26-07-2009

                          NOTICE

we ll  make radical changes in the site of HOMO NATURALIS

We want you to help us make the right changes.

Please send us an email at  Αυτό το ηλεκτρονικό μήνυμα προστατεύεται από spam bots, θα πρέπει να έχετε ενεργοποιημένη τη Javascript για να το δείτε   and tell us if you read the Greek or the English version or  both

                                                 ***

                     BY NIKOS ADAMOPOULOS, Doctor of History

(This project was presented, by the researcher, in a historical and archaeological conference in Steni of Euboea at November 2005 and was published for the very first time in the book Dirfiaka/edition: Dirfis news/2007).

Euboea (Evoia) is justly considered the paradise of paleontology and archeology. The island of the great Avantes, wherein flourished important cities like Chalcis and Eretria, hides secrets from which very few have come to the surface. Most of them are waiting to be unburied by the archeological pickax and they are ready to reveal us a past that will enrich our knowledge and in addition can easily reverse historical facts and theories which stand until nowadays.

Kampia, an alpine village at the incorporated town Dirfion just before Steni, which proudly looks over the rich champaign and the endless sea, is a typical case that proves all the previous. Until the summer of 2004 I had absolute ignorance about this small village with the rich founts and the prolific vegetation, pasture that in older times magnetized drifter shepherds (vlachs)  from Epirus and Thessaly.

That June of 2004 I was passing along with my friends from the provincial road Artaki-Steni, in order to arrive at Chiliadou coast. Close enough to Kato Steni I noticed a mountain chain, characterized by an impressive rock. Few moments later the alarm was clear and strong, typical example of the fact that the things our senses observe and process get isolated and from incoherent icons transform into concrete schemas. An “Acropolis” was standing in front of us. An Acropolis of an ancient city with indefinable characteristic and I couldn’t even imagine which was.

The next move was predictable. Change of direction and destination. Right turn on the sign Kampia and a few kilometers later the tight snaky asphalt with the steep turns, which was finishing next to the rich water fountains with the age-long planes and close beside the green patches of the village. The curious community president, Giannis Pavlou, did not take forever to discover us, to “interrogate” us, to “estimate our intents and in the next half hour he had set a table with local wine and appetizers in the tavern of Elias, next to the beautiful chapel of Santa Kiriaki. And that moment started that unforgettable summer. Since then, Kampia and the villages around became “ours” as nobody considers us strangers anymore.

It seems that this area, very soon will challenge the interest of those two scientists, paleontologist and archeologist, with the purpose to locate and date the numerous fossils and the archeological findings of the place. (Note: these paleontologist findings were discovered by Lazarus Pavlou, father of the community president, when he was ploughing his field. The poor farmer remained breathless as he had no idea of what those huge bones and teeth he had unburied were. He thought they were archeological finds and the fear to lose his field made him burry them again and do not reveal he secret for many years.

Afterwards, when he was hit by serious stroke, long and important “pages” of his memory were cancelled and with them also his big secret. Sometime later, in a coruscation of his dark mind the sick old man remembered. He immediately called his son and narrated in details what he had found and where was buried again the “treasure”. Now it was Gianni’s turn to feel the threat of losing his property and that is why he kept silence about the fact, while he was waiting the advice of a trusty person. I asked him to let me see the findings and take some photos. A few days later he dug them out; he cleaned them and put them in front of my eyes. Only the ones who have the luck-experience to touch with their own hands the inheritance of distant human past, ready to speak and reveal the history of thousands or millions years ago, can comprehend how it feels. Numerous outsize numb teeth, jaws, calfs and other bones, which were glowing in front of my wonder-stricken eyes. Apparently they were parts of huge prehistoric animals, who lived many years before us in a total different ambient. The first thought that crosses the mind is if all this is real or the fantasy plays games with brain.

After two days we notified the paleontologists in Athens and the Athenian university sent to Kampia a team of researchers, who remained truly surprised from the miracle that was happening in front of them. The old farmer, Lazarus Pavlou had changed without knowing it, with the “treasure” he had discovered, not only the paleontological map of Euboea but also the one of Greece and Europe in a certain sense).

However, this is the one tail. On the other hand we have a chain of superficial archeological findings which connote the existence of a great archaic civilization in this area. And when those findings will multiply, after the excavations, like we already said the knowledge we hold about ancient Euboea will be changed and enriched.

Those findings will be presented on transparences and will be commented later. In parallel, today we will tempt to support a view-theory that concerns the temporal, historical and territorial arrangement of a famous ancient city, which name is often seen in historical sources but since now we haven’t been capable to confirm its exact geographical position. Assuredly, it is natural that the enouncement of a new theory, not only an historical one, is exposed to skepticism, distrust and even more to rejection, because is just a theory. All of these are common and acceptable consequences. Even so, this fact should not block the researcher from formularize it.

Even more difficult seems to be the attempt to define the geographical and temporal settlement of this city failing satisfactory information about the exact position, the civilization and its history in general. For these reasons we are asking for your clemency and your comprehension. You should also consider the scarce time that did not allow us to effectuate a deeper research and the poorness of the finds that puts a spoke in our try to determine the historical and cultural position of the specific city.

After these clarifications and with the clues we have, we are ready to start our effort to validate this theory. Furthermore, we would like to assure you that the attempt to collect more accurate evidence will be continued. For first thing we wish to mention that the fossils of Kampia are a very important clue. According to the evaluations of the paleontological section of the Athenian Geological University, these fossils send us back, at the Pliocene period of the Cenozoic century, which started 10 million years ago and finished 3 or 1 million years ago. At the time the clime was tropical. Thick forests and vegetation and abundant water used to cover the area the fossils were discovered. One of the most important findings that seem to amazed the paleontologists team, the day that me and Mr. Pavlou presented the fossils to them, is the one of Tapir. This animal is almost inexistent in the European area. Lives in places with abundance of waters and despite its volume is capable to swim and enjoy the water. Consequently, the existence of such an animal in Kampia the specific period presumes the existence of an area with loads of water. That period Mesogios had a different aspect than the one we know today, in fact its surface was considerably larger. Characteristic of that period is the progressive recession of the waters and the complete configuration of the big mountain chains. So, we must presume that the level of the sea, which extends from Artaki to Chalcis that period, was much higher than it is now and its water used to cover the champaign, that today lies down on Kampia and also the roots of the mountain that extend over the village. The discovery of the Tapir fossils in the fields that stand under the plateau of Malwn, lead us to the conclusion that this adorer of the water used to enjoy his bath exactly there. As the time passed, the waters pulled back gradually. The clime changed and became colder. After this alteration, the Tapir, the rest of the animals and the tropical vegetation disappeared.

However, it is not only the Tapir that makes us conclude the sea was outstretched over its actual position, reaching the roots of the village. A very important clue is also the fine-crafted boasting of the local rocks and especially of that rock chain, which is located before the village entrance, by the sea water. The rock chain is abrupt and it is very fastidious to arrive at the top. This huge rock, we are talking about, is cropped in two pieces and in the middle we can see a gorge that after quick calculations, we can presume it is around 35-40 meters with two meters amplitude and 200-250 meters length. The first impression we get by looking the shape of the gorge, is that its sides were cut and carved by human hands. If someone touches the surface won’t feel the minimum aberration. It feels like the rock has been worked by a professional plane. In a big ambit the walls of the gorge are papery like marble. Like they have been chipped by an artist craftsman. A remarkable flawlessness of a carved rock. The village habitants are pretty sure about one thing: only human hand could have done such work! Most of them also believe that the purpose of the chop was to create an acequia. The legends about how it was cut and how it was chopped this gorge-channel, are very usual in the area. The existence of perfect tools and techniques, during the ancientry, or the concoction and the application of acid liquids are the most popular theories. But even if the legends are pleasant to hear the truth is that the rock was crafted by the vehemence and the power of the greedy sea. It s the sea that gashed the rock and created the gorge. And then, with patient of million years, gradually chopped its sides. (Of course, nature’s masterpiece that later on was developed by the humans in order to create a channel for the passage of the source waters is a theory we cannot exclude).

Still, the sea did not “worked up” only the big gorge, but also all the other smaller rocks of the area. Smooth and flush, like the water in time of calmness. There is no place for other explanation. Besides, the conches, the shells and the nummular black stones that until nowadays are distributed on the fields, attest exactly this theory. That the sea water was covering for million years the whole area, until the sea reached its contemporaneous countenance.

Later on, people will come to occupy the dried surface with the water sources, the rich land and the dense vegetation. And they will create a community as soon as they will learn to coexist. As the time pass the need for permanent placement will encourage them to build here their own country. They do not want and they have not learn yet to live by the sea. They do not love the sea; contrariwise they are afraid of it. They feel much safer living in the alpine areas, in the dense forests, where they also have the opportunity to assure the essential for living. At this point we should not forget that still their main occupations are hunting, cultivation and farming. A lot of time will pass before they will decide to go down to the sea.

The Tapir of Kampia, the storm-tossed and the sculpted rocks of the village, the morphology and the composition of the earth are the approved witnesses that the sea by the time was present up here. Gradually, pulled back and disappeared from the map. Although, its memories still remained on the minds of the people who settled down at this area after sea’s recession.

The memory of the sea, that is called ALS (ΑΛΣ) in their language, passes by the means of oral speech from generation to generation. But they also realize her antecedent existence as they live over the ground of an ALIA (ΑΛΙΑ), word that connotes a place with salt and products of the sea bottom. So ALS absconded, disappeared and left behind ALIA. In their language, this missing sea would ne called “OICHOMENI ALS”(ΟΙΧΟΜΕΝΗ ΑΛΣ). The participle oichomeni (οιχόμενη) comes of the verb Oichomai (οίχομαι), which means disappear, dissolve, die. If we remove the catalexis –omai (ομαι) remains the root oich- (οιχ-)-. And if we add in the word OICH the word ALIA (derivative of the word ALS-sea) we arrive at the word OICHALIA (OICH-ALIA,OICHALIA.ΟΙΧ-ΑΛΙΑ, ΟΙΧΑΛΙΑ), which the name of this mythical country. Here, in the area of Kampia, was built and culminated the noted Oichalia, country of the king Evritos, the “Hercules” of Euboea.

Someone could sustain that the etymology of the word is not enough to lead us on our effort to place Oichalia in the geographical area of Kampia. But we do not base our theory only on the etymology. A series of other attestations will encourage us to found our opinion that the lost Oichalia is the one we believe. To conclude with the name and its etymology I would like to remind that we affronted a similar case with the name of another ancient Greek country. At my homeland, the province of ancient Olympia, 16 kilometers far from Andritsaina, there is the famous templar of Apollo of Fygalia, almost equal to Parthenon and made by the same architecture. The geologists presume that also here existed sea that gradually gave place, a few kilometers away at the town of Kiparissia. At the place that was set free by the sea, it was built the ancient Fygalia. The earth here has the same morphological composition. Chopped and storm-tossed rocks, round black pebbles, shells and sea bottom products. The etymology of the name Fygalia has plenty possible options. Today as i am certain for the etymology Oichalia, i believe the name Fygalia has the same origin. Comes of the aorist B’ of the verb “disappear-leave” (φεύγω-έφυγον) and again the word Alia (Alia). And the word Fygalia wants to denote a city that was built in a place that was covered by the sea time ago. It seems that this verbal was very common during the antiquity.

The mentions on the written sources about the country of Oichalia are the second arbor, where our theory is going to base. That the primeval Oichalia is the one we located at Kampia. SOPHOCLES at the tragedy Trachinies (Tραχίνιες) makes very clear the concept that the city of Oichalia, whose king was Evritos, is placed in Euboea and not in Messenia or Thessaly like the writers sustain. In the lyrics 74 and 75 we can read: “It is said that (Hercules) is setting out on the country of Evritos, at Euboea” ( «Ευβοϊδα  χώραν φασίν, Ευρύτου πόλιν/επιστρατεύειν αυτόν).

In another written source Stravon, becomes even more specific about the area that the ancient city was located. At the chapter 10/448, the geologist and historian characterize Oichalia as “earth of the Eretrian city”. But Stravon is around 4 centuries posterior to Sophocles and talks about the administrative being of Oichalia, when the city had lost its brilliance and was under the Eretrian administration. Other cities, besides Oichalia, that belonged to Eretria are: Amarinthos, Tamina, and the not found yet ancient Kimi. Moreover, the epigraph ΙG.XII,9,241, assures that those cities Oichalia and Amarinthos appertained at the geographical area of Eretria.

So, after these affirmations we can conclude three basic things that concern the geographical position of Oichalia. The city was situated next to Euboea, at the geographical area of Eretria. But exactly where in Eretria? By the sea, left or right of the ancient city, over the hills or somewhere far? Three very important mentions at Trachinies resolve that problem. The first is on the lyric 327, where Oichalia is characterized “country wind-sept”("πάτρα διήνεμοs"). At the lyric 354 we have an even more detailed description. Sophocles calls Oichalia “city with tall towers “("υψίπυργον Οιχαλία». Now the approach of the ancient city becomes easier and the geographical position more clear. So, the city is located at Eretria, it is not by the sea, is rammed by the wind and it is embattled with tall towers. But exactly where? The poet will become more specific. It’s the lyric 860 that says: “at the alpine, the abrupt Oichalia”("τανδ΄ Οιχαλίας αιχμά»). The word “aixmh-αιχμή” means alpine, abrupt, with rocks. And where is that area at Eretria? On the right and on the left no, the mountains over Amarinthos are not so steep and tall. The same happens at the side of Chalkis. There are not so tall and breezy mountains. The only location that corresponds at this description is the mountain chain of Kampia, especially the plateau Mala(Μαλά) over the village, which is very windy even the summer.

It is here that we should look for the Acropolis of Oichalia. Probably a Mycenaean Acropolis, built over a tall mountain, with champaign on the roots, far from the sea but not too far. It is very similar to the one of Tirintha and Mycenae. However, it is embattled better as the high and abrupt rocks rend Oichalia impenetrable. The tall towers keep her inaccessible to the invaders. A forceful king like Evritos, strong as Hercules, the one with who will race at archery, would pick only a place like this to emplace his kingdom. So, distrustful Sagittarius, the king, hunts predators like it’s behooved to a gallant king.

That the area of Kampia and more specific the centre of Mala and the area that spreads out to the villages Skouteri, Vouni, Amfithea, Katheni, Paliouras, St.Athanasios , Loutsa, must be the archeological and historical area we are looking for, it seems clear from the archeological findings on the surface of the earth. The most important of them are: 1. Big fragments of ceramics and other hammer-dressed stones that we can find outstretched in the afore-mentioned villages, but also in the top of the plateau and in the slope of the mountain, over the location Tsagious. 2. The wall of the construction at the position Tsagious, that probably is a templar or the part of a wall. The build stones that have been transported from that point to other adjacent fields in order to construct farms and sheep pens are bulky and chopped. The habitants are alleged that in the past existed a serious inscription with a word. We think that this structure must be a templar dedicated to Apollo. We are led to this conclusion by the following clues: the location where it was built (the big and shadowy planes, rich vegetation, a river next to it, that used to procure more water, a right place to build a templar of Apollo and Artemis. The name “Tsagious” (In to the Saints) lead us to the conclusion that a Christian church was built over the ruins of Apollo’s templar like the Christians used to do. To build churches not far from the ancient templars with rubbles they used to borrow from them. 3. Over the built and on the side of the mountain until the top are detectable fragments of ceramics and the rock cut in two pieces, probably with the purpose to be used as a water channel. 4. The stone sarcophagus. We can find it in the surface of the ground, on the left of the temple and it is in good condition. Its length is impressive. Over 2 meters and 40 centimeters, only the part that is not covered by the earth. The dead man should be huge. In this side must be located the cemetery of the ancient city and maybe dome-shaped tombs, if we are talking about a Mycenaean centre.

The elements we put forward are comfortable to convince us that the ancient Oichalia must be searched out at the area of Kampia. Its Acropolis at the plateau Mala and its cemetery over the location Tsagious. Maybe those elements are not enough for some people. At this point we should mention that others begun excavations with less or no results. Although, in the case of Kampia the clues are certificated. All the rest is up to the archeological pickax to contradict or to affirm the theory we elaborated. Until then, we can do nothing else but wait to be confirmed or to be certified.

  26-07-2009

                             NOTICE

we ll  make radical changes in the site of HOMO NATURALIS

We want you to help us make the right changes.

Please send us an email at  Αυτό το ηλεκτρονικό μήνυμα προστατεύεται από spam bots, θα πρέπει να έχετε ενεργοποιημένη τη Javascript για να το δείτε   and tell us if you read the Greek or the English version or  both

                                                 ***

Homo Naturalis is the educational institution that functions and operates in cyberspace and it is defined as being the exact opposite of both a public and a private institution. The definition might strike you as vague but it is concise enough to present our identity in a few words.
 We hereby present you with an example that it will assist you in fully perceiving the identity of Homo Naturalis. Primarily, a public university in Greece is run by the government; the government is the sole owner and employer and the dominant former of the institute’s ideological basis. (The autonomy of the Greek university is a monstrous invention and a product of a simple transaction between the politicians and the university scholars. A pompous myth, which is maintained, in order for the prestige of these higher-education national institutions to be sustained and for its government-funded employees) . The state funds these institutions and it  demands in return, total conform of the employees and sole use of their services, necessary for such type of authority to survive. (Mainly, production and cultivation of a dominant ideology, a range of capable manpower and brains at its disposal etc.). For this, public university is nothing else other than another public service, which is operated and sustained by scared-abandoned public servants-tutors of lower stochastic and educational background and the worst of all is, that these public servants show the lowest of morals. Thus, it produces exactly the same questionable results as the rest of the public services of this country.
 On the other hand, the private university does not differ much in function from  the public institution. In this case, the role of the employer is played either by a single person, the owner, or by a company. Their objectives are quite the same in both cases, but the main objective of the owner of a private institution is undeniably to make profit. The way all Greeks experience it and perceive it, the main characteristic of a Greek public service is its slow-moving-“not caring much” attitude towards its purpose. While in the private sector there is greater flexibility that is why it is more demanding when it comes to its employees and their efficiency. There are not any other notable differences between the public and the private university and those who invent new ones or support them, they are doing so either due to true ignorance or for their own convenience.
 Homo Naturalis begins its operation by introducing its school of History and it is hopeful that in time, new schools and disciplines will be added. The inventor and creator of the Homo Naturalis is a History-Archaeology graduate of a Greek public University and a Doctor of History in a public university abroad. He has taught for many years in second-grade and higher-education institutions from which he quit due to great ideological-scientific disputes fighting against the educational establishment. (Mentioning his name is not deemed necessary, since this would be against homo Naturalis’s policy and philosophy which is to fight against fame, and ambition and vanity and all things related. The author will sign his work by his initials N.A. Historian.)
 The objectives of Homo Naturalis are specific and clear and these are summed up  below:
To restore the truth regarding our historical past which has been slaughtered by the so-called  engagi historians.
To present an objective narration of modern historical events by using the historical methods which will be analysed in our specialized lessons.
The exchange of ideas and the formation of a community, whose members will have the same outlook on life, having Homo Naturalis (The Natural  Human) as the dominant idea.
The recruiting of people who in the future will work professionally in the field of History.
The cultivation and promotion of a comprehensible scientific speech ( simplification of the scientific speech and ridding it off all its extravagances used by those who maintain it as such, in order to impress those who do not know).
The laconic presentation of the essence of things.

 Feel free to register, visit, attend the lessons and take part in Homo Naturalis as you wish, for no restrictions are applied; provided that you respect what is presented within the pages of this site. Censorship, loss of temper or lack of seriousness are not in accordance to the varsity community of Homo Naturalis.

                                                                               Greece,2007/07/07

                                        26-07-2009

                          NOTICE

we ll  make radical changes in the site of HOMO NATURALIS

We want you to help us make the right changes.

Please send us an email at  Αυτό το ηλεκτρονικό μήνυμα προστατεύεται από spam bots, θα πρέπει να έχετε ενεργοποιημένη τη Javascript για να το δείτε and tell us if you read the Greek or the English version or  both

                                                 ***

An old but famous History lecturer of the University of Athens, in one of his rare outbursts of honesty had mentioned in one of his lectures once : “ God wisely allowed man to make his own history, but either He should have taught him how to properly record it or He should have deprived him of the privilege of doing so”.
Nowadays, in all lawful and civilized societies, where the roles are (or should be) experiential and separated, they are not pretended or faked; besides of those roles which are performed in plays. Thus, expropriation is not only a lame, but also in many cases, an unlawful course of action. To be an amateur or to lack method in your course of action is both ridiculous and dangerous. Especially, when it comes to science.
Because as far as scientific knowledge is concerned, the rules of its acquisition are strictly defined and the rules of its specialization are binding for its operators. To trespass into a professional group of specialized knowledge is forbidden. The “ Free Entering of visitors” and the taking over of knowledge space which “de juro et ipso de jure” belongs to others, is also forbidden. Because to be a charlatan, to be involved in monkey business, to be fake, is not just a ridiculous disguise alone. Its consequences are primarily dangerous.
These restrictions are applied in all the disciplines but for the field of History. Anyone has the “right” to record History. In  Greece, particular.  Retired citizens, politicians, retired army officers, public servants, when they are not writing fiction they busy themselves with the writing of historical texts. Even autobiographical narrations are changed and transformed into historical texts. Embellished with a narrative language personal incidents, memories, names and dates are turned into “historical events”.
To mention just a few, the importance of the research of the archival resources, the need for them to be critically read, the discovery and the understanding of the historical events (one of the principal aims of the science of History), require specialized knowledge and trust, to both of which the “Historians” of that kind are both indifferent and unfamiliar.
But this is not history’s sole problem. Almost as significant as that, is the problem which is linked to the personality of the historian when it comes to its efficiency and its ability to cater to the needs of history. “ Thoucidides’s Science” not only requires knowledge and specialization but both “ethos” and “consciousness”  should be cognate and parallel in a historian. All these virtues are taken for granted and ring like melody in our ears, elegant like decorative adjectives.(Objectivity, critical ability, impartiality, selflessness) . Sadly, we have to admit that by rule, they lack from the ethical equipment of the historians and in the past their lacking has been proved irreversibly harmful to the chronography-historiography and even to the plain and critical narration of the events. But the fact that they are still missing in the modern historical science torments its research work in finding, in interpreting, in understanding and discerning the sources, and finally in choosing between many  remarkable people and significant actions and including them in the historical sphere. Half-truths and lies, tendentiousness, prejudice, pettiness, are all filtered through distorted pens and are presented to the generations to come as “history”. Sometimes spiteful and sometimes paranoid the pens of the historians suffocate with their colourless ink crucial historical events and significant personalities, thus blemishing their creative work.
Such attempts have been made in the past and they were quite notable.  The more they are the merrier though. Maybe some time in the future they will be transformed into a river which will wash away the historical ordure. Only then, does History have the power, as a humanistic science, to play a decisive role in the progress and the evolution of humanity. History could constitute the cornerstone in the construction of the human civilization. Otherwise, it would be better and wiser for us to trust its pages less; this way, it would be less harmful!             

                                                   B'     

One does not have to be an expert to perceive that written History, the way it has been delivered to us today, is not the true History of the Past. Neither is Science nowadays, in a position, to resurrect the entire (written) History or to detect the amount of falsification and alteration History has been submitted to.
This inaccuracy and distortion of History is due to many reasons; for instance the lack of different sources to compare and contrast their contents and the related events; another reason being the inadequacy of the historical ethos, which is a common characteristic of the majority of the Historians; in particular, their influence by many different national, ethnical, religious and other backgrounds. (This refers mostly to older historians because in modern and contemporary History, that is not the case).
Par example, The Peloponnesian War, was recorded in its biggest part by the Athenian Historian Thucydides and since 411 B.C. (before the accepted date), Xenophon started to record it too. Xenophon was of Athenian origin but later he took to the Spartans. Consequently, as far as Historians is concerned, it is their national identity, to mention only one reason, which by itself invalidates or even renders their historical narration as suspicious and flawed since Historical ethos (objectivity, impartiality) can not be just a state of mind but it must be proved in practice. 
This is exactly the case with Polivios Megalopolitis  and his work. A conservative Peloponnesian writer of Roman upbringing whose writings span over a long period  of time full of important events; in his writings he makes a number of arbitrary judgments on people, on causes and on effects and his writings are the sole historical source of those years. He has been often cited and copied almost to the last word, from other historians who can not stand or dare to question in the least his prestige as an engaging historian. That is why, the Spartan King Navis, who fought against the Romans and against the general Likortas (father of the historian) becomes the prey of Polivios’s predatory pen and thus, Navis’s work is blemished, he is slandered as an individual and the historical portrait of his friends and his colleagues is distorted.
The situation is exacerbated in the later years (the Byzantine era, the Middle Ages). The way History of those years has been delivered to us is either a religious frenzy of cleric men (Efsevios Pamfilou) or a libel of some opportunists or mercenary writers against their foes and their opponents. (Prokopios, Kekavmenos).
To name some of these historians, who in fact wrote in Greek, is only indicative and it does not mean that they are the only one “lacking” historically. Indeed, the vast majority (of Greek and non-Greek writers) falls under the same category and they all differ slightly but not essentially.
Just by briefly mentioning a few of these issues, it is easily understandable that what we acknowledge today as History of the Past, might bear rare, close or none relation whatsoever to the true facts and events that took place; consequently, its judgments regarding people and actions could be entirely or partially distorted or slandering. It could be that serious events that took place sometime in the past, have been entirely burked and significant individuals who played a leading role in those, have their names obscured from historical memory. And this is the reason why we express our skepticism and our distrust for the pages of History, since the true History of the past is not truly recorded in those but only a part of it is. Truth is we will never be informed of that part. (That applies to us today, because as far as the future is concerned, no one can really tell about the possibilities that might rise due to the developing Science and Technology).

                                                 C'

In winter 2005, in a Conference at Shevchenko University, Kiev, the historian Nikos Adamopoulos mentioned in one of his lectures(published in Greek as well):

“ In a symbolic gesture we decided to change the intonation of the word History (pronounced as Histori’a ) from the penultimate to the antepenultimate syllable ( thus turning it into Histo’ria). The reason why we did so was in order to indicate that the traditional form of History, the way it is taught and the way we know it, often unquestionably accepted by us, is not “ History” itself. To be more precise, it is not the entire History. For reasons which will be analyzed below, traditional History ignored, obscured (either on purpose or accidentally) and even misrepresented big parts of the human activity, of the “Historical Being” as we call it. Surely the problem is not new and in no case do we claim to have raised the issue first. With all the problems mentioned in my speech I do not take pride in having stated the obvious. Tens of historians, sociologists and other researchers of related sciences, have pointed out the problem and international bibliography can be content to have included in its pages excellent studies relevant to the issue we are analyzing today in this scientific Conference.
The so-called “ leery” historians of past and modern times, have located and pointed out the serious problem of the truncated and unreliable History. Most of those historians, in their remarkable studies, have thoroughly recorded and have critically stated the reasons why this has taken place. Certain historians, the so-called “extremists” (the term is used here as synonym of the word radical and not necessarily in the sense of the fanatic or massively leveling researcher) definitely question the objectivity of traditional history. They are the ones who deem it to be in its whole untruthful and committed to certain interests (serving certain purposes) ,in short they consider it to be false. We do not fully support this opinion; mind you, though that what we stand for does not differ much either. To be objective and to do justice to the historiographers of all times, be they ancient or modern, we would have to mention that the “products” of their historical pen are always linked and thus, affected by the range of their education, their national identity and their social class, their ideology, their own personal purposes and interests etc. When all the afore-mentioned reasons-characteristics are prevalent in the historiographer’s personality, they eliminate his objectivity, they charge his pen in a negative way and they render his writing doubtful and his historical judgment as “personal”. (Note that the term is used as antonym of the terms objective and impartial). This is one very significant characteristic, which automatically renders his writing unreliable, false and thus dangerous.
To be more understood, it will suffice to mention a few examples of older and modern historiographers. In mentioning them, by no means do we support that they are set as warning lessons or that they are automatically rendered as insufficient or that their historical work is entirely useless. Such a leveling belief would show lack of respect to some historians, whose presence was very significant because they recorded even with some mistakes, omissions and with a sense of tendentiousness their “Historical Being” of their time or of older times. It would also damage irreversibly the historical memory of the generations, discarding into oblivion and into depreciation significant historical figures and their actions or important events taking place just because they were recorded by these historians, mentioned later on. Our stand though, even if it is severely criticized by others, is not a belief of “Christian” tolerance and forgiveness; in other words absolution. These historians take their share of responsibility and our being tolerant does not rid them off their mistakes nor does it rip their bad historical self away. The stigma of the recruited historian, remains on them and it will always follow them, as long as there will be people who  respect truth and fight for what is fair.
To start from the ancient Greek historiography such examples of historians are Xenophon the Athenian and later on Polivios the Megalopolitis. Their “historical ethos” can not be compared to that of the great ancient Athenian colleague of theirs, to the historian Thucydides. Xenophon, was what today we would call a reporter or even a war correspondent; if we pay close attention to the man’s life and to his career, we will find it full of adventurism and an easy conversion from the one camp to the other. Xenophon offers freely and easily enough praise to those he is fond of or to those who serve his personal interests. At the same time, he refuses to narrate contemporary historical events of great significance and he obscures others, which are equally important and defining for his time and the years to follow. Xenophon was of an Athenian origin, and when his co patriots turned against him , he fled his country and became a Spartan citizen; finding shelter under the protective umbrella of the Spartans; they in return to his conversion to the Spartan camp, provided him with a huge property near Ancient Olympia where he lived in prosperity, protected against the threat of the Athenian law. And Xenophon, himself, grateful to his protectors and his new “masters”, paid his due, offering them lavish pieces of his favour and dissimulation, by covering up many flaws of their system of government and of their educational system or even of their historical crimes in the pages of his history. He will make no reference and hide brilliant Athenian actions, he will blemish figures who he happened to dislike and whose opinions he did not support. The saddest issue being that after Thucydides’ death, the narration of the events of the great Peloponnesian war, from 411B.C.and onwards, will be continued by Xenophon, making no reference, obscuring and even distorting many of these events, slandering the figures who played a leading role in those.
Polivios the Megalopolitis is the second example. A friend of the Romans, since he spent a big part of his life in Rome., in a “golden cage”, an aristocrat and thus, a conservative, from  a wealthy  Peloponnesian family , he hated every revolutionary action and the entire democratic Peloponnesian community; throwing in the nether of Historical falsification rebels and historical figures who fervently supported their democratic ideas. A characteristic example is the Spartan King Navis. Navis, took the throne after a revolution broke at a time, when in the historical city there was ethical and economical abjection, he took radical political actions, so remarkable and evolutionary for his time, that are still considered to be excellent . He redistributed the land, taking it away from 100 free-rich Spartan citizens and dividing it to the destitute, poor co patriots of his. He set free all the slaves (helots), he gave equal rights to women, he exported the Spartan culture and mentality to other cities, calling the rest of the democratic cities of the Peloponnese to do the same and he offered his assistance in achieving that. A sworn enemy of the Romans and an opponent of their imperialistic tactics, he stalemated the Roman legions on the outskirts of Sparta and he cancelled the Romans’ plans. On the other hand, the father of the historian Polivios, a general of the Achaic confederacy welcomes the Roman invaders and agrees to cooperate with them. Yet his son Polivios in his story, he will be relentless against the ”nerve” of the Spartan helot, Navis, who has become a King and has up surged the Peloponnese with his revolutionary ideas and actions. Due to his different social class background, his ideology, his beliefs and general philosophy in life, he will handle Navis in his narration in such a way and he will manipulate the great Spartan King so that he will render him unrecognizable. He will make him look like a ridiculous tyrant, a lame criminal, a rapist, a bandit, a beast. Every lame and gruesome characteristic that can be traced back in human cruelty and perversion, are all attributed to Navis. Polivios shows no mercy for Navis, not even a minute particle of appreciation for his work, not even one single word of objective historical narration of the actions of the Spartan rebel. He consciously covers up serious historical events, he hides historical actions of great importance, he alters and smears the “Historical Being” which he voluntarily took up to write and to pass judgments on. By blemishing him, Polivios handed over Navis to history. But he did not stop burking Navis’ work; he continued and so he distorted it completely and historically “slaughtered” the revolutionary helot. The modern historians, picked Navis up from there and as such they recorded him to be; historians of the same historical ethos and the same ideology as Polivios’. The huge blanks of History, the covering up of events, their falsification, their alteration, killed in cold blood the objective historical truth concerning the Spartan king Navis, in the pages of  Polivios’ history. 
And we come to later historical years, to the so-called Proto-Byzantine era. Two historians, Efsevios Kessareias Pamfilou and Prokopios were contemporaries of two great Historical personalities. The first, of the Emperor Constantine the Great and the latter of  Justinian.  Efsevios being a man of clergy himself, he writes cleric history. And if he had stuck to that, if he had not moved into unknown territory, as he had no right to do , if he did not decide to busy himself with recording, analyzing and judging political events, which were beyond his duties and beyond his knowledge and his perception, he would not be accused of distorting history. Instead, he continued writing and through his distorting religious lens, he attempted to see and to interpret events and figures, which can not be interpreted or analysed using the religious approach alone. Thus, Constantine, an abuser of the Roman power, a hunter of the “ national” Greeks and a visionary of the authoritarian, theocratic system of government, constituting himself the representative of God on earth, he is proclaimed as “Great” in Efsevios’ History. Many criminal actions of his are swept under the rug, his lack of Christian ethos is turned into deep Christian faith and he is proclaimed equal to the apostles and a saint by the Church. He is the one who was baptized at death’s door, without being aware of the ritual and of the deepest meaning of it; he was the one who until the end of his life, he was the first and the greatest priest of the Roman religion, he is the one who is proclaimed from the committed and fanatic pen of Efsevios as a respectable Christian. His gruesome actions against the “nationals” are forgiven and are claimed to be “a work of God”; and his victories are a product of  Providence’s direct dispensation. God is the leader of the Emperor’s armies, leading them ahead, bearing the flag with the cross on it and reading the phrase” in this, conquer”.
Prokopios is set as the fourth example; a classic example of its type for burking, distorting the events and for providing praise to the protectors of the system for reasons of his own. While he is enjoying Justinians’s protection, he is paid lavishly and is considered to be the Emperor’s closest person; for this he dedicates to him pages of praise and proclaims him a great general and political leader, with a range of virtues and talents. But when Prokopios ceases to be Justinian’s favourite, he therefore stops being considered one of the courtesans; and at that specific moment his dips his biased   pen into the ink of envy and bitterness, of slandering and of smearing. The mud he will sling against the Emperor and his libels will be unprecedented. Justinian, who up to that point was a brilliant Emperor and his kind, noble, genius and moral wife Theodora, once a perfect example of a life-partner and Empress, are now turned into ridiculous, immoral, cheap, non-human individuals and poor Theodora is proclaimed the lowest of whores of Constantinople. What a nerve, what a decline, what a debase of the Historian and his work!!!
The examples mentioned above are not the only ones. We would be able to make an endless list with names of historians, of the ancient, middle, modern and contemporary times who belong to the same category as the ones mentioned above; that is, in the category where consciously most of the times but accidentally too, they failed  to record important events of periods they write about in their historiographies. On the other hand, they consciously made no reference to some events for obvious reasons and other events they distorted and altered. The same goes for the historical figures which as remarkable and as significant as they have been, they have remained in oblivion or they have been blemished or misrepresented entirely.
We are tempted to mention just a few of those. For example, by whom, how and why was Efialtis killed? Efialtis was the leader of the Democratic Party in Athens and later on Pericles took over the leadership after Efialtis was murdered. Did Pericles have any involvement in Efialtis’ murder? When and how this huge blank will be covered, of a historical period which commences with the accession to the leadership of the democrats from Efialtis and ends with his murder and Pericles’ proclamation as a leader? We move on to mention Alexander the Macedonian. How and from what did he die of? Where was he buried and why is his tomb still unknown to us today? The historians’ arguments are naïve and suspicious, stating that he died of exhaustion, of a virus, of a sexually transmitted disease, drugs or alcohol and the reason why his tomb is hidden from us is  even more naïve and suspicious. Who wanted to avoid having an autopsy of the dead body, which would apparently solve the mystery of his death? We move on then to the Byzantine years. How did the committed pen dare to add next to the name of the great philosopher and Emperor Julian the depreciating adjective violator? Why was his extensive work hidden and degraded? Let us take a few steps forward. It is the 29th of May 1453.  Constantinople, the City of cities, the stronghold of Christianity and of the Greek culture, falls in the hands of Mohamed. Who handed in the city to the Turks? Was it the insane politics of the last emperors, the corruption, the economic, social decline of the citizens in the shrinking Byzantine Empire, the conjunction of circumstances, or the drive of the beginner and the decline of the older? These too are some reasons. But, why no one has ever mentioned the conspiracy of the Clergy of The Orthodox Church and its treason of the Last Emperor Constantine Palaiologos?  What about of the clergy which stated out loud then, that “it’s better to put on the Turkish turban than the pope’s crown”. Who is that higher-rank  priest who on the eves of the fall of the city, met with the Sultan and agreed with him to hand in the city ? How and why immediately after the fall, the divisive Gennadius-Scholarios was ordained Patriarch with unprecedented privileges given to him by the Sultan, privileges which are still enjoyed by the patriarchs today? And now as far as our days is concerned. The Nazis burned in the crematoria and in the furnaces millions of people, Jews, gypsies and other “inferior” races, who did not belong to the Aryan Race. Why did some “ historians” start a lame attempt of covering up this huge crime against humanity? Why are they trying to put off the fire in those furnaces, when you can still smell the burning flesh of people and they disrespect the historical memory and human dignity?
History not only does not write the truth but in many cases it “ forgets” to write it; it hides it and it distorts it. Big parts of it are laying in the dark and others are buried deep or altered. In the chain of human actions, recorded as history, there are many rings missing. Some of them were hidden and others were transformed or totally destroyed. This is apparent and thus unquestionable. We stated the reasons why this has happened. But by tracing the problem we must reach to its solution. That is to reform history. We must seek and find the missing pieces of the puzzle which are either laying around waiting to be found or are hidden skillfully. And they are many; too many.
We must find all these rings of the chain lost and hidden alike, we must straighten them up, give them their original shape. To be able, thus, to make the chin one-piece again. To narrate a round, real, objective history. To rewrite History. That is one tough, difficult piece of work, yet necessary but not impossible. And until this happens, we will stress the history we have in the antepenultimate syllable, pronouncing it histo’ria; while the History we will be eagerly awaiting to be written we will stress it in the penultimate syllable. We will pronounce it Histori’a then, when it is completed; only then will this change  be corrected and the stress will be brought back to its original place. Only then will we be allowed to call it HISTORI’A written in CAPITALS and with the H letter written proudly in capitals too.                               
 
 

                                                   D'

It has arrived the time to examine the concept History. Which is the real history and how much the meaning most people have on their minds corresponds to reality? The classic historians (writers, teachers etc.) they couldn’t, even if they would, confer about the specific subject and define the actual essence of the history. They would characterize it as the science or the lesson, which gives us knowledge about bygone events (consequently, it is nothing more than an accurate description-narration of the past, for example Marathon’s Battle). They also could call it informational conductor. Nothing more, nothing less. Afterwards, with great facility, they could recite the names of illustrious historians, and if you ask them why those names are considered so they will respond you that the centuries have established them as such.

However, they do not seem to have awareness that what they call history is only a broken mirror of the history. There are two possibilities, or they are confused about what is and what not history is, or causes of convenience (prepossessions, national, religious and racial convictions, enlistment etc.) keep them from accede to the heart and being of that science. Consequently, the outcome is the same: “Thucydide’s science”, in her traditional, existent countenance was lucky enough to run into countless servants. Contrariwise, from the antiquity until nowadays, history in her real aspect and essence did never have serious delegates to rely on. And we will never know if such historians have ever existed.

This is the tragic aspect of the problem. In other words, the incorporated historians do not wish to read into what they serve and what really history means! However, the whole issue has also a funny side. Nowadays, especially those who depend economically on the state, (employees) history teachers in the schools and universities or lecturers in congresses and other similar actions controlled by the country, people who pretend the connoisseurs (in reality they are just mercenaries), advocate they do not have reasons to manipulate history. The same thing allege those who charge the desks of the publishing houses with “historical bumf”.

All these professionals profess that the fact they get paid for their job or the fact they may have a specific prepossession (they call it ideology), has nothing to do with their science and does not mean they comply with the demands of their employer or mentor. But if these affirmations are solid (because it does not count only believe in something, you must also bring it into effect) why they don’t quit their positions? And the others, why they don’t kick over the traces of the enlistment once for all? (Well, let’s face it, turning a blind eye to the situation and behaving like ostriches, is just the easy way to move on. The rest are only alibis).

Now, to continue our imaginary conversation with the traditional historian, after the definition he spoke previously, if we asked him to go on with a more circumstantial description of the historical subject, he would answer us pouncing the canons the worldwide historical community uses to classify an event as historical, in what way we can distinguish it, how the past transforms into history, which are the historical sources etc. With great facility, also, he would respond to the apropos (but not so innocent) question if the history repeats herself and if he belongs to the idealistic historical school (opposite the material school).So, he would wind up with an epiclesis at the Muse Chloe, asking her to bless history for all the benefits that offers in the spiritual and the cultural development of the nations.

Assuredly, we must mention that from the beginning he had emphasized to the etymology of the word history, saying that arrives from the ancient Greek verb oida (istor= to have a deep knowledge). Therefore, the historian is something like an omniscient. And concludes with an ancient maxim: beatific those who understand the history, and other similar dictums. So, we can affirm that the substance of history is commentated in the same identical way by all the conventional historians.

At this point, we must remind you something else, also important: Everything that connects with history (lessons, lectures, books), are expressed with crabbed and colourless words that the scientists recognize as their scientific jargon. We refer to a language full of pompous terminologies, abstruse terms, neologisms, very long phrases, in order to exalt the corruption… of their scientific reflection. And if we talk about books, consider they “decorate” every page with numbers and letters which refer in countless bibliographic notes. And the number of those notes determines the scientific value of the book, not only in the scientific entourage but also in the eyes of the benighted and the naives.

Arriving at a conclusion: History, for all the traditional historians, without regard to their disagreements, is the science that teaches us our glorious past and our origins. It shows us the way to learn from our mistakes and how to avoid our weaknesses. Points our future, but in the same time advise us to look over it with caution without forgetting our past. With this trivium and other similar, they consummate hours in the classrooms or they fill glittering printed pages. These triviums do not have any actual use. Commonly, they are announced by school principals and mayors in national feasts, in order to raise the national beliefs.

So, this is the history, the “specialists” give over-transmit from generation to generation. The result is that people deeply believe history is that book they have been taught in highscool, which sometimes found funny, others original and some others boring, accordingly to the impartment abilities of their teachers. This flat and nihilistic view dominates our culture and the modern governments are always very austere with those who try to straggle from the fixed historical line, the authorities have established.

Moreover, they are particularly severe with national, racial and religious distinctivenesses and for that reason they do not tolerate variations from the sounding boards they call historians. On the contrary, they demand absolute obedience and dedication to the traditional history, which can easily change or be altered if the times, the circumstances and the conveniences call for it.

Everything we have mentioned since now explains us why nobody has preserved other historical forms, other names of historians and other historical books besides the ones we already know about. Because the state has rescued only what was convenient. The “stories” that did not fulfill the specs each authority had established and the historians, who dared to deflect from the official lines, got into the fire (literally and metaphorically depending on the epoch).

In a few words, the survived history is being used to serve the interests of the actual governances by keeping in actuality everything the nation needs to hear in order to feel proud and confident about the past, the ancestries and the virtues, whose guardians are these archons. This is the way to cultivate historical memories, bonds and the feeling of a continuous course among the persons of a nation.

Thence, the terminus is to use the made up history as a tool for the alleviation of the differences between the co nationalists, to bring them closer in terms of behavior and customs, so they can be stronger and tougher to affront their peaceful or warlike situations. We already accentuated that the writing, the preservation and the teaching of that propagandist history, is being assigned by the authorities to chosen persons, who proclaim their selves into historians and they live in a prestige status. Behaviour relative to the one of the legislators, who assume the responsibility to create laws with divine behest. So, we can deduce that history has been very important for the different authorities, from the antiquity since nowadays. But these authorities feed themselves with the convenient history (sometimes with football also), in order to indulge their collective egoism.

C.F.  Congestion… of historians (ΗΟΜΟ NATURALIS.BLOG.28-9-07).

