
do with historic claims.
If however all of geographic and historic Macedonia is claimed to be
Greek then Modern Greeks will have to show additional proof as to (1)
why they did not register their claims during the signing of the 1913
Treaty of Bucharest and (2) why they willingly allowed Serbia and
Bulgaria to take 49% of Macedonian territories.
The reality is that there were no definite plans on how to divide
Macedonia since Macedonia never belonged to any of its neighbours.
There were no national dividing lines to speak of other than the
Patriarchist or Exarchist affiliated villages which existed all over
Macedonia. So after the first Balkan War ended in 1912 arbitrary borders
were set up more or less where the invading foreign armies stopped their
advance.
Serbia was looking to gain access to the Adriatic Sea but Austria-
Hungary and Italy prevented that by proposing the creation of Albania.
This loss of territory on the Serbian side lead to renewed conflict in the
region sparking the second Balkan War involving Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria
and Romania.
As a result of this, the original borders proposed after the first Balkan
War were shifted and Macedonia was once again arbitrarily partitioned.
According to military historian Dr. Vanche Stojchev, author of the
book “Military History of Macedonia”, while the Treaty of Bucharest was
being drafted in 1913 the occupying armies were still fighting in
Macedonia. Every time one side took a hill or a ridge from the others its
military commander telegraphed his counterpart in Bucharest who in turn
asked the commission to modify the maps to include the new gains.
Professor Dr. Vanche Stojchev uncovered various inconsistencies and
anomalies in the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest which would be of interest and
importance to the Macedonian people. For example not many people know
that the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest was not ratified by Austro-Hungary.
Austro-Hungary was the first Great Power in the Balkans. After the
signing of the treaty both Russia and Austro-Hungary called for further
revisions which were basically ignored. Russia only accepted the treaty
because it was pressured by the other Great Powers, which in reality
means the treaty may not even be valid.
“The reason why Macedonian institutions are not yet affirming the idea
that Macedonian roots extend from the ancient times to today is because
everything that was taught in Macedonia up to now had to be politically
correct. We were taught a politicized history which catered less to reality
and more to political aspects on how history should be viewed,” says
Professor Dr. Vanche Stojchev.
However, before Modern Greeks can answer questions like “Why is
Macedonia Greek?” they will need to answer the ultimate question and
that is “What makes their claim legitimate?” On what basis can Modern
Greeks say that Macedonia belongs to them instead of to the people who
were already living there before Greece annexed it?
Here Modern Greeks will need to prove their inheritance rights above
and beyond those of the indigenous people already living in Macedonia.
But in order to have such legitimate rights, that is above the rights of the
indigenous people, Modern Greeks will have to show that they possess a
continuous Greek lineage that extends beyond that of the indigenous
people living in Macedonia.
To prove that this “continuous” Greek lineage exists, we will need to
examine historic evidence prior to and leading up to the creation of the
Modern Greek state. In other words we need to know more about the
Modern Greeks and their existence before the Greek state was created in
1829.
Modern Greeks have already registered their claims about Macedonia
and the Macedonians. Their claims can basically be summarized as
follows;
1. According to official Greece; Macedonians do not exist.
2. According to official Greece; Macedonia, particularly the Republic
of Macedonia, is occupied by Slavs who came to Macedonia during the 6th
century AD.
3. According to official Greece; the Modern Macedonian ethnicity is a
modern creation, created by Tito.
4. Although they have not specified which part(s) of Macedonia,
according to official Greece; Macedonia is Greek and has always been
Greek.
If we analyze these claims then, based on Greek logic alone, we can
conclude that the people living in Macedonia are Slavs who came to
Macedonia during the 6th century AD. So in effect the Modern
Macedonians, or “Slavs” as the Greeks like to call them, according to
Greek claims, have been living on Macedonian lands for say 1,500 years?
Now based on the above, Modern Greeks will have to show that they
have legitimate claims to Macedonian lands that extend more than 1,500
years. That means that Modern Greeks will have to prove that their
ancestors owned Macedonian lands prior to the 6th century AD. Naturally
if they want to be taken seriously, modern Greeks will need to prove that
they are the rightful heirs of those lands. I will be more than willing to
accept continuity of the nation’s culture, traditions and language. In other
words, did the Greeks of the 19th century prior to the creation of the
Modern Greek state share a similar culture, similar traditions and a similar
language with the Greeks of 1,500 years ago?
Let us begin by looking at the culture, tradition and language of the
Modern Greeks of the 19th century.
Sir Charles Eliot in his book “Turkey in Europe” on page 267 says: “It
would be amazing if the people who are now called Greeks are of the
physical types as what are styled Ancient Greeks, which generally means
the inhabitants of Athens and Sparta. The Greeks have spread around the
Aegean and Black Seas, and come into contact with the inhabitants of the
littoral. The Macedonian Empire must have had a large non-Hellenic
substratum. Constantinople and all Continental Greece were for centuries
ruled by Romans, and during many subsequent centuries invaded and
colonized by Slavs. The Crusades and Latin conquests brought a large
influx of western Europeans, commonly called Franks; and in later times,
extensive Albanian settlements were made in Greek districts. Clearly the
Modern Greek must be of very mixed blood.”
Again Sir Charles Eliot in his book “Turkey in Europe” on page 299
says: “It must be confessed that, though the Greeks showed more energy
than any other Christian race, those who now remain in Turkey (except the
islanders) are not remarkable for physical vigour or military capacity. This,
is no doubt, partly due to the fact that the people who revolted against
Mahmud were largely Hellenized Vlachs and Albanians, who, under the
modern system would, not be regarded as Greeks. Nowadays the robust
agricultural population is rarely Hellenic in its sympathies, for, as already
mentioned, there are comparatively few parts where it is really Greek.”
So, what is Sir Charles Eliot trying to tell us about the Modern Greek
towards the creation of the Modern Greek state?
For starters he is telling us that the so-called “Greek” of the 19th
century had very few to none of the traits of the ancient Greeks from 1,500
years ago. He is also telling us that the 19th century so-called Greeks were
not really Greeks at all but Hellenized Albanians and Vlachs. In other
words, they were Albanians and Vlachs made to feel like they were
Greeks.
Lucy M. J. Garnett in her book “Greece of the Hellenes” published in
1914 on page 31 says: “The height standard for the Greek army is
nominally 5 feet 1 inch the average Hellene by no means being a tall man.
Nor is this standard rigidly adhered to, for a recruit is not rejected on the
score of height, if certified physically fit in other respects. Some of the
hardiest soldiers are recruits among the Albanians and pastoral Koutso-
Vlachs of Thessaly who form an important contingent.”
Lucy M. J. Garnett in her book “Greece of the Hellenes” published in
1914 on page 33 speaking about the dress of the Greek Royal Guard says:
“His feet are shod with Albanian red leather shoes the upturned, pointed
toes of which are finished with woolen turfs.”
Lucy M. J. Garnett in her book “Greece of the Hellenes” published in
1914 on page 33 and 34 also says: “All Greek soldiers are required to be
able to read and write, and if a conscript on joining has not already
acquired those rudiments of education, he is put to school. Not-
withstanding the educational efforts of the Government as many as 30
percent proved fifteen years ago or so to be completely illiterate, which not
more than 25 percent had advanced beyond the ‘three R’s’. This may be
partly accounted for by the fact that these conscripts include both
Albanians from the settlements in Attica and other parts of the Kingdom
and pastoral Koutso-Vlachs, all of whom habitually speak their own
dialects, and learn Greek only as a foreign tongue.”
So what is Lucy M. J. Garnett telling us about the Greeks of the 19th
century?
Here again Lucy M. J. Garnett is giving us evidence that the so-called
Greeks of the 19th century were not really Greeks but Albanians and
Vlachs. In other words, the immediate ancestors of today’s Greeks were
not really Greeks at all!
My aim in this book is to show that Modern Greeks are not only NOT
entitled to the Macedonian heritage, but they should not even be entitled to
be called Greeks. Underneath the highly polished “Modern Greek veneer”
hides an artificially created nation constructed from the bones and ashes of
the Macedonian, Albanian, Vlach and Turkish cultures that once
flourished on those lands.
Part 2 – Who are the Modern Greeks?

According to official Greece, Macedonia, particularly the Republic of

Macedonia, is occupied by Slavs who came to Macedonia during the 6th
century AD. Neither justified nor proven, this claim is used by Greece to
negate the Macedonian identity and deny the Macedonian people their
human rights. By this Greece is in violation of international norms and
standards particularly in regards to the freedom of Macedonians to self
identify.
If the Macedonians are “Slavs” as Greeks claim then what are the
Greeks, particularly in view that they both existed side by side as
neighbours without borders for over 2,000 years?
How will the Modern Greek identity stack up to the Modern
Macedonian identity if placed side by side?
Before answering the above questions however let’s examine “Who
are the Modern Greeks?”
Edward Blaquiere Esq. author of the book “The Greek Revolution; Its
Origin and Progress” on page 21 says: “Among the numerous islands of
the Aegean, arise several barren rocks, some of which are however gifted
by nature with small and commodious heavens. Of this number are Hydra
Spezzia and Ipsara, the two first close to the Eastern shore of the
Peloponnesus, and the later not far from Scio, on the Asiatic coast.
Tyranny and Want had driven some families, whose origin like that of
nearly all the peasants, who inhabited proper Greece, was Albanian, to
take refuge on the desolate crags, where they built villages, and sought a
precarious existence by fishing.”
What is Edward Blaquiere trying to tell us in regards to the origins of
the Modern Greeks, “whose origin like that of nearly all the peasants, who
inhabited proper Greece, was Albanian”. By the words of Edward
Blaquiere nearly all the peasants inhabiting “proper” Greece were
Albanian!
William St. Clair author of the book “That Greece Might Still Be Free”
on page 9 says: “The Roman Catholic Greeks, who lived in the islands
which had been under Venetian or Genoese rule, regarded themselves as a
separate community. The Albanians of Hydra and Spetsae, many of whom
could not even speak Greek, regarded themselves as Greek because their
allegiance was to the Orthodox Church.”
William St. Clair says “The Albanians of Hydra and Spetsae regarded
themselves as Greek” which implies that the Modern Greeks living in
Hydra and Spetsae have Albanian origins.
Constantinos Papparigopolous in “History of the Hellenic Nation” on
page 73 says: “The concept of the ‘Hellenic’ state as elaborated in Western
Europe presupposed that this was to be the heir of the Ancient Greek
(Hellenic) world. Since it occupied the same territory and this territory has
been liberated after the uprising of the Christian populations claiming to be
their descendants, it should -it was assumed- share the same culture and
the same language as its ancient ancestors. Indeed, the newly born
‘Hellenic’ state originally based its legitimacy on this heritage. However, it
had to undertake a difficult struggle to convince European public opinion
of the validity of its claims. Moreover, the German historian Jacob Philip
Fallmerayer argued that the ancient Greeks had been annihilated during the
Slavic invasions of the Greek lands and the creation of new settlements in
the seventh century AD. By this account the so called Neo-Hellenes were
nothing more than a mixture of Slavic and Albanian populations.”
Here again we have references that the Modern Greek or Neo-Hellenic
population living in the region where the Peloponnesus is today was once a
mixture of Slavs and Albanians.
Ironically and despite the 20th century adjustments of borders, Modern
Greeks today do not hesitate to call their northern neighbours “Slavs” but
adamantly reject Jacob Philip Fallmerayer’s arguments which imply that
they too are the descendants of Slavs.
In the book “The Vlachs: The History of a Balkan People”, on pages
124 and 125, T. J. Winifrith says: “There are two other difficulties
involved in the Turkish period. In tracing the movements of merchandise
and men in the Balkan peninsula it is extremely difficult to differentiate
the various races involved. Western travelers knew little, Turkish
authorities cared less. Even the polyglot Vlachs themselves neither knew
nor cared a great deal and until the rise of national consciousness at the
end of the eighteenth century were probably happy with the label of Greek
which was good enough for outside observers.”
In the book “The Vlachs: The History of a Balkan People”, on page
139, T. J. Winifrith says: “One of Greece’s first and best Prime Ministers
was John Kolettis, a Vlach who dressed like a Turk and had been court
physician to Ali Pasha.”
Speaking about 19th century migrations in the Balkans, in the book
“The Vlachs: The History of a Balkan People”, on pages 119 and 120, T. J.
Winifrith says: “Elsewhere there is a further source of confusion with
massive immigration of Albanians into Greece.”
In telling the story of the Vlachs, T. J. Winifrith gives us important
clues as to the true identity of Modern Greeks. In the days when Modern
Greece was molded into a nation Vlachs, a Latin speaking people, and
Albanians were the primary sources of raw materials for the “making” of
the Modern Greeks.
In the “Popular Science Monthly” edited by J. McKeen Cattell,
published in 1915 on pages 41 and 42 we read: “Most of the old Greek
race has been swept away, and the country is now inhabited by persons of
Slavonic descent. Indeed there is a strong ground for the statement that
there was more of the heroic blood of Hellas in the Turkish army of
Edhem Pasha than in the soldiers of King George.”
 In the “Popular Science Monthly” edited by J. McKeen Cattell,
published in 1915 on page 42 we also read: “The Modern Greek has been
called a ‘Byzantine Slav.’ King George himself and Constantine his son
are only aliens placed on the Grecian throne to suit the convenience of
outer powers, being in fact descendants of tribes which to the ancient
Greeks were merely Barbarians.”
Here we are told by Popular Science Monthly that not only have the
ancient so-called Greeks disappeared and been replaced by persons of
Slavonic descent but that even the rulers of Modern Greece are aliens.
In the “Encyclopedia Britannica” published in 1910 on page 465 in the
History of Greece section we read: “In 1715 the Ottomans with a large
disciplined army set themselves to recover the Morea [later renamed the
Peloponnesus], the Venetians were left without support from the Greeks.
The peninsula was rapidly recaptured and by the Peace of Passarowitz
(1718) again became a Turkish dependency. The gaps left about this time
in the Greek population were largely made up by an immigration from
Albania.”
I have been told by several Greeks to “read the encyclopedia” and
educate myself on the true history of Greece. So following their advice I
looked up the 1910 version of Encyclopedia Britannica and lo and behold
it corroborates the story that the early 19th century Modern Greek
population is Albanian. It also tells us that old Greece, more commonly
known as Morea, a Slav word for “ocean”, was occupied by the Venetians.
In “Greece of the Hellenes” by Lucy M. J. Garnett on page 32 we read:
“The Athenian women are neither beautiful nor well made; they have
neither the physiognomy of French women, nor the full beauty of the
Roman dames, nor the pale white delicacy of the Turkish women –one
sees nothing in the town but ugly creatures with broad noses, flat feet and
ill-formed waists. It is because Athens, twenty five years ago, was only an
Albanian village. The Albanians formed and still form, almost the whole
of the population of Attica; and within three leagues of the capital, villages
are to be found where Greek is hardly understood. Athens has been rapidly
peopled with men of all kinds and nations; that explains the ugliness of the
Athenian type.”
Here Lucy M. J. Garnett comes out with it and spares us no details.
Athens, at Modern Greece’s humble beginning, the seat of Modern and
Ancient Greek-Dom, the pinnacle of Greek pride and glory in the 19th
century was nothing more than an “Albanian village”.
Albanians, Vlachs, Slavs? Where are the so-called Greeks, descendants
of the ancient Greeks, inheritors of the ancient Greek and Macedonian
heritage?
We don’t need to look too far or scratch too deep from the surface to
find irregularities with the Greek identity. Even with the scant evidence
presented from only half a dozen sources we can see that the Modern
Greek identity is not what it seems. So, how dare they [Modern Greeks]
challenge our Macedonian identity when their [Modern Greek] identity is
artificial at best?
Dear Macedonians, pay no attention to Modern Greek allegations
because Modern Greeks are NOT really who they say they are. Modern
Greeks are NOT the descendents of the so-called Ancient Greeks as they
portray themselves to be. The so-called Ancient Greeks may have been
who the world was told they were, which is yet to be proven, but they
disappeared a long time ago. I can tell you with much certainty that the
Modern Greeks are NOT their descendants. The Modern Greeks are
nothing more than imposters and usurpers of the Ancient City State
heritage. The only thing they have in common with the ancients is that
they happened to live on the same lands.
Dear Macedonians do not “negotiate” our sacred biblical name, our
symbols and our Macedonian historical heritage with these usurpers and
charlatans.
We would not have to resort to this had Greece done the right thing
and recognized the Macedonian people as Macedonians and provided them
their human rights as prescribed by International Law. But No, we have to
do this the hard way by dredging up the ugly Greek past! It’s never too late
however for Greece to do the right thing!
Part 3 - Where did modern Greeks come from?

In chapter 2 of this book we established that prior to and during the

creation of the Greek state in the early 1800’s the majority of the
population living on Greek lands was predominantly of Albanian, Vlach
and Slav origin, which leads to the question “Where from and when did
these Albanians, Vlachs and Slavs come to Greece and what happened to
the indigenous population living on those lands?”
Modern Greeks claim that they are the descendents of the so-called
Ancient Greeks. Is this fact or fiction?
We will begin the investigation with the “Popular Science Monthly”
edited by J. McKeen Cattell, published in 1915. The Popular Science
Monthly on page 41 reads: “Once Greece led the world in intellectual
pursuits, in art, in poetry, in philosophy. A large and vital part of European
culture is rooted directly in the language and thought of Athens. The most
beautiful edifice in the world was the Peace Palace of the Parthenon,
erected by Pericles, to celebrate the end of Greece’s suicidal wars. This
endured 2,187 years to be wrecked at last (1687) in Turkish hands by the
Christian bombs of the Venetian Republic.
But the glory of Greece had passed away long before the fall of the
Parthenon. Its cause was the one cause of all such downfalls – the
extinction of strong men by war. At the best, the civilization of Greece was
built on slavery, one freeman to ten slaves. And when the freemen were
destroyed, the slaves an original Mediterranean stock, overspread the
territory of Hellas along with the Bulgarians, Albanians and Vlachs,
barbarians crowding down from the north.”
So, what is the writer of the Popular Science Monthly from 1915 trying
to tell us here? For one he or she is telling us that at the best of times; that
would mean during the classics, Greece was predominantly populated by
slaves and when the City States fell to the Romans the so-called ancient
Greeks were numbering one freeman to ten slaves. So even before the turn
of the new millennium the classical Greeks had vanished and were
replaced by the slaves they once employed. Furthermore, the author is
telling us that the glory of the so-called Ancient Greeks had passed away,
died long before the Venetians occupied Greece in 1687. So where is the
cultural and ancestral connection between the ancients and the moderns?
Does it really exist?
Again looking at page 42 of the “Popular Science Monthly” we read:
“It is maintained that the Modern Greeks are in the main the descendants
of the population that inhabited Greece in the earlier of Byzantine rule.
Owing to the operations of various causes, historical, social and economic,
that population was composed of many heterogeneous elements and
represented in very limited degree the race which repulsed the Persians
and built the Parthenon. The internecine conflicts in the Greek community,
wars with foreign powers, and the deadly struggles of factions in the
various cities had to a large extent obliterated the old race of free citizens
by the beginning of the Roman period. The extermination of the Plateans
by the Spartans and of the Melians by the Athenians during the
Peloponnesian wars, the proscription of the Athenian citizens after the war,
the massacre of the Corcyrean oligarchs by the democratic party, the
slaughter of the Thebans by Alexander and of the Corinthians by
Mummius are among the more familiar instances of the catastrophe which
overtook the civil element in the Greek cities. The void can only have been
filled from the ranks of the metics and resident aliens and of the
descendants of the far more numerous slave population. In the classic
period four-fifths of the population of Attica were slaves; of the remainder
half were metics. In AD 100 only three thousand arm-bearing men were in
Greece. (James Bourchier)”
James Bourchier here reaffirms the fact that the so-called Ancient
Greeks disappeared a long time ago and the void was filled by the
numerous slaves they employed which at the time consisted of 80% of the
total population.
Looking further down on page 42 of the “Popular Science Monthly”
we read: “The constant little struggles of the Greeks among themselves
made no great showing as to numbers compared to other wars, but they
wiped out the most valuable people, the best blood the most promising
heredity on earth. This cost the world more than the killing of millions of
barbarians. In two centuries there were born under the shadow of the
Parthenon more men of genius than the Roman Empire had in its whole
existence. Yet this empire included all the civilized world, even Greece
herself. (La Pouge)”
La Pouge here confirms what many others believed; the so-called
Ancient Greeks were wiped out a long time ago.
At the bottom of page 42 of the “Popular Science Monthly” we read:
“The downfall of Greece, like that of Rome, has been ascribed by Schultz
to the crossing of the Greeks by the barbaric races which flocked into
Hellas from every side. These resident aliens, or metics, steadily increased
in numbers as the free Greeks disappeared. Selected slaves or helots were
then made free in order to furnish fighting men, and again as these fell
their places were taken by immigrants.”
Here again Schultz validates the fact that the so-called Ancient Greeks
disappeared a long time ago and were replaced by aliens, slaves and
immigrants. But who were these immigrants and where did they come
from?
To get some answers to these questions we will examine the book
“Customs and Lore of Modern Greece” by Rennell Rodd published in
1892. Rennell Rodd on page 17 writes: “Those who adopted the creed of
their conquerors, in order to escape from these indignities, as did a large
portion of the inhabitants of Euboea, and subsequently of Crete lost their
national character, and, becoming Mussulman, practically ceased to be
Greek; indeed, from the time of the Ottoman conquest the question of
nationality is largely merged in the opposition of creeds. Sultan
Mohammed II appears to have foreseen a safeguard against future
insurrection in draining the resources of the country, and literally
exhausting its population; and he re-peopled the vanquished
Constantinople by transferring to the city the wealthiest inhabitants of the
lands he subsequently reduced. Slavery awaited the Venetian subjects of
Modon and Nauplia when they fell into his hands in 1463, and a similar
fate befell a number of the natives of Euboea in 1470. The Ionian were
called upon to yield their quota to the re-population of Constantinople, and
a number of slaves were drawn from Rhodes in 1480. In the last year of
the 15th century and the opening of the 16th, when the Morea was again the
battle-field of Turk and Venetian, the occupants of the plains of Argos and
of portions of Attica were practically exterminated, and Albanian colonists
began to re-occupy the ruined lands. In the following century the Ottoman
admiral, Barbarrosa, carried off the female inhabitants of Aegina into
slavery, and massacred the males, leaving the island entirely depopulated
until it was re-colonized by Albanians. He reduced the majority of the
Aegean islands to subjection, expelled the Italian nobles and said to have
carried off 30,000 Greeks into slavery.”
So what is Rennell Rodd telling us about the Modern Greeks and their
true origins? Well, for one, he confirms what others are saying, that is, the
original Greeks that inhabited the Greek islands and the mainland of
Greece proper vanished a long time ago. Some converted to Islam and the
rest were taken into slavery. He is also telling us that the vacant lands left
behind were settled and colonized by Albanians.
It is interesting to note here that most of the Greek nobility was taken
to Constantinople and no doubt Islamized to maintain loyalty. If that were
the case and we have no reason to doubt it, then the question that begs to
be asked is “Who is more Greek, the descendants of the Modern Turks of
Constantinople or the Modern Greeks of Greece proper?” It makes one
wonder!
According to Rennell Rodd however, one thing is certain and that is
that there is very little that connects the Modern Greeks with the Ancient
so-called Greeks and plenty of evidence that connects the Modern Greeks
with the Albanians!
Let us see what else Rennell Rodd has to say. On pages 18 and 19 of
his book “Customs and Lore of Modern Greece” published in 1892,
Rennell Rodd goes on to say: “Meanwhile, the deserted lands were
gradually occupied by Christian Albanians moving south before the wave
of Turkish advance. Their earlier immigrants are lost in the silence of time,
but the first recorded mention of their appearance in Peloponnesus occurs
in the middle of the 14th century, when Manuel Kantacuzen brought
Albanian mercenaries to Mistra, and later established colonies in the
peninsula. Again, at the close of the 14th century in the reign of [Byzantine
Emperor] John Paleologus, some 10,000 of them crossed the Isthmus, and
in later days of the despots of the Morea they are found serving as
mercenaries in their armies. The immigration continued through the 15th
century, after the final reduction of Albania by the Turks. They occupied
the greater part of Boetia, Attica and Megaris, portion of the Corinthian
territory, of Argolis and Achaia, as well as small districts of in Phocis,
Elis, and Archadia...”
Here again we find evidence of Albanians occupying deserted Greek
lands as early as the 14th century. Even the Byzantine Emperors had a hand
in re-colonizing Greece with Albanians. Then later during the Ottoman
invasion of Albania we have even more Albanians invading and occupying
Greek territories.
In view of what we have read so far, we can see a clear pattern
developing which indicates without a doubt that as the so-called Ancient
Greeks disappeared from Greek lands, they were replaced by
predominantly Albanian immigrants who no doubt are the ancestors of
today’s modern Greeks.
I use the reference “so-called Ancient Greeks” because as we earlier
learned from “Popular Science Monthly” edited by J. McKeen Cattell,
published in 1915, the Greek population that survived the Roman
invasions and occupation were predominantly the Slaves of the Ancient
Greeks. So when we make reference to the so-called Ancient Greeks in the
14th century AD, we are talking about the descendents of the Slaves who
served the Ancient Greeks. So you see the so-called Greek lineage was
already watered down even before the Slav, Vlach and Albanian
migrations into Greek lands.
Speaking of Vlachs and Slavs, let us see what T. J. Winnifrith has to
say? On page 119 in his book “The Vlachs The History of a Balkan
People”, T. J. Winnifrith writes: “In the area where Vlachs as opposed to
Romanians now live there is no shortage of reference to Vlachs after the
breakdown of Byzantine authority. Choniates describing the Bulgarian
revolt mentions a Vlach Chrysos setting up an independent principality in
near Strumitsa and calls Thessaly ‘Great Vlachia’. [Byzantine Emperor]
Andronicus I in an edict 1184 refers confusingly to Bulgars, Cumans and
Vlachs in the Meglen with the Vlachs receiving preferential treatment. In
1221 the Bishop of Naupaktos, John Apokaukos, refers to the injuries
suffered by Simeon Sgouropolos and his daughter at the hands of
Avriolines Constantinos, a colonist of the Romans, whom people today
call the Vlachs. This piece of evidence would seem to indicate a Vlach
presence in Aetolia, especially as Constantinos with his Latin sounding
first name (a corruption of Aurelian) had plenty of his race to support him.
This evidence is sighted in an article by P. Nasturel which is a useful
summary of Medieval Vlach history from the Romanian point of view. It
is interesting that we have a definite indication that the Vlachs were seen
as the descendants of the Romans, although it is just possible that Vlachs
on the sea coast of Greece might be Dalmatian-speakers. Nasturel rather
weakens his case by mentioning the people who call themselves Romans,
cited by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who are certainly Dalmatians and
by drawing attention to the reference in about 1165 by the priest of
Dioclea to Morlachs, black Latins, who used to call themselves Romans.
This may be a reference to Dalmatians, although the etymology of
Morlachs, from Mavrovlachoi shows a greater contact with Greece than
most Dalmatians would have had, and we must not forget the fondness of
Modern Vlachs for black clothes.”
On pages 120 and 121 in his book “The Vlachs The History of a
Balkan People”, T. J. Winnifrith also writes: “As in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries when there was much Albanian activity at a time the
Ottoman Empire was losing its authority, so in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries the breakdown of Byzantine authority lead to
movements by both Vlachs and Albanians into Greece. These movements
parallel earlier waves of invasions by Slavs on the breakdown of East
Roman authority in the seventh century and by Dorians or north-western
Greeks in the twelfth century B.C. after the collapse of the Mycenaean
civilization. The details of all four movements of populations are obscure.
There was bound to be much intermingling between races. Some
Byzantine verses at the end of the fourteenth century describe Momicila a
Bulgaralbanotovlachos, and slightly later we hear of one Boncoes a
Serbalbanitovulgarovlachos. Modern polyglot Vlachs had polyglot
ancestors.
Throughout the fourteenth century Vlachs are hard to distinguish from
Albanians. The first mention of the Albanian language is not until 1285.
According to John Kantakouzenos some people who lived in no town but
inaccessible places in the mountains of Thessaly submitted in 1334 to the
[Byzantine] Emperor Andronicus III. They were Albanians with no King,
called after their tribal chiefs, Malakasaii, Bouii and Masaritae. But these
were probably Vlachs; there were in Pouqueville’s time Vlachs in the
Pindus who called themselves Bovi, and there is still a village called
Malakasi. Elsewhere we hear of the Albanian leader Peter Leosas, leading
Malakasii of his own race, and this would seem to suggest two kinds of
Malakasii. The name may derive from the coastal plain of Malekastir, a
word of Latin origin, in central Albania. The theory that the Bouii came
from the nearby highland pasture of the Bevaei is more conjectural.
Together with the Albanians the Vlachs penetrated to central and Southern
Greece. We hear of Vlachs in Attica, Kephallenia and Crete, although in
these instances and in the place names with Vlach elements which can be
found as far south as the Peloponnesus there maybe confusions between
Vlachs or shepherds and Albanians.”
Even though there is much too much detail for my purpose, I decided
to include T. J. Winnifrith’s above two quotes for those who maybe
interested in further pursuing this study. T. J. Winnifrith does however
answer the question “Where from and when did these Albanians, Vlachs
and Slavs come to Greece?” to a comfortable degree to reach another
conclusion and that is not only are the Modern Greeks not the descendents
of the Ancient Greeks but their origins can be traced in the Albanian and
Vlach immigrants who were not even from Greece proper. So how does
that make them the descendants of the Ancient Greeks? It does not!
After reading T. J. Winnifrith’s quotes above I am beginning to
understand why Greeks throughout the Ottoman period right up to the time
when Greece was created, correctly referred to themselves as “Romaoi”
(Romans). Being partially the descendents of the Vlachs who in turn are
the descendents of the Romans, naturally made them feel like Romans,
thus their name “Romaoi”. This understood, then why did the Modern
Greeks opt for being called “Greeks” and “Hellenes” and tied themselves
to the Ancient Greek Heritage when they are not Greeks at all? A subject
for my next chapter!
Part 4 - Why Greece and not Arvanitovlachia?

“This unique nation-state [Greece] would represent the ultimate

achievement of the Hellenic ideal and, as such, would lead all Europe to
the highest levels of culture yet known.” (Michael Herzfeld)
In chapters 2 and 3 of this book we established that prior to and during
the creation of the Greek state in the early 1800’s the majority of the
population living on Greek lands was predominantly immigrant, mostly of
Albanian, Vlach and Slav origins, which had settled in Greece to fill the
void created by the disappearance of the so-called ancient Greeks. This
leads us to the question “Why was this region not called ‘Arvanitovlachia’
which would have correctly represented the land’s demography? Why
Greece, a Latin name, and not Arvanitovlachia an appropriate name to
represent the two distinct ethnic identities which lived on those lands at
that time?”
Although a difficult question to answer, in view of the Modern Greeks
who have for the last 200 years tried to bury all evidence of their true past,
the best response would be to say that ‘the people living in Greece at the
time of their independence were not given a choice to self identify’. When
Greece was first created in the early 1800’s the population was neither
asked nor involved in any kind of self-identification. Unlike the
Macedonian people who in 1991 participated in a free referendum which
enabled them to self identify and gain independence, the people of Greece
were not given that choice! In essence the decision to call the newly
created state “Greece” solely rested with foreigners and academics who,
instead of calling the new state by its true representative demographic,
opted for calling it “Greece” so that they could connect it with a world and
culture that had died more than 2,000 years before.
In this chapter we are going to discover the reasons why Greece was
named Greece and not Arvanitovlachia or some other name that would
have appropriately connected the land with the current people.
We so readily use the word “Ancient Greece” and “Ancient Greeks” to
refer to a place and a people in the classical period (about 600 BC to 300
BC) without realizing that the terms “Greece” and “Greeks” are of Latin
origin which probably came into use sometime after the 1st century BC and
were popularized during the 19th century.
The reason I mention this is because today Greece, without any
justification, objects to the Macedonian peoples’ use of the name
Macedonia to refer to their country on the grounds that the name
“Macedonia”, for historic reasons, belongs to the Greeks. To which Greeks
does the name “Macedonia” belong? Is it to the so-called Ancient Greeks
whose very name is not only of non-Greek origin but given to those people
by the Latins after they disappeared from the face of this earth? Or does
the name “Macedonia” belong to the Arvanitovlachs, the immigrants who
over the centuries came to live on those lands? Or does the name
“Macedonia” belong to the modern imposters who go by the name of
“Greeks”?
Why Greece and not Arvanitovlachia? To find the answers to this
questions we will first look at segments of William St. Clair’s book, “That
Greece Might Still Be Free” which appeared in my series of articles called
“William St. Clair on 19th century Greece and the Modern Greeks”, at;
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/82531 and
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/82785)
According to St. Clair “To be Greek was to be a drunkard, a lecher,
and, especially, a cheat.”
But later by the seventeenth century, as more information was
uncovered about a people who once lived on those lands, a new picture
began to emerge. In time Europeans, without ever having been to Greece,
came to believe that the Ancient and Modern Greeks were one and the
same. As more information came out, especially after Lord Byron visited
Greece in 1809 and 1810, and, on his return, published the first two cantos
of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, the legend of a place called “Ancient
Greece” and a people called “Ancient Greeks” began to grow and spread
like wildfire. Besides experiencing Greece for himself, Byron had also
read and drew on the many travel books in the works of dozens of earlier
writers in prose and in verse which helped him compose some of his best
work described as best-sellers. At least twelve editions of his poem were
printed between 1812 and 1821 and it was translated into several European
languages.
Byron’s work prompted more travelers to visit “Greece” but very few
were equipped to make more than superficial observations. That, however,
did not stop them from making generalizations and expanding the myth
surrounding these so-called “Greeks”. As the idea of a “Greece” and
“Greeks” grew it was romanticized by more and more writers. Many
without ever having visited “Greece” shamelessly drew on the work of
others and raised this mythical “Greece” into legendary status.
By 1770 the legend became so real that the few writers who questioned
it were dismissed as cranks.
Again according to St. Clair, “With the advent of Byron, literary
philhellenism became a widespread European movement. Hosts of
imitators copied his rhetorical verses, and travelers who visited Greece
after the appearance of Childe Harold in 1812 were even more enthusiastic
than their predecessors.
By the time of the Greek Revolution in 1821 the educated public in
Europe had been deeply immersed in three attractive ideas;
1. that Ancient Greece had been a paradise inhabited by supermen;
2. that the Modern Greeks were the true descendants of the Ancient
Greeks; and
3. that a war against the Turks could somehow ‘regenerate’ the Modern
Greeks and restore the former glories.”
 So even before the so-called “Modern Greeks” had a chance to
discover who they truly were and to decide what to call themselves and
their little country, the outside world had made that decision for them.
They were going to be called “Greeks”, the embodiment of the “Ancient
Greeks” and their little country was going to be called “Greece”.
Not everyone however believed in these ideas but in Western Europe
where philhellenism flourished the deed was done. But as St. Clair tells us,
“The responsibility for turning philhellenism into a political programme
belongs to the Greeks themselves.
The impetus came from the Greeks overseas.”
By late eighteenth century colonies of people who came from the
region that later became known as “Greece” and settled in Europe had
become largely integrated into Western European culture. It was these
people who naturally embraced the literary tradition of philhellenism and
later built on it.
As Michael Herzfeld in his book “Ours Once More: Folklore,
Ideology, and the making of Modern Greece” on pages 4 and 5 tells us:
“By the nineteenth century, Classical scholars had come to pride
themselves on a remarkable degree of academic perfectionism, but their
views were clearly as much a matter of intellectual fashion as ever. A
frankly critical American observer of nineteenth-century European
scholarship decried not only the English scholars' ‘limp Grecism,’ as
evidenced in the excessively ‘scented, wholesale sweetness of the modern
aesthetic school in England,’ but also the Germans' use of Greek' ‘as a
stalking-horse for Teutonic psychology’ and their grave concern with
minutiae. Scholars of the two nations resembled each other, he thought, ‘in
but a single trait–the conviction that they understand Greece’ (Chapman
1915: 12-13). Nor was this acid commentator entirely free of any such
conviction about himself, to judge from the tone of these remarks. And so,
presumably, it will go on. New truths will yield to still newer truths about
the same basic idea, the vision of Classical Greece–the source, in a
commonly held view, of the very practice of historical writing itself.
Such changes in perception are of interest here for two reasons. First, they
show that through all the divergent interpretations there runs a common
theme: the idea of Hellas as the cultural exemplar of Europe. And, second,
these same contrasts mark the progressive enhancement of that exemplar's
authority, not its dissolution (as we might expect) in the bickering of the
ages. Whatever Greece is or was, the idea of Greece–like any symbol–
could carry a wide range of possible meanings, and so it survived
triumphantly. Similarly, the concept of European culture, so stable at the
level of mere generality, has undergone many transformations through the
centuries. ‘Europe,’ like ‘Hellas,’ was a generalized ideal, a symbol of
cultural superiority which could and did survive innumerable changes in
the moral and political order. It was to this European ideal, moreover, that
Hellas was considered ancestral. Such is the malleable material of which
ideologies are made.”
What the Europeans saw in Greece they saw in themselves and as
David Holden puts it “philhellenism is a love affair with a dream which
envisions ‘Greece’ and the ‘Greeks’ not as an actual place or real people
but as a symbol of some imagined perfection.” Whatever Greece is or was,
the idea of Greece–like any symbol–could carry a wide range of possible
meanings, ‘Europe,’ like ‘Hellas,’ was a generalized ideal, a symbol of
cultural superiority. Europe needed a genuine noble European past, a
source for its enlightenment and it found it in a mythical Greece, a Greece
of its own creation.
On page 5 of his book Michael Herzfeld goes on to say: “It is as an
ideological phenomenon that we shall treat the twin concepts of Hellas and
Europe here. They provided the motivating rationale for one of the most
explosive political adventures of the nineteenth century, an adventure
which claimed thousands of lives and brought many more under the
control of a nation-state that had never before existed as a sovereign entity.
This adventure was the Greek struggle for independence of 1821 to 1833.
Its eventual success was by no means certain in the early stages. The Great
Powers were reluctant to commit themselves to the Greek cause until,
forced by public opinion at home, by the Greeks' own successes, and by
the fear of each other's intentions, they began to take a more active part in
bringing the Greek State into existence. That the Greeks did eventually
prevail, despite the enormous Turkish armies with which they had to
contend as well as their destructive internal squabbles, is some measure of
the evocative power of the name of Hellas among their European
supporters. To be a European was, in ideological terms, to be a Hellene.
Yet the Hellas which European intellectuals wished to reconstitute on
Greek soil was very different from the Greek culture which they actually
encountered there, despite all the western-educated Greek intellectuals'
efforts to bridge the gap.”
If I interpret Herzfeld correctly, not only did Europeans invent and
mold the concept of a “Greece” and “Hellenism” but by their instigation of
the so-called “Greek Struggle for Independence”, with assistance from the
Great Powers, they created a country where one never existed before! Yes
you read it right! The Europeans instigated the so-called “Greek Struggle
for Independence” in order to bring back the mythical “Ancient Greeks”!
Further, they helped create a country based on a myth and shaped the
character of its population on a culture that had died more than 2,000 years
ago. And all this at the expense of the real, living and vibrant cultures that
lived and coexisted on those lands for centuries. This reminds me of what
the Greeks did in Macedonia nine decades later when they invaded,
occupied, annexed Macedonia, destroyed its living and vibrant culture and
turned the Macedonian people into mythical Greeks!
 Why Greece and not Arvanitovlachia? Because the Europeans, aliens
to the so-called Greek lands, took it upon themselves to reshape the new
country and its people into something artificial to suit their own desires.
Which begs the question “Why did the Europeans need a Greece and how
did the birth of Greece shape Europe?” a subject for my next chapter.
Why give “Greece” a Latin name? The obvious answer is because the
“concept” of a Greece was invented by the Modern Latins even before the
“country” Greece came into existence. Since the Latins invented Greece it
was appropriate that they give it a Latin name?
Part 5 - Why did the Europeans need a Greece?

In the first four chapters of this book we established that the people
living in the southern region of today’s Greece in the early 19th century
were predominantly Albanian, Vlach and Slav immigrants who had settled
there over the centuries to replace the population void created by the
disappearance of the so-called “Ancient Greeks”. Given the fact that this
new population was predominantly not Greek, 18th century authorities
decided to label it Greek anyway in an effort to connect it with a culture
that once existed on those lands a long time ago. In this part we will
explain why there was such a need to create a Greece and how it benefited
Europe.
It is not my intention here to delve into the various details or the
rational involved in creating a Greece so I will present the reader with only
a general overview to show why 18th and 19th century Europeans needed a
Greece and how they proceeded in creating one.
The reader must keep in mind that when 18th and 19th century
authorities were contemplating the creation of Modern Greece and writing
its history there were several overriding criteria that needed to be
addressed. These were:
1. The belief that God created the world and that the world was no
more than 5,000 years old.
2. The human race had descended from Noah’s Ark which was
believed to have landed in the Caucasus after the great flood.
3. History began at the point when the world was created by God. No
history was acceptable before that.
4. The history of a nation had to be based more or less on a “national
myth” designed to support the “nation”, its people and particularly its
rulers.
5. The writing of a nation’s history was usually sponsored by those in
authority who during the 18th century were predominantly monarchs.
So, as one can see, the history of a nation or of the world for that
matter had to be written to fit the above criteria as well as to suit the
desires and approvals of its sponsors.
In order to understand why Europeans chose “Ancient Greece” after
which to model their own culture, we need to examine Europe’s late 18th
and early 19th century political, cultural and economic situation.
The first and foremost reason for Europeans choosing “Ancient
Greece” as their model to build on is because Ancient Greece was part of
Europe. It was important for Europeans to show that the most
“enlightened” civilization in the world originated in Europe.
Europeans at the time were involved in all sorts of ventures including
the occupation and colonization of various regions of Africa, Asia,
Australia and America. They were also involved in enslaving people from
Africa and Asia in order to obtain free labour for building their cities and
transportation routes, operating their farms, serving as domestics, etc. All
these “doings” had to be justified as “moral” and appropriate not only to
the world but also to the European masses which supported the political
systems and those in power.
One way to justify them was to show examples of other civilizations
doing exactly that; that it was okay to take other peoples’ lands and
enslave them for the benefit of this new European civilization. In order to
convince the world, particularly their own people, the Europeans needed a
practicing example which they found in the “Ancient Greeks”.
Europeans also needed precedence to show that they were not the first
to condone imperialism and slavery and at the same time maintain the
image that they were civilized. It was one thing to say that a “Greek”
civilization existed 2,500 years ago in a savage world full of Barbarians
however it would have been more convincing if such a civilization existed
today, in this world.
As mentioned in a previous chapter, certain Europeans, later referred to
as Philhellenes, convinced that such a civilization could be re-created,
decided to instigate an uprising against the Ottoman Empire. Believing
that if the Greeks of today could be freed from the Ottoman yoke they
would be politically and culturally capable of quickly progressing to the
level of the so-called “Civilized Ancient Greeks” of some 2,500 years ago.
Be it by chance or by design, once the Western European Public found
out about the merits of this so-called “Ancient Greek Civilization” it began
to look up to it and accept it not only as a source of enlightenment but as a
guiding light for Europe’s future.
As it happened, the first step in re-creating this old civilization was to
popularize it abroad among intellectuals and academics, especially in
Britain and France.
With the publication of the Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage and Lord
Byron’s work, the British and French audience was quick to catch on and
became very open to the idea of “bringing back the Ancient Greeks”.
Once popularized, a movement started forming giving the “idea of re-
creating Ancient Greece” life and impetus and later moral, financial and
military support. The movement caught on much easier and faster in
Western European countries than it did inside the Ottoman Occupied
Greek Regions but with persistence from the Great Powers and British
gold, Hellenism was reborn.
Once the European public was in support of such a venture, it was time
to convince the people living on the lands where once the so-called
“Ancient Greeks” lived. Unfortunately, convincing the “locals” became a
harder task than convincing the European public but in the long run
persistence paid off and today we have pure Greeks, descendants of the
Ancient Greeks.
The primary reasons why Europe wanted a Greece can be summarized
as follows;
 1. Europeans needed to justify the use of slavery as a moral deed for
the greater good of a superior and moral Modern European civilization.
Because of its intellectual capacity, the so-called “Ancient Greek
Civilization” was considered both superior and moral which not only
condoned slavery but practiced it. As I have shown in previous parts of
this book, more than half of Ancient Athens was populated by slaves who
served the ruling elite.
2. Europeans needed precedence to justify their acts of colonization
and imperial land grabs and found it in the so-called Ancient Greeks,
particularly in the imperial ventures of Ancient Athens.
3. Besides 1 and 2 above, Europeans needed a “model” on which to
build their own civilization and to show that European “knowledge” and
“culture” were genuinely European and not imported from any of the
“other” lands from which slaves were imported. They found this “model”
in Ancient Greece and took from it what they deemed appropriate and
discarded the rest.
In other words, late 18th and early 19th century Europeans found in
Ancient Greece a civilized people with a superior culture and intellect
which at the same time practiced slavery, fought for booty and colonized
other peoples’ lands; a behaviour worthy of emulation.
What is most interesting, little known and needs emphasis is the fact
that the so-called “Greek Uprising of 1821” was not at all a “Greek
Uprising” but an uprising instigated by non-Greek Europeans outside of
Greece. Also, another little known fact is that this uprising was mostly
financed by Great Britain and fought with the help of Western European
volunteers.
The aim of this venture was not just to free the people from the
Ottoman yoke but to turn them into something they were not. And thus the
curse of Hellenism was born.
Hellenism may have been viewed as “something wonderful” by
outsiders who yearned to see the “Ancient Greek Civilization” re-born but
it was a nightmare for the people directly involved who were asked to give
up their true identities for something alien, foreign and long dead; to which
they never belonged. Ninety-two years later, the Macedonians of Greek
occupied Macedonia were asked to do the same; become Hellenes,
something foreign and alien. One-hundred and seventy years later we are
re-living the curse of Hellenism as the Republic of Macedonia is
attempting to assert its identity.
In the book “Entangled Identities Nations and Europe” edited by
Atsuko Ichijo and Willfried Spohn on page 109 we read “It should be
strongly emphasized, however, that this new image of classical Greece was
constructed in Europe and was imported to the new born Greek state
(Tsoukalas 2002). Modern ideas touched the general Greek population
only marginally, if at all.”
 After the Greek state was created for the first time in 1829 it was
incapable of governing itself and was placed under foreign rule and a
foreign administration. On page 110 of the book “Entangled Identities
Nations and Europe” we read “Greece was governed by an imported
young monarch, Prince Frederic Otto of Wittlesbach, the seventeen year
old son of King Ludwig of Bavaria.”
“The three men regency council which in fact was to rule [Greece] was
also Bavarian and protestant. What came to be called ‘the protecting
powers’ exercised such an influence on the newly-born state that the first
political parties were named appropriately ‘the English party’, ‘the French
party’ and ‘the Russian party’. Supporters of these parties represented
nascent class structures in Greek society but above all these parties
represented corresponding foreign influences and interests.”
As we continue to read the book “Entangled Identities Nations and
Europe” on page 111 we find “The political parties which existed, as we
mentioned earlier, reflected the interests and the antagonisms of foreign
powers.”
“In reality, however, this utopian, irredentist idea [which the Greeks
developed on their own] served as a smoke screen for corruption and
severe socio-economic problems faced by the government and as an
excuse for the even greater blatant intervention of the Great Powers in
Greek affairs. (Clogg 1979: 76-79)”
In the book “The Greek Phoenix” by Joseph Braddock on page 137 we
read “Colonel Napier was seeing a lot of his celebrated guest, and paid him
every attention, realizing that Byron, as a representative of the London
Greek committee, might have considerable influence both in Greece and
London in helping him obtain military command. So it was arranged that
Napier should be given leave to go to London, furnished with a letter of
introduction from Byron to the London Greek committee. He arrived in
January 1824, carrying a letter written on the 10th of December 1823 in
which Byron advised that a loan of 500,000 pounds should be raised to
provide an army for Greece to be commanded by Napier. ‘Of his military
character it was superfluous to speak; of his personal, I can say from my
own knowledge’ Byron wrote ‘that it is excellent as his military -in short a
better or a braver man is not easy to be found. He is our man to lead a
regular force or to organize a national one for the Greeks. Ask the army;
ask anybody! He is, besides, the personal friend of Mavrocordato, Colonel
Stanhope and myself; and in such concord with all three that we should
pull together, an indispensable as well as rare point, especially in Greece at
present.’
Alas, the London committee was too preoccupied to welcome Napier’s
services. At the moment they were busy devising acrimoniously the menu
for their next public dinner, and were more interested in making plans for
the cultural regeneration of Greece than in hearing about Napier’s military
virtues.”
 In the “Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece” edited by Nigel Wilson,
which so many Modern Greeks encouraged me to read so that I can
“educate” myself on page 345 we read “Hellenization denotes the spread
of Hellenic culture in non-Greek ‘barbarian’ society and the process under
which ‘barbarians’ accept, adopt, and incorporate Hellenic culture.”
“The first modern appearance of the concept of Hellenism and
Hellenization occurs in Geschchite des Hellenismus, G. Droysen’s great
three volume work published between 1833 and 1843”
Hellenism, whatever purpose it was intended to serve should have died
a long time ago along with Fascism, Nazism and slavery but unfortunately
it has not. Instead, nurtured by the Powers that created it, it has flourished
and swallowed and destroyed nations of people including part of my own;
the Macedonians in Greek occupied Macedonia who to this day are
struggling to get free.
What is this phenomenon called “Hellenism”? Whatever it is, it has
different interpretations to different people but as Macedonians that have
been touched by it, while refusing to yield to it, for us it has been a
nightmare. Greece, after invading, occupying and annexing 51% of the
Macedonian territories in 1912, 1913, in the name of Hellenism tortured,
murdered and expelled all Macedonians who refused to become
“Hellenes”. It then changed all peoples’ and place names to “Hellenize”
them and make them Greek. If that was not enough, Greece then abolished
the Macedonian language rendering it illegal to be spoken both in public
and private, all this in the name of “Hellenism”. In other words, Hellenism
for the Macedonians has been a relentless enemy whose aim has been to
destroy what is real and replace it with something artificial which has no
roots or a real past.
Part 6 – On the way to Hellenism

“In 1821, the Greeks rose in revolt against the rule of Turkey and
declared themselves an independent nation. Their goal was far more
ambitious than freedom alone, for they proclaimed the resurrection of an
ancient vision in which liberty was but a single component. That vision
was Hellas–the achievements of the ancient Greeks in knowledge,
morality, and art, summed up in one evocative word. What was more, the
new Greek revolutionaries went one step further than their forebears had
ever managed to do: they proposed to embody their entire vision in a
unified, independent polity. This unique nation-state would represent the
ultimate achievement of the Hellenic ideal and, as such, would lead all
Europe to the highest levels of culture yet known.” (Michael Herzfeld,
“Ours Once More”, page 3)
What Herzfeld fails to mention above is that it was not the Greeks that
rose in revolt against the rule of Turkey but rather the Philhellenes who
instigated this so-called “rise” whose origin was anything but Greek. And
who were these Greeks anyway?
In this chapter will provide the reader with further evidence to show
that not only did the so-called “Greeks” not exist but the architects of
“Hellenism” could not care less if they existed or not. Their aim was to
bring back Hellenism at any cost because after all, as mentioned in a
previous chapter, “Hellenization denotes the spread of Hellenic culture in
non-Greek ‘barbarian’ society and the process under which ‘barbarians’
accept, adopt, and incorporate Hellenic culture.” (“Encyclopedia of
Ancient Greece” edited by Nigel Wilson, page 345)
The Philhellenes neither thought nor cared what Hellenism could do to
the living and vibrant cultures that existed on those lands. Like the Borg in
the fictional Star Trek movie series, the Philhellenes wanted to create a
race of “perfect” humans and model them in an image created of their own
imagination. They did that not because they cared for the plight of the
indigenous people whose cultures they destroyed but to achieve their own
moral and political aims.
And how did the Modern Hellenes came to know of “Hellenism”? Was
it passed on from generation to generation? Did they come to know it from
their parents and grandparents? NO! It was taught to them by foreigners!
In the “Scottish Geographic Magazine” Volume XIII published in
1897 on page 370 we read “The Turks who came in at the time of
conquest, and were mostly landowners, have almost entirely disappeared
since the Turkish yoke was thrown off. The Vlachs, on the contrary,
descendants of the Romanized people of the Balkan Peninsula, live in
considerable numbers in the mountains of north and central Greece. The
number of these people, called by G. Weigand Aromunes, is at most
50,000. Formerly, the Aromunes of whom there are 150,000 in the south-
western part of the Balkan Peninsula, were champions of the Greater
Greece policy, but since the Bulgarians have obtained their freedom, the
Aromunes have also fostered a national feeling. In Greece however, the
well to do classes are opposed to the movement, and here, too, the
government has made great efforts to win over these people, which
probably will be attended with success. Lastly, Gypsies must be
mentioned, who are numerous all over the country. They are to a large
extent Hellenized, and their numbers therefore cannot be exactly
ascertained.”
In the book “Greek Pictures” by J. P. Mahaffy published in 1890, on
pages 20 and 21 we read “…in the Middle Ages, these Albanian
mountaineers have brought both war like spirit, bright costume and beauty
of person, to refresh the Hellenic race. There are still, even in Attica,
districts where Albanian is the common language; there are Albanian
names famous in Greek annuals, especially in the great War of
Independence (1821-1831), and among the sailors of Hydra, so famed for
their commercial enterprise and their deeds of war, the chief families were
Albanian in origin.”
Further down on page 21 we read “Before I return from the Albanian
digression, I will say a word about the costume which has become the
national dress of the Greeks. The most characteristic feature is the
‘fustanella’, a white petticoat which like the Scottish kilt, gives its name to
the whole attire. Wearing the fustanella in Greece is like ‘wearing the kilt’
in Scotland. This petticoat is however, more troublesome and exacting
than its Highland brother; and this is the reason that the king’s guard in
Athens, who wear it as a uniform, look so straight and well drilled.”
In the book “History of the War of Independence in Greece”, by
Thomas Keightley, Esq. on page 260 we read “Colocotronis was the son of
the man, who, after giving the Turks most effectual aid against the
Albanians after 1770, was put to death by them. Having with difficulty
escaped from the murders of his father, he had served in the Greeks troops
of the different powers who successively occupied the Seven Isles. He had
frequently returned to Morea, and putting himself at the head of parties of
Klefts, made the Turks tremble within the walls of Tripolitsa and
purchased his departure with considerable sums of money. He had risen to
the rank of Major in the Albanian regiment, in the pay of England when it
was disbanded.”
We now turn to the “The Atlantic Monthly: A Magazine of Literature,
Art and Politics” volume XLIX, January 1882, to page 31 where we read
“I have received an invitation to spend a September Sunday at Poros, a
little island in the Aegean Sea, lying to the south east, and about five hours
distant by steamer from the port of Peraeus. It is one of a group made
famous in the Greek revolution of 1821 by bravery of its Albanian settlers,
in defense of a country which they never adopted for their own until this
moment of danger came. Some two centuries ago, Albanian fugitives, who
had fled from their northern home on account of the oppression of their
Turkish rulers, alighted like wild sea-birds on the rocky cliffs of Hydra,
Speza and Poros. Here they built their nests high and secure above the
reach of invasion, feeling themselves safe as long as they could keep
control of the surrounding waters. Joined from time to time by small
companies of their countrymen, they gradually increased in numbers, and
formed themselves into a more stable community, with laws and habits of
its own.”
Later on the same page we read “At the time of the revolution, these
Albanian settlements had developed into a colony of rich and imperious
merchants, who lived in their island homes with a rude, barbaric luxury.”
Further down the same page we read “Albanian Captains, Albanian
ships, and Albanian gold became the strength of the Greek and the dread
of the Turk. The successful close of the revolution found them as firmly
allied with the Greek nationality as they had previously been alien to it,
and there are now no names more honoured and beloved in Athens, no
families more influential in its polite circles, than those of the Albanian
leaders of 1821, the Tombazis, the Miaulis, the Coundouriottis.”
In “The New Monthly Magazine” edited by W. Harrison Ainsworth,
Esq. Volume 88 on page 480 we read “It is a singular fact that the Vlachs
call themselves, in their own patois, Romans. Their total number in the
provinces of European Turkey is supposedly to exceed half a million; and,
during the Greek revolution, they furnished at least ten thousand armed
men, under Zongas. This leader was formerly the protopalicar, or
lieutenant, of their famous chief Catz Antoni who was put to death in the
most cruel manner by Ali Pasha, for numberless acts of brigandage.”
In the book “Race or Mongrel” by Alfred P. Schultz on page 90 we
read “About this time the Avars came from Asia to Europe. Bajan-Chan,
their leader, incited the Slavs to invade Greece in 578[AD]. They crossed
the Danube, a hundred thousand men strong, invaded Greece, and
extended their incursions as far south as the Peloponnesus. Manander
states that Hellas was torn to pieces by the Slavs. A few years later Bajan
Chan was at war with the Emperor and at his instigation other hordes of
Slavs and Avars poured into Greece. Evagrius writes that in 578 and in
593 the Avars conquered all of Greece and devastated it with fire and
sword. After these invasions the Slavs and Avars did not again leave
Greece. They remained as the lords of the lands with Huns and Bulgarians.
When peaceful conditions were again established, a great number of the
inhabitants were Slavs, who retained their customs, religion and language
for a long time. Cities, villages, brooks, mountains now have Slavic
names. Marathon is Vrana; Salamis, Kiluri; Platea, Kochla; Olympia,
Miraka; Delphi, Kastri; and other places are named Goritza, Vostiza,
Kaminitza, Pirnatsha, Chlumutzi, Slavitza. Names similar to these are
found in Gelicia, Poland, and other Slavic countries. Hellenic they are
not.”
Avars, Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, Gypsies? Where are the Greeks?
 On page 91 of the same book we read “In 1204, Venice, having a
German-Frankish army at her command declared war on the Eastern
Empire and took Constantinople. A Frankish army landed at Patras
(Morea), and many of the knights received latifundia in the Peloponnesus
and subsequently remained in Greece. In the 14th century the Albanians
invaded Greece, and settled there. The influx of Albanians continued for a
considerable time. In 1407, we are told, Theodore Paleologus settled ten
thousand Albanians with their wives and children, in the Peloponnesus.
Mazari, writing in 1446, states that the Greeks of this time were not a race
but a debris of other races.”
Then on page 351 of the same book we read “That environment is of
little importance to the development of a race is clearly demonstrated by
the fact that when Hellenes lived in Greece, Greece was great. Since their
mongrelization, Greece has produced nothing.”
Here I have given the reader evidence from half a dozen writers and
authors who have published their work more than a century ago, writers
and authors who lived much closer to the time when Greece became a
country for the first time, to the time when Hellenism was invented and
unleashed on the people of the Balkans.
Who are the Modern Greeks? A fair and reasonable question indeed! A
question that needs to be asked! Modern Greeks have placed the
Macedonians in a precarious position regarding the Macedonian ethnic
identity. Modern Greeks have systematically and relentlessly denied the
Macedonian ethnic identity robbing both the Modern and Ancient
Macedonians of their heritage. If that is fair then let us equally be fair in
answering the question “Who are the Modern Greeks?”
The best answer I can give you at this moment is that they are NOT
who they say they are! I have been accused on several occasions of being a
“liar” when it comes to answering such questions so I will use Mazari’s
words;
“Mazari, writing in 1446, states that the Greeks of this time were not a
race but a debris of other races.”
If the Greeks of 1446 were a debris of other races, then what are the
Modern Greeks of today? 98% pure Greeks and 2% Muslim Greeks? I
think not!
The question that then begs to be asked is “What right do these
imposters and charlatans have to meddle in Macedonian affairs and to
question the Macedonian identity when their own identity is fabricated,
false and fake?”
To be fair then the world too should deny the Modern Greeks the right
to self identify because after all, unlike the Macedonians, the Modern
Greeks are NOT really who they claim to be!
And now I leave you with this. “Is Hellenization a term that reflects the
reality of an ancient society, or a term and concept created by modern
scholars in the course of their study? Is it a tool, useful shorthand or a
phantom? According to G. Bowersock ‘Hellenization is… a modern idea
reflecting modern forms of cultural domination’.” (“Encyclopedia of
Ancient Greece”, edited by Nigel Wilson, page 345.)
Part 7 - Twenty Authors can't all be wrong!

Amazingly after all that has been said about the artificial identity of the
Modern Greeks, there are still Greeks out there who accuse me of “lying”
for pointing out the obvious. There are still Greeks out there who insist
that all these authors from whom I take quotes for my chapters are “simply
crackpots” who have something against Greece or perhaps are jealous of
the “glorious Greek heritage”, as I am often accused of being!
In this chapter I will present the reader with testimonies from twenty
different authors, all westerners and all in a mission to HELP the Modern
Greeks justify their artificiality who in telling their story have
inadvertently confessed to the Modern Greek falsehood.
If you think telling the truth is wrong and an awful thing to do when
exposing your Greek falsehood then perhaps you can explain to me how
you justify denying the Macedonians their identity generation after
generation. Macedonians have been denied their ethnic identity, culture,
language and heritage by Greeks since Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria
acquired Macedonian lands by war in 1912, 1913. For my accusers, which
is more wrong, to live a lie and deny others their true heritage or to tell the
truth about you?
There is no denying that the Modern Greek nation is an artificial
creation created by Western Philhellenes from the Slav, Vlach and
Albanian immigrants who over the centuries came to live on those lands
after the so-called “Ancient Greeks” disappeared.
To put an end to the notion that this is somehow a conspiracy to “rob”
the Modern Greek nation of its heritage, in this chapter I will present
quotes from twenty different authors who basically say that; Modern
Greeks are NOT the descendants of the so-called “Ancient Greeks” of
2,500 years ago but rather the descendants of the more recently arrived
Slav, Vlach and Albanian immigrants.
(1) Now let us start with Edward Blaquiere, Esq. in his book “The
Greek Revolution; its Origin and Progress”, on page 21 we read “Tyranny
and want had driven some families, whose origin, like that of nearly all the
peasants, who inhabit proper Greece, was Albanian, to take refuge on these
desolate crags [the islands Hydra, Spezzia and Ipsara], where they built
villages, and sought a precarious existence by fishing.”
(2) In the book “Greece and the Balkans Identities, Perceptions and
Cultural Encounters since the Enlightenment” edited by Dimitris Tziovas
on page 5 we read “In southern Albania many Orthodox Albanians and
Vlachs were Hellenized during the 18th and 19th centuries.” On page 6 we
read “It should be stressed, however, that the Greeks as an ethnic
community during this period included many Grecophone or Hellenized
Vlachs, Serbs, or Orthodox Albanians.” And on page 75 we read “For
Kodrikas, and many others, it was language that determined who was a
‘Greek’ for it constituted the ‘national existence’ of the nation. But for the
Phanariot Theodoros Negris, Serbs and Bulgarians were as true Greeks as
any other Christian”.
(3) In J. P. Mahaffy’s book “Greek Pictures” on pages 20 and 21 we
read “In the middle ages, these Albanian mountaineers have brought both
war like spirit, bright costume, and beauty of person, to refresh the
Hellenic race. There are still, even in Attica, districts where Albanian is
the common language; there are Albanian names famous in Greek annals,
especially in the great War of Independence (1821-31), and even among
the sailors of Hydra, so famed for their commercial enterprise and their
deeds of war, the chief families were Albanian in origin.”
(4) Surprisingly even Nicholas G. L. Hammond the greatest
Philhellene historian and author has admitted that the Modern Greeks are
not what they seem. Nicholas G. L. Hammond in his book “Migrations and
Invasions in Greece and Adjacent Areas” on page 57 writes “It was during
this period [1206 to 1260] that the flow of immigrants from the western
area began. It became a flood in the fourteenth century. They went as
mercenaries, raiders and migrants. The great majority of them were
speakers of Albanian, but others joined the movement. Whatever their
language they were described by the Greek and Latin writers as ‘Albanoi’
or ‘Albanitai’ or ‘Albanenses’ and the reason of this collective term can
only be that they entered the Byzantine world through the district which
the Byzantines knew as “Albanon’. Thus the Vlach speaking Malakasii
who invaded Thessaly in 1334 were described as ‘Albanoi’ by
Cantacuzenus 1.474 no less than the evidently Albanian-speaking
‘Albanensium gens’ which raided Thessaly in 1325.
The southern movement of the tribes was on a very large scale. It was
also rapid because towns and cities were bypassed (Dyrrachium for
instance being captured c. 1368). It had two main effects. It took
possession of Epirus Nova, the area inland of the coastal strip from
Dyrrachium to Valona; and it sent streams of migrants into most parts of
the Greek peninsula and some of the Aegean islands”.
On page 59 of Hammond’s book we read “But the Albanian raids
continued and Acarnea was laid to waste. In 1341 the Emperor attached
the offending Albanians ‘around Pogoniane and Libisda’ (Lidisda), i.e. in
the central part of northern Epirus; and then in 1355 he campaigned from
Thessaly as far as the Aetolia and Arcanania and was killed in action
(Cantacuzenus 3.319). These campaigns did not stop the flood. Albanians
were serving as mercenaries in the Peloponnesus c. 1350, and they and
their families were given land there to cultivate.
Other bands of Albanians and Vlachs invaded the Catalan principality of
Boetia and Attica, and a great many Albanians settled there as peasant-
farmers in 1368 and later years.
The penetration of the Greek mainland which we have described
occurred during the hundreds or more years after 1325.”
 Then on page 61 we read “Once in possession of northwestern Greece,
the Albanians opened the way for other immigrants. Offshoots of Vlachs
and Albanians entered Boetia, Attica and Euboea…”
(5) Keith R. Legg’s book “Politics in Modern Greece” on page 48 we
read “As early as the 18th century, these areas were described as ‘hotbeds
of chronic insurgency’. There were few Muslims here; the inhabitants,
largely of Albanian stock, were only imperfectly assimilated into the
Greek nation…”
Then on page 86 we read “At the time if independence, the range of
local dialects was significant; a substantial portion of the population spoke
Albanian”.
(6) In the “International Encyclopedia a Compendium of Human
Knowledge” edited by Richard Gleason Greene on page 201 we read
“Overrun by the Vandals and Goths it [Morea, today’s Peloponnesus]
became a prey, in the second half of the 8th c. to bands of Slavic invaders,
who found it wasted by war and pestilence. Gradually however these
barbarians were subdued and Grecianized by the Byzantine emperors.
Nevertheless, the numerous names of places, rivers, etc, in the More of
Slavic origin prove how firmly they had rooted themselves, and that the
Moreotes are anything but pure Greeks.”
(7) In the book “Races of Europe a Sociological Study” by William Z.
Ripley Ph.D., published in 1910 on page 408 we read “Since the Christian
era, as we have said, a successive downpour from the north into Greece
has ensued. In the 6th century came the Avars and Slavs, bringing death
and disaster. A more potent and lasting influence upon the country was
probably produced by the slower and more peaceful infiltration of the
Slavs into Thessaly and Epirus from the end of the seventh century
onward. A result of this is that Slavic names to-day occur all over the
Peloponnesus in the open country where settlements were readily to be
made. The most important immigration of all is that of the Albanians, who,
from the 13th century until the advent of the Turks, incessantly overrun the
land.”
(8) In the book “Greece in the 20th Century” edited by Theodore A.
Kouloumbis on page 24 we read “Primary school children were taught, in
the 1880’s, that ‘Greeks [are] our kinsmen, of common descent, speaking
the language we speak and professing the religion we profess’, but this
definition, it seems, was reserved for small children who could not
possibly understand the intricate arguments of their parents on the question
of Greek identity. What was essentially to understand at a tender age was
that Modern Greeks descended from the Ancient Greeks. Grown up
children, however, must have been no less confused than adults on the
criteria for defining modern Greek identity. Did the Greeks constitute a
race apart from the Albanians, the Slavs and the Vlachs? Yes and no. High
school students were told that the ‘other races’, i.e. the Slavs, the
Albanians and the Vlachs, ‘having being Hellenized with the years in
terms of mores and customs, are now being assimilated into the Greeks”.
(9) In Alfred P. Schultz’s book “Race or Mongrel” on page 92 we read
“From the foregoing it is evident that but very little Hellenic blood is left
in Greece, and that little is so thoroughly vitiated that its disappearance is
but a question of time. No race inhabits Greece. The ‘Greeks’ are
descendants of races so different that their crossing can never produce
anything else than human mongrels. Their ancestors were Greeks,
Hellenized Asiatics and Byzantine Greeks (i.e. Hamitic-Semetic-Greek-
Egyptian-Negroid mongrels), Slavs, Sicilians, Spaniards, Huns,
Bulgarians, Walloons, Franks and Albanians.”
(10) In the book “Sailing from Byzantium” by Colin Wells on page
183 we read “This revival also allowed the Byzantines to decolonize the
Greek mainland. The success of that effort would prove crucial to the
survival of Greek culture in future centuries, after the other lands had
fallen away. Having overrun nearly all of the Greek mainland, the cities,
and the islands, by the tenth century the Slavs in Greece had been
converted to Orthodox Christianity and thoroughly Hellenized. Today the
only evidence of the Slav’s arrival is the presence of Slavic place names,
some five-hundred or so of them, scattered charmingly throughout the
Greek countryside.”
(11) In Alexandra Halkias’s book “The Empty Cradle of Democracy”
on page 59 we read “Through the end of the revolution in 1830, Greeks,
including most of the 19th century nationalists, seemed to have had a vague
but firm sense of continuity from ancient to modern Greece, though this
was not articulated in racial terms, but on a basis of a common language,
history and consciousness. In effect, at this time, who ever called
themselves a Greek was a Greek. It is because of this that many Greek-
speaking Albanians, Slavs, Rumanians and Vlachs were easily assimilated
and indeed became important players in Greek patriotism at the time
(Dakin 1972, 8).”
(12) In the book “Turkey in Europe” by Sir Charles Eliot on page 267
we read “Constantinople and all of continental Greece were for centuries
ruled and occupied by the Romans, and during many subsequent centuries
invaded and colonized by Slavs. The crusades and the Latin conquest
brought a large influx of western Europeans, commonly called Franks;
and, in later times, extensive Albanian settlements were made in Greek
districts. Clearly, the modern Greek must be of very mixed blood.”
(13) In the book “History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century” by
G. P. Gooch on pages 490 and 491 we read “General interest was first
aroused by a controversy as to the racial derivation of the modern Greeks.
The war of independence had won the sympathy of Europe; and it was a
rude shock both to Greece and to her champions when Fallmerayer
announced that her inhabitants were virtually Slavs. The race of Hellenes,
he declares in his ‘History of Morea’ was rooted out and Athens was
unoccupied from the sixth to the tenth century. Only its literature and a
few ruins survived to tell that the Greek people have ever existed. What
the Slavs had begun the Albanians have completed. Scholars had been so
busy with the Ancient Greeks that they had never inquired as to what
happened to them. Leake had discovered a great number of Slavonic place
names but he had drawn no conclusions. ‘I now lay the foundation of a
new view of Greek history and of the whole peninsula’. He recalls the
invasions of the Huns, the Bulgars and the Slavs, and the second volume
shows the Morea flooded by Albanian colonists and finally conquered by
the Turks.”
(14) In the “Phrenological Journal and Magazine of Moral Science for
the Year 1843” Vol. XVI on page 246 we read “Next to them in this
respect are the modern Greeks, who, for the most part, are of Sclavonian
origin, and, where they are not purely Sclavonian, are a cross-breed in
which the Sclavonian enters very largely.”
(15) In Rennell Rodd’s book “The Customs and Lore of Modern
Greece” on page 17 we read “In the last year of the 15th century and the
opening of the 16th, when the Morea was again the battle-field of Turks
and Venetians, the occupants of the plains of Argos and of portions of
Attica were practically exterminated, and Albanian colonists began to re-
occupy the ruined lands.”
(16) In the book “In Greek Waters a Story of the Grecian War of
Independence (1821-1827)” by G. A. Henty published in 1893 on page 40
we read “With them [the modern Greeks] it would be a resurrection,
accomplished, no doubt, after vast pains and many troubles, the more so
since the Greeks are a composite people among who the descendants of the
veritable Greeks of old are in a great minority. The majority are of
Albanian and Suliot blood, races which even the Romans found
untamable.”
(17) In the “Popular Science Monthly” Volume LXXV, July to
December 1919, edited by J. Mckeen Cattell on page 591 we read “The
modern Greeks are largely of Slavic origin. They are not the descendants
of the ancient Greeks. That noble race greatly mixed with barbarian blood
during the middle ages, was completely destroyed in the course of the
frequent uprisings against Turkish rule. Slavic immigrants gradually
peopled the country.”
(18) In William St. Clair’s book “That Greece Might Still be Free” on
page 91 we read “The Albanians, some of whom were Christian and some
Muslim, were torn by this dilemma, and when the need for decision
became inescapable, they divided by religion and not by race. The Roman
Catholic Greeks, who lived in the islands which had been under Venetian
or Genoese rule, regarded themselves as a separate community. The
Albanians of Hydra and Spetsae, many of whom could not even speak
Greek, regarded themselves as Greek because their allegiance was to the
Orthodox Church.”
 (19) In the 1910 “The Encyclopedia Britannica”, eleventh edition, on
page 465 we read “…in 1725 the Ottomans with a large and well
disciplined army set themselves to recover the Morea, the Venetians were
left without support from the Greeks. The peninsula was rapidly
recaptured and by the peace of Passarowits (1718) again became a Turkish
dependency. The gaps left about this time by the Greek population were
largely made up by an immigration from Albania.”
(20) In the book “Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and
Southeast Europe (1770-1945)”, Volume II, edited by Balasz Trencsenyi
and Michal Kopecek, on page 141 we read “It is funny but also sad, to see
a social gathering of different Greeks, but is to say Chiots, Cretans,
Albanians, Byzantines, Orientals, Ionian islanders and others, where upon
the one mixes in Turkish words, the other Italian ones, the other Albanian
ones, and in the same gathering, while they are all Greek, they cannot
understand each other without the use of a translation or an explanation of
each word as it is uttered, with the gathering thus turning into a Babel.”
For those who are still not convinced that the Modern Greek identity is
an artificial creation, please continue to read this book.
Part 8 - Connecting the Past with the Present

When the crazy idea of creating “Hellenes” out of the Modern

Barbarian ethnic groups, who during the late 18th and early 19th centuries
were living on the same lands as the people from the Ancient City States
of 2,500 years ago, was starting to take root a history had to be written for
them. This would be no ordinary history but a history that would extend
their lineage connecting their modern existence with that of their ancient.
But didn’t I tell you all along that the Modern Greeks are not at all
connected with the ancient ones? Didn’t I tell you that the Modern Greeks
are not Greeks at all but Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs and an assortment other
smaller ethnic groups? Yes I did! How then can a group of Slavs,
Albanians and Vlachs be connected to a people that ceased to exist more
than 2,000 years ago? All I can say at this point is that “it’s by Magic”!
In this chapter we will explore the magic processes used by the
Philhellenes to transform mere barbarians of the Slav, Albanian and Vlach
kind into sophisticated Modern Greeks, perfect replicas of the Ancient
Greeks, as envisioned by their Philhellene creators.
If I can refer to Lord Byron as the “Father of Modern Greece” because
of his involvement in the creation of the “Modern Greek” then I would
have to refer to Johann Gustav Droysen as the “wizard of Modern Greek
History” for his magical performance in making the connection between
the Modern Greeks and the “Ancient” ones.
Johann Gustav Droysen (1808-1884) was a German historian and a
member of the Frankfurt Parliament. (Page 597, “The Columbia
Encyclopedia” 3rd Edition, 1963)
In “The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece”, edited by Nigel Wilson, on
page 345 we read “The first modern appearance of the concept of
Hellenism and Hellenization occurs in Geschichte des Hellenismus G.
Droysen’s great three volume work published between 1833 and 1843. He
viewed the Hellenistic period as the time in which, in the territories
conquered by Alexander the Great, Greek and Near Eastern cultures were
intertwined to create the cultural background from which Christianity
emerged.”
The great Philhellene masterminds, it appears, were not too concerned
about the Ancient to Modern Greek connection when they were concocting
the idea of creating Greeks from Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs because they
probably did not believe that the concept would catch on, but once it did,
that job fell upon Johann Gustav Droysen to connect them to a fabled but
glorious past.
“In his first edition of [his book History of Hellenism] 1883 Droysen
set out to bridge the gap between classical Greece and the coming of
Christianity, and he found his link in what he called the Hellenistic age.
‘My enthusiasm’, he wrote ‘is for Caesar, not Cato, for Alexander, not
Demosthenes’, small wonder that such a man living in the Germany of
Bismarck should conceive a devotion to the rising state of Prussia, with its
manifest destiny to unite the Fatherland; and Droysen’s second edition,
published in 1877, under the spell of Prussian success, laid special stress
on the forces making for panhellenism and the unity of Greece – above all
Isocrates and the kings of Macedon.
It was Droysen who really raised the national issue in Greek history.”
(Page 235, “The Problem of Greek Nationality”, F.W. Walbank)
Droysen, it appears, had quickly discovered that the Ancient so-called
Greeks had disappeared from the face of the earth and he could not make a
connection so he decided to borrow or perhaps steal from the
Macedonians. Even though the Macedonians ethnically had nothing to do
with the Ancient City States, Droysen made it his mission to make the
connection, making it appear as if they did. Instead of appropriately calling
the Period subsequent to Alexander the Greats’ time “the Macedonistic
Period”, he opted for calling it “Hellenistic”, which in effect robbed the
Macedonian people of their heritage and handed it to the artificial newly
created Greeks.
Further down in “The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece”, edited by
Nigel Wilson, on page 345 we read “The creation in the 19th and 20th
centuries of modern European Empires in regions once dominated by
Hellenistic kingdoms was a further spur to reassessing the Hellenistic
period. Those developments encouraged scholars to see Alexander and his
Macedonian successors as precursors of contemporary events. In parallel,
scholarship was adding new evidence to Droysen’s view of Hellenistic
civilization as a mixed culture which, although Greek in character, had
been enriched by the incorporation of features derived from ancient Near
Eastern cultures.”
In Peter Green’s book “Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. a
Historical Biography” on pages 482 and 483 we read “Committed
liberalism, however, was not a universal feature of nineteenth-century
scholarship. European history moved in various channels, some more
authoritarian than others: as usual, Alexander's reputation varied according
to context. One milestone in Alexander studies was the publication of
Johann Gustav Droysen's still immensely influential biography, Alexander
der Grosse (1833). It has often been said, with justice, that this is the first
work of modern historical scholarship on Alexander: Droysen was,
undoubtedly, the first student to employ serious critical methods in
evaluating our sources, and the result was a fundamental study. Once
again, however, Droysen's own position largely dictated the view he took
of his subject. Far from being a liberal, he was an ardent advocate of the
reunification of Germany under strong Prussian leadership and after 1848
served for a while as a member of the Prussian parliament.
Thus we have a biographer of Alexander imbued with a belief in monarchy
and a passionate devotion to Prussian nationalism: how the one aspect of
his career influenced the other is, unfortunately, all too predictable. For the
aspirations of independent small Greek states (as for their German
counterparts) he had little but impatient contempt. In his view it is Philip
of Macedon who emerges as the true leader of Greece, the man destined to
unify the country and set it upon its historical mission; while Alexander
carried the process one step farther by spreading the blessings of Greek
culture throughout the known (and large tracts of the unknown) world.
Plutarch's early essay on Alexander had made much the same point,
contrasting the untutored savage who had not benefited from the king's
civilizing attentions with those happy lesser breeds who had, the result of
their encounter being that blend of Greek and oriental culture which
Droysen, perhaps rather misleadingly, christened Hellenism.
As one contemporary scholar says, ‘Droysen's conceptions were
propounded so forcefully that they have conditioned virtually all
subsequent scholarship on the subject.’ Whatever their views on the nature
of his achievement, most subsequent biographers tended to see Alexander
as, in some guise or other, the great world-mover. This view held up
surprisingly well until after the Second World War. The late nineteenth
century, after all, saw the apogee of the British Empire, and scholars who
got misty-eyed over Kipling in their spare time were not liable to argue
with Droysen's view of Alexander. But this was also the heyday of the
English gentleman, and much of that fascinating if often legendary figure's
characteristics also now began to figure in their portraits – Alexander's
becoming lack of interest in sex, his chivalrous conduct to women, his
supposed ideals and aspirations towards the wider and mistier glories of
imperialism.”
Droysen again sets the stage for Macedonians not only to be viewed as
“Greeks” but as “Greek unifiers” missing the point altogether that Philip II
of Macedonia subjugated the City States after defeating their armies in
Charonea in 383 BC. But some people just see what they want to see
completely ignoring reality!
In the book “The Body Impolitic” by Michael Herzfeld on page 9 we
read “Here is the ultimate Greek tragedy: that of a country forced to treat
everything familiar at the time of the nation-state’s foundation as ‘foreign’
while importing a culture largely invented – or at least redesigned – by
German classicists of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
For many decades, and almost without interruption, Greeks were forced to
put aside music, art and language that were deemed too tainted by the
‘oriental’ influences of the Ottoman, Arab, Slavic and Albanian culture; to
forget the partially Albanian roots of modern Athens and its environs; to
use in elite-controlled contexts such as schools, the media and the law
courts an artificial language syntactically modeled to a surprising extent on
French and German but claimed as a revival of a ‘pure’ ancient Greek that
supposedly had been preserved in these quintessentially Western
languages; and to contemplate the architecture of Bavarian neoclassicists
as more genuinely Greek than the homes and churches that had been their
cultural settings for many centuries.”
Then on page 6 of the same book we read “The Greeks’ marginal
status in the ‘Western Civilization’ of which they are supposedly founders,
and yet in important respects also the victims, rudely batters their everyday
lives at every turn: internationally embarrassed by their successive
governments scandals and acutely aware of their dependency on the
European Union of which Greece is a member state enjoying nominally
full equality with the others, they find themselves derided for an obsession
with whether or not they are ‘really European’ that is itself the product of a
‘crypto-colonial’ set of aesthetic and ethical norms.”
On page 7 of Michael Herzfeld’s book “The Body Impolitic” we read
“Greece is a country created and lauded by the West for virtues that were
to a great extent invented in the West: the glories of classical culture,
intensely studied and formulated in such universities as Gottingen and
Oxford during the enlightenment, were imported during the romantic era
in Greece, now under a western imposed Bavarian monarchy and
Bureaucracy. In Athens, a partially Albanian small town dragged into
modernity by being made the national capital, the florescence of
neoclassical architecture signed the reconstruction of the present as a
living past, but the local architecture (and especially those aspects of it that
seemed to recall the Ottoman period) was demolished as quickly as
possible. Domestic spaces nonetheless retained non classical interiors
often with distinct Turkish-sounding names for the various features, in
contrast to the classical names of the exterior ornament. In language,
above all, ordinary speech was increasingly condemned as both decadent
and foreign, a medley of Turkish and Slavic influence, and was replaced
for legal and educational purposes by the newly created puristic language.
Music, art and folklore – everything was reclassicised in a formula created
in Germany, Britain and France.”
Further down on page 7 and at the top of page 8 of the same book we
read “Greek independence was thus highly conditional. The bourgeoisie
that emerged out of this situation was beholden to the west; the religious
imitated the rationalism of the West; and the academic establishment,
especially during periods of military rule, faithfully reproduced the self
demeaning ideology of Greece the European ancestors as prime instrument
of its own – highly conditioned – status and power.”
I find it unnecessary to add any more information; the above few
quotes quite remarkably define not only the fabrication processes but also
the character imposed on the south Balkan people to create this fantastic
entity called Modern Greece. These few quotes go a long way in
describing what went on in the fabrication of this purely artificial nation
called Greece and in the falsification of its history ; and if I may add at the
expense, among others, of the Macedonian people.
Now a few words about the other creator of Greece; Lord Byron
“It is worth while to ask, for instance, how many of those who are moved
by the poetry of Lord Byron has contrasted it with his opinion of the
modern Greeks, when now and then he descends to sober prose? It is
somewhat curious to notice the actual origin of Lord Byron’s expedition,
and the opinion he really formed in the course of it. Dr. Millingen as his
physician and constant companion, speaks with an authority on this point
to which no one else perhaps can make an equal claim, and this is the
account he gives; - Breaking asunder the shackles which checked their
immorality, the late revolution has given the amplest scope to the
exhibition of their real character, and it stands to reason that it must have
placed in more glaring light the melancholy picture of their utter
worthlessness. Even under the wisest government, the regeneration of a
nation can be the difficult work of time, and certainly none can be less
easily improvable than this.
According to the same authority, Lord Byron, when asked why he
fought for Greece, gave the following reason: - Heartily weary of the
monotonous life I had lead in Italy for several years, sickened with
pleasure, more tired of scribbling than the public if perhaps of reading my
lucubrations, I felt the urgent necessity of giving a completely new
direction to the course of my ideas, and the active, dangerous, yet glorious
scenes of the military career struck my fancy and became congenial to my
taste. I came to Genoa, but far from mediating to join the Greeks, I was on
the eve of sailing to Spain, when informed of the overthrow of the liberals,
I perceived it was too late to join R. Wilson, and then it was the
unmanageable delirium of my military fever that I altered my intentions
and resolved on steering to Greece. After all, should this new mode of
existence fail to afford me the satisfaction I anticipate, it will at least
present me with the means of making a dashing exist from the scene of this
world where the part I was acting had grown excessively dull.” (Pages 929
and 930, “The Nineteenth Century a Monthly Review”, edited by James
Knowles, July-December, 1870)
And now I leave you with this;
“In order for Greece to be delivered her independence from the
Ottomans by the great powers of the enlightened West, Greece had to
prove not only that she could become a modern nation but, somehow, that
Greece, under the oriental patina of the Ottoman subject, was always
already the primal modern entity. Or alternatively, Greece could have
followed Ludwig von Maurer’s advice, who, in 1836 said that ‘all the
Greeks have to do in order to be what they used to be is mimic the
Germans.” (in Tsiomis 1985b: 144). And the Greek intellectuals
understood only too well that in order for them to be considered to be
European they first had to prove that they were as ‘Greek’ as the rest of the
Europeans.” (Page 28, “Fragments of Death Fables of Identity an Athenian
Anthropography” by Neni Panourgia).
Part 9 – Language Religion and Identity

By now everyone who has read the previous chapters in this book
should be aware of the history of how the so-called Greek nation was
created. But what we have not discussed so far is the criteria used in
identifying who was Greek and who wasn’t given that the Modern Greek
nation was created from Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs.
Putting the question another way, in the early 19th century when the
Greek state was being created for the first time ever, how did one
recognize a Greek from a non Greek given that the majority of ethnic
groups living in the land who became Greek were predominantly
Albanian, Slav, or Vlach?
In James Knowles’s monthly review “The Nineteenth Century and
After” volume LXXXVI, July – December 1919 on page 645 we read “But
who are the Greeks? At least five-sixths of them, if not more, are Christian
Albanians of the Orthodox faith, Albanians in sentiment and in language,
who because they acknowledge the Patriarch of Constantinople are
declared to be Greek in point of ‘national consciousness’.
In point of fact, the greater number of the Christian Albanians, whether
Orthodox or Catholic, are thoroughly Albanian in sentiment as well as in
race and language, and have nothing whatsoever in common with Greeks
except allegiance to a Church which styles itself Oecumenical or universal,
not national or Greek.”
In this author’s estimation, an Albanian whose allegiance was to the
Orthodox religion was considered to be Greek.
In the book “Greece in the Twentieth Century” edited by Theodore A.
Couloumbis on page 25 we read “Greeks are those who speak Turkish but
profess the Christian religion of their ancestors.”
In the book “The Empty Cradle of Democracy” by Alexandra Halkias
on page 59 we read “Until the beginning of the nineteenth century, the
average inhabitant of Greece called himself of herself Roman (Romios),
and the (Greek) language Romeika.”
“…though this was not articulated in racial terms but on the basis of a
common language, history and consciousness. In effect, at this time,
whoever called themselves a Greek was a Greek. It is because of this that
many Greek-speaking Albanians, Slavs, Romanians and Vlachs were
easily assimilated and became important players in Greek patriotism at the
time. (Dakin 1972, 8)”
“To some extent – the consciousness of the modern Greek of his classical
ancestry is a product of Western scholarship.”
Here Alexandra Halkias tells us that before Greece became a country
in the early 19th century some of its people called themselves Romios
meaning Romans and the language Romeika. But no sooner had Greece
been created by its Philhellene patrons than Romios and Romaika became
Greek and all those who spoke Romaika, irrespective of their ethnic
origins be it Slav, Albanian or Vlach, became instant Greeks.
In the book “Greece and the Balkans” edited by Dimitris Tsiovas on
page 43 we read “…common phenomenon in Balkan history: the
‘ethnicization’ of religious, social or occupational groups. Very often, such
groups were denoted by the names of ethnic communities and they used
these names to denote themselves as well. As we saw ‘Greek’ (Romaios)
could mean ‘Orthodox Christian’ but also “city dweller’ and well to do
‘citizen’ in particular. In the same way ‘Turk’ often means ‘Muslim’.
Bulgarian was used to denote ‘villager’, with or without pejorative
connotation. ‘Vlach’ could mean ‘shepherd’ or ‘nomad’ in General.”
In the book “Politics in Modern Greece” by Keith R. Legg on page 86
we read “The term ‘Greek’ differentiates the language spoken by
inhabitants of modern Greece from the languages of the surrounding
countries; but there is disagreement on what the Greek language was, is,
and should be. At the time of independence, the range in local dialects was
significant; a substantial portion of the population spoke Albanian.”
In the book “Political Science Quarterly” edited by The Faculty of
Political Science of Columbia University, Twenty-Third volume,
published in 1908 on page 307 we read “There was little interest as to the
nationality of the rayahs while Turkish rule was strong. They were nearly
all Christians of the Byzantine kind, those in Europe at least, and were
hence regarded as one people, for oriental theocracy cannot conceive of
nationality apart from religion. They themselves knew the differences in
their origins and in such traditions as they had; some were Slavs, some
Vlachs and some Albanians…”
“But they felt more deeply than they thought; the hardships of their
common lot and the common worship of their church gave them a stronger
sense of unity than disunity; they were all non-Muslims, all rayahs and in a
sense all Greeks.”
Here the authors do not hesitate to equate “Greek” with “Orthodox
Christian” as was truly the case back in the 19th century, a formula that the
Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians would later use to make Greeks, Serbians
and Bulgarians out of the Macedonians.
“When we read that the Roumanians are Latins; that the Bulgarians
and Servians are Slav, according to the opinion of this and that writer, or
that they are Greeks, as Greece contends, we get the common coin of
diplomatic exchange; but it is spurious and counterfeit if passed as
historical truth.” (Page 307, “Political Science Quarterly” edited by The
Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University, Twenty-Third
volume, published in 1908).
In the book “Romaic Grammar” by E. A. Sofocles, A. M. published in
1842 on page iii of the preface we read “Romaic, or, as it is often called,
MODERN GREEK is the language spoken by the modern Greeks.”
Then on page iv in the same book we read “The revolution of 1821 has
restored the ancient appellation ‘Ellines’ but as it is used chiefly by the
inhabitants of Bavarian Greece, who perhaps do not constitute more than
one-fourth of the Greek nation, it may safely be said that the mass of the
people still call themselves Romeii and their language Romaiki.”
In James Knowles’s monthly review “The Nineteenth Century” Vol.
VI, July-December 1870, on pages 948 and 949 we read “The Orthodox
Church, it is true, has striven more successfully to make Christian Greeks
than to make Greeks Christians; but to assert that a Greek Christian is a
Hellene it is as reasonable as to call all Roman Catholics Italian; and to
claim a Slav or Albanian as a Hellene because he speaks Greek, is much
the same as calling an educated Russian French, or an Irishman English,
because they prefer French or English to their own less developed
languages.”
In William St. Clair’s book “That Greece Might Still be Free” on page
8 we read “In the eyes of the majority of Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, it
was primarily their religion that distinguished them from the Turks, Arabs,
Armenians, Jews and others who made up the population of the Empire.
All their feelings of being a community centered on the Orthodox Church
with its Patriarch at Constantinople, and they felt themselves as alien to the
Roman Catholic Greeks who inhabited some of the islands as to the
Muslims. Their tradition lead back to the great days when a Greek-
speaking Roman Emperor sat on the throne of a Christian Empire at
Constantinople and the Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate had an
unbroken succession which had been little affected by the Turkish
conquest. The Greek language which they spoke was known as ‘Romaik’
from the time when they had been citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire.
They called their children after the saints of the Orthodox Church,
Georgios, Dimitrios, Spyridon.
Most Greeks of the Ottoman Empire had no comprehension of that
complex of ideas relating to territorial boundaries and cultural and
linguistic uniformity which makes up the European concept of a nation
state.”
Then on page 9 of St. Clair’s book we read “The Albanians of Hydra
and Spetsae, many of whom could not even speak Greek, regarded
themselves as Greek because their allegiance was to the Orthodox
Church.”
And finally on page 22 of St. Clair’s book “That Greece Might Still be
Free” we read “In Greece itself the Greeks still thought of themselves as
the Christian inhabitants of a Muslim Empire, not as the descendent of the
Hellenes. The veneer of philhellenism in Greece was very thin indeed. The
Greek leaders in Greece itself who joined the conspiracy were content to
adopt the propaganda of their expatriates, but they knew that their power
over their people depended on something else entirely. A policy of
establishing a European nation-state based in ideas about ancient Hellas
formulated in Western Europe was far from their minds. Their aim was
much simpler. They wanted to get rid of the Turks and take their place as
rulers of the country. But they had no wish to set up European political
institutions, to assume Western or ancient clothes, or to speak ancient
Greek. They did not want to be ‘regenerated’ at all. They were content
with the primitive semi-barbarous Eastern way of life they had always
known.”
It is a shame indeed that so many living and vibrant cultures had to be
destroyed to make room for “Hellenism”, something dead and artificial.
In Michel Herzfeld’s book “The Body Impolitic” on page 7 we read
“In language, above all, ordinary speech was increasingly condemned as
both decadent and foreign, a medley of Turkish and Slavic influences, and
was replaced for legal and educational purposes by the newly created
puristic language. Music, art and folklore – everything was reclassicized in
a formula created in Germany, Britain and France.”
Again, so many wonderful and vibrant mother languages destroyed to
make room for an ancient 2,000 year old dead language artificially
resurrected and engineered for the artificially created Hellenic identity
which bears no resemblance to the real identities that it replaced which
existed on those lands before they were destroyed just in the same way the
Greeks are attempting to destroy the Macedonian language spoken north of
Mount Olympus.
And now I will leave you with this;
In Bayard Taylor’s book “Travels in Greece and Russia” published in
1872 on pages 261 and 262 we read “The fact is, a few deeds of splendid
heroism have thrown a deceitful halo over the darker features of the Greek
War of Independence, and most of those who bend in reverence to the
name of Marko Pozzaris do not know that his uncle Nothi stole supplies
from his own troops to sell to the Turks – that, which Canaris and Miaulis
were brave and incorruptible, Colocotroni filled his purse and made
cowards of his men, - that, while Karaiskais was honorable, others broke
the most solemn vows of their religion and murdered the captives they
were sworn to spare. One can only say that the Greeks are what the Turks
made them – that we should not expect to find in slaves the virtues of
freedom; but treachery and perjury were never the characteristics of the
Moslem. It is the corrupt leaven of the Lower Empire which still ferments
in the veins of this mixed race. I have already said, and I will repeat it, that
not one-fifth of the present population can with justice be called Greeks.
The remainder are Slavonians, Albanians and Turks, with a slight infusion
of Venetian blood.”
Part 10 - Why expose the Greek Fraud?

Many Greeks, it seems, are not happy with the material I turn out in
these chapters and have bitterly complained. It is not that they believe
what I have written nor do they believe anything anyone has written
outside of their trusted state sponsored Greek educational system. Their
problem is that they can’t understand why I do this! And by “this” I mean
writing about their true identities which, for some reason, seems to offend
them.
The largest numbers of e-mails, outside of the profane and downright
vulgar ones, I receive from Greeks on a daily basis, show a trend of
puzzlement; “why, they want to know, do I do this?” Well, I will tell you.
Millions of Macedonians have been denied their ethnic identity by no
one else except Greek governments, Greeks and Bulgarians. This has been
going on relentlessly for over a century. For over thirty years I have tried
to reason with Greeks and explain to them how we feel about being treated
this way but in spite of all my effort I have not being able to make any
progress. All I received back was more ridicule and the standard Greek
government sponsored responses such as “you are a Slav”, “there is no
such thing as a Macedonian”, “Macedonia is Greek”, “Tito created the
Macedonian identity”, etc., etc., etc. I have to be honest, I don’t much like
what the Greeks are doing, especially considering where they stand
regarding their own identity, so after thirty years of pleading I have
decided to fight back in a familiar manner that every Greek would
understand; deny their identity as they are denying mine.
There is however, if I may point out, a big difference between the
Macedonian ethnic identity and that of the Greeks. While Macedonians are
people who are true to themselves and have accepted their ethnic identity
as was passed on to them by their ancestors, the Modern Greeks have
accepted an artificially constructed identity which is a product of the 19th
century Western Philhellenic imagination.
Macedonians have put up with a lot from the Greeks in the last
hundred years and it’s time we start fighting back. Greece, with its partners
Serbia and Bulgaria, invaded occupied, partitioned and annexed
Macedonia, a land that did not belong to them. They each then tried to
forcibly and against their will turn Macedonians into Greeks, Serbians and
Bulgarians respectively. Those Macedonians who resisted were persecuted
to no end. Some were exiled, some were tortured and many were outright
killed. Greece, in its new found megalomaniac glory, wanted to turn
Macedonians into Hellenes which is not only alien to Macedonians but
downright artificial, a creation of the imagination.
In their zeal to expand the curse of Hellenism into Macedonia, the
Greeks did some very nasty and unforgettable things to the Macedonians,
of which I am sure they are not proud. Among the nastiest things they did
is torture, murder and exile many Macedonians because they refused to
become Hellenes. They then introduced policies to change all Macedonian
place names and people’s names to Greek sounding ones to prove to
everyone how “Greek” Macedonia was. They even changed the engravings
on church icons and gravestones to remove all traces of Macedonia and to
make the past look like it was always Greek. On top of that the Greeks
introduced laws to prohibit Macedonians from speaking their mother
language in order to erase another unique and dear thing belonging to the
Macedonians. Need I say more?
Now that Serbia abandoned its share of divided Macedonia and the
Macedonian people managed to scrape a little country together that they
can call their own, the Greeks wasted no time in exporting their Hellenism
and harassing them too. It seems if you are a Macedonian there is no safe
place to hide from the curse of Hellenism.
After all the things Greeks have done to the Macedonians how can
anyone be surprised if the Macedonians started fighting back? Who are
these Greeks anyway and what right do they have to abuse the
Macedonians and get away with it? How can a fabricated nation of people
who are not who they say they are have such rights? In fact, how can a
people like the Modern-Greeks even be allowed to have a country?
The only reason Modern Greeks have gotten away with what they have
done (and are still doing to this day) is because the Macedonian people
have been passive. Macedonians who have been abused over the last
century have accepted their abuse as “an act of fate” because there was no
one willing to help them. Macedonians however are human beings with
rights and it’s a matter of time before they discover they have those rights
and start fighting back and exposing the racist Greek attitude which has
ruled over them for more than a century. If I am any example,
Macedonians will no longer tolerate the Greek abuse and will fight for
their place in this world and get back what was taken from them, including
their identity and dignity.
For many years Greeks have abused, tortured, exiled and murdered
Macedonians and not a single perpetrator has yet to be punished. Naturally
all Macedonians have lost faith in Greece and in Greek justice. Greece has
shown no interest in coming to terms with the Macedonians and
reconciling the past wrongs it has perpetrated against them. Is there any
wonder why its abused loyal citizens drift through life like zombies?
If I may add, Greece is perhaps the only country in Europe where
racism, Nazism and Fascism are still alive and well. Racism, Nazism and
Fascism were destroyed during the Second World War but not in Greece.
Racism, Nazism and Fascism are not only tolerated they have been
allowed to flourish in Greece. Greece is still ruled by the same dynasties
which served Metaxas, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, people with no
respect for human rights, people who still believe in Hellenism and in the
creation of a superior race. The USA among others has also supported
these Greek dictatorial regimes on many occasions since World War II and
if not directly, then indirectly is responsible for the fate of the Macedonian
people in Greece. No wonder the US State Department in its “Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices” downplays the plight of the
Macedonian minority in Greece!
Speaking of Metaxas, in the book “The Metaxas Myth Dictatorship
and Propaganda in Greece” by Merina Petrakis on page 126 we read “The
word Hellenism is a symbol and this symbol is the central point around
which the civilization of all the nations on earth will be constructed.”
To the Greeks who place blind faith in their trusted government which
has been telling them they are “Hellenes”, “descendants from the Ancient
Hellenes” please take heed; even Metaxas did not believe “Hellenism” was
an ethnic entity; he believed “Hellenism” was a symbol, an idea! One
cannot build an ethnic nation from a symbol or from an idea!
“The target of Metaxas’ theater propaganda was the transformation of
the masses in such a way that they could become worthy citizens of a
‘regenerating Greece’ and participate in the creation of the ‘Third Greek
Civilization’. The ‘regeneration of Greece’ formed one of the basic
objectives of the new regime and was launched by Metaxas on 10 August
1936 on his radio speech, and was repeated and analyzed in Thessaloniki
on 6 September 1936: ‘We were forced to impose a dictatorship (…) in
order to be able to accomplish our supreme goal which is one and only
one: the ‘regeneration of Greece’: a regeneration which is not only
economic but social. Greece cannot exist socially if its society consists of
unhappy and miserable people. The Greek people have reached such a
point of degradation and indifference that they have endangered the fate of
the nation and the country (…) Thus I repeat: Regeneration from a national
point of view: because you cannot exist but as Greeks; as Greeks who
believe in the power of Hellenism and through it you can develop and
create your own civilization.” (“The Metaxas Myth Dictatorship and
Propaganda in Greece” by Merina Petrakis, pages 126 and 127).
Further down on page 127 in the same book we read “Metaxas
envisaged a new state based on the revival of Hellenismos (Hellenism-
Greek National Identity), and the supreme Greek ideals. These ideals and
Hellenism had been squashed after the Great War and the Asia Minor
catastrophe, together with the Megaly Idea (the Supreme Idea) of a Greater
Greece, which was the standard-bearer of Hellenism. In Metaxas’ view, no
person, especially a young person, could live without national identity
because he would become disoriented and confused.”
Further on, on page 127 we read “The existing educational system,
instead of offering them a cultural education based on national ideals,
introduced new theories to instruct and enlighten young people on general
matters. This was, according to Metaxas, a fatal mistake: education in
Greece should serve no other purpose than to educate Greeks and directed
them towards the great national ideals. Spiritually, people could only exist
as Greeks, Turks, French, English, Germans and others. Therefore, Greek
youth should realize that they could exist and act only through their
nationality: Hellenism, Metaxas claimed in the ‘historical’ articles
exchanged between him and his political rival Venizelos, (the charismatic
propagandist for ‘Greater Greece’), through Kathimerini in 1934-1935 had
no boundaries, and the Megali Idea was dead only in its territorial form.
By and large, Greek Civilization and Greek Culture had no boundaries
either. Thus, it was imperative that Greek National Culture, the Hellenic
Culture, should be reconstructed and reinstated, in such a way, that it could
spread beyond the geographical frontiers of Greece. This was the essence
of Hellenism and the Megali Idea and it became the dream of the ‘Fourth
of August State’. On 2 October 1936 when Metaxas set out the main
objectives and policies of his government the ‘regeneration of Greece’
formed the central theme. ‘Greece has but one way out’ he strongly
emphasized ‘to march ahead determined to achieve her regeneration; this
regeneration would be a long and difficult task; but we are determined to
accomplish this task completely and thoroughly. This objective needed the
mobilization of every section of Greek society.”
Allow me to remind the reader that by “regeneration” Metaxas meant
the total destruction of the real ethnic identities which seemed to “creep
back up” in Greek society. The re-emergence of real ethnic identities
Metaxas calls “degradation and indifference”. In other words regeneration
according to Metaxas means the re-introduction of “Hellenism” in a more
potent form.
Then at the bottom page 127 Metaxas goes on to says “The route that
must be taken by our Organization, an organization which bears a
successful title which signifies your goals, are open to discussion and
further meanings. I am sure that you will work very hard so that your
ideals will be very successfully conveyed to the whole of Greece in such a
way that a special class of people, who think alike are totally devoted to
the state, will emerge and form the governing class of our society.”
On page 128 we read “The above extract suggests that the regime was
determined to use every possible means to ensure the ‘regeneration of
Greece’ and the creation of the ‘Third Greek Civilization’. In his speech to
EON in Ioannina on 13 June 1937, Metaxas analyzed this concept and set
out the conditions for its materialization: ‘You must be prepared for what
is coming because you will live to see the creation of the Third Greek
Civilization which is the Modern Greek Civilization. The first civilization
was the ancient civilization. That civilization was great in spirit but lacking
in religious faith and is gone forever. Along came the second Greek
civilization (Byzantine) which did not accomplish great spiritual things but
had a deep religious faith. Now it’s your turn to combine the best elements
of both these civilizations and with your deep Christian faith (…) and the
inspirations drawn from the great accomplishments of your ancestors you
must create the Third Greek Civilization.’
 The ‘Third Greek Civilization’ demanded a return to national values as
they were epitomized by the Metaxas regime. These values would,
according to Nicoloudis urge the ‘thirsty’ Greek people ‘to return to their
eternal springs where they would accomplish their spiritual elevation and
national regeneration and create a new supreme civilization: The Third
Greek Civilization’.”
And finally on page 131 we read “Thus, the Greek foreign policy
under Metaxas, at least in the beginning, came under German influence.”
Besides sounding utterly mad like a script for a fiction b-rated movie,
Metaxas’ approach in theory may sound progressive. There is nothing
wrong with a people returning to its roots, but to what roots was Metaxas
proposing to return? To the Slav, Albanian, or Vlach roots from which his
Modern Greek people descended? Of course not! He was proposing to
return to his mythical roots of the Philhellene creation, the ones that never
existed before. Still one might say that there is nothing wrong with that,
unless the one was a Macedonian who lived through and witnessed the
Metaxas madness.
Outside of Macedonians being exiled in the hundreds of thousands to
the hot and dry island concentration camps purely for being born
Macedonians, outside of having their language banned by law not to be
spoken in private or in public, and, outside of having been forced to accept
foreign names and a foreign imposed alien identity, Macedonians don’t
have much to complain about Metaxas’s accomplishments.
But the worst thing about Metaxas is his policies which he instituted in
the late 1930’s regarding the treatment of ethnic minorities in Greece;
policies which exist and are still enforced to this day. Another prevalent
issue in today’s Greece is Metaxas’ racist attitudes which have survived
and been practiced not only in education and in government institutions
but in the psyche of the Greek people who for years have been
brainwashed and sold on the glory of Hellenism which, if they care to find
out, is synonymous with racism, Nazism and Fascism.
Ladies and gentlemen, the legendary Dr. Frankenstein is alive and
well, and for the past century or so, has been working for the Greek
government in aid of Hellenism.
For those who still ask “why I do this?” let’s say I have my reasons.
Besides the countless Macedonian lives lost in the fight against Hellenism,
the countless people exiled, split apart from their families, had their
properties and homes confiscated, and, besides those who were converted
into ardent Hellenes, there are also those Macedonians who still feel
insecure about their culture and identity thanks to the Greek need to
propagate Hellenism. I have decided to speak to those people and tell them
that they have no reason to feel insecure and ashamed of who they are and
have no need to question their history and ethnic identity just because the
Greeks told them to. I want these people to look into the true face of Hellas
and the Hellenes and see them truly for what they are; a fake nation full of
frauds unworthy of attention and undeserving of admiration.
Part 11 - The curse of Hellenism

Hellenism is not a religion, it is not an ethnic entity and is not even a

national identity; it is an idea, an idea designed to mold an entire country
into believing and behaving the way Modern 19th century Europeans
wanted. Hellenism began in a small part of Modern Greece, in fact to be
more precise the Philhellenes created that small part of Modern Greece
because they needed a cultural basis to model their idea after. The Modern
Europeans found what they needed in a society that lived in that very small
region of Modern Greece 2,400 years ago.
Once upon a time during the late 18th and early 19th century there were
some Western Europeans who considered themselves “forward looking”
and believed they could improve the world if only they could teach it how
to behave in a manner to their liking. To do that they needed a model
which they found in the people of 2,400 years ago who lived in the
southern part of today’s Modern Greece. The ideas and actions of these
Western Europeans came to be known as “Hellenism” and they themselves
became known as “Philhellenes” or friends of the Hellenes. The people
that accepted the ideals of Hellenism thus became known as the
“Hellenes”.
Modern Greece was not named “Greece” by accident and neither was
Ancient “Greece”. We all know that there is not a single ancient map
showing “Greece” because there was no “Greece” back then. The names
“Greece”, “Greeks”, “Ancient Greece” and “Ancient Greeks” came into
use and prominence in the late 18th, early 19th centuries. One of the reasons
for giving “Greece” a Latin name is because the Philhellenes needed
“Greece” to have a Western name in order to be part of the Western
World. Another reason for coming up with this name was to, for the first
time ever, group together all the ancient worlds including the City States,
Achaea, Thessaly, Epirus and Greek occupied Macedonia under one
“Western sounding” name, “Greece”.
Modern Hellenism was expected to begin in the southern part of
Modern Greece with the toppling of the Ottoman Empire and from there
expand outwards. Not everyone however bought into the idea of
Hellenism, not if it had to be at the expense of traditional values.
The idea was that in order to be a Hellene one had to not only embrace
the ideals of Hellenism but had to forsake ones own culture, traditions,
language and even religion. To many people Hellenism was synonymous
with paganism. It is funny nowadays to hear Greek Orthodox Priests
bursting with pride about being such great Hellenes unknowingly or
intentionally forsaking Christianity, the very same faith they have sworn to
serve. But that is not all; a Hellene is obligated to keep his or her real
identity a secret not only from society but also from its offspring. The
children must not know the truth, which would ensure that they would
remain good Hellenes!
 Surprisingly Hellenism was embraced by many people but not as many
as expected. People with strong traditional values and long family roots
refused to give up that which they held dear and near to their hearts. Many
fought against Hellenism and many more even lost their lives. The ones
who embraced Hellenism were either ignorant of their own history or
wanted more out of life than what it had to offer even if it meant trading
their real history, language and ethnic identity for it.
The new Hellenic identity required the Hellene to have a Hellenic
name so every non-Greek personal and family name had to be changed to
sound Greek. Unfortunately, as is with people receiving alias names in
witness protection programs, real identities cease to exist. And since the
new identities have no history, phantom histories have to be fabricated and
lies propagated in order for the individuals to fit in. The “changed”
individuals then have to be instilled with pride to not only convince their
neighbours of who they are but eventually to convince themselves and
their children. This is why today, after 200 years of Hellenization we have
so many Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs and even Christian Turks from Asia
Minor bursting with pride about being “pure Greeks, direct descendants
from the Ancient Greeks”.
I hope now you understand why the “real” history of these people
cannot be allowed to surface. If it does it will shatter the illusion of
Hellenism and not only expose the perpetrated Philhellene conspiracy but
will also alienate its willing and unwitting participants who now number in
the tens of millions. If the conspiracy to create Hellenism is exposed then
every Greek will have no choice but to question his or her “Greek”
identity; are they Slav, Albanian, Vlach or some other unheard of ethnicity
from Asia Minor, the Caucasus or somewhere else? The Republic of
Macedonia’s coming into existence has threatened to expose this Hellenic
conspiracy which explains why so many paranoid Greeks negate its
existence and act so suspiciously.
For many, including the vast majority of Macedonians, who valued
their culture, language and traditions, the fight against Hellenism has
become a relentless and never ending struggle. For them Hellenism is a
curse.
Following are excerpts from the book “Blood Lines form Ethnic Pride
to Ethnic Terrorism”, by Vamik Volkan.
On pages 121 and 122 we read “Greece’s movement to build a national
identity, however, contained a unique element not shared by others:
external support and even pressure, for a specific kind of new identity. The
British, French and Russians demanded that the modern Greek identity be
Hellenic and respond to the Europeans’ nostalgia for the restoration of a
pre-Christian Hellenic civilization that has been in eclipse for some two
thousand years. Europeans confidently expected to see the characteristic of
Homer in post liberation Greeks, in spite of the ebb and flow of history
over such a great span of time. The neoclassicism that rose in seventeenth
– and eighteenth-century Europe as an aesthetic and philosophical idea
was to be physically embodied in modern-day Greece. The idealistic and
hopeful attitudes of neoclassicism that would later be imposed on the
Greeks was succinctly expressed in 1822 when American President James
Monroe declared: ‘The mention of Greece fills the mind with the utmost
exalted sentiments and arouses in our bosoms the best feelings of which
our nature is susceptible’.
In reality, however, just before the Greek war of independence, most
Greeks still referred to themselves as Romans. Vlachavas, the priest rebel
leader who rose against the Ottomans, declared, ‘A Romneos I was born, a
Romneos I will die’.
Some Europeans and the few Americans who came to help Greece
start a new nation-state, were disappointed even indignant, to discover
among Greece’s peasants there were no warrior-heroes like Achilles or
Ajax, no statesmen like Pericles, no philosophers like Socrates or Plato
and no poets of the caliber of Aeschylus or Sophocles. There was, in fact,
little likeness between nineteenth century Greeks and the idealized Greeks
from ancient history that had such hold on the imagination of European
liberators.”
Further down on page 122 we read “The folklore scholar Michael
Herzfeld has identified three major obstacles to the project of re-
Hellenizing Greece. First, the people in the new nation-state found it
difficult to accept that they should resemble the long-lost inhabitants of
their land; most of the common people had no idea what they were
supposed to be. Second, they could not be “Hellenic”, in the old pagan
sense of the word, since they strongly adhered to the Christian faith in their
Orthodox church. Finally, it was hard to be Hellenic while using a Romaic
language mixed with Turkish, Arabic and Persian origin.”
Even further down on page 122 we read “Hellenism was embraced, but
under the three obstacles listed above, under a special way. It was made
‘intimately personal’, identified as a mystical sensibility that could not be
understood by even Western supporters. George Evlambios in 1843
declared that foreigners should not attempt the impossible by trying to
fathom the mysteries of Greekness. It was ironic that the Hellenism thesis,
although initially externally directed, would in practice ultimately lead
Greeks to differentiate themselves from the very others who had helped to
define them. Absorbing Hellenism made modern Greeks proud of their
uniqueness.”
At this point I usually make my commentary about the Modern Greek
hypocritical stance against the Macedonian ethnic identity and how while
ignoring the fact that there is no real Greek identity, only a manufactured
one, Greeks continue to be an obstacle to Macedonia’s entry into the
world. But instead of making my own commentary, this time I will use
quotes from the book “The Emerging Strategic Environment Challenges of
the twenty-first century” edited by Williamson Murray.
 On page 17 of this book we read “Considering, for example, the
contemporary notions promulgated by the Ministry of Education in Athens
regarding Macedonia. Greek textbooks portray Philip of Macedon and
Alexander the Great as exemplars of Greek civilization and their kingdom
as thoroughly Hellenized. Therefore, according to this logic, the modern
inhabitants of Macedonia are a product of an unbroken cultural influence
stretching back to the Greece of the fourth century BC. As a result, the
present Slav-inhabited Republic of Macedonia supposedly has no right to
its name nor to use the sixteen-pointed Star of Vergina, the symbol of the
ancient Kingdom of Macedonia, as its national emblem. Left out of this
fairy tale is the absence of any proof that the ancient Macedonians spoke
Greek or formed part of Greek culture.
Furthermore the undisputed fact that Philip and Alexander admired
Greek culture and that Greek was spoken at their court hardly made their
subjects Greek, any more than the fact that the court of Catherine the Great
and Alexander I spoke French made the Russian serfs of the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth century part of French culture. Ignored,
too, is the influence of successive waves of invasions that smashed into the
Balkans between the fourth and fourteenth centuries AD.”
Then on page 18 we read “What was left of ancient Greek culture in
medieval Macedonia after one thousand years of rapine, enslavement and
slaughter at the hands of outsiders? Today the Greek government insists
that its country has no minorities. But a traveler to Greek Macedonia or
Thrace will discover that many (perhaps 250,000 or more) Albanians,
Slavs, and Muslims - what precisely to call them is completely a matter of
opinion – live near the Greek border with Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria
and European Turkey. All that these contradictions really prove is that
after two centuries of independence, Greek nationalists remain insecure
and self-doubting behind their boastful and touchy facades.”
And now a word to my critics;
When I first started writing these chapters, Greeks accused me of
“making up stories” and of “telling lies”, demanding to see proof and
quotes from reliable sources. Now that I have produced quotes, many,
many quotes from over thirty different reliable and unbiased authors, who
by the way all support the Greek side while telling “your” story, you
accuse me of using “other peoples’ words” and of “not having a mind of
my own”. Please make up your minds!!!
Please, instead of putting blame on me for telling you the truth, admit
to yourselves that you are a fake nation with a manufactured identity and
instead of trying so hard to prove that “Macedonians don’t exist” try
harder and prove that “Greeks do exist”.
For those who are still not convinced that the Modern Greek identity is
an artificial creation, please continue to read this series of articles.
Part 12 – Is there a Misunderstanding?

No matter what I do these days there seems to be a misunderstanding

between what I say in my articles and what is understood by most Greeks.
Once again I will repeat myself. For various reasons, which every
Greek should understand, successive Greek governments and the majority
of Greek people who elect those governments have been denying the
Macedonians their ethnic identity. This has been going on since 1878
when it became obvious that Macedonian lands were available for the
taking. One of the excuses Greek governments and many Greeks use to
deny the Macedonians their identity is their empty claim that
“Macedonians do not exist”. So then who were these people living on
those lands which Greece acquired by war in 1912, 1913? Depending on
which Greek you ask, you get a variety of answers which range from; they
are “Slavs”, “Bulgarians”, “Serbians”, “Skopjans”, “Slavo-Skopjans”, etc.,
etc.; but NEVER Macedonians.
Greeks have been denying the Macedonians their ethnic identity for
over a century not because there are no Macedonians but because they, the
Greeks in 1912, 1913 usurped 51% of Macedonia’s lands and stole the
Macedonian heritage and they don’t want to be exposed and identified as
the lying and thieving culprits that they are. The excuse Greeks use to
justify this, without an ounce of proof of course, is that “Macedonia is
Greek”. And how is Macedonia Greek? They say because the Ancient
Macedonians were Greek. Are we missing something here?
Even if the ancient Macedonians were related to the ancient people
living south of Olympus, and they themselves say they were not, it is
neither here nor there because the modern Greeks have nothing to do with
either the so-called ancient Greeks or with the ancient Macedonians. In
fact as I have shown numerous times the only people the Modern Greeks
are related to are the Slav, Albanian and Vlach immigrants who descended
upon the territory of modern Greece during the 11th to the 14th centuries.
Again as I have shown in these chapters, Modern Greece and the Modern
Greeks are a 19th century creation, a fabrication of the Philhellene
imagination. How many times must that be said to be understood?
Up until the late 1980’s the rules were that one had to be born a Greek
to be a Greek. It was my understanding that a Greek could not be made, he
or she had to be born Greek. In fact Greece, in 1982 by Ministerial Decree
number 106841, announced the passage of Law no. 400/76, providing that;
“Free to return to Greece are all Greeks by genus, who during the Greek
Civil War of 1946-1949 and because of it have fled abroad as political
refugees, in spite that the Greek citizenship has been taken away from
them.”
Similarly Law no. 1540 was subsequently introduced making provision
for the return of confiscated properties to political emigrants, read political
refugees. The wording used in the legislation was again unjustly
circumspect. It defines political emigrants for whom the law shall have
application limited to those who are “Greeks by genus”.
The term ‘Greek by genus’ is a term used by Greek authorities for all
those who identify themselves as being ethnic Greek. Hence ethnic
Macedonians who are also political refugees and have had their Greek
citizenship rescinded and/or properties confiscated are excluded from
enjoying the rights granted under these laws, therefore severely
questioning the very standing of the laws based on grounds of equity and
fairness. Moreover, the construction of the wording as relating to these
laws is not benign, it has the clear intent to discriminate against all those
who belong to the category of people classified as political refugees and
who are not “Greeks by genus”. Given that ethnic Macedonians
predominantly make up this category of people, it is indisputable that they
have been the ones targeted by this exclusivist definition and the ones to
have suffered the most.
What exactly then is “Greek by genus”? Does it means Greek by birth
or Greek by blood born from Greek parents? Yes it does according to the
way it has been applied in laws! How then can a Greek with Slavic,
Albanian, or Vlach ancestry be a “Greek by genus” and not someone who
was born in Greece, is a Greek citizen but feels Macedonian?
My friends the “Greek jig is up”! “There is no such thing as a Greek”
because according to Greek law a Greek has to be born from a Greek. But
how can a Greek be born from a Greek when “there is no such thing as a
Greek” in the first place?
But as I say this I get comments from Greeks like the following;
“Ethnicity is not based on genetic make-up. In no country is one
required to take a genetic test before he is accepted as a citizen. Even
Hitler did not require any such tests. For Risto Stefov, however, and some
of his colleagues, the fact that Greeks cannot prove a genetic identity to
someone (not defined thus impossible anyway) who was Greek, means
Greeks are not Greeks. Therefore the Greek word Macedonia and the
Greek administrative district of Macedonia (in Greece) with its Greek
history are up for the taking. The only merit of such an extreme form of
racism is that it does not openly ask for the extermination of Greeks as it
mercifully makes Greeks non-existent by an act of free will. Nevertheless,
through this invention, part of Greece, Greek property (in the
administrative district of Macedonia) as well as Greek heritage and history
may be appropriated just the same.
Unfortunately for Risto Stefov and his friends, ethnicity is not decided
by a set of genes and besides we know nothing about how genetically
homogeneous the original Greeks (whoever Stefov thinks these might have
been) were. This racial, or even racist, attitude towards the definition of
ethnicity, ignores thousands of years of linguistic and cultural continuity
and the self-definition at all times of Greeks as Greeks. Stefov
conveniently also ignores the geographic continuity, for Greeks never
lived just around Athens and Sparta by their own accounts and the
accounts of others.” (Tymphaios, March 06, 2009)
So, what is Mr. Tymphaios telling us? Is he telling us that “anyone
who feels like a Greek can be Greek”? What about someone who is and
feels Macedonian can they be Macedonian? For over 100 years Greeks
have been saying NO!
No matter how you slice it Mr. Tymphaios, this type of “Greek logic”
is very difficult to swallow.
All I want from you Greeks is to apply the same logic to the
Macedonians as you apply to yourselves! If a Slav, Albanian and Vlach
can be “a Greek” because, if I understand Tymphaios correctly, he or she
“feels like a Greek” then why a Macedonian, born of Macedonians, who
lived in Macedonia for many generations, cannot be a Macedonian? You
can’t have it both ways!
Mr. Tymphaios goes on to say “The nationalistic principles of the
nineteenth century, in which an ethnicity was genetically unchangeable
through time, is a fossil of pre-scientific thinking. Thanks to Darwin and
the scientific revolution he brought about, we know a little bit more now
than people knew in the 19th century. Humans, like other species, are not
static. The ancient Greeks had no special properties all of which
disappeared with them when Demosthenes, or Alexander [for your
information Mr. Tymphaios, Alexander was not Greek, he was
Macedonian] or someone or other died. Linguistic, historic and cultural
continuity is what determines the survival of an ethnicity not a unique
‘blood’ or an exclusive set of genes. Like species, so human ‘ethnicities’
evolve over time. Risto Stefov´s quest is a constant search for a genetic
contamination from Albanians or some other ‘impure’ ethnicity, so that
like a creationist he may say: aha, Greeks as known today were never
created by God, or Greeks of the ancient times have no connection to
today’s Greeks because they did not call themselves Romioi, presumably
did not mix with Albanians, etc. So therefore they were a different ‘race’.
He cuts a lonely figure in such a quest, because this kind of thinking is
more and more recognized as belonging to those racist theories promoted
by the fascistic states of mid-20th century. Stefov´s ethnic principle is like
that of Creationism in the sense of lines that are not evolving but can only
stay or disappear. Today this is a thought rarely entertained even by
ordinary laymen.”
But what Tymphaios fails to understand, or is hypocritical about it, is
that the exact same thing he speaks of and accuses me of doing is practiced
by Greece today! Mr. Tymphaios, principles which apply to the Greeks as
you stated above equally apply to the Macedonians! I can and have
accused you of doing the same thing you are accusing me of, except that
Greece and Greeks are the ones who deny the Macedonians their ethnic
identity and not the other way around? All I am doing is pointing out what
others, whose research you might appreciate, are saying about you. So
again I will ask the question “why can’t a Macedonian, who calls him or
herself Macedonian, born from Macedonians and feels like a Macedonian,
according to Greeks, cannot be a Macedonian”? Mr. Tymphaios and the
rest of you Greeks who deny the Macedonians their ethnic identity, I
anxiously await your answer.
Frankly Mr. Tymphaios, I couldn’t care less what you Greeks call
yourselves and who you think you are and who you think you have
descended from. What I don’t like about you is your lack of fairness when
it comes to treating those different from you and your disregard for the
rights of the Macedonian people both inside Greece and in the Republic of
Macedonia.
First, you, and by you I mean Greece and the Greeks, invaded,
occupied and annexed our country Macedonia without our consent, which
I call theft, then you tormented, killed, assimilated and evicted us from our
homes in the name of Hellenism. You then changed our personal names,
toponyms and hydronyms and made them Greek sounding so that you
could show the world how Greek Macedonia is. You then banned our
mother tongue and made us speak your alien Hellenic language which we
detest. You openly practice racism by publicly denying Macedonians their
most basic human rights and you dare call me a racist for defending
myself? Where is the fairness in that?
Perhaps Mr. Tymphaios you should learn a bit more about the real
Greece before you leap to accusing others for things your country and your
countrymen practice every day.
And now I will leave you with this;
“It is, after all, through the same neo-Classical elite ideology that today
rejects Bernal’s arguments out of hand that Greeks were taught to reject
everything familiar in their vernacular culture as ‘foreign’ to the Classical
Hellenism invented by the eighteenth-century German scholars who had
sired both the ‘autochthonous’ theory of Greek ethno-genesis and, in the
lineage of ‘Aryan’ linguists, the so called racial science of the Nazis. This
is also the ideology that today made it necessary to specify whether one
means modern Greeks, as I have just done, because the West has made
Classical antiquity the only acceptable touchstone of their cultural worth.
The example of modern Greece provides a useful key to historicizing those
who Eric Wolf has ironically dubbed ‘the people without history’ (Wolf
1982). For the modern Greeks – a people arguable plagued by an excess of
history, but for a kind invented for them by more powerful others – face a
real life dilemma…” (“Anthropology, Theoretical Practice in Culture and
Society” by Michael Herzfeld, page 67)
Part 13 – What is Greece up to?

So for Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs who want to be Greeks they can be
Greeks because they feel like being Greeks but for Macedonians who are
Macedonians and want to remain Macedonian, according to twisted Greek
logic, they cannot be Macedonians! Why is that, why the double standard
and what are the Greeks up to?
Well to put it bluntly, it is very simple. Greece has stolen Macedonian
lands and has expropriated the entire Macedonian heritage. It doesn’t want
anyone to know about it or have to give back what it stole from them. So
instead of dealing with its issues Greece is making all kinds of childish
accusations to avoid them. One of its most childish accusations is its claim
that “Macedonians don’t exist”.
First and foremost everyone must understand that it is not up to Greece
to decide whether Macedonians exist or not; it is up to the Macedonians
and the Macedonian people decided a long time ago that they do exist and
have spilled blood to establish themselves in this world. YES there are
Macedonians and YES they exist all over the world and inside Greece and
Bulgaria. Most of the world, except for Greece and Bulgaria and their
European Union supporters who shall remain nameless, has accepted the
fact that Macedonians exist and have no problem with it.
It is well known to historians and to most laymen that Macedonia was
a “nation state” and even an empire with historic roots which proves its
existence, whereas Greece was NEVER a nation state that is not until 1829
when the Philhellenes artificially created it. Greece has no proof of its
existence as a nation state prior to that. In fact there is not a single ancient
map that shows the words “Greek” or “Greece” to ever have existed.
If you have been reading these articles by now you should also know
that “there is no such thing as a Greek” in a natural or ethnic sense. The
Modern Greek nation was created by the 19th century Western European
Philhellenes and rests on the bones of the Slav, Albanian and Vlach
cultures which were sacrificed to artificially create Greece. Macedonians
on the other hand are a genuine people who do have their own unique
culture and recognize, acknowledge and respect their true roots.
Besides stealing Macedonian lands and expropriating the Macedonian
heritage, the Greeks have also committed many atrocities against the
Macedonian people of which I am sure they are not proud and of which
they don’t want the world to know. These include burning Macedonian
villages, killing innocent civilians, exiling families, exiling children,
confiscating properties, imprisoning and torturing tens of thousands and
downright murdering thousands of Macedonians. These are recent and
well documented historic events that can easily be proven and cannot be
denied.
On top of that Greece has also changed peoples’ personal and family
names, changed all Macedonian place names and prohibited Macedonians
from speaking their Macedonian language and from identifying as
Macedonians. In fact Greece went even further and erased everything that
was Macedonian including Macedonian inscriptions on public buildings,
church icons and gravestones. Why did Greece do all this? Obviously it
had a reason!
The reason Greece did all this is because it is hiding a deep dark secret,
a secret it doesn’t want the world to know. So to avoid revealing this
secret, Greeks will do anything to keep Macedonians distracted and away
from these issues.
But as long as Macedonians pay attention to the Greeks, the Greeks
will continue to engage them in their lies and rhetoric which will keep
them busy and away from finding the truth. Greeks love nothing better
than to engage people in nonsensical issues like the “name dispute” to
keep them from finding out what truly matters to Greece, the “Macedonian
lands”.
Greeks couldn’t care less what the world thinks of the “crazy debates”
that go on between Macedonians and Greeks as long as they are distracting
and not about what matters to Greece most, the “Macedonian lands”.
Greece would rather have the entire world believing that all Balkan
people are crazy with nothing better to argue about than ancient names and
who was who 2,000 years ago. And as long as the world thinks we are all
crazy the Greeks will enjoy living in the warmth and luxury of our
Macedonian homes while we freeze out in the cold. As long as we engage
the Greeks in nonsensical issues and the world thinks we are crazy the
Greeks will continue to pillage and rape our Macedonia, our inheritance
from our fathers and grandfathers. And while the Greeks enjoy the comfort
of our homes and lands we will roam the Diaspora as political and
economic refugees.
You want the truth about Greece? This is the truth about Greece and
our predicament with it! Macedonian homes and lands today are occupied
by former Albanians, Vlachs and Asia Minor Turks who today call
themselves Macedonians, themselves victims of Hellenism, while the real
Macedonians are roaming the world living in foreign lands. And why is
this? Because Greece wants to hold onto Macedonian lands at any cost,
lands that do not belong to Greece, lands that Greece acquired by war in
1912, 1913 and against the wishes of the real Macedonian people.
Why is Greece making childish claims that “Macedonians don’t
exist”? Why is Greece continuingly inventing new lies? So that it could lay
claim to Macedonia, so that it could say that Macedonia belongs to Greece.
So that it could forever steal our inheritance from us!
In order for Greece to “lay claim” to Macedonian lands, it must
remove all other claimants who may have similar claims or who may
challenge its claim. The only people who have legitimate claims to
Macedonia and the Macedonian heritage are the Macedonian people
themselves. So by denying the existence of the Macedonian identity
Greece is in effect removing the Macedonian people from this equation.
So, according to Greek logic, if Greeks continue to believe Macedonians
do not exist they cannot challenge Greece’s claim to Macedonia: plain and
simple.
In order to “lay claim” to the Macedonian lands and heritage Greece
requires proof of ownership. So far however there were no reasons for
Greece to show proof of ownership because there were no challengers to
its claims. But with the appearance of the Republic of Macedonia, Greece
is becoming increasingly insecure and feels that sooner or later those
challengers are bound to surface. So to delay or divert those challenges
Greece has invented a number of nonsensical issues such as “the name
dispute” and the various vetoing threats to keep the Macedonian people
busy and away from the main issue; challenging Greece’s hegemony over
Macedonia, a land and heritage that does not belong to Greece, a land and
heritage that belongs to the Macedonian people. And there ladies and
gentlemen lies the crux of the entire problem.
Now for those who think they know Greece! (This includes most
Greeks and many foreigners)
No one knows Greece’s attitude towards the Macedonians better than
the Macedonians themselves who have lived in Greece. No one knows
Greece better than the Macedonians who have experienced Greek justice
first hand. Being Macedonian from Greece and having lived in Greece we
qualify, more than anyone, to judge for ourselves what Greece is and why
Greece is behaving the way it is. We have a good idea of what it is like to
be abused by Greece and Greeks and I can assure you our story is not a
pretty one. We know exactly what the Greeks are capable of, what they
will do and how far they will go to hold onto Macedonia. And as
Macedonians from Greece we know that there is but one real issue to focus
on and that is the lands the Greeks have stolen from the Macedonians;
everything else is trivial.
Everything that Greece has done to this day was done to safeguard its
hold on the Macedonians lands. By what it has done to this day is proof
that Greece will stop nothing short of exterminating the entire Macedonian
nation in order to safeguard its hold on Macedonian lands and to hide the
atrocities it has committed against the Macedonian people.
The so-called “name dispute”, veto threats, history lessons, etc., etc.,
that Greece continues to invent are nothing more than smoke and mirrors
to hide the only tangible item Greece values “the Macedonian lands”.
“The recent furor over the publication of a relatively mild historical
and ethnographic account of the progressive Hellenization of the Greek
province of Macedonia (Karakasidou 1997) exhibits both the nervousness
of the Greek establishment and the persistence of stereotypes of Greeks as
irrational, hysterical Balkan lunatics among supposedly sober
commentators in the West. It also demonstrates the neuralgia that
anthropology can induce in those who are committed to unitary myths of
national origin…” (“Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society,
Anthropology” by Michael Herzfeld, page 68).
Are Greeks who know their own true identities and who are well aware
of how they acquired Macedonian lands nervous? You bet they are! More
nervous than ever since the Republic of Macedonia came into existence
and the Macedonian people started to take matters into their own hands.
Greece was launched in early 19th century like a sailing ship without a
rudder. What happened to it was not entirely its own fault. But since then
Greece had all the time in the world and plenty of opportunities to build a
rudder and change direction. But as of yet it hasn’t! Instead of joining the
post World War II democratic nations and embracing democracy, Greece
has chosen to remain static; a racist bigot nation which refuses to submit to
the truth and reality of its own situation.
Part 14 – My personal Opinion

Recently one of my readers wrote to me asking for my personal

opinion of what I think is Greece’s dispute with the Macedonian people.
More precisely as a Macedonian from Greece what do I think is the core
issue that troubles Greece with regards to the Macedonians?
Let me start by saying that, in my opinion, there is one core issue that
troubles Greece and that is the Macedonian lands. Greece in 1912, 1913
occupied 51% of Macedonia’s territory and since then has turned it into
Greek lands at the cost and exclusion of their real owners, the Macedonian
people.
Irrespective of what one calls them and how they identify themselves, I
see the Macedonians as the indigenous people that have lived in
Macedonia for millennia. Macedonians have no collective memory of
ever arriving in these lands or having lived anywhere else except in
Macedonia. So naturally I support the fact that those lands belong to the
Macedonians.
On the other hand the Greeks in 1912, 1913 invaded, occupied and
annexed Macedonia, which never belonged to them and makes their
annexation illegal under international law.
But worse than that, after annexing Macedonian lands the Greeks were
not satisfied with having the Macedonians living on them so they
implemented assimilation policies to turn Macedonians into Greeks.
Naturally many Macedonians resisted and over the years were punished by
Greece. Many were tortured, exiled, jailed and even murdered.
It is difficult for people to believe that Greece would want to assimilate
alien ethnic groups and turn them into Greeks. What would be their
motive?
There is plenty of evidence that suggests that the Greeks did this to
expand their manufactured Hellenic Empire and bring back the glory of
the mythical Hellas of ancient times, a type of Hellas that never existed
before. Given that Modern Greeks themselves are a manufactured entity
and having nothing to do with the so-called Ancient Greeks, these modern
charlatans felt it was their duty to convert every Macedonian into a Greek,
even if it meant doing it against their will. The Greeks did this in order to
create a false idea that Macedonia somehow was once part of Greece and
that the Macedonian lands, heritage and people belonged to Greece.
Today however we know that the Macedonians are a unique ethnic
entity entirely different from the Greeks and that the Modern Greeks are in
reality the descendants of the Slav, Albanian and Vlach immigrants who
came to Greece during the 11th to the 14th centuries AD.
So through its assimilation policies Greece turned the 51% of
Macedonia it occupied into a type of Borg-hive (like in the fictional Star
Trek movie series) where people were not allowed to have real names,
speak a real language, or express themselves in their own familiar culture.
Real things like personal names, place names, mother language and
familiar writing were forbidden from being used and were replaced with
alien names, an alien language and an alien writing system all in the name
of Hellenism and all for the glory of modern artificial Hellas.
The Macedonian peoples’ lives in Greece are full of tragedy. Not only
was one occupier (the Ottomans) replaced with another (the Greeks) in
1912, but many Macedonians lost their lands and all of them lost their
identity, language, culture and continuity. But their tragedy doesn’t end
there.
Outside of the Macedonians who were forced out of their homes and
lands and outside of the ones who submitted to Hellenism because of fear
or for personal gains, there are also the majority of Macedonians who felt
oppressed with no opportunity to improve their lives and political
situation. These Macedonian are left in limbo waiting for an opportunity to
bounce back. Unfortunately the Greeks know this and have made sure such
an opportunity never presents itself. That is why consecutive Greek
governments since 1912 have made it their mission to suppress and
torment the Macedonian people so that such opportunities are avoided at
all cost.
Besides losing their lands, freedom and identity and being treated like
second class citizens in their own lands, the Macedonians in Greece who
feel Macedonian, even without publicly expressing it, have been unjustly
persecuted. Greece continues to this day to close the border to
Macedonians and to confiscate Macedonian lands. Greek authorities look
away when Macedonians are harmed and Greek courts often side with the
perpetrators in such cases. Putting it more bluntly, Greece not only
discourages people from expressing their ethnic sentiments but will legally
prosecute those who do.
Given the current situation and Greece’s attitude towards the
Macedonians what can be done to help bring positive change?
A valid question indeed, a question I have struggled with for many
years but to this day I have found no answer. Since Macedonia’s
occupation in 1912 Greece has maintained a singular policy; exterminate
the Macedonian people and permanently annex their lands and heritage.
This policy has not changed since it was implemented in 1912 which
leaves the Macedonian people with little room to maneuver. In fact the
only options left for the Macedonians in Greece are to disappear all
together or fight back for their survival! In my opinion there is but one
option for the Macedonians and that is to “liberate Macedonia from the
Greeks”!
To do that, however, Macedonians must first stop responding to Greek
engagements in nonsensical issues and start focusing their effort in
highlighting the truth about their status in Greece. Macedonians must let
the world know what Greece has done and is still doing to them. All
Macedonians originating from Greek occupied Macedonia who care about
their inheritance, who care about their family’s lands, properties and
homes which their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers poured
sweat and spilled blood to build and protect, must stand up and demand
their human rights from Greece. Failing that, they must then demand that
the Greeks leave Macedonia.
It doesn’t matter what the world thinks and what the Greeks will do;
Macedonians have a duty to express their own feeling, their own desires
and their own needs. By any definition, the 51% of Macedonia that was
occupied by Greece in 1912 is still occupied by Greece to this day. Greece
had all the time in the world and plenty of opportunity to voluntarily stop
its persecution of the Macedonians and award them their human rights as
prescribed by International law. Unfortunately Greece to this day has
ignored every call from every International institution to voluntarily
comply.
Perhaps what the Macedonians need to do, to give Greece a wakeup
call, is amass in every major city in the world and hold human rights
demonstrations with huge placards held high with slogans like “Macedonia
is Macedonian”, “Greeks get out of Macedonia” and “Greece stop the
ethnic cleansing of Macedonians”. It’s about time the Greeks are given
reciprocal treatment by challenging their identity as they have challenged
ours for the last one-hundred years. It’s time we raise placards with
slogans like, “There is no such thing as a Greek”, “a Modern Greek is
nothing but a Slav, an Albanian and a Vlach”, “Hellenism is Barbarism”
and “I am a Macedonian from Greece and I exist”.
Greece has proven it will not yield on human rights on its own unless it
is extremely pressured from the outside. Greece has a long record of abuse
against all people who are not committed to Hellenism and fear they are a
threat to its integrity. Greece feels that if it recognizes any of its ethnic
groups living on its soil it will have to justify to them the violence and
criminal conduct it perpetrated against them over the years. In other words,
what Metaxas and others like him did to the Macedonian people in pursuit
of Hellenism, will no longer be viewed as an act of “glory for Hellas” but a
criminal act of “cultural genocide” against an innocent population.
If the Greek government recognizes a single minority it will have to
explain to the people why in the past it committed cultural genocide
against that minority. It will also have to punish all those involved in
perpetrating the “cultural genocide”. And how can it do that when
everyone in the entire Greek government today is a devout Hellene who
believes in the glory of Hellas and that no “minorities” exist in Greece?
How can it do that when Greeks who today hold high positions in Greek
society are the pillars of Hellenism and claim to be the descendants of
Plato and Pericles? What are the chances of the Greek government ever
doing that?
Greece will not become a democratic state and will not allow its
ethnicities to self declare until racism and intolerance are completely
eradicated in that country. Greece cannot and will not free itself from its
prejudices until it deals with its past and corrects the injustices perpetrated
against its innocent population. There can be no closure for any of the
ethnic groups living in Greece until Greece gives up its Hellenism and its
imperial plans for glory and the pursuit of its expansionist Megali Idea, an
Idea that today lays dormant.
Given that Greece will not yield on its own, what can be done to
improve the Macedonian situation in Greece?
First and foremost we need to fight for our human rights as a people
protected by international law. As people we have certain rights that need
to be exploited. We can’t continue to dismiss what Greece is doing to us
thinking of it as “an act of fate” when in fact it’s “an act of crime”.
Second we need to learn to voice our concerns and no longer be silent
and put up with abuse. After all the harm Greece has done to us, how
much more harm can it do? Keeping silent only prolongs our agony and
allows Greece to further rob us of our lands, heritage and dignity. The
Greeks today live warm and comfortable lives in our homes, the very same
homes our Macedonian ancestors slaved to build and died to protect. And
while the Greeks live comfortably consuming “our inheritance” we roam
the Diaspora.
It is time to speak up and tell Greece to recognize us and accept us for
who we are, Macedonians, or to speak up and tell the Greeks to “get the
hell out of our Macedonia”!
“The relationship between the Modern Greeks and the Macedonians is
a relationship marked by bloodshed, murder, unimaginable atrocities that
have yet to be accounted for - and it all started with An Invasion in 1912
that broke every international law, and treaty of its time. This is what
needs to be addressed - if the Macedonians raise this one point, it will be a
massive blow to Modern Greece, and significantly Europe too, which has
unofficially sanctioned Greece's state sponsored genocide of the
Macedonians. If the Macedonians, anywhere in the world, can get this
point (and only this point), there is hope some wrongs of the past, might be
addressed.” Paul from www.maknews.com/forum
And now I leave you with this:
Thanks to one of my readers for bringing it to my attention;
Please click on this link; http://www.youtube.com/ristostefov
As much as I don’t like what this person is doing, especially the
“impersonating” part, I welcome the initiative which proves that I am
getting my message across. This imposter while accusing me of
“falsification” has failed to notice the irony in his message which
hypocritically, is also an act of falsification!
Thank you again for reminding me why I do this (fighting for the
rights of all Macedonians) and for confirming that I am on the right track.
By impersonating me and by your rude comments you not only have
belittled yourself but you have inadvertently validated everything I have
said about your behaviour and the way your kind treats the Macedonian
people. Congratulations, whoever you are, in your depraved ways you
have done your racist country proud!
“There cannot be an Athenian alive today who can trace a direct line of
descent from classical times to the present without leaving Athens.
Because of numerous and protracted foreign occupations, true Athenians
were a relatively small minority even in the age of Pericles. In a later
period the city was suffering with severe depopulation and was re-stocked
with Albanians! At the time of Greek independence in 1834, Athens was a
miserable village with a population of only 6000. So, in this sense, there
cannot be any true Athenians of classical breeding.” (Insight Guides,
Athens, Greece Series, page 42)
Part 15 – More questions

As much as I don’t want to turn this series into a “Dear Risto” column,
a couple of you have asked some very important, worthwhile and valid
questions that I would like to answer.
1. As Macedonians should we be abandoning our “Slavic” culture in
favour of the Ancient Macedonian one?
2. What is your personal, and not a dictionary quote, definition of a
Hellene? In your opinion who and what is a Hellene?
I will begin answering the first question by saying that the
Macedonians of today are a product of all that has happened in Macedonia.
We are the descendents of all the people who set foot on those lands and
therefore are the inheritors of everything that was left for us. Since man set
foot on Macedonian soil our culture has been evolving, growing and
adding to our being; culminating in what it is today.
We are Macedonians because we have lived in Macedonia for many
generations and have experienced what is Macedonian and that which we
have experienced has made us into who and what we are, Macedonians. If
we seek the truth about who we are then we have no choice but to accept
and embrace everything that makes us who we are. We are Macedonians,
one of the deepest rooted people in the world and inheritors of everything
that was Macedonian since before history was recorded.
In an ethnic sense we are Macedonians but linguistically we speak a
Slavic language, a language that today is described as belonging to the
family of Slavic languages. Ethnically we are not Slavs, we can’t all be
Slavs from the Balkans to Siberia. We are Slavic speakers who over the
years have evolved into a unique entity which can only be described as
Macedonian. We have, however, contributed immensely to what we today
call “Slav culture” more than any other ethnic nation in the Slavic
speaking world. We know for a fact that Slav culture, particularly the
written form of the language, was spread from Macedonia by the Solun
brothers Kiril and Metodi and that is undeniably part of our Macedonian
heritage.
Are the modern Macedonians the descendants of the ancient
Macedonians?
My answer to that question is why stop with the ancient Macedonians?
Why not go even further back and ask “are we the descendants of all the
people that occupied Macedonian lands since the melt of the last ice age”?
We cannot say with certainty that we are and neither can we say that we
are not. All we can say is that Macedonia, the land and all that has taken
place on it over the ages has made us into who we are today, Macedonians.
One thing we need to refrain from is allowing others, particularly our
enemies to define us.
Our neighbours to the south, the Greeks, have made the mistake of
defining themselves as the “descendants of the ancient Greeks” ignoring
many years of evolution, population movements, invasions, conquests and
so on. The Greeks followed the “Western European” blueprint for nation
building and falsely linked themselves to the ancients and only the
ancients, leaving a wide gap in their culture. However they only did this to
make political gains and take advantage of their neighbours, particularly
the Macedonians. In fact most of Western Europe has used mythical
historiography to build its modern nations. Macedonia does not need to
resort to myths because Macedonians have historically existed since pre-
history.
If there is the question of who the Modern Macedonians are then there
must also be a question of “who the Ancient Macedonians were”.
As far as we know the Ancient Macedonians began as a small tribal
nation somewhere in today’s Kostur Region sometime in the 9th century
BC. They only occupied today’s geographical Macedonia in the 4th century
BC after Philip II became king. From what we know, Philip II defeated the
various tribal kingdoms in the vicinity of today’s geographic Macedonia
and incorporated the people and their lands into his Macedonian kingdom.
These tribes were not all Macedonian before Philip conquered them. So
what were they?
From what we know from history, Ancient Macedonia, before it
became a nation state, was the land of the Pelasgians, Illyrians, Thracians,
Phrygians, Paeonians and others. Hardly anything is known about these
great ancient and prehistoric tribes except that they were very numerous
“like leaves in a forest”. So what happened to these people? Naturally
modern mainstream history would have us believe that they all
disappeared, but did they? Or could these people be the ancestors of
today’s modern Slav speakers?
There are some well educated and prominent scientists today who
believe that large groups of people who moved into the Balkans and
Europe after the last ice age are still living there to this day. Could one of
those large groups be the modern day Slav speakers? There are some who
believe they are! How else does one explain the Slav language being
spoken over such a large expanse and by so many different people in
Eastern Europe?
Now if we put two and two together we come to the realization that
there is a high probability that today’s Slav speaking Eastern Europeans
are the descendents of any or all of the prehistoric Illyrians, Thracians,
Phrygians, Dardanians, etc.; the very same groups of people mainstream
history claims have disappeared.
If the people incorporated in Ancient Macedonia by Philip II indeed
came from these same tribes, and we know they did, then they too must
have been the ancestors of the modern day Slav speakers. This raises the
possibility that the Ancient Macedonians may also have been “Slav
speakers”. We know that the most prominent Ancient Macedonians
including Alexander the Great were bilingual and we have many historic
examples to prove it. We also know Alexander’s Macedonian soldiers
spoke an “unknown” language unique to the Macedonians. The only thing,
as of yet, is that we don’t know if that language was Slavic. But with time,
that problem too will be solved.
So, without knowing all the facts, why would we opt for “accepting”
the Ancient Macedonian heritage while rejecting our “Slav” culture when
there is a possibility that one is a progression of the other?
If I had to guess, I would guess that the “Slav culture” of the 9th
century AD is the revival of the Ancient Macedonian Culture of the 4th
century BC but with a Christian twist.
And now to answer the second question, “my definition” of what is a
Hellene?
I believe I answered this question before but I guess not to the
satisfaction of at least one reader. A Hellene is a 19th century mythological
being that encompasses all the desired qualities that the 19th century
Western European culture craved.
Trying to define what a Hellene is is like trying to define who Santa
Claus is. The word “Santa Claus” conjures up an image of a white bearded
man dressed up in a red suit who gives away presents; an image of
happiness. But is Santa Claus real? It depends who you ask? Most children
will say that he is! But does Santa Clause exist? Yes he does, you can find
him in practically every mall around Christmas time.
A Hellene is like Santa Claus in many ways. Conditioned over the
years many people believe he or she exists. Any ordinary person properly
dressed in red and white attire can unmistakably be Santa Claus, similarly
any person who speaks and feels Greek can qualify to be a Hellene. The
story of the Hellene is something like the story of Santa Claus. They both
started somewhere back in Ancient times and borrowed something from
this culture and something from that. The case of Santa Claus, evolved into
what we know today as “the white bearded man in the red suit, living in
the North Pole, making toys for little girls and boys and delivering them to
all the children in the world on Christmas Eve on his sled pulled by his
flying reindeer”. The case of the Hellene also evolved in a similar fashion
borrowing from the ancients what was attractive then mixing it with
Christianity and what was desirable we then have “a Hellene who is a
Christian Orthodox, speaks a bastardized ancient Language and claims to
be a descendent of a race of people that died 2,000 years ago”.
Will the “Santa Claus” of modern times survive the scrutiny of science
if so examined? Will we find that he is real, exists and flies a sled pulled
by reindeer? No! We believe in Santa Claus because he is a powerful
symbol of our traditional values which today is exploited and utilized by
merchants to sell their wares and make money. Similarly Hellenism (for
some) is a symbol of a “perfect culture”. It does not really exist and will
not survive scientific scrutiny but is tolerated by people because it benefits
a certain and powerful segment of our society.
 Like ordinary people who put on cheap red suits and fake white beards,
pretending to be Santa Claus in order to sell merchandise, ordinary people
who speak Greek can also be Hellenes in order to improve their social
status in society.
Does a Hellene exist? Does Santa Claus exist? It all depends on who
you ask! Is a Hellene real? Is Santa Claus real? No, because they both exist
only in the imagination of those who believe in them!
“To be a Modern "Hellene" one must be a liar. One has to lie about
their ethnic heritage. One has to lie about their mother tongue. And one
has to lie about their history. And so it goes, a Hellene is a person who is
faking their ethnicity, mother tongue and history.” (Maknews from
www.maknews.com )
“The British, French and Russians demanded that the modern Greek
identity be Hellenic and respond to the Europeans’ nostalgia…” (“Blood
Lines from Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism”, by Vamik Volkan, page
121)
“Thus, the recourse to the new image of Hellas (both as cultural
construct and as social system) began immediately upon the brief rule of
governor Kapodistrias and became efficiently implemented with the
takeover of the Bavarian monarchy and its explicit desire for centralization
and Hellenization. In fact, the cultural image of Greece was put into
production with much greater urgency than was a political-economic
infrastructure, despite the obvious importance of the latter in a newly
constructed state.” (“Dream Nation Enlightenment, Colonization and the
institution of Modern Greece”, Stathis Gourgouris, page 87)
“It should be strongly emphasized, however, that this image of
classical Greece was constructed in Europe and was imported to the
newborn Greek state (Tsoukalas, 2002).” (“Entangled Identities Nations
and Europe”, edited by Atsuko Ichijo and Willfried Spohn, page 109)
“The adjective ‘Hellenistic’ not, significantly, existing in any Greek
original – was first coined in its French form ‘hellenistiques’ by J.B.
Bossuer, in 1681 as a term for the Greek of the Septuagint, the
‘Hellenized’ version of the old Testament.” (“The Hellenic Age a Short
History”, Peter Green, page xvi introduction)
And now I leave you with this;
“And thus, I call upon the western intellectuals in general and the
western philhellenes in particular to separate their personal sentimental
attachments to Greek history, to do the only honorary thing left and treat
Macedonia and Macedonian history as a separate and comprehensive study
that it is, and that it certainly deserves to be. The conflicting statements left
strewn in the literature in the past hundred or so years—are the result of
biased and subjective influences—and have not only caused political
discourse and confusion, but bring about contradictions, fuel tensions and
cause unnecessary hateful speculations.
For instance, when some nineteenth century unsuspecting authors
depict events in antiquity and describe the ancient Macedonians as Greeks,
it was done not because the evidence left from the ancient biographers
would support such an act but because the western media and the western
academia in particular, would allow dissemination of historically
inaccurate information. Such supposedly "harmless" omissions—read
desirable proliferation of myths—would seep easily into the readers´
consciousness for whom the built up historiography of the artificially
created Greek nation, lay in tandem with the envisioned fundamental
grand scheme of things in the regional geography designed for Balkans.
It is morally wrong, ethically inadmissible and scientifically incorrect
to lump the ancient Macedonians under Greek umbrella, simply, because
today’s Greece—the creation of the western powers—enjoys sentimental
support of many western intellectuals. Truth does not need lobbyists. Truth
is not a tradable commodity and cannot be conditionally used and
selectively applied. Appropriation of Macedonian history is not an
acceptable act; portraying ancient Macedonians as Greeks is an outright
fabrication.” (Gandeto -
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/97381)
Part 16 – On to Macedonia

Modern Greeks, who were educated through the Greek educational

system, seem to think that Macedonians did not exist prior to the 1940’s.
In fact some are so sure that they are willing to stake their own reputation
on it, so they say.
One Greek, who claimed to be a Professor of History, not long ago
wrote and told me that there is absolutely no evidence to support the
existence of Macedonians prior to Tito’s “alleged” creation of Macedonia.
In fact, he said that he was so sure that Macedonians did not exist he was
willing to accept everything I said at face value if I could only show him a
single piece of evidence that proved Macedonians existed before 1940.
Believing he was sincere, I had no reason to doubt him, I took up his
challenge and put together a document which can be found at this link;
http://www.oshchima.com/Historical%20Documents/hdoc1.pdf
After reviewing the document the good professor was kind enough to
write back to me but it wasn’t what I expected. The only thing he wrote
was “Macedonia is Greek”! Nothing else! I never heard from him again.
I used to believe that Greeks were sincere in their quest for the truth
but experience has taught me differently. I used to believe if one laid the
facts on the table all arguments could be resolved through reasoning and
logic but unfortunately I was wrong! As I have found out over the years,
Modern Greeks, at least the ones I have dealt with, are not interested in
finding “the truth” unless the truth serves their purpose. The only thing
these Greeks are interested in, as I have found, is covering up all evidence
that might challenge their claims on Macedonia and expose their lies.
Facts, evidence, or logic do not matter and no Greek can be convinced of
the truth unless it serves his or her purpose or supports his or her claims on
Macedonia. Therefore it would be a waste of time to try and prove
anything to a Greek who is convinced that his or her truth is the only truth.
If I were to classify the Greeks into categories I would classify them
into three types. The first type which includes the vast majority of Greeks
is the silent type which steers away from “anomalies” or information that
is not explained by their indoctrination. These Greeks have found that
curiosity can be painful, as Anastasia Karakasidou discovered when she
wrote her book “Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood”.
The second type of Greek is a patriotic and devoted type who believes
that everything the Greek government tells him or her, particularly about
Macedonia, is true. This Greek is taught to believe the indigenous
Macedonians, the ones who lived in Macedonia for many generations, the
ones whose lands Greece stole, are his or her enemies. They are convinced
that these Macedonians are preoccupied with “stealing” their Macedonia
from them and therefore should not be trusted and should be punished at
every opportunity.
 The third and most dangerous type of Greek is the one who knows the
truth but is entrusted with protecting Greek interests at any cost. This is the
Greek that seeks out evidence in order to destroy it.
So the next time a Greek asks you to produce evidence that proves
Macedonians exist remember that by providing this evidence you are
helping him or her to cover it up.
The problem these Greeks have is not only with evidence but with the
people who are bent on digging it up. Remember Karakasidou’s case? The
Greeks threatened to “blow up” the publishing house in London if it
published her book. Greeks often use this kind of “intimidation” to prevent
what they deem “damaging” information from coming out. But more often
than not, they publish “their own” versions of “the facts” to create
confusion and bury the truth. For example Greeks, for years, maintained
that Macedonians did not exist. But when stories started surfacing that
Macedonians do indeed exist, they invented the idea that these people were
not really “ethnic Macedonians” but “geographic Macedonians”. In other
words they are called “Macedonians” not because they are ethnic
Macedonians but because they are “Greeks” who just happened to live in
Macedonia!
Until a couple of decades ago, according to these Greeks, Macedonians
did not exist; today, according to the same Greeks, we have all kinds of
Macedonians. In fact the Greek Prime Minister himself just announced to
the Greek Parliament that he too is a “Macedonian”! This is how Greeks
logic works. If you can’t outright eradicate “the information” then you
bury it in a huge tangle of lies. Greeks are experts at this!
Fortunately Macedonians and even foreigners are slowly coming on to
these “Greek tricks” and the Greek lies are gradually being exposed.
Today there is an overwhelming amount of evidence uncovered all
over the world not just from books but also from newspapers and journals.
Greeks however are trying very hard to bury it by side tracking the reader
with personal attacks on the messenger instead of dealing with the
message. In place of responding to the questions posed, Greeks tend to
attack the credibility of the messenger calling him or her “anti-Greek”
having an “axe to grind” or not possessing “the right credentials” to be an
authority. It seems that when facts are presented that contradict the “Greek
view”, Greeks tend to dismiss them by accusing the presenter of not
having the “right credentials”.
Recently old newspaper stories from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s
have also been surfacing from various library archives. These newspapers,
it appears, have been carrying all sorts of stories from the Balkan conflicts,
including many from the Macedonian 1903 Uprising against the Ottoman
Empire. These stories exist and are real and can be found in the archives of
practically every major library in the world. Some of these documents are
now being digitized and will soon be available online everywhere on the
internet. Here are some examples;
http://www.maknews.com/forum/archive/here-are-som-articles-from-the-
new-york-times-t5689.html

http://www.maknews.com/forum/archive/newspaper-articles-about-the-
macedonians-in-the-1800-s-t5734.html

http://www.maknews.com/forum/general-discussions/reference-list-1-
newspaper-articles-t14740.html

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1139

These stories talk about Macedonians fighting for their freedom,

Macedonians who according to the Greeks did not exist prior to the
1940’s. With stories like these coming out no one in the world is going to
believe the Greeks and their false claims. No one is going to believe that
the references “Macedonian” and “Macedonians” are “geographic” and not
“ethnic”. Who in the world, except Greeks, uses “geographic” references
when referring to people’s “ethnic” or “national” identities?
“Since the declaration of the Republic of Macedonia the Greek
government has asserted that it has exclusive copyright to the use of the
Star of Vergina. But is has been argued that since modern day Greeks are
not descended from the ancient Greeks: ‘The Star of Vergina is not a
Greek symbol, except in the sense that it happens to have been found in
the territory of the present-day Greek state. The modern day Greeks
appropriate ancient Greek cultural symbols because they happen to live in
more or less the same part of the world as the ancient Greeks did”
(“Experimenting with Democracy Regime Change in the Balkans”, Edited
by Geoffrey Pridham and Tom Gallagher, page 271)
“It is widely recognized that national symbols are often a modern
creation which do not reflect the reality of the circumstances they purport
to represent. Tradition can be invented. Modern Greece, for example, is a
relatively new creation and bears little resemblance to the ancient Greece
which is the source of much of its symbolism.” (“Experimenting with
Democracy Regime Change in the Balkans”, Edited by Geoffrey Pridham
and Tom Gallagher, page 271)
So let us dispense with the niceties and tell it the way it is. Greeks who
know the truth know very well that Macedonians have as much right to the
Macedonian heritage as Greeks do to the Greek heritage. Even though the
Modern Greeks are not the descendents of the so-called ancient Greeks
they consciously laid claim to the ancient Greek heritage. Why are they
then protesting against the Macedonians laying claim to the Macedonian
heritage, even though the Macedonians have been living in Macedonia a
lot longer then the Modern Greeks have lived in Greece? Looking at the
problem another way, why is the world not challenging these imposters for
usurping the Greek heritage? If Macedonians have no right to the
Macedonian heritage then surely the Modern Greeks have no right to the
Greek heritage?
We know that the Greeks acquired Greece and Greek occupied
Macedonia under false pretences so why are we not putting all this on the
table and making it part of the so-called “name negotiations” with Greece?
“And, once again, we came to this often visited intersection; there are
some very progressive Greeks who do not subscribe to this middle-age
Greek thinking and who see the people in the Balkans living in peace and
harmony—these are the true Greeks and then, there are newly created
Greeks, those whose heritage has been wiped out and replaced with the
newly "morphed" ethnicity "Greek-Macedonian". Since they—in this
Greek created problem—stand to lose the most, they are the "true" Greek
soldiers in the forefront fighting the battle. I am sure they wouldn’t dare
dig deeper into their past because they will inevitably find "skeletons"
which have another story to tell: their grandfathers did not even speak
Greek nor did they share in these "megali" Greek dream. What they
dreamed the most and with a heavy heart longed for, were their abandoned
homes, forsaken culture and their way of life in their Asia Minor
communities.
Sooner than later all these Greek lies and fabrications will run their
course and Europe will have no choice but to put an end to this Greek
farce.” (Gandeto, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/98213
“Those who espouse extreme nationalist positions, claiming (as they
invoke Alexander, Philip, and Aristotle) that the name of Macedonia is
exclusively Greek and that there is no such thing as a Macedonian
minority, are reacting to the exigencies of a perhaps genuine dangerous
local situation in which their country faces potentially hostile neighbours
on several fronts; but they are also resuscitating the very logic that has
always compromised their supposed independence to begin with – the
logic according to which all the country’s modern claims must be
evaluated by the yardstick of ancient history.” (Michael Herzfeld,
“Anthropology - Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society”, pages 67
and 68).
“It is a myth that the population exchange ensured an uncontested and
harmonious national homogeneity or that the refugees became integrated
into Greek society in an unproblematic way. The criterion used for the
population exchange was that of religion, in line with the tradition of the
millet system. In many instances the refugees could hardly speak Greek
and many had been reluctant to leave their lands and home where they had
lived for generations.
Although the refugees from Asia Minor are collectively referred to as a
single group, in fact they came from various cultural, linguistic, social and
regional backgrounds.” (“Mediating the Nation - News, Audiences and the
Politics of Identity” by Mirca Madianou, page 31)
And now I leave you with this;

THIS MACEDONIAN SUN

[The National flag]

By Spero Thompson

Patriots rose and fell in the Ilinden uprising

Turks holocaust villages, hope flees the land
Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgars drive out the Ottomans
Partitioning of Macedonia, their Balkan war prize demand

Europe’s power struggles bring a darkness of night

Ilinden, Balkan, World wars; repeatedly Macedonia is overrun
Sunrise overcomes night, announcing a new day
In 1991 history records the rising of the Macedonian Sun

Macedonia’s twentieth century featured bloodshed and hope

Began in bloodshed, ending in independence, hope realized
A standard is raised to represent and identify themselves
By symbol and colour, their nationhood is visualized

For so long a people oppressed and suppressed

Now masters of their own house and land
A century of, sultanate, monarchy, communism then autonomy
Today under their own flag they stand

The Macedonian Sun, a boldly emblazoned flag

On a field of red, a golden risen sun
The sun signifies a new day of self-rule
Red, for a history written in blood, a memorandum

A banner derived from their ancient heraldic emblem

Eyes see… 'we are a people' its proclamation
Proud emigrant sons and daughters see it fly
World acknowledged, flag of their mother nation

Historically, countries play leading or supportive roles

Now Macedonia is cast in a modern part
Ally to all who pursue peace and democracy
The Macedonian Sun, their pledge of national heart

Reader, listener, understand the meaning of this flag

With both prospect and retrospect you will see
The sun looks ahead, to a new era begun
Red, looks back on blood, sacrificed for country

This century, as nations strive, ideology against ideology

Fly in honour and freedom, oh Macedonian Sun
Until all flags are lowered, required no more
When His kingdom come, Gods will be done
Part 17 – Education

Greek lobbyists and the Greek propaganda machine have been busy for
the last couple of centuries ensuring that the “Greek point of view” is not
only promoted but enforced everywhere in the world, particularly in the
English speaking world. As a result today we have a world which believes
Macedonians do not exist and everything that is Macedonian is Greek.
As unbelievable and bizarre as this may sound, it is true. It all starts in
school where children are taught to believe that Macedonians are Greek
and as these children grow up and some become teachers, they in turn
teach new children to believe that Macedonians are Greek and the cycle of
lies continues. How do I know this? I have encountered it myself
personally but that is not what compelled me to write about it. Just recently
I received an angry e-mail from Pete Kondoff who you may know from
the Canadian-Macedonian Historical Society in Toronto, Canada. He is
one of its founders. Pete was angry because of what happened to his
grandson at university.
The problem began when the grandson’s professor asked the students
for some background information in order for her to become better
acquainted with them. When Mr. Kondoff’s grandson was asked for his
ethnic background he replied, “Macedonian” to which his professor
retorted, “Then you must be Greek!”
Why would a professor at a prominent Canadian university think a
Macedonian is “Greek”?
Mr. Kondoff’s grandson is a 4th generation Canadian. The Kondoff
family has been living in North America since the very early 1900’s, even
before Macedonia was invaded and occupied in 1912 and partitioned in
1913 by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. So technically the Kondoff family
has absolutely nothing to do with Greece. As a young man, Pete’s father
immigrated to the United States while Macedonia was still occupied by the
Ottoman Empire.
To be corrected by his professor, who in fact went against his own
beliefs, was not only a surprise but a shock to Pete’s grandson. What do
you say to your professor who just made a huge mistake? I am sure this is
a dilemma many Macedonians face not only in school but at their jobs and
even at parties and outings. It is frustrating and sometimes worrisome. Do
you argue with people and face ridicule because they “perceived you are
ignorant of your own identity” or “do you accept what they say” and keep
quiet and suffer desolation and humiliation in silence?
Pete Kondoff and his wife Mary have been active participants in the
Macedonian community all over North America since their youth. They
have fought for the rights of Macedonians all their lives and Pete, being an
educator himself, was very angry about the incident. How could a
professor at a Canadian university not know about the Macedonians?
Worse, how could a Canadian professor use “Greek propaganda” against a
Macedonian, perhaps even without knowing it? Why and how often does it
happen? These are some of the questions which plague Mr. Kondoff?
Now some of you may think “So what’s the big deal?” mistakes are
made, it was a simple mistake what is the harm in that?
Well, calling a Macedonian “Greek” is like calling a black person “a
slave” or a North American indigenous person “a savage”. It is very
degrading and hurtful and congers up unpleasant memories from painful
past experiences. So why would a professor who would NEVER call a
black person “a slave” or an indigenous person “a savage” call a
Macedonian “Greek”? This thought has haunted Mr. Kondoff from the day
he found out.
Since the incident Pete Kondoff has been vigorously campaigning to
inform the various universities and educators of this problem. Mr. Kondoff
believes the problem is not with the educators themselves but with the
educational system. For years information about the Macedonians has been
compiled through Greece and the Greeks have been skewing it to fit their
own agenda. With the advent of the “Classics” departments, Modern
Greeks have been very influential in Western universities and have been
responsible for compiling the history of the Balkans, particularly ancient
history. Without any opposition from the Macedonians, Greeks have been
revising history, naturally to their advantage, and unfortunately to the
detriment of the Macedonians. The Greeks over the years have carefully
positioned their “specific views” of who the Macedonians are as part of
their history which Mr. Kondoff believes is intentionally done and
designed to mislead the world about the Macedonians.
It is one thing to harmlessly “exaggerate” a little to suit your agenda
but yet another to use “exaggerations” in order to wipe out an entire
culture and to rob it of its lands and heritage.
If it is true that “the law is blind to ignorance” then “unknowingly
spreading false information that contributes to the demise of a culture”
would constitute “breaking the law”. Just because people don’t know they
are telling lies does not mean they are not causing harm! Mr. Kondoff
strongly believes that the educators themselves are victims of this “Greek
propaganda” which has been taught in our schools for over a century. Mr.
Kondoff strongly believes that our educators are ethical people who would
NOT voluntarily spread anyone’s harmful propaganda if they knew that it
was propaganda. The question here is how do we inform our educators that
some of what they are teaching our children may in fact be someone’s
propaganda?
No educator would call a Macedonian “Greek” if they knew the kind
of atrocities the Greeks have committed against the Macedonians. No
educator would ever call a Macedonian “Greek” if they knew the Geeks
used and still use force to assimilate Macedonians for the purpose of
eradicating the Macedonian culture and usurping the Macedonians
heritage.
 What intelligent and civilized person, who has devoted his or her life
to teaching and to making our world a better place, would agree to
promote Greek racist propaganda designed to rob Macedonians of their
land, name, language and heritage if they knew that it was indeed
propaganda? Most educators are dedicated to preserving cultures, not
destroying them.
Therefore it is imperative that we all understand that today’s
Macedonians are the survivors of a brutal Greek cultural war waged
against the Macedonians since 1912 and not just inside Greece but
worldwide, a war that has cost Macedonians their lives, personal freedom,
language and dignity. These Macedonians are survivors of “cultural
genocide” and not only deserve recognition but also respect for their
suffering.
It is indeed WRONG to call a Macedonian “Greek” as much as it is
wrong to call a black person a slave. If you believe Greeks have done
wrong to the Macedonians then please stop calling them “Greek”. They
have their own identity, call them Macedonian! Please stop the abuse.
Mr. Kondoff believes that the educational system must take
responsibility for its own actions first by identifying and removing what is
deemed “politically motivated propaganda” from their curriculums. If the
universities care for the rights of all people then why not let their educators
teach “the Macedonian experience”. If there are differences in opinion
between Macedonians and Greeks then tell both sides of the story. It’s
about time Macedonians are given an opportunity to tell their own side of
the story.
It is also about time that the world learns of another side of Greece and
what it has done to (1) secure its own place in the world and (2) its use of
its “place” as leverage to usurp Macedonia’s history. But our subject here
today is not about “the history” itself but about how Greece has distorted
history to deny the Macedonian people their identity, culture and basic
human rights.
By calling a Macedonian “Greek” you in effect unwittingly insult all
Macedonians and deny them their most basic human right, the right to
exist as Macedonians. A Macedonian knows he or she is not “Greek” and
if you deny them the right to be Macedonian then what do you expect them
to be? Is it not enough that Macedonians suffered for a century under
Greek oppression? Do we really need western university professors calling
them “Greek”? When is the abuse going to end?
I want to make it perfectly clear that we don’t blame the educators for
teaching what they teach but at the same time we cannot just sit idly and
witness our human rights being trampled. That is why we appeal to every
reader to do their part and make sure their local school boards and
universities are well aware of this problem. Macedonians are not “Greeks”
and object to being called “Greek” because by calling them “Greek” you
not only abuse and insult them but you unwittingly trample on their human
rights. Macedonians have the right to call themselves Macedonian not only
because they are Macedonian but because they have that right under
international law.
As much as we like to allow our professors the freedom to teach
whatever they deem appropriate we also have the responsibility to protect
the rights of those who are mistakenly misrepresented. It is our duty to also
make sure “past wrongs” are corrected. Therefore we appeal to every
educational institution to re-examine their policies regarding Macedonia
and the Macedonians.
We are well aware of the so-called “Greek contribution” to Western
European culture but as Macedonians we too have our own experience
with Greece and so far it has not been pleasant!
“The Europeanisation of Mass Education and the Re-Writing of
History
A second area where EU officials have sought to invent Europe as a
category of thought is in the education sector. This is summed up most
vividly in the notion of ‘introducing the European dimension’ into national
school curricula, textbooks, and university syllabuses. Central to the
process of constructing any new political order is the mobilization of
history and memory. As Anderson (1983), Gellner (1983) and Hobsbawm
(1990) remind us, mass education – together with conscription, taxation
and state violence – were the foremost technologies for inculcating
nationalist consciousness among the peoples of the emergent nation states.
For this reason, EU officials now emphasize the importance of re-writing
history from a European perspective to challenge the nationalist bias of
traditional ways of teaching and learning (Brugmans 1987). But what does
history look like from this ‘European perspective’?
Typically, EU historiography – like Seton-Watson’s view of European
culture – represents the last 3,000 years of European history as a kind of
moral success story: a gradual coming together in the shape of the
European community and its institutions. According to this conception,
European history is an evolutionary process that starts with ‘prehistory’
(where the key stages include Homo Erectus, megalithic civilization, the
Neolithic revolutions and the bronze Age), before advancing to the age of
classical antiquity. The result is that European identity is portrayed as the
end product of a progressive ascent through history – albeit a highly
selective history – from ancient Greece and Rome, to the spread of
Christianity, the scientific revolution, the Age of Reason, the
Enlightenment and the triumph of liberal democracy. These key episodes
thus become palimpsests for an essential European cultural community: a
‘core Europe’ whose common bonds lie in its shared heritage, moral
ascendancy and cultural continuity.
The EU’s choice of ‘ERASMUS’ and ‘SOCRATES’ as acronyms for
its two major educational exchange programmes is a minor example of
this. Another is the targeting of the Acropolis and Mount Athos as the two
largest EU-funded projects within its ‘Conservation of Europe’s
Archaeological Heritage’ initiative.
French historians seem to have made a particularly noticeable
contribution to the EU’s attempts to re-write history. For example, in one
recent EU-sponsored history textbook Henri Brugman’s (former rector of
the Collège d’Europe) has an essay entitled: ‘Europe : a common
civilization, a destiny, a vocation’ (Brugmans 1987:11). In the same
volume, George Pflimlin (1987:9) describes the last 3,000 years of
European history as ‘le miracle européan’. Similarly the historian Hélène
Ahrweiler argues that there does indeed exist ‘an essential Europe’: “All
peoples (Valéry says ‘races’) and all lands which were in turn Romanized,
Christianized and subjected – at least mentally – to Greek discipline, are
thoroughly European…Everywhere where the names of Caesar, Caius,
Trajan, and Virgil, everywhere where the names of Aristotle, Plato and
Euclid have simultaneously held meaning and authority, that is Europe”
(Ahrweiler 1999:32).
The idea that European cultural unity is founded upon a shared ancient
civilization is attractive to the architects of political integration and clearly
informs much of their campaigning work. The problem with such a notion,
however, is that it reifies an outdated idea of cultures as fixed, unitary and
bounded wholes that is both sociologically outmoded and politically
dangerous. As Pieterse (1951:5) states, ‘what is being recycled as
“European culture” is nineteenth century elite imperial myth formation’.
EU officials and image-makers, however, continue to draw on ‘classical’
images in their quest to identify the essential elements of European culture,
and show little sensitivity towards post-colonial criticisms of Western
orientalism.
Typically, EU officials justify their attempts to promote the re-writing
of history books to reflect the ‘European perspective’ on the grounds that
this is necessary to combat the hegemony of nationalist ideology, which
they regard as the primary obstacle to European union. The result,
however, is that nationalist ideology is simply substituted for a new
ideology of ‘Europeanism’. For example, writing in a recent EU
‘information’ booklet Pascal Fontaine (Monet’s former chef de cabinet and
Director of the Commission’s Information Office in Paris) charts the
progress of the ‘European ideal’:
“…in the nineteenth century, it was an inspiration for poets and
romantics, only to be distorted by conquerors seeking to justify their lust
for power. It did not come to full expression in practical form, however,
until a handful of courageous, visionary statesmen determined to put a stop
to the loss of life that seemed to be the inevitable outcome of conflicts
between nation-states” (Fontaine 1991:5).
The true saviours of Europe are thus not the leaders of the Resistance
or the Allies, but Monnet, Spaaks, Schuman, De Gaspari and Adenauer:
these ‘visionary statesmen’ have become the symbolic guardians and
ancestors of the ‘European ideal’. But if Europe symbolizes peace and
prosperity, the nation state is construed as an agent of conflict and war. To
complete this heroic myth of itself, the EU has also produced a series of
films and videos for distribution to schools, colleges and local authorities.
These include ‘Jean Monnet, Father of Europe’, ‘A European journey’ (a
jingoistic potted history of the various stages achievements and future of
European integration); ‘The Tree of Europe’ ([a]n original feature which
will make all Europeans aware of the common roots of their past’); and
‘After Twenty Centuries’, which surveys 2,000 years of European history
and features Europeans’ ‘shared experiences at political, intellectual and
cultural level’ (European Commission 1991:1-5).
Jean Baptiste Duroselle’s (1990) volume, Europe, A History of Its
Peoples, represents an even more ambitious attempt to re-configure
history. This 416 page magnum opus – part textbook, part manifesto –
reflects the historiography implicit in EC discourses on culture. Chapter
one opens with the image of rape of the Greek Goddess ‘Europa’, and
proceeds to discuss the geographical complexity and uniqueness of the
continent (sic) of Europe. Chapter three describes the Celts and Teutons as
the first Indo-Europeans. Chapter four proceeds under the heading
‘Classical Antiquity: Greek Wisdom, Roman Grandeur’. Chapter five (‘the
First Four Centuries AD in the West’) is devoted exclusively to the
expansion of Christianity. Chapter seven is a lengthy discussion of
whether Charlemagne’s empire marks the ‘beginnings of Europe’. Chapter
eight (‘Europe Under Siege’) opens with a vivid image of banner-waving
Saracens on horseback - ‘European civilization’ thus being equated
unequivocally with Christendom defending itself against the resurgent
forces of Islam. The book continues in a similar vein until Chapter
seventeen (The Road to European Disaster’) which deals with nationalism.
Chapter eighteen (‘Europe Destroys Itself’) which covers the period of
1914-1945, and finally chapter nineteen, ‘Europe’s Recovery and
Resurgent Hopes’, which focuses on the ‘makers of Europe’ and the
‘building of Europe in the face of Gaullism’. The net result is that
European history is presented as the story of reason and unity triumphing
over disunity and nationalism – the apotheosis of the Enlightenment
project, or what Wolf (1992:5) calls ‘history as a genealogy of progress’. It
is invariably a selective, sanitized and typically heroic re-reading of the
past, one that systematically excludes or ignores the less noble aspects of
European modernity such as the history of slavery, anti-Semitism,
colonialism or imperial conquest. The author’s conclusion that Europe’s
history has been marked by a ‘general if halting growth in compassion,
humanity and equality’ (Duroselle 1990:413), simply confirms this
interpretation. History, it seems, is as much about ‘forgetting’ as it is about
remembering and interpreting past events.”

Source:
“Europe Cultural Construction and Reality”, edited by Peter Niedermuller
& Bjarne Skolund, pages 59 to 61

After reading the above, does anyone still think there is room in
Western Europe for Macedonia? After what is said and done, do
Macedonians really think they are welcome in the European Union?
Part 18 – Assimilation

It is difficult to convince Macedonians that Greeks exist when most

“Greeks” they know are in reality assimilated Macedonians, some their
own relatives. There are hundreds of thousands of Macedonians today who
will testify that they have family members who identify as “Greeks”. I too
have extended family members who identify as “Greeks”. But how can
they be “Greeks”, a supposedly unique ethnic group different than mine,
when I know for a fact we share common great-grandparents whom I
know were Macedonians?
The so-called “Greeks” who today live in Greek occupied Macedonia
are either assimilated Macedonians, like my extended relatives, or other
assimilated, imported ethnic groups such as Vlachs, Albanians, Christian
Turks, Russians, etc. The Greek government officially does not recognize
any of the “ethnic groups” living anywhere in Greek occupied Macedonia,
which has been a Greek practice since 1912 when Greece along with its
partners Serbia and Bulgaria invaded, occupied and divided Macedonia.
So in spite of Greek attempts to portray “Greek” as a “unique
ethnicity” with roots extending back to ancient times, the word “Greek” is
nothing more than an “umbrella” word that defines a criteria and a method
by which various ethnic groups are assimilated and made into “Greeks”.
“Greek” is not an ethnic term and to be “Greek” by choice one only needs
to abandon their true “ethnicity”, name and language and accept a Greek
name, the Greek language and subscribe to the “Hellenic club” of being a
descendant of the ancient Greeks.
In this chapter we will examine the Greek assimilatory policies and
practices put in place in Macedonia since the 1850’s in order to better
understand how the “Greek identity” in Macedonia has been artificially
created.
What most Macedonians of the late 19th and early 20th century did not
know is that the “Greeks” they encountered since the 1850’s were not
“Greeks” at all but assimilated Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs and other ethnic
groups. Assimilation of ethnicities into the “Greek” fold did not just begin
with the Macedonians; it was well practiced much earlier in the
Peloponnesus, Epirus and Thessaly with the Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs
living there.
As we have shown in previous chapters, “Hellenization” was invented
in Western Europe by the Philhellenes and then first put into practice in
the early 1800’s in the region of Greece today known as the Peloponnesus.
The aim at the time was to drive out the Ottomans, establish a “Greek”
state and resurrect the so-called “Greek civilization” which existed in that
region some 2,500 years ago. What the Philhellenes failed to understand or
did not care at all is that the people living in that region at the time were
not the descendents of the ancients but the descendents of Slav, Albanian
and Vlach immigrants who had migrated into that region two millennia
after the ancients disappeared.
The Philhellene aim was to “enlighten” these immigrants and teach
them to believe that they were the descendants of the ancients and by
instilling in them the language and mannerisms of the ancients, make them
their descendants. Surprisingly the process worked as many Slavs,
Albanians and Vlachs bought into the idea and began to behave as if they
truly were the descendents of the ancients.
To make these people forget who they were and give them new
identities, Greek authorities, with the help of their Philhellene patrons,
introduced a new language, an ancient dead language, and renamed all
people and place names to Greek sounding ones. To make them sound
authentic and “survivours of time” wherever possible modern names were
replaced with ancient ones.
We know from old maps and documents that most of the villages and
other place names in the Peloponnesus before the Greek state was created
were of Slavic origin but by the end of the 19th century they were all
changed to Greek sounding ones, a practice Greece later used in
Macedonia during the 1920’s and 1930’s.
By the time Greece occupied Macedonia in 1912 the people and place
names in the Peloponnesus, Thessaly and Epirus were already changed.
Assimilation and the process of Hellenization in Macedonia began in
the early 1850’s with the introduction of the Greek Patriarchate Church.
The process was accelerated in the late 1870’s after Macedonia was
liberated from the Ottoman Empire by Russia and given back to the
Ottomans by the Western Powers. When Greece realized that the
Macedonian question was not settled and it knew it had a chance to grab
Macedonian territories, it accelerated its policy of “Hellenizing
Macedonians” through the introduction of more Patriarchate churches and
Greek schools. Bulgaria did the same through the introduction of the
Bulgarian Exarchate church and Bulgarian schools.
Then when Macedonia was invaded occupied and partitioned during
the 1912 and 1913 Balkan Wars, all three occupying states (Greece, Serbia
and Bulgaria) began a process of forced assimilation. The first step that
Greece took was to expel all Muslims from its Macedonian occupied
territories. The second step was to expel all those who refused to abandon
the Exarchate church in favour of the Patriarchate. The Greek army was
given free reign to do whatever it wanted and as a result many
Macedonians were killed, raped, tortured, robbed and many villages were
burned and hundreds of thousands were left homeless.
The following links provide more information on the Greek atrocities
committed against the Macedonian civilian population in 1913.
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov61.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov64.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov67.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov72.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov76.html
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov80.html

Unfortunately none of the people who committed these crimes have

been punished and no justice for the Macedonian people has ever been
served.
After the end of the 1st World War and after Greece established itself in
Macedonia, it began a policy of renaming people and places. All peoples’
surnames and given names were changed as well as the names of cities,
villages, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc. Macedonian personal names were
replaced with Greek sounding ones and registered in peoples’ personal
identification cards.
Even though Greece established Greek schools in Macedonia, most of
the adult population did not speak Greek and were forced to take night
classes to learn the Greek language. Then when the dictator Metaxas took
power in Greece, the Macedonian language was banned by law and anyone
speaking Macedonian was given a hefty fine. Repeat offenders were jailed,
beaten and even forced to drink castor oil. Plain clothes policemen roamed
the streets and market places and hid in people’s yards listening under
windows. These policemen were paid a commission for each person they
fined so there was plenty of incentive for them to be vigilant.
In order to eradicate everything Macedonian, the Greek government
also initiated policies to erase all Macedonian writing in churches, church
icons, tombstones, signs and writing in public buildings. All books, bibles
and remnants from the Exarchate church or from previous periods were
collected and burned, regardless of their value.
Then in the 1950’s entire Macedonian villages were forced to take an
oath in public that they would never speak their Macedonian mother
tongue and to pledge loyalty to Greece and to the Greek King.
To ensure that everything Macedonian was forgotten and to expedite
the assimilation process of Hellenizing the Macedonians, the Greek state
encouraged its administrators to take Macedonian wives and make sure the
children were brought up as Greeks. But when that too was not succeeding
the Greek state introduced day-care centers and kindergartens for very
young children to ensure the Macedonian children learned the Greek
language.
Greece says there are no Macedonians in Greece but fails to explain
why there are so many day-care centers and kindergartens for Macedonian
children. In the last decade or so there has been an increase in the number
of kindergartens and day-care centers opened for pre-school children in
cities and villages where Macedonians live in larger numbers. For
example in the city Kalamata in the Peloponnesus there are only two day-
care centers for 60,000 residents. In Athens there are only ten where as in
Lerin (Florina), Voden (Edesa), Kostur (Kastoria) and other places in
“Northern Greece” there are 48 day-care centers and new ones are
constantly being opened. The reason for having so many pre-schools is
because many three year old Macedonian children do not speak the Greek
language and that is because at home they speak mainly Macedonian.
The idea for sending these very young children to school at such an
early age is a well concocted plan by the Greek government which always
looks for ways to assimilate the Macedonians. By separating the children
from their families at a very young age, the Greek government hopes that
they will never have the chance to learn the Macedonian language which is
a constant reminder that they are not Greeks.
Members of the Macedonian minority in Greece say that the
nationalistic politics of Greece are deeply entrenched in the Greek
educational system. Greeks do not recognize the existence of minorities
and will not allow minorities to speak or to be educated in their own
language even though, according to all European conventions, they have a
right to do so.
Besides the assimilatory policies carried out through education and
various other incentives in Greece there is also a dark side to this
assimilation; the use of terror. Macedonians have always been discouraged
from speaking their Macedonian language and for feeling Macedonian.
Tactics used to discourage Macedonians from expressing their ethnic
Macedonian sentiments included fines, imprisonment, beatings, torture and
even death. Children have often been given the strap, made to drink castor
oil and scolded in public for uttering Macedonian words or for wearing
Macedonian clothing.
The Greek state has made it abundantly clear that there is no room for
Macedonians in “Northern Greece”, the native homeland of the
Macedonian people. By calling that part of Macedonia, annexed by
Greece in 1913, “Greek occupied Macedonia” we as Macedonians are
expressing our sentiments of exactly how we feel as citizens of Greece.
Being prohibited by Greece from expressing our Macedonian sentiments
in our own homeland is equivalent to being occupied and it is only fitting
that we refer to our homeland as “Greek occupied Macedonia”.
Besides forcing people to become “Greeks” against their will, there is
the downside to being “Greek” and that is people are cut off from their
past. Being “Greek” means that one can no longer be Macedonian, speak
the Macedonian language, enjoy the Macedonian culture or have a history
prior to becoming a “Greek”. This means that any Macedonian who
accepts to be “Greek” must also accept to “forget their past”. Being given
a “new Greek name” means loss of continuity with ones own past and
having to accept a fabricated past.
Greek history in Macedonia begins with the invasion and occupation of
Macedonia. All those Macedonians who accepted to become Greeks
voluntarily had to also accept that their history began the moment their
names were changed and any Greek history prior to that had to be
fabricated. Similarly, all villages whose names were changed by the Greek
administration have no history associated with their new name and their
history too had to be fabricated.
“The concept of a ‘Hellenic’ state as elaborated in Western Europe
presupposes that this was to be the heir to the ancient Greek (Hellenic)
world.
Thus, as Greek intellectuals soon realized the phoenix myth proved too
weak to support a national ideology. For ‘Hellenism’ as a cultural
discourse corresponded to the ‘revival’ of ancient Greece, which resulted
in the inevitable rejection of all the in-between periods. The forgotten
periods were now treated as ‘empty pages’ to be filled in. The silence was
attributed to the religious prejudices of the Catholic West against Orthodox
Byzantium an argument which in turn nurtured the Orthodox anti-Western
trends. There was an obvious need for a narrative to replace the one
coming from abroad. It was time for ‘real’ Greek history to be written”.
(“Discourse of Collective identity in Central and South-East Europe
(1779-1945)”, Edited by Balaz Trencsenyi and Michael Kopesec, page
73).
“The common Greek language in the last quarter of the twentieth
century was neither a restored version of the tongue of the popular heroes
of the Greek revolution, nor the demotic of the Diaspora intellectuals. It
was passed through the filter of the Katharevousa, just as national ideology
passed through the filter of the ‘Hellenization’ process. In the Greek
language through the sixteen to the eighteenth centuries the word
‘Hellenic’ meant the language of ancient Greece. In Greek today, the word
‘Hellenic’ means modern Greece and one needs to add the adjective
‘ancient’ to refer to the language of the classical era. In the academic
programs in the English speaking world, though, ‘Greek’ refers to the
Classical-language programs. During the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, modern Greece was ‘Hellenized’ and ‘Hellenism’ acquired a
modern Greek version.” (“Hellenisms Culture, Identity and Ethnicity from
Antiquity to Modernity” edited by Katerina Zacharia, page 229)
“The tourist who travels today in Greece recognizes in the regions
visited the names of places encountered in ancient Greek literature,
mythology and history. But the visitor does not know that this map of
ancient Greece has been constantly redesigned over the last 170 years, that
is, since the beginning of the Greek state.” (“Hellenisms Culture, Identity
and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity” edited by Katerina Zacharia,
page 230)
“The modification of the place names began just after the constitution
of the Greek state in the early 1830’s, and went hand in hand with the
reorganization of the administration of the country and its divisions into
prefectures, municipalities and parishes. The people attempting the
renaming of spaces were conscious of the ideological importance of this
action.
 The renaming of space was not achieved in a single attempt but was a
long process that went on for decades. It took place each time a new region
was integrated into the Greek state. This was the integration of Thessaly
(1881), of Macedonia (1913), and of Thrace (1920). Every time they
carried out a reform of the local administration – until as recently as 1998;
when many municipalities and communities were reunited with the so-
called Kapodistrian plan ‘new’ Greek classical names, previously
unknown to the local inhabitants, made their appearance.
Which were the toponyms that had to disappear? According to the
Greek authorities, they were the toponyms that were ‘foreign or did not
sound good’, in other words those that were in ‘bad Greek’.” (“Hellenisms
Culture, Identity and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity” edited by
Katerina Zacharia, pages 230 and 231)
“The middle of the nineteenth century was the stage of a conflict
between the Greek intelligentsia and Fallmerayer, who maintained that, in
the middle ages, Greece was inhabited by Slavs and Albanian peoples. As
a consequence, Greek intellectuals were prompt to erase all the Slavic and
Albanian names which could support the rival arguments. In 1909 the
government-appointed commission on toponyms reported that one village
in three in Greece (that is, 30% of the total) should have its name changed
(of the 5,096 Greek villages 1,500 were considered as ‘speaking a barbaric
language’).” (“Hellenisms Culture, Identity and Ethnicity from Antiquity
to Modernity” edited by Katerina Zacharia, pages 231 and 232)
“After the Balkan wars (1912-1913), new reasons were added to the
previous ones: Names ought be changed so as not to ‘give rise to
damaging ethnological implications to the Greek nation, of a sort which
could be used against us by our enemies’. The new enemy was the
revisionism of the northern borders acquired after the Balkan wars,
through the use of minority issues.” (“Hellenisms Culture, Identity and
Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity” edited by Katerina Zacharia, page
232)
Part 19 - Fifty authors can’t still all be wrong!

There are some staunch Modern Greeks out there that still don’t get it!
Being told that you are a “Greek” or pretending to be a Greek does not
really make you a Greek, at least not the kind of Greek you think you are!
We have shown over and over again that “anyone” can become a
Greek by accepting the “Greek indoctrination” and that is to learn to speak
the Greek language, feel Greek and “pretend” to be a descendent of the so-
called “Ancient Greeks”. You can learn to speak Greek and feel Greek as
much as you want but you can’t “pretend” to be something you are not!
People should not “pretend” to be something they are not if they want to
be taken seriously! Acting like you are the descendents of the so-called
“Ancient Greeks”, speaking their language and feeling like them does not
make you the descendants of the Ancient Greeks! It would be to your
advantage to not only learn “the truth” about yourselves but to either
embrace it or accept to reject it. Modern Greeks are the descendents of the
Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs that immigrated to Greece during the 11th to
the 14th centuries AD and all other people that subsequently settled in that
region ever since.
The ancient Greeks that you think of and speak of so fondly died off
even before Rome conquered Achaea (Greece proper) about two centuries
before Christ. When the Romans walked into Athens they found a
population made up mostly of slaves. These slaves became the new
citizens of Achaea after they were freed by Rome. Unfortunately they too
perished over time and that is precisely why Byzantine Emperors and later
Ottoman Sultans had to repopulate Achaea first with Slav immigrants and
later with Albanians and Vlachs.
Therefore the true ancestors of the Modern Greeks are the Slavs,
Albanians and Vlachs and all others that landed in Greece since the
disappearance of the so-called ancient Greeks.
Here is evidence from fifty different authors that proves my point that
Modern Greeks today are NOT the descendents of the “Ancient Greeks”
and are the descendents of the Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs.
1. “The [Greek] claim to southern Albania rests entirely on the
assumption that the majority of the population is Greek. The Greeks are
stated to number 120,000 and Albanians 80,000. But who are the
‘Greeks’? At least five sixths of them, if not more are Christian Albanians
of the Orthodox faith, Albanians in sentiment and language, who because
they acknowledge the Patriarch of Constantinople are declared to be Greek
in point of ‘national consciousness’.” (“The Nineteenth Century and After
XIX-XX a Monthly Review”, founded by James Knowles, Vol. LXXXVI,
July-December 1919, page 645.)
2. “Did the Greeks constitute a race apart from the Albanians the Slavs
and the Vlachs? Yes and no. High school students were told that the ‘other
races’, i.e. the Slavs the Albanians and the Vlachs ‘having been Hellenized
with the years in terms of mores and customs, are now being assimilated
into the Greeks’.” (“Greece in the 20th Century”, Editors Theodore A.
Couloumbis, Theodore Kariots, Fotini Bellou, page 24.)
3. “The Turkish village which formally clustered around the base of
the Acropolis [old Athens] has not disappeared: it forms a whole quarter of
the town.
An immense majority of the population in this quarter is composed of
Albanians.” (“Greece and the Greeks of the Present Day”, by Edmund
About, page 160.)
4. “Through the end of the revolution in 1830, Greeks, including most
of the nineteenth-century nationalists, seemed to have had a vague but firm
sense of continuity from ancient to modern Greece, though this was not
articulated in racial terms but on the basis of a common language, history
and consciousness. In effect at this time, whoever called themselves a
Greek was a Greek. It is because of this that many Greek-speaking
Albanians, Slavs, Rumanians and Vlachs were easily assimilated and
indeed became important players in Greek patriotism at the time.” (“The
Empty Cradle of Democracy”, by Alexandra Halkias, page 59.)
5. “The first Greek who had a plan for insurrection and for a liberated
Greece was Rhigas of Valestino.
Rhigas was the author of poems, revolutionary proclamations and a
constitution…
In this document he spoke of a sovereign people of the proposed state
as including ‘without distinction of religion and language – Greeks,
Albanians, Vlachs, Armenians, Turks and every other race’.
It seems that in their minds the distinction between ‘Greek’ and
‘Orthodox’ was still blurred.” (“Appleton’s Annual Cyclopedia and
register of important events 1901”, Third Series Volume VI, page 113.)
6. “There cannot be an Athenian alive today who can trace a direct line
of descent from classical times to the present day without leaving Athens.
Because of numerous and protracted foreign occupations, true Athenians
were a relatively small minority even in the Age of Pericles. In a later
period, the city was suffering from severe depopulation and was re-stocked
with Albanians. At the time of Greek independence in 1834, Athens was a
miserable village with a population of only 6,000.” (“Insight Guides
Athens Greece Series”, page 42.)
7. “It is one of a group made famous in the Greek revolution of 1821
by the bravery of its Albanian settlers, in defense of a country which they
had never adopted for their own till this moment of danger came.
They brought to it moreover, the hoarded wealth of many years. Albanian
captains, Albanian ships and Albanian gold became the strength of the
Greek and the dread of the Turk. The successful close of the revolution
found them as firmly allied with the Greek nationality as they have been
previously alien to it, and there are now no names more honoured and
beloved in Athens, no families more influential in its polite circles, than
those of the Albanian leaders in the war of 1821, the Tombazis, the
Miaulis the Condouriottis.” (“The Atlantic Monthly: A magazine of
literature, science, art and politics Vol. XLIX, January 1882, page 31.)
8. “Among the numerous islands of the Egian, arise several barren
rocks, some of which are however gifted by nature with small and
commodious heavens. Of this number are Hydra, Spezzia and Ipsara, the
first two close to the Eastern shore of the Peloponnesus, and the latter not
far from Scio, on the Asiatic coast. Tyranny and Want had driven some
families, whose origin, like that of nearly all the peasants, who inhabited
proper Greece, was Albanian, to take refuge on these desolate crags, where
they built villages and sought a precarious existence by fishing.” (“The
Greek Revolution; in origin and progress”, by Edward Blaquiere Esq.,
page 21.)
9. “In reality however, just before the Greek war of independence,
most Greeks still referred to themselves as ‘Romans. Vlachavas, the priest
rebel leader who rose against the Ottomans, declared, ‘A Romneos I was
born a Romneos I will die.” (“Bloodlines from the Ethnic Pride to Ethnic
Terrorism”, by Vamik Volkan, page 121..
10. “Constantinople and all continental Greece were for centuries ruled
and occupied by the Romans, and during many subsequent centuries
invaded and colonized by Slavs. The Crusades and the Latin conquest
brought a large influx of western Europeans, commonly called Franks,
and, in later times, extensive Albanian settlements were made in Greek
districts. Clearly, the modern Greek must be of very mixed blood.”
(“Turkey in Europe” by Sir Charles Elliot, page 267.)
11. “But it has been argued that since the modern day Greeks are not
the descendents of the ancient Greeks: ‘The Star of Vergina is not a Greek
symbol, except in the sense that it happens to have been found in the
territory of the present-day Greek state…’.” (“Experimenting with
Democracy Regime change in the Balkans”, edited by Geoffrey Pridham
and Tom Gallagher, page 271.)
12. “Contemporary historians state the Emperor Basilius also was a
Sclavonian; many cities bearing Sclavonian appellations still exist in
Greece, as, for instance, Platza, Stratza, Lutzana,…” (“The Foreign
Quarterly Review Vol. XXVI”, published in October M. DCCC. XL.,
1841, page 73.)
13. “By the fourteenth century Orthodox Christian Arvanites had made
their way into the Greek thema of the Byzantine Empire, which largely
comprised the land that now constitutes Greece. They first came to Attica
as early as 1383…They did not complete their immigration until 1759,
when Sultan Murat III offered them land in Athens…Thus the Arvanites
were already inhabiting Athens when the city became the capital of Greece
in 1834.” (“Fragments of Death Fables of Identity An Athenian
Anthropography” by Nani Panourgia, page 27.)
 14. “I have already said, and I will repeat it, that not one-fifth of the
present population can with justice be called Greeks. The remainder are
Slavonians, Albanians and Turks, with a slight infusion of Venetian
blood.” (“Travels in Greece and Russia”, by Bayard Tailor, 1872, page
262.)
15. “It should be stressed, however, that the Greeks as an ethnic
community during this period [1840’s] included many Grecophone or
Hellenized Vlachs, Serbs or Orthodox Albanians.” (“Greece and the
Balkans Identities, Perceptions and Cultural Encounters since the
Enlightenment”, edited by Dimitris Tziovas, page 6.)
16. “All Greek soldiers are required to be able to read and write, and if
a conscript on joining has not acquired those rudiments of education, he is
put to school. Not withstanding, the educational efforts of the government,
as many as 30 percent proven fifteen years or so ago to be completely
illiterate, while not more than 25 per cent had advanced beyond the ‘three
R’s’. This may be partly accounted for by the fact that these conscripts
included both Albanians from the settlements in Attica and other parts of
the Kingdom and pastoral Koutso-Vlachs, all of whom habitually speak
their own dialects and learn Greek only as a foreign tongue.” (“Greece of
the Hellenes”, by Lucy M. J. Garnett, 1914, pages 33 and 34.)
17. “I could speak Turkish, and the Macedonian dialect, besides my
own Greek tongue, and as a curious boy in the holidays I had been here
and there, wishing to know more of the world round me and the people
who lived in other villages than mine.
Being neither Turkish nor Greek, we called them Bulgarian, but their
language is not Bulgarian, but the Macedonian dialect, and I found lovable
people among them, honest, hospitable and kind.” (“When I was a Boy in
Greece” by George Demetrios, pages 131 and 132.)
18. “The migration of the Albanians is the best attested and in many
ways the most instructive of migrations into Greece….
We had difficulty staying because they were rather suspicious of us,
but we stayed with a man who talked Greek as his main language,
although he talked to his wife in Albanian…
The ancestors of these people probably came to the Epidaurus in the
fourteenth or fifteenth century, but they were still talking Albanian as their
mother tongue in 1930….
Albanian was the language they talked among themselves, but they
could also talk Greek. This was their second language although they lived
in Greece….
The one in Epirus which was still Albanian in its customs and its
language had probably been there since about 1400…
A group of 10,000 Albanians with their families and their flocks
appeared there, and asked if they could be admitted to the Peloponnesus.
They were accepted by Theodore, who was the principle ruler of the
Peloponnesus…” (“Greece Old and New”, by Nicholas Hammond, edited
by Tom Winnifrith and Penelope Murray, Pages 39 to 44.)
19. “…so, in the Middle Ages, these Albanian mountaineers have
brought both war like spirit, bright costume, and beauty of person, to
refresh the Hellenic race. There are still, even in Attica, districts where
Albanian is the common language; there are Albanian names famous in
Greek annals, especially in the great war of independence (1821-1831) and
even among the sailors of Hydra, so famed for their commercial enterprise
and their deeds of war, the chief families were Albanian in origin.”
(“Greek Pictures drawn with pen and pencil” by J. P. Mahaffy, M.A. D.D.,
1890, pages 20 and 21.)
20. “Groups of men in stately Albanian costume, with their grand
walk and graceful air, stalk up and down with eastern impassibility, price
an article, call for a ‘fotia’ (brazier of coals for lighting cigarettes) , at the
cafés, or converse in the strange patois of Greece about the last conclusion
of the ‘vouli’ or house of delegates.” (“Greek Vignettes a sail in the Greek
Seas, Summer of 1877”, by James Albert Herrison, page 148.)
21. “In the 1770’s a fiery Orthodox preacher, the monk Kosmas of
Aetolia, tried to stem the tide of mass conversions to Islam in the Northern
Greek lands by founding Greek schools in a score of villages in Thessaly,
Epirus and Macedonia, where the language had long been abandoned for
Albanian, Vlach or Slav, and obliged peasants to speak only Greek.”
(“Greece the Modern Sequel from 1821 to the Present”, by John S.
Koliopoulos and Thanos M. Veremis, page 159.)
22. “…following the alleged discovery of Slavic buildings by the
German excavator at Olympia. The claims were answered by
Paparrigopoulos himself, by reinstating his 1843 position that there was
indeed a Slavic presence in the Peloponnesus in the Middle Ages, but that
the Greeks need not worry because the Slavs were culturally absorbed…”
(“The Nation and its Ruins”, by Yannis Hamilakis, page 115.)
23. “In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Anatolia
and established two principalities under their leaders…
Naupactas fell into their control in 1378…
Other Albanians and Vlachs invaded the Catalan principality of
Boeotia and Attica, and a great many Albanians settled there as peasant-
farmers in 1368 and later….
The penetration of the Greek mainland which we have described
occurred during the hundred or more years after 1325.” (“Migrations and
Invasions in Greece and Adjacent Areas”, by Nicholas G. L. Hammond,
page 59.)
24. “When arriving by airplane at Athens, one lands at the new airport
at Spata. Spata is a town situated in the Messogia region that bears and
Arvanite name that means ‘axe’ or ‘sword’ (in Greek ‘spaps’, spaya from
which derives the Albanian Spata). The term ‘Arvanite’ is the medieval
equivalent of ‘Albanian’. It is retained today for the descendants of the
Albanian tribes that migrated to the Greek lands during the period
covering two centuries, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth.” (“Hellenism
Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity”, edited by
Katerina Zacharia, page 230.)
25. “With them it would be a resurrection, accomplished, no doubt,
after vast pains and many troubles, the more so since the Greeks are a
composite people among whom the descendents of the veritable Greeks of
old are in great minority. The majority are of Albanian and Suliot blood,
races which even the Romans found untamable.” (“In Greek Waters: a
story of the Grecian War of Independence (1821-1827), by G. A. Henty,
1893, page 40.)
26. “Where are we to look for the descendents of the Greeks of old?
Travelers tell us that, as late as the sixteenth century, Athens was but a
castle with a small village; and that Sparta, divided by two tribes of the
Slavi, the Ezeriti and the Milingi, had not only lost her ancient name, but it
was impossible to recognize the site in which she had stood of old.”
(“History of the Island of Corfu” by Henry Jervis-White Jervis ESQ., page
250.)
27. “General interest was first aroused by a controversy as to the racial
derivation of modern Greeks. The war of Independence had won the
sympathy of Europe; and it was a rude shock both to Greece and to her
champions when Fallmerayer announced that her inhabitants were
virtually Slavs. The race of the Hellenes he declared in his ‘History of the
Morea’ was routed out, and Athens was unoccupied from the sixth to the
tenth century. Only its literature and a few ruins survived to tell that the
Greek people had ever existed. What the Slavs had began the Albanians
completed.” (“History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century”, by G. P.
Gooch, 1918, page 491.)
28. “There were few Muslims here; the inhabitants largely of Albanian
stock, were only imperfectly assimilated into the Greek nation…”
(“Politics in Modern Greece”, by Keith R. Legg, page 48.)
“The term ‘Greek’ differentiates the language spoken by inhabitants of
modern Greece from the languages of the surrounding countries; but there
is disagreement on what the Greek language was, is, or should be. At the
time of independence, the range of local dialects was significant;
substantial portions of the population spoke Albanian.” (“Politics in
Modern Greece”, by Keith R. Legg, page 86.)
29. “…followed by violence, recourse was had to arms, and the two
elder brothers united against Vely, the offspring of a slave; who being
forced to expatriate himself, embraced the perilous profession of those
Albanian knights errant, more commonly known by the appellation of
kleftes or brigands.” (“The Life of Ali Pasha of Jannina, 1823, page 26.)
30. “There is the case of Karamanlides, a predominantly Turkish-
speaking Christian Orthodox people, who were forced to go to Greece
although they did not necessarily identify ‘ethnically’ with the Greeks. At
the time of the exchange they numbered as many as 400,000.” (“Mediating
the Nation News, Audiences and the Politics of Identity”, Mirca
Madianou, page 31.)
31, “Morea…as Fallmerayer traces it back to the Slavic word ‘more’,
the sea which nearly encircles the Morea. The Morea forms the most
southern part of the Kingdom of Greece and is divided into the monarchies
of Argolis, Corinth, Lakonis, Messenia, Archadia, Achaea and Elis.
Overrun by the Goths and Vandals, it became prey, in the second half of
the 8th c. to bands of Slavic invaders who found it wasted by war and
pestilence.” (“International Cyclopedia a Compendium of Human
Knowledge”, American Editor-in-Chief Richard Gleason Green, 1890,
page 204.)
32. “This point is made in almost all publications on Albanian
nationalism (e.g. Skendi 1967 and 1980). In the nineteenth century, the
Greek historian Constantinos Paparrigopoulos considered the Albanians a
‘race’ that could be acculturated into Hellenism. His viewpoint was greatly
influenced by the considerable Albanian contribution to the Greek war of
independence (1821-1828).” (“Nationalism Globalization and Orthodoxy”
by Victor Roudometof, page 156.)
33. “Rhigas of Valentino….author of poems, revolutionary
proclamations and a constitution…
In this document he spoke of a sovereign people of the proposed state
as including ‘without distinction of religion and language – Greeks,
Albanians, Vlachs, Armenians, Turks and every other race’.” (“Nations
and States”, by Hugh Seton-Watson, page 113.)
34. “As of 2002 more than 98,000 foreign pupils were enrolled in
Greek schools, accounting for almost 9 percent of the overall school
population. As regards nationality, 72 percent are from Albania.
Clearly, Albanians are not unknown to Greeks and the new relationships
emerging from the contemporary migratory context can be seen as
superimposing themselves into a pre-existing trans-Balkan context.” (“The
New Albanian Migration”, edited by Russell King, Nicola Mai and
Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers, page 155.)
35 “Next to them in this respect are the modern Greeks, who, for the
most part, are of Sclavonian origin, and, where they are not purely
Sclavonian, are a cross-breed in which Sclavonian enters very largely.”
(“The Phrenological Journal and Magazine of Moral Science for the year
1843”, Vol. XIV, page 246.)
36. “The modern Greeks are largely of Slavic origin. They are not the
descendents of the ancient Greeks. That noble race, greatly mixed with
barbarian blood during the middle ages, was almost completely destroyed
in the course of the frequent uprisings against Turkish rule. Slavic
immigrants gradually repopulated the country.” (“The Popular Science
Monthly”, edited by J. McKeen Cattell”, Volume LXXV, July to
December 1909, page 591.)
 37. “There was little interest as to the nationality of the rayahs while
Turkish rule was strong. They were nearly all Christians of the Byzantine
type, those in Europe at least, and were hence regarded as one people, for
oriental theocracy cannot conceive of nationality apart from religion. They
themselves knew the differences in their origins and in such traditions as
they had: some were Slavs, some Vlachs and some Albanians…”
(“Political Science Quarterly” edited by the faculty of science of Columbia
University, Volume twenty-third, 1908, page 307.)
38. “Since the Christian era, as we have said, a successive downpour of
foreigners from the north into Greece has ensued. In the sixth century
came the Avars and the Slavs, bringing death and disaster. A more potent
and lasting influence upon the country was probably produced by the
slower and more peaceful infiltration of the Slavs into Thessaly and Epirus
from the end of the seventh century onward.
The most important immigration of all is probably that of the
Albanians, who, from the thirteenth century until the advent of the Turks
incessantly overran the land.” (“The Races of Europe a Sociological
Study”, by William Z. Ripley PhD, 1910, page 408.)
39. “When the Macedonians became rulers of Greece, Athens had
twenty-one thousand citizens, ten thousand resident aliens and four-
hundred thousand slaves.” (“Race or Mongrel”, by Alfred P. Schultz, page
86.)
“The resident aliens were mainly Aryan-Hemitic-Semetic-Egyptian-
Negroid mongrels.” (“Race or Mongrel”, by Alfred P. Schultz, page 87.)
“In the course of time the Hellenic blood was corrupted to a still greater
extent. In 146 BC the Romans conquered Greece…When Mummius took
Corinth…All the men were killed, the women and children were sold into
slavery. Later the Goths invaded Greece…laid waste the land, and
expelled or exterminated the inhabitants.” (“Race or Mongrel”, by Alfred
P. Schultz, pages 88 and 89.)
“The only difference between modern Greeks and the other Balkanacs
lies in the fact that the environment of the modern Greeks is the
environment of the Hellenes. The environment, however, has no power
whatsoever to change the mongrel into a race, and the Greeks have not
been changed by it.” (“Race or Mongrel”, by Alfred P. Schultz, page 93.)
40. “The ethnographic record certainly shows that Rhigas could have
identified as both Vlach and Greek, and even preferred one over another in
different circumstances. The Koutsovlach contribution to Greek
independence is well attested.” (“Modern Greece a Cultural Poetics”, by
Vangelis Calotychos, page 44.)
“He consequently never traveled to Greece to implement the second
part of his plan. Like many Philhellenes and Diaspora figures Rhigas never
did set foot in Greece, which was fitting for one whose image of the place
bore many characteristics of a European discourse located and produced
outside of the Greek mainland.” (“Modern Greece a Cultural Poetics”, by
Vangelis Calotychos, page 47.)
41. “In the last year of the 15th century, and the opening years of the
th
16 , when the Morea was again the battlefield of the Turks and Venetians,
the occupants of the plain of Argos and portions of Attica were practically
exterminated, and Albanian colonists began to reoccupy the lands.” (“The
Customs and Lore of Modern Greece”, by Rennell Rodd, 1892, page 17.)
42. “Modern Greece is so flimsy and fragile, that it goes to pieces
entirely when confronted with the roughest fragment of the old. But there
is very little of it, and if you choose you may see exactly what the Greeks
of the 5th century saw, and, the people of Athens are, of course, no more
Athenian than I am.” (“In Byron’s Shadow Modern Greece in the English
and American Imagination”, by David Roessel, page 163.)
43. “This revival also allowed the Byzantines to re-colonize the Greek
mainland. The success of that effort would prove crucial to the survival of
Greek culture in future centuries, after the other lands had fallen away.
Having overrun nearly all the Greek mainland, the cities, and the islands
by the tenth century the Slavs in Greece have been converted to Orthodox
Christianity and thoroughly Hellenized.” (“Sailing from Byzantium How a
Lost Empire Shaped the World”, by Colin Wells, page 184.)
44. “The Vlachs, on the contrary, descendents of the Romanized
people of the Balkan peninsula, live in considerable numbers in the
mountains of northern and central Greece.” (“The Scottish Geographical
Magazine”, volume XIII, 1897, page 370.)
45. “Europe’s affinity with ancient Greece left the newborn nation of
Greece in an awkward double bind. Identifying ancient Greece as the
‘childhood of Europe’ Winkelmann gave the patrimony of Greece to
western Europe, leaving only more modern sights of heritage to the
modern Greeks. Michael Herzfeld suggests that ‘the west supported the
Greeks on their implicit assumption that the Greeks would reciprocally
accept the role of living ancestors of European civilization’.” (“Possessors
and Possessed”, by Wendy M. K. Shaw, page 66.)
46. “It is simply not plausible to suggest that the bulk of Greek
speaking Roman citizens in the Middle Ages, let alone the former Turkish
subjects of 19th century Greece, ‘lived like, ancient Greeks.” (“Macedonia
and Greece the Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation”, by John Shea,
page 95.)
47. “Not less remarkable than the small size of Hellas was the small
size of the Hellenes themselves. But it is much more easy to trace the
boundaries of the one upon the modern map than it is to trace the blood of
the other in the bodies of the modern inhabitants.
We have no accurate record of the proportions of free citizens who
alone constituted the true Hellenes, but they were at most a small minority
among the large population of helots and slaves.” (“The Nineteenth
Century a Monthly Review”, edited by James Knowles, Vol. VI, July-
December 1879, page 932.)
48. “The Albanians of Hydra and Spatsae, many of whom could not
even speak Greek, regarded themselves as Greek because their allegiance
was with the Orthodox Church.” (“That Greece Might Still be Free”, by
William St. Clair, page 9.)
49. “Here is the ultimate Greek tragedy: that of a country forced to
treat everything familiar at the time of the nation-state’s foundation as
‘foreign’ while importing a culture largely invented – or at least –
redesigned by German classicists of the late eighteenth early nineteenth
centuries. For many decades, and almost without interruption, Greeks were
forced to put aside music, art and language that were deemed too tainted
by the ‘oriental’ influences of Ottoman, Arab, Slavic and Albanian culture;
to forget the partially Albanian roots of Athens and its environs…” (“The
Body Impolitic” by Michael Herzfeld, page 9.)
50. “The philhellenes – the word means ‘the admirers of the Greeks’ –
who began to lobby for Greek freedom were struck by the contrast
between the idea of ancient Greek freedom and the servitude of the
modern Greeks, who were usually assumed to be direct descendents of
Pericles and company. Philhellenes generally moved at a distance from
reality: they were concerned only with the myth of Athens and were
capable of ignoring anything which tended to tarnish the glamour.”
(“Athens from Ancient Ideal to Modern City”, by Robin Waterfield, page
296.)
Given that the Modern Greeks are NOT the descendents of any
“ancient people” as they pretend to be, then how do they justify the
invasion, occupation, partition and annexation of Macedonian territories?
How do they justify telling the Macedonians what they can and can’t call
themselves? Why are these imposters and charlatans still being taken
seriously? But, as long as we pay attention to them and argue with them,
they will continue to argue back and to “pretend” that they are the
descendents of the so-called Ancient Greeks.
Part 20 – The Macedonian Party?

Forty years ago we were told that Macedonians simply did not exist;
“there was no such thing as a Macedonian”. Thirty years ago we were told
that a “Greek” cannot be made; he or she had to be born from Greeks to be
Greek. Twenty years ago we were told that “Greek” is the most “solid”
ethnic identity on this earth with 4,000 years of continuous and
uninterrupted lineage. Now we are told that Macedonians do exist and
there are 3,500,000 of them spread all over the world.
Well for people who believe they are pure Greeks, direct descendents
from the ancient Greeks, even though they are not Greeks at all, anything
is possible. For people who descended from Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs
and still believe they are Greeks, descendants of the ancient Greeks,
anything is possible. For people who believe that Alexander the Great, the
same Alexander the Great who conquered and brutally suppressed their so-
called “ancient Greek ancestors”, is their national hero, then anything is
possible.
When I first read the story that a new political party was formed in
Greece, calling itself the “Macedonian Party”, I thought “how wonderful”,
for a split second. Then reality hit. How is it possible for Greece to have a
political party that represents the non-existent Macedonian minority? I
knew there had to be a catch. A political party is being formed that wants
to elect members to the European Parliament in the June elections. The
catch however is that this is NOT a “Macedonian Party” at all but rather a
“fake” Macedonian party created by Greeks for the purpose of usurping
the name “Macedonia”. This time the Greeks are using a different angle to
approach the same old problem. They want to hold onto Macedonia and
the Macedonian heritage the best way they know how; by lying and
cheating.
As we know the Modern Greeks are not Greeks at all. We know they
were created by the Philhellenes from the Slav, Albanian and Vlach
immigrants who migrated to Greece during the 11th to the 14th century AD.
We also know that the Greek people living in Greek occupied Macedonia
today are not Greeks at all. Of the total people living in Greek occupied
Macedonia the majority are not even Macedonians. Greece has been
importing people into Macedonia since it invaded, occupied, partitioned
and annexed Macedonian lands in 1912, 1913. Greece has imported
Albanians and Vlachs from Albania, 1,100,000 Christian Turks from Asia
Minor, the Caucasus, Russia, Armenia, etc. In fact Greece is importing
people from all over the world today as we speak and is still calling them
Greeks. So the Modern Greeks, being neither Macedonians nor Greeks, in
essence have no “real” claim to Macedonia or to the Macedonian heritage
so they have no choice but to resort to lying and cheating.
The new Greek Party founded by the so-called “World committee for
the Protection of Macedonia” is another ploy to lay claim to the name
“Macedonia”, through the European Parliament. The Party’s aim is to
block the Republic of Macedonia from entering the European Union with
the name “Macedonia”.
“It is of great importance for Macedonian Hellenism to join the
European Parliament with the name ‘Macedonia’, ‘Macedonian’,
‘Macedonians’, in order to guarantee that Macedonia belongs only to
Greece, before Skopje has a chance to do this for itself. If the Greeks, who
are the real Macedonians, enter the European Parliament with this name
then the fake Macedonians will not be able to do so”, said Konstantinos
Kalfa committee member of the “World committee for the Protection of
Macedonia”, as quoted by Kanal 5.
(Note how the fake Greeks refer to the real Macedonians as fakes).
According to its founders, “the party will fight to protect the name,
history and rights of the large Macedonian minority [of the Greek kind],
estimated to number 3,500,000 and is spread all over the world”.
So if I understand this correctly, the non-existent Macedonian minority
that Greece has denied ever existed, now exists, suddenly overnight. It
exists somewhat as “Macedonian” but not really because the Greek types
of Macedonians are really “ethnic Greeks” who happened to live in
Macedonia. We know however that there is no such thing as “ethnic
Greeks” because the Modern Greek identity is not real but a Philhellene
artificial creation! So if ethnic Greeks don’t really exist then these
Macedonians who supposedly are “ethnic Greeks” in reality don’t exist
either. But wait a minute aren’t the Greeks now telling us that they do
exist, and that there are 3.5 million of them all over the world? Confused?
Perhaps now you can appreciate the expression “it’s all Greek to me”! In
other words “it’s too complicated for us non-Greeks to understand!”
Forget what the Greeks are telling you and focus on what they are
trying to do. This is not about “ethnicities”, “languages”, “cultures” or
histories it’s about the expropriation of Macedonian lands and robbing the
Macedonian people of their heritage. Lying and cheating is a “Greek
specialty”, this is how they built their fake identity and artificial country.
They have lied to the world from the day the Philhellenes brought them
into their artificial existence. But no matter how hard they try to suppress
the truth it will eventually resurface.
What I don’t understand however is why do they have to lie? Everyone
knows they are lying; why not admit to the truth? Why not say that in this
world “might is right” and as long we they have the “might” we will do
whatever we want. They suppress the Macedonian people because they
can and will hold onto their lands as long as they can.
I don’t know why they have to lie about their fake identity either?
They are Greeks because they want to be Greeks, it’s as simple as that.
Better still why not admit that they are the descendents of Slav, Albanian
and Vlach immigrants? What is wrong with that? We are all immigrants
here is Canada, with the exception of the indigenous people we found here
when we colonized their lands, and we are not ashamed of it and no
Canadian needs to lie about it.
We know Greece suffers from anxiety, we have known this for many
years. The whole world knows that Greece and Greeks are artificially
created entities and that they suffer from anxiety. The only cure for their
anxiety is for them to accept the truth. No more lies and pretending will
lead to no more anxiety! Anxiety makes Greeks panic and panic causes
them to behave irrationally. Behaving irrationally towards their neighbours
causes their neighbours to behave irrationally right back. The Republic of
Macedonia is forced to behave this way because Greece behaves this way.
Most of Europe, catering to Greece’s anxiety, also behaves this way. How
else do you explain the “name game”? Is it rational for one country to
“demand” of another to change its name? Is it rational for European Union
countries to demand the Republic of Macedonia change its name? No!
Why then are they behaving this way if not because of Greece’s anxiety?
The European Union it seems will accept fake countries like Greece
but will not accept the Republic of Macedonia, that is until it changes its
name and it too becomes a fake country. This makes one wonder if the
European Union itself is a club for fakes. Again, I will ask the reader to
look at the European Union for what it does and not for what it says. The
EU has many rules and regulations that support minority and human rights
in its member states but at the same time it allows its member states to
practice racism and discrimination against their minorities. It seems that
EU rules and regulations apply to “others” and not to its own members!
All those human rights laws in its books and none of them can help the
Macedonians in Greece or in Bulgaria.
If the European Union will allow racist organizations like the fake
“Macedonian Party” in its Parliament whose only aim is to rob the
Macedonian people of their lands and heritage, then what does that say
about the European Union? Some people think that members of the
European Parliament are ignorant of the Macedonian people’s real issues
with Greece and Bulgaria. Others say they are indifferent. If that were true
then those who are ignorant should by now have learned something after
17 years of playing the “name game”. And those who are indifferent
should have remained indifferent. Why have European Union countries
sided with Greece demanding that Macedonia change its name?
“Greece’s movement to build a national identity, however, contained a
unique element not shared by others: external support and even pressure,
for a specific kind of new identity. The British, French and Russians
demanded that the modern Greek identity be Hellenic and respond to the
Europeans’ nostalgia for the restoration of a pre-Christian Hellenic
civilization that has been in eclipse for some two thousand years.
Europeans confidently expected to see the characteristic of Homer in post
liberation Greeks, in spite of the ebb and flow of history over such a great
span of time. The neoclassicism that rose in seventeenth – and eighteenth-
century Europe as an aesthetic and philosophical idea was to be physically
embodied in modern-day Greece. The idealistic and hopeful attitudes of
neoclassicism that would later be imposed on the Greeks was succinctly
expressed in 1822 when American President James Monroe declared: ‘The
mention of Greece fills the mind with the utmost exalted sentiments and
arouses in our bosoms the best feelings of which our nature is susceptible’.
In reality, however, just before the Greek war of independence, most
Greeks still referred to themselves as Romans. Vlachavas, the priest rebel
leader who rose against the Ottomans, declared, ‘A Romneos I was born, a
Romneos I will die’.
Some Europeans and the few Americans who came to help Greece
start a new nation-state, were disappointed even indignant, to discover
among Greece’s peasants there were no warrior-heroes like Achilles or
Ajax, no statesmen like Pericles, no philosophers like Socrates or Plato
and no poets of the caliber of Aeschylus or Sophocles. There was, in fact,
little likeness between nineteenth century Greeks and the idealized Greeks
from ancient history that had such hold on the imagination of European
liberators.” (“Blood Lines form Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism”, by
Vamik Volkan pages 121 and 122).
“In Eastern Europe since 1990, the treatment of minorities seems quite
contrary to the recent development in Western Europe, which reversed the
earlier positions in both parts of Europe. If there have been any results
from the High Commissioner’s mission in the three serious cases of the
Russians (and other minorities) in the Baltic, the Roma and the Sinti
throughout Europe, and the Macedonians in Greece, nothing substantial
has so far emerged about them. The High Commissioner has been in
existence since the beginning of 1993, and Max ven der Stoel has been
exclusively active in Eastern Europe throughout the period until retirement
mid-2001 when the new Commissioner Ralf Ekeus took over. After the
first period of four years there was an analysis of Ven der Stoel’s efforts;
due to the OSCE’s discrete policy, assuring effected states of ‘absolute’
confidentiality, the relevant information is still lacking. The age of secret
diplomacy in minority matters is not over in Europe.” (“Ethnicity
Nationalism and Violence”, by Christian P. Scherrer, page 253)
“Because of Greece’s almost hysterical reaction, the state [Republic of
Macedonia] was not admitted to the UN until the end of 1992 under the
absurd appellation ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’. The
successive Greek governments allegedly took offense at the symbolism of
the name (the Macedonia of Philip II, the native land of Alexander the
Great) and at the flag (a sun with sixteen rays on a red background)
although Macedonia had born this name as a Yugoslavian Republic since
1948.” (“Ethnicity Nationalism and Violence”, by Christian P. Scherrer,
page 283)
“The key premise in Humboldt’s idea is that Hellenic civilization
assumed a transcendental significance because it testified to a cultural and
linguistic purity. This claim was historically absurd and even antithetical
to the paradigm of comparative linguistics, which was the core of
philological inquiry.
In practical terms, however, the historical absurdity of declaring
Hellenic civilization the expression of a culture uncontaminated by foreign
elements can be explained by a simple fact that usually tends to be
disregarded – namely, that Hellenic civilizations as we know it was in
effect the invention of the ‘Science of Antiquity’ of Classics. As such, it
could have been (and was) endowed with whatever signification the
discipline found useful.
The invention of Hellenic civilization shows the profound power of
philology as a method to cultural knowledge – indeed, as knowledge.”
(“Dream Nation” by Stathis Gourgouris, pages 133 and 134)
“…for more than a century, Greek schoolbooks have stressed the
unbroken continuity and diachronic and homogeneity of Greek civilization
and culture, with the results that Greeks tend to believe without question in
this construction of Romantic nationalist historiography. According to this
ideology, what is labeled with the timeless and semantically vague abstract
term ‘Hellenism’ – together with its language – is a healthy organism that
for 4,000 years has either resisted or assimilated foreign influences;
alteration is viewed as adulteration, while outside influences are viewed as
threats.” (“Hellenisms Culture, Identity and Ethnicity from Antiquity to
Modernity”, edited by Katerina Zacharia, page 303)
“According to the narrative of Philhellenism, after nearly two
millennium of imperial rule – first under the Byzantines and then under the
Ottomans – a newly defined Greek nation could reunite with its glorified
ancient heritage and, lead by monarchs of German and Danish ancestry,
revive the traditions that had inspired western Europe to greatness. Yet
Hellenism had to be invented in Europe as the cornerstone of Western
Civilization before it could be imported to Greece as a nationalist
movement. A combination of the real and imagined culture of the ancient
Greeks became, in various guises, a heritage to which all could lay claim.
Hellenism became a pan-European endeavour that spanned the course of
many centuries and found varied forms of expression in different
countries.
…Germans came to conflate modern Germany with the ancient Greek
world. By the end of the nineteenth century for example, the archeologist
Ernst Curtious could justify large scale archeological expeditions to
Greece by simply explaining that ‘Germany herself has inwardly
appropriated Greek culture’.
Similarly, in England ancient Greece became a model for nineteenth
century citizens.
It stood as proof of the superiority of the West over the barbaric East;
as such it presented one more reason for the civilization of the East
through European colonization.” (“Possessors and Possessed” by Wendy
M. K. Shaw, pages 62 to 64)
After reading the above perhaps the reader will come to appreciate
why Europe is so fond of Greece.
Part 21 – Baiting the Trap

I am sure by now everyone has heard of Professor Miller’s infamous

letter to President Obama signed by more than 200 professors and
academics. http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-
letter.html#obamacosigners
But what does it all mean? Does it take 200 professors to sign a letter
with such bogus arguments that even a child can tear apart with its eyes
closed? But then if you think about it, there maybe a hidden agenda behind
the letter! Does it take 200 professors to legitimize, as the Greeks put it,
the “well known facts”? If the “facts” are so well known why does one
need ALL those professors to “back them up”? Isn’t it “a bit” of overkill?
I know the arguments in the letter can be refuted so easily and I know
there are far more capable and convincing “classical students” than
Professor Miller so why not go the extra mile and attempt to produce an
“iron clad” case before President Obama?
There is but one reason why the Greeks have written this “private” but
“purposely leaked” letter to President Obama. I received the letter four
days before Obama did, do you think it was by accident? No! I believe the
letter was sent to simply attract our attention! A trap to lure the
Macedonians away from pursuing their human rights and to focus their
energies on what the Greeks want them to focus on; nonsensical issues
where there is nothing at stake for Greece.
The so-called Greek “dispute” with Macedonia actually has nothing to
do with ancient history, ancient names, flags, or symbols. Greece’s
“dispute” with Macedonia is a ruse to cover up human rights abuses
perpetrated by Greece against the Macedonian people living inside Greece.
The real issue Greece is trying to avoid has a lot to do with confiscated
properties and revoked citizenships than with ancient history. The real
issue is about Macedonians being exiled from their homeland for just
being Macedonian and Macedonians not being able to speak their language
freely and practice their customs and culture without persecution.
By writing this letter the Greeks are trying to divert Macedonian and
world attention to non consequential and nonsensical issues like “ancient
names of regions” and what they were called 2,500 years ago. Issues that
nobody cares about and that have no consequences for Greece!
The fact that over 200 professors have signed the letter however, if
they indeed have signed it, should be of concern to the institutions where
these professors teach. Do parents and students approve of their professors
meddling in the politics of foreign states?
It should be of greater concern to the professors as well; especially if
they didn’t sign the letter and their names have been forged by the Greeks
and dragged through the mud!
Let me explain how Greece plays this game. Greece uses the ancient
argument to justify its occupation of Macedonian territories and to claim
the Macedonian heritage as its own to the exclusion of the Macedonian
people. By arguing that “Macedonians do not exist” Greece is excluding
the Macedonian people from their heritage and creating conditions to
continue to deny them their human rights. So by helping the Greeks lay
claim to the ancient heritage these professors are wittingly or unwittingly
aiding and abetting Greece in its quest to deny the Macedonian people
their human rights. If this is intentionally done then parents and students
do have serious concerns and the right to worry and be upset with these
professors. It is important that each co-signing professor think about the
implications of his or her signature on this letter and the damage it will do
to Macedonian peoples and their human rights!
There is a rumour circulating that Professor Miller has recommended
that Greece “invade and annex” the Republic of Macedonia. I am currently
looking for a source on this but if it turns out to be true would these
professors still support Miller in his quest?
Greece and its Philhellene patrons had over 200 years to re-write
history and poison the world with their “awesome” and unbelievable lies.
But why are they now resorting to using this fake “ancient history” to
solve their modern problems?
When it comes to “modern issues” why are Greeks focusing on the
history from 2,500 years ago to solve their current problems instead of
focusing on more recent history, like the history of the disintegration of the
Ottoman Empire and the formation of the modern Balkans states? Modern
Balkan problems, issues, disputes and arguments today stem directly from
events that took place in the last 200 years. Today’s problems in the
Balkans are a direct result of the formation of the new Balkan states and
the conditions under which they were created. So why doesn’t Greece
want to talk about or hold debates on issues from this period? Why instead
talk about what happened 2,500 years ago?
Since the ancient City States were conquered by the Macedonians
2,300 years ago, the people in the lower Balkans have been subjugated by
many conquerors including the Romans, Byzantines and Ottomans and the
people have lived without borders up until the creation of the Modern
Balkan states in the 19th century. Without borders to stop invaders,
whoever invaded Macedonia also invaded Greece; whoever settled in
Macedonia also settled in Greece. Being in close proximity (neighbours
with open borders) for 2,300 years has exposed both Macedonia and
Greece to the same demographic conditions. What was there to prevent
those who entered Macedonia from entering Greece? The logical answer
would be “nothing”!
Wouldn’t one be able to find the same kind of people in Greece as one
finds in Macedonia? The logical answer would be “certainly”!
So why should we believe the Greeks when they tell us that they are
“pure Greeks”, descendents of the Ancient Greeks and that the
Macedonians are “Slavs”?
 If the Modern Greeks are the descendants of the ancient Greeks then
the Modern Macedonians are the descendents of the Ancient
Macedonians! Conversely, if the Modern Macedonians are “Slavs” then so
are the Modern Greeks!
Before determining “who the ancients were and were not”, would it not
be logical to ask the question “who are and who are not the moderns”?
Let us start with the Modern Greeks since they came into the 19th
century scene first.
Who are the Modern Greeks?
Here is what Edmund About has to say in his book “Greece and the
Greeks of the Present day”. On page 160 we read: “The Turkish village
which formerly clustered around the base of the Acropolis had not
disappeared: it forms a whole quarter of the town. There are narrow alleys,
huts of the height of a man, yards in which chickens, children and pigs
crawl pell-mell between a dunghill and a heap of fagots. An immense of
the majority of the population of this quarter is composed of Albanians.”
Here is what Alexandra Halkias has to say in her book “The Empty
Cradle of Democracy”. On page 59 we read: “Through the end of the
revolution in 1830, Greeks, including most of the nineteenth century
nationalists, seemed to have had a vague but firm sense of continuity from
ancient to modern Greece, though this was not articulated in racial terms
but on the basis of a common language, history, and consciousness. In
effect, at this time, whoever called themselves a Greek was a Greek. It is
because of this that many Greek-speaking Albanians, Slavs, Romanians,
and Vlachs were easily assimilated and indeed became important players
in Greek patriotism at the time.
Until the beginning of the 19th century, the average inhabitant of
Greece called himself or herself a Roman (Romios), and the (Greek)
language Romeika.
To some extent – the consciousness of the modern Greek of his
classical ancestry is a product of Western Scholarship.”
Here is what Michael Herzfeld has to say in his book “Anthropology”.
On page 67 we read: “The example of modern Greece provides a useful
key to historicizing those who Eric Wolf has ironically dubbed ‘the people
without history’ (Wolf 1982). For the modern Greeks - a people arguably
plagued by an excess of history, but of a kind invented for them by more
powerful others.”
Here is what Appleton had to say in his 1901 “Annual Encyclopedia”
third series volume VI. On page 113 we read: “The first Greek who had a
plan for insurrection and for a liberated Greece was Rhigas of Valestino, a
Thessalian who served in high posts in Wallachia, spent some years in
Vienna, and was handed over by the Austrians to the Turks in Trieste in
1798 as a revolutionary conspirator, and hanged in Belgrade. Rhigas was
the author of poems, revolutionary proclamations and a constitution,
closely modeled on the French constitution of 1793 and 1795. In this
document he spoke of the sovereign people of the proposed state as
including ‘without distinction of religion or language – Greeks, Albanians,
Vlachs, Armenians, Turks and every other race’.”
Here is what we read on page 42 of the “Insight Guides Athens Greece
Series”. “Because of numerous and protracted foreign occupations, true
Athenians were a relatively small minority even in the age of Pericles. In
later periods, the city was suffering from severe depopulation and re-
stocked with Albanians. At the time of Greek independence in 1834,
Athens was a miserable village with a population of only 6,000.”
In the “Atlantic Monthly” of January 1882 volume XLIX we read: “It
is one of a group made famous in the Greek revolution of 1821 by the
bravery of its Albanian settlers, in defense of a country which they had
never adopted for their own till this moment of danger came.”
On page 109 of the book “Entangled Identities” edited by Atsuko
Ichijo and Willfried Spohn we read: “It should be strongly emphasized,
however, this image of classical Greece was constructed in Europe and
was imported to the newborn Greek state. (Tsoukalas 2002)”
After reading the above quotes, there is but one logical conclusion that
can be reached and that is “the Modern Greeks are the direct descendants
of the Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs” and have nothing to do with the so-
called “ancient Greeks”.
Unfortunately Greeks don’t want to talk about their “recent history”
because they don’t want it to be discovered that they are frauds and
charlatans.
Let us not allow the Greeks to fool the world that their dispute with the
Macedonian people is anything but a ruse to sidestep the real issue, the
existence of the Macedonian minority in Greece. The so-called Greek
dispute with Macedonia is not about “names” or “history”! How can it be
when the Modern Greeks are neither Greeks nor Macedonians? Why
would a people who are neither Greeks nor Macedonians care about
“Macedonia’s name” or “Macedonia’s history”? The ONLY concern the
so-called Modern Greeks have is “how to continue to hang on to
Macedonian lands and to the Macedonian heritage” as long as they can.
Part 22 – The Greek Macedonians

Several days ago I received a phone call from a stranger who opened
the conversation in Macedonian and later asked me if I spoke Greek. He
introduced himself as a “Grkoman” and asked me if I had ever heard of
him. I said no to both questions.
This person, who asked to remain anonymous, said he was sick and
tired of the Greeks denying the existence of Macedonians and wanted to
have a meeting with me to tell me his side of the story so that I could write
about it.
I don’t know the man and I don’t know if his intentions were
honourable, but being the suspicious kind that I am, I couldn’t help myself
but question “what is this all about?”
Is this another attempt by the Greeks to muddy the waters by
pretending to be Macedonians in order to diminish the real Macedonian
cause? Or have the “Hellenized Greeks” (Grkomani), who for years have
abandoned their true ethnicity in favour of being “Greeks”, come to their
senses and now want to join the Macedonians?
Is this another “Greek ploy” working at a “higher level” to usurp the
Macedonian heritage at the expense of the real Macedonians in line with
the Greek “Macedonian Party” I wrote about a couple of weeks ago?
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/102681 Or is there a
genuine desire by the Grkomani to liberate themselves from the Greek
shackles?
Was this person acting as a Trojan horse for the Greeks? Or was he
genuinely tired of the Greeks abusing him and wanted to do something
about it?
Why did he introduce himself as a “Grkoman” and why ask me if I
spoke “Greek” when we both communicated very well in Macedonian?
There are too many questions for which I have no answers so I can’t
risk brushing him off as another “agent of Greece” or as a Macedonian
who is genuinely concerned for his own kind. Therefore my choice would
be to define what a “Grkoman” is, according to my understanding, and
leave the rest to the readers to reach their own conclusion.
Plainly put, in this context, a “Grkoman” is a Hellenized Macedonian.
But in the eyes of the genuine Macedonian people, a “Grkoman” is simply
a traitor.
The “Grkomani” are a product of Greece’s forced assimilation policy
designed to Hellenize Macedonia and the Macedonian people.
To truly understand the “Grkoman” or “Bulgaroman” phenomenon one
has to imagine an “occupied” people in a world where the conditions for
survival are “created” by the “occupier”.
In order to maintain control of the occupied, the occupier needs to
know when and where to act and for that he needs reliable information.
This information must come from the inside and must be accurate. So, to
gain such information the occupier needs to enlist the services of insiders
in the occupied world. Unfortunately, the only insiders who are willing to
provide such information are those who are either disgruntled individuals
or individuals that can be bought in exchange for something they desire
such as sums of money, social status, free education, a better job, power
over others, etc. However, to prove his or her loyalty the insider or
collaborator is expected to commit some act, usually a criminal act, against
his own people. This way the occupier will be assured of the collaborator’s
loyalty.
So how will a collaborator react to a situation where the occupier is
threatened? In such a situation the collaborator will fight for the occupier
in order to maintain the status quo.
I am not implying that all “Grkomani” are collaborators but I do
question their actions. If these people have committed no harm to the
Macedonian people then what are their motives for siding with the
occupiers? So my hope here is that many of these “Grkomani” are ignorant
of their real identity or are taking advantage of the situation for some small
personal gain. Thus, no harm done and there is hope for them yet. But for
those who have done serious harm, good luck to them!
To be loyal to family and friends is fine but it should not stop people
from thinking for themselves and finding out who they really are. I have
been told that loyalty to family comes first and I can’t say that I disagree
with that. If your parents or grandparents saw themselves as other than
Macedonians, for which I am sure they had a reason, that does not change
the fact that they have a Macedonian ancestry which, when the time
comes, will be recognized as such. So where does that leave you? You can
argue with me that, that will never happen just as many in the past have
argued that Macedonia will never be free of the Romans, Byzantines, or
Turks or you can reconsider where you stand and make the right choice.
The Republic of Macedonia’s independence has created a problem for
Greece. Greece took the 19th century road but somewhere down the line
forgot to take a turn when the whole world was turning.
Yugoslavia was whole at one time populated by “South Slavs”. In fact
Yugoslavia was touted as the Switzerland of the Balkans. But where is
Yugoslavia today? Who would have thought Yugoslavia, the Switzerland
of the Balkans, would disintegrate to its elemental level? Who would have
thought that Yugoslavia was populated by other than “South Slavs”?
Believe me; Greece is not far behind. Its belligerent behaviour towards its
minorities, especially the Macedonians, will not serve it well!
So if I may summarize, I see the “Grkomani” falling into three
categories;
1. Those who are truly ignorant of their own ethnicity. The ones who
learned to speak Macedonian from their predecessors and think it’s a
“Greek dialect”. They call themselves Greek because all their lives they
have been told they are Greek.
 2. Those who know they are not Greek but pretend to be Greek
because there are advantages to “being Greek” or because they are afraid
of being harmed if it is discovered that they are not Greek.
3. The ones who in the past, in the name of Greece, have committed
crimes against their own people and need the Greeks to protect them from
prosecution. These types will do anything to keep themselves safe, even
help the Greek cause against the Macedonians in order to maintain the
status quo.
If the man who called me on the telephone falls into the first two
categories I would be more than glad to help him and I am sure I speak for
every Macedonian when I say “welcome back”. But if the man falls into
the third category I want no part of him and I will not hesitate to expose
him and the crimes he has committed. It is people of the third kind who
helped the Greeks make the dreaded “black lists” and sent so many
innocent Macedonians to their death and to the Greek concentration
camps. It is people of this kind that made so many Macedonians
permanent refugees. It is these “sold out” Macedonians that today are so
vocal and against the Macedonians gaining their human rights.
Another thing that this man mentioned, which sounded peculiar, was
the number of Macedonians living in Ontario. “Did you know,” he asked
“that 600,000 Macedonian live in Toronto, or, well, I mean in Ontario and
roughly 3,000,000 in Greece?” I did not know that! I didn’t bother to ask
where he got his figures, but then I remembered a friend from Australia
sent me the following article, part of which I would like to share with you.
“Some Greek community leaders say there are 700,000 Greeks in
Australia, implying that one in 25 Australians is Greek by some way or
another, but are they? Another interesting perception is that outside Greece
Melbourne is the second largest Greek speaking city in the world, but here
again is it?
Not by birthplace, or even by parental birthplace.
The 2006 census recorded only 109,989. The 1991 census recorded
136,331.
Not by Language.
The 2006 census recorded 252,216. The 1991 census recorded 274,974
Australians who said that they spoke Greek at home.
Not by Ancestry.
The 2006 census recorded 365,145. The 1986 census, when this
question was first asked, recorded 311,942.
If there are indeed 700,000 Greek Australians then that suggests that
most Greek Australians were not born in Greece, do not have Greek born
parents, do not speak Greek at home and do not see themselves as people
of Greek Ancestry. According to various Greek Community sources
however, which continuously convey information to the Australian
authorities, there are still 700,000 Greeks in Australia.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the real figure for the
Greek Australian population lies in the 365,000 range. Information relating
to the three census questions all point to this figure.
Another misconception portrayed in the Australian Greek media is that
Melbourne is the third largest Greek City outside of Greece. But is it?
In Canada the Greek media portrays Toronto as the third largest Greek
City in the world.
In the USA the Greek media portrays New York as the third largest
Greek City in the world.
The Australian Bureau of Statistic has shown that Victoria has a
population of 5.3 million of which 3.9 million live in Melbourne and
128,164 Melbournians are of Greek ancestry.
Despite the census being conducted by government bodies, the Greek
media has still managed to convince various authorities in Australia,
Canada and the USA that the third largest Greek city in the world is
situated in Melbourne, Toronto and New York respectively! How can that
be?” (Zoran C.)
We know very well that “Greek” as an ethnic entity does not exist but
to maintain the impression that it does, Greeks will resort to anything and
everything possible from claiming that people of the Christian Orthodox
religion are in reality Greeks to anyone who has a “Greek sounding name”
is Greek. Just pick up a Greek community telephone book in Toronto and
you will find Macedonians, Spaniards and even Latvians represented as
Greeks. As long as it sounds Greek, it must be Greek! But then if you
think about it, it all makes sense. If Slavs, Macedonians, Albanians,
Christian Turks and Vlachs can be “instant modern Greeks” then why not
other people with “Greek sounding” names? After all “Greek sounding” is
almost Greek; isn’t it? How more fake is a Greek-sounding name of a
Latvian than a “Hellenized” Greek sounding name of a Macedonian? I
would say they are about equal! “Hellenizing” other ethnic groups, to most
Greeks, is equivalent to subjecting them to a “civilizing” process! And
what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with it except “fake
Greeks” have no heritage and cannot be the descendents of the so-called
ancient Greeks.
Unfortunately being upright and honest has never been a Greek forte
so to cover up their artificiality they resort to not only changing people’s
name but erasing timeless place names and replacing them with alien ones
to suit their purposes.
“But how were the names changed?
One method was by the direct replacement of the existing names by
their ancient predecessors. The usual source was Pausanias’ description of
Greece, written in the second century AD. When the names stemmed from
(ancient) Greek toponyms but had been adopted to the local dialect (i.e.
they had been ‘altered’), they should be reformed in accordance with the
phonetic and morphological rules of Katharevousa. (Marousi, derived from
the ancient Amarynthos became amarousion). Sometimes toponyms were
replaced by names that really existed; other times they were changed
randomly and hastily. When non-Greek toponyms were adopted, this was
done in a total arbitrary fashion, sometimes on the basis of misunderstood
morphology (for example, a wooded village might be called ‘tree-less’
(adendron). In other cases, the result was the unsuccessful translation of
the non-Greek name. Names that had acquired a commemorative value,
particularly since the Revolution of 1821, were often replaced by obscure,
antiquated denominations (Tripoly in place of Tripolitza, Aigion in place
of Vostitsa, Kalamai in place of Kalamata, Amphissa in place of Salona,
Lamia in place of Zitouni, Agrinion in place of Vachori). Even national
heroes had to change their names. For example, Rigas Valestinlis had to
change to Rigas Pheraios because his village of Valestino was near the site
of ancient Pherai. Still, despite apparent chaos, frequently comic results,
and general incoherence, the process followed an internal logic: the
creation of a ‘Hellenized’ toponymic environment.
Who decided to change the toponyms?
It might have been expected that this would have been done at the
initiative of the state: An instruction came from above, from the center to
the region. But it did not happen exactly this way. The government used to
appoint commissions composed of university professors of history,
linguistics, folklore, and archeology. The 1920 commission, set up after
the acquisition by Greece of Macedonia, Thrace and Epirus, was
constituted by the same persons who had created the ‘scientific’ study of
the Greek nation – that is, the creators of the country’s history, archives,
and the Museum of National History (Spyridon Lambros), of its folklore
(Nikolaos Politis), and of its linguistics (Georgios Tajiadakis).”
(“Hellenism Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity”,
edited by Katerina Zacharia, pages 232 and 233)
Part 23 – The Need for Intelligence Gathering

We all talk about the tremendous effort and money our enemies spend
in pursuit of their interests, which directly affects our ability to pursue
ours, but we have no idea specifically who our enemies are. Why? Because
we have absolutely no information on who is the enemy. We may not even
have information on our own people who make decisions, run our
organizations, raise funds, contribute funds, etc. We have little to no
information particularly on those who are “influential in the Macedonian
community and in Macedonian organizations” inside or outside of
Macedonia. So our enemies “might” even be closer than we think. The
operative word here is “might” and the question is “how do we know for
sure who the enemy is and is not?”
Hearing what we want to hear and assuming that all people who speak
positively about our cause have our best interests at heart, nowadays, is not
enough to assume that all such people are honest and our friends. Words
alone are cheap and cost nothing.
We may or may not have enemies in our midst; all I am saying is that
we should have some way of screening our people especially in positions
of responsibility, just like every corporation screens its employees, to
ensure that they don’t have “bad apples”. How many Macedonian
Organizations today screen their members, particularly those who serve on
executive boards?
Why am I asking these “uneasy” questions and possibly creating
suspicion and mistrust among our people?
Too many times, at critical moments, we have witnessed our enemies
waltz in and take over our organizations. It has happened to dozens of
Village Associations in the Diaspora in the last fifty years or so. It has
happened half a dozen times during the Greek Civil War when “friendly”
Greeks infiltrated Macedonian organizations and not only rendered them
useless but vilified our leaders and true patriots and made them look like
traitors in front of their own people. It has even happened at the most
critical time in Macedonia’s history; the Ilinden Uprising. Did you know
that Gotse Delchev and his supporters did not want an “early Uprising”
because they knew the Macedonian people were not ready? Yet we had an
early Uprising which turned into a disaster for the Macedonian people and
for the Macedonian cause. And who benefited the most from the early
Uprising? Our enemies of course, the very same ones who occupy
Macedonia today! How many times must this happen before we realize
that we need to do more to prevent these things from happening again?
This is why it is very important to have reliable information on our
leaders, particularly on the Macedonian leadership outside of Macedonia
where our enemies can easily infiltrate organizations and lead our people
astray.
 This is not to accuse anyone here of anything but to suggest that we
proceed with caution.
The idea for gathering intelligence is not new; it has been used by
every country in the world to keep an eye on its enemies. Unfortunately it
has not been effectively implemented in the Macedonian communities
especially outside of Macedonia; which has potentially left gaping holes
for our enemies to walk through.
Our enemies do not work in mysterious ways when it comes to
infiltrating our organizations. They simply find ways to create contention
between Macedonians and manage to stifle our progress and divide our
people. Instead of sticking to issues, our enemies attack the integrity of
good people and make their motives look questionable. I have seen this
happen many times to good people who were falsely accused of
“wrongdoing” and forced to explain themselves for something they had
not done. Found in this situation, most honest Macedonians give up and
quit fighting for the cause. There is nothing worse and demoralizing than
being falsely accused of “wrongdoing” especially if you have voluntarily
devoted your life’s energy to work hard for the benefit of every
Macedonian!
One of the more effective methods Macedonia’s enemies employed
during the Ilinden Uprising was to infiltrate Macedonian organizations by
pretend to be great patriots and by saying all the right things that every
Macedonian wanted to hear. Then while having the attention of the
Macedonian people, particularly in private, they would find faults,
criticize, demean and generally work against the Macedonian leadership.
The worst however that our enemies can do is use our own energies
and resources against us. Imagine our enemies raising funds from our
Macedonian communities and using those funds against the very same
generous and patriotic people who donated them. What measures have we
implemented to prevent this from happening?
How many times have you witnessed Macedonian leaders being
accused of “stealing money” without a shred of evidence and with
absolutely no consequence to the accusers? In what society do people
tarnish innocent people’s reputations and get away with it? What have we
done to ensure that this does not happen?
It is easy to see why intelligence gathering is so important.
Here is a 120 year old story about a Macedonian patriot who gave up
fame and fortune for the sake of helping his people.
“Realizing the Graecizing intentions of the Greek authorities, the
young Macedonian poet became a bitter enemy of their policy, and
particularly of the Greek clergy, led by the notorious Patriarch of
Constantinople. Grigor Prlichev (1830-1893) was sufficiently far-sighted
to realize that the cultural domination under Greek rule would have much
worse consequences for the national and cultural development of the
Macedonian people than the politico-social domination under Turkish rule,
which, though it had lasted a long time, was bound to end sooner or later.
Accordingly, following the example of his master Dimitar Miladinov,
Prlichev decided to wage unremitting war on the assimilating ambitions of
the Greek clergy. All this is very significant because Prlichev, this talented
Greek scholar, this passionate lover of classical Greek literature, who for
long believed there was no greater poet than Homer and no better doctors
than those of Athens (as he himself wrote in his" Autobiography"),
suddenly changed. Putting love of his own [Macedonian] nation first, he
never wrote another line in Greek, although he knew very well that he
could have exploited his extraordinary poetic gifts in that language with
undoubted success.” (Nurigiani, Giorgio. “The Macedonian Genius
Through the Centuries”. London: David Harvey Publishers, 1972. page
147)
As it was done in the 1800’s it is so done today, Hellenism will stop at
nothing from swallowing up ethnic groups and turning them into Modern
Hellenes, a deadly disease that has not ceased since the formation of the
artificial Greek state in 1829. Besides wanting to turn every Macedonian
into a Greek, modern Hellenism also sees Macedonism as its mortal enemy
with which it cannot co-exist and will do everything in its power to destroy
it.
“…as it is well known that from a fifth to perhaps nearly a fourth of
the inhabitants of Greece are said to be Albanians, whose fathers played so
noble a part, both by sea and land, in the war of Greek independence. We
believe the following facts have to do with that antipathy. No people have
a more ardent national spirit, or cling more tenaciously to their language
and ancient customs, than the Albanians. Now the Greeks, to their honour
be it said, among the first things they did as a nation, set up a system of
National schools, with primary, secondary, and higher education, all over
the country; but in these schools nothing was taught but Greek, and hence
the Albanians, who did not understand that language, were put to a serious
disadvantage. Greek statesmen said Albanian was no language – it had no
literature, not even an alphabet – it was a patois, and would die out in a
generation, and the children of the Albanian soldiers and sailors would all
be good Greeks; and so neither the Government nor private individuals did
anything for the Albanian population. But now, at the distance of over half
a century, things remain very much as they were when Greece, first was
declared independent. Most of the Albanians are rude and ignorant, and far
behind the rest of the population; while in the island of Aegina and many
other places – nay, only a few miles from Athens itself; there are many
families who can’t speak a word of Greek. The experiment has failed. It is
the same problem that meets us in the highlands in Scotland, in Wales and
in Ireland. We do not greatly blame Greece, for she probably believed that
she could Hellenize these sturdy Arnauts; but it is high time now to retrace
her steps, and complete her admirable schooling-system, by teaching both
Albanian and Greek where the population is Albanian. Thanks to the
London Tract Society, there are now school-books in both dialects of
languages, while the Bible Society has provided them with the Testament
and Psalms. Greek would thus remove the fear of national annihilation,
with which so many regard union with her as synonymous, while she will
pay a graceful tribute of gratitude to her Albanian people, and raise them
from that barbarism in which so many still remain, and, still more, from
their deep religious ignorance.” (“The Catholic Presbyterian”, edited by
Professor W. G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D., F.R.S.E., Vol. II., July – December
1879, page 318)
“This preoccupation with Greekness only really began after the War of
Independence, when defining what it meant to be a Greek became a vital
element in creating a new state. And it never ceased being a national sport.
When the Greeks won their freedom from the Ottomans in 1834, their first
capital was the smart little Peloponnesian port of Nafplio. It was thought to
be far more suitable than the goat-infested ruins and the insignificant,
predominantly Turkish-Albanian settlement which existed in nineteenth-
century Athens.” (“Euridyce Street a Place in Athens”, by Sofka Zinivieff,
page 38)
Part 24 - The Walls are closing in

Nowadays we hear things like “Bulgarian customs officials confiscate

Vinzhito material”, “Greek Fascists Disrupt Presentation of the Greek -
Macedonian Dictionary in Athens”, “the European Commission Vice
President Jacques Barrot referred to the Republic of Macedonia as
‘Northern Macedonia’”, etc., and wonder what has gone wrong in this
world? Can’t a tiny country like Macedonia be itself and feel safe in this
so-called “civilized” world?
If you have been oppressed like the Macedonians and have been under
one or another’s thumb for a couple of millenniums you too will wonder
“what have you done that was so wrong to deserve all this?” If my
grandfather was still alive he would say, “Be patient my boy we have
endured a lot and our time will come some day”. And I suppose it is
“hope” like his that kept us “alive” for this long! But unfortunately I do not
have my grandfather’s patience or humility so rather than leave my destiny
completely to fate, I want some answers!
Well, what have we done to deserve all this?
We have done nothing! But a more appropriate question would be
“why are all these people doing this to us?”
Well, if you look at each individual incident separately you will find
that each of these people or entities appears to have some issue with us.
They don’t want us to succeed as Macedonians! For some reason or
another they don’t like us and our presence is causing them discomfort.
But why? We are not a threat to them. All these “countries” which have “a
problem with us” are militarily more powerful so what possible threat
could we be to them?
Well, we are not a military threat but rather a threat of the
“embarrassing kind”.
You see Europe has historically wronged the Macedonian people many
times for various reasons. Most recently Europe wronged us in 1878 when
we were liberated and then given back to the Ottomans without any
assurances or safeguards that we would not be further abused. Then they
wronged us in 1912, 1913 and 1919 when they signed various Treaties
allowing our neighbours to occupy us, partition our country and annex it
for themselves; again without any safeguards that we would not be
harmed. What happened to us in 1878 and is happening to us to this day is
not an accident but rather well planned by the Western Europeans. But
worse than that, and bordering on the insane, is for “whom” did the
Western Europeans do all this?
If you have been reading these chapters by now you would know that,
ethnically speaking, “there is no such thing as a Greek”. And yes you
guessed it; the Europeans “sacrificed” Macedonia for the sake of Greece,
an artificially created nation of their own making. They took Macedonia
from the Macedonian people and gave it to the “fake” Greeks whom they
created from the ashes of the Slav, Albanian and Vlach cultures which just
happened to exist on the same soil as the ancient cultures the Western
Europeans wanted to imitate!
How is that for a “slap on the face”?
So that there is no misunderstanding I will say it again. France, Britain
and Germany, and there may have been others, possibly Russia, took
Macedonia away from the Macedonian people and gave it to a bunch of
undeserving Greek wannabe Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs who were not
only NOT Greeks and had nothing to do with the ancient people who lived
on those lands, but were themselves the descendents of “recent
immigrants”. They gave our Macedonia away to non-Macedonians who
themselves are descendents of immigrants who came to live in the
Peloponnesus from the 11th to the 15th century. Then in the 1920’s Western
Europeans allowed Greece to settle another 1.1 million Christian Turkish
settlers, of whom more than half were settled in Macedonia, and today
Greece portrays these Turks as the “real” Macedonians, descendants of the
ancient Macedonians no less, and we the indigenous Macedonians roam
the world as permanent political refugees being cast out by Greece! Would
you not feel “ashamed” if you were responsible for all this? And yes,
Western Europeans were party to all this!
So, rather than “correcting” past wrongs and apologizing to the
Macedonian people for what they did, Western Europeans today look for
ways to “permanently silence” the Macedonians because they are a
constant reminder of a “reckless” past not only for committing atrocities
but for the “insane” reasons for which they were committed.
Greece was “artificially created” to lay the foundation for a Western
European Civilization. This was done, in large part, at the expense of
Macedonia and the Macedonian people. The name “Macedonia” is
therefore a constant reminder to the Western Europeans that the very
foundation that supports their modern Western European culture is a
rotten, “false” foundation resting on the corpse of Macedonia.
If I had my grandfather’s faith I would say “that corpse upon which the
European foundation is laid is still alive and one day will rise and expose
the Western Europeans for what they truly are.”
But if history has anything to say, the Macedonians are not about to
disappear and will continue to cause Western Europe “discomfort” until
Western Europe learns to be “truly democratic”, faces its fears and gets rid
of its old skeletons.
Every country in the world has cleansed itself of its past “wrongs” and
as you are reading this, Cambodia is going through that process right now.
Every country has come clean except, of course, Greece and Bulgaria.
Bulgaria and Greece have “escaped” their punishments for what they have
done to their minorities and have yet to exorcise themselves of their past
demons. Both Greece and Bulgaria, to this day, desperately “hang on with
all their might” to old beliefs that somehow they are “special”,
“homogeneous” and “superior” to the rest of us. Beliefs that should be
dead and gone; beliefs that belong in the past together with “Nazism and
Fascism”.
Macedonians are here to stay and Greece and Bulgaria along with their
“patrons and protectors” must learn to deal with it.
As for Macedonia’s neighbour to the South, we are not done with you
yet! As long as you deny our existence and continue to oppress our
Macedonian compatriots living on Greek occupied Macedonian soil, we
will continue to expose your artificiality and the atrocities you have
committed against the Macedonians and other minorities.
It is interesting to note that most Greeks know that their identity is
artificial but go along with the majority pretending to be Greeks anyway.
What puzzles me is that they, knowing that they are an artificial nation
themselves, have the audacity to deny the Macedonians their identity.
There is however a hidden purpose to “pretending to be Greek”, which
has little to do with “ethnicity” but a lot to do with “being positioned” high
up on the “ladder” of Greek society. Greece, to this day, values and
employs “loyal Greeks” at its highest paid positions irrespective of
competence, so it is understandable that there are so many scandals in the
country. “Real Greeks” (the ones deeply committed to Hellenism) as one
Greek professor put it to me, “work in Greece in businesses or in highly
paid positions of power” in the Greek government. When I asked him,
“who then are the Greeks behind the so-called ‘Australian Macedonian
Advisory Council’?” To my surprise the professor said “they are your
kind” and would not elaborate on what “your kind” means. So I assume he
meant “Hellenized Macedonians”. But what surprised even the good
professor is “if they were such loyal Greeks, why have they left Greece for
Australia?” Like the professor said, “loyal Greeks work in Greece”. To
have left their beloved Greece for Australia means that they were not
“good enough Greeks” to be in “good positions” in Greece which puts
them at the top of the list for not only being traitors to their own true
identity but also “losers” to the Greek identity they value so much and
work so hard for.
Let’s face it, every “intelligent Greek” pretends to be a patriotic Greek
because it is popular and has its benefits. If you play along with the big
boy Great Western European Powers, and be their loyal dog of the female
gender, you not only get a country with an illustrious name and history but
you also get someone else’s country with an even more illustrious history
to boot. I guess “selling your identity” has a price but look at the benefits
you get in return? Unfortunately we Macedonians are not “clever enough”
to be someone’s loyal dog of the female kind and that is why we not only
lost our country but were forced to accept three new and “false” identities.
What were we thinking?
 Oh Europe you have messed up so bad it will take years of
“psychological treatment” to get you un-messed. If only the world knew
what you have done!
Have you noticed how foreigners, particularly Western Europeans,
think of the so-called “Balkan mentality” and how “irrational” the people
in the Balkans are? Well whose fault is that? We lived without borders as
Christians for thousands of years and had no problems among ourselves
until the Western Europeans came with their “imperialist” and nationalist
ideals and created Greece, the “Frankenstein child of Europe” and gave it a
fake identity and instilled in it “dreams of grandeur”. After all that they
have the audacity to blame us for “acting weird”? How would you act if
Frankenstein’s monster lived next door to you?
“The Greeks had not taken very much interest in their past until
Europeans became enthusiastic discoverers and diggers of their ruins. And
why should they have cared? The Greeks were not Greek, but rather the
illiterate descendents of Slavs and Albanian fisherman, who spoke a
debased Greek dialect and had little interest in broken columns and
temples except as places to graze their sheep. The true Philhellenes were
the English – of whom Byron was the epitome – and the French, who were
passionate to link themselves with the Greek ideal. This rampant and
irrational Phili-Hellenism, which amounted almost to a religion, was also a
reaction to the confident dominance of the Ottoman Turks, who were
widely regarded as savages and heathens.
The contradiction persists, even today: Greek food is actually Turkish
food, and many words we think of as distinctive Greek, are in reality
Turkish. – kebab, doner, kofta, meze, taramsalada, dolma, yogurt,
mussaka, and so forth; all Turkish.” (“The Pillars of Hercules” by Paul
Thereoux”, page 316)
And now I will leave you with this;
“The sign of the entrance at Delphi said ‘Show proper respect’ and ‘It
is forbidden to sing or make loud noises’ and ‘Do not pose in front of
ancient stones’.
I saw a pair of rambunctious Greek youths being reprimanded by an
officious little man, for flinging their arms out and posing for pictures. The
man twitched a stick at them and sent them away.
Why was this? It was just what you would expect to happen if you put
a pack of ignoramuses in charge of a jumble of marble artifacts they had
no way of comprehending. They would in their impressionable stupidity
begin to venerate the mute stones and make up a lot of silly rules. This
‘Show Proper Respect’ business and ‘No Posing’ was an absurd and
desperate transfer of the orthodoxies of the Greek’s tenacious Christianity,
as they applied the severe prohibitions of their church to the ruins.
Understanding little of the meaning of the stones, they could only see them
in terms of their present religious beliefs; and so they imposed a sort of
sanctity to the ruins. This ridiculous solemnity was universal in Greece.”
(“The Pillars of Hercules” by Paul Thereoux”)
Part 25 – Reacting to Rumours

Ever since this so-called “name dispute” was invented by Greece there
has been no rest or peace for the Macedonian people. The “name dispute”,
believe it or not, is not a dispute about “The Name” but a dispute that
threatens to destroy the very existence of the Macedonian identity. Every
Macedonian, particularly those from Greece, knows this and feels it’s their
duty as Macedonians to protect their name. They believe, and rightfully so,
that if the name is changed in any way everything that is Macedonian will
cease to exist and Greece will make sure of that. No wonder every time
there is mention of a “solution” found or a rumour spread about the “name
dispute” Macedonians freak out and become terrified half to death. Greece
and the Greeks know this, which is why they waste no opportunity to
spread rumours every chance they get! I know this because I get frantic
calls from people wanting to know – if this time the rumours are true. This
has happened over a hundred times in the last four years alone. So I would
like to offer my two cents worth.
First and foremost Macedonians must stop reacting to rumours. As the
saying goes “fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me!”
We can’t help how Greeks conduct their business but we can sure help
how we conduct ours. Which means, as a rule, we should never
“overreact” to “stories” that are not verified. And how can we “verify”
stories? Well here is where I am going to make my second suggestion!
Given how rumours are generated and circulated by those who benefit
from them and given how Macedonians react to rumours, especially
rumours about the name of their country and their identity, it’s time that
the Macedonian Government “does something” to “manage” rumours.
Given that most of these rumours “implicate” the Macedonian
Government of “wrong doing” and given how Macedonians react to them,
it’s time for the Macedonian Government to open some communication
channels with its people and openly respond to its citizen’s concerns,
particularly to those citizens who work for the media. Rumours and all
other concerns that “drive Macedonians insane” can be put to rest simply
by creating an e-mail address to take questions and a blog to post
responses. Then those who have concerns can contact the government
directly and get straight answers directly from the government and not
from rumours circulated by our enemies.
People have certain expectations from their government and if those
expectations are not managed properly, or not at all, misunderstanding can
arise and lead to speculation and wrong conclusions. Like I said above, we
can’t help how our “enemies” conduct their business but we certainly can
help how we conduct ours.
Regarding the “name issue”; if the Government wants to be at peace
with the people who elected it then it must follow what the people want
and, from what I know so far to this day, the vast majority of Macedonians
who feel and identify as Macedonians do not want the name touched and
want the Macedonian government to break off talks with the Greeks and
all other parties concerned. The name of this country is not negotiable. The
name is not only historical and biblical but it is closely linked to the
Macedonian people’s identity and history. A change in the name will lead
Macedonia down the slippery slope of permanent extinction not only of
the name but of the Macedonian identity itself. Just look at what happened
in 1912 and 1913. We have living examples of what happened then and
this was done “without” the Macedonian people’s participation. Imagine
now what devastating effects it will have if we “voluntarily” change our
name! How can history, past generations who gave their lives for
Macedonia and future generations who will never be born Macedonian,
ever forgive us if we rob them of their true identity? And what exactly will
we be doing this for? What possible gains could we expect to receive for
selling out our identity and our children’s future? And how would history
and those who died for Macedonia label us for doing this?
In all seriousness we should not even joke about changing our
country’s name. In fact we shouldn’t even be thinking about it because
such an act is unthinkable. We all by now must understand that Greece and
Europe have been planning our demise since 1878 and want us nothing
less than extinct. The very same people who designed Nazism and
launched Germany to dominate the world created Hellenism and launched
the neo-Greeks to destroy Macedonia and erase it from the face of the
earth. So far they have destroyed Aegean Macedonia, don’t give them the
chance to destroy the rest!
The very name “Macedonia” is a threat to Europe for many reasons,
which I will not get into at this time, but most importantly everyone must
understand that if we “give in”, even a tiny little bit on the name, it means
that we can be pushed to “give in” more, to acquiesce, to capitulate, to
surrender on other things and they will push us to do this again and again
until there is nothing more to “give” and there will be nothing left of
Macedonia or the Macedonian people as identities. And who will we be
then? And most importantly with what we will be laying claim to our
fatherland, to our heritage for which our recent ancestors spilled their
blood to protect and preserve for us?
In the past they encouraged us to “become” Greeks, Serbians and
Bulgarians and we joked and laughed about it, we even made expressions
like “I am a Greek as much as a donkey is a horse”. But in 1913 after they
occupied and partitioned our country, made our identity “extinct” and
forced us to accept their artificial identities we were no longer laughing;
not even smiling. That was then and what was done to us then was done
without our consent, but today the very same people are asking us to
voluntarily “wipe ourselves out of existence”. Are we that naïve and
gullible and expected to commit ethnic genocide voluntarily? And for
what? To satisfy the wishes of a people who pretend to be Greeks? As I
have said a dozen times before, the modern Greeks are a fabricated
identity artificially created by the Philhellenes to serve the needs of the
Western Europeans. They are not even real! Are we going to let them push
us around? Are we going to voluntarily “kill” our own real ethnic identity
just for the sake of satisfying the Greek lust for falsehood and racism? Our
cause here is not just noble and about saving our own identity, it has a
greater meaning. It is about truth and justice and rising above the
falsehoods that have been laid down over us for centuries. Every
Macedonian I know wants nothing but justice and the truth to prevail, that
is the only way our world can truly become just and democratic, and to
live by the very same principles our ancestors in 1903 and in the 1940’s
died for. Many Macedonians died in their struggle to pass on to us a
decent, united, independent, democratic and free Macedonia. Are we going
to let them down? Who among us is prepared to go against the wishes of
our ancestors, the very same ones who gave their lives in blood-stained
struggles to give us a future? Are we prepared to forget what happened to
them and wipe their sacrifices off the face of the earth, and for what? What
could be more valuable than freedom, a value for which so many
Macedonians over the centuries gave their lives?
Have we already forgotten the meaning of the words “Freedom of
death?”
If the Macedonian government wants to “tinker” with “issues” and
does not want to get into trouble with the people who put it in power, then
it had best learn how to inform the people and make its intentions known
without committing itself to something that it will later regret. Westerners
have learned from experience not to tempt fate and before officially
introducing something controversial they make sure it is “leaked” to the
media. If there is a positive reaction from the people (a rare occurrence)
then the government can “take credit” for the idea, but heaven forbid if the
idea turns out to be a “political hot potato”. The government can then
immediately disown it and attribute it to “rumours created by the
opposition”. It is a sure method of keeping the government “popular” and
ensuring re-election and at the same time “de-popularizes” the opposition.
I never said “politics” was decent or honest, but just a way of life in our
Western modern world.
Following are the opinions of other Macedonians regarding recent
events that are associated with the “name” issue:
Justice Seeker wrote:
What comes to mind immediately about the “name” is the
internationally accepted principles of the right to self determination and
self-identification. I don’t buy for one minute any arguments that a name
change won’t affect your identity. If that is the case, why the need for a
name change? I'd still call myself a Macedonian but I would go to my
grave with nightmares of Greeks reminding me unfairly and constantly
that I don't exist.
 If there was really a need for a “reasonable compromise”, the only
legitimate name that could be used is “The Republic of Macedonia” which
is completely distinguishable and shouldn’t be confused with other parts of
Macedonia.
Regarding the “negotiations”! First and foremost one’s own identity is
not negotiable!
Second, there have been comments on this forum that in negotiations
both parties have to give up something. What has Greece given up to this
day?
Let me see how the negotiations have gone thus far. The Republic of
Macedonia changed its constitution, changed its flag, incurred massive
economic losses because of the Greek blockades without compensation,
agreed to an interim name that is insulting and contrary to UN rules, the
Macedonian people waste their valuable time and emotions on protecting
their identity because of brainwashed Greek racists, and all this whilst
Greece usurps Macedonian lands, history, heritage, etc. And what exactly
had Greece given up? Nothing! It now solidly makes the preposterous
claim that Macedonia is Greek. Does that mean the Republic of Macedonia
is also Greek? If we give up our name and identity what will we be?
The biggest mistake the Macedonian side has made this far is getting
into negotiations with Greece on things that cannot possibly be negotiated;
Greece has proven its greater experience. When you negotiate you
negotiate an entire package not one thing at a time. Instead, we have seen
negotiations progressing on one thing at a time and the Macedonians have
been eaten alive. With such farcical negotiating, if we look at the name in
isolation we are not playing in the spirit of bargaining, no matter how
absurd such a proposition. And what makes you think that the Greeks will
stop asking for more and more things to be “negotiated” after we give in
on the name? What will be next, our identity? And what after that?
As an example, the Macedonian side should have put forward
something along the following on the table; Our name is the Republic of
Macedonia and our ethnic identity is Macedonian which are not
negotiable! We have the right to self determination and we decide what to
call ourselves. You have ethnic Macedonians living on your soil who you
need to immediately recognize. If you do all this we will not sue you for
the acts of genocide which you committed against us in the last 100 years.
We will also forgive you for forcing us to change our constitution and flag
and we won’t seek compensation for the illegal economic blockades you
imposed on us. Also we will allow you to use the word Macedonia.
However as a goodwill gesture you will have to pay us 50 billion EUs for
years of obstructing our progress.
I believe this is only fair. But instead of putting something forward like
the above, we have allowed Greece to coerce us by tactics which are not
genuine or in good faith;
- Greece imposes block on UN entry, Macedonia agrees to interim
agreement, now can join UN under interim name FYRoMacedonia.
- Greece imposes economic blockage, Macedonia gives up flag and
changes constitution, Greece lifts blockade.
- Greece vetoes Macedonian entry to EU and NATO, Macedonia must
change its name, no way, ok no entry for you.
What comes next? And when will Greece cease to extort more
concessions from Macedonia?
About the Albanians living in Macedonia! The Albanians in
Macedonia can do a lot more for Macedonia than they have up to this
point. But instead they have chosen to act as pawns for Greece. Macedonia
cannot enter NATO because of Greece and its high time the Albanians
recognize and admit to that. Why not do something useful and pressure
Albania and Kosovo to put pressure on Greece or the EU to end this Greek
fiasco.
The Albanian minority should be screaming at its western friends to
put pressure on Greece who is in breach of all human rights principles and
international laws.
In conclusion, the issue is not simply about a “name” but part of
Greece’s long term strategy to annihilate the Macedonian national identity.
They did it in Aegean Macedonia and they want to do it in the Republic of
Macedonia and the rest of it.
It’s simple, Greece does not want an independent people called
Macedonians in NATO, in the EU or anywhere else for that matter,
because the open border policy will effectively prove to those living in
Aegean Macedonia, that they are real, decent people live in the Republic
of Macedonia, people like us, not monsters as depicted by the Greek
propaganda machine. That is the essence of all this.
It is with quiet displeasure I read that the Albanian minority is
threatening the Macedonian government (and effectively the Macedonian
people) that their patience is wearing thin about the name issue and that
they will take some sort of action if this is not resolved soon. If this is true,
this is not only repulsive but is blatantly an indication of the true nature of
this minority and their lack of engagement with the country they live in.
I ask one simple and obvious question, why is their issue not with
Greece who is the real cause of all the problems? A country that does not
respect or acknowledge its minorities, a country that openly is committing
genocide, a country which usurps other peoples’ history, heritage and
livelihoods. Why have I not seen or heard any attack upon Greece from
these ethnic Albanians who are citizens of the Republic of Macedonia?
As citizens of the Republic of Macedonia they should openly be
damning Greece and not the Macedonian Government or the Macedonian
people. What they are doing is nothing short of treason!
Posted by Justice Seeker on www.maknews.com/forum
Maknews wrote:
 How is pressuring Macedonia to appease Greek racism a legitimate
Albanian concern?
Posted by maknews on www.maknews.com/forum
Rogi wrote:
For those who contemplate a name change; Do you believe the Greeks
have legitimate claims against us and accept or even support their position,
agreeing that we should change our name?
Tell me, why must Macedonia change its name? What defeatist
reasoning would you have to justify that?
I'm completely disappointed in people who think this way, I can only
hope that those who share these treasonous and naïve views are but a small
minority.
Any acceptance of any name for internal or international use, because
of a dispute with Greece, is against the very principles of sovereignty and
against the sovereign right of the Republic of Macedonia in its assertion of
its historic name and national identity.
There is a historic dimension to this also and you seem to ignore that.
You look at a name change from a purely technical view, where the name
can be detached from its meaning. Any name change for Macedonia will
be acceptance of the end of the Macedonian people.
That everyone naively accepts the baseless fear-mongering is
indicative of their incapacity to realize the full implications and
consequences of a name change and this is because those people cannot
look at things from a historical perspective and in a historical context.
This is why such people are prepared to accept a name change basing
their idea that 'we will still be known as Macedonians' on nothing but
hope. You are playing a dangerous and risky game with absolutely nothing
based on certainty - your politics stink, it is flawed and there is no
reasoning, logic, plan or strategy to justify it.
Posted by Rogi on www.maknews.com/forum
Phoenix wrote:
Beware of 'Greeks' bearing gifts...It’s no coincidence that the 'Greeks'
are pushing for a geographical identifier, it has the vile ability to diminish
our history, culture and language, our identity is at stake here...adopting
such foolishness is akin to turning over a new leaf, to start from scratch
and to abandon our past.
A geographical identifier, if adopted, will be bound by water tight legal
mumbo jumbo within the straight-jacket confines of international law and
will dramatically alter the way each and every one of us identifies in the
Diaspora, how we name our language, our church, our cultural
organizations, our social clubs, our sports clubs and every association that
exists today...
For any of you thinking that a geographic identifier is the course of
least resistance, you're kidding yourselves...
Posted by Phoenix on www.maknews.com/forum
 Prolet wrote:
Some of you might see the “name change” as an olive branch however
its more like a Trojan horse if you ask me, because the Greeks expect this
“new name” to be used everywhere and our name and identity has to be
changed in our constitution, our passports, our citizenship papers and a
whole lot of other places.
Some say “Northern Macedonia” is better than FYROM however
when you look at it the problem is deeper and there is much more to it than
that, there are many hidden catches to this name which will hurt us badly
in the long run.
Posted by Prolet on www.maknews.com/forum
“The modern Greeks, as we know, have no relationship to the Latins,
nor for that matter with the ancient Greeks. Modern anthropology has
shown that they are brachycephalous Slavs, while the ancient Greeks were
dolichocephalous, which fact is sufficient to establish an absolutely
fundamental separation between the modern Greeks and their pretended
ancestors.” (“The Psychology of Socialism” by Gustave Le Bon, page 206)
Everyone who has read these chapters must know by now that
“Greeks” are not real but an artificial fabrication designed to serve some
“Western European” purpose which by now is no longer valid or required.
Hellenism was a Nazi experiment to test the idea of creating a “superior
race” by convincing a variety of people into believing that they are
“superior”, something which they are not. Obviously the existence of
Greece today is proof that the experiment was a success. But that’s just it,
Greece is not real only a racist experiment, so why should we be expected
to sacrifice our own real and vibrant culture for the sake of propagating
and keeping alive a lie and a “Frankenstein’s monster”? Food for thought!
Part 26 – The Unconvinced

This chapter is dedicated to all those “good natured”, “kind”

Macedonians who try so hard to “convince” the Greeks that “Macedonians
really do exist” and “Macedonians are people too and should be treated
with respect”.
Welcome to my world!
I am ashamed to admit it but I too was once like you. I thought that by
explaining myself I could get Greeks to listen to my side of the story and
surely they could also see things my way and we could reach a “common
understanding”.
I spent the better of my last thirty years trying to accomplish just that
by taking the time to explain to the Greeks that “yes, Macedonians do exist
and here is proof” only to be ridiculed and insulted even more.
Unfortunately, to this day, I am sorry to say that I have not convinced even
a single Greek of anything. Why? Have I not been truthful and forward
with them? Have I not provided enough evidence to them? No!
The problem here is not with “me” or with “us” not trying hard enough
or not being forward enough, the problem is that Greeks are “brought up”
believing that, with the contradictory information which we provide to
them, we “intend” to bring them harm. From the moment a Greek is born
they are taught to believe that we are their enemy out to rob and murder
them and steal their heritage. They are suspicious of everyone, the “Slavs”
(whoever they may be), the Bulgarians, the Turks and the Americans and
particularly of us who call ourselves Macedonian. The Greek educational
system and the Greek Church have brainwashed them to believe that
Macedonians don’t exist and those of us who say we are Macedonians are
doing this to bring them harm and to steal “their” Macedonia from under
them. Naturally they don’t know their true history and have no clue how
they acquired Macedonia. They don’t even know that they are not “real”
Greeks either.
Most Modern Greeks, at least the ones I dealt with in the past, no
matter what we tell them will not believe us, not only because it
contradicts what they learned from their government sponsored
educational system and from the Greek Church but because, in the back of
their minds, lurks the fear and suspicion that “we are out to get them”, to
do them harm, to steal their Macedonia from under them or to rob them of
their “precious” heritage. Also, above and beyond their programming to be
“suspicious”, Greeks are programmed to believe that they are “superior” to
us on account of being told that they are the descendents of the “superior
ancient Greeks”; an ancient race of racists and xenophobes turned
demigods by the Philhellenes of the 19th century.
In addition to being programmed to be frightfully suspicious, Modern
Greeks are also programmed to be “all knowing” and “egotistical”. A
combination such as this not only makes them “not want to listen to us”
but they feel the need to lecture us, to educate us about “who we are” and
they do that with an air of arrogance and with a superior attitude. Greeks
are not the kind of people who would give an impression of “doubt” or
“uncertainty” about anything or would take kindly to you telling them your
side of the story especially when it contradicts theirs. Greeks do not need
to provide “real” proof of anything, “Greek logic” will suffice and their
word alone is proof enough. This is why they go along using meaningless
slogans like “Macedonia is Greek” but have no idea how, why, when, or
how much of “Macedonia became Greek”.
Anything you say that contradicts their understanding of history,
particularly about Macedonia, will be met with fierce vitriolic opposition
full of overconfidence and spite. Normal law abiding, kind Greeks will
turn into raving lunatics just by mentioning that you are Macedonian.
Macedonians from Greece are used to this but Macedonians from the
Republic of Macedonia and non-Macedonians find it shocking.
Dear Macedonians, from what I have told you so far, what chance do
you think you have of ever convincing a Greek of anything? So why waste
your time trying? Take it from someone who has been there, don’t waste
your time!
Apart from wasting your time, you are also being distracted and
mislead to fall into the classic “Greek trap” from which there is no escape
of being drawn into nonsensical discussions about who was who 2,000
years ago. The only thing Greeks are good at discussing is ambiguity and
mythology!
Our “beef”, if I can call it that, with the Greeks is not about what
happened two thousand years ago but about what has happened since 1912
and 1913 when our country was invaded, occupied and partitioned by
Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria without our consent. Talking and debating
about who was who and what happened two thousand years ago is a
“Greek distraction”, a ploy to keep us busy and away from discussing and
learning about more recent and tragic events like the atrocities committed
by the Modern Greeks against the Macedonian people.
The changing of all our names, the banning of our language, the non-
recognition of our ethnic identity, the confiscation of our lands, the exiling
of our people including innocent children, the torture of our people in their
concentration camps, the killing of our people, the burning of our villages,
the destruction of our books, monuments and cemeteries, and so on are the
real issues that we should be discussing with the Greeks. These are
important issues that we need to bring to the forefront!
The next time you are confronted by a Greek asking a rhetorical
question “demanding to know what language Alexander the Great spoke”
think about what is more important (1) to debate a nonsensical issue that
will lead you into an endless “cyclical trap”, or (2) to say leave ancient
history to the ancient historians and let’s talk about what you Greeks have
done to us Macedonians since 1912!
 I know it is unfair to “paint all Greeks with the same racist brush” and
I apologize to those who are not like that but please prove me wrong!
Stand out in the crowd and say “I am a Greek and I understand and support
you Macedonians”, give me a reason to also say something good about
you!
Why do Greeks behave this way? This is a question that I have
struggled with for the last decade. To get a real appreciation as to why
“Modern Greeks” behave the way they do we need to understand some
things about their predecessors before they were “made” into “Modern
Greeks” by their Philhellene patrons.
The quest for creating a “Modern Greece” began in late 18th century;
years after the Arabs in Spain made Western Europeans aware that an
“ancient civilization” existed in the Region of Morea, modern day
Peloponnesus. Although the Western Europeans had learned much about
this civilization’s accomplishments, they had no plans to use them until the
late 18th century when a need arose to develop an all exclusive European
Civilization. Unfortunately the “ancient civilization”, which declined with
the Macedonian conquests in the fourth century BC, had completely
ceased to exist. But two thousand years later that did not stop the
Philhellenes from attempting to resurrect it.
Not completely satisfied with its disappearance, the Philhellenes were
confident that they could recreate their civilization if only they could
“train” the local people who lived on the same lands to behave and imitate
the ancients. In their zeal to “create” such a civilization, the 19th century
Philhellenes “convinced, coaxed, coerced, or bribed” the living and vibrant
local cultures to “give up” their true “ethnic and cultural identities” for the
promise of becoming “Greeks”, something supposedly “bigger”, “better”
and “more glorious” than what they already had. Naturally there was
opposition to this but those opposing lost out in the end. So in order to
protect their investment from “being eroded” the Philhellenes surrounded
it with a number of “defensive mechanisms”; one of these being the
instilment of mistrust in the new generations. Through the educational
system and through the Greek Church new generations of Greeks were
taught to “mistrust” those who opposed or strayed away from the
Philhellene indoctrination. Two centuries later this defense mechanism is
still active and working as expected.
To keep those who signed on as “Greeks” to stay on as “Greeks” and
to attract new “Modern Greeks” the first generation of “Neo-Hellenes”,
with help from the Philhellenic Academia, not only gave Modern Greece a
glorious past but convinced the New-Greeks that they were “truly” the
descendants of the Ancient people who once created that “sought after”
civilization.
After creating the tiny Greek Kingdom and consolidating their power
the “Neo-Hellenes”, with help from the Philhellene patrons, continued the
process of incorporating new lands and new people into the Modern Greek
fold. Since its inception in 1829 the Greek State has incorporated
Thessaly, Epirus, Crete, 51% of Macedonia, Thrace, the Dodecanese
Islands, etc. It would have also incorporated Asia Minor but its ambitions
were cut short by its catastrophic defeat by Modern Turkey. Now that the
Republic of Macedonia has become independent, removed from the
clutches of Serbia, Greece is developing new taste for old ambitions and
the wish to incorporate another 39% of Macedonia into its Greek fold. If
that is not the case then why advertise to the world that “Macedonia is
Greek”?
In its greed to expand its territory and assimilate people into its
Hellenic fold, to date, Modern Greece has swallowed up and assimilated
the Albanians and Slavs of Morea, the Albanians of Epirus, the Vlachs of
Thessaly, the Macedonians of 51% of Macedonia, the Cretans from Crete,
the Turks from Thrace and the Christian Turks from Asia Minor, not to
mention the Roma, Latin, Armenian, Baltic, Russian and other ethnic
groups living in Greece today.
Of all the ethnic groups assimilated into the Modern Greek
“phenomenon” the Macedonians are the most dangerous and pose the
greatest threat to Greece. This is because of two important factors.
First, by the 1920’s Macedonia was divided into four pieces and was
given to Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania. What was once a single
ethnic Macedonian entity became four diametrically opposed entities
separated by artificial borders. Macedonians have not only not forgotten
this but they can hardly accept that their kin over the “false” border are
now “ethnically different” from themselves. Macedonians cannot accept
being “51% Greeks”, “39% Serbians”, “10% Bulgarians” and “some
small” percentage Albanians; all at the same time.
Second, Macedonians has an illustrious history with deep roots and
traditions that extend to ancient times. Modern Macedonians, irrespective
of which country they live in today, are well aware of their history and
their attempt over the centuries to free themselves from their occupiers and
restore their united, free and independent Macedonia.
Macedonians have no collective memory of ever “coming to
Macedonia” from somewhere else. They do however have traditions that
extend well into ancient times. Modern Macedonians on many occasions
through history exhibited traditions associated not only with the exploits of
the Ancient Macedonians but also with the development and spread of
Christianity and culture all throughout Eastern Europe. The brothers Kiril
and Metodi from Solun and their students Kliment and Naum from Ohrid
are perfect examples of that. Macedonians were responsible for
Christianizing millions of people from the bottom of the Balkans to the top
of Siberia. How can Macedonians “conveniently” forget all that just
because their enemies and current occupiers want them to?
It is very difficult to convince an accomplished people such as the
Macedonians that they “don’t exist” and that they are really “not
Macedonians” at all but something else. Of course no one can explain
what that “something else” might be. And all this comes from who? The
Greeks and Bulgarians, the very same people who brutally invaded,
occupied and partitioned Macedonia?
Even though most people don’t know this, Greeks do have good reason
to be afraid and suspicious of the Macedonians. Greeks over the years
have committed many atrocities against the Macedonian people which the
Macedonians are not about to forget.
The Greeks know and if they don’t know they should learn two things;
one, Modern Greeks occupied and annexed Macedonia by force for the
first time in 1912 and ever since have committed many atrocities against
the Macedonian people. And two, the Modern Greeks of today are not
“Greeks” at all but an artificial Philhellene creation made up of a
collection of Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, Macedonians, Christian Turks and
others. Modern Greeks are not who they claim to be and they are lucky
and should be grateful that they even have Greece, a country to call their
own.
And now a few words about the so-called “name negotiations”
Rogi wrote:
If Macedonia pulled out of the so called “name negotiations” it would
kick up pride amongst Macedonians all over the world, it would be a
complete change, a refreshing change, from the defeatist Macedonia we
have seen to date.
Pulling out of the negotiations would be a bold move for Macedonia
standing up in such a way and defending itself against Greece, which has
been trying to destroy Macedonia and its Macedonian ethnic identity for
over 100 years. Such an act will reinvigorate the Macedonian spirit
everywhere.
It will be the David and Goliath story, told among all Macedonians -
the modern heroic story of the Macedonians standing up for themselves, to
be told and retold to our children and grandchildren.
There will be euphoria and pride in the Macedonian nation more so
than there was in 1991 during Independence. It would signal a whole new
beginning and belief in the Macedonian nation. I am certain that such a
move would generate great interest in Macedonia among Macedonians all
over the world.
That would be more than enough to show the Macedonians around the
world (who have largely lost hope due to corruption, scandals, etc.) that
Macedonia IS worth fighting for and the Macedonian people in Macedonia
ARE prepared to keep Macedonia and a new dawn is upon Macedonia.
It will open the gates for Macedonians in the Diaspora to invest in
Macedonia, with a whole new belief and a new hope for Macedonia.
In the alternate scenario, if Macedonia gives in and changes the name,
it will destroy whatever hope and belief there is for Macedonians around
the world in the Republic of Macedonia and its existential purpose as the
Guardian and Home of the Macedonian people and the Macedonian
identity.
This means no interest in Macedonia, no hope and belief in
Macedonia, it will no longer really be the home and guardian of the
Macedonians rather it would become a nameless, faceless nation-state on
paper, nothing unique about it.
You'll see a lot more Macedonians prepared to leave the country,
particularly among the Macedonian patriots presently living there. That
would then open the doors to corruption and disintegration. Everyone will
look out for themselves, not the nation; you will lose a lot of patriotism
and hope. There would be no real purpose for the existence of a
Macedonian state (since it would no longer be Macedonia in name or in
form).
People talk about the situation Macedonia is in now with
unemployment, etc. and the need for the EU funds and so on. But when the
nation no longer has a dream and a purpose, things will become far, far
worse.
From there you'll see just how quickly division of the territory will
take place, how easily corruption will reign and how soon the country will
disintegrate.
Changing the name will be the beginning of the end of the independent
Republic and cause irreversible damage to the Macedonian spirit.
It would be the historical moment with which, the never fading
Macedonian spirit, which faced thousands of years of oppression and
conquerors, was destroyed by the very Macedonians themselves who gave
everything up and wiped themselves out of history – that moment will be
when the Macedonians destroyed themselves, something no conqueror, no
occupier, no enemy could ever do.
Posted by Rogi at www.maknews.com/forum
Christoff wrote:
Dear Friends,
As these farcical “name negotiations” drag on I can't help but
recognize a systematic flaw in the basis of Macedonia's participation in
these talks. First of all, the entire question of the dispute is one sided and
predicated on a hidden assertion.
Example in law; If an attorney poses a question as such; "How many
times a week do you beat your wife?"
The formulation of the question contains a hidden assertion. It assumes
the fact that you beat your wife!
Example pertinent to this so-called name dispute; The Greeks require a
"mutually acceptable solution to the name problem". It contains the hidden
assertion that there is a mutual problem with our name that must be
resolved! Macedonians however, have no problem with our name!
Any participation in this process on the part of the Macedonians serves to
legitimize the Greek hidden assertion!
THERE IS NO NAME ISSUE THAT MACEDONIANS NEED TO
RESOLVE!
THEREFORE MACEDONIANS “MUST” WITHDRAW FROM THE
PROCESS NOW!
CALL THE GREEK BLUFF AND EXPOSE THEIR HIDDEN
AGENDA!
RESTORE AND PRESERVE THE MACEDONIAN HONOUR!
Posted by Christoff on www.maknews.com/forum
“No Albanian that I ever met in Greece thought of himself as an
Albanian. He thought of himself as a Greek, because he lived in Greece
and that is where he had his pastures or his fields. This seems to have
happened from the very earliest times when migrants first came to Greece.
They used the Albanians from then on as mercenaries and also as settlers
of the areas which were derelict. So the Albanian incursions into Greece
continued under the Turkish system and went on right into the eighteenth
century.” (“Greece Old and New”, edited by Tom Winnifrith and Penelope
Murray, page 45)
Part 27 – Time to Stand Up

By now everyone must know that without the Macedonian support for
the so-called “name dispute” with Greece there would be no “name
dispute” at all, just plain old “complaining”, “crying” and “throwing
temper tantrums” by the Greek side. There is no need for a “mutually
agreed upon name” because Macedonians are happy with the existing
name, just the way it is. Would any Macedonian contemplate changing the
name if there was no pressure from Greece? Certainly not! So where is the
need to change the name?
Again this is another Greek ploy to keep Macedonians distracted from
pursuing more important matters like the “status of the Macedonians in
Greece” and, in the long term, to wear down and break the Macedonian
people.
Dear Macedonians it’s time for us to recognize where these Greeks are
coming from and where they are going with this so-called “name dispute”
and stand up to them and say “no more leading us by our noses”! No more
making up issues about nothing! No more lies and deceit! Let us once and
for all recognize that without the Macedonian participation in these so-
called “name negotiations” Greece has nothing to negotiate and no leg to
stand on!
But as long as there is a single (one) Macedonian willing to entertain
the Greeks on this issue Greece will continue to push “the need to find a
mutually acceptable solution”. Greece will continue to parade us around
like a bunch of fools who are willing to “negotiate” away our own
precious ancestral name and for what? To please the Greeks, the very same
people who since 1913 have been planning and executing our demise? Are
we that naïve, willing to give up our name so that the Greeks will allow us
to cross another “road block” on the road to where? Our own extinction?
Is anyone foolish enough to believe that if we “give in a little” Greece
will leave us alone and will never demand anything of us again? How are
we going to be sure of that? By signing an agreement? By signing the
same kind of agreement that lead us to this situation in the first place?
How are we going to enforce such an agreement against a country that has
broken every international law known to mankind?
Do you think Greece wants us to change our name because it is afraid
of little old Macedonia having “territorial aspirations” against a monster
country like Greece? The only country here that has “territorial
aspirations” is Greece itself against Macedonia. Greece has never given up
on the idea of “possessing” all of Macedonia and has always looked for
ways to annex more Macedonian lands. Now it sees its chance coming and
is looking for ways to destabilize Macedonia so that it can walk in and take
over. Hence the slogan “Macedonia is Greek”. If we are not careful it will
be 1913 all over again!
 If you as a Macedonian believe that we are negotiating a “mutually
acceptable solution” then (1) you must also believe we are “not happy”
with our current name and (2) you obviously have never been bullied
before.
Greece is like a school yard bully picking on a small child demanding
the child hand over his lunch money. If the child gives up the money to
escape the situation without a fight do you think the bully will be satisfied
and will go away and never bother that child again? Or do you think the
bully will come back the next day and demand not only the child’s lunch
money but also his candy and other goodies. And if the child gives in
again and again do you thing the bully will stop “bullying” and go away?
NO! Neither will Greece if Macedonia gives in, even a millimeter! So its
time to take a stand and say NO to these negotiations and to any other
negotiations that may be harmful to Macedonia and the Macedonian
people! We are happy with our name just the way it is and we don’t want
to talk about it, to anyone, any more. However we are not happy with the
way the Greeks are treating us, especially our Macedonian compatriots
living in Greece and we DO want to talk about that.
Many of you have written me and expressed your disgust with the way
Macedonians are being treated by the Greeks. Unfortunately there is
nothing I can do about how “Greeks behave” but there is definitely
something we can all do about how we react to it. Instead of paying
attention to these Greeks and following their lead we need to stand up and
simply say enough is enough “we don’t care about your childish issues”,
and if they don’t like it “too bad”!
On the other hand if you do want to talk about matters of importance
with Greeks then take the lead and challenge them to talk about granting
human rights to Macedonians and other ethnic groups living in Greece.
Now there is a real “issue” you can sink your teeth into.
If you are interested in “talking” let’s start “talking” about how Greeks
treated us in the last 100 years. Why don’t we get together (with the
Greeks) and talk about how we are going to correct the past wrongs they
committed against our people since Greece invaded, occupied, partitioned
and annexed our country.
Dear Macedonians we DO have many “disputes” with Greece and
NONE are about our name! Our disputes with Greece are exactly what the
Greeks don’t want us to think about and that is why they have concocted
the “name dispute” to distract us. That is why we must stand up to these
bullies and take the lead and say NO to the “name dispute” and YES to
“human rights for the Macedonians in Greece”.
The name dispute and everything associated with it is nothing more
than a Greek ploy to destabilize the Republic of Macedonia so that Greece
can one day walk in and annex it, just like it annexed 51% of Macedonia in
1913. This is why Greece has been insisting on using the slogan
“Macedonia is Greek”.
 How is Greece attempting to destabilize Macedonia you say?
By blocking Macedonia’s entry into International Organizations and
keeping Macedonia from achieving prosperity on account of a phony
“name dispute”. Greece is putting extreme pressure on the Macedonian
people to make a decision between two choices. If enough pressure is
applied, for a considerable time, Greece hopes to divide the Macedonian
people into two opposing camps, one supporting a name change and the
other opposing it. To some extent this is already happening today. Such a
division has the potential for starting a civil war and destabilizing the
country. Be warned, if this is allowed to happen the outcome will be
unpredictable and definitely unpleasant and disastrous for Macedonia and
the Macedonian people. It is up to us Macedonians to not let this happen
by immediately pulling out of the “name negotiations” and to no longer
entertain anything to do with our name or ethnic identity. By pulling out
from the “talks” we will render this matter “defunct” and no longer a
threat!
As I write these words I am reminded of the older days when Krste
Misirkov, Yane Sandaski and other Macedonian patriots, who, after the
failed 1903 Ilinden Uprising, tried to warn the Macedonian people not to
trust Greece and Bulgaria on their “false” promises of offering to
“liberate” Macedonia and the Macedonians from the Ottomans. I can
understand their frustration when their warnings were ignored and brushed
aside as nonsense by people with no foresight. Ten short years later
Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria did invade, occupy and partition Macedonia
and they did it under the pretense of liberation.
Are we now going to let the same thing happen again? Have we
learned nothing from our history? Are we foolish enough to think that our
neighbours have relented or have given up on their dreams to possess more
of Macedonia? Have we forgotten how both World Wars were started?
How can we be so sure of anything our neighbours say when we know
for a fact that we are lied to even about our own existence? The fact that
Greece does not recognize the Macedonian ethnic identity is a declaration
of war on the Macedonian people.
What troubles me the most about this is, why are we “negotiating”, and
with our enemies at that, over something that is clearly already ours? And
more troubling than that is “what are we getting in return for negotiating
away our very own existence?
When it comes to the preservation of our eternal name and precious
ethnic identity, all Macedonians from every political party, from every
walk of life and from every continent on this planet “must” stand together
united and with a single voice to say “NO” to Greece or to anyone else
who wishes us harm. That is the only way we can get the “proverbial
monkey off our backs” and perhaps earn some respect while doing it!
Unity IS our strength! United we stand, divided we fall! It’s that simple.
 Paul wrote:
Macedonian politicians are negotiating our identity. Whether they
agree with Greece, or reject Greece's position - is neither here or there. My
point is "We" (Macedonians) are the ones who have put our identity up for
negotiation. We have only ourselves to blame.
If the Macedonians, instead, had chosen to defend our rights, defend
our sovereignty and NOT engaged Greece, our name and our identity
would not be open or up for negotiation!
By Paul from www.maknews.com/forum
“As early as 1770’s, intellectuals were prompting what could be
termed ‘cultural evangelism’ (Kitromilides 1990) or Hellenization of the
highly diverse populations of the Balkans. As Kitromilides remarks,
authors of multilingual dictionaries of the period such as Theodoros
Kavalliots and Daniel of Moschopolis, invited non-Greeks to Hellenize,
pointing out the social mobility benefits associated with Hellenization
(Ibid.: 26-7). Similarly, there is evidence that non-Greek speakers
themselves saw education and fluency in Greek as a major advantage for
themselves and their offspring – Vlach, – Bulgarian - and Romanian
speaking – merchants quite often opted for Greek schools in order to be
able to benefit from the possibilities that these presented.” (“Tormented by
History Nationalism in Greece and Turkey”, by Umut Ozkirimli and
Spiros A. Sofos, page 24)
Part 28 – Twenty-five more authors

If God himself came to earth and spoke to the Greeks and said “these
people here are Macedonians” the Greeks would not believe him. If
Greeks start believing that Macedonians exist in Greece then they will also
have to believe that Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs also exist in Greece. If
Macedonians, Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs exist in Greece then Greeks
will be asking “who then are the Greeks?” And as I have found out in my
quest for “searching for the Greeks”, ethnically speaking, there are no
Greeks.
But how can that be? The entire world knows that there is a country
called Greece populated by 10 million Greeks who are 98% pure Greeks
and 2% Muslim Greeks!
Well there are people who identify as “Greeks”, unfortunately,
ethnically speaking they are not “ethnic Greeks”; they are “politically”
Greeks. Did I just say “politically Greeks”? Yes politically Greeks. They
identify as Greeks not because “they are” ethnic Greeks but because they
“want to be” Greeks! It’s a matter of choice. How else can one explain
Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, Macedonians, Christian Turks, Armenians,
Russians and a whole group of other ethnicities ALL identifying as
“Greeks”?
In other words, anyone can be Greek provided they agree with the
“Philhellenic indoctrination” of what a Greek is. Anyone who speaks
Greek, claims to be a descendent of the so-called Ancient Greeks, pretends
to be superior to other people, claims minorities don’t exist in Greece, is
arrogant and insensitive to non-Greeks and hurls slogans like “Macedonia
is Greek” can be a Greek. Can an Asia Minor Christian Turk settler who
was deposited in Macedonia in the 1920’s be a Greek? Yes they can! They
can even be a Macedonian, descendent of the Ancient Macedonians! Can a
Macedonian whose family identified as Macedonian before Greece
annexed Macedonia in 1913 identify as a Greek? Yes they can, provided
they accept and swear by the “Philhellene Indoctrination”. Can any of my
relatives, like myself who were born in Greece, with whom I share great
grandparents be Greeks even though I identify as a Macedonian? Yes they
can! They can in fact also be “full fledged” Macedonians, direct
descendents of the Ancient Macedonians! Can I be a Greek, and I did ask
this question, on account of some of my family members identifying as
Greeks? The answer was a flat NO! And according to the same “Greek
authorities” who said I could never be a Greek, I don’t even qualify to call
myself Macedonian. According to them I am a “Slav” and a “Skopjan”
from some “other” country called “Skopje”, which I have yet to find on
any “world” map except on maps made in Greece!
If you are still not convinced that the Greek identity is a 19th century
Philhellene fabrication; an identity “created” purely for political purposes,
then you had best read the following twenty-five excerpts;
 1. “There were, however, several magnificent specimens of Greek
palicars, who added to the advantage of soldier like, but rather swaggering
carriage, all the accessories of their picturesque costume. Nine or ten of
them performed the Albanian national dance, to the sound of a bad fiddle
and a jingling guitar played with a quill for the amusement of her majesty,
who did not seem enchanted with this exhibition.
And these men, who were exposing themselves in this absurd manner,
were the far-famed Colocotroni, Nikitas, surnamed the Turkofagos, or
Turk eater, Makryani, Vasso of Montinegro, Nota Botsaris, and other
equally celebrated.” (“Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine”, Vol. XLIII,
January – June 1838)
2. “When Athens was chosen as the site for the modern capital of the
new nation, and its (re)construction was planned along lines of Hellenic
purity, the unsettling evidence of Greece’s Ottoman heritage along with
local vernacular forms had to be confronted, all the more so when situated
in the immediate vicinity of remains of classical antiquity. Early
nineteenth-century Athens was viewed as a ‘disgraceful site’ (Boyer 1996:
163) full of imperfections, ranging from the city’s physical aspect to the
spoken language that called for, ‘filtering-out’ interventions.” (“Contested
Landscapes Movement, Exile and Place”, Edited by Barbara Bender and
Margot Winer, page 23)
3. “In 1851, at the time of her enfranchisement, Greece possessed
about one million inhabitants, of whom a quarter were Albanians or
Walachians. The population was a residue of invaders of all peoples, and
notable of Slavs. For centuries the Greeks properly so called had
disappeared from Greece. From the time of the Roman conquest, Greece
was regarded by every adventurer as a nursery of slaves, which everyone
might have recourse to with impunity.” (“The Psychology of Socialism”,
by Gustav Lo Bon, page 206)
4. “The Greek influence which has partially Hellenized the Vlachs of
Macedonia to-day can hardly date from before the Turkish conquest. It is
the work not of the Byzantine Empire but of the modern Church, and
seems to have reached its height during the eighteenth century.”
(“Macedonia its races and the future”, by H. N. Brailsford , page 181)
5. “Greek statesman said Albanian was not a language – it had no
literature, not even an alphabet - it is a mere patois, and would die out in a
generation, and the children of the Albanian soldiers and sailors would all
be good Greeks.” (“The Catholic Presbyterian an International Journal
Ecclesiastical and Religious”, vol. II, July – December 1879, edited by
Professor W. G. Blaikie D.D., L.L.D., F.R.S.E., page 319).
6. “ We have many instances of the daring of these Greek robbers, one
of which I shall here relate, as received from their chief, no less a
personage than Colocotroni, who was in our service, and has since, as may
be remembered, made himself conspicuous in Greece. He is an Albanian,
and, as he acknowledges, a kleftis (robber).” (“Selections from my Journal
during a residence in the Mediterranean”, pages 110 and 111)
7. “…the historical absurdity of declaring Hellenic civilization the
expression of a culture uncontaminated by foreign elements can be
explained by a simple fact that tends to be disregarded – namely, that
Hellenic civilization that we know it was in effect the invention of the
‘Science of Antiquity’, of Classics. As such, it could have been (and was)
endowed with whatever signification the discipline found useful.”
(“Dream Nation Enlightenment, Colonization and the Institution of
Modern Greece”, by Stathis Gourgouris, page 134)
8. “After successive treaties, (London 1913, Bucharest 1913), Greece
acquired much of Macedonia, Epirus, Crete and the north-eastern islands
of the Aegean. Greek land increased by 70 percent and the population
almost doubled from 2,800,000 to 4,800,000 some of whom were Slavs
and Turks.” (“Entangled Identities Nations and Europe”, Edited by Atsuko
Ichijo and Willfried Sohn, page 112)
9. “Yet so much of the Sclavonian element had been infused into the
latter that the modern Greeks are found to differ widely from their remote
ancestors.” (“Foreign Quarterly Review”, Vol. XXVI, 1841, page 73)
10. “…the question of Greece’s political and ethnic status generated a
considerable amount of debate in western Europe. As Michael Herzfeld
argues in ‘Ours once more: Folklore, Ideology and the Making of Modern
Greece’: ‘to be a European, was in ideological terms, to be a Hellene’
(1982: 15). Many Europeans of the time, however, believed the
contemporary Greeks to be an adulterated version of the Classical Greeks
– ‘Byzantine Slavs…” (“Grafting Helen The Abduction of the Classical
Past”, Matthew Gumpert, pages 239 and 240)
11. “…since the Greeks are a composite people among whom the
descendents of the veritable Greek of old are in a great minority. The
majority are of Albanian and Solute blood, races which even the Romans
found untamable.” (“In Greek Waters: a Story of the Grecian War of
Independence (1821-1827)”, By G.A. Henty, 1893, page 40)
12. “General interest was first aroused by a controversy as to the racial
derivation of modern Greeks. The War of Independence had won the
sympathy of Europe; and it was a rude shock both to Greece and her
champions when Fallmerayer announced that her inhabitants were
virtually Slavs. The race of the Hellenes, he declared in his ‘History of
Morea’, was routed out and Athens was unoccupied from the sixth to the
tenth century. Only its literature and a few ruins survived to tell that the
Greek people ever existed. What the Slavs had begun the Albanians had
completed.” (“History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century”, by G.P.
Gooch, pages 490 and 491)
13. “Old Corinth passed through its various stages, Greek, Roman,
Byzantine, Turkish. After the War of Independence it was again Greek,
and, being a considerable town, was suggested as the capital of the new
Kingdom of Greece. The earthquake of 1858 leveled it to the ground with
the exception of about a dozen houses. A mere handful of the old
inhabitants remained on the site. But fertile fields and running water made
it attractive; and outsiders gradually came in. At present, it is an untidy
poverty-stricken village of about 1,000 inhabitants, mostly of Albanian
Blood.” (“The Encyclopedia Britannica” Eleventh edition, Vol. VII, 1910,
page 148)
14. “The modern Greeks possess none of the qualities which make
nations great. Their existence is due to the battle of Navarino, for in the
autumn of 1827 Greece was unquestionably conquered by the arms of the
Grand Vizier Reshid Mehmed and by Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, and again
the ‘untoward event’ of Navarino could only occur at a time when Phil-
Hellenism was a sort of social disease, caused by hallucinations and by the
illusion of finding in the present a mongrel inhabitants of the Morea and
Attica the descendents of the ancient Hellenes.” (“The Syrian War and the
decline of the Ottoman Empire (1840-1848)”, by Byron Augustus
Jochmus, page 100)
15. “The notion of a ‘Greek’ identity in the modern sense is itself in
large part the creation of the movement towards statehood. It was not until
the nineteenth century that the term came to describe a homogenous ethnic
group in the modern sense. Instead, the people of the Peloponnesos,
including Argolida, made up an intricate mosaic of ethnicities and
languages. In Argolida dialects of Albanian, Greek, Turkish and other
local languages were spoken (Andromedas 1976).” (“Blood and Oranges
Immigrant Labour and European Markets in Rural Greece”, by
Christopher M. Lawrence, page 12)
16. “…Greek national feeling was already quite strong at the beginning
of the nineteenth century. Even the Albanian-speaking Orthodox did not
regard themselves only as Rum (members of the religious community or
Orthodox Christian millet) but also as real Greeks.” (“From Geopolitics to
Global Politics”, editor Jacques Levy, page 174)
17. “…he devoted his personal attention exclusively to the latter,
assigning Joannina to his son-in-law, Thomas Preliubovich, in 1367, and
Aetolia and Akarnania to two Albanian chiefs, belonging to the clan Boua
and Liosa – a name still to be found in the plans of Attica. Thus, about
1362, all north-west Greece was Albanian…” (“The Latins in the Lavant a
History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566), by William Miller M.A., 1908,
page 294)
18. “Overrun by the Goths and Vandals, it became a pay, by the second
half of the 8th c., to bands of Slavic invaders, who found it wasted by war
and pestilence. Gradually however, these barbarians were subdued and
Grecianized by the Byzantine Emperors. Nevertheless the numerous
names of places, Rivers, etc., in the Morea of Slavic origin, prove how
firmly they had routed themselves, and that the Moreotes are anything but
pure Greeks.” (“The International Encyclopedia a Compendium of Human
Knowledge”, edited by Richard Gleeson Green, 1890, page 204)
19. “…between a cheer and a whine, and presently their Imperial
Majesties of Greece, cantered up the hill attended by four dignitaries, and
as many equerries. The queen was dressed in a dark green riding-habit,
black beaver with drooping feather, and veil. King Otho wore the Albanian
costume of crimson, gold embroidered jacket and legs, white fustanela,
with a richly chased saber belted over his shoulder.” (“Scampavians from
Gibil Tarek to Stamboul”, by Harry Gringo, 1857)
20. “There was little interest as to the nationality of the Rayahs while
Turkish rule was strong. They were nearly all Christians of the Byzantine
type, those in Europe at least, and were hence regarded as one people, for
oriental theocracy cannot conceive nationality apart from religion. They
themselves know the difference in their origins and in such traditions as
they had: some were Slavs, some Vlachs and some Albanians…; they were
all non-Muslims, all Rayahs, and in a sense all Greeks.” (“Political Science
Quarterly”, Columbia University, 1908, page 307)
21. “The revolution of 1821 has restored the ancient appellation
‘Elines’, but as it is used chiefly by the inhabitants of Bavarian Greece,
who perhaps don’t constitute more than one fourth of the Greek nation, it
may safely be said that the mass of the people still call themselves
‘Romaii’ and their language ‘Romaiki’.” (“A Romaik Grammar”, by E.A.
Sophocles, 1842, page iv)
22. “From their manners, their features and their names of many of
their neighbouring places, I should be tempted to regard them [Mainiotes]
proceeding of Sclavonian blood: many travelers pretend, however, to have
discovered in these barbarous hordes traces of a Spartan origin.”
(“Recollections of a Classical Tour through various parts of Greece,
Turkey and Italy made in the years 1818 and 1819”, by Peter Edmund
Laurent, 1821, page 182)
23. “The Greeks have not taken much interest in their past until
Europeans became enthusiastic discoverers and diggers of their ruins. And
why should they have cared? The Greeks were not Greek but rather the
illiterate descendents of Slavs and Albanian fishermen who spoke a
debased Greek dialect and had little interest in the broken columns and
temples except as places to graze their sheep. The true philhellenists were
the English – of whom Byron was the epitome – and the French, who were
passionate to link themselves to the Greek ideal.” (“The Pillars of
Hercules” by Paul Thereoux, page 316)
24. “…Neohellenic Enlightenment sanctioned a selective tradition,
with particular emphasis upon an imaginary classical antiquity, and sought
to suppress what was deemed to be a ‘non-significant tradition’, mainly the
Byzantine and Ottoman legacy. Through this ideological management of
the past, it achieved the displacement of a substance part of the history,
memory and experience of those it sought to shape into modern Greeks.”
(“Tormented by History Nationalism in Greece and Turkey”, by Umut
Oskirimu and Spiros A. Sofos, page 24)
25. “There are two other difficulties involved in the history of the
Turkish period. In tracing the movements of merchandise and men in the
Balkan peninsula it is extremely difficult to differentiate the various races
involved. Western travelers knew little, Turkish authorities cared less.
Even the polyglot Vlachs themselves knew nor cared a great deal and until
the rise of national conciousness at the end of the eighteenth century were
probably quite happy with the label of Greek, which was good enough for
outside observers.” (“The Vlachs the History of a Balkan People”, by T.J.
Winnifrith, pages 124 and 125)
So, what have we learned from the 75 authors I have presented so far?
Fifty at this link: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101938
and 25 more in this article?
Well, we have learned that the Greek identity is not an “ethnic
identity” at all but rather a “politically motivated artificial identity” created
by the 19th century Philhellenes to serve some greater political purpose.
We have learned that the 19th century Greeks, recent ancestors to today’s
Greeks, were not “ethnic Greeks” at all. The majority belonged to the Slav,
Albanian, Vlach and later Macedonian ethnic groups. In other words they
became “Greek” either by force or by choice. This cannot be disputed!
What can be disputed however is the ownership of a heritage that does
not belong to the Modern Greeks. For example Modern Greeks cannot
claim the heritage of the so-called “ancient Greeks” as their own just
because they call themselves “Greeks” and learned to behave like the
Ancient Greeks. This is like saying that I can claim my neighbour’s
father’s house if I changed my last name to match his and pretend to be my
neighbour’s brother. Can I legally do that? Can I one day show up at my
neighbour’s house and say “I am your brother and this house is mine”?
Wouldn’t I have to prove my descent from the man I claim to be my
father?
Well this is exactly what the Greeks are doing! With the help of a
bunch of Westerners, they usurped the Ancient Greek heritage, which does
not belong to them, and now they think they are the owners of Greece. Ah,
but that’s not all! Since they annexed a large chunk of Macedonian land in
1913 by war, they also usurped the Macedonian heritage, that is, until they
were challenged by the real Macedonians. They usurped the Macedonian
heritage the same way they usurped the Greek heritage by “pretending” to
be Macedonians, descendents of the Ancient Macedonians and by pushing
the real Macedonians out into extinction. How clever is that?
I don’t think any Macedonian cares what the Greeks call themselves,
who they are and who they “pretend” to be but they sure care when these
“pretenders” try to lay claim to the Macedonian heritage especially at the
expense of the real Macedonians! Sharing the ancient heritage is one thing
but claiming it to be exclusively theirs, especially since it can be proven
that they are imposters, is another.
We are faced with two problems when dealing with this issue. First,
the Modern Greeks are not Greeks at all. They call themselves Greeks not
because they are Greeks but because they want to be Greeks. There are
benefits to being Greek. There is a country “Greece” to call their own,
which should never have been created in the first place because such a
country never existed before. Then there is that illustrious past with all its
glory which should never have been “assigned” to a people who had
nothing to do with it. Second, these same people were not only allowed to
annex 51% of Macedonia but were given full rights to “assimilate” the
Macedonian people, turning them into Greeks, and usurping the
Macedonian heritage as their own. Hence the slogan “the Ancient
Macedonians were Greek” therefore “the Modern Macedonians must also
be Greek”.
But wanting to be Greeks is not the same as “being” Greeks. Just
because one “wants to be a Greek” does not mean one has the right to lay
claim to the Ancient Greek heritage just as I have no right to lay claim to
my neighbour’s house just because I “want” to be his brother!
This leads to the very important legal question; if these people are
Greek because they want to be Greek and they are Macedonian because
they want to be Macedonian, then legally what right do they have to either
the Ancient Greek heritage or to the Ancient Macedonian heritage? Given
that we have proven that the Modern Greeks are “not Greek at all” what
moral and legal right do they have to interfere in the affairs of the
Macedonian people? More importantly, as Macedonians and rightful heirs
to the Macedonian heritage, why are we allowing these imposters to
interfere in our affairs? Isn’t it about time to tell them to “hit the road and
mind their own business”?
On the so-called “name dispute” Osiris wrote:
The only name that is logical and natural for Macedonia is Macedonia!
We as people are of Macedonia, which has been called Macedonia for at
least two millennia, and that is beyond dispute. All other names are
politically inspired propaganda coming from our Balkan neighbours which
are debatable and will never be resolved because they are based on
conflicting historical myths.
The fact that all our neighbours covet the remaining piece of
Macedonia tells us that they all want it for themselves, and would do and
say anything to get it even destroy an independent Macedonia. They
incorporated it into their own nation.
It seems like its 1900’s all over again; a political Balkan ground hog
day.
By Osiris from www.maknews.com/forum/
Part 29 – My fascination with Greeks?

