Razer and Stefan - Bulgar morons

[lavce pelagonski]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=482Cnb2YX2I

Racism in Bulgaria - YouTube

Bulgarian extremists attack Muslims during prayers on Friday 20.5.2011-Part 1 - YouTube

[Razer]

Please man, we all know Bulgaria is far from perfect and yes - there are some racist groups, but they are small and you have them in every country. The first video looks like it was from long time ago, and the second was nothing but political propaganda by ATAKA - a party that doesn't even exist any more.

Racism is a world-spread sickness. I lived 14 yeas in South Africa so I know all about it. Over there, whites still think they are superior and it's not uncommon to call a black person "kaffer" - meaning a slave.

And let's remember that there were 10,000 Albanians protesting on the streets of Skopje, not in Sofia. Right now, racism and ethnic conflicts are much bigger problem in Macedonia than in Bulgaria. Things here seem fine.

[Vangelovski]

Razer the Arian wannabe,

It appears that you learnt about more than just racism in South Africa. Just accept that you belong to a mongrel group of people that include Turks from Central Asia. You certainly do not belong to some super race of Arians from Iran.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Razer, we will not entertain or accept these stupid notions about Macedonian organisations in Bulgaria being linked to "Serbian and Turkish intelligence", or that the perception of Macedonians towards Bulgars is due to "Serbia", or that Macedonians in Bulgaria being oppressed is a "lie", or that Tito is "celebrated more" than Cyril and Methodius in Macedonia, or that Boris helped "establish" the Cyrillic alphabet, or that Macedonians "claim Bulgarian medieval history", or that Ohrid was a "Bulgarian city" just because it happened to be absorbed into the Bulgar kingdom, or that Macedonia "should come up with an alternative name", or your BS clips from youtube, etc. This forum contains enough information to refute every single one of your pathetic claims, all of which are textbook Bulgar propaganda. In the unlikely case that you've failed to notice, this is a Macedonian website. Here, the Macedonian POV about Macedonian history is given a voice. It is not a place for you to pollute with your Bulgar rubbish concerning OUR history. If you're intention is to swim in likeminded cyber-sewerage, then there are plenty of Bulgar websites. You know, those websites by YOUR people who you claim don't have an issue with Macedonians? I asked you before to show me just ONE Bulgar website where they don't denigrate Macedonians. Just ONE. You slithered away from that question in the same manner that you keep slithering away from the point which Risto the Great made earlier with respect to your adoption of OUR language and OUR alphabet from OUR ancestors. Now, you may have had some fun spewing up all the trash that you've posted, but it ends right now. You will be specific in your responses and you will support them in an articulate and sensible manner. Or I will send you packing like the last lot of Bulgar idiots who wormed their way into this forum. The very fact that you think we're that naive as to believe your fictional purpose is an insult to our intelligence.

Risto, I think it would be fair to say it was Greek.

So you've told us. And you know our answer. Yet you continue to push forward with your idiocy. You've been here long enough. So you get no forewarning. Everything I have just told your Bulgar buddy applies to yourself. I am sick of peasant-minded fools like you and this "Razer" character thinking you can taint Macedonian history in a Macedonian forum.

So do you think Samuel ruled over an independent kingdom called Macedonia (and if so, how long did this kingdom last?) or that he was of Macedonian origin and became a Bulgarian king?

I never said his kingdom was called Macedonia. But it was centred on historically Macedonian territory, which was only (progressively) absorbed by the Bulgar kingdom about 100-150 years earlier. No great discovery there. No great impact either. Macedonia was under Ottoman occupation for over 500 years, Macedonians are as Turkish as they are Turkic (Bulgar). What you continually fail to take into account is that Samuel and his family were from Macedonia, that they fought against the Bulgar occupiers, that they spoke the language which the Bulgar occupiers adopted from their ancestors, that they established their capital city in Macedonia, that the seat of their church was in Macedonia, that their population and consequently their armies were from Macedonia. In later years, Samuel also conquered the territory of the former Bulgar kingdom, nevertheless, he did not move any of his administration there. He was from Macedonia, he lived in Macedonia, he died in Macedonia. Period. Imperial labels are superficial. Even if his empire was known as 'Bulgaria', it has as much 'ethnic' relevance as the people in Constantinople being known as 'Romans'. The latter weren't Latin, thus the former were definetly not Turkic. No matter how you or other Bulgar propagandist want to spin it, they're the hard facts.

