...samo ot 1 negov marterial. > The lies and fabrications of A. Donski are endless. It is enough to take > a random writing of his. > Here is an example. > > MAKEDONSKOTO SAMOILOVO CARSTVO > http://www.makedonskosonce.com/sonce194/tekst5d.htm Lie Number 1: > > "Vo 963 godina vo Makedonija se kreva vostanie od komitopulot Nikola i > negovite sinovi David, Aron, Mojsej i Samoil, koi se otcepuvaat od > Bugarija." > > BLA BLA… THERE IS NO SUCH THING AT ALL. NO ONE SOURCE (BYZANTINE OR > WHATEVER) MENTIONS EVEN A SINGLE WORD ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE "VOSTANIE > PROTIV BUGARITE". NO ONE! THE UPRISING EXISTS ONLY IN DONSKI'S DREAMS > AND THE QUESTION IS WHY HE WANTS PEOPLE TO BELIEVE HIM? MAYBE HE THINKS > THEY ARE BRAINLESS BEINGS? Donski did not answer. He did not cite even a single evidence about such uprising. Isn't it funny? He who claims to be a historian quotes "Enciklopediskiot slovar Broghauz, Efron, St. Peterburg, 1896 g." as an irrefutable evidence? Can somebody explain to this so called historian that in the history "Enciklopediski slovari " and novels has no value. It is as if I try to refute Einstein's Theory of Relativity with quotes from Playboy or Yellow Pages. Lie Number 2: > > "Na novata makedonska dr`ava prv vladetel e komitopulot Nikola, koj > vladee so ovaa dr`ava do 968 godina." > Donski did not answer. He did not adduce even single evidence about such event. Like I said: > BLA BLA…THERE IS NO SUCH EVENT REGISTERED IN MANKIND'S HISTORY. LET'S > SEE DONSKI'S EVIDENCES: > > "…makedonskiot istori~ar Vasil Ivanovski spomenuva edna stara plo~a > najdena vo Pore~ieto, na koja pi{uvalo deka narodot od toj kraj go > proglasil Nikola za svetec zatoa {to gi izbavil od bugarskoto ropstvo!" > > WOW! WHAT AN IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE! NEKOJ SPOMENAL… BILA NAJDENA…TAM > PISHUVALO… WHERE IS THIS INSCRIPTION MR. DONSKI? IN YOUR IMAGINATION? IF > YOU THINK SUCH "EVIDENCES" WILL PERSUADE THE WORLD, YOU ARE TERRIBLY > WRONG. WITH SUCH EVIDENCES BULGARIAN HISTORIANS CAN ONLY DYE LAUGHING. > