Ανεξάρτητη Σκωτία: το Απαιτητό Τέλος της Μεγάλης Βρεταννίας και της Γαλλίας ως Αδήριτη Ιστορική Ανάγκη & η Αποκάλυψη της Αγγλικής Βαρβαρότητας από τον καθ. Μεγαλομμάτη

Ανεξάρτητη Σκωτία:
το Απαιτητό Τέλος
της Μεγάλης
Βρεταννίας και της
Γαλλίας ως Αδήριτη
Ιστορική Ανάγκη & η
Αποκάλυψη της
Αγγλικής
Βαρβαρότητας από τον
καθ. Μεγαλομμάτη
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/1
1/06/ανεξάρτητη-σκωτία-το-απαιτητό-τέλος-τ/
====================

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής –
Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη,Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή
Αυτοκρατορία
Ανεξάρτητη Σκωτία:
το Απαιτητό Τέλος
της Μεγάλης
Βρεταννίας και της
Γαλλίας ως Αδήριτη
Ιστορική Ανάγκη & η
Αποκάλυψη της
Αγγλικής

Βαρβαρότητας από τον
καθ. Μεγαλομμάτη
Το 2014 ο Έλληνας ανατολιστής, ιστορικός
και πολιτικός επιστήμονας, καθ. Μουχάμαντ
Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτης είχε ολόθερμα
υποστηρίξει την απόσχιση της Σκωτίας από
το λεγόμενο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο, δηλαδή την
Αγγλία, και σε διάφορα άρθρα του είχε
συνηγορήσει υπέρ μιας Ανεξάρτητης
Σκωτίας, παρουσιάζοντας το επερχόμενο
γεγονός ως αδήριτη ιστορική ανάγκη.
Καθώς η Αγγλία βαδίζει προς γενική
διάλυση, το Brexit αναμένεται να γίνει ο
καταλύτης πολλών εξελίξεων στην
αναχρονιστική, παγκοσμίως επικίνδυνη, κι
αποκρουστική αυτή χώρα. Οι Σκωτσέζοι
μετά από το Brexit έχουν καταστήσει σαφές
ότι δεν θα παραμείνουν επί μακρόν στο
βασίλειο εκείνων που επί τόσους αιώνες
κατέστρεφαν την χώρα τους. Η Βόρεια

Ιραλνδία θα ακολουθήσει. Τα γεγονότα θα
προξενήσουν μια ιδιαίτερη δυναμική και
στην Ουαλλία. Και τα συσσωρευμένα στην
Αγγλία εκατομμύρια μουσουλμάνων κι
ισλαμιστών θα δώσουν ένα τελικό χτύπημα
στο σιχαμερό έθνος που – όπως και η
ρυπαρή Φραγκιά (γνωστή επίσης και ως
δήθεν ‘Γαλλία’) – παρουσιάζεται ως κέντρο
πολιτισμού, ενώ αποτελεί άντρο
βαρβαρότητας.
Παράλληλα με την επερχόμενη διάλυση της
Αγγλίας, της Γαλλίας και της Αμερικής, το
ελληνικό καθεστώς θα πέσει κάτω σαν
ψόφιο πτώμα γιατί θα χάσει τα ερείσματα
πάνω στα οποία στηρίχθηκε ηλίθια κι
αυτοκτονικά για δυο ολόκληρους αιώνες.

Αυτός ο χάρτης των ευρωπαϊκών εθνών
δημοσιεύθηκε στο άρθρο του κ.
Μεγαλομμάτη.
Είναι ωστόσο άξια προσοχής η θέση του
Έλληνα μουσουλμάνου ανατολιστή: αντίθετα
από τους μουσουλμάνους (λαθρο)μετανάστες
που έχουν εγκατασταθεί στην Σκωτία και
ψήφισαν υπέρ της παραμονής της χώρας στο

Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο, ο κ. Μεγαλομμάτης
υποστήριξε – όπως συνεπώς κάνει για όλα
τα έθνη σε όλες τις ηπείρους – την εθνική
ανεξαρτησία της Σκωτίας. Και αντίθετα από
τους ισλαμιστές του Λονδονιστάν που
ψήφισαν υπέρ του Bremain, ο κ.
Μεγαλομμάτης σθεναρά υποστηρίζει ότι
είναι αντι-ισλαμικό και ακόμη σατανικό για
μουσουλμάνους να πηγαίνουν να ζήσουν σε
κράτη αλλοθρήσκων επειδή εκεί μπορούν
να έχουν οικονομικά οφέλη.
Στο παρακάτω τεράστιο άρθρο του, ο κ.
Μεγαλομμάτης καθιστά καταγέλαστο όποιον
αμόρφωτο τολμήσει να ισχυρισθεί ότι η
Αγγλία είναι ένα πολιτισμένο κράτος κι οι
Άγγλοι ένα πολιτισμένο έθνος. Και για να
παρουσιάσει την πραγματική εικόνα των
βαρβάρων Άγγλων, δημοσιεύει προς
υποστήριξη του εθνικού αγώνα των
Σκωτσέζων για ανεξαρτησία ένα πλήρη
πίνακα των επί μακρόν επιχειρημένων
γενοκτονιών των Ουαλλών, των Ιρλανδών
και των Σκωτσέζων και των απίστευτων

φυσικών καταστροφών που τα κτήνη της
Αγγλίας προξένησαν στις χώρες εκείνες τις
οποίες κατέλαβαν και προσάρτησαν πριν
ξανοιχτούν στις απάνθρωπες υπερπόντιες
αποικιοκρατικές κατακτήσεις τους και πριν
τάχα βοηθήσουν τους Έλληνες να
απελευθερωθούν από την Οθωμανική
Αυτοκρατορία.
Διαβάστε προσκετικά το άρθρο του κ.
Μεγαλομμάτη για να καταλάβετε πόσο
γελοίο είναι να αναφέρεται κάποιος σε
αρμενική ή ποντιακή γενοκτονία, όταν οι
Άγγλοι κι οι Γάλλοι έκαναν από πολύ πιο
πριν πολύ πιο βαρβαρικές, απάνθρωπες και
κτηνώδεις γενοκτονίες. Τα όποια
οθωμανικά και τουρκικά εγκλήματα
ωχριούν μπροστά στα αίσχη των Άγγλων
και των Γάλλων.

Γαλλία, Αγγλία κι Ισπανία είναι ψευτο-
χώρες που δεν αποτελούν έθνη και θα
διαλυθούν στα εξ ων συνετέθησαν. Αυτός ο
χάρτης δημοσιεύθηκε επίσης στο άρθρο του
κ. Μεγαλομμάτη.
Οπότε, όσοι ανεγκέφαλοι θέλουν να κάνουν
λόγο για βάρβαρους Πακιστανούς, Αφγανούς
και άλλους λαθρομετανάστες και λαθρο-
εισβολείς, θα πρέπει πρώτα – για να
αποδείξουν ότι είναι δίκαιοι, αληθινοί,
ειλικρινείς κι αδέκαστοι – να κάψουν την
αγγλική πρεσβεία στην Αθήνα και να
κατακομματιάσουν όπου βρουν το κάθε
αγγλικό, γαλλικό, ή αμερικάνικο
βρωμογούρουνο περπατάει στην Ελλάδα.

Μπορεί να έχει σχεδιάσει πολλά κατά της
Ελλάδας η σημερινή ηγεσία της Τουρκίας.
Αλλά δεν ξεφτιλίζει την Ελλάδα ο πρέσβυς
της Τουρκίας αλλά ο πρέσβυς των ΗΠΑ που
πηγαίνει σε όποιο υπουργείο ή επιτελείο
θέλει για να διατάξει τις επόμενες κινήσεις
των εκεί μαριονετών του.
Και γιατί δεν θέλετε να δώσουμε στην
Τουρκία το μισό Αιγαίο, όταν με την αισχρή
στάση σας αποδέχεστε ότι έχουμε δώσει όλη
την Ελλάδα στις ΗΠΑ, Αγγλία και Γαλλία;
Και, για να πούμε και του στραβού το δίκιο,
σε τι σας πειράζουν τα σκατά που κάνουν
καταμεσής του δρόμου στην Λέσβο οι
τζιχαντιστές Πακιστανοί λαθρομετανάστες;
Τα σκατά του ο Πάγιατ κι οι πρέσβεις της
Αγγλίας και της Γαλλίας, τα κάνουν στα
μούτρα των Ελλήνων υπουργών,
στρατηγών, πρωθυπουργών και προέδρων.
Αυτό το σκατό υπήρξε για 200 χρόνια η
Ελλάδα: μια σκατούλα πατημένη από τις
μπότες των χειρότερων εγκληματιών του

κόσμου. Διαβάστε στη συνέχεια τα
κακουργήματα και τα ανοσιουργήματα
αυτών των εγκληματιών στον τόπο τους –
τα οποία μάλιστα τα έκαναν πριν φορέσουν
την άθλια μουτσούνα του ‘φιλέλληνα’ κι
έρθουν να απελευθερώσουν Ρωμιούς
Ορθοδόξους το 1828 και να τους κάνουν
δημόσια παντρεμένους κίναιδους 190 χρόνια
αργότερα!
————————————————————
——

Scotland, ‘Civic
Nation’, ‘Ethnic
Nation’, and the
Search for National
Identity and
Independence
By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin
Megalommatis
The modern European concept of ‘nation’
triggered ceaseless wars and interminable
conflicts over the past two centuries. But
was there only one modern European
concept of ‘nation’? Certainly not!
Nation – a modern term with
no ancient parallels

The word ‘nation’ existed in all major
ancient languages that we deciphered, but
it did not always have the same meaning
and resonance. As we see it, it was very
common for several populations that
belonged to the same nation to be
organized in different states. This was
already typified in the world’s first
civilization, the Sumerians – an
exemplary case.
Before the formation of Ancient Egypt as a
state around 3000 BCE, for no less than
500 years we attest the early organization
and development of the first Sumerian
cities-states, namely Eridu, Ur, Uruk,
Larsa, Kish, Lagash, Isin, Shuruppak, etc.
The same situation is observed 2000-
2500 years later among the Phoenicians,
when Tyr, Sidon, Arwad, Byblos, Beirut
and other states-kingdoms coexisted for
hundreds of years, at times peacefully
and at times at war.

The Assyrians and the Babylonians, both
descendents of the Akkadians who were
the earliest Semites to form an empire
with Akkad (Agade) as capital in the
24th and 23rd centuries BCE, were
apparently the first nation in the world
to be divided on religious, cultural and
ideological grounds. This started
happening at the very end of the 3rd
millennium BCE.
The phenomenon was repeated in Ancient
Egypt, and there too we have noticed great
examples of national division due to
religious, cultural and ideological
grounds; the post-Ramesside period (at
the beginning of the 11th c. BCE) is
plenty of divisions. For centuries, Egypt
was divided and ruled by two or even
three parallel dynasties; the 8th – 7th c.
BCE clash between the Napatan –
Kushitic – Sudanese dynasty (called
‘Ethiopian’ by the Ancient Egyptian
Historian Manetho) and the Western Delta

dynasty (that Manetho called ‘Libyan’)
reflect different readings of the Ancient
Egyptian Heritage to which were
willingly ascribed the peripheral nations
the Berber ‘Lybians’ of Egypt’s western
confines and the Kushites-Ethiopians of
today’s Sudanese North (who were totally
unrelated to the modern Abyssinian tribes
that peremptorily and fallaciously use the
name of Ethiopia for their country).
Among Ancient Greeks, the extent of the
division was such that even among the
same tribe’s people (Ionians, Aeolians, etc.)
there were several small cities-states
formed.
The word ‘nation’ in English is borrowed
successively from Old French, and Latin.
The original Latin word ‘natio’ meant
first ‘native’ (someone relevant to his/her
birthplace) only to be progressively
extended to all the natives of a place as a
group.

At this point it is essential to state that
the confusion currently existing in
English between the words ‘nation’ and
‘state’ or ‘nation’ and ‘country’ does NOT
exist in other languages; in English, at
times, ‘nation’ means ‘state’ or ‘country’
and a lot of misunderstanding is due to
this confusion, which is highly advisable
never to make. Consequently, it is
important to clarify at this point that,
throughout the present article, the word
‘nation’ is NOT considered as synonym of
the words ‘state’ and ‘country’.
This is of primordial importance, and we
need to always take it into consideration.
In fact, the prevalent concept is that of an
indigenous people. Only this concept
makes of the term ‘nation’ a real, original
value in Humanities; this is due to the
fact that the term describes an indigenous
community of humans. The term ‘country’
in its origin is purely geographical of
context; it means land. Perhaps for

several religions, a particular land or
piece of land may be considered as sacred
or holy, but this approach does never
cover all lands and places that appeared
as the result of the Creation.
Similarly, the term ‘state’ denotes the
governmental mechanism that exists
within some well demarcated borderlines.
However, there has never been a state to
have any value – except that given to it
by either humans (the indigenous nation)
or God (in Whose Name the state in
question may have been established).
Within the context of modern disciplines
of Ancient History and Political Science,
there has been a long discussion about
the main traits and the real essence of a
nation. Several authors tried to identify
what the concept of ‘nation’ meant to
various ancient nations. Quite
unfortunately, in doing so, most of the
scholars projected their own,
contemporary, views and viewpoints onto

the ancient texts that they collected to
study. The result is therefore
untrustworthy,
What is even more unfortunate is the fact
that, in Modern Times, the term ‘nation’
did not mean the same thing to all
philosophers, political theorists,
ideologists and historians – so, every
effort to examine what ‘nation’ meant in
the Antiquity was definitely linked with
the concept of nation each modern author
had in his/her mind.
In this regard, Azar Gat was very wrong
in viewing in Ancient Egypt the world’s
‘first national state’ that was formed
‘quite early as a unified state, congruent
with a distinct people of shared
ethnicity’. That is utterly nonsensical!
The idiotic Israeli author does not in fact
refer to a ‘nation’ but to a ‘national state’,
which is a state properly speaking, so
irrelevant to the nation itself!

Even worse, there was no one distinct
people in Ancient Egypt but many; we
don’t actually know how they viewed
their participation in their ‘nation’ and
how differently they viewed the many
ethnic components of their country.
In addition, for several Ancient Egyptian
religious doctrines, the Ancient Egyptian
gods originated from Napata, the
Kushitic-Sudanese capital near today’s
Karima, more than 750 km alongside the
Nile south of today’s Egyptian – Sudanese
borders. For some time, this was a mere
religious belief. However, in the beginning
of the New Empire (1st half of the 16th c.
BCE), this belief became the cornerstone
of Imperial Egypt’s Kushitic irredentism,
and of the subsequent annexation of
North Sudan (what the Ancient Greeks
and Romans called ‘Ethiopia’) by Ahmose
and Thutmose I.
It is also wrong to hypothesize like Steven
Grosby that the small Canaanite states of

Israel, Ammon, Moab and Edom
underwent a process of nation-formation
as result of the Assyrian expansion that
led to their subordination to Nineveh.
This approach is due exclusively to
unrestrained projection of modern
theoretical and political viewpoints onto
the study topic of the said scholar.
Similarly, Edward Cohen’s irrelevant
conclusion that ancient Athens met all
modern definitions of nationhood is
merely due to this author’s wrong
conception of the term ‘nation’ – which
he later projected onto his study subject.
Nation – a modern term with
two diametrically opposite
concepts
In modern times, all possible efforts of
conceptualization, identification and
contextualization of the term ‘nation’
originate from two diametrically opposed
concepts.

Civic nation
First comes the ‘civic nation’ theory
which is a vicious distortion fabricated
during the formation of Jean Jacques
Rousseau’s Social Contract concept (first
discussed in his homonymous book in
1762). As he never studied History and in
addition was an innovative thinker, J. J.
Rousseau had a total disregard of History
itself. In addition, he was characterized
by an absolute ignorance of the historical
nations as they had existed over
millennia; in Rousseau’s fictional,
unreal, and at times monstrous world, a
nation was just a mass population that he
should fix as per his silly ideas that he
had shaped without taking into account
the real wishes and feelings, desires and
ideas, traditions and beliefs of any nation
whatsoever.
The ceaseless wars that ensued from the
French Revolution, and most of the
bloodshed occurred across the Earth over

the past 250 years are to be credited to
Rousseau’s noxious ideas and
philosophical system which was an
incredible and inhuman aberration of
sick ego(t)istic background.
For Rousseau, what matters in a
community of people is the formation of a
state, which is to be politically legitimate
only through the active participation of
the entire population, i.e. the citizens of
the country. The cynical, absolute and
Macchiavellistic ‘general will’ is all that
matters in this regard, and this was quite
accentuated in later reconsiderations of
the concept of ‘civic nation’. This
approach draws however from other
philosophical systems and theoretical
traditions, notably rationalism and
liberalism.
In reality, when it comes to the notion of
‘civic nation’, the real identity of a
nation does not matter. The ‘nation’ is not
viewed as a historical development and

reality, but as a group of gangsters with a
common will, few materialistic targets,
and therefore only target-appended
‘opinions’ as regards the social
organization. For this reason, membership
of the civic nation is simply voluntary. In
fact, many people originating from
different nations can gather together in
an uninhabited place and …. thus shape
a ‘nation’. Unfortunately, the real
problems start when these gangsters do not
settle in an uninhabited place, but
forcefully remove the indigenous nation
of a targeted region, thus creating two
nations on the same place, one legal (the
indigenous one) and one illegal (the
‘civic’ nation of the gangsters).
It is therefore correct to conclude that a
‘civic nation’ is a fake nation indeed.
Why and how all this came out of the
mind of a Swiss philosopher who died in
France to be posthumously reburied in
Pantheon at Paris after the French

revolution? To take J. J. Rousseau as per
his own words, he thought that through
imagination he could reconstitute the
History of the Mankind; of course, this
thought constitutes in itself an aberration.
In the uselessly venerated Discourse on
Inequality (1754), he wrote ” The first
man who, having fenced in a piece of
land, said “This is mine,” and found
people naïve enough to believe him, that
man was the true founder of civil
society”; quite unfortunately for Rousseau
and his theories, things did not happen
that way, but this was impossible for him
to know.
It was actually impossible to form any
idea about this subject in the middle of
the 18th c., when no Sumerian, no
Egyptian Hieroglyphic, no Elamite and
no Akkadian texts were deciphered, let
alone studied. The only historical past to
which J. J. Rousseau had access through
modern translations was Ancient Rome

and Greece; but these civilizations were
too late if compared with the Oriental
civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt,
Canaan, Anatolia) where the first human
societies were formed as we now know. In
addition, J. J. Rousseau never studied the
History of India, Central Asia, and China,
while he was fully unaware of the then
existing early accounts of the pre-
Columbian, indigenous civilizations of
Mexico and the Andes. Finally, his
contempt for the Christian and Islamic
cultures and heritage that existed in his
time only deprived him from the reality
of the historical continuity and finally
drove him to baseless theories that lacked
any solid background. His ‘philosophy’
was a fully useless and absolutely
unrealistic bunch of assumptions as to
just how to create a new ‘human being’ in
full rejection of the historical mankind.
Like most of the world’s philosophers, J. J.
Rousseau was the child of his time, and

this means that he was submerged in
news and accounts, reports and narrations
about settler colonies, such as the Western
European establishments in the area of
today’s Canada, United States, Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, and South Africa. One
must take into consideration that when J.
J. Rousseau was writing, Australia was
still an unknown and undiscovered land.
These Western European colons were in
their outright majority heretics, gangsters
and renegades of their own civilization
that they had abandoned in order to
settle in other continents in vain search
of profit, exploitation, and material
treasures. These desolate colon settlements,
deprived of humanity and morality, full
of racism against and hatred for the
normal, human, indigenous societies, and
passionate for unadulterated crime,
merciless exploitation of the others, and
discriminatory supremacism, offered J. J.
Rousseau his study scope and soon became
his model for an ideal society whereby

freedom, tolerance, equality and
individual rights should prevail. This
was an oxymoron! He was simply unable
to see that his ideas did not fit the
European colons’ feelings and desires, and
that he had to search for a model
elsewhere. The ensued disaster was quite
disproportionate.
Modern theoreticians view this ‘civic
nation’ as a ‘non-xenophobic’ form of
nationalism, because there is no apparent
discrimination among the settlers /
citizens of the ‘new’ society as regards
their origin; Poles who forget Polish
culture, Danes who forget Danish culture,
and Dutch who forget Dutch culture are
equally welcome in a settler colony; but
their all white aliens in Asia, Africa,
‘America’ and ‘Australia’. However, both,
modern theoreticians and J. J. Rousseau
disregarded totally the reality that these
settler colonies gravely and discriminately
disrupted the pre-existing order of

indigenous, non-white societies and
civilizations and that, due to the
villainous and criminal identity of the
settlers, the disruption of the pre-existing
order very often entailed an
unprecedented bloodshed or even a
multifaceted genocide of disproportionate
dimensions. In reality, the ‘civic nation’ is
a counterfeit nation, an evil human
fabrication, and a vicious immoral order.
No positive outcome can ever originate
from the aforementioned rudimentary
concepts. In reality, as much tolerant as
these civic nations proved to be
internally, so intolerant they have been
externally. The intolerant character
demonstrated by civic nations either to
the indigenous nations in whose
territories the civic nations were
criminally founded (in cases like
Canada, US, Australia, etc.) or to other,
‘ethnic nations’ in other parts of the
world (like the African Somalis, Oromos

and Berbers or the Aramaeans, the Azeris
and the Baluch in Asia) reached several
times the level of racist paroxysm.
It is not therefore strange that, almost one
century after J. J. Rousseau, the
adaptation of his civic nation theory by
Ernest Renan produced a chain of
catastrophic byproducts ranging from the
Nazi Reich and the Soviet Union, to
China’s Cultural Revolution state and the
(under preparation) global state of the so-
called New World Order.
Ethnic nation
In striking contrast with the fake concept
of ‘civic nation’, ‘ethnic nation’ is the
real, historical nation, as it existed
throughout centuries and millennia. By
themselves and not through the
involvement of an external factor, nations
feature a common language, origin,
religion, culture, and behavioral system.

History demonstrates that, on the basis of
the aforementioned fundamental traits,
nations can be identified unequivocally;
because they represent a common
communal feeling of distinct identity,
true nations (i.e. ‘ethnic nations’) tend
naturally and automatically to function
as self-determined entities.
The ‘ethnic nation’, e.g. the historical
nation, has been the only generator and
promoter of historical civilizations as we
have known them. By definition, an
ethnic nation is more difficult to
manipulate, maneuver and deceive than
a fake, ‘civic nation’ that can be created
on the spur of the moment. The general
sum of all the characteristics of an ethnic
nation forms the identity of the nation,
and, as this is the result of a slow process
that took centuries and millennia to be
formed, it is practically impossible to
extirpate.

In modern times, Johann Gottlieb Fichte
(1762 – 1814) made the most convincing
and the most comprehensive presentation
of what an ethnic nation is. In his
venerated Addresses to the German
Nation, he revealed the concept of
national identity in all its dimensions
when forming the exemplary term
‘Germanness’ which has ever since been
reproduced in hundreds of copies, such as
Romanness, Turkishness, Russianness,
Oromoness, Somaliness, Tuaregness, etc.
As it is the real result of History, an
ethnic nation is drastically corroborated
by means of historical references, and by
the ensuing concepts of diachronic
existence and national identity, which
has in every case several permanent,
fundamental traits. To instigate feelings of
German patriotism against the French
occupation (under Napoleon – in 1808),
Fichte referred to the Roman Historian
Tacitus who, writing his Annals 1700

years before Fichte composed his flagrant
speeches, exemplified German virtues and
proverbial heroism.
An ethnic nation organized in a state
ordinarily defines nationality as per jus
sanguinis (lit. ‘the right of the blood’, i.e.
descent from a member of the same
nation), and not as per jus soli (lit. ‘the
right of the soil’, i.e. birth in the land of
the nation), which widely practiced by
‘civic nations’.
It would be wrong to assume that all
historical nations are today organized as
‘ethnic nations’. The political choices of
the local elites have turned several
historical nations into ‘civic nations’
because this suited best their economic –
political interests.
On the other hand, it would also be
wrong to accept the arbitrary division
made by Anthony Smith, who thought
that ‘ethnic nations’ belong to non-
Western concepts of nationalism as

opposed to ‘civic nations’, which reflect
the Western view of a settler colony that
controls a demarcated territory.
The concept of ‘ethnic nation’ constitutes
the rightful global approach to the
historical phenomenon of a nation; it is
equally Oriental and Occidental – if
such division exists, which needs yet to be
demonstrated. In what is peremptorily
called by ‘Western’ academia as the
‘Western world’, the concept of ‘ethnic
nation’ was first described by Herodotus,
the Carian Historian who settled in
Athens before 2500 years, on the basis of
three criteria, namely
– homaimon (‘of the same blood’ / i.e.
kinship, origin),
– homoglosson (‘of the same language’ /
i.e. common language), and
– homotropon (‘of the same manners’ / i.e.
common behavioral system, culture and
religion).

