Anti-national the untrue Technologybud

“The inhabitants only once again acknowledged that whenever they listened to foreign promises, they were deceived, and that they wished to be seduced by the way of obedience and faith, which in their legitimate Ottoman authority, they benefited from this delusion, and this thoughtless sacrifice became useful only in the interests of foreigners. The Peloponnesians and the inhabitants of the Aegean Sea insist on listening to the erroneous words of the primitives and the cunning advice of the foreigners, who, with prudent and prudent speakers, take care to hide the true circumstances of the matter, and compassion and condescension to those who understand honestly. Thus misguided they suspect that after their return, a punishment commensurate with their guilt awaits them. The providence of the Church therefore wants to imitate the example of the evangelical shepherd, and to ask the wandering sheep to bring it back to the spiritual and political flock from which it was removed, to rest it in the shadow of royal mercy and to trust it. Letter of Patriarch Agathangelos I and the Holy Synod of Constantinople to the Greeks (February 20, 1828) Iakovos Polylas, in “Prolegomena” of the hitherto unpublished poetic work of Dionysios Solomos she was then to write her own story: “The nation must learn to consider national what is true.” The emblematic phrase was then found on the lips of many historical figures, often with diametrically opposed views – with some, in fact, Solomos himself, if given the opportunity, not wanting to share even the most miserable common space. But regardless of the special weight and interpretation that each historical figure gave to the phrase of our national poet, they all had to face the two unpleasant accomplices, on whom the phrase left no room for misinterpretation. First, the compelling urge “The nation must learn to believe”, he clearly indicated that the nation does not have the truth in its blood, the nation is educated in the truth, as well – alas! – can also be trained in lying. Secondly, if we accept as “national what is true”, we must inevitably accept as anti-national what is untrue. Inevitable? No. During the two centuries since the Revolution of 1821, we have witnessed innumerable inventive methods of deterrence, inspired by the immortal preconceived notion: “If your feet are more than the bed, the worse for your feet.” Or as Napoleon Bonaparte responded to one of his generals who shook his head because he was a head taller: “This is being rectified.” Of all the national vital myths that replaced the bitter truth in our collective subconscious, the most enduring and Church in the four hundred years (with local fluctuations) of the Ottoman occupation. The reasons for resilience are obvious, although different from season to season. In the first post-revolutionary century (say, roughly, until 1922), a period of aggressive and very fruitful national redemptionism, the Church could not accept at all that from time to time, not only did she not help the national effort, but also that he was deliberately undermining it; for the sake of truth, he always had a draft testimony with priests (mainly from the lower clergy) who actually gave their lives in the national struggle. In the second post-revolutionary century (to the present day) the Church now had the luxury of pointing the finger and pointing out as a national bidder whoever was not to her liking, except of course herself; with her own narrative dominant in schools and catechistically – indistinguishable otherwise in some gloomy times – he was not afraid of the marginal whispers of doubt. forcing it initially (until 1850) to denounce our Church as “schismatic”? We do not need to be geopolitical savages; just take a quick look at the map. How can a Patriarchate residing in the capital of the Ottoman Empire reconcile its interests with a native nation-state, by definition hostile to the High Gate? And if the Patriarchate still wanted it, would the Empire allow it? Funny and talk about it. After all, those who claim that Fanari was in fact forced to use a “dual language” – an (openly) slavish to the Sultan and a (secretly) revolutionary to the Rayads are also based there. This is how they explain the conflict of the Enlightenment (especially of Adamantios Korais) with the Patriarchate, the denunciation and the curse for Alexandros Ypsilantis and so on. Of course, anyone who has thoroughly studied the diplomatic events of those days – given the will of the Holy Alliance to protect the integrity of the Ottoman Empire – understands that a similar conspiratorial “view” of the action of the Patriarchate would have found Ziloxen de Villiers. And well in 1821: the uprising just broke out and no nun, whether rasoforos or frakoforos, wants to be exposed irreparably by expressing his national preferences prematurely. But in February 1828, seven years later, when Patriarch Agathangelos I addressed his letter of affection to the rebels? Rivers of blood have been shed, the naval battle of Navarino has preceded – just four months ago, the Turkish-Egyptian fleet has been destroyed (but Ibrahim remains in the Peloponnese) and the Three Great Powers have finally given their blessing to Ioannis Kapodis. You are now waiting for Agathangelos to break his silence and follow the voice of his heart. Αμ δε. The Patriarch sends four metropolitans to Moria and the Archipelago to transfer to the ragiades the Sultan’s terms: land and water in exchange for royal mercy; back to our cages all honey and milk. The offer also has a deadline: “Do not miss this precious occasion, which you will ask for after that without being able to find it”. Kapodistrias responds to the Patriarch with his disgust. The same goes for History. Follow it on Google News and be the first to know all the news See all the latest News from Greece and the World, at

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *