Ogygia & Tartaria - Response to Lore Lodge

[Music] Thank you. Welcome. Today we're going to be diving deep into the Irish connection and its relationship with Tartaria. This video is a response to another big channel that has taken the initiative to debunk Tartaria. But specifically, they made an entire video dedicated to debunking our work.

At first, we weren't really sure if it was worth responding, as he does misrepresent us on multiple occasions. But I thought it would be best to learn from this and to try to grow from it. We never claim to have all the answers, and it's not our intention to debunk anything, just to assist in questioning the status quo and inspiring people to be curious about history. This is the perfect challenge for us.

It's a channel called Lore Lodge, and we have about the same amount of followers, interestingly. I do want to say that I have nothing against this guy, but it seems that we have deeply offended him for questioning history, which he labels as anti-Semitic—a typical tactic of those who wish to smear people simply trying to research and investigate these matters. But other than that, I actually do appreciate his criticisms. I also think there are connections between our work, as I do enjoy his content on missing 4-1-1, and he even discusses Gaelic history.

The guy who runs the channel is called Aiden, and I will be referring to him as such. He also happens to be an educated historian, from my understanding. He actually studied history for four years and even Celtic history, so I did learn a lot from his criticisms. It allows us to strengthen our case and find new ways to present alternative history. We would like to make it clear that we're not attempting to debunk him or anything else, for that matter. We also did not see this video as a debate but rather just a response.

The reason we phrase it that way is that the owner of the channel, Aiden, is very confident that he can utterly debunk the entire alternative history community in Tartaria; yet he shows consistently throughout the video that he's just learning about this information and still processing it. Furthermore, he leaves a large percentage of alternative history research in his pursuit to debunk Tartaria, or as he puts it, "Tartaria deleta est." This phrase means "Tartaria must be destroyed." This phrase is an echo of "Carthago delenda est," "Carthage must be destroyed," famously attributed to the Roman Senator Cato the Elder, who is said to have used the phrase as his conclusion to every speech he made in the Senate, no matter what the rest of the speech was about, because of his conviction that Rome's great enemy, Carthage, posed a continual threat and had to be destroyed. The irony in the use of this statement is that the Carthaginians are the early Phoenicians who, in mainstream history, actually settled in Ireland, but we can explore that later.

Before we begin, there are a couple of things we need to address first. I want to categorize the tactics that Aiden uses in order to make his points, as he repeats this with great frequency. Aiden's points in his debunking video can be categorized into three main categories: one, he uses straw men; there are multiple occasions where he truly misrepresents what we say and/or he comes to his own conclusions on what we're saying, and then he responds to that. This is done throughout the entire video, and we will show you exactly where these points are. Two, he uses arguments of authority, meaning he either uses his degree or status as an educated historian to make his points, or he simply regurgitates mainstream history, which takes no effort at all. He does this by repeating the work of modern educated historians and educating us on Skalitarian chronology, yet he never really provides any sources at all. Three, he uses personal attacks. This is actually the crux of his argument. We'll see this clearly as we progress.

I don't think it's unfair to say that Aiden's very cheap with his arguments, and this can be shown as he didn't even have the decency to leave a link to the original video he was debunking, and also our name's not even in the title, yet the entire video is dedicated to debunking us. The only reason he would do this is because he's afraid—not consciously, as he's too sure of himself to think that way, but maybe indirectly—he doesn't want people to watch our work. He's actually concerned that some people might actually look into it. There's no other explanation why he wouldn't let his audience hear the other side. Very dogmatic in nature, as if he's trying to explain it in his own way for his audience, as if they can't decide for themselves. Well, it's clear that Aiden has already made up his mind, so this video is not meant to change his opinion in any way, as he most likely will just misrepresent our work again. That's not to say that I don't believe there's a chance that Aiden can perhaps change his mind, but this is more so to help others who wish to continue questioning history.

This isn't the first time some mainstream historian has come in and tried to debunk these arguments, so let me explain what happened before this debunking video. Aiden had barely any videos on Tartaria, and his only real one was from eight months ago, and it really only revolved around Tartaria on maps and on flags. So it's obvious he never considered that there was more to this theory. He's been looking into our work for a week, maybe two, and decided he can conclusively debunk it because of his expertise in the field. I believe he's done no such thing and is actually doing a great disservice as a historian, as he is too over-critical, very left-brain, and seems to lack the ability to think creatively on this topic. With that said, let's just go ahead and dive into his video.

My goal is to respond to every one of his points without misrepresenting him, as he did misrepresent us on multiple occasions in order to support his arguments. We don't need to do that to make strong arguments, and so we wish to be as fair as possible. He claims that he didn't want to be fair or charitable because we are anti-Semitic, but considering this guy denies the existence of the Jewish people and therefore probably also the Holocaust, I'm not feeling charitable today. There's nothing on this channel that's anti-Semitic, although we do question the history of anti-Semitism and the history of the Jews. We have, on multiple occasions, said that we have nothing against any race or religion, so for him to even say this is a little cheap.

Before we begin, we need to start with his intro so you guys can get a feel for this guy. I do like some of the subject matter he brings up, but it's not really my cup of tea to stare at someone's face for an entire hour with only a few pictures coming up every once in a while. He just talks the entire time and directly speaks with the audience, and that's cool for myths and legends or even missing 4-1-1, but for history videos, it just seems like he's trying to educate you, which comes off the wrong way. I don't want to put words in his mouth, so let's just hear his intro from his debunking video:

"Only slightly less insane than the Flat Earth conspiracy, those who follow the Tartarian narrative believe that there was once a massive, almost world-spanning civilization stretching at the very least from what is modern-day Russia all the way to the east coast of the United States, and that somehow, some way, within the past 200 years it vanished and was covered up. Yeah. Now, exactly how large this Empire was, as well as the time span in which it existed, are up for debate, even amongst adherents of this—I hesitate to call it this—but theory. For that reason, I decided the best way to do this was not to pick a video myself, to pick a creator who covers Tartaria and go in on them, because then I might be biased. Instead, I decided to ask the Tartaria community who I should go with, and they gave me some options over on Reddit. The one I ended up going with was Mind Unveiled, not least for the fact that I am in the video."

He starts off by saying that he asked the Tartaria community. Sure. So right off the bat, he's being dishonest. You guys remember that Charlie video? Well, Lore Lodge is that short that Charlie watched and was like, "No, don't debunk it; you're defeating the whole purpose." Loreledge even tried to use this as his intro when the stream had nothing to do with him. "Check out the conspiracy about Tartarian, the Lost Civilization of Tartaria," embraced from the history… God, I wish he was going to say Atlantis, but he's going to say Tartaria. "So here's the thing that you need to understand when you come across old maps…" Oh, don't… the blanket… "Oh, I'm gonna debunk it." Ahmed Mattis and welcome back to the Lore Lodge.

It's not a stretch to say that Lore Lodge felt personally offended that Charlie could care less about his opinion. Obviously, that video did really well, and it would seem that someone told him about the video. A couple of weeks ago, he was only looking into our work for about a week, maybe two if I'm being generous, and from there decided he could conclusively debunk it because of his expertise in the field. Sorry, let me just let him tell you now. Mind Unveiled is about the same size as our channel at the moment, and the video that we're looking at has over 200,000 views. So I feel like I'm not punching down or punching up; I'm punching directly in front of my face. Now, Mind Unveiled has a lot of videos—I reiterate, a lot of videos. Now, part of the problem I've run into with Tartaria is that there is a distinct lack of single-video summaries of the theory, except for ones that are like four or five hours long. So Mind Unveiled, in response to Charlie, critical, having a stream where he asked the question, "What is Tartaria?" and pulled up a video where I kind of debunked part of the Tartaria thing, I decided to go with the video they made in response to that because that video was made as a direct summary for people not familiar with Tartaria. So I pulled that guy up, and I started watching it live on Twitch and reacting in real time, and I realized, "If I can debunk this live, there's a good chance that I can absolutely bury it," and that's going to be a joke you'll get later. "I can absolutely bury it if I do a whole week of prep." Ladies and gentlemen, Tartaria deleta est.

So he even admits that he only prepped for a week, and we know this because he only had two videos from eight months ago, and one is a short. These videos had nothing to do with our work and were pretty basic in terms of an understanding of Tartaria. But as soon as he found out about our channel in the Charlie video, he went on a commenting spree claiming that this was all nonsense and how he could easily disprove all the points. That means as soon as he came to the video, all this information was new to him, as he has not made any videos debunking the Irish connection or more in-depth alternative history research, yet somehow he decided immediately that it was false before even beginning his week of research. I know this because he literally made a comment saying that he was going to make a video next week, and then it took him a week to make the debunking video. I even told him I was looking forward to it, and he accused me of being anti-Semitic and that it was reprehensible. Regardless of how long he spent on it, it's not the point. The idea is that this whole video was made towards us, yet he never includes our channel or link to our videos so people can listen to our own words. He seems to think that because he's an educated historian that he's some authority figure on this subject, and so he's extremely biased in all his arguments because he has already set his intentions from the beginning. He wishes to utterly destroy Tartaria, not actually investigate it and humbly show where it has gone wrong and perhaps bring up some good points that are made. He somewhat does this, but not really. He more so thinks the entire thing is ridiculous, and he makes us clear within his intro.

The two videos that he made from eight months ago, one was just a basic short, and the other was a live stream. In this live stream, he proves that he had no knowledge of any of the points from our channel and was looking at Tartaria from a mainstream lens. This is the show that he has only been simmering on this information for a couple of weeks, yet he thinks he understands it completely and somehow debunked it. I am going to take the time to really show how ironic this is. So Aiden claims to believe in giants, missing 4-1-1, and cryptids; even discusses secret societies, but it's from a surface-level perspective, and his whole channel tries to explain this from some rational lens. This means that his channel is dedicated to debunking conspiracies. You can even read it in his description. He even has a video talking about how the national parks are hiding information from us. So what he does is he takes alternative topics, dips his toes in it to use it as clickbait, and then once his audience is settled in, he just explains it in a rational way, or essentially debunks it, so that people will not look into it further. He provides comfort for people who hear these theories and start to feel fear instead of curiosity. He picks and chooses what is convenient for him and his theories, yet when he comes across something that makes him question everything he knows, he responds with cognitive dissonance.

So with that, I wanted to explain exactly what was going on, but I also wanted to clarify that I don't want to approach this video with hate or anger, and I'm not personally offended at all. I just think he's misrepresenting our work and programming others to not be curious, and so of course we feel passionate to respond. As he even was low enough to call us grifters, the irony is we've never accepted a sponsor once, and we've been on here for four years. A grifter is someone who's trying to trick you to make money, yet Aiden has done sponsors on several videos. Making money has never been our top priority. Sure, it's nice to be able to monetize our videos that will have ads regardless; this way we can spend more time making videos. But if we wanted to make money off of this, we would have by now. Again, we don't want to attack him personally in any way. I'm actually very appreciative of Aiden. We even reached out to him to thank him for his critique, and it seems that he's so arrogant that he couldn't even fathom that we would respond. He also somehow has come to the conclusion that we said the Jews never existed, even implied this on his live stream that we were deniers of a certain historic event. I challenge him to actually pull that quote up where we said that, but the truth is this is simply Aiden's understanding of what we're saying. Simply by questioning history, the origins of civilization, and even the origin of the Bible, this is anti-Semitic and somehow means the Jews never existed. The statement's quite silly, as we discuss in almost every other video, the Phoenician hijack—that wouldn't really be possible if the Jews never existed. Again, I want to thank Aiden and truly state that we don't want anyone to send hate his way or followers. Please forgive us for this long intro explaining the pettiness of the situation, but from this point on, we wish to treat this response professionally and also treat Aiden with respect.