Why is the Bulgarian Theme over Macedonia?

That is nothing but a precedent based on superficial terminology. First of all, the Macedonian name was already being used for another administrative unit in neighbouring Thrace, where many Macedonians had settled. Second, Bulgaria was the only other entity that existed in the Balkans aside from (East) Rome at the time, until Samuel established his empire. In that 'Bulgaria' theme there are also significant parts of modern Serbia, Montenegro and Albania included. The Moesian 'homeland' of your beloved Bulgars is not included, instead it is referred to as 'Paristrion'.

I don't know if you know, but in Bulgaria there's an organisation (Фондация Българска Памет), which is pushing the European Parliament to officially recognise the Cyrillic alphabet as "Bulgarian". Currently there are 3 official alphabets in the union - Greek, Latin and Cyrillic (which they aim to change to Bulgarian).

Another laughable and stupid Bulgar ploy to claim ownership over something which they did not create.

According to the Byzantine source "Miracles of Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki" Kuber was nominated by the Avars to rule over Syrmia as Avar vassal, but he started a rebellion against Avars, and, together with his people, moved from Syrmia around 680 AD and settled in the Balkans, in the Pelagonian plain in western Macedonia.

Show us the exact quote from the source which mentions this. Don't bother wasting my time with a response until you do.

There is not enough information about Khan Kouber and his people following the settlement in the western Balkans but Asparukh's son, Tervel, in the beginning of the 8th century, is said to have cooperated with "his uncles" from Macedonia.

Show us the exact quote from the source which mentions this. Don't bother wasting my time with a response until you do.

You confirm that you have been assimilated with it. Now tell me what kind of role you could have during the creation of it if you were speaking another language and using another script at that time? Like i told you, you were just subjects of that process. If that wasn't the case as you claimed than it means that Bulgars of 9th century suddenly woke up in a day and said to themselves something like "lets get baptized and create a new alphabet and new language for ourselves too". Is this your scenario?

Btw if Bulgarian language is being presented as first slavic language and Cyrillic as Bulgarian alphabet today, because it`s not "politically correct" in today`s world to say the opposite. There is no other reason.

Well said.

Imho, most likely Cyril&Methodious used Latin, Greek and Turkic runic letters as inspiration while they created Cyrillic. I say Turkic runic letters too because there are some similarities with it and because Bulgars was using this script before they switched to Cyrillic.

I don't think that possibility can be discounted, nor would it be a unique case. Just one correction though, Cyril and Methodius created the Glagolitic alphabet. It was their Macedonian students who created the Cyrillic alphabet, which Boris adopted for his kingdom. Interesting to note, however, is the fact that Glagolitic continued to be used in the Ohrid Literary School in Macedonia alongside Cyrillic until the 13th century, whereas in Bulgaria Glagolitic quickly disappeared in favour of Cyrillic. So, Glagolitic was created in a part of Macedonia which was controlled by (East) Rome, whereas Cyrillic was created in a part of Macedonia which was controlled by Bulgaria. The elephant in the room > both were the product of Macedonian scholars. Those scholars did not speak Romaic (Greek) or Bulgar (Turkic) as their native language. Their native language is the direct ancestor of today's Macedonian language.

Then when Roman empire was divided in East and West,Macedonia was a part of the east which later adopted the name Byzantine Empire.Orthodox religion became official and Greek was introduced as the lingua franca opposing Latin in the West.And then with the arrival of the Slavs starting 6th century onward Macedonia was also settled with Slavic tribes that brought their Proto-Slavic language with them.

Greek didn't become the official language of East Rome until the 7th century, after the invasion of Slavic-speaking peoples. And in any case, that doesn't mean that Latin and/or Greek was adopted by the masses. The 6th century (East) Roman emperor Justin, who was born near Skopje, was illiterate when he came to the throne. If he wasn't able to read or write in Latin and/or Greek, then it would be unlikely that one of those languages was spoken as a native tongue by himself or his family.

.........introduced to the Macedonian people after being slavicized,it wasn't their native language........

Have you ever seen the look of reconstructed Proto Slavic, or better yet, Proto Balto-Slavic? Have you ever taken note of how closely they resemble the Thracian language? Have you ever read sources that make reference to Macedonia as being populated by people who were kindred with Thracians? Have you ever wondered why a 'Slavic' lingua franca was adopted by so many people in so many regions - so quickly - when there was never a common 'Slavic' empire at the time to exert such influence? If your answer is 'no' to any of the above, then you should do some research to develop a more informed opinion. While I don't discount an influence emanating north of Macedonia, I highly doubt that the language from where this influence stems was completely unrelated and foreign to the native language of contemporary Macedonians.