The truth about Mrs. Repousi, the government and the book of history.

Mrs. Repousi, in collaboration with other historians, assumed the responsibility to write the history school manual for the 6^th elementary class and in exchange she would receive an honorarium. And this happened. Mrs. Repousi and her team wrote the book, then it was approved by the pedagogic institute and finally it got printed. The question is: is this an historical manual (like every other historical manual) which treats properly the didactics? Is this the right manual to teach history at the elementary school? To answer we have to appose another two queries:

1. Who is Mrs. Repousi who took over the writing of this book? Answer: She is one of the incorporated-established historians who a. was elected by the usual “Greek way”, which governments use to elect all the public employees academics, teachers of all grades, b. her scientific background and her original auctorial work, simply do not exist, c. since her job is to produce ideology for the authorities she serves, falsifying the history (as she gets paid to do this), we have serious doubts about her professional morality.

2. Who placed her in charge of the writing team? And exactly which of her credentials mattered so she was considered appropriate to assume such responsibility? Answer: Some other employees of the Ministry of Education, counterparts of the government, chose her, after a virtual contest, based in one and only asset: The good collaboration and the obedience of the team. That means: Team’s members should write the history without aberrances from the government-national lines, should also have the faculty and the conscientiousness, in other words to have the flightiness, to falsify the history without consequences and moral inhibitions. Mrs. Repousi and her team did not need and did not have anything else. And this is the reason that she finally took over the project.

Consequently, we can easily deduce that Mrs. Repousi neither wanted neither could write the real history, because she and her collaborators are specific public employees who work in the specific public services (universities, schools) and get paid to do exactly this job. Consciously, they try to deceive and besot the consciences of the young people. If the employers of Mrs. Repousi had the minimum suspicious that she could deflect from the limits and serve the real science, not only she would not have assumed the project, she would not even serve coffee at the university’s bar.

So, as an obedient and “national historian” like Mrs. Repousi is, they assigned her to write the history manual for the 6th elementary class. And now, let’s reveal (after we have straightened out the procedure of the assignment) the secrets of its writing. The team’s members should be: a. people with strong national beliefs, b. supporters or at least “friends” of the government, c. obedient persons, in others words they should be “collaborative” and willing to follow the commands of the ministry and the pedagogic institute. If the team fulfills these conditions gets the commission of the task, the didactics is equally distributed at the historians and in three or four months the book is ready. The foremost effectuates a quick control to assure they have followed the government’s behests, sends it to the pedagogic institute for deeper control, then arrives to the printing house and ends up to the minister’s hands for the final signature. What follows is the disbursal of the writers, who like we said before are the most appropriate to carry out this project, which was appointed to them with questionable ways, like every other thing that happens in Greece.

But what occurred and suddenly the nation turned against a fitly academic, whose only aim was to become wealthier and enrich her curriculum? In what way, in the book came along this… damned congestion of the refugees at Smyrna?

The situation is really simple, for someone who knows the facts from inside. Lately, after the development of tight economic relations between Turkey and the Balkan countries, begun an effort to bring closer those nations. The respective countries realized that history could be a useful tool to achieve this goal. So, they delegated “historians” from the Balkan universities to gather, sometimes at Salonika, some others at Sofia or Bucharest (of course with enormous payments) and discuss about the nationalistic discharge of the history. Afterwards, considering the anachronistic apperception the governments have for the history, they demand from the historians to adjust it in a convenient way by hiding and suppressing important historical events, which seem to encumber the approach of the Balkan countries and renew the hate between the nations.

Mrs. Repousi and her team worked exactly in that spirit. Which bygone events are inconvenient to speak for in this specific moment? And what can we do? We can just throw them to the garbage. We quote as an example the Clandestine School. In her career Mrs. Repousi has taught that the Clandestine School existed and used to wither us for declaring the opposite, considering there was no need for such existence cause the education and the religion of the Greek people were free. However, when her employer (State) changed point of view, she begun as a neophyte to sustain the exact reverse.

We used to ask aforetime, what genocide of the Greeks in ’22 are you talking about? Who was responsible for the transportation of the Greek people as refugees after the defeat of the Greek troops? And most important, how come the Greek troops arrived in M. Asia and Saggario? Consequently, about what genocide are you talking about? If the Turkish people wanted to massacre our people they could have done it in one night, like the way they did with the Armenians. If the winners (Turkish people) wished to do so, they would not have allowed the embarkation and the passage in Greece. These are only ridiculous affirmations.

We used to ask”: About what genocide are you talking? After the defeat of the Greek troops who led them in M. Asia and Saggario? About what destruction and genocide are you speaking about? If the Turkish wished to massacre the Greeks they could have done it in one night. Just like they did with the Armenians. They would have let thousands of Greeks to embark into the boats if they wanted to butcher them? Funny things to say.

And what about the survivals? Those who saw Smyrna burning down? Of course, those tragical days, many Greeks were killed, many women were raped and many shops and houses were robed. But a genocide, similar to the Armenian’s or the Kurd’s one, never existed. The Turkish did not do such thing. This is a dirty lie and an intolerable falsification of the history. A great congestion of Greek refugees who were abandoning Smyrna in every possible way, really happened, But not due to a genocide. Because of the criminal imprudence of the Greek government.

When we reported the issue, Mrs. Repousi and her like-minded almost excommunicated us. But when this lady received the order to eliminate from the book, those inharmonious comments like “complete massacre of the Greek people by the Turkish”, the dutiful employee hurried up to obey the instructions. In this way, the famous “genocide”, that until now professors used to teach, changed to “congestion” in the book Mrs. Repousi wrote.

However, all of them (Repousi and government), did not consider the voice of those nationalists Greeks. With foremosts Christodoulos, Anthimos, Papathemelis, Psomiadis, Theodorakis, Louka, Kaneli, Zouraris, Triantafulopoulos and Karatzaferis, the communist party and the rest “patriots” opposed to that “national Hubris”. The government realized that all this conflict could end up like Waterloo, withdraw from circulation the book, and let Mrs. Repousi open to criticism. This is funny, at the end Mrs. Repousi you should be aware of the fact that all betrayers have the same destiny. And you should also know that there many who passed up the Judas but nobody eventually accepted the Judas. Now, the only thing that remains you is to play the part of the heroin, like you did in an interview. Tell us only one thing: If you fell so aggrieved, why don’t you just quit?

This is the whole truth about the history book. It has come the time, for the government and the nationalist entourage, to realize that times have evolved. Lies cannot prevail against truth. This is history’s law and will never change. History’s laws are like natural laws.