I can understand why some of you may think it's not even worth responding; however, Aiden's video is about to reach 100K, so I do think this is the next step for us, as he is essentially telling people that we are frauds. So by not responding, we would be giving weight to his arguments. This is simply the next manifestation of anti-Tartaria. We highly recommend going and watching Aiden's supposed debunking so that we can all learn from his critique. With that, I hope you enjoy the video.

We begin with the definition of Tartaria, which is the only time he's fared throughout the entire video. I was thankful that he actually showed the image we made, which shows how massive of a topic Tartaria really is. Aiden then explains how proponents of the Tartaria theory believe that the world's fairs were not built in the fashion we're told, that European colonists just took over these cities, as they were; for example, the Chicago World's Fair. They think that was ancient Tartarian architecture, not that it was built for the World's Fair and then deconstructed, which is what happened. We can see that Aiden does not debunk the topic of the world's fairs and doesn't even dive into the topic deeper at all. Even a commenter suggested that he looked into it outside of his Tartarian theory, as there were some things about the narrative that truly did not add up. Aiden offers no evidence to prove that the world's fairs were built in the fashion that we're told, so we'll begin there.

The world's fairs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries presented impressive architectural feats that were labeled as temporary—an assertion that invites scrutiny and curiosity. The Great World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago, in particular, raises interesting questions. Not only was the architecture breathtaking in its grandeur, but one of its structures, the Fine Arts Building, now houses the Museum of Science and Industry and still stands more than a century later. The commonly accepted narrative tells us that this structure, now the Museum of Science and Industry, was purposely built as a more permanent edifice; its foundation laid with brick and steel instead of the less durable staff used elsewhere throughout the fair. Yet the reasoning behind the single divergence from the otherwise uniform construction methodology is not entirely clear. Viewing the situation through the lens of alternative history, one might question whether this building was, in fact, constructed for the exposition at all. Some posit that the edifice was not purpose-built for the event but instead was an existing structure inherited from an earlier time and simply incorporated into the fair's layout. The lack of comprehensive documentation or photographic evidence detailing the construction process of the Fine Arts Building further strengthens this argument. For a project of this magnitude and significance, one would expect detailed records or visual documentations, yet these are conspicuously sparse.

The assertion we're presented with is that the Chicago's World Fair, in all its grandeur, was built in less than two years. The surviving building, far from being temporary, stands firm with no tangible evidence of its hurried construction. Our only images of the supposed building process come from an early documentary on the World's Fair, giving the subject a cinematic treatment. How could it be that such grand buildings were made with wood and plaster? Let's just suppose, for every moment that they were, even then, completing a project of this scale in less than two years is no small feat. We see massive statues and embankments—a massive challenge to create in such a short time period. While not impossible with today's technology, we haven't seen anything of a similar scale built so quickly in modern times.

This gets even deeper as we explore other world's fairs, such as the Pan-American Exposition of 1901 in Buffalo, remembered for the assassination of President William McKinley. The fair showcased the technological progress of the Americas and was the first to extensively use electrical power. Now, if one were to truly be unbiased and ask the question, "Do these buildings truly look temporary?" The Pan-American Exposition of 1901, held in Buffalo, New York, was another remarkable showcase of architectural innovation, similar to the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Much like its predecessor, many of the buildings in the exposition were designed to be temporary, filled with materials like staff, a compositive plaster, cement, and fiber designed to emulate more durable materials like stone. The Electric Tower, the centerpiece and symbol of the exposition, was a monumental structure reaching over 390 feet in height. It showcased the grandeur of the exposition and symbolized the technological advancements of the era, particularly the use of electricity. The tower, illuminated with thousands of electric lights at night, and it was a marvel of its time. However, like many of the structures of the Pan-American Exposition, the Electric Tower was also designed to be temporary. Despite its impressive height and its intricate design, supposedly it was made from the same temporary materials as the other buildings. Following the exposition, it was demolished, along with most of the other structures. While this narrative is what's generally accepted, it does indeed seem astonishing that such an imposing and intricately designed structure like the Electric Tower was built with temporary materials and intended to exist for just a short period. The lack of enduring structures from the exposition, as well as sparse photographic documentation of their construction process, certainly leaves room for further investigation. Yet Lore Lodge, the supposed authority on this subject, has told us that they were deconstructed, and that's that. Yet is that truly all there is to the story, or is this part of a great deception?

We could continue to list the contradictions with the world fair narrative, as there are many others that were just as questionable, including the Centennial Exposition, Philadelphia 1876; the Trans-Mississippi Exposition, Omaha 1898; the Louisiana Purchase Exposition of 1904; the Jamestown Exposition of 1907; the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, Seattle 1909; and then the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, San Francisco in 1915. Aiden did not mention any of this information yet has concluded that there's nothing to investigate here. There's only one way he can debunk the world's fairs argument, as it's the same for any other skeptic, that is by finding one rare photo of construction, which there are a few, but we could simply question the legitimacy of the photo, so that argument is not strong enough to debunk the entire subject as a whole. In order for the construction photo argument to be conclusive, we would have to see hundreds of well-documented stages of these world fairs, yet this is nowhere to be found; hence why this theory of these buildings being inherited exists in the first place.

We now move to Aiden's first straw man. He says that we claim that these buildings cannot be built today. We've never made this claim, as we do have far more advanced technology today, and in theory, many of these structures are theoretically possible to construct. However, what we actually suggest throughout our work is that the history of these buildings does not line up with the official narrative. Yes, we have claimed that these buildings were not built in the fashion we are told, but that does not mean we cannot build them in the modern day if we actually tried. Yes, there are perhaps some buildings that we have implied cannot be built by people today, and that is true. There are some cathedrals and styles of architecture that would be extremely difficult to build today, especially were we to consider the underground components. But no, we have never said every single Old World building, specifically in America, cannot be built in the modern day.

Here we see Aiden's main strategy. Instead of understanding the main arguments of why these buildings do not align with the mainstream narrative—for instance, the amount of bricks needed to build all these Old World structures in such a small time period—well, in order to be clear what we mean by Old World buildings, which he states he doesn't even know what that means, what we mean typically—and there are some cases that can vary, as there are many bogus stories involving buildings after the 1900s as well—but typically we're discussing Old World architecture in the United States from before the 1900s all the way back to the 17th century. These structures in America, almost in all cases, have little to no documentation on their construction and even have underground, supposed basements that connect to an underground tunnel system. I also noticed that he conveniently left out our population and great fire arguments from the Charlie video. Nowhere throughout this video does he highlight the arguments that actually support the theory, showing his inherent bias.

There are buildings from the 18th century that are extremely questionable, but even the narrative behind the creation of boom towns all around the United States in the 19th century brings suspicion. The population counts are significantly low to be able to build such massive cities of brick, and we see this with repetition in the founding of many different American cities. Yet we have all these brick structures appearing out of nowhere. But the story even gets stranger when we consider that there was a great fire in almost every major American city—a detail that Lore Lodge conveniently ignored in his analysis. His counter-argument might cite the conventional narrative that these fires were a result of inadequate infrastructure or the careless use of candles. Mainstream historians may also point to inclement weather conditions. However, these explanations falter when we consider the frequency of such fires throughout history and the fact that many of these brick structures were purposefully designed to be fire-resistant, such as with the Robert Mills fireproof building. Fires can cause damage, but rarely do they reduce the city.

To Rubble: moreover, we discussed in previous videos that some of these fires were intentionally set during the Civil War, as with the case with Columbia, South Carolina, and Pensacola, Florida. The Union forces reportedly targeted Confederate assets to disable mills and factories. Yet this rationale seems nonsensical, considering that these assets fell into the Union hand shortly thereafter.

We will now analyze Aiden's perspective of secret societies. He quickly brings it up as he's going through his defining of Tartaria, but never truly dives deep into it. He did say that he was going to make more videos, so perhaps he hasn't had enough time to respond to that aspect. However, this entire video set, with the intention to destroy Tartaria, ignores the history of such societies completely. He even mentions in the video that he's a third-degree Freemason. Ben Franklin and I are the same rank of Freemasonry; he was a third-degree Master Mason, the Scottish Rite. You know all the people who are like, "Oh, the 33rd-degree Masons are running the world?" That didn't exist yet when he died. We already knew this because he says it in several other videos as some sort of flex, and we weren't even going to bring it up, as we don't really need this as a supporting argument, but it's quite interesting that he would bring this up but lack the understanding of the history of secret societies and their hand influencing great events of divide and conquer.

Yes, several videos where he tries to debunk Bohemian Grove, and we see clearly his attempt to explain Freemasonry and occult societies as some sort of gentleman's club where they eat sandwiches. And then he somehow manages to rope Freemasonry into this, and I am just always astounded at the ability of every conspiracy theory to somehow rope in a group of people who basically do nothing but donate to charity and eat sandwiches together. What he doesn't understand is that the modern-day Freemasons, the vast majority of them, have no idea about the deeper history of secret societies. Yes, in the modern day, it is just a boys' club, and if you want me to be straightforward, no, I don't think Aiden is a real Mason. He even admitted he hasn't gone through the Scottish Rite. It's not that hard to go sign up at a lodge, and they really are just a men's club in the modern day. But that wasn't the case a couple of centuries earlier, especially if we consider the French Freemasons and their connection to the Templars and Rosicrucians. We have multiple videos exploring this in depth, and I believe the best place to start is Homunculus Unveiled or even Christmas Unveiled. To keep this video from going on forever, I'm not going to break that history down again, but I highly recommend watching that video if you wish to see our perspective as secret societies. Aiden has a very surface-level perspective of secret societies in the occult; hence why his whole channel is dedicated to debunking conspiracies involving the Illuminati or Freemasons.

I'm actually very thankful that he put our definition of Tartaria—you really should have done this throughout the entire video—but from this point on, every time he brings up a quote or photo that we discussed, he truly misrepresents what we're trying to say or misses the point entirely. However, he did good here. I'm glad I decided to include exactly all the different components that make up Tartaria so others can begin to investigate. It's obvious that this was nowhere near the definition he had understood before, as when he discussed Tartaria in his older videos, which only focused on the Great Tartarian Empire and this idea that they were on old maps and flags—that was basically all he knew until he saw our videos that connected it with ancient Ireland. He then says that he often gives the benefit of the doubt when he disagrees with someone that they're not trying to mislead people, but then claims that we were misleading people because of the way we organized the video. I also can try to give people the benefit of the doubt when I disagree with them that they are not trying to mislead. This video was set up—made it feel very much that it was deliberately misleading people. Not sure what he's talking about, but this is just a misunderstanding. That Charlie video was designed to explain the subject quickly in 20 minutes, but more so in a way to show the impact of the theory or the connotations of it, and then afterwards, once the implications are understood, then we could go into more supporting arguments. We did mention this in the video. It's already clear that he's misrepresenting our work, being biased, and accusing us of misleading people when we have said on multiple occasions that we don't have all the answers. To my knowledge, he's never said any such thing. His whole approach is to force mainstream facts down the viewer's throat, robbing them of the experience of looking into these things on their own.

