Ray of Light

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@ColoradoWino He looks like African albino

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@chota_matka Despite Namibia being a MASSIVE country, its almost totally empty

Namibia is larger than France and Germany combined, but has only 3 million people population.

It's the second least densely populated country on earth!

A good place for Indians to migrate to, to start afresh!

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@chota_matka Could have something to do with Germans owning huge plots of land in Nigeria.

https://t.co/2hMgBl5uwC

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@mandate2049 If there is a nuclear war only cockroaches and the Indians from the slums will survive. Everything else will become dust.

Because they have been poisoning themselves slowly they have a much bigger tolerance for toxic waste.

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@khyimiq This guy was encouraging Pakis to come to Greece illegally, he got deported.

All countries should ban migration from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh! They keep making babies like rabbits and then export their citizens en masse to basically every country.

https://t.co/AETiZDr3Dx

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@RobertRamspcxi The ancient Greeks knew about and formulated the heliocentric model. They had already calculated the perimeter of the earth, the heliocentric solar system, Hero's steam engine, the mechanical computer of antikythera etc.

[Worldpulse @Creatorir]

We often need help when we are in trouble.

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

The law of Solon in 591 BC abolished all debt owed to anyone including the state and it freed everyone from debt bondage secured on the person.

At the time most of the people who were in debt bondage, in fact most of the
population were, were decedents of debtors since the debt transferred to
them and their descendants until it was fully paid. Solon put an end to debt secured on the person full stop and there were many who were owed money who lost out. The people were set free.

We know from Herodotus, Aristotle and Diodorus that at the time of Solon the majority of the Athenian population was in debt bondage not slavery and that in
around 593-591 BC Solon outlawed it and freed everyone from it.

Herodotus Histories, Aristotle's Constitutions. Diodorus' Bibliothiki. Read them.

The historical revisionist fabrication of the predominance of slavery in the ancient world was created to justify the
Anglo-American slave trade.

Stop reading unsubstantiated revisionist codswallop and read the original texts in the original language.

Aristot. Const. Ath. 2.

ἦν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἡ πολιτεία τοῖς τε ἄλλοις ὀλιγαρχικὴ πᾶσι, καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐδούλευον οἱ πένητες τοῖς πλουσίοις καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες: καὶ ἐκαλοῦντο πελάται καὶ ἑκτήμοροι: κατὰ ταύτην γὰρ τὴν μίσθωσιν ἠργάζοντο τῶν πλουσίων τοὺς ἀγρούς （ἡ δὲ πᾶσα γῆ δι᾽ ὀλίγων
ἦν）, καὶ εἰ μὴ τὰς μισθώσεις ἀποδιδοῖεν, ἀγώγιμοι καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ
παῖδες ἐγίγνοντο: καὶ οἱ δανεισμοὶ πᾶσιν ἐπὶ τοῖς σώμασιν ἦσαν μέχρι Σόλωνος: οὗτος δὲ πρῶτος ἐγένετο τοῦ δήμου προστάτης. [3] χαλεπώτατον μὲν οὖν καὶ πικρότατον ἦν τοῖς πολλοῖς τῶν κατὰ τὴν πολιτείαν τὸ δουλεύειν: οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐδυσχέραινον: οὐδενὸς γὰρ ὡς εἰπεῖν ἐτύγχανον μετέχοντες.

[2] For the Athenian constitution was in all respects oligarchical, and in fact the poor themselves and also their wives and children were actually in servitude to the rich ['ἐδούλευον οἱ πένητες τοῖς πλουσίοις' literally means 'the poor served/worked for the rich' not 'the poor
slaved for the rich'; thus it can be seen doulos cannot mean slave]; and they were called Clients, and Sixth-part-tenants (for that was the rent they paid for the rich men's land which they farmed, and the whole of the country was in few hands), and if they ever failed to pay their rents, they themselves and their children were liable to arrest; and all
borrowing was on the security of the debtors' persons down to the time
of Solon: it was he who first became head of the People. [3] Thus the most grievous and bitter thing in the state of public affairs for the masses was their slavery; not but what they were discontented also about everything else, for they found themselves virtually without a share in anything.

Aristot. Const. Ath. 6

Solon having become master of affairs made the people free both at the time and for the future by prohibiting loans secured on the person, and he laid down laws, and enacted cancellations of debts both private and public, the measures that are known as 'the Shaking-off of Burdens,' meaning that the people shook off their load. In these matters some
people try to misrepresent him; [2] for it happened that when Solon was intending to enact the Shaking-off of Burdens, he informed some of the
notables beforehand, and afterwards, as those of popular sympathies say, he was outmaneuvered by his friends, but according to those who want to malign him he himself also took a share. For these persons borrowed money and bought up a quantity of land, and when not long afterwards the cancellation of debts took place they were rich men; and this is said to be the origin of the families subsequently reputed to be ancestrally
wealthy.

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

Slave or Sklavos is a Byzantine word referring to the Slavs as servants and agricultural workers. The Latin form is Servus.

Its use prior to that period is completely anachronistic, inappropriate and misleading.

For "slave" which was not even coined until Byzantine times read any worker, labourer, sold captive, mercenary, private employee, state employee, skilled tradesman or professional.

Unfortunately the term 'slave' is usually applied wrongly by translators to any worker even to specific job titles they are given instead of the actual job title and to douloi, rather than only being applied to andrapodessi.

A doulos was anyone who was in the service of others.

The fact is that almost everyone in ancient Greece and the ancient world
in general had to work for a living. This was NOT slavery in the modern sense. A doulos was NOT a slave; he or she was a was a worker and there were two different types; there were douloi who hired their labour for a fee and moved from one employer to another as is alluded to by Hesiod, and there were douloi who were like football players or recording artists who were bought and sold by employers and were employed for life by that employer or until they bough themselves out of their contract.
The majority of douloi were of the fist kind. They sold their labour just like the majority of workers do today in order to provide for themselves and their families. The alternative to being a doulo or labourer was to set up your own business and employ your own labourers
or be self employed.

The fact is that most people at some time employed douloi to do jobs they could not do themselves because they did not have the skills for it, such as plumbing or shoeing their horses or fixing their carts or teaching their children, just like you would employ a plumber or a mechanic or a private tutor today.

Is a professional footballer or basketball player a slave? Both are bought and sold from and to different owners. He can only quit if he buys himself out of his contract and the same was true with bondsmen in ancient Greece. In fact Solon passed a law to free them all by making debt secured on the person illegal.

No modern connotations apply to the term whatsoever. They were not slaves.

Any translation of an ancient text using the term slave should automatically be deemed suspicious and inaccurate. In most if not all cases the term slave is inserted with no corresponding term used in the original text, and in the majority of cases where a term exists it
replaces terms which are mutually contradictory. Go and read the original texts and you will see for yourself.

What is written today about so-called 'slavery' in ancient times is almost all completely fictitious.

If you disagree cite ancient sources (I will not accept references by revisionist modern historians) in full, including the wording in the original language which back up your claims.

Here's some sources where 'slave' has been inserted inappropriately for completely unrelated terms to create a fallacy of slavery in ancient times.

Aeschines, Against Timarchus. 1.10. "paidagwgon" meaning child-trainers/rearers (employed and supervised by the school) falsely translated as "slave attendants of school-boys". No mention of the word slave or anything similar in the original text.

Aeschines, On the Embassy. 2.76. "slave in fetters" falsely invented by the translator when there is no such reference to a slave or anything similar in the original Greek which reads "dedemenon en pedais" meaning
"bound in fetters" and refers to the corrupt Lyre maker Cleophon. Then
the fallacious invention by the translator continues, "who had dishonorably and fraudulently got himself enrolled as a citizen" when the original Greek says "pareggrafeis aisxrws politis kai diefthrakws nomi xrimatwon ton dimon..." which means "he is recorded as a shameful citizen and corrupted the people by means of money...".

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@TerribleMaps The most popular street food you mean..

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

All douloi were bonded laborers or serfs and the term does not refer to captives. A bonded labourer was free to come and go as they pleased and was paid to work under contract or revived payment in kind, ie. land which they could farm in return for 1/6 of the produce which were very fair terms since the land owner was taxed on their earnings and has to sustain a living too. They were no different from tenant farmers today or an employee receiving and company car and/or company medical insurance and/or free meals at the company canteen. When the work they were contracted for was done they were automatically freemen or the contract rolled on so they could remain in employment.

There is no comparison whatsoever of the above with the Anglo-American
slave trade. Servitude in ancient times when goods and services were mainly procured by barter was the equivalent of paid work for an employer today with all the rights and obligations that confers. It was entered into voluntarily out of necessity like ordinary work is today.
It was not slavery.

Not according to actual historians. There wasn't any slavery in the ancient world since the term slave did no exist until byzantine times and even then it didn't mean what it means today.

The fact that the word "Slave" is totally anachronistic should tell you that immediately.

Trying to rewrite history to pretend slavery existed stinks of politically motivated revisionism and apologetics for the Anglo-American slave trade.

Anyone could join the Army and be promoted up through the ranks and anyone could buy themselves out of slavery.