[Razer]

Razer the Arian wannabe,

It appears that you learnt about more than just racism in South Africa. Just accept that you belong to a mongrel group of people that include Turks from Central Asia. You certainly do not belong to some super race of Arians from Iran.

Wow, if someone's racist it surely is you. You're funny and sad.

[Voltron]

So you've told us. And you know our answer. Yet you continue to push forward with your idiocy. You've been here long enough. So you get no forewarning. Everything I have just told your Bulgar buddy applies to yourself. I am sick of peasant-minded fools like you and this "Razer" character thinking you can taint Macedonian history in a Macedonian forum.

SOM, its been a while since I even touched on the subject. Once in awhile il come out and voice my opinion and your right I know the answer coming but its not with bad intent.

[DraganOfStip]

@Voltron and Razer

I thought you said not to trust Bulgarian sources

Do you know that Vasil Zlatarski lived like a century ago? He was born in 1866 and died in 1935. He's the so called "Grandfather of the Turkic theory", which today only about 10% of the Bulgarian historians and scientists still support.

The Bulgarian sources that push the Iranian theory only came afloat after the fall of communism in Bulgaria.Prior to that,it was even the Bulgarians that publicly linked themselves to the Hunnic people.That opinion wasn't a commie by-product,since it was already a state policy even before commies came to power with the 1944 coupe d'etat.The only way that the Iranian theory could be true to some extent is if Bulgars mixed with/brought along some Iranian tribes with them on their route to the Balkans.Other than that,common sense itself suggest that the turko-mongoloid theory is more plausible.

@RtG and SoM:

I'm no expert linguist or expert historian,but one (Macedonian or not) can't ignore the fact that our contemporary Macedonian language belongs to the group of South Slavic languages,ergo is to a high degree mutually intelligible with those languages.It also has many similarities with East and West Slavic languages (the core of the words at least),which means all these languages at some time in history belonged to the same pool.And this would mean that Macedonian language somehow found it's way all the way to Central Europe and all of Northern Asia.I think that every reasonable person will find this very questionable.Now,I admit,I find this Slavic migration theory questionable too.Why?It's hard to believe that all those nomadic people (men,women,children and elderly) with a whole bunch of load on their carts and armed only with sticks and stones and maybe some primitive version of a sickle could so easily defeat one of the mightiest empires of the time,assimilate all the natives of that vast area and transform the entire population into 'pure Slavs' in such a small time frame of a couple of centuries.However,no one should ignore all the writings of many contemporaries that such migration took place and such people existed.I think the only debatable thing is the extent of that migration.It's still a mystery to me.

[Onur]

The Bulgarian sources that push the Iranian theory only came afloat after the fall of communism in Bulgaria.Prior to that,it was even the Bulgarians that publicly linked themselves to the Hunnic people.That opinion wasn't a commie by-product,since it was already a state policy even before commies came to power with the 1944 coupe d'etat.The only way that the Iranian theory could be true to some extent is if Bulgars mixed with/brought along some Iranian tribes with them on their route to the Balkans.Other than that,common sense itself suggest that the turko-mongoloid theory is more plausible.

Dragan, there was only one Iranian speaking tribe in Eurasia and that was Alans. We also know that Alans has been destroyed and totally disappeared from history when Huns migrated to current Ukraine from the east in late 4th century. So, by the 5th century Iranian tribes was non-existent in there. This is long before Bulgars migrated to Danube.


Btw, there cant be such a title as "Grandfather of Turkic theory" because Khazar Khan said that that Bulgars was akin to them in 10th century, Arab travelers also said that Bulgars are Turks in 10th century. Cyril&Methodius said that Bulgars are part of Huns, akin to Turkic Khazars and they are in process of baptizing them in 9th century. Then western historians also said the same thing in late medieval era.

So, there can only be a "grandfather of Iranic theory" in 1990s but Turkic theory was already present and quite known by whole world for 1000+ years. The reason is, it wasn't just a theory but a fact.

[DraganOfStip]

Dragan, there was only one Iranian speaking tribe in Eurasia and that was Alans. We also know that Alans has been destroyed and totally disappeared from history when Huns migrated to current Ukraine from the east in late 4th century. So, by the 5th century Iranian tribes was non-existent in there. This is long before Bulgars migrated to Danube.