His understanding of the topic appears to be superficial when he suggests there's a mainstream working definition of Tartaria. However, what he provides is actually a definition of Tartary, indicating a lack of comprehension regarding the difference between the two: Tartaria and Tartary. While related, they are not identical concepts. The working definition he provided does not align with Tartaria. Essentially, he seems to be merely echoing mainstream historical interpretations. He proceeds to touch upon the history of the Tartars, attempting to illustrate that this constitutes the authentic history of Tartaria, while this—missing alternative theories—is mere conspiracy. Yet again, his narrative is heavily based on mainstream historical accounts of the Tartars. Furthermore, he attempts to clarify that Tartary's appearance on maps is because it was the land inhabited by the Tartars. While this is apparent, the crucial aspect that he fails to comprehend is the true identity and nature of the Tartars. He even acknowledges this point, as indicated by his segue into the next section concerning the Irish connection. However, he never reconciles his original definition with the link between Tartaria and Ireland. This suggests either a lack of understanding or an outright denial of this connection.

We now move on to his first major criticism, which is his attempt to debunk the Irish connection. First, let's thoroughly understand the points that he brought up before we respond. He commences by challenging the concept of a west-east movement of civilization. However, he fails to adequately debunk the assertion; instead, he leans on the crutch of authority, reiterating mainstream historical narratives and dismisses the notion as unfounded. A more rigorous examination is required to address this issue effectively. Then he says the very first claim made about this is that today historians believe that civilization developed in Mesopotamia first, but in reality, according to Mind Unveiled, civilization actually developed in Ireland. According to Mind Unveiled, there is a shocking amount of evidence for this. While this is true—that we've covered this subject extensively—we are not the ones that started those claims. There is an astonishing array of evidence that supports the idea that civilization has its roots in Ireland, for those open to perspectives beyond the mainstream narrative. He appears to oversimplify our argument as being exclusively based on the works of Conor McDari and Ignatius Donnelly. He then attempts to dismiss their contributions as outdated because they predate the 19th century or due to the scarcity of information on McDari. Despite this, he does not reference a single quote from the book, nor does he delve into the Gaelic-Hebrew connections discussed therein. As he has opted not to undertake this analysis, we will endeavor to illustrate it ourselves. We will respond point by point, but to quickly summarize his arguments, he appears to firmly believe that there's no substantiating evidence for the west-to-east movement of civilization or for the proposition that Ireland is the cradle of civilization. However, his initial mistake becomes apparent as it's clear he hasn't fully explored this topic at all. One cannot claim to have debunked the theory of the west-to-east movement of civilization without familiarity with the main authors who posited the theory in the first place. He hastily concludes that Ignatius Donnelly and Conor McDari are the sole contributors to this topic. Furthermore, he implies that their perspectives are somehow invalid because they aren't recognized as historians and their work predates the 19th century. I encourage you to review his statements directly to avoid any potential misrepresentation.

Now we're about to delve into the Irish Connection in unprecedented depth. Our goal is not to conclusively validate the theory, but to underscore that there is a substantial body of work and research supporting it, meriting earnest investigation. Before we begin, I'd like to tell the story of how I got into Tartaria in the first place. We've always been interested in the mysterious and unknown, but as I was growing up, I'd watch documentaries on ancient civilizations. I loved Brian Foerster, Graham Hancock, and the entire Megalithomania crew. I was hooked on this idea that Atlantis was 20,000 years ago and that the ancients had advanced tech and all that. This was around 2012 to 2015. At this point, I didn't understand anything about alternative timelines or Tartaria, as I never had access to that information. Around 2013, I discovered Michael Tsarion, who is the reason we started this channel. I came across him, I believe through Jordan Maxwell, and specifically Tsarion's breakdown of occult symbolism. I discovered that he had many documentaries and eventually landed on his magnum opus, *The Irish Origins of Civilization*. Not only does he have a multi-volume book filled with over a thousand pages, he created an entire documentary explaining this connection, and I had never heard of any of this on the documentaries on ancient civilizations on YouTube. I highly recommend anyone who is attempting to understand the Irish connection to start with Michael Tsarion. And no, he is not the originator of the theory either; he's just the one who consolidated all the information on the subject and brought it into a beautiful presentation that explains clearly that there has been a great deception.

Now keep in mind, I don't agree with everything that Tsarion says. This may be another tactic that Lore Lodge takes is to find certain far-out topics that Tsarion discusses, such as Ancient Aliens and genetic manipulation, and use that to debunk his work as a whole, which again is just a low shot. You're going to appreciate someone's work and learn from it without agreeing with it completely. At this time, I had no idea about Tartaria, so we didn't get the Tartaria information from Tsarion, and I'm sure there's things that he disagrees with on Tartaria as well. However, there's nothing wrong with taking certain aspects of someone's work and expanding upon it. Keep in mind that aliens in space were the prevalent topic of the counter-culture during his time, and perhaps Tsarion never really had access to this information on fraudulent chronologies, but he does consider this to some degree in some areas of his work.

Okay, so we fast forward two years; it's around 2017-2018, and now Tartaria videos are popping up on YouTube. And it wasn't new at all, but it started getting popularity online around this time. I must acknowledge that it wasn't me who first learned about Tartaria, but Moon. Once you brought it to my attention, eager to delve into the research together, I disbelieved in a manner strikingly similar to Lore Lodge's approach. This moment has etched itself into my memory, and I do remain profoundly grateful to her, particularly given my rude initial response. I was just engrossed in the theories of Graham Hancock and his contemporaries, confident of my grasp of ancient mysteries. Thus, when I was presented with the concept of an empire raised from history and the proposition that many American cities were inherited, not built, it was inconceivable to me. Admittedly, the limited quantity and quality of available videos discussing the theory made it harder for me to understand. However, as time passed, a rising tide of videos began to flood the internet. I still struggled with the theory's complexities, but I recognized a missing link in our understanding. The breakthrough moment arrived when we intersected the work of Tsarion and the Tartaria theory. Tsarion's concept of a grand civilization wiped from the analysis of history—it really mirrored the Tartaria theory. The key variance was the timeline. Flammarion's work helped illuminate how historical timelines and chronologies could be manipulated, which, when coupled with the overlooked history of Ireland, the connection became clear. Lore Lodge's response notably omits any reference to Michael Tsarion, relating to the assumption that he hasn't engaged with his work. While Lore Lodge might try to dismiss Tsarion as a non-historian, this would create a contradiction since, as he acknowledges in his video, one doesn't require a formal degree to be a historian or a researcher. If Lore Lodge truly embraces the role of historian and researcher, it's essential for him to critically examine Tsarion's work devoid of any bias. If the west-to-east movement of civilization were to be proven true, it would mean that all the history we were taught in school is a lie, which is understandably an uncomfortable thought, maybe even a frustrating thought—to think that we spent our youth being fed a distorted narrative that shaped our understanding of the world or even a college degree. It's unsettling. Before we dive in, I would like to thank Michael Tsarion for his work, and I highly recommend everyone to go support him and check out his books. This channel would not exist if it wasn't for him.

Lore Lodge appears to have underestimated the depth of the alternative history community, as well as the extensive body of literature on this topic. Instead of engaging with the supporting arguments, you primarily leaned on his recurring tactics of invoking authority and reiterating what are purportedly mainstream historical facts. We will begin by taking a look at Michael Tsarion's book, *The Irish Origins of Civilization*. We must remember that we do not know and do not claim to have all the answers of history, but we believe we deserve the right to question and explore it.

"In the present volume, several novel ideas that the reader should be aware of are presented," Michael Tsarion quotes. "The first and most important argument concerns the west-to-east migration of the elements of civilization. This theory rests upon the understanding that there were, in prehistoric times, highly developed civilizations situated in the Western Hemisphere. These civilizations were brought to an abrupt end approximately 13,000 years BC by terrestrial upheavals of an unimaginable scale. The gnosis that has been accumulated by the advanced inhabitants of these moribund civilizations originated on land masses known today as Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales. These countries were once part of Atlantis, or more specifically, of the gray continent of Appalachia. From these locations, the gnosis was eventually carried eastward across land bridges until Europe and Asia. Secondly, we contend that the term 'Aryan' has been most egregiously misused. We believe it referred not to race but caste; it was a term that simply distinguished spiritual and moral status. In our work, therefore, we use the term to refer to men from any racial stock who had perfected themselves in schools of initiation and who were adepts of high order. We use the term to identify the Irish Druids and their Mesolithic ancestors, the European Sami, the Phoenician and Median Magi, the Egyptian Disciples of Horus, the Myrrh, the Ibaru, and any other group of bards, poets, seers, prophets, harbingers, or command drives and architects of distinction. The term 'Aryan' was erroneously accepted as a racial distinction after its discovery by the 18th-century scholar and chief justice Sir William Jones of Calcutta. Jones discovered that the Hindus refer to their ancestors who appeared in Northern India and Pakistan during the 17th century BC as the Arya. He did not realize that the term signified spiritual qualities rather than racial, ethnic, or linguistic ones. As linguists adopt the term to signify a class of languages, so we adopt it in a purest context to represent those elders of any racial background possessed of exalted minds and hearts. We are convinced that our rendition and interpretation will serve to clarify many historical anomalies and mysteries. When speaking of the racial origins or nature of the Mesolithic and megalithic Irish, we prefer to use more descriptive and accurate terms like Nordic, Gothic, Caucasian, and Indo-European. Thirdly, we reject the term 'Celtic' and refuse to use it when describing the ancient inhabitants existing in Ireland before 600 BC. We attentively accept that Britain was finally reached by people who have been called Goidelic and Brythonic Celts after 600 BC—groups that anthropologists and historians finally had to admit were merely fragments of the larger Indo-European race. Of these invasions have Tacitus, Caesar, and Pytheas the Greek written. Nevertheless, we prefer to deal with the pre-Celtic inhabitants in their antique civilization that had, in remote ages, spread eastward into Europe and Asia. We leave the word 'Celtic' intact when quoting, confident that the reader will understand that it is a blanket term often used indiscriminately by authors referring to Ireland's exceptionally gifted inhabitants who are more correctly the Mesolithic or even megalithic people, builders of the cyclopean temples of Ireland and the world that still stand as silent testaments to their august presence. The Celtic tribes of the Iron Age, believed to have entered Ireland after 600 BC, built their own civilizations upon the foundations of earlier ones they found there, which they reckoned had been erected by the gods."

So that serves as Tsarion's introduction to the topic, a context seemingly lost on Aiden. It appears his understanding is clouded by mainstream definitions and narratives, causing him to miss the nuances of our discussion. These early inhabitants of Ireland weren't the Celts of mainstream history. If we suggest that, he's likely to turn to the official narrative and echo other historians who have misinterpreted this early Indo-European civilization. In his work, Michael Tsarion discusses the idea of civilization migrating from west to east, starting from advanced prehistoric civilizations in the Western Hemisphere, specifically Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales. He also explains the term Aryan, suggesting it denotes spiritual or moral status rather than racial affiliation, referring to individuals of any race who had spiritually perfected themselves. Lastly, Tsarion challenges the use of the term Celtic to describe ancient inhabitants of Ireland before 600 BC, advocating instead for descriptors like Nordic, Gothic, Caucasian, or Indo-European to capture their Mesolithic or megalithic essence. Delving into Tsarion's work reveals a narrative that does not promote a notion of white superiority; instead, he suggests that Aryan is a term transcending race; it would refer to any racial group. This is a topic we echo in our work, shedding light on the largely forgotten connection between Black history and Ireland, a fact often overlooked in contemporary African-American discourse. Despite attempts to equate the theory of the west-to-east movement of civilization with Hitler's ideology, the two are not synonymous. A common path critics such as Lore Lodge may take is to personally attack Tsarion, accusing him of racist ideologies or attempting to tie him to Theosophy. Yes, many Theosophists explore alternative histories, but that does not invalidate the arguments presented; it's merely another tactic of bypassing the research and targeting personal beliefs. It's important to clarify that Michael Tsarion is not a Theosophist. Furthermore, much of the work that we'll discuss, aside from Donnelly, cannot simply be dismissed as the fruit of Theosophy. Any attempt to do so, as done by Lore Lodge, is a shortcut to disregard the information provided. Tsarion draws upon the research of multiple authors who, over the past century, have delved into the concept of the west-to-east movement of civilization. It's not a theory Tsarion invented himself. Aiden does mention Donnelly and McDari, yet he neglects to explore their arguments. Is he implying these are the only authors who have written on this subject? It seems apparent that he hasn't conducted a comprehensive investigation into this matter.