However, the concept and the reality of
the ‘ethnic nation’ proved to be a major
stumbling block for the powers-that-be
and for all those who tried to distort and
deform the world as per their criminal
interests, secret plans, and hidden vicious
beliefs. The strength of the national
identity was at times revealed as an
omnipotent factor able to persistently
remain unchanged and unaltered in full
defiance of the world’s greatest powers,
colonial armies, and diplomatic
blackmails or ultimatums.
Civic nation vs. ethnic nation:
the fake will always fail
The ominous fact that not all the nations
of the world have the privilege to setup
their own states and the gruesome reality
that hundreds of nations have been
monstrously obfuscated within monstrous
super-national states clearly indicate that
the moving force of the colonial states

England, France, and the US, and the
ruling administrations of the WW I – WW
II Allies fully and systematically
supported the concept of ‘civic nation’
and definitely opposed the existence of all
‘ethnic nations’ in many different ways.
The US: a fake nation – realm
of gangsters and idiots
This is quite relevant of their nature; the
US is by definition a ‘civic state’ that was
formed, not as many pretend through
secession from the colonial state of
England but, via successive, multifaceted
genocides of the indigenous nations of the
vast territory of which Washington D.C.
tragic-comically pretends today to be the
unnecessary and unsolicited capital. In
real terms of Humanity, Human History,
and Humanism, the existence of the
criminal state of the US is the greatest
scandal and the most evil episode in the
History of the Mankind.

The unpardonable acts perpetrated by all
the colons, who settled in parts of
America north of Mexico, against all the
indigenous nations for several centuries
before the inception of the US, the
inexcusable fact that the decimated,
dislodged, marginalized and persecuted
indigenous nations were not even
consulted in the process of state formation
/ secession by the so-called Founding
Fathers, and the unforgivable attitude
demonstrated against the subjugated
indigenous nations in their own occupied
homelands since 1783 make of the US the
World History’s most criminal, most
atrocious, and most Satanic institution.
Religious, spiritual and philosophical
jargon was invented and purposefully
used in shameless texts and bogus-
declarations to plaster and conceal the
above reality.
It is therefore only normal that the
diverse instances of the criminal state

promoted the evil concept of ‘civic nation’,
opposed the human concept of ‘ethnic
nation’, viewed with suspicion the ethnic
nations’ attitude to derive political
legitimacy from their status as homelands
of their populations, reviled the ethnic
nations’ tendency to function protectively
against colonization, occupation,
persecution, deracination, racism,
physical and spiritual genocide, and
constantly denied the right to self-
determination, independence and
preservation of their National Heritage to
ethnic nations peremptorily incorporated
in monstrous super-national states
(which is the typical case of the Oromos,
the Afars, the Sidamas, and the Ogadeni
Somalis in Abyssinia – Fake Ethiopia –;
the Somalis, the Luo, and the Masai in
Kenya; the Furis – of Darfur –, the Beja,
and the Nubians in Sudan, and so on).
In a well orchestrated manner, the three
colonial states of England, France and the

US did their best for ethnic nations not to
form a sovereign state (the case of the
Azeris whose majority are still under
Iranian control is quite indicative), to
lose their sovereign state (if they achieved
to form one – in this regard, Somalia is
the most striking example), or to limit the
ethnic nations’ sovereignty to a mere
autonomous entity (as in Catalonia) or,
even worse, to self-regulated
administrative bodies within a civic state
(as in Yukatan, Mexico).
France: the world’s most
barbaric and inhuman
tyranny
Following the so-called French revolution
(1789), the establishment of the modern
state of France as a ‘civic nation’ on
European soil had ominous results for the
entire continent and for the world. It first
triggered the separation of the world into
two fictional and aberrational entities,

the West and the East (the Occident and
the Orient), theoretically confined to
perpetual fight; of course, this was a
purely Manicheistic concept, and as such
it turned out to be a calamitous reality
and a hecatomb for Europe and the rest of
the world.
France is not a nation; there is no ethnic
nation named ‘France’. On French
territory, there have been several ethnic
nations that were forced to cohabitate: the
Breton nation (Breizh – Brittany), the
Bask nation (Euskaldunak), the Catalan
nation (Catalunya), the Corsican nation
(Corsi), the Occitan nation (lo País d’Òc),
the Alsatian-Lorraine populations of the
German nation (Elsaß-Lothringen), and
the Frankish nation (Langue d’oïl –
Standardized Oïl) of the North of today’s
France. The latter was imposed as ‘civic
nation’ on all the other ‘ethnic nations’ of
France as per the tyrannical policies of
the French revolutionaries in the 1790s.

The extinction of the subordinated
‘ethnic nations’ was evidently the
primary means of survival for the ‘civic
nation’ of France; the war declared
against the national identity, the cultural
heritage, and the native language of
France’s ethnic nations other than the
Frankish was without precedent in the
World History.
When today’s uneducated European
politicians and ignorant American
statesmen speak of Turkey’s intolerant
stance to Kurmanji or Zaza natives, of
Iran’s prejudiced attitude against the
Azeri, the Baluch and other ethnic
minorities, and of Egypt’s bigoted position
as regards the Copts, the Nubians, the
Beja, and the Berbers, they all forget that
the persecution of Breton language in
France reached a unique level of
paroxysm when Breton schoolchildren
were ‘taught’ by the French civic state’s
occupation authorities that, in the streets,

it was “prohibited to speak Breton and
spit on earth”. As early as 1794, the
criminal gangster Bertrand Barère
declared in the Committee of Public
Salvation (Comité de salut public) that
“federalism and superstition are speaking
the dialect of Lower Brittany” in a
contemptuous rejection of communal
identity, religion (libeled as ‘superstition’)
and language.
In fact, in the name of a democratic
society, the most excruciating and brutal
imposition of the Standardized Oïl
language of France’s North took place,
whereas the Frankish ethnic nation
became the undisputed model for the new
‘civic nation’ of France. This demonstrates
that the genocidal attitude of the French
revolutionaries against France’s ethnic
nations was similar to the disregard and
the disrespect that the American gangsters
showed for the subjugated and

marginalized indigenous nations across
the US territory.
The genocidal attitude of the French
revolutionaries is very well documented
indeed. Texts dating from the first years
after the French Revolution reveal the
extent of the deception that led to the
aforementioned tyrannical attitude. Here
is an example: “Monarchy had its reasons
to look like Babel Tower; in Democracy,
to leave the citizens ignorant of the
national language and incapable of
controlling the power is tantamount to
high treason”.
Another example of the premeditated
genocide (announced by abbot Grégoire in
the Committee of Public Instruction in
1793): “In politics, it is far more
important than we think to extirpate this
diversity of ‘grossly idioms’ (sic!) that
merely prolong the infancy of the reason
and the senility of the prejudices”. His
report was titled “Report on the necessity

to annihilate the vernaculars and to
universalize the use of the French
language”. The terminology used makes
even Hitler’s worst and most vicious
theories and discourses grow pale.
England: the focus of evil
What the gangsters of the successive US
administrations did to the indigenous
nations whose territory they confiscated,
and what the Frankish nation of France’s
North did to all the ethnic nations that
were engulfed in the abominable,
tyrannical state of the Nouveau Régime,
the English did to the Irish, the Scots and
the Welsh. In fact, only the processes
differed slightly.
English tyranny and
monstrosity in Wales
For Wales (Cymru), the troubles started
with the Treaty Aberconwy (1277); it was
then proved that peace is not always

better than the war. After numerous wars
between Llewelyn ap Gruffudd and
Edward I of England, the treaty granted
end of hostilities, but also stipulated that
after the death of the King of Wales,
Welsh independence would end and the
country would become part of England.
The treaty was the result of the treachery
of minor Welsh princes who had sided
with the enemy; these potentates soon
become disillusioned and started a revolt
in 1282. Llewelyn ap Gruffudd led the
revolt and after several battles, he rejected
to abandon his nation that his forefathers
had ruled since the ‘days of Kamber son
Brutus’ (the heroic times’ King of Cambria
that was the original name of Wales). He
was killed in an ambush during the
Battle of Orewin Bridge. As per the
barbaric customs of the incestuous
English gangsters, Llywelyn’s head was
cut off, sent to London and there set up in
the city pillory for a day and crowned
with ivy (to dishonor the dead Welsh