People were NOT kidnapped and chained up all day, and the workers were given rewards and holidays by their masters who were basically employing them as farm labourers for a subsistence income. Even in Egypt most historians agree that the so called Slaves that built the pyramids were ordinary workers who were NOT forced to work against there will.

The whole notion of Slavery as applied to Greece and Rome was invented by the Americans to justify their treatment of Africans as a lower from of life.

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

Doulos means worker, look up the Greek word for work...it's douleia!

Paroikos means neighbour.

It had NOTHING to do with the modern definition of slavery where you deliberately went out rounding up people to sell into slavery.

[Stra. 8.5.4] but though the neighboring peoples, one and all, were subject to the Spartiatae, still they had equal rights, sharing both in the rights of citizenship and in the offices of state, and they were called Helots;

The Helots were the inhabitants of the Achaean city of Helos in the Peloponnesus which was conquered by Sparta in about 770 BC, and the population were made into feudal Surfs. The term was then applied to other
conquered populations.

The Lacedaemonians were neither Perioeci (neighbours) or Helots (subjugated peoples).

Everyone in Sparta lived communally. The system they had was the same as the Feudal system in English in the middle ages where the Spartans were the equivalent to the Normans and the Helots were equivalent to the Saxons who were each allowed their own land and had to give up a percentage of their produce to the state.

If Helots were not allowed to be sold outside their own country then this clearly is a prohibition of slavery.

Helots were free to farm their own land and the Spartans were NOT allowed to sell them to others as slaves which is the opposite of what happened with Ottomans or Africa where African
tribes took their neighbours prisoners and sold them to the British as slaves to be exported to America.

Compared to this the Helots we free, or as free as you could be in a feudal system which is what Sparta was.

The Greeks banned this kind of bonded Slavery that existed with the Ottomans and Anglo-Saxons in the time of Solon 591 BC.

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

Stop splitting hairs. The ottoman system was Fascitic Rascist Islamic Nationism in its purest sence with no form of democracy for anyone.

The Christians were NOT free to govern themselves or take part in the ottoman government since it was exclusive to Muslims. They were ENSLAVED. Totally proven by all sources. Unlike Rome where anyone was free to advance to any position of power the ottomans imposed a Racist system of Islamic Nationalist Fascism which discriminted against Chritians because the ultimate goal was to wipe them all out.

Only Muslims were allowed to buy and sell land. The Christians were deined even the legal right of inheritence.

Christains girls were RAPED and made into whores for the Sultan. Christians boys were made slaves in the ottoman army. They were sent to the front line
to DIE in the first wave of battle or face death anyway if they refused. Christians slave were forces to build for the Turks, they were forced to work in the mines and since Christins were not alowed to buy, sell or inherit property they were gradually eroded away.

The Ottomans shut down ALL of the Major Christian Churches and since
they did not allow new ones to be built the obvious strategy was to wait untill the had all fallen down thus putting an end to Christianity.

ONLY MUSLIMES were allowed in the government, only Muslims were allowed
in the army, only Muslims were allowed to build meeting places, only Muslims were allowed to be free.

The Byzantines Feudal System was not slavery.
Salvery was the ABDUCTION of people who were FREE, and their transportation to another land where they were forced to work for someone else against ther will.

This is waht the ottomans did. Do not deny that vast populations were
moved from ther orginal lands and force into slavery ontop of having their children kidnapped.

The Ottomans DID NOT re-distribute any of the Taxes collected from the
Chritinas back to the Christians. They did NOT allow the Christins to build new Churches or any kind of infrstruture for their communities, but were force to build Mosques, so the only way the Chritinas could make ends meet was throgh dontions to the Church. The Christians therefore paid 3 times as much as the Muslims did in tax.

Only the Islamic Priesthood, Muftis whatever you call them and the
Sultans and Generals had any say in Government. The ordinary people had
NO say in government even though they had to abide by the laws of the above. Christians certainely could not progress up the heirarchy in any way.

The ONLY form of mass communication were the Churches. The ottomas know
that and so closed them down and forbade the buiolding of new ones,
while they foced Christian slave to build them new Mosques.

The revolution agains ottoman oppression was only possible because of secret foreigin arms imports. Christinas had no right to bare arms. No right to defend themselves. No court trials, but were at the whim of Turks who could kill them for no reason.

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@VALELORDX @XRP

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

British Prime Minister William Gladstone wrote of the Turks:

"Let me endeavor very briefly to sketch, in the rudest outline, what the Turkish race was and what it is. It is not a question of Mahometanism simply, but of Mahometanism compounded with the peculiar character of a race. They are not the mild Mahometans of India, nor the chivalrous Saladins of Syria, nor the cultured Moors of Spain.

