“I have never yet feared a people who keep a gathering place where they come together and cheat one another.”

-Cyrus to a Spartan herald

The most reviled historian of Antiquity has also been hailed, by these same sources, as being “The Father of History.” Modern historians have cast more aspersions against Herodotus and his methods, than any other figure. They have also cast him as history’s father, in a way that suggests a point from which their godhood might begin evolving to Promethean levels.

The modern historian is not—for he does not INQUIRE. He names History as a thing, a growing tree with obvious and known roots, visible branches, a monolithic record of the past. Herodotus, rather, named history as investigation. While the modern historian seems to think that his ancient predecessor was by nature a liar—perhaps projecting his own vantage into the past—Herodotus trusted his legion of predecessors. In numerous passages he declines to investigate something that has been thoroughly treated by others. And, since Herodotus stood at the end, rather than the beginning, of a long period of objective inquiries into the past, we have nothing on those accounts. Even naming him their Father was a lie.

I have listened now to his first book, Cleo, dozens of times. Though Herodotus does not defame or argue with his predecessors, he does compare their accounts on numerous subjects. His method seems to have been to access opposing accounts and a neutral account for balance, and to select from the many accounts available, those the most respected by historians, rather than those most favored by the governing powers.

Let Herodotus, the earliest surviving voice of Inquiry—for history means nothing else in his mind—introduce himself.

“These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes with the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due mead of glory, and with all, to put on record, what were their grounds of feud.”

Herodotus was born and lived in Persian-ruled Greek Asia. He traveled the known world, consulting local historians, priesthoods and combat veterans of the Great War he set out to document. Modern historians have said he was wrong about:

-The Nile having a source south of the Atlas Mountains, across the Sahara. Photos from space have proven him right, or rather the Egyptians he consulted.

-That a type of Egyptian boat he described did not exist. One has recently been dug up.

-That no Persian garrison ever defected to Ethiopia, yet Ethiopians of our day have been found to have at least 30% Persian DNA!

-That the Scythians did not rule into Siberia, that this was Mongol land, though Russian digs continue to unearth great Scythian tombs in Siberia.

-That the Scythians were dispersed into four nations at the casting of four brazen objects form heaven. Velikovsky has given a timeline in his Worlds in Collision.

-That the numbers of the Persian host, attested by all parties at the time, as an investigation, for the Great King knew not how many men he had, were inflated. In Songs of Aryas I proved these numbers to be reasonable, and that modern military men insist on projecting Modern Democratic supply chain logistics, refusing to account for naval supply, or the obvious and declared fact, that the great army was marched to its doom and marooned intentionally, to the point of Scythians and Bactrians serving as foot soldiers!

Herodotus continues to rise and smite his detractors, who constitute that same academic coven who insist that men in the past never did anything great and wonderful, and that the losers [unlike the Noble Persians] must be entirely evil and free of any heroic nature, only the winners redeemable, and then only as flawed fools who only prevailed despite their own lack of moral quality. Such are our modern wars chronicled, permitting the veteran no notion that his actions were worthy of remembrance, in part, because his foe was a mere insect, serving a mass morality of non combatants inferior to the babbling eaters that the winner serves…

Throughout Herodotus, in the mere first book, one is treated to myriad conspiracies. The modern historians insists that no such thing as a conspiracy can exist, even though conspiracy to commit murder is on most state statutes. The modern ideal, central to all public thinking, that no two or more parties, have ever or will ever cooperate in their mutual interest, and NEVER against the interest of another party, is not only the bed rock of modern “history” but is counter to all actual history, and mythology, and as well, common sense born of common experience. We are directed, as the reader of history, to worship and hate the great men of the past, ultimately to deny that any can be great.

The Modern Public Mind has been designed to deny that men attaining positions of power remain men, and act as men, combining efforts to act in their and their nation’s interest, against the interest of competitors. Despite out addiction to team sports—where constant ongoing, high stakes conspiracy is to the point of mouths covered while speaking on the sidelines—we have been enchanted into believing, that once a person attains power, that the light of purity and excellence of morality, takes possession of their heart and propels them above cooperation. That is, except in the case of cartoon dictators, who do weave conspiracies, always against the interest of their own folk.

Thus, the only leadership conspiracy possible in the modern mind, is defamatory—that Alexander must have killed his father, as he stood to gain. Yet, that gain was not, only such as by modern standards. For ultimately, Alexander and his entire bloodline were exterminated by the enemies that Phillip and Alexander fought together. The fact that no race, such as the Macedonians, can be believed to be engaged in ethnic survival through heroic action, leaves us only the perspective of Top Job—therefore Dad must die to make way for Son, as the two could never, in the modern mind, be believed to have been working together as a team, towards a common goal.