King as king of the outlaws) only to be
later carried by a horseman on the point
of his lance up to the Gate of the Satanic
Tower of London where it was left for
more than 15 years.
Llywelyn’s successor Dafydd continued
fighting through 1283, until he was
captured along with his family,
transferred to England, condemned to
death by the Satanic Parliament of
England, and consecutively hanged,
drawn and quartered (: cut into four
pieces). Wales was then stripped of all
royal insignia, regalia and relics, and
Welsh royal properties were robbed and
confiscated. The unprecedented English
terror did not deter Welsh national
feelings, and already in 1294 a revolt
was led by Madog ap Llywelyn.
Meanwhile, the infamous Statute of
Rhuddlan (1284) had imposed the alien
English ‘common law’ to Wales. English
authority was successively rejected by

Llywelyn Bren (1316 – 1318), who led a
rebellion, Owain Lawgoch, who planned
twice to invade Wales with French
support only to be assassinated by English
agents in France (1378), and Owain
Glyndwr (King of Wales / Tywysog Cymru
1400 – 1415), who repeatedly defeated
the English armies and reunited Wales
for some years. The villainous English did
not succeed to capture him, and despite
the mythical sums of money they
promised, they failed to find one Welsh
ready to betray Owain Glyndwr, who had
opened the Welsh Parliament at
Machynlleth and planned to establish
two universities.
That’s why the biased, heinous and
rancorous playwright William
Shakespeare, who felt inferior to the
Welsh legend, portrayed Owain Glyndwr
negatively as a wild and ominous person
with magical powers.

To address the situation in revolted Wales,
the paranoid rulers of England passed
silly and discriminatory laws in 1402
prohibiting the Welsh from carrying
arms, inhabiting fortified towns, and
holding any office. As per this aberration,
even an Englishman married to a Welsh
woman was not allowed to carry arms!
A later stage of English tyranny over
Wales was promulgated by the outrageous
Laws in Wales Acts (1535 – 1542) when
the Welsh language was banned and the
Welsh legal system abolished. In an
acrimoniously contemptuous manner, this
trash paper describes the Welsh language
and the will of the Welsh nation to stick
to it in this manner: “because that the
People of the same Dominion have and
do daily use a speche nothing like, ne
consonant to the natural Mother Tongue
used within this Realm, some rude and
ignorant People have made Distinction
and Diversity between the King’s Subjects

of this Realm, and his Subjects of the said
Dominion and Principality of Wales,
whereby great Discord Variance Debate
Division Murmur and Sedition hath
grown between his said Subjects”.
An ethnic nation, when exposed to
tyranny and persecution, naturally sticks
to its language and religion to best
preserve its identity. Similarly, the Welsh
enthusiastically welcomed the first
complete translation of the Welsh Bible in
1588, and overwhelmingly rejected
Anglicanism when the heretic and
murderous king Henry VIII broke with
Rome and the Pope. Education in Welsh
language was made available under
different forms and become a basic means
of resistance to English occupation in the
16th and the 17th centuries. Religion
became also a means of resistance against
English tyranny during the 18th c. Welsh
Methodist revival and after the definite
separation from the Anglican Church in

the early 19th c.; in general, Wales
remained predominantly Non-conformist,
which is tantamount to rejection of
Anglicanism.
Welsh nationalism was best manifested in
the late 19th c. through the Cymru Fydd
movement’s activities that garnered great
support among the Welsh for having
reinstated Welsh values and ideas; to best
propagate the Welsh determination for
National Independence, Welsh
nationalists evoked Llewelyn ap
Gruffudd, making of him the father of
Welsh nationalism, and the National
Hero of Wales. Late 19th c. and 20th c.
socialism in Wales may be due to Wales’
heavy industrialization, but it was also
another form of Welsh resistance to
English occupation and of Welsh rejection
of the English monarchy. The latest
offspring of Cymru Fydd is Plaid Cymru,
a political party established in 1925 to
advocate independent Wales, which has

to be declared in the years to come as the
national homeland of the entire Welsh
nation (6.5 million people worldwide
whereas 16.3 million people have
acknowledged Welsh ancestry).
English tyranny and
monstrosity in Ireland
For Eire (Ireland, Roman Hibernia),
divisions, invasions and epidemics have
always been constant parameters of life;
following the 9th c. Viking invasions, a
mixed Irish-Norse ethnic group was
shaped. However, after the decline of the
Viking presence, the Norman invasion
overwhelmed the numerous small Irish
kingdoms and progressively involved the
king of England for the first time in
Ireland in the second half of the 12th c.;
however, the Norman control never
extended over the entire Irish territory
and several indigenous rulers controlled
other parts of the island. A certain Irish-

Norman community was formed in the
first century of Norman prevalence, but
the Gaelic identity of the islanders was
soon reasserted and re-strengthened.
Decimated because the mid 14th c. plague
epidemics, Ireland remained peaceful and
divided until the middle of the 16th c.
when Henry VIII decided to annex the
island in 1536. This triggered successive
waves of cataclysmic disasters for the
Gaelic nation of Ireland and, although it
took almost 400 years of struggles for the
Irish to regain control over their country,
still a part of the island is occupied by
England. The English king’s pretext for
the annexation (1541) was the fact that
Ireland could serve as basis for future
rebellions against his throne or for
foreign invasions of England.
An early form of reaction against the
English rule was attested already in 1569
– 1573 (the Deasmumhain/Desmond
Rebellions in the South-Western part of

the island); this event was the normal
reaction to the biased attitude
demonstrated by Elizabeth I in the case of
the antagonism and clash between her
cousin Thomas Butler (3rd earl of
Ormonde) and the leaders of the Irish
Gerald and John Fitzgerald. London’s
racist policies in Ireland involved land
confiscation, abolition of Irish armies,
and severe religious oppression of the
Catholic faith. Led by James Fitzmaurice,
the Irish marked several victories until
English barbarism prevailed in 1575;
thousands of civilians were killed in the
process, and the corridors that gave access
to the English military camps used to be
decorated with severed heads on
permanent basis. Hundreds of Irish
military leaders were executed in the
years after the end of the rebellion. At the
same time, another rebellion took place
in England’s north as Catholic English
nobles intended to replace the infamous
bogus-queen Elizabeth I with Mary of

Scotland; because of the intolerable
English barbarism demonstrated in both
rebellions, Pope Pius V excommunicated
the rubbish queen of the English. Few
years later, in 1579, the Second Desmond
rebellion exploded to express rightful
Irish indignation for the English
barbarism and due hostility against the
English settlers. It ended in 1583 when,
after relentless scorched-earth tactics, the
English managed to prevail. A clan chief
who betrayed the leader of the rebellion,
Gerald Earl of Desmond, was rewarded
with 1000 pounds of silver from the
English government for his high treason.
In a typically English and inhuman
manner, the earl’s head was sent to the
demoniacal queen of England whereas
his body was displayed on the walls of
Cork.
During the War between Spain and
England (1585 – 1604), Ireland became
very often the place of brutal conflicts

and battles. After the Spanish Armada
failed to coordinate with the Irish and
efficiently use Ireland as a basis to invade
England in 1588, further colonization
efforts took place in Ireland. This led to
the Nine Years’ War of Liberation of
Ireland (1594 – 1603), a liberation
struggle that was undertaken by many
Irish nobles who rejected the plantation (:
colonization) policies at Ulster and
marked many victories over the English
armies. The island was then again
extensively destroyed and scores of
population died because of the scorched
earth tactics pursued by the English
beasts. More than 100000 Irish were
killed and more than 30000 English
soldiers died as per modest estimates. With
a better coordination with the Spaniards,
Ireland would have avoided the
calamitous destiny it underwent for more
than 300 years after the end of this war.

Land confiscation and plantations
continued during the 17th c., involving
full dispossession of the Irish Catholic
landowners and promulgations of vicious,
inhuman, anti-Christian, and purely
Satanic laws that were shamelessly called
‘Penal Laws’. In the Irish History’s
bloodiest century, two periods of
revolution (1641 – 1653 and 1689 –
1691) plunged the country in further
disaster and caused an unprecedented
hecatomb. For seven years (1642 – 1649),
the Cónaidhm Chaitliceach na hÉireann
(Irish Catholic Confederation) tried to
materialize the wishes and the dreams of
the Irish nation. Based at Kilkenny, the
Irish nobles, clergy and military leaders
set up a General Assembly (parliament)
and a Supreme Council (government);
however, they pledged allegiance to the
king of England, because they were naïve
enough to imagine that an agreement
could ever be reached. The tensions
between moderates and radicals, and both

sides’ narrow-mindedness proved to be
catastrophic for Ireland. As the English
king was engulfed in the Wars of the
Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland and
Scotland / 1639 – 1651), it was only
normal for him to make concessions to the
Irish Confederates in exchange for the
dispatch of Irish troops to England to fight
for the royalists. This was evidently a
serious mistake made by the Irish
government. The divisions led to the
English re-conquest of Ireland by
Cromwell (1649 – 1653), which was the
most brutal moment of foreign occupation
that Ireland had ever experienced, and to
the termination of the Confederation. All
Catholic properties on the island were by
then confiscated and scores of Irish
‘undesirables’ were sent to the Caribbean
as slaves.
For one more time in the 17th c., Ireland
became the theater of many battles
engaged and many fights undertaken,

when the disreputable English
parliament dethroned the Catholic king
of England James II and replaced him
with a foreign swindler and disreputable
crook, William of Orange (1688). This
was a deliberate case of shameful
sedition, which the perverse English
eulogized as ‘the glorious revolution’ –
which shows the extent of their collective
corruption, immorality and deviousness. It
was only normal for the Irish Catholics to
express their support for the deposed king
James II. The war of two kings (Cogadh an
Dá Rí), which is called in England the
‘Williamite war in Ireland’, lasted two
years (1689 – 1691). Rejected in
England, James II was accepted in Ireland
and appeared in front of a newly
composed Irish Parliament (known as the
Patriot Parliament) to restore to the Irish
Catholics their long confiscated lands.
Although supported by France, James II
failed to prevail and was defeated after
many fierce battles.

A period of unprecedented tyranny started
in the aftermath of the Battle of Aughrim
(the last fought by the Irish supporters of
James II in 1691); the English
euphemistically call this period
‘Protestant Ascendancy’, but in reality it
constitutes one of the bleakest moments of
European History, as it makes Hitler’s
Germany grow pale. The inhuman ‘penal
laws’ were reinforced, and the English
colons took good care that the Irish fail to
repeat their rebellions. Deliberate famine
caused the death of ca. half a million
Irish in 1740-1741. The Irish
Parliament was available only for the
English settlers to be elected in, and evil
projects were constantly under discussion
as to how best destroy the island nation
in an irrevocable manner. The worst
development was of course the fact that
the descendants of the alien colons started
viewing Ireland as their native country,
which shows that the evil policy of

‘plantations’ had generated a counterfeit
entity in Ireland, i.e. a new ‘civic nation’.
Following the Irish Revolution of 1798
and the subsequent Acts of Union (1801),
the Irish nation deployed ceaselessly
further, well-diversified efforts to achieve
national independence in the 19th c. The
major historical developments revolve
around the following events: the rebellion
led by Robert Emmet in 1803, Daniel
O’Connell’s campaign to achieve
emancipation for his nation (1823) and
his establishment of the Repeal
Association (1830), the Tithe War (1831
– 1838), the Young Irelanders’ rebellion
in 1848 (in the middle of the great
famine which was again deliberately
caused by the English government in
order to reduce the Irish population), the
revolution of the Irish Brotherhood in
1867, and the longest and most effective
of all, the great Cogadh na Talún (Land
War), which was an endless agrarian

agitation that was led by the Irish
National Land League and lasted from
1870 to 1900. The various Land Acts that
the English government was forced to
promulgate in the very last years of the
19th c. and in the beginning of the 20th
c. heralded the end of the colonial rule.
Home Rule was stipulated by an act
passed by the English Parliament in
1914. The famous Éirí Amach na Cásca
(Easter Rising) in 1916, the ensuing
period of upheaval (1916 – 1921), and
the threat of Irishmen soldiers fighting for
the English army in the Western Front
during WW I ushered Ireland into the
next stage, i.e. the declaration of
independence of the Irish Republic, the
Irish War of Independence (1919 –
1921), the Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921 –
1922), the formation of the Irish Free
State, the separation of the northern part
of the island (the unionist descendents of
the colons), and the Irish Civil War
(Cogadh Cathartha na hÉireann; 28 June

1922 – 24 May 1923), which was the
last of so many venomous presents that the
pernicious English made to the Irish
nation.
English tyranny and
monstrosity in Scotland

For the Scottish Kingdom of Alba,
interaction and mixed marriages with
some of the English kingdoms go back to
the 11th c., when King Mael Coluim
(Malcolm) III (1058 – 1093) spent many
years at the court of the English king
Edward the Confessor before fighting and
killing Mac Bethad mac Findlaích
(Macbeth) to become king of Scotland in
his stead. Malcolm III and William of
Normandy, the bastard king and invader
of England, fought several wars before
finally meeting in 1072 and making a
peace that justified later claims of
sovereignty over Scotland by other English
kings.
In the early 12th c. the so-called
Davidian Revolution, launched by David
I of Scotland, marked a stage of adjusting
the government and the society to French
and English norms, styles and practices.
During the 12th and the 13th centuries,
increased affinities and greater

interaction between the two nations led
several Scottish nobles to see in Edward I
of England a possible arbiter for the
succession of Alexander III of Scotland
when 14 contenders to the throne were
about the trigger a civil war in 1286. As
Edward I tried to undermine Scottish
sovereignty, John of Scotland entered into
an alliance with France (Auld Alliance)
and this ushered both countries into what
is called ‘The Wars of Scottish
Independence’ (1296 – 1328 and 1332 –
1357).
Scotland was first occupied by England in
1296, but revolt broke already 1297. The
ensuing wars were inconclusive, involving
many battles, Scottish raids in England,
and English campaigns in Scotland,
truces, and executions of the Scottish
nobles {Uilliam Uallas (William Wallace)
in 1305}; it all revolved around the
succession to the throne of Scotland and
the alliance of some of the pretenders

with the English. Three declarations of
Scottish independence dating between
1320 and 1328 were sent to the Pope,
and finally in 1328, Edward III of
England recognized the independence of
Scotland by signing the Treaty of
Edinburgh – Northampton.
The Second War of Scottish Independence
was due to the alliance some Scottish
nobles made with Edward III few years
later in order to overthrow David II of
Scotland and replace him with other
pretenders, notably the disreputable thug
Balliol who after crowning himself king
of Scots declared that Scotland was a fief
of England. The French – Scottish
alliance was strengthened by the fact that
France and England were then engaged in
the Hundred Years’ War (1337 – 1453).
When David II of Scotland was granted
asylum in France (1334) by Philip VI of
France, Scottish resistance was led by
many Scottish nobles. Victories were

marked by both sides until David II
returned in 1341. However, in the Battle
of Neville’s Cross, David II was captured
(1346) and subsequently held prisoner in
the Tower of London for eleven years.
Released under the terms of the Treaty of
Berwick (1357), David II agreed to pay an
enormous amount for ransom, and this
progressively alienated the Scottish nation
from him; at the same time, the country
was also devastated by the Black Death
pandemics. After David II died (1371), an
impoverished, exsanguine Scotland was
still an independent nation, and so it
remained until 1707 under the Stuart
dynasty, a family of Breton origin that
had earlier held the office of High
Steward of Scotland and, in 1371, rose to
the throne of Scotland (Robert II).
During Stuart reign, there were again
many interactions and mixed marriages
with the English, internal strife between
the Scottish kings and the nobles,

alliance with France and wars with
England (notably the Battle of Flodden in
1513, the Battle of Solway Moss in 1542,
and the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547).
However, when James IV of Scotland
married Margaret Tudor, daughter to
Henry VII of England, in 1503, the
perspective of a union between the two
crowns appeared for the first time.
The Scottish Reformation movement
influenced greatly the historical
developments, and following the signature
of the Treaty of Edinburgh (1560), the
French and the English soldiers left
Scotland’s territory and the Scottish
Parliament abolished Roman Catholic
Christianity. The Scots Confession of 1560
became the formational document of the
Reformed Calvinist Christianity to which
most of the Scots adhered; it was however
enacted in 1567. The Battle of Langside
(1568) and the persecution and execution
of Queen Mary of Scotland demonstrated

the rise of religious fanaticism in
Scotland and the ensuing civil war
(Scottish aristocrats supporting James VI
against Scotland’s nobles who sided with
his mother, Queen Mary of Scotland)
lasted many years (1569 – 1573).
When James VI of Scotland inherited the
throne of England and became James I on
England (1603), the two countries were
found united under one monarch;
however, this was a personal union that
did not have the support of the Scottish
nation. Quite contrarily, Scots firmly
rejected every effort deployed by either
James VI of his son, Charles I, to diffuse
forms and rites related to Anglicanism, a
most reviled and villainous doctrine in
Scotland. Re-affirmation of the Scottish
identity and cultural integrity was
particularly noted in the famous St. Giles
riots (1637) when a treacherous effort was
made to introduce English-style prayer
book into the Scottish Church.

In fact, the troubles had started earlier,
when Charles I proceeded to St. Giles in
1633 for his Scottish coronation, using
Anglican rites on Scottish territory. As the
rejection was overwhelming, Scots were
very watchful and when, on 23 July
1637, it became understood that another
style was introduced in the Mass, a revolt
took place. It started when a brave
woman, the legendary Jenny Geddes, a
merchant, noticed first the alien style,
stood up, and hurled her folding stool
toward the Dean of Edinburgh, because
he had just started to read the
unacceptable, alien text. As her ‘cuttie-
stool’ was flying towards the Dean’s head,
Jenny Geddes yelled:
Devil cause you colic in your stomach,
false thief! Dare you say the Mass in my
ear?
The religious service was interrupted by
the ensuing riot, and although the rioters
were removed by the soldiers, the news

spread immediately across the city, and a
revolt took place in Edinburgh, as the
city magistrates were assailed in the City
Chambers. The thunderous voice of the
Scottish nation was heard, and the
authorities were forced to negotiate; a
Committee was appointed for the
negotiations with the king’s council. As
Charles I rejected to withdraw from
Scotland the Anglican liturgy, the Scots
revolted and the old National Covenant of
1581 was convened again in February
1638. Reformed religion was maintained
in the form in which it was spelled out
in 1580 and all innovations were
rejected; however Scots expressed their
loyalty to the king.
The members of the Covenant (also known
as Covenanters) confronted the established
church. In November 1638, the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland
deposed all bishops and banned the
prayer book; this ushered Scotland into

the Bishops’ Wars (Bellum Episcopale /
1639 – 1640) involving many battles
between the Covenanters, the Scottish
royalists, and the English army.
Weakened in England, Charles I had to
compromise and even went to Scotland in
1641 and accepted the decisions of the
Scottish Parliament as he had already
done with the decrees of the General
Assembly of 1638. As per the terms of this
compromise, the Scottish Parliament had
the right to challenge the actions of his
ministers.
During the ensuing Wars of the Three
Kingdoms (parts of which are the Scottish
Civil War, the Irish Confederate Wars,
and the English Civil War / 1639 –
1651), Scotland was effectively ruled by
the Covenanters. Scottish army was sent to
Ireland against the Irish Rebellion of
1641 with the limited scope of protecting
the Scottish settlers. In 1643, the Solemn
League and Covenant was promulgated

and, as per its terms, the preservation of
the religious reform in Scotland was
reconfirmed, whereas reformation of
religion was demanded for England and
Ireland. The Covenanters sent several
armies to England to fight for the victory
of the Parliament over the king, and the
Scottish troops played an important role
in inflicting a serious defeat to Charles I.
However, this triggered the Civil War in
Scotland (1644 – 1647), as the Scottish
royalists rejected the Covenanters’
extremism and revolted. Following several
battles and an early royalist success, the
war ended with Charles I surrendering
and being held captive. In a secret
Engagement, the imprisoned king
promised to help Scots implement
Presbyterianism in England; an army was
set up for this, but it was destroyed by
Cromwell in 1648, and Charles I was
subsequently executed (decapitated) in
1649.

Charles II was proclaimed as king by the
Parliament of Scotland 6 days after the
decapitation of his father, but this was
rejected by the English Parliament. After
defeating the Scottish royalist army loyal
to the son of Charles I in the Battle of
Dunbar (September 1650), Oliver
Cromwell invaded Scotland; he sent the
captives back to England where many of
them died of starvation and exhaustion,
whereas their survivors were sent further
on to the Caribbean as slaves. To survive,
Charles II had to fight the Battle of
Worcester (1651), and after being defeated
by Cromwell, he had to escape to Europe
where he spent nine years in exile.
Scotland was under severe persecution
when incorporated into the Puritan
England; there was no independent
church, no parliament, no government,
and no legal system. The annexation was
promulgated by the Tender Union (1652),
which abolished the Scottish Parliament,

offering Scotland 30 seats in the English
Parliament. However, the Act of Union
was approved only in 1657 due to the
political turmoil.
Following the restoration (1660), Scotland
became again an independent kingdom
under Charles II, but the re-imposition of
episcopacy and a series of other measures
were greatly resented by the Scots (they
were prevented from any lucrative
business in English colonies as per the
English Navigation Acts). Independent
assemblies, known as conventicles,
gathered the support of the majority and
led to the revolt of 1679 which was
defeated. Scotland was terribly persecuted
until 1685 when James VII of Scotland
(and James II of England) succeeded his
brother; this period has been described as
‘The Killing Time’ and thousands were
executed in excruciating manner.
The pro-Catholic measures and policies
introduced by James VII led to the

sedition of seven English high traitors
who invited William of Orange,
Stadtholder of Holland, to rule England
(a bleak moment of European History that
the perfidious English shamelessly called
‘glorious revolution’). James VII had to
flee, but after the imposition of the Dutch
swindler and disreputable crook,
supporters of James VII entered into
several battles, fighting to overthrow the
alien rule of the sexually perverse
William of Orange (who ruled as William
II of Scotland).
Economic disasters befell Scotland at the
very end of the 17th c. due to various
combined reasons and this forced the
Scottish Parliament to take several
measures like setting up the Bank of
Scotland and financing a great colonial
project (known as Darien scheme); the
latter turned into a disaster particularly
because the perfidious English of the
‘West Indies’ did not come to help the

Scots colons when they were attacked by
the Spaniards (1698).
The union with England (1707 at the
times of the reign of Queen Anne, the
daughter of James VII) was a desperate act
taken without serious thought and after
many years of economic adversity. By 110
to 69, the Scottish Parliament adopted
the Treaty of Union in January 1707,
making of Scotland a mere province of
England and replacing all Scottish
systems of laws, taxation and currency
with the respective English practices. The
union was a panacea for Scotland’s
aristocracy and landowners, but it was
widely reviled and loathed by the
outright majority of the Scottish nation.
The three centuries of annexation failed
to erase the Scottish national identity,
cultural integrity, linguistic diversity,
and behavioral difference. Scotland
remained another nation, an ‘ethnic
nation’ incorporated into the realm of the

UK’s ‘civic nation’. The Scots tried many
times to reject the English rule that so
thoughtlessly a meager majority supported
before 307 years.
The unpopularity of Scotland’s
annexation to England generated many
rebellions and already in 1708, James
Francis Edward Stuart, son of James VII,
attempted to land to Scotland with 6000
French soldiers and join forces with his
supporters who became known as
Jacobites. In 1715, the indignation
against the rise of George I as successor to
Anne of England led to generalized revolt
in Wales, Scotland, and parts of England.
The Jacobites lost several battles before
James landed in Scotland, and he had
therefore to flee back to France. In 1719,
the Jacobites counted on Spanish
assistance, but were finally defeated on
the Battle of Glen Shiel. In 1745, James’
son, Charles Edward Stuart, landed in
the Hebrides and, after gathering support,

he sailed to Scotland and invaded
Edinburgh. He did not only prevail over
the English forces in the Battle of
Prestonpans, but advanced into England,
besieging and taking several cities as far
as Derby. However, there he failed to get
support for a Stuart Catholic restoration
in the country, and he retreated to
Scotland as an English army was
approaching. Petty politics prevailed over
the national Scottish case, and the
liberals managed to regain control of
Edinburgh.
Following several battles and defeats, and
after hiding for several months, Charles
had to sail back to France in 1746.
Genocidal practices were attested then, as
the English army deliberately killed
dozens of thousands of Scots, while
sending scores to the English colonies as
slaves. Gradually, Jacobitism waned and
failed to gather support from the main
Catholic courts of Europe. With the death

of the last pretenders, this movement
reached an end.
Terrible oppression matched with
extensive corruption was the English
method employed in order to preserve
Scotland within the loathsome and
tyrannical English state. By offering
career opportunities and business chances
to middle and upper-middle class Scots,
the English government tried to make
them expatriate to England and in the
process lose their identity, language, and
culture. In other words, they tried to turn
Scotland’s ‘ethnic nation’ into a ‘civic
nation’.
Lawless, evil legislation was then
produced en masse in England for the
purpose of Scotland’s disfigurement,
identity destruction, language loss, and
cultural disintegration. The Dress Act, the
Act of Proscription, the Clan Act, the
Disarming Act, and the Heritable
Jurisdictions Act, all promulgated in

1746, prohibited Scottish language,
forbidding every single aspect of Scottish
culture, and crushing the Scottish clan
system. In the process, it was prohibited
for Scots to bear arms and wear tartans,
whereas forced displacement deracinated
hundreds of thousands of Scots from the
Highlands where the rejection of the
catastrophic union was overwhelming. It
was an accomplished ethnic cleansing of
the Scottish Highlands with full scale
transportation of Scottish clans to other
locations.
Scottish Law was abolished and
jurisdiction by Scottish clan chief
prohibited; English Law was imposed
instead. ‘Justifying’ the destruction of an
‘ethnic nation’ and the Nazi-like
imposition of a ‘civic nation’, Lord
Hardwicke rejected the concept of
multiple jurisdictions, stating that
‘private jurisdictions’ (as he described the
Scottish traditional Law) would endanger

liberty by encroaching on the legal
authority of a constitutional monarchy.
This is enough to make clear how fake a
‘civic nation’ is and how tyrannical it
can be.
Pseudo-Christian school prayers for the
king of England and his disreputable
family were enforced throughout
Scotland, whereas many other methods
were devised to prevent children from
being attached to their Scottish national
identity, social organization, linguistic
continuity, and cultural integrity (which
were called in a typical Nazi-like
manner ‘rebellious principles’).
The Highland Clearances are a shameful
English euphemism for what is known
among Scots as Fuadach nan Gàidheal,
i.e. “the expulsion of the Gael”. They
consisted in a century-long practice of
forced displacement of Scotland’s most
authentic, conscious, and traditional part
of population. Under the pretext of setting

up enclosures for sheep in order to
revolutionize agriculture, the Nazi-like
government of England expelled the
indigenous inhabitants who represented a
millennia long historical continuity in
their homeland, i.e. Northern Scotland
(the Highlands).
The main target was neither the land
confiscation – expropriation to the
benefit of some noble landowners nor the
eviction of the inhabitants who relied on
small scale agriculture, but the systematic
destruction of the Scottish Gaelic culture.
The forced emigration was of
unprecedented scale, involving forced
resettlement in the Scottish lowlands and
the sea coast, and further on to North
America or other English colonies in Asia
and Australia. The series of events
described as ‘clearances’ lasted from the
mid 18th c. until the 2nd half of the
19th c. and the result was the total
destruction of Scotland’s cultural

topography; today, more descendents of
the Highlanders live in America, Asia
and Australia than in Scotland.
Some of the worst moments of the
century-long ethnic cleansing occurred in
the so-called Year of the Sheep (Bliadhna
nan Caorach – 1792), when tenant
farmers arranged a spectacular protest,
removing more than 6000 sheep from the
land around Ardross. Another
particularly atrocious period was the
decade 1811 – 1820, when it was
common to evict 2000 families in one
single day, fully expropriating them from
their ancestors’ land. The disreputable
and incestuous English aristocracy was
the major accomplice in the process as
they became the landowners of the
confiscated lands; their racist, inhuman
and Satanic mentality was epitomized by
a sentence written by the filthy duchess of
Sutherland in her correspondence with
an Englishman: “Scotch people are of

happier constitution and do not fatten
like the larger breed of animals”.
(http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment
/columnists/the-duchess-the-highland-
clearances-the-housekeeper-and-a-story-
to-make-you-weep.24229043)
Living in England at the time, Karl Marx
described the Highland Clearances as
spoliation, fraud, robbery and usurpation
carried out under ‘reckless terrorism’. In
the middle of the 19th c., an entire
school of racist philosophers, theoreticians
and ideologists rose to pro-eminence in
England, trying to ‘prove’ in a ‘scientific’
manner that the Scottish Celtic race was
inferior to the Anglo-Saxon; it gathered
overwhelming support among the bastard
‘civic nation’ of England.
For Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First
Minister, unveiling a 3 m high bronze
named ‘Exiles’ in Helmsdale, Sutherland
(July 2007) was a minimal contribution

to the Immortalizing of the thousands of
dead, emigrated and persecuted Scots.
Scottish literature became for centuries a
means of anti-English resistance, and
among many great poets of the Ossian
circle, Robert Burns (1759 – 1796),
Scotland’s national poet, proved to be the
herald of the Gaelic Revival in the late
19th c., of the Scottish Renaissance in the
20th c., and of the Scottish Gaelic
Renaissance in our times. The Scottish
Covenant, proposed in 1930, promoted in
1939, and signed by two million people
in 1951, exemplified these demands,
whereas the Scottish Unionist Party
declined and was duly dissolved finally
in 1965. As devolution referenda
strengthened Scots’ political consciousness,
the Scottish National Party gathered
momentum.
A higher stage was attained when Mike
Russell, Member of the Scottish
Parliament (SNP), spoke in Scottish

Gaelic in a European Union meeting in
May 2010. It became evident that full
independence, and not mere home rule, is
the demand of Scotland’s new generation.
Alex Salmond’s defeat in the
Independence Referendum (18/9/2014)
reflects basically a wrong choice; instead
of viewing Scots as a ‘civic nation’, SNP
must rediscover and reassert Scotland’s
ethnic nation in all its characteristics,
dimensions and capacities.
https://megalommatis.wordpress.com/201
4/10/02/scotland-civic-nation-ethnic-
nation-and-the-search-for-national-
identity-and-independence/

Το άρθρο αυτό του κ. Μεγαλομμάτη
μπορείτε να κατεβάσετε σε Pdf από εδώ:
https://www.academia.edu/26177020/Sc
otland_Civic_Nation_Ethnic_Nation_and_t
he_Search_for_National_Identity_and_Indep
endence

Ανεξάρτητη Σκωτία: το Απαιτητό Τέλος της Μεγάλης Βρεταννίας και της Γαλλίας ως Αδήριτη Ιστορική Ανάγκη & η Αποκάλυψη της Αγγλικής Βαρβαρότητας από τον καθ. Μεγαλομμάτη

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

More from Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

More from Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)