“They were, upon the whole, from the black day when they first entered Europe, the one great anti-human specimen of humanity. Wherever they went a broad line of blood marked the track behind them, and, as far as their dominion reached, civilization disappeared from view.

They represented everywhere government by force as opposed to government by law. — Yet a government by force can not be maintained without the aid of an intellectual element. — Hence there grew up, what has been rare in the history of the world, a kind of tolerance in the midst of cruelty, tyranny and rapine. Much of Christian life was contemptuously left alone and a race of Greeks was attracted to Constantinople which has all along made up, in some degree, the deficiencies of Turkish Islam in the element of mind.”

“The attitude of the Moslems toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves,” reported the British Vice Consul in Mosul (an Ottoman city in what is now Northern Iraq) a little later in 1909, “whom he he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.”

This, of course, is the old story of dhimmitude or the second-class citizenship of non-Moslems under Moslem rule.

In 1499 Sultan Bayezid II after his conquer of Methone (Greece) ordered :

‘the execution of all those who were 10 years or older; and so it happened. They gathered their heads and bodies, put them together, and built a big tower outside the city, which can still be seen nowadays

The Ottomans lurched from outrage to outrage. Regular slaughters of Armenians in Bayazid (1877), Alashgurd (1879), Sassun (1894), Constantinople (1896), Adana (1909) and Armenia itself (1895-96) claimed a total of two hundred thousand lives, but they were only rehearsals for the genocide of 1915.

The slaughter of Christians in Alexandria in 1881 was only a rehearsal for the artificial famine induced by the Turks in 1915-16 that killed over a hundred thousand Maronite Christians in Lebanon and Syria. So imminent and ever-present was the peril,and so fresh the memory of these events in the minds of the non-Moslems, that illiterate Christian mothers dated events as so many years before or after “such and such a massacre.”

Across the Middle East, the bloodshed of 1915-1922 finally destroyed ancient Christian communities and cultures that had survived since Roman times—groups like the Jacobites (Syrian Orthodox), Nestorians (Iraqi Orthodox), and Chaldaeans (Iraqi Catholic).

As the United States entered World War I in 1917, Henry Cabot Lodge, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, presented the war effort not just as aimed at the defeat of Germany, but as a crusade for the destruction of the Ottoman Empire:

[The Ottoman Turks] have been the pest and the curse of Europe, the source of innumerable wars, the executioners in countless massacres… Such a… government as this is a curse to modern civilization. Like a pestilence it breathes forth contagion upon the innocent air (USC 1917, vol. LVI, p. 64).

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

There was no Ethnic tolerance. People were classified by the religions and the church they were in, ie Greek, Bulgarians, Serb, Armenians etc.

The reason for this was that the Byzantine Empire that preceded the Ottomans was the cultural bridge which treated all nationalities as equals and where everyone lived together as one.

The Turkish Destroyed all that and brought in the dark ages. Christians were
despised and they were uprooted and moved from their original homes to other parts of the ottoman empire to serve as slaves.

In Byzantium the was NO Slavey. Everybody freely enjoyed the above freedoms and rights. Under the ottomans all of these were taken awany and the people enslaved.

Christian children were abducted from their parents subjected to abuses and brainwashed into becoming Muslim fanatics. Call that freedom of religion.

None of the Greeks who formed the Roman Emperors personal praetorian body guard were treated in such a barbaric manner. They were free to worship their own Gods and they gave their loyalty to Caesar of their own free will, by Choice not by force.

The Greeks brought with them their culture and gave it freely to those that
wanted it even their Roman conquroes. They forced their language and gods on NOONE and tolerated everybody as equals no matter who they worshiped.
The Turks on the other had bought with them NOTHING and forced their victims back into the dark ages through systematic intollerece.

Before the Turks the Greek population was over 40 Million the highest in
Europe. After the Turks it was almost completely annihilated.

The people were needed as slaves. Turkification was forced islamisation
which was cultural annihilation.

If you wanted to pay lower taxes and dont want your children abducted then
pretended to be Muslims. Thus were born the Crypto Christians.

They targeted systematically region by region so that no one could rebel.

Turkey has not right to exist because it was create though SYSTEMATIC GENOCIDE of indigenous Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and now Kurds.

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@johnsnowrunner @Riiitzi Bias

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@TerribleMaps Yellow

[Ray of Light @Eva213142]

@nightstalker374 @RadioGenoa "November is officially recognized as Hindu Heritage Month in Canada, celebrating the history, culture, and contributions of Canadians of Hindu heritage."