This Alexander Conspiracy will be addressed at the end of the book. For now, let us look at the feud, that they were involved in, which killed both of them, 100 years after Herodotus, and which was begun in deepest Antiquity, a feud, I surmise, that is ongoing to this day:

“According to the Persians best informed in inquiry, the Phoenicians began the quarrel, this people who formerly dwelt on the shores of the Eurythrian Sea [inner Persian Gulf], having migrated to the Middle Sea and settled in the parts which they now inhabit [Syria/Lebanon/Judea], began at once they say, to adventure on long voyages, [1] freighting their vessels with the wares of Egypt and Assyria. [2] They landed at many places along the cost, and among the rest at Argos, then preeminent in the states now commonly referred to as Hellas. Here they exposed their merchandise and traded with the natives for five or six days. At the end of which time, when almost everything was sold, their came down to the beach a number of women, among them, the daughter of the king—they say agreeing with the Greeks in this—Io, the child of Inicus. The women were standing by the stern of the ship, intent on their purchases [3] when the Phoenicians, with a general shout [4] rushed upon them. The greater part made their escape. But some were seized and carried off. Io herself, was among the captives. The Phoenicians put the women on board their vessel and set sail for Egypt…

Thus did Io pass into Egypt, according to the Persian story, which differs widely from the Phoenician. And thus commenced, according to their authors, a series of outrages.”

Here he uses the Greek account silently, as a check on the neutral Persian account, and limits the retorts from the Phoenician account, lending the most weight to the neutral party, being the Persians, who ended up inheriting the Phoenician feud with the Greeks. Note that the Phoenicians, who began the feud between Asia and Europe, were a European folk settled in Asia. Herodotus then details how some Greeks, Probably men of Crete, abducted Europa, then other Greeks abducted Medea—both princesses, and finally, Paris of Troy abducts Helen. While the Asians would not go to war over an abducted woman, as she must be somehow complicit in her abduction [as was claimed about Io and Helen by their abductors] only the Greeks went to war and thus destroyed a great kingdom, that of Prime, which seemed foolish to the Persians, over a mere woman. This account is entirely outside of the Homeric Cycle, preserved by people of the Iranian highlands, and agrees with it in outline and detail.

Herodotus declines to follow the feud causes any further, indicating he has dug as deeply as can be got without being mired in the mud of interests, or conspiracy spins. [5]

Herodotus finished with an ethnographic note that must make all modern historians cringe:

“Henceforth, they ever looked upon the Greeks as their open enemies. For Asia, with its many tribes of barbarians that inhabit it is regarded by the Persians as their own. But Europe, and the Greek race, they look on as distinct, and separate.”

The stage is set for intercontinental war, begun by one of the two folks who served the slaving/mining interests at the core of ancient banking. The Phoenicians and their ships, along with the Semitic Dusty Ones and their donkeys laden with gold and trailed by fettered chains of slaves, held the conspiratorial middle man niche in antiquity, a niche that Modern Academia, in its wisdom, asserts can NEVER exist in human society, despite it being at the core of most TV and Movie story telling and of all sports.

Herodotus’ accounts are filled with humanity, measured analytically, preserve heroics and recognize many a conspiracy. Could it be that the abridgment and defamation of this eldest remaining historian reflect a transhuman notion that our lives and their records must only be curated by analytics, to the exclusion of the very subject, which is human action, and among these many actions, uneasily lurks conspiracy the wily counterbalance of heroics?

That both heroics and conspiracy have been largely purged from the so-called modern disciplines of inquiry, indicates not merely a dedication to THE LIE, but a hatred of humanity.

Notes

-1. The good swineheard of Odysseus describes how he was abducted as a boy to be sold to a cannibal king by Phoenician merchants.

-2. Back hauling economics, with ships and trucks, begs for a return cargo, not simply payment. Thus nautical slave trades have developed alongside commodity trades.

-3. Such details as the number of days, which end of the ship, these all argue for authenticity. Note that this form of trade abduction was commonly used by English and French in Africa and North America.

-4. These people were a Semitic folk who introduced the use of the phonetic alphabet into the west. I am indebted to them as I type.

-5. For a mythic story of Io as a goddess turned cow, see Ovid’s Metamorpheses.

-6. The title, ‘of greatest moment,’ comes from the story of Gyges, a slave who ascended to his master’s throne, thanks to a conspiracy initiated by his master’s wife, in retaliation, for a minor conspiracy conducted by her husband, to show her naked to Gyges by ruse.