Btw, there cant be such a title as "Grandfather of Turkic theory" because Khazar Khan said that that Bulgars was akin to them in 10th century, Arab travelers also said that Bulgars are Turks in 10th century. Cyril&Methodius said that Bulgars are part of Huns, akin to Turkic Khazars and they are in process of baptizing them in 9th century. Then western historians also said the same thing in late medieval era.

So, there can only be a "grandfather of Iranic theory" in 1990s but Turkic theory was already present and quite known by whole world for 1000+ years. The reason is, it wasn't just a theory but a fact.

Well said.Standing ovations from me,mate.

[Voltron]

Alans being destroyed ? Ossetia anybody ? Wtf ?
Look where Alans settled on the map. Close to Bulgaria isnt it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans

[Onur]

Alans being destroyed ? Ossetia anybody ? Wtf ?
Look where Alans settled on the map. Close to Bulgaria isnt it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans

If you gonna link from Wikipedia, at least read it first. Wiki article confirms what i said;

Around 370, the Alans were overwhelmed by the Huns. They were divided into several groups, some of whom fled westward. A portion of these western Alans joined the Vandals and the Sueves in their invasion of Roman Gaul. Gregory of Tours mentions in his Liber historiae Francorum ("Book of Frankish History") that the Alan king Respendial saved the day for the Vandals in an armed encounter with the Franks at the crossing of the Rhine on December 31, 406). According to Gregory, another group of Alans, led by Goar, crossed the Rhine at the same time, but immediately joined the Romans and settled in Gaul.

By 370 AD, Alans were totally destroyed by the Huns and ironically, Bulgars were part of this Hunnic confederation along with Hungarians and they crushed Alans together. As the article says, their survivors fled to Roman territories and integrated into Roman armies then disappeared from history around 400 AD. So, by 400 AD, Eurasia was totally dominated by the Hunnic confederation of the tribes like Turks (incl. Bulgars), some Uralic peoples like Hungarians and some Germanics like Goths.

Iranians were already a small minority in central Asia represented only by Alans and there was no Iranian speaking peoples left in Eurasia by 400 AD because they have been overwhelmed by the Turks.

Your map just shows where those Alan survivors fled.

Btw, what you mean by Ossetia? You mean modern Ossetians being the descendants of Alans? This is an unproven theory just like Albanians being supposedly the illyrians. Russia supports this theory to separate Ossetia from Georgians. This theory is purely political driven just like illyrian fairytales or Iranic origin of Bulgars.

[Onur]

I better explain the great migration of Huns to a dummy like you Voltron. So you shut up and quit asking stupid questions.

I found this map in wikipedia, just look at it. This is the historical timeline of Hungarian migration routes;


The original homeland of Turkic eastern Huns was the south of no.1 on this map. I am talking about early Huns of 2nd BC to 4th AD. These early Huns was the reason of why Chinese built the great wall.

When Huns started going westwards at 4th century, they picked up Hungarians and united with them. Hungarians was living in no.2 at that time. Then together with them, they attacked Alans in 370 AD. Alans were living in no.3 at that time. They crushed Alans and Hungarians settled in no.3 afterwards. Read the note for the spot no.3, it says 400 AD. This date is no coincidence because Alans was no more and Hungarians replaced Alans in that territory. Then Attila born in early 5th century and he convinced Germanic Goths to join them too. Goths were living somewhere between in no.3 and no.4 on the map.

Read yourself for the rest of the story.

[DraganOfStip]

Then Attila born in early 5th century and he convinced Germanic Goths to join them too.

Yup,that pretty much explains why Eastern Germanic was also used as the lingua franca of the Hunnic empire alongside Hunnic dialects.

[Razer]

@ Onur

Please give us your strongest argument of why Buglars were Turkic. And back it up by historical records, ect.

[Razer]

Btw, there cant be such a title as "Grandfather of Turkic theory" because Khazar Khan said that that Bulgars was akin to them in 10th century, Arab travelers also said that Bulgars are Turks in 10th century. Cyril&Methodius said that Bulgars are part of Huns, akin to Turkic Khazars and they are in process of baptizing them in 9th century. Then western historians also said the same thing in late medieval era.

Give me all the sources please. Give me those Khazar khans, Arab travellers and western historians who said Bulgarians were of Turkic origin. And Cyril and Methody of course.