Tsarion continues: "The term 'Celt' did not exist in the ancient languages of the Irish, Scots, or Welsh; there is only the Pictish cultists. While slightly signifying invaders from France, Belgium, Germany, Galatia, and the Ukraine, the term 'Keltoi' was first employed by the incompetent Greek historian Herodotus to describe Western Europeans such as the Irish, Scots, and Gauls, etc. After his time, other historians such as Caesar and Strabo continued to use this vague term to broadly denote any foreign tribe that Rome considered barbaric and antagonistic. Suggestively, however, Caesar, Tacitus, Hecataeus, Strabo, and Herodotus never employed the term to describe the people of Britain. In this, at least, we find accuracy. Possibly they knew that these Celtic groups were, as their languages indicate, merely a branch of the Indo-European race that had inherited their language, customs, traditions, and religion from highly sophisticated ancestors whom most historians and anthropologists have been conspicuously reluctant to name or describe and whose influence had spread to India, Egypt, China, and the Americas. It is only in relatively recent times that this ambiguous term 'Celtic' has been transposed to define the early Irish. By the 19th century, its usage in this regard was common. So we see that the ambiguous term 'Celtic' was introduced at a late date by Greeks and Romans; then in the 17th century, it was reintroduced by the Welsh antiquarian Edward Llwyd and by others of a sentimental disposition. We would prefer the term be dropped universally when referring to the racial origins of the ancient Britons and Irish. The Irish were not Celtic; they were Celticized by invading foreign powers, particularly those from Rome."

As evident from his debunking video, that he completely misconstrued this aspect, and it's clear that he didn't even delve into Conor McDari's book where this exact information is discussed as well. We presented quotes from that book on multiple occasions, but we will do so once more to shed light on what he overlooked in his purported analysis of the Irish connection. And yes, there are many more authors to discuss outside of Donnelly and McDari.

"It was conceived and put into effect by the ruling spirits at the head of the Roman church and state of their day, who cherished the ambitious and far-reaching idea of nothing less than universal rule for their church and empire. In the course of these pages, I will endeavor to explain and expose the conspiracy and the means by which those designing men who composed it advanced their project and, with the aid of the successes they—I propose to show—by persistent effort brought the greater part of the Western World under the empire and church dominion and brought this conspiracy to an almost complete success. It was held by the leaders of the Roman church and state—they were practically one—that all power should be centralized in the head of the church, who was also the emperor of the state, and any and all religious institutions which in any way conflicted with this ideal were to be done away with. For this reason, the mystery cults were suppressed, and initiation into the ancient or esoteric mysteries were forbidden, so that no religious establishment, worship, or practice would exist which would draw and hold men to it other than the Roman State church. And besides, as the study and preparation necessary for those who were selected for initiation into the higher mysteries was such as to develop a highly philosophic and spiritual state of mind, such study and preparation did not comport with the object which the church rulers had in view. Such minds would not yield adherence to a mere political and idolatrous church whose doctrines were, in the main, intended for the uninstructed multitude. Such minds could not be dominated by a political or mercenary priesthood; they were enlightened men, and they stood in the way of the church project. Therefore, the institutions which produced such men were to be suppressed. The Great Pyramid of Isa was used as a temple of initiation for inculcating the mysteries of nature and the occult powers of the soul. The decree of the church and the execution of its policy to close the Great Pyramid Temple and suppress its institution practically put an end to the development of enlightened minds in the Nile Valley. The way was unclear for the unopposed spread of superstition and cruel fanaticism among the masses. With the Great Pyramid closed, its passages filled up with stone rubbish, its initiate priests banished, the way was paid for the long night of darkness and ignorance which followed and which is known in history as the Dark Ages."

While these quotes alone do not serve as definitive proof, they help establish the foundation. Conor McDari's book provides evidence, particularly in relation to the etymological connections between Gaelic and Hebrew. This aspect contributes to the overall body of evidence supporting the Irish connection. I highly recommend anyone who is interested in learning about the suppressed history of Ireland to read this book.

"I shall prove by explanations that our Bible is an Irish book of pre-Roman times and an out-and-out theft without acknowledgment from the Irish Church of Isa. Any competent person who knows the Irish language cannot fail to recognize it."

Lore Lodge also incorrectly assumed that we made that claim. However, this comes from McDari, and he actually backs this up. Before proceeding, let's underscore the fact that exploring who actually wrote the Bible or which group of people emerged first doesn't automatically mean one is anti-Semitic, nor is it reprehensible, as Lore Lodge might simplistically suggest. As we progress, it will become evident that there is indeed a connection between those identified as the Jews, or those of the yew tree, and the Druids. However, discussing this again is blasphemous for some reason; perhaps this again is an attempt to stop curious minds from investigating the matter.

Before we continue with McDari, from phenicia.org: "In the 18th century, historians discovered exciting proof of Phoenician-Celtic ties. An ancient Roman dramatist, Titus Maccius Plautus (died 184 BC), wrote a play, *The Penniless*, in which he placed the current Phoenician into the speech of..."

One of his characters in the 18th century linguists noticed the gray similarity between the Phoenician and early Irish Celtic language. In the adjacent box is a sample given by historian Thomas Moore’s history of Ireland, showing the connection between these languages leading 18th and 19th-century scholars such as Jen Charles valenci, Lord Ross, and Sir William Betham also wrote on this subject. Valencia, for instance, speaks of the great Affinity found in many words, neho lines, and sentences of the speech between the Punic Phoenician and the Irish, end quote. This shows the irony in the title of his debunking video, but we must make clear that although this connection is a mainstream historical fact, historians assume that the Celts in the Irish language developed after the Phoenicians. However, that is what Michael Tsarion and several other authors over the past century have brought to question.

From Conor McDarry, quote: “The following is a list of Irish words which have been jargonized with their Hebrew form. I might easily extend a list, but this number of words will suffice to prove as stated that Hebrew is but a secret dialect reconstructed from the Irish for the use of the priesthood. Some words given here are both Irish and Hebrew are synonyms; others are slightly changed in meaning and form but plainly showing that they are of a common origin. Such, for instance, are the Irish words say Chris, pronounced kukris, meaning hunger, and the word CIS, pronounced Keys, meaning rent. The Hebrew form of the first word is chisio, meaning his palette, and the second word of the same form as in Irish and means a purse. Some words also have two or more forums which are given. This list makes it very clear that a great deception has been practiced upon the world,” end quote.

He claims that mainstream historians will tell you that the Phoenicians settled in Ireland, hence the similarities between Galaga Irish and the Phoenician Language. By the way, Irish is one of the younger Celtic languages. Now I have to argue with him because mainstream historians would not tell you that; that is absolutely not what we believe for the origins of the Irish people, not even close. It is possible that some of this connection, if it actually does exist, which I am hesitant to believe it does, could be the result of the Irish likely being a group of people who left Iberia—what is now Spain and Portugal—a group of Celtiberians who then went North and settled in Hibernia. Once again, the way he chooses to back up his argument is to claim that this is a legitimate scholarly theory and that it has been debated, but he cites nobody within the last hundred years. Notice how he said, “we believe,” again his tactic of authority. Well, we aren’t done; this is only the intro. We’ll skip Donnelly’s Atlantis; there’s definitely some good stuff in there, but in order to strengthen this argument as much as possible, we’re going to look at the authors that Lore Lodge failed to bring up.

However, there’s one quote that I wanted to show: quote, “The Greeks called Ireland the sacred Isle and Ogygia; nor can anyone say Camden conceive why they should call it Ogygia, unless perhaps for its Antiquity, for the Greeks called nothing Ogygia unless what was extremely ancient,” end quote. Is an island mentioned in Homer’s Odyssey, book 5, as the home of the nymph Calypso, the daughter of the Titan Atlas, has been associated with the putative sunk in Atlantis. However, there are more connections, as one of the earliest history books on Ireland is called Ogygia, or a chronological account of Irish events collected from very ancient documents by Roderick O’Flaherty in 1685.

For Michael Tsarion, quote: “One of the antique names for Egypt as recorded in the tomb scada chronicon was Etheria. This word is a variation of the Egyptian attorney; it was a word referred to the Nile, but Eteria later became the softer-sounding Area that bears a suggestive similarity to the ancient name of Ireland, Erde. Ireland is also a land of rivers and lakes. We believe this ancient name for Egypt to have originated in Ireland. Egypt may have been titled land of the Aryans, those from Arya. Syria is another take on the same idea, and the Syrians know that this name of their country actually means land of the westerners,” end quote.

From Otto Hermann Frey, The Celts, quote: “French scholar Joseph Andreas had shown the Celtic languages in common with Italic and Indo-Iranian retain many elements of an old Indo-European terminology relating to religious belief and ritual,” end quote. We will continue our investigation of the west to east movement of Civilization by delving into the works of another author who suggested this over a hundred years ago, Anna Wilkes. Another scholar that Lore Lodge seems to have either overlooked or has not yet examined.

For Michael Tsarion, quote: “Another group of adepts who can be termed Aryans were the Bronze Age people known as the Chaldeans, unquestionably connected to the Irish and perhaps even from Ireland. The Babylonian Chaldeans were experts at manufacturing iron. The Bible refers to their land as Ur of the Chaldees. ER is a variant of her or her from Horus. Officially, Ur of the Chaldeans was a province within Babylon during the 11th Dynasty, 600 BC, but close examination reveals it had a much older history, as Conor McDarry and Anna Wilkes have shown. Caldea did not originally refer to an oriental locality but to an Occidental one in Ireland. The Chaldeans were the kaitak, meaning stargazers or astrologers. The word kaldia derives from the Irish Kane, meaning fire. The syllable call appears in British place names such as Khan and Wiltshire, in Caledonia and Scotland, named after a supposedly Celtic tribe,” end quote.

From Huddlestone, quote: “Of all the posed alluvian languages, the khaldague has the fairest claim to antiquity. Abraham was called from Irv kaldis and must have carried the language with him. The Hebrew is therefore only a dialect of kaldaic; that the Celtic is a dialect of the same is highly probable,” end quote. Anna Wilkes’ book, Ireland or the counties, explores this idea in 1873, making her one of the first researchers to investigate this matter. Quote: “The material that has engaged my intention in the following pages is principally taken from the Mosaic, the Quran, Talmud, and Celtic references to the first peoples and places. As far as possible, I have avoided loading the subject with technical terms and problems to be met with in anthropology, a science necessarily contributing considerable matter to the text, but have preferred to use in it history, tradition, folklore, and other interests that go towards a proof that the first human families must have migrated from the west of Europe to Asia and not from Asia to the west of Europe. This may appear strange to some people, but it will occur to the reflecting and intelligent mind that it is quite possible to do over again some of the work of scripture commentators and interpreters and be at the same time imperfect harmony with the Bible,” end quote.