A lot of you have written to me over the last six months asking “what
is my fascination with the ‘Greeks’, why do I write ‘denigrating’ things
about them and am I jealous of them or something?”
Let’s say that I know more about the “real” Modern Greeks than the
average person and I can tell you that if writing about them is
“denigrating” then so be it! As far as being jealous, how can one be jealous
of a “fictitious” identity such as the Modern Greek one?
Being fascinated with the Greeks? Is that a “Greek wish” to have
“outsiders” even your opponents, be fascinated with your “fictitiousness”?
“It was never my intention to delve into the modern history of Greece,
but the Greeks kept on and on with their bull-crap about who I am and
who I have the right to be so I felt it was time to discover who these
fanatics were, and lo and behold I found they were not who they pretended
to be, but I still don’t care, I am happy for them to claim they are Greek all
I expect in return is they afford me and my people the same rights they
claim for themselves.” (Osiris from http://www.maknews.com/forum)
What can I say; Osiris beat me to the punch! He expressed exactly how
I feel! There is no fascination, only the necessity to fight back and defend
our Macedonian identity the only way Greeks can understand; by attacking
theirs!
Greeks, your identity is not as solid as you think; it is not a solid sphere
made of stainless steel as you portray it to be; your identity is more like a
fruit, a polished “dark-red” apple with an amazing tantalizing shiny red
skin and all rotten inside. When you bite into it you think you are going to
get a sweet juicy alluring apple-taste but instead you get a brown rot filled
with bitterness! No thank you. I’d rather be “real” and take my chances at
being who I am; Macedonian, no matter how difficult it has proven to be!
Here is another excerpt from yet another “Westerner” and “impartial”
observer on the formation of your “artificial” Greek identity;
“Within the context of romanticism, the term ‘Philhellenism’ refers
generally to a love of Greece, foundational to which were the beliefs that
Greece had a direct cultural link to Western Civilization as a whole, and
that, concomitantly, the ‘modern Greeks’ (that is the Greeks of the
Ottoman and modern periods) were the direct descendents, biologically
and culturally, of the ancient Greeks. In its most specific sense,
philhellenism refers to the nineteenth-century historical phenomenon of
western Europeans (largely British, French and German) rallying behind
the Greek struggle of independence from Ottoman rule (1821-30). The link
between philhellenic sentiment and the Greek War of Independence was
evident in the numerous cases of western Europeans contributing money,
materials, and in some cases manpower to the Greek effort. In the
specifically Romantic context, it was evident in the turn-of-the century
efflorescence, of paintings, works of literature, and musical compositions
with a central Hellenic theme.
A famous visual instance of this Romanticist artistic fascination with
Greece is the frontispiece to Marie Gabriel, Comte de Choiseul-Goufier’s
1782 voyage Pittoresque de la Grece, an engraving entitled ‘Greece in
chains’, in which Greece, allegedly as a beautiful but manacled woman,
reclines upon a tomb in a cemetery dotted with monuments to such great
men of antiquity as Lycurgus, Miltiades, and Themistocles. The image
captures perfectly the Romantic vision of Greece as noble but faded,
glorious yet much reduced, enslaved but poised to be free once more. Also
quintessential of Romantic Philhellenism is the explicit link the image
draws between the modern Greeks of the late Ottoman period and the
Hellenic greats of antiquity.
In the years just prior to and during the Greek War of Independence,
countless such images were in wide circulation in Western Europe – the
most famous perhaps, being, those of Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863), the
consummate representative of French Romantic philhellenism.
This cultural trend worked hand in hand with the political development
in the Ottoman Empire to fuel growing interests within Europe for Greece
and the modern Greeks. While the travel accounts penned by ‘grand
tourists’ were hugely popular, the apparent military and economic decline
of the Ottoman Empire commanded huge attention, particularly in Britain,
which felt that British imperial fortunes were tied to the political status
quo. While the Congress of Vienna (1814-15), which concluded the
Napoleonic Wars, emphasized the need to keep the Ottoman Empire intact,
growing numbers of Philhellenes felt that the special cultural link between
Greece and the West demanded intervention on behalf of the Greeks under
Ottoman rule. In this debate, philhellenic position would ultimately
dominate, with Britain ending up a major backer of the Greek struggle and
the subsequently formed Greek state.
The wide circulation of a number of Western works which had as their
central theme the exoticisms and depravities of the Ottomans (and the
plight of the noble Greeks who suffered beneath their rule) furthered the
scope of philhellenism, to the extent that general sentiment in Europe
gradually overcame the initial political position of European governments
regarding the Greek War of Independence. Lord Byron, Francois August
Rene de Chateaubriand and Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe are the best
known creators of such works, but a veritable plethora of lesser-known,
musical, literary and artistic figures followed the themes popularized by
them.
Philhellenism is properly understood as a reflection not of any reality
concerning Greece and the Greeks, but rather as the manifestation of a
purely European, and not entirely magnanimous, impulse. That is to say,
the passionate response with which the Greek War of Independence was
met in the West was less a reflection of European love of the modern
Greeks than of European love of the idea that Western Civilization as a
whole could be traced back to Pericles-era Athens.” (“Encyclopedia of the
Romantic Era 1760 – 1850”, edited by Christopher John Murray, Volume
2 L-Z index, page 872).
It is not common to create “ethnic identities” for “political reasons” in
order to have a modern civilization mimicking a dead and long gone
culture. Ethnic identities are living and vibrant entities that grow and
evolve over time and are naturally bound together without “politically
motivated” pressures. One cannot create an instant “ethnic identity” just as
one cannot create an instant family by putting a bunch of strangers
together and calling them grandparents, parents and children. A fake
“ethnic identity” is like a fake family which has no real relationships, no
real family tree and no real history. It’s made up, like the Brady Bunch on
television, to serve a specific purpose! But behind the scenes each
individual person belongs to a “real” family, has a “real” mother and father
and a “real” family tree and history. Sort of like the various ethnic groups,
the Slavs, Albanians, Macedonians, Asia Minor Christian Turks and other
ethnicities constituting the fictional “Greek” family.
If there was a purpose for Europeans to “feel Greek” at one time, as
per the quote above, that “feeling” is no longer there so then I ask you,
“What is the purpose of Greece today?” Does it serve as a “model of
Civilization for the New Europe?” Or is Greece a “remnant” of something
“old and embracing” whose time has long passed and should have, like the
dinosaurs, died a long time ago?
The world is evolving like it should and in more cases than not, taking
steps forward, but not Greece. The more Greece moves forward the more it
falls behind.
Greeks, the need to pretend to be “ethnically homogeneous” is no
longer there. There is no need to pretend to be superior, arrogant, or
“better” than your neighbour. Frankly nobody cares about your obsessions.
Like all things in life, everything has its time and the time for “pretending”
is over. It’s time to face reality and take your place with the rest of the
world!
You realize that your “fake” identity would have never been revealed
had you done the right thing and accepted the Macedonian identity for
what it is. Through the stubbornness of your political leaders you not only
“wiped out” the image of your “Greek-ness” that you spent two centuries
building but you have revealed to the world your true “racist” selves which
you had managed to hide for over two centuries now. But, this is only the
beginning, next will come the “revelation” of the atrocities that you have
committed against the Macedonian and other people who lived and died in
agony in Greece since those lands became a country for the first time in
1829. After all that is revealed, how many people in the world do you
think will see Greece as the “cradle of democracy” or as the birthplace of
the “European Civilization” as opposed to “the cradle of oppression and
racism”?
Greece was built as a country and the modern Greeks were paraded as
“the cradle of European Civilization” for a single purpose; to show the
world that “Western Europe” was not only “civilized” but far superior to
the rest. Europeans found a model in the “Ancient City States” that not
only “explained” their “imperialistic war like behaviour” but venerated it
and made it “okay” to “enslave” people and “colonize” their lands.
Politically Greece, the way it is today, is an “ancient relic” whose time
has expired and belongs in a museum together with “Mussolini’s Italy and
Hitler’s Germany”! But it is never too late to “evolve” peacefully and
bring positive change with “amends” to past mistakes!
And now I leave you with this;

Dear All,

I am drawing on my 'Macedonian experience' here to guide both my

aim to end the “Name” negotiations between Greece and Macedonia
immediately, and to bring to light a movement for change in Macedonia,
and elsewhere.
There are issues of human rights at stake, our Macedonian nationality
happens to be at stake, and issues of power at play.
It is a simple point, but one that needs to be made. The fact is that as
Macedonians we are a legal entity, we have our Republic of Macedonia,
and we are certainly legitimate. We are recognized by over 125 countries,
and with time that number will rise. Our institutions will in time receive
the due recognition they deserve, and have coming to them.
It is simply a matter of time. Both this government and UMD in
Washington have over reached. The value and weight they place on
"membership" is not justified. A far more sensible look at the situation
suggests that the Macedonian economy and nationality can gain as much,
and far more, by pursuing bilateral relations. Good economic relations will
have positive political outcomes for the Macedonian Republic, but the
shortsightedness of the government suggests it has panicked, or failed to
consider alternative workable strategies with real long term benefits.
The current line of thinking that we cannot claim to be complete as a
legal and legitimate nationality, until we have attained EU and/or NATO
membership, is also a dangerous, and irresponsible train of thought. It
needs to be justified, or put to rest immediately, both in the government,
and at the lunatic fringe of the Diaspora. What recent experience
demonstrates is that we can have most of the benefits offered by these
organizations, and 'not' be an official member of them, or irresponsibly
risk our Macedonian nationality to get there.
I believe the time has come for another change in our approach to the
"problem". The fact is that the Macedonians do not pose a military threat
to Greece, and they do not pose an economic threat to Greece. The "threat"
if one is to be identified here, is perhaps political, or ideological.
It is worth recalling another fact. The Macedonians respect and
recognize unreservedly the sovereignty of the Greek State, and its right to
self determination. Is it too much to ask the Greeks to in turn do the same?
What can we glean from this fact about the nature of the current "dispute"?
The "problem" if we need to identify one (and I believe we do), is an issue
internal to Greece. The long standing issues Greece has with its landscape,
is the issue. It is simply exporting its policies that have subjugated various
communities in Greece, for 150 years over the border. But this is not
intended to be a backward looking historical exercise. My point is this. For
there to be peace Greece must change, not the Macedonians.
There is another key point to be made here. For Greece to change, the
EU must change. That is unlikely to happen in the short term.
This last point raises the question of who or what are we up against
here - Greece, or the EU, or both? There is the "system" of negation to
consider here. My advice would be that it is not "smart" to engage an
entire system at one point on the surface of it, believing that one can
change the whole system, beneath and behind it. The political will and the
power, the amount of resources Greece has mobilized to turn our "non-
existence" into a metaphoric and transformative reality is vast, and old. It
is a system rooted in the policies and practice of Europe, against the
Macedonians going back a hundred years. Consider for example, the
recent statement by an EU official, who referred to us as "Northern
Macedonia". We cannot, and should not try to take on these old social
structures. As long as Greece stays the way it is, we will always have
problems. It would be far more sensible and logical to bring the faults of
Greece to the attention of the EU (and highlight the faults of the EU in that
way). But for that to happen, we need to be principled. We need to ask that
our sovereignty and our rights, be respected.
I want to add another aspect in this survey for political change.
Macedonian democracy respects the cultural rights of its various
communities. Greece does not. The attitude in Macedonia is that these
communities enrich its society, rather than threaten it. In Greece, everyone
and everything is a threat. Now, given this fact - why does the EU insist on
"blocking" Macedonia? If we were to measure the quality of a State by
how it treats its minorities, and based EU membership on those criteria,
Macedonia would be at the top of the list. The point to be made here is that
the EU is not a functional organization. Its uneven-handedness, and even
ridicule of Macedonia and its institutions, is about favoring Greece - not
about diligence or compliance. Shouldn't there be a protocol in the EU that
states that members, whose human rights practices are not up to standard,
have their privileges 'suspended'? There are many possibilities we could
pursue here. The EU, and the UN, have both taken positions that are
contrary to their Charters, and have shown to favor aggressive, irrational
member states, over obedient, compliant ones. Why would we want to be a
'member' in principle - of that?
As Macedonians, we are ideological outlaws, in a very small circle of
nations. There is the rest of the world at our fingertips.
We have our nation now, and we have our nationality. Are we going to
let all that generations of Macedonians have accomplished, and sacrificed,
end in a terrible disaster? Why are we putting our nationality at risk? There
are native movements all over the world who would love to be in our
position, and defend their nationality with all of their might and power. I
can think of the Palestinians, for starters. Why risk it? We have seen that
individuals are willing to do that. I would call them reckless, and more
dangerous than anything an enemy has been able to throw at us. The only
people who can take our nationality away from us, are the Macedonians
(and if it comes to a second referendum, the Albanians I am certain, will
have the final say in the matter). This last event is completely lost on
people, but it will eventuate.
Will our fight for a Macedonian nationality end in a historical scenario
where we no longer have one?
We must rethink whether "membership" is justified and right for us,
when clearly we can enjoy many of the benefits of being an EU member,
without actually having to negotiate our nationality and put all at risk, to
get there.
By Paul from http://www.maknews.com/forum.
Part 30 – Who writes my books?

Just as I was about to end this book and go on to something new, there
was something else that drew me back. This is the third time I ran into this
so I figured it was time I dealt with it.
There are some rumours out there circulating that I don’t write my own
books. The reasoning behind it is “how can one person write so many
books in such a short time?”
So far I have thirteen books to my credit. Eleven are published, one is
on its way to the printer and should be out by the end of August and I am
currently working on finishing the thirteenth. One of those books I co-
authored with Dr. Michael Seraphinoff. One was translated from English
to Macedonian and a thousand copies were donated to the Macedonian
cause. One was specifically written for non-Macedonians and one
thousand copies were donated to politicians throughout the world. One
was donated to a Literary Association in Australia and they in turn
published it and printed one thousand copies for educational purposes.
One, a forty page pamphlet, was also written for the Macedonian cause
and one thousand copies were printed to be given away. I not only write
these books but I also publish them myself.
So the question is “how can one person write so many books in a span
of less than ten years?”
But that’s not all! In addition to writing books I also write occasional
articles for a couple of newspapers, one in Toronto and another in
Australia, I translate articles and entire books from Macedonian to English
and I publish a monthly e-magazine called the Macedonian Digest. On top
of that I also write weekly articles for the American Chronicle.
But how can I do all this, after all I am a “Slav” and “incapable of
amounting to anything?” So my Greek friends tell me!
So the geniuses gathering in the donut shops, with nothing better to do,
“figure” it must be “someone else” who writes my articles and books. But
the question is who?
I don’t know who started these rumours but I first heard of them from a
Macedonian, the kind that hangs around “donut shops”. You know who
you are!
The first time I ran into this rumour was about a year ago. I heard it
from a person I have known to be Macedonian but I was not quite sure
which way he leaned deep in his heart, Macedonian or Grkoman? His
question, which he asked me on two separate occasions, was; “Who writes
your books? Come on tell me, who writes your books?” In both instances I
was caught by surprise and did not even comprehend its implication. Come
on, what kind of a question is that?
The second time, a statement was made to my face by a known
Grkoman, whom I have known for years. He said “You are ‘Slavs’ and
have nothing to do with the Macedonians and as ‘Slavs’ are incapable of
comprehending the complexities of academics. Show me a ‘Slav’ who is
capable of writing books?”
Ironically he said this in full view of all my books displayed in front of
him.
Again I ignored his comment because I knew where it was coming
from. My only concern for him was that he was about to be lynched by a
number of Macedonians who overheard him. When asked to explain
himself he started babbling Greek propaganda.
The third time I heard the rumour was from a “reliable Macedonian”
who hangs around a certain group of Macedonians at a certain “donut
shop”. I know these people and they know me so I find it surprising that
they would be circulating such rumours.
The person who told me about this would not disclose any details as to
who said what mainly because these guys are his friends and he did not
want to embarrass them by naming them. But I know who they are and
after this they too will know that I know!
Because they know that I work alone, these “clever geniuses” also
know that Risto Stefov is the genuine article and not a composite made up
of multiple writers. So their conclusion was that “my wife must be writing
my books for me!”
No disrespect to my wife but upon hearing this I laughed m.a. off.
Guys my wife is a nurse, a graduate of the University of Toronto
Faculty of Nursing, not a graduate from the Faculty of “Macedonian
History”? You all know my wife is also Canadian, a Westerner, who had
never heard of Macedonia before she met me. How does that make her an
accomplished historian? And where do you “geniuses” place me in the
“scheme of things”? Am I in this just for the glory of putting my name on
the books and articles?
When I told my wife about this I figured she would be happy to be
placed so high on a pedestal. To my surprise however she was not happy at
all. In fact she pointed out and rightly so, that “we are our own worst
enemies!” “Instead of encouraging and praising such accomplishments we
find ways to destroy them.”
I know you didn’t start these rumours (at least I hope you didn’t) but
why do you have the need to propagate them? And not just rumours about
me but about many things Macedonian? How can we expect to move
forward or surface above our own crapulence, if we can’t even get our act
together? Why do we continue “business as usual” without comprehending
the damage we are doing to our cause? Do you think spreading
“unfounded” rumours and “unsubstantiated” allegations will make you
“more patriotic” Macedonians? How does “denigrating” Macedonians
“help” the Macedonian cause? I have seen so many young Macedonian
patriots “quit” fighting for the Macedonian cause simply because of stupid
things like this!
 As for me, I choose to work alone, voluntarily and without
compensation. I am not a composite and I do write my own articles and
books. If you don’t believe me you can believe what you like. I have made
many personal sacrifices to do this and expect nothing in return, no praise
and no recognition. And thank God for that because so far I have received
very little. But on the contrary I have received much abuse and not just
from the Greeks, but also from Macedonians, even from some who beat
their chests and call themselves “patriots”.
But I have to admit I am not alone in this endeavour, there are many
Macedonians out there, to whom I am thankful, who help me with my
research and send me source materials for my books and articles. They
encourage me to continue to write and in return I will not disappoint them.
I will not allow this “small-mindedness” to stop me from what I am doing!
In fact the more abuse I receive the more I am encouraged to write. It
reminds me why I am doing it!
The only reward I want is to see Macedonians proudly proclaim who
they truly are, Macedonians, without fear and without having to cringe and
feel awkward when they are asked “what ethnicity are you?” Especially
by Greeks!
It was difficult for me to write this chapter, since I have sworn not to
take up “words” against fellow Macedonians, but I felt it was necessary
because there is a need to look at ourselves and our attitudes towards one
another! If we can’t manage to pull together because of our “low opinions”
of ourselves how then can we expect to escape from the clutches of our
oppressors? If we can’t recognize when we are lead by our noses and made
to “unjustly criticize” one another how then can we speak with a single
voice and justly struggle to free ourselves from our enemies?
Every Macedonian must learn and understand that our enemies,
particularly the Greeks, work on many levels. Lies and rumours are not
beyond them. Those Macedonians who like to repeat what they hear must
learn to “weigh the evidence” and determine if it is “for” or “against” our
cause and then act on it appropriately. God gave us brains, let’s use them
and not just for “parroting” everything we hear. I am sorry to have to say
this but some of you gave me good reasons to speak up!
It is never good to speak against Macedonians, especially about things
that are not true. And it would not hurt to challenge those who do speak
foul and put them in their place!
Now if you wish to know what the Greeks think of me, here is an
example of the type of abusive e-mails I get every day;
“Comrade Risto and all your compatriots need to know and put it in
their thick and stubborn heads that they are not the phony descendants of
Alexander the Great because the Macedonians never produced bastard
descendants with South Slavonian identity and the their fraudulent claim
that they are <Macedonians> is a BIG MYTH that only an insane,
paranoid and schizophrenic person would say or think.
 Risto, you are nothing more than a <Macedonized> South Slavonian
janissary and one of the worst the world has ever seen. You are a
miserable Makedoman but very hateful and hostile to the people you came
from just like the Ottoman Turk janissaries were towards the people the
came from.
When I say you are not <Macedonian> I am not taking anything away
from you or denying an identity that belongs to you or your comrades
because, if there was a time that you might have called yourself a
<Macedonian> you lost that right when you denied your Hellenism just
like the rest of you <Macedonized> South Slavonian janissaries.
You gambled and you lost. You cannot have both ways. The
Macedonian name has only one meaning and does designate two people
with two different ethnic origins. The Macedonian Greek people cannot be
duplicated by any charlatan like yourself and the rest of your comrades.
Get it through your thick skull of yours that if you think you can
change reality or rather the Macedonian Greek actuality. All the lies,
misleading distortions, deceptions and fraud and forgery can be only good
for internal consumption or for fooling the idiots who listen to you because
of ignorance, lack of education and simple lack of historical and ethnic
knowledge of the Greek people and their nation.”
Nick H.

Perhaps Nick H. was looking at his own reflection in the mirror when
he was writing this e-mail. The more fanatical these Greeks get the more
they reveal themselves. Nick H. speaks of the “Macedonians being a big
myth” when we know very well that it is the Modern Greeks who are the
biggest myth. He calls the Macedonians “janissaries” when he knows that
the Modern Greeks are the true janissaries, the little bullies of the Balkans!
If he doesn’t then he should also know that the Modern Greeks are the true
“adopted” children of Western Imperialism which makes them more
janissaries than anyone else in Europe!
The words in Nick H’s e-mail ring truer of the “fake” Hellenes than of
any Macedonians I have ever known.
“When the Macedonians became rulers of Greece, Athens had twenty-
one thousand citizens, ten thousand resident aliens, and four hundred
thousand slaves.” (“Race of Mongrel”, by Alfred P. Schultz, page 86)
“The resident aliens were mainly Aryan-Hametic-Semetic-Egyptian-
Negroid mongrels.
Mongrelization was inevitable.” (“Race of Mongrel”, by Alfred P.
Schultz, page 87)
“The truth is that Hellenic varnish was given to the East and that
Hellas became Asianized, the Greek race thoroughly mongrelized and
completely destroyed. The mongrelization of Hellas put an end to the true
Hellenic spirit…” (“Race of Mongrel”, by Alfred P. Schultz, page 88).
 “Sultan Mohammed II settled Turks in the Peloponnesus…. The
‘Greeks’ are the descendents of races so different that their crossing can
never produce anything else than human mongrels.” (“Race of Mongrel”,
by Alfred P. Schultz, page 92).
Part 31 – Ilinden 1903

Before the formation of the independent and sovereign state the

Republic of Macedonia in 1991, before the formation of the Peoples’
Republic of Macedonia in the Yugoslav Federation of Republics in 1945
and even before Macedonia’s partition by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in
1913, the Macedonian people came together and rose in 1903 against their
oppressors the Ottoman Empire in a bid to free themselves and create a
united, free and independent Macedonian state.
Termed by some as the greatest rebellion in Europe since the French
Revolution, the people of Macedonia violently rose on Ilinden, August 2nd,
1903 and rebelled against the Ottoman Empire. It was a grass roots
revolution like no other involving ordinary people from ordinary villages
but with extraordinary courage. Their desire was to live free in their own
independent state. Unfortunately it was not to be but only because of
circumstances beyond their control.
Today is August 2nd, 2009, the 106th anniversary of that famous Ilinden
Uprising and to celebrate it I would like to dedicate the following essay
entitled “The Course of the Ilinden Uprising” written by Dr. Krste Bitovski
and edited by Risto Stefov;
After visiting several of the regions in the Bitola Revolutionary
District and finding out more about the situation and the preparations for
the popular uprising, the General Staff, towards the end of July 1903,
decided to meet near the village Smilevo for the purpose of drafting and
distributing a proclamation announcing the start of the Uprising. In part the
proclamation said: “Death is a thousand times better than a life of misery.
The day has been decided when the people from all of Macedonia and
Odrin must come together with guns in hand to meet the enemy. That day
is Ilinden, August 2nd, 1903. Down with tyranny! Long live the people,
long live freedom!”
The day of the uprising remained an absolute secret from the Ottoman
authorities. Not a single copy of the proclamation, which couriers carried
to the leaders of the six boroughs in the Bitola Revolutionary District, fell
into the hands of the authorities. The enemy was caught by surprise, and
this was of enormous significance for the initial success of the Uprising.
On August 1st the General Staff sent their final instructions to all the
leaders which stated that the uprising was to begin on the evening of
August 2nd during the Sv. Ilija (St. Elias) or Ilinden festival – which is why
it was called the “Ilinden Uprising”. It had been made clear that battles
would have to be fought partisan style using terrorist and anarchist tactics,
which meant in practice forming small military detachments to go into
simultaneous action in all parts of the District. It was also recommended
that the insurgents not engage in long battles with all their forces
concentrated, in order to avoid offering the Ottoman troops the chance to
do major damage. The longer the uprising lasted the greater the chances
were – in the General Staff's opinion – that there would be European
powers military intervention. The rebel detachments were instructed to
only attack the small Ottoman garrisons stationed in the Christian villages
and also to surprise government posts, border towers and similar buildings,
but the Ottoman women and children were not to be touched.
The proclamation also stated in part that: "We are taking up arms
against tyranny and inhumanity and we are fighting in the name of liberty
and freedom. Those who suffer in the dark empire of the Sultan are our
brothers. Today all Christian people and Ottoman peasants are unjustly
treated and made to suffer. We have a common enemy and that is the
Ottoman government…"
The representative body of the Organization in Sofia also took part and
informed the world public that the uprising had begun through a
declaration issued by the Central Committee of the Internal Organization.
A justification for the Uprising was also given explaining that the
Christian population had no choice but to rise up against the Sultan’s
tyrannical power.
The Uprising in the Bitola Revolutionary District began on August 2nd,
1903 as was planned. The Borough of Bitola, the largest borough of the
District, was divided into the following Regions: Krushevo, Gjavato, the
Bitola plain, Demirhisar, Resen and Prespa (Lower Prespa). The battle for
the liberation of Krushevo and the declaration of the Krushevo Republic
were the most glorious events in the history of the Ilinden Uprising.
The Gjavato Region covered the area between the villages Capari,
Gjavato, Smilevo and the Bigla Mountain; the centre for this Region was
the village Smilevo. The start of the uprising was in fact proclaimed in
Smilevo in the presence of the General Staff. On the night of August 2nd,
1903 two hundred rebels attacked a garrison of eighty Ottoman soldiers,
while in other parts the rebels burned all the houses of the Ottoman Beys,
cut the telephone lines and destroyed the bridges on the road between
Bitola and Resen. In the Bufkol Region, which was closest to Bitola, the
rebels set fire to haystacks to let the people of Bitola know that the
Uprising had begun.
The Demirhisar Region was one of the best organized and provided
nearly a thousand armed insurgents. These insurgents attacked the
Ottoman garrisons in a number of villages and one of the most famous
battles fought was that in the village Karbunitsa, near Kichevo. After the
initial attacks there was a period of calm but also of intensive preparation
for further battles.
Prespa was divided into two Regions: Resen (Upper Prespa) and
Prespa (Lower Prespa). Prespa was well organized throughout, which
made it easier to form a larger number of detachments. One of the major
actions of the uprising was the attack on Resen, which was aimed at
throwing the enemy into panic and confusion. Most of Resen Region and
Lower Prespa were liberated by mid-August and lay in the hands of the
rebels.
On the morning of August 2nd the people of Ohrid woke up to street
posters, written in the Ottoman language, advising Ottoman inhabitants to
remain neutral because the battle which had just begun was not directed
against them but against the intolerable Ottoman regime. The Ilinden
Uprising in the Ohrid Region was supported by a well-prepared plan and
well-organized stocks of supplies. Arrangements were made to stockpile
food, build secret bakeries and bullet-casting workshops, as well as a
medical aid service and a hospital.
Ohrid Region was divided into several sub-regions and the fiercest
action took place in Malesia, Upper and Lower Debar and in Ortakol.
For the first ten days after the start of the Uprising battles were fought
more or less regularly around Ohrid. Ottoman troops were constantly
coming in from Albania and Debar and destroying the villages which the
local detachments bravely defended. The Ottoman authorities were given
support by bands of Albanian professional brigands who spread terror
throughout the Macedonian villages. In spite of this, however, the
mountain lords stayed with the rebels.
On Ilinden about five thousand Ottoman troops attacked Kichevo,
captured it and then left it to its own accord. The bloodiest battles fought
that day in Kichevo Region, as mentioned earlier, were in the village
Karbunitsa. Instead of guns, knives and bayonets the two sides fought
hand-to-hand combat leaving thirty rebels and over one hundred Ottoman
soldiers dead. After this bloody debacle the Ottoman troops no longer used
their strength to attack and most of the Kichevo Region was left free until
the beginning of September.
Through its revolutionary vigour, its dynamic energy and
concentration of power, and through the results achieved, the Kostur
Revolutionary District fought the hardest in the Ilinden Uprising. Kostur
Region was divided into several military centers with their own village
detachments, commands and flags.
In addition to its central detachments, the Kostur Region Revolutionary
District also had two regional detachments with one hundred and fifty
insurgents each and a special detachment. The detachments were
commanded by Lazar Poptrajkov, Vasil Chakalarov, Pando Kliashev and
others. The proclamation of the General Staff announcing the start of the
Uprising was received by the people of Kostur on the very day the Ilinden
Uprising began. The regional command announced this historic event as
follows:
“The Uprising begins today. Macedonia has declared war on
tyranny...We call on all of you who bear arms and are capable of fighting
to join the ranks of our fighters. Long live Macedonia. Let us fight for
freedom, liberty and autonomy...”
 The Uprising began with a number of attacks all throughout Kostur
Region and on August 5th, 1903 more than 600 insurgents began a
concentrated attack on the Ottoman stronghold in the town of Klisura.
Within a few hours the Ottoman force was annihilated and the town fell
into rebel hands.
Klisura’s liberation was marked as a great occasion and its liberators
were welcomed with open arms by the local inhabitants. The commanders
made speeches explaining that war was waged in the interests of all the
oppressed, and for the autonomy of Macedonia. Klisura remained in the
hands of the insurgents until August 27th, 1903 during which time a
revolutionary government was formed and people enjoyed their short lived
freedom.
The Kostur Region detachments, unlike those from other Regions,
were in constant movement, always pursuing and attacking the enemy.
On August 25th, 1903 the Kostur Revolutionary District joined forces
with detachments from the Lerin Region Revolutionary District and
attacked and liberated the town of Neveska.
The Uprising in Kostur Region was carried out on a massive scale with
the entire population, particularly in the northern region, taking part and
risking life and property. From the start the Kostur Region leadership kept
up the offensive, acting swiftly, almost always in large units, and scoring
great successes in battle.
Of all the Revolutionary Districts that took part around the Bitola
Uprising only Lerin Region fought in the offensive Partisan style. While
the people did not abandon their villages and stayed home, more than 500
insurgents took up arms and attacked Ottoman garrisons, cut telephone
lines, destroyed rail and road bridges and took over Ottoman Bey
strongholds.
The August 2nd, 1903 Uprising was not limited to Bitola and
surrounding Regions but also spread throughout most of Macedonia as
well. But in some Districts like the Solun Vilayet (Solun and Seres
Revolutionary District) there was no mass participation mainly due to lack
of arms and ammunition. The districts were poorly supplied with arms and
often fiercely clashed with the pro-Bulgarian Vrhovists (Supremacists)
which severely depleted their ammunition and energy. The Solun
assassinations too had serious consequences for the Solun Revolutionary
District.
The rebel action in the Solun Revolutionary District coincided with
that of the Bitola District provoking a number of armed clashes in the
Kukush, Enidzhevardar, Voden and Tikvesh Boroughs and spread the
rebel force thin. In addition to battling the enemy, the insurgents also
employed sabotage tactics using dynamite and blowing up various parts of
the railway lines between Solun and Bitola and Solun and Skopje.
The Uprising in the Skopje Revolutionary District unfortunately was
also not a mass movement and only fifteen skirmishes took place mainly in
the Kratovo, Kochani, Skopje and Shtip Boroughs and in Maleshevo and
Preshevo. Part of the railway line between Skopje and Solun, together with
thirty-two railway trucks, was blown up and other acts of sabotage were
carried out. The rebel action in the Solun and Skopje Revolutionary
Districts forced the Ottoman authorities to maintain a strong military force
in these parts of the country and this to some extent eased the situation in
the Bitola Revolutionary District, particularly in the beginning of the
Uprising.
At the beginning of September, while the Bitola District was already
full of Ottoman troops spreading terror throughout the Macedonian
villages in their attempt to quell the Uprising, the Seres Revolutionary
District held a congress at which it was decided to begin action in this part
of Macedonia. The Uprising in this District began on September 27th, 1903
on Krstovden (Holy Cross Day) without the participation of the people. At
the congress a commanding body was elected and a plan of action was
drawn up.
After considerable negotiations the District Command decided to allow
the Supremacist detachments to join the Uprising. Unfortunately the
distrust between the revolutionaries of Seres, led by Yane Sandanski, and
the Supremacists was so great that closer co-operation was not possible.
Sandanski, as one writer put it, “received the supremacist detachments,
which were entering an unfamiliar region, not only without warmth and
friendliness but also without the courtesy to be expected”. One of the
detachments had come from Bulgaria wearing Bulgarian military uniforms
and the insignia of the Bulgarian army; Sandanski ordered these men to
strip off their insignia. Most of them complied but some refused which
brought more tension between the two groups.
There were several battles fought in this district – in Nevrokop, in the
Melnik region, in Gorna Dzhumaja, Seres, Drama and Demirhisar.
The Region actively covered by this Revolutionary Organization also
included the Odrin District which did not belong to Macedonia. The
uprising in Odrin began on August 19th, 1903 and was met with great
success. In addition to the local inhabitants of this District, a number of
Macedonians also took part in the Uprising.
The Ottoman authorities were not aware of the starting date of the
Uprising, although they were already in possession of information,
indicating the likelihood of an uprising in the near future. Ottoman
officials in positions of responsibility did not pay sufficient heed to these
warnings and did not want to believe that such an explosive situation
might occur. This is why the Ilinden Uprising caught them by surprise.
Shortly after the outbreak of the Uprising the Grande Porte (the
Ottoman Supreme Command) correctly concluded that the uprising in the
Bitola Revolutionary District could only be stamped out with a far larger
force than what was locally available at that time. But a fair amount of
time would be needed to concentrate such a military force, and, until this
was done, the initiative lay with the rebels who had liberated not only three
towns but also great stretches of mountain territory together with many
mountain settlements.
Ottoman preparations for a general offensive against the rebels were
completed by August 25th, 1903. In addition to equipping the regular army,
the Ottomans also armed a great number of Muslim civilians (Bashi-
bazouks) in order to assist the military operations.
The primary objective of the Ottoman Command was to take
Krushevo. But in spite of all efforts Krushevo still remained in rebel hands
despite the fact that Rudzhi Pasha, the Ottoman Commander in Chief,
employed fifty thousand Ottoman soldiers.
Dissatisfied with Rudzhi Pasha’s performance, the Ottoman
government had him removed and appointed Nazir Pasha in his place. At
the end of August the Ottoman troops under his command started the
general offensive. The difference in strength between Ottoman forces and
those of the rebels, in both men and arms, was so vast that it was
incalculable. Demirhisar alone was attacked by twenty thousand Ottoman
soldiers.
On August 26th, 1903, with the assistance of Karavangelis the Greek
Metropolitan in Kostur, the Ottomans set out to crush the uprising in
Kostur Region. Over five thousand soldiers were dispatched from inside
the city and more were recruited from the surrounding areas and by the
start of September the enemy force was numbering over 15,000. Fierce
battles broke out everywhere and were fought with ferocity. The bloodiest
battles were fought in Grmeshina, Ohrid Region, near a camp where 1,700
women, children and old people were hiding. Unfortunately the rebels
were unable to withstand the pressure as the Ottoman soldiers stormed the
camp and massacred many of the women and children, leaving 160 dead.
By the second half of October the uprising in the Bitola Revolutionary
District, as it was in most of Macedonia, had been brutally crushed and
was followed by reprisals and torture. With the Macedonian people,
however, these reprisals went far beyond the “normal” bounds and turned
into genocide. It is impossible to describe all the horrors that were
committed both by the regular army and by the Bashi-bazouks, not just
against the insurgents but also against the non-combatant population. Here
is what the Serbian envoy to Bitola had to say: “Every conceivable form of
torture, murder, hanging, cutting children out of their mothers' wombs and
flinging them to the dogs, seizing women and girls, breaking into homes
and burning them – all this, I think, is every bit as terrible as the violence
and bestiality to which the Ottoman lords and governors resorted, as the
book describes, before our first and Second Uprisings...”
He continues: “The facts we have at hand indicate that the plan used in
pursuing is not only to crush the uprising, nor to destroy the guerilla
detachments – for such as they are they cannot be put down – but to wipe
out the entire population that was in hiding...”
 Describing the massacre in the village Armensko, Lerin Region, the
Austro-Hungarian consul to Bitola wrote: “It is quite impossible to
describe in detail the acts of bestiality. Women have had their wombs
ripped open, their eyes torn out or their breasts cut off, the heads and
bodies of small children have been brutally stabbed with ordinary pocket-
knives, infants have been torn apart and flung to the dogs, nineteen women
have been hung and three girls savagely butchered.”
The well-known von Gaben, then advisor to the Ottoman authorities in
Macedonia, alleges that an Ottoman colonel told him: “The rebel
detachments fight like the Boers and we should follow the example of the
English in putting them down. We shall burn their villages and their
estates, and when they no longer have anywhere to hide they will be forced
to scatter or give themselves up.”
Despite instructions from the insurgent Revolutionary Command to
conduct the Uprising along partisan lines, in practice the Uprising took the
character of a mass Uprising particularly in the Bitola Revolutionary
District. It was a peoples’ uprising because the Macedonian masses took
part in it, determined to make the highest sacrifices to win their freedom.
The Liberation Movement was led by the Macedonian intelligentsia, who
mostly belonged to the petite bourgeoisie, but it was the peasant masses
that were the striking force behind the Ilinden Uprising. In essence, the
Uprising was a bourgeois-democratic revolution.
At the beginning of the Uprising the tactics of the General Staff varied
from those of the people who had risen in revolt. The instigators of the
Uprising and the General Staff believed that the object should be to force
the European states to intervene and oblige the Ottomans to grant
autonomy to Macedonia. The people, however, took up arms and set out to
fight in order to free themselves and their country by themselves. They
liberated several towns and established their own authority, driving
Ottoman troops and government organs out, acts which were unplanned
and unforeseen by the High Command.
There were undoubtedly several basic reasons for the failure of the
Uprising. It was not properly prepared and therefore could not have
covered all of Macedonia. Even in the district of Bitola, which was
somewhat better equipped, there were not enough arms and those available
were extremely primitive. Also it did not take long, after the start of the
Uprising, for the Ottomans to realize that the main rebel force was in the
district of Bitola and that this was where the bulk of the Ottoman troops
should be sent; and this they would certainly not have been able to do if
the Uprising had been carried out with the same intensity throughout all of
Macedonia.
On the other hand, the Macedonian people were placed in a situation in
which they themselves had to fight against the Ottoman Empire. It is well
known that the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians, when fighting against
Ottoman rule, won their freedom largely due to the military and diplomatic
aid from foreign powers, chiefly from Tsarist Russia. When the
Macedonians rebelled, Tsarist Russia and the other great powers were on
the side of the Ottomans and advised the Ottoman Empire to use all its
strength to establish “order” in Macedonia. Morally backed by the
governments of the Great European Powers, the Sultan was able to
mobilize an enormous army with which it overran Macedonia, particularly
the district of Bitola, and put a bloody end to the Uprising.
The attitude of the neighbouring Balkan states towards the Ilinden
Uprising was also hostile. Since they were interested in partitioning
Macedonia, the ruling circles in Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia regarded the
Uprising as an act directed against their artificially conceived interests.
Hence they were not interested in a victorious outcome for the
Macedonian people.
Indeed Greece openly sided with the Sultan. No sooner had the
Uprising begun than an Ottoman-Greek front was created to discredit the
Uprising in the eyes of Europe. Protest meetings were organized in Greece
against the Uprising and aid was offered to the Sultan to crush it. Inside
Macedonia the Greek factions consisting of Greek teachers, priests,
metropolitans and others began a propaganda campaign to discredit the
Uprising and stood in support behind the Ottoman regime. It was precisely
this kind of attitude, expounded through Greek propaganda that prompted
the Serbian consul in Bitola to write to his government: “There is an aspect
of the Krushevo question which stands out clearly, and I mention it with
the feeling of great satisfaction which I have as a Slav. For I join the other
Slav groups here in their delight that the Krushevo rebels have lasted out
longer in their battles against the Ottoman troops than the Greek soldiers
did in the last Ottoman-Greek war (1897). My satisfaction is all the greater
since the Greeks are growing more and more despicable through their
mercenary services to the Ottomans...”
The struggle to win their freedom was, of course, dearly paid for with
the loss of many lives. In Macedonia alone nearly 150 villages, or 9,850
homes, were either totally or partially burnt and about 58,000 people were
left homeless. Over 2,000 innocent people were killed and about 10,000
people left Macedonia altogether.
The Ilinden Uprising was the most important revolutionary event in the
recent history of the Macedonian people right up to the Second World
War. It was “a glorious expression of the Macedonian peoples’ desire for
freedom”. The Ilinden Uprising was also an epic struggle to create a free
and independent Macedonian state which marked a turning-point in the
historical development of the Macedonian nation. The traditions inherited
from this Uprising will have a powerful influence on future Macedonian
generations and on the development of future Macedonian revolutionaries.
Happy Ilinden to all Macedonians worldwide!
And now I leave you with this;
 “It was during the eighth century that Slav influence became greatest
in Greece. In 746 a great plague breaking out in the near East reached
Monemvasia in the Peloponnese, and, from there, spread over the whole
Empire. The population of Greece suffered heavily, and was then further
reduced by the migration of many skilled workmen to Constantinople;
whose families left both the mainland and islands. Empty districts were
thus left free to be colonized by Slavs who now pressed southwards in
greater numbers than ever. In the words of the imperial historian,
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, ‘all open country was Slavonized and
became barbarous, when the plague was devouring the whole world’.
According to W. Miller, this is the real explanation of the Slav
colonization of Greece. Whatever be the truth, the Slavs had by now
spread widely over the Greek lands. So widespread were their settlements
that in the eighth century the southern Balkans lands and mainland Greece
were known as ‘Sclavinia’.” (“A Short History of Greece” by W. A.
Heurtley, page 20).
Part 32 – Conclusion

My aim in bringing you this book was to show you that the Modern
Greeks are not only not “pure Greeks”, as they claim to be, but that they
are not even “Greeks” at all. In fact, except for their proportions in various
regions, the people in the entire Southern Balkans today are the same
people who lived in the Balkans before the new and modern 19th century
countries were created. Modern Greece, or Ellas as the Greeks like to call
it, is not only not “homogenous” but the people living there are not
“Hellenes” at all. The people living in the Southern Balkans today are, in
modern terms, predominantly ethnic Albanians, ethnic Vlachs and ethnic
Macedonians, the same kind of people (but in different proportions) that
live in the Republic of Macedonia and the entire Southern Balkans for that
matter. The so-called “Greek ethnic identity” is a 19th century modern
phenomenon, artificially created by the 19th century Western Philhellenes.
Think about it, since Philip II conquered the City States in 338 BC
there have been no borders in that entire region. The first borders were
artificially erected in the 1800’s AD. This means that people for the last
2,100 years freely flowed between regions and in time of war, disease,
famine and poverty moved around. In fact there is documented evidence of
Byzantine Emperors, on many occasions, moving people from region to
region to re-populate depleted regions, a practice that was later continued
by the Ottomans.
So if anything is true about the southern Balkan people today it is that
they are all of a similar stock which descended from the 19th century
Albanians, Macedonians, Vlachs and all other peoples that had settled in
that region over the centuries. While the Republic of Macedonia has
allowed its people to self declare, Greece has opted to force a fabricated
identity on its people, claiming descent from a people that disappeared a
long, long time ago.
My problem here, and the Macedonian peoples’ problem in general, is
not with what the Greeks do or do not claim to be but with Greek
interference in Macedonian affairs! Historically Macedonia and the
Macedonian people have never been Greek! In fact if we examine history
we will find that the Ancient City States, the region that today constitutes
the southern part of Greece, was conquered by the Macedonians. Based on
that fact and the fact that those Greeks never freed themselves, we can
conclude that today’s Greece belongs to the Macedonians!
That being said, however, the problem we are faced with today is not
“historic” but legal. “Do Macedonians have the right to their own heritage
or not?” That is, do Macedonians, under international law have the right to
self declare, speak their language, identify as Macedonians and call their
ancestral homeland Macedonia? This is a legal problem not a historic one.
Clearly I have given enough evidence, if not to prove, at least to place
doubt on the authenticity of the Modern Greek identity and again I must
ask; “By what right do Modern Greeks deny the Macedonians their
rightful heritage?”
What is more interesting about this is that some “mainstream”
historians and academics of today have taken the Greek side knowing full
well that the Modern Greek identity is not authentic. This was done to
placate Greece either because of their dedication to the “Western cause” or
because of indifference to the plight of the Macedonian people. Then for
the sake of “political correctness” they allowed the Greeks to go
“unchallenged” and to use this “false” history as a weapon against the
Macedonians to a point of absurdity, causing the Macedonian people to
suffer humiliation and indignity.
Macedonians exist and are alive and well and if modern history and
today’s historians cannot accept that, then we must ask the question not “if
Macedonians exist” but rather “is science, that prides itself on being
factual, actually authentic?” I must also add that if history is truly factual,
why have modern historians utilized “Greek myths” in recording the
history of Modern Greece and the Modern Greeks, why have they ignored
all sources that point to a different kind of Greece?
If historians rely on the Greeks to provide them with information
“about the Greeks”, why not offer the Macedonians the same courtesy?
Why are people like Professor Miller calling themselves scientists while
peddling “pseudo” science? Are there no purists and truth seekers in
science any more? Is there no longer anyone in the scientific community
that cares?
It is time for those who have taken the “Greek side” to really examine
their position. The fact that Greeks are not who they claim to be and the
fact that Macedonians exist and are not going anywhere any time soon,
should be a wake up call for them. A decision to support the “Greek side”
should be based on facts and not on fiction!
There is no doubt that Greeks will attack anyone who challenges their
myth but are we expected to sacrifice “science” to feed someone’s dream?
And in the case of the Macedonians, are they expected to sacrifice their
identity, heritage, history, language, culture and dignity in order to
continue to give life to a Greek lie?
Seriously ask yourselves; Who are the Modern Greeks and what gives
them the right to interfere in Macedonian affairs?
When I began this book I was hoping to find some Greeks who I could
identify as “authentic Greeks” so I asked around: “Show me some
authentic Greeks who came from Macedonia?” To my surprise I was
shown my own relatives! So then I ask “if not for the ethnic Macedonians,
who are the Greeks that so many Greeks claim live in Macedonia?” The
more questions I asked the more I was lead to more ethnic Macedonians,
more Vlachs, more Albanians and more Christian Turk settlers from Asia
Minor. One can ask this question of every Macedonian that comes from
Greece and most would say; “Yes I too have relatives who identify as
Greeks!” This then begs the question “who are the ‘authentic’ Greeks?” I
haven’t found one yet! That is why I can say with confidence that “Greeks
as an authentic ethnic group do not exist”. Modern Greeks are a fabrication
of the Philhellene imagination. So then I ask again, what gives these so-
called “charlatan Greeks” the right to call themselves Greeks and, least of
all, interfere in Macedonian affairs?
While discussing this subject let us not forget that our plea as
Macedonians is not about who these Greeks are but rather about basic
human rights for those who want to be identified as Macedonians. Let us
not forget that buried beneath the rhetoric and denials are the forgotten
Macedonians who today are living inside Greece without the least of basic
human rights.
If there is indeed anything in this world that needs changing it is
Greece’s attitude towards its ethnic minorities living inside Greece on their
own native soil.
Greece, it seems, needs “conflict” to keep its people in check. It needs
enemies like the Slavs, the Turks, the Bulgars, the communists and now
the “Skopians” to keep its people preoccupied and afraid. Greece needs
enemies to vilify its own people who stray away from the flock. Without
fear Greece is afraid it will “unravel” at the seams while ironically Greece
prides itself on not having any seams. This explains Greece’s constant and
unwarranted irrational behaviour towards its minorities be it in war or in
peace.
The so many former Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs and others who so
“easily” accepted the Philhellene indoctrination and became the “willing
Greeks” who today are the “leading figures of Greece” can only be
explained by the fact that these people don’t care about “who” they are as
long as they possess power and wealth. This begs the question; “If they
don’t care about their own true identities why should they care about who
the Macedonians are?” Naturally they don’t, so this entire issue cannot be
about “history” or about “identities”, therefore it must be about power and
wealth. Isn’t it always?
Will Greece unravel at its seams if it “de-homogenizes”? Of course
not! But all the lies told in the past will be exposed! Those who built
influence by barking lies and Greek propaganda will be exposed and will
become the fools and laughing stock in the face of their own people.
Influential and prominent Greeks can’t afford to have that happen.
Again I must emphasize strongly that I, and most Macedonians in
general, have no problem with these people calling themselves Greeks and
claiming the ancient Greek heritage but again I do have a problem with
people who deny my right and the Macedonian people’s right to be who
we are, Macedonians!
Paul wrote:
The United Nations has been largely deceived by this intricate
framework of negation. Briefly, because the Macedonian-Greek "talks"
about the name “Macedonia” have the blessing of the UN - the Greek
attack on our sovereignty and our rights - have also been given
institutional legitimacy in the UN. It is up to the Macedonians to say "the
Greek position constitutes an existential threat to our right to exist" – and
this should have been done 19 years ago. However, it is never too late to
do this. The "illusion" is that the entire UN (world) is against us, when it is
actually one or two (possibly three) states. The world and our own people
need to realize this.
If one can accept that the Greek position is an attack on our State and
our right to exist - the rest should be easy (one would think).
Rejecting the Greek position, on that basis, is simply a matter of taking
a principled stand. Of saying 'No' to Greece because Greek terms violate
our sovereignty, our self determination, and right to exist, as we are.
The World knows that the Greek position violates our rights. Our
rights are enshrined in every international law, charter and treaty. We only
need to ASK that our rights be respected, as we respect the rights of others.
We cannot be held hostage for that, and we will free ourselves. Our
enemies are few - and there is of course the rest of the world, we can
embrace.
The problem for us is that our Macedonian leadership right now is
inexperienced, and possibly fearful of the political damage Greece could
do. I have analyzed the conditions very carefully and there is nothing more
Greece can do - politically, or economically, they have not already done. If
they are concerned about the term F.Y.R.O.M, they should not be. The UN
has violated its own charters before, only to see the error of its ways later.
These cases are well known. In any case, there are many strategies the
Macedonians can use to change the term F.Y.R.O.M, which is a concern to
be sure, but not something to panic about.
On the issue of "name talks". This is a euphemism. It hides the fact that
the Greek position constitutes an existential threat to our State, our people
and our history. There are many handbooks out there, many sophisticated
works that chart ways in which elites and political actors can create,
manipulate, and even dismantle the identities of ethnic groups, States and
nations. (Agulhon 1981, Beaune, 1991, Corse 1996, Hobsbaum 1992). The
Macedonians have given the Greek attack some legitimacy, which gives
our enemies the advantage over us (even though they are few). By
rejecting the Greek attack, on principled legal grounds - there is nothing
more Greece can do, but change its position, or stay in limbo forever,
while the little Macedonian Republic prospers, exponentially. This is why
we should reject the "talks".
If, and it is a big if, the Macedonian leadership is going to be
discussing anything - the first rule is it should not be one on one, with the
Greeks. What the Macedonian leadership should do (they have an
opportunity to do this at any time), is raise a very serious issue at the UN.
The Macedonians (with the help of a sponsor), should raise the issue that
the Greek position constitutes a direct attack to the Macedonian
sovereignty and its right to self determination - that issue should then be
put to a vote and a UN resolution. You see what I am driving at here.
These "talks" have the institutional backing of the UN and the European
Union (thanks to the Macedonian government) - the Greek attack has
institutional backing in these institutions, because of the "talks". But
Macedonia is a sovereign state, and can decide on its own. The
Macedonians then have an option. They can if they chose, pass a
resolution on the floor of the UN that the Greek position constitutes a
direct threat to the sovereignty and right of self determination of the
Macedonian people. It would be a legal position, not a historical one. On a
related matter, that is why I have said that for there to be peace Greece
needs to change, not Macedonia. Our minorities have their human and
cultural rights - ethnic groups of Greece do not. Macedonian democracy
embraces diversity, Greece is still deceiving people that it is "pure".
Whether the Greek position actually constitutes an attack on our
sovereignty and our rights should be (in my opinion) the ONLY thing they
should be discussing, and ONLY on the floor of the UN.
This business about negotiating our Macedonian Nationality, as though
it were a bargaining chip in a poker game, is deadly for us. There is a way
out. I have outlined it above. I just hope we see the light.”
By Paul from www.maknews.com/forum
And now I leave you with this;
A few weeks ago a friend gave me some very interesting news which
may prove why Greece behaves irrationally towards the Macedonians.
He said that in the Turkish archives exists secret information of a Great
Power agreement that states that “if one of the parts of divided Macedonia
becomes independent all of Macedonia is to be reunited”. Turkey wanted
to open these archives to the Republic of Macedonia but due to objections
from the “Western Powers” that information is still locked up in the
archives.
This information is still at the rumour stage and could be fact or
fiction, but like I said if it is fact it certainly explains Greece’s erratic
behaviour. It also opens new possibilities for the Macedonian people. It is
definitely worth further investigation.
If anyone out there has more information, please write me.