So when Anna Wilkes says that the idea of human families migrating from the west of Europe to Asia instead of from Asia to the west of Europe may appear strange to some people, she’s acknowledging that this viewpoint goes against conventional thought or established narratives. However, when she says, “it will occur to the reflecting and intelligent mind,” she’s suggesting that those who pause to deeply consider the evidence and think critically about it may come to recognize the validity or possibility of this alternative perspective. In essence, she’s asserting that although her hypothesis might seem counter-intuitive or unconventional to many, individuals who truly engage in thoughtful reflection and analysis could indeed find her argument compelling and harmonious with the historical record, including biblical interpretations. So let’s take a look at some of her best quotes: “The peoples and kingdoms referred to in the Bible and supposed by commentators to be in the East are actually to be found in the West.” Quote: “The sooner philologist and inquires after truth direct their studies above the prejudices of school and University, the sooner the Celtic tongue and Archeology will be acknowledged; the sooner the biblical students find their way out of the Labyrinth of contradictory interpretations by which they are enclosed and walk in a pure and cleaner atmosphere of research.” Quote: “That the Hebrew and Irish languages reciprocate many of their words is as true as that the people who once spoke Hebrew had a common origin with those called Celts.” Quote: “Interpreters of scripture misled by often supposed meanings of the Bible names of places which they find in Chaldean, Hebrew, and Greek, and misled also by their anxiety defined all the beginnings of things in the East, have mistaken the testimony of the Aboriginal language of Europe, the language admitted by philologists to have been before Greek and Latin and coexisting with Sanskrit, the language that gave names to most of the mountains, rivers, the national scenery of Europe and bestowed on parts of Asia cognate words that endure yet almost unchanged, the Celtic.” Quote: “There can be no doubt the towers in the interior of Hindustan bear more than a striking likeness to those remaining in Ireland. These resemblances are to be found in such great quantities in the latter place that it is impossible but to believe that Ireland was the center from which a great deal of the religion of Bud developed. This will not appear strange when we consider in connection with some point that many of the Saints bear Aryan and Semitic names,” end quote.

Let’s now move on to another researcher that Laura Lodge did not bring up in his debunking of the west to east movement of civilization. We now arrive at the great Commons Beaumont, one of the few men to refute the Welter of historical fallacies concerning primordial Humanity.

From Michael Tsarion, quote: “Along with the American investigator Ignatius Donnelly, Commons Beaumont found evidence to support the radical idea that situated the great pre-diluvian civilizations in the Northwestern hemisphere. Britain and Ireland were the remnants, wrote Beaumont, of the empires of Atlantis, and it is from these regions that the most civilized and sophisticated peoples originated. From Commons Beaumont, The riddle of prehistoric Britain, quote: ‘The ancient civilization of the land we call Egypt has been pronounced by archaeologists as Flawless of its type; from the very first it reveals none of the painful steps from Primeval Beginnings, passing through the Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age to that of iron. It apparently burst upon the scene into exotic Radiance; its perfected civilization accordingly have been described as a miracle. Science cannot admit any such miracle, and another explanation must be forthcoming.’ Quote: ‘The Greeks and their myths and legends always place the historities in the farthest west. Jordanis, the gothic historian, described the north as the forge of mankind, the most ancient seed of civilization in the north. The Cradle of the Aryan race was that tattered group of islands which bear the name of Shetlands.’ Quote: ‘Not until Jacob in a somewhat obscure manner was told to call himself Israel was that name adopted and accorded to his twelve Sons. But if we accept the explanation of Sankanaiathan, if a nation of Tire Cronus,’ quote: ‘whom Phoenicians called Israel, was king of Phenicia and it signified that these Caldeo-Phoenician tribes were worshipers of Cronus Saturn where Jehovah was a far later importation, the name Israel has subsequently been misappropriated for those biblical Christians who term themselves Israelites, in fact, label themselves followers of a pagan deity.’ Quote: ‘At the earliest Aryan civilization is reflected in the Old Testament, the Greek and other sources were centered in the north of Europe and especially in the Scandinavian and British lands. It follows conversely that the present regions from winds are forefathers are believed to have derived their Origins, that is to say in the middle or near East. Egypt and the Mediterranean countries are credited with the civilization to which they are in no sense entitled, in which they only inherited by migrations from the north. As a matter of fact, anthropology has proved the correctness of this view again and again, showing that the white race never originally entered Europe from Asia.’ Quote: ‘The land We Now call Egypt was colonized and was originally peopled by Fair Celts from the shores of Britain. This was The Exodus of the Aryans, some of whom returned later to their primeval homes.’ Quote: ‘In scripture, Phenicia was closely related to Edom, both meaning red man. They had, moreover, Kings before Israel and were amongst the most highly civilized of the early races in the most distant prehistoric times. In India at Hyderabad, Mysore, Chota Nagpur, and along the Malabar Coast are kromlax and are in proximity to gold mines. Major Nun, formerly inspector of Mayans in the Hyderabad State, found that the prehistoric workings of gold, copper, and iron in that state were worked by a people who erected kromlex. Professor Percy says that the megalithic builders in India discovered in Hyderabad and elsewhere iron of such a quality that it practically constituted a natural Steel. In fact, it was of this iron that Damascus blades were made in the Salem District of Madras, so feigned verit’s inexhaustible iron dolmens and stone circles were abound.’ Quote: ‘We must look to the north and mainly to the British Isles as the real source of Bible History.’ Quote: ‘Geologists claim that in the late tertiary age or early quaternary land between Norway, Iceland, and Scotland collapsed. This comparatively recent submergence, as Mr Edward Claude States in primitive man, was coincident with the opening of the North Sea. In addition to the tremendous breakup of territories and islands and the hebridian Sea deposits in North Ireland establishing immense regions of Boggs, the piling up of mountains and the cutting out of enormous meteoric-formed viewers in Norway, and last but not least, the devastation suffered by the Shetland and Orkney Islands. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that Plato speaks of the submersion of Atlantis.’ Quote: ‘The name Nile was never used in the Old Testament to describe the river of Egypt. Cool plus iron today fails to correspond in any way to the Old Testament or come to that of the New Palestine. Despite the accounts of its fertility and wealth is perhaps the poorest land in West Asia apart from the deserts.’ Quote: ‘In any reconstruction in Scotland of early Greek sites of the regions which came to be named helles, the connection between Parnassus and that somber read Miss Laden solitary mountain in the midst of arjo named Ben croshan is unavoidable. This Gaelic name represents Mount of the serpent which recalls the serpent traditionally said to have dominated Parnassus until Apollo selected the site for his own Shrine. The valley at its northern base is called Glen no otherwise Noah. Another feature to be observed of the Giants is that nearly always they are described as red-haired, as where the atomites are names derived from the Hebrew Adam or Edom, read or ready,” end quote.

From here we can continue to investigate this idea of red-haired giants and see if there are any more connections to consider. We’ve all heard tales of the red-haired giants in America, but could there be a link suggesting the ancient Irish voyagers reached America before Columbus? The Pirates of Nevada told the stories of towering red-haired cannibals who preyed on neighboring tribes. It was in Lovelock cave where these red-haired giants met their end, according to pay lore. In 1911, remnants of these supposed Giants, along with thousands of artifacts, were Unearthed by miners. These findings were dispatched to various museums, but the mummified remains mysteriously vanished from the public eye. Equally intriguing are the Florida bog bodies. Scientists attribute the red hair of these mummies to chemical reactions with acidic Bog Water, but isn’t it a bit too coincidental when we have strikingly similar bug bodies in Ireland and Northern Europe? Venture further south, and we stumble upon the elongated skulls of Peru, a subject of Brian Forster’s research. Notably, these skulls were also red-haired. Next, consider the red-haired mummies of China, found in the mysterious pyramids of Xinjiang. These Tara mummies are distinct with their blonde or red hair, light skin, and light eyes, traits uncommon among East Asians. The most notable among these is the beauty of Lulan, found in 1980, who sparked Global interests with her well-preserved features in Striking red-brown hair. Across the globe and the Canary Islands, we find the Guancha mummies. Before Spanish colonization, the Conchas, original Berber inhabitants of the islands, were known to have fair skin in red or blonde hair, as indicated by mummified remains like the Irish bog bodies. The Guancha mummies were preserved through an elaborate mummification process. Lastly, we turn to the Maravigian dynasty of the Franks, which ruled present-day France and Germany from the 5th to 8th centuries A.D. It is believed that they took great pride in the tradition of long red hair. Notable figures like Marovic, the semi-legendary founder of the Dynasty, and his descendant King Chell Parikh the First were both described as red-haired. All these instances worldwide indicate a more widespread prevalence of red hair in ancient times, prompting a re-examination of our understanding of ancient migration and cultural exchange.

Another interesting connection between China and Ireland happens to be pottery. One might not readily think of the link between these two Nations situated so distantly from each other geographically, but in essence, their shared history in the art of pottery reveals an intriguing narrative that paints a broad picture of human migration. In ancient Ireland, Pottery wasn’t just a form of artistic expression but a tool for survival. Pottery fragments from roughly 6,000 years ago discovered in Irish burial mounds and tombs provide testimony to this. These rudimentary coil pots were most likely air dried, a far cry from the fired creations of later generations but vital nonetheless. Centuries later, with the introduction of The Potter’s Wheel by the Normans in the 13th century, the creation process of clay vessels underwent a significant transformation, though Pottery was still primarily utilitarian in nature. Simultaneously, halfway across the globe, the Chinese were mastering the art of pottery in ways unparalleled among the earliest known pottery-making cultures. Chinese Artisans as early as 1900 BC had developed stoneware, a testament to their technological advances which allowed for firing clay at much higher temperatures. What’s more, the Chinese didn’t stop there; they honed an even more delicate and revered form of pottery, porcelain. So we have two ancient cultures, both with a strong tradition of pottery, but how do they connect? The answer lies in a surprising discovery in an old Irish Castle. During a survey of Wrath Farnham Castle, archaeologists Unearthed a treasure Trove of artifacts dating from 1650 to 1700. Amongst them, Chinese porcelain plates and teacups. These items, imported from a land far away, serve as a testament to a connection that, until recently, remained a whisper in the canals of History. Now one might think, how did the Chinese pieces end up in Ireland? Did the Irish travel all the way to China, or was there a community of Chinese artisans in Ireland, a concept perhaps too bold for its time? Or did these porcelain artifacts find their way to Ireland through extensive trade networks, passed from hand to hand through countless middlemen before reaching the Emerald Isle? While we can’t definitively answer these questions without further research, what we do know is that these discoveries hint at a connection, an Invisible Thread tying the Irish and Chinese together through the medium of pottery.

From Michael Tsarion, quote: “Brazilian Stonehenge, the discovery of an ancient astrological observatory in Brazil lends support to the theory that the Amazon rainforest was once home to Advanced cultures and large sedentary populations of people. Besides the well-known empires of the Inca and their predecessors, millions of people once lived in the forest and shaped the environment to suit their own needs. The pre-colonial Observatory was built of 127 blocks of granite, each three meters (10 feet) high, are ranged upright into evenly spaced in circles in an open field. The archaeologists do not know yet when the structure was built, but ceramic fragments found nearby suggest that it is between 500 and 2000 years old. Lore Lodge, in his debunking video, appears to overlook the essence of our discussion when He suggests that New Grange was not built by the Irish. He seems to be confusing the Modern Irish as identified by mainstream historians with the ancient Indo-European culture that we’re discussing. More importantly, he overlooks the fact that New Grange is older than the Egyptian Pyramids by about 700 years. This detail significantly supports the theories of those like Conor McDarry, author of The Irish wisdom and Bible impairments, who proposed that Civilization spread from west to east. In order to prevent this video from continuing for too long, we will end the Irish Connection by explaining in detail the connections between the ancient Jews and the ancient Celts. Again, Celts is not the correct term, but we will use it for Simplicity.

From Michael Tsarion, quote: “The first letter of the name Jehovah is probably derived from the Irish letter jode; that is the origin of the Hebrew yod, the first letter of God’s name. This letter Joel or yold, the Greek Iota, gives our modern letters i and J. The Irish Druids Associated this letter with the tree we refer to as the you from you or yod from this word we derive Joel, Jew, and also Yule, meaning Christmas or the time of the winter solstice. Druitic symbolism extends to key passages of the Old Testament. We read, for instance, that the holy teacher and leader Moses encountered his god Jehovah at a burning bush or tree. An analysis of poetry and iconography of English poet William Blake leads us to believe that the word Jerusalem may have originally been a reference to Britain, the land of The Druids. The correct rendering of the word may be darusalem or darussalam. The phonetically similar letters J and D were often interchanged; they were sometimes used together as in the Egyptian blood. In this case, the word would mean place of The Druids or at the place of the Oaks,” end quote.

The first connection to consider is the language similarities. Quote: “That the Hebrew and Irish languages reciprocate many of their words is as true as the people who once spoke Hebrew had a common origin with those called the Celts,” from Anna Wilkes, or of the counties. “Determination words in Celtic and Latin differ, but it is curious how the root forms of the Latin are discoverable to be Celtic. The proper names of the oldest Latin families are formed on a Celtic basis; thus Claudius, Catalus, Kato, Pompeus, Luculus, Camillus, Marcus, Etc.” From Hibid, quote: “The problem with Hebrew is that it was a dead language for many centuries. It may have been a written language for a few Judaic Scholars, but it was not a living spoken language by any Community or people. Hebrew has only been revived as a living language in the recent past with the formation of Israel, but it was revised solely from the language of the Torah and Talmud, and this means that the wider knowledge of the language outside of the biblical type text has largely been lost.” From Ralph Ellis, Eden and Egypt. “Old Persian and Sanskrit present close parallels to Greek, Latin, and Celtic.” From Barry Fell, America BC. “The languages of the Aryans in the Semites differed essentially, though there are points of conexity between them; the Aryan language was immensely Superior.” From Ernest Renan, history of the people of Israel till the time of King David, quote: “We find Egyptian words in the Hebrew language. Additionally, there are words derived from Canaanite phonation, Aramaic, Babylonian, and from many roots of the Arabic language.” From Mossad and Roger Sabah, secret of Exodus. “The church opposed the study of grammar in Latin. Pope Gregory the First, or Gregory the Great, a man thought to have been one of the greatest architects of the medieval order, objected to a grammatical study, condemned education for all but the clergy as Folly and wickedness; he forbade laymen to even read the Bible.” From Hell and Alerbs, The Dark Side of Christian history, quote: “Although Welsh enthusiasts claim the greatest Antiquity for their tongue, many philologists lean to the Irish language. Elton affirms that it seems to be all of the Celtic languages the farthest removed from the Latin and that the oldest Irish is found to be the original not merely of the modern Earth but also the Manx. Usher found it nearest to Hebrew. O’Flaherty trace it to Phenicia. Sir William Temple regarded it as an original language. H O’Brien sees Hebrew derived from the primordial tongue.” From Homelko, we learned that the Carthaginians of this day thought more of the Sacred Island extensively inhabited by a Bernie than they did of the islands of Albion. From James Bonwick, Irish Dru is an old Irish religions, end quote. Raising this topic is often misconstrued as anti-Semitic, which is a profound misinterpretation. There’s absolutely no harm in conducting scholarly Research into this matter. Quote: “Between Sanskrit, the mother of the modern Hindu dialects of Hindustan, Zend, the language of the ancient Persians, Greek, which is yet the language of Greece, Latin, the language of the Romans and the mother tongue of the modern romantic languages, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Celtic, once the language of the great part of Europe, now continued to Wales and parts of France, Ireland, and Scotland, Gothic, which may have taken as the ancient type of the Teutonic and German languages, including English and of the Scandinavian and slavonic spoken in a variety of dialects all over European Russia and a great part of Austria, the researches of philology within the 19th century established such affinities as can be accounted for only supposing that the Nations who originally spoke them had a common origin.” From the Chambers encyclopedia, Aryan race and language section. “Hebrew was a secret dialect which was devised by the Irish priesthood to preserve their secret lore and rituals; its use was kept exclusively for the priest thereby keeping all knowledge of sacredotal things from the uninitiated; it was taken…

Over and made use by the Roman Church to conceal and to make plausible the secret fraud which she had perpetuated upon the Christian World. From Conor McDary for Michael Tarsarian: quote the word Jew, likewise a Gaelic term, it did not refer to a racial group per se; it referred to any man or woman who rose up to study the great mysteries in order to attain spiritual perfection. I referred to those who shone like the sun morally and spiritually and to those who lived in harmony with nature. Its origin is the Gaelic *Eber*, meaning yew tree, or *la* or *ludak*, later *Yuda* or *Judah*, meaning the bright, or the shining, or the daylight. It referred to those awakened ones, the devotees of the stars. This is where we get the word judge. Thus, the original Judites were nothing less than the awakened ones who revered the 12 signs of the zodiac; they were the astrologers of Ireland and Egypt. The term Judah in the Bible, the fourth son of Jacob whose name was adapted as Jew, was not a name at all but a title. End quote.

The next connection is sacred trees. Quote: The yew tree was considered very sacred to both Druids and Egyptian Magi. The *ibaru* or *ibri*, *Aubry* or *abari*, turned up in Egypt as the wise ones or elders. The letter H added as a prefix simply meant the, and so the word Hebrew meant the Hebrew or the *ibaru*. This is the origin of the word Iberia that signified Spain, and Hibernia that signified Ireland. The word Rabbi is a rendition or variant of this ancient name, *abari* or *ibaru*. The *ibaru* were druidic Elders who had traveled to Egypt in remote periods, bringing solar worship there. For Michael Tarsarian. End quote.

Both ancient Kelson Jews held certain trees to be sacred. The Israelites revered the terabinth tree, and the Celts revered the oak. The terabinth, along with other trees, held a sacred status in ancient civic cultures, including the Hebrews. These trees were intertwined with significant religious narratives, such as Yahweh appearing to Abraham at the Terrapin of Mamre upon his arrival in the land, further exemplifying the sacred nature of these trees. The names of many locations, like Elim and Elon, are derived from them. Despite denunciations by prophets, the traditions of tree worship has persisted over centuries, with sacred trees like the terabinths still being revered in modern Palestine; their full forms preserved while others pruned for firewood. Other tree types, such as the palm tree and tamarisk, were also held in high regard, reinforcing the importance of trees in ancient Semitic traditions. This sacred tree worship mirrors practices found in ancient Celtic cultures, where trees were central to their religious beliefs. The Druids, the spiritual leaders of the Celtic people, held trees in profound esteem, as they were thought to possess wisdom and to be links between the earthly and spiritual worlds, just like the terabinths for the Hebrews. The oak was revered by the Druids, symbolizing strength and endurance. The Celts also developed Ogham, or Ogam, a cryptic writing system often inscribed on standing stones, but is believed to be based on a system of old tree lore; characters in Ogham represent a particular tree. This tree language further emphasizes the deep spiritual connection the ancient Celts had with trees, providing a fascinating parallel to the tree worship among the ancient Semitic cultures.

Another interesting connection is the harp. The harp is a noteworthy symbol shared between the ancient Celtic and Jewish cultures, playing a pivotal role in their religious and cultural practices. In the Jewish tradition, the harp (lyre) was utilized for worship in the Holy Temple, and it is frequently mentioned in the Bible, often in association with King David, who was renowned for his musical abilities with the instrument. The harp's music was not only a medium of worship, but it was also believed to have divine resonance, capable of stirring profound spiritual emotions. They served as an important instrument in religious ceremonies and celebrations, symbolizing joy, harmony, and the divine connection. Similarly, in ancient Celtic culture, the harp held a revered position, regarded as a sacred instrument. It was primarily played by bards, who were traditionally high-ranking figures in Celtic society. The music of the harp was believed to possess enchanting qualities, with the ability to heal, instigate, or soothe emotions. The harp was not merely an instrument; it was a symbol of the bard's authority and wisdom, reflecting their role as custodians of history, tradition, and lore. This deep respect and spiritual significance attached to the harp in both cultures underscore their shared affinity for this ancient instrument.

Some historical narratives and migration theories propose a connection between the lost tribes of Israel and the Celtic tribes. These theories suggest that following the Assyrian Conquest in the 8th Century BC, the Israelites were displaced and spread across different regions. Among the proposed destinations of these exiled tribes is Western Europe, where they might have interacted and eventually merged with the Celtic tribes. However, there's some things that we must consider. From Wiki: quote British-Israelism, sometimes called Anglo-Israelism, is a complex set of theories, not necessarily compatible with each other, that have in common the idea that the ancient British people and/or royal lineages were direct lineal descendants of some of the Lost Tribes of Israel. The theory has adherents among a minority of Christians, usually Protestant, of British descent. From Michael Tarsarian: quote The British-Israelite movement rose to prominence in England after 1757 with the work of the eccentric Richard Brothers. It was aided and abetted by the famous eccentric Scottish Egyptologist and Mason Piazzi Smyth. The British-Israelite movement is closely aligned with the Zionist movement, the extremist political faction ultimately responsible for the founding of the state of Israel after the Second World War. The Zionist movement is, however, a bloody tentacle of the Agonist Dragon, core of ancient Egypt. This much is confirmed by their strange ideology. The essential tenets of the British Israelites are the following: The British throne is that of King David; the English royal family descends from King David; the British Royals and their various European relatives are descended from the tribe of Judah and the Levites by the way of Zara, the brother of Perez, son of Judah; the British Empire and Church of England are the modern-day manifestation of the true kingdom of God; the British have been chosen by God to build a world empire in order to rule the Earth. End quote.

The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah is one of the Israelites believed by British Israelites to have traveled to the Far West on his journey. He was allegedly accompanied by the daughter of a Pharaoh called Teta. Jeremiah's party is believed to have reached Ireland around 400 BC, whereupon the Celts are converted to Judaism, and Teta is betrothed to the Irish King Yokid. According to British-Israelite tradition, Queen Teta is buried at Tara, a site allegedly named after her. In this way and with these theories, the British-Israelite movement sought to emphasize the east-to-west movement of the elements of civilization; British kings were descended from the Israelites, and that was enough; all that existed prior to this movement was unimportant. Quote: The British-Israelite propaganda sought to show that the Israelites of the Bible were in fact Aryans, that is Caucasians or Indo-Europeans. The British Israelites realized that if they conceded the Israelites to be of Aryan, or more correctly Indo-European racial stock, they could conceal a much greater truth and make it seem that the people and nations of the Western Hemisphere had received their cultural idioms from the East. End quote.

The scriptures tell us that 10 of the 12 tribes, those of the House of Israel, did not make the return journey to Jerusalem but dispersed into the lands of the west, across the Caucasus Mountains; they are the famous Lost Tribes of Israel. Quote: The Israelites were indeed of Indo-European stock. This made them kindred to the Greeks, Romans, Germans, Armenians, Scythians, Persians, Saxons, and the peoples of Northern India. In any case, racial type was not as important to ancient peoples as we have been led to believe. What mattered more was theology. Those who sought to instill a false idea concerning the term Aryan belong to the same order as those concealing the west-to-east movement of the elements of civilization; they belong to the same species as those proposing the Eastern Israelites brought culture into Europe and Britain, and who imply that the symbols of the houses and kingdoms of Europe, to be seen on heraldry, flags, medallions, coins, and regalia, are Jewish in origin. They came into the West around a thousand BC; actually, they were brought back by those whose ancestry lay in the West, through the deliberate and pernicious tampering with the meaning of terms, names, and titles. This simple truth has been expertly obscured by the British Israelites, who excel at obfuscation. End quote.

So Michael Tarsarian's perspective is essentially looking at this theory called British-Israelism. According to this theory, the British, or more specifically their royal family, are direct descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. This idea became popular in England around 1757 and even suggests that the British throne is actually the throne of King David, and the British Empire and Church of England are the modern-day versions of God's Kingdom. Tarsarian talks about the Prophet Jeremiah, believed by British Israelites to have traveled to the West with a Pharaoh's daughter named Teta. They supposedly reached Ireland around 400 BC, and the Irish Celts converted to Judaism after Teta married Irish King Yokid. British Israelites believed this is how civilization moved from east to west. He also suggests that British Israelites were keen to portray the Israelites of the Bible as Aryans or Caucasians, believing this would hide the fact that Western Civilization actually influenced the East, not the other way around. The idea is that these Aryans, who are actually of Indo-European stock, have more in common with Greeks, Romans, Germans, and others, and that these connections matter more than what we've been led to believe. So, according to Tarsarian, the whole concept of British-Israelism has been twisted to conceal the real flow of civilization from west to east.

In addition to these ideas, there's also the belief that this journey made by the Lost Tribes was essentially a homecoming. The so-called Lost Tribes of Israel didn't vanish, but moved across the Caucasus Mountains and dispersed into the lands of the West. They were considered lost because they didn't return to Jerusalem. So the British-Israelite theory suggests that these tribes found their way to Britain and Ireland, areas which were believed to be their ancient Homeland. The movement from east to west is not viewed as an invasion or expansion, but a return to their ancestral roots. Thus, the spread of culture and civilization wasn't a case of the East influencing the West, but the Western Israelites rediscovering and re-establishing their own ancient civilization. The connection with Ireland holds crucial importance in this discourse, because if proven true, it could potentially call into question our entire understanding of history. Our conversation doesn't stop here, as we intend to further address and clarify the points raised by Lore Lodge, given that there are notable misconceptions and misrepresentations in his arguments. And if you were thinking, "Wow, this conspiracy theory hasn't gotten anti-Semitic yet," wrong. This theory claims, you know, not that certain events in history didn't happen, that they never existed; there were no Hebrew people—just totally blanket statement—Hebrews didn't exist. Aiden seems to conclude that scrutinizing historical events could lead to the erasure of large groups of people. We'd like to clarify that we have never asserted that the Hebrew people did not exist. In fact, our claim is that there may have been a significant deception involving the Hebrew people. Examining this possibility does not equate to anti-Semitism, especially considering the numerous connections we've just discussed. He then proceeds with a lengthy diatribe that doesn't really merit a response, as he overlooks our original argument entirely. However, you're welcome to listen to his attempt to portray our efforts to draw connections between Jews and the ancient Celts as anti-Semitic.

Following this, Aiden attempts to disprove the etymological connections between Gaelic and Hebrew, which frankly is a surprising display of negligence. He then tries to support this argument by saying, "If Hebrew is a dialect of Irish, why isn't there a word for Hebrew?" From Michael Tarsarian: quote The language was called Hebrew because it was that used by the *ibaru* from Hibernia or Ireland. End quote. He also tries to support this claim by saying Aramaic would also need to be a dialect of Gaelic, which if he had read Anna Wilkes he wouldn't be making such claims. The language of these Chaldeans, said to be practically the same as Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian, is known to have predated Aramaic, the language of the Bible. We've now reached the section of his response where he elaborates on these misinterpretations. To fully grasp our argument about how the Catholic Church may have rewritten history, one needs a solid understanding of the history of secret societies and alternative chronologies; a foundational knowledge that Lore Lodge, seemingly lost in denial and cognitive dissonance, appears to have not yet started constructing. This entire thing with Ireland and Phoenicia and all of that he refers to as the "Phoenician hijack," and I can just—I'm just going to tell you guys off the bat—I think I've done a pretty good job of debunking it through and through, but this did not happen; this is fake; this is absolutely not historical. And buckle up, because we're only a quarter of the way into this. Once more, he asserts that he has thoroughly debunked this while posturing with an air of authority, yet it's clear he lacks a thorough understanding of our discussion. Firstly, he overlooked the connections between Hebrew and Gaelic, and similarly he didn't acknowledge the link between the Jews and the Druids, all the while he labeled these explorations as anti-Semitic. It seems these conclusions are drawn by someone who hasn't taken a moment to introspect or delve deeper into the matter. The concept of the "Phoenician hijack" can be encapsulated in the Conor McDary quote that I shared earlier, which implicated the powers of Rome. Interestingly, he dismisses the "Phoenician hijack" as complete nonsense without even addressing the Phantom Time Hypothesis, exhibiting a lack of critical thinking skills required to link the two subjects. Consequently, we find ourselves needing to guide him through the process. In order to do so, I'll call upon the *Humongous Unveiled* video, as it is our largest work, and I highly recommend everyone to watch it. Not only does it expose the alchemical Bible, it also shows the history of secret societies. It's interesting to note that he omits any reference to Pompeii in his critique, despite it being a significant pillar of support for the Phantom Time Hypothesis. He must have encountered this argument, as in his video he attempts to refute the claim regarding the absence of original source documents for certain historical events, like those from Pliny the Elder, before the 14th or 15th century. He suggests that a 6th-century document exists, but does it provide any proof to substantiate the claim? Also, he doesn't address why the document is not available for public scrutiny or how we can definitively confirm its claimed date of origin. Therefore, his bypassing of the topic of Pompeii appears to be rather convenient.

Around this time is when he makes his Theosophist points, which we've already addressed. He says the reason he cannot take their argument seriously is because they are like a religion. Ironically, we've already eliminated that hurdle, but he insists on backing up this point by comparing Ignatius Donnelly and Conor McDary to the YouTube channel Spirit Science, in a startling display of mental gymnastics to bolster his denial. We move on to the next allegation and personal jab, where he asserts that we fail to distinguish between the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church. Once again, his argument reveals a superficial grasp of the larger context, but there's a reason behind this misunderstanding. Had he delved deeper into the Phantom Time Hypothesis, the connection would have been crystal clear to him. Here's the catch: The Roman Catholic Church was essentially in co-order. Yes, you heard it right. We dive into the intricate history of the Catholic Church and how *Monkeys Unveiled* laying bare this truth. The connection Lore Lodge misses is that the Holy Roman Empire *is* the Roman Catholic Church. We fully comprehend the distinction, but challenged the existence of Rome in its entirety. As predictable as Lore Lodge is, such a statement might make his head spin. He even mentions needing to take meds and resorting to hair pulling in his video—quite a peculiar admission. Of course, such a radical idea would sound ludicrous to anyone unfamiliar with the occult roots of the Catholic Church and a proposition that the new Church of the Holy Roman Empire completely fabricated Rome's history, adding an extra thousand years. There is a considerable body of evidence to explore, but it requires one to view it through a refreshed lens, something that Lore Lodge seems finds challenging. The Roman Catholic Church—this is the largest Christian church with more than a billion followers globally—is directly headed by the Pope, who is considered the spiritual successor of Saint Peter, and its headquarters are in Vatican City, an independent city-state enclaved within Rome, Italy. The Church maintains that it is the one true church, divinely founded by Jesus Christ.

The Holy Roman Empire or Church—this term can be somewhat confusing as it's often used to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, especially in older documents—but the point that Lore Lodge attempts to make is that it more specifically refers to the Holy Roman Empire, which was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in Western and Central Europe. The empire grew out of the eastern half of the Carolingian Empire and existed from 962 to 1806 AD. The Holy Roman Empire was often in close association with the papacy and the Catholic Church, but it was a political entity, not a religious one. It was called Roman because it considered itself the continuation of the ancient Roman Empire. Indeed, we are essentially discussing two different facets of the same entity, each with its own distinct role and context. However, comprehending this fully requires a deep dive into alternative historical perspectives. He also attempts to raise another point, arguing that we omit the Orthodox Church, insinuating that we lack this knowledge and that, due to their lack of political alignment with the Roman Church, they couldn't possibly be collaborating. He even says, "It doesn't really make sense to me." The crux of the matter is that we're observing different branches of the same religious cult. As we elaborated in our *Homunculus Unveiled* video, we explored the mythologies of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, showing their links to occult alchemy and Mary Magdalene. He brings up a similar point again later in the video, towards a cult of Protestant Christians, failing to notice that these occult orders were often the orchestrators of divide-and-conquer strategies. Just because two groups in history did not align in their beliefs or politically, it does not automatically rule out the possibility of them working in unison. What's the evidence? Well, we've already touched on Pompeii, which Lore Lodge seemed to overlook. Additionally, he criticizes our comprehension of art history. The one key aspect supporting our stance are the frescoes themselves. They mentioned this multiple times, including in our *Homunculus* documentary. Interestingly, it seems the Romans had mastered perspective a thousand years before it was officially recognized. This phenomenon extends beyond Roman art, encompassing numerous technologies of the Roman civilization that were subsequently forgotten and lost over time. The vast array of Roman innovations and engineering feats, such as aqueducts, concrete, advanced road systems, and sophisticated architectural techniques, gradually faded into obscurity. These remarkable achievements, which demonstrated Rome's exceptional engineering prowess and ingenuity, seemingly vanished from the collective knowledge and technical advancements of subsequent civilizations. The question that arises: How did such impressive and practical knowledge become so effectively erased from human history?

He appears to have a limited understanding of our reference to the substantial void in the progression of literature, art, and music that seems to re-emerge rather abruptly after the 12th century, after a mysterious hiatus of a millennium. These cultural elements evolved remarkably within just 200 years until the exemplary art witnessed during the Renaissance. His misconstrued interpretation of this context has led him to inaccurately claim that we lack comprehension of art history. Regardless of his acknowledgment, the existence of this cultural gap is indeed factual. He then attempts to challenge the narrative of the Romans combating the Druids, a concept that we've already clarified in the earlier discussion on the Irish connection. He significantly misinterpreted our use of the term Celtic. He somehow concluded that the Romans' conflict with the Gauls implied that they were interacting with an entirely distinct group of people, overlooking that we were referring to the ancient Celts, or Indo-Europeans of Northern Europe, who were not exclusively based in Ireland. Following this, he begins to criticize the date that we displayed on screen while presenting the Monte Urbano map. We showcase this in multiple videos, elaborated on its source, and even stated that this map draws from earlier versions. Emphasis on this issue suggests he's resorting to nitpicking to support his stance, demonstrating a potential desperation to find faults wherever he can. He then continues to justify why there are Tartarian tents in North America with the quote, "They lived in the ways of the Tartars," which is pretty interesting. We don't claim this is definitive proof, but it is perfectly fine to use these maps as supporting arguments. Additionally, there are representations of cities in North America during a period when they shouldn't exist according to conventional history. He also overlooks our previous points about additional maps indicating that it would have been feasible for the Tartarians to traverse the Bering Strait. Furthermore, he fails to link Tartaria with the ancient Scythians, who, as we've been discussing, are the ancient Celts or early Indo-Europeans who migrated from west to east. Interestingly, it seems that he devoted the most effort in this video to deciphering this particular word. Clearly, he too found it compelling, given the substantial time he invested in attempting to disprove it. He then proceeds with another extensive explanation, seemingly trying to rationalize the presence of cities on these early maps. To be honest, his arguments don't seem to offer much substance, and he also, in this exact part of the video, says, "We have been fed false timelines," which is just hilarious.

Lore Lodge next asserts that it is hilarious to suggest that we might have been given false timelines and argues that a takeover of the original Christian Church is implausible simply due to the existence of multiple religions. Yet this pattern of religious aversion has been observed in all major religions globally. The three major Abrahamic religions can be categorized as a single entity, as they all trace their roots back to the ancient Phoenicians, whom we've linked to the ancient Celts. Furthermore, the existence of other cultures and philosophies in no way negates this theory, as they all share similar themes of spiritual morality and astrotheology. If anything merits the term hilarious, it would be his attempt to discredit Fomenko based solely on his use of Roman numerals. This yet again highlights his readiness to resort to any means to sidestep genuine research. He continues to express bewilderment about the Venetians' involvement in this alleged subterfuge, a concept that's indeed more complex. I can see why he finds it puzzling, especially given his oversight of the Irish-Venetian connection initially. Furthermore, he either dismisses or overlooks the existence of any historical forgeries. If he were to assign more significance to the Phantom Time Hypothesis and gain an understanding of how the Canaanites and ancient Celts integrated into the new Church of Rome, he would comprehend how the Venetians represent the culminating evolution of this clandestine order as they transitioned into a more scientific era. Menasha's focus, as he starts delving deeper into Tartaria, aiming to highlight alleged contradictions, while still relying on weak arguments such as the claim that these structures can't be built today. This oversimplified view seems to represent his understanding of the entire alternative history community's argument, which dismisses the numerous other points we've raised from the onset. He overlooks significant elements that we've mentioned in *The Charlie* video, such as the World's Fairs, population counts, underground tunnel systems, Rick production, orphan trains, Odd Fellows, and the widespread occurrence of great fires in every major American city. His self-assured rebuttal persists as he mocks the idea that these old-world buildings could have been designed for harvesting atmospheric electricity. Interestingly, he even mentions the book we introduce on the subject and references various engravings, but stops short of providing any in-depth commentary. Instead, he dismisses the idea with a laugh, treating it as if it were absurd. Given that this topic appears to be new to him, as he's never discussed it on his channel before, his mockery of the suggestion that ancient civilizations might have known about electricity is puzzling. It's not an outlandish idea, so his stance is somewhat unclear. He seems particularly riled up by our assertion that the tale of Benjamin Franklin discovering the electrical properties of lightning is symbolic of Freemasonry. Oddly enough, he uses this as an opportunity to showcase his status as a third-degree Mason, implying that there can't be any conspiracy because he's purviewed Masonic secrets. This essentially becomes a recurring appeal to authority in his argument. He also appears to struggle with finding these square compasses, so allow us to guide him. He may have not watched *Homunculus Unveiled* yet and might not be familiar with the concept of artists communicating through hidden symbols. He then claims that wood cannot conduct electricity. However, there are certain circumstances where wood can conduct electricity to some extent. When wood is wet or very damp, for instance, it can conduct electricity. This is because water, particularly impure saltwater, is a good conductor. The water content in the damp wood facilitates the flow of electric current. Moreover,

If wood is subjected to extremely high voltages, the resistance can be broken down, causing wood to conduct electricity better. An argument would be what is not a good conductor. He then proceeds to refute the idea that a significant number of Christian churches were transformed from Pagan temples; a claim that's arguably not even worth addressing due to the substantial level of cognitive dissonance it entails. The stance might stem from his Christian faith, as acknowledging such transformations could inherently challenge his beliefs, revealing an innate bias in his perspective.

Interestingly, Lore Lodge brings up Timaeus but fails to see the connection. Bringing up another straw man, he says, "In the book of Atlantis, we're not discussing Atlantis." Well, we never said it doesn't discuss Atlantis. It discusses both Atlantis and Tartaria. The annihilation of Atlantis by water is significant, but in Timaeus, we are informed about numerous other cataclysms. This is the crux of why we refer to this text; it elucidates upon catastrophes caused by fire and mud. We've repeated this citation many times over the past four years, so Lore Lodge's inability to grasp the context is a misinterpretation on their part.

We've now finally reached his attempts to debunk Tartaria in the mudflood theory. However, he chose to omit or inadequately address several critical aspects, starting with a personal accusation. He insinuates that we were intentionally misleading individuals by discussing the very real phenomenon of raised streets. It's intriguing to observe his rationalization of this as perfectly ordinary, yet he fell short in explaining the initial reasoning behind such undertakings. So this is now a much more convoluted scenario. Not only were they reportedly building numerous boom towns with small populations, and then coincidentally over half of these structures built were lost to fire, he has another layer of complexity nonchalantly stating that the street raising was just business as usual. However, he doesn't provide an explanation for why this would be a common practice considering the substantial cost and challenge involved in implementing this in every major city. Moreover, he overlooks the fact that many of these buildings have windows and doors on the lower levels, which would pose a significant problem in areas prone to heavy flooding. It's illogical to construct every single building in a way that would necessitate reliance on a pump to prevent water damage. Additionally, there is not one reference in his debunking video that discusses the tunnel systems in America, a key point highlighted in The Charlie video. This point was deliberately overlooked as it contradicts his viewpoint.

He then displays his perplexity about the mudflood theory. However, another issue emerges here: Lore Lodge seems to be trying to comprehend the entire body of work by the alternative community and those advocating for Tartaria based solely on that one video, which served as an introduction to the subject only. We do elaborate on how mud volcanoes could have played a role in burying these buildings, and we even discussed this in the Charleston video. The crux of the matter is that Aiden demonstrates no evidence of conducting research on this topic beyond the information presented in that Charlie video. This approach is shockingly naive for someone attempting to dismantle the concept of Tartaria in its entirety.

Next, he brings up the Book of Miracles, as we brought this up to highlight that in the book it shows that they were causing cataclysms through acts of God. And yes, we do connect this with the Ark of the Covenant. Interestingly, we discussed this in detail in the Homunculus Unveiled video with Libra Vacai, as the homunculus was used to cause cataclysms through black magic. Interestingly, he asserts that we fabricated the idea of the Ark of the Covenant being used as a weapon, only to contradict himself moments later by explaining how it indeed served destructive purposes. Furthermore, a few questions: our assertion that black magic was utilized to trigger cataclysms? I would strongly recommend he commences investigation into the homunculus and the employment of necromancy to affect changes in the physical realm.

Lore Lodge continues by entirely misinterpreting the matter of waste management. He refuses to acknowledge that early settlers, even those across Europe, disposed of their waste directly onto the streets. This is a verifiable fact. When it doesn't align with his viewpoint, as it highlights a clear contradiction: the cultural, technological, and even spiritual resources required to construct these cities and buildings on such a grand scale and in such a limited time frame inherently contradict this unhygienic practice. Bringing up a straw man, saying "Tartarian water pipes," he misses that we are talking about inherited tunnel systems. He also deems the idea that cholera could have developed from such practices as absurd. However, he overlooks the historical fact that the initial sewer system simply channeled waste into tunnels specifically designed for water, and it wasn't until the early 1900s that more advanced systems were devised to separate waste and water. This was the argument that we put forth: that poor waste management led to the cholera epidemics, a point clearly illustrated by incidents like the Great Stink. Again, Lore Lodge's understanding of the topic appears to be cursory, seemingly based solely on that single Charlie video. He doesn't grasp that alternative history research and the theory of Tartaria, unlike other theories and narratives featured on his channel, cannot be adequately covered in one video. It's a much more intricate subject, yet he presumptuously assumed that he could debunk the entire theory using just that one Charlie video, treating it as if it's some sort of fan theory.

We now move on to Lore Lodge's perspective of star forts. He attempts to play a gotcha game by differentiating between a star fort and fortified cities, but he overlooks the complexity and significance involved in building such structures around an entire city. He also neglects to point out the ubiquity of these structures worldwide, choosing instead to address the subject from a shallow, surface-level perspective. This becomes blatantly clear when he attempts to explain how Fort Pickens in Pensacola could be built on sand, but it's apparent he doesn't know anything about Fort Pickens, nor has he watched Pensacola Unveiled, and tries to explain this in the most ridiculous fashion, explaining that they just built a foundation and that's that.

I believe I'll conclude with Pensacola, as we've exhaustively addressed his points, even though he hasn't fully grasped our arguments within the appropriate context. Moreover, he exhibits an unwillingness to approach the matter impartially. He criticizes us for mislabeling Fort Pickens as a Civil War fort, despite the fact that we've physically visited the location and simply relayed information from the museum panel there detailing the history of the Civil War forts. Thus, yet again, starkly showcases Lore Lodge's inability to approach a subject without prejudice and his readiness to resort to cheap shots to make his points. What Lore Lodge failed to mention about Pensacola is how the city is hiding the underground tunnels. What Lore Lodge doesn't know is that after the Pensacola Unveiled video, which proves that there are underground tunnels in Pensacola, we had hundreds of individuals get in contact with us sharing information; we just haven't had the time to create a Pensacola Unveiled Part 2, which will come out in the future. Not only do we know several employees of businesses downtown that are fully aware of the tunnels, I had the top Master Mason of Pensacola contact me and tell me not even lower-ranking Masons know about this, that it was hidden and closed up long ago. We even had city officials contacting us attempting to fish for our information. Not only that, the museum in Pensacola has completely changed after that video; they removed the entire KKK and Black History section and also coincidentally added a World's Fair section.

Lore Lodge is just like the UWF historians. I went there and asked for their assistance, and they tried to debate me on the tunnels. I have no intentions on arguing or debating mainstream, educated, programmed historians, as they possess no ability to critically think. Not all, not all, but yes, the majority of history majors are programmed to believe mainstream chronologies as fact. They're not taught to question this reality in the official narrative at all. So for me, I'm not really trying to prove anything to Lore Lodge or any mainstream historian, especially one that won't even take the time to reflect on this information, as they fail to see the connections. This stems from a denial of the impact and influence of secret societies throughout history, a subject that Lore Lodge has dedicated his channel to explaining in a rational light as simply a gentleman's club who eats sandwiches.

So no, I don't think Lore Lodge has debunked anything, and no, I don't think we've proven anything either, as we never have claimed that in the first place. Our entire incentive is to inspire curiosity and to inspire others to look at the world in a new way. We do not wish to force you to think in any particular way, but instead, we hope that you will simmer on this information and come to your own conclusions. Unlike Lore Lodge, we actually want you to investigate this matter. I do want to say that I'm extremely thankful for Aiden and the opportunity to make this video. I learned from my criticisms in order to improve our work, and we've done this on several occasions. However, I do think Lore Lodge is doing a great disservice as a historian, programming others to not question supposed facts in history, when really these arguments stem from authority, and there are many instances when these supposed facts are not set in stone. Time and time again, one single document can change our entire perception of history.

To predict Lore Lodge's next move, it doesn't appear he will invest the necessary time to create a sincere, in-depth exploration of the subject. His only remaining recourse seems to be directly challenging us, probably by proposing a live debate. Let's state right now that we will not accept such an invitation. Engaging in this way would be akin to debating with a conventional historian who hasn't even scratched the surface of these alternative histories. Again, I want to thank Lore Lodge, and I highly recommend everyone to at least check out his channel and give him a try. I don't want to send any haters away, but I also don't want our work to be misrepresented. His video is obviously getting a lot of views, so it was necessary for us to clear up many of the accusations and misrepresentations in this video. As much as I appreciate his effort, this is just another manifestation of anti-Tartaria, which will always fail because the truth is no one has all the answers to history, not even Lore Lodge. That is the truth, and in that understanding, there is a great mystery to be explored. So with that, I want to thank all of you for watching, even Aiden's followers, and all we can hope is that our minds may be unveiled. Let go of everything you think to be true, relax the mind, and ask the question: Do I truly understand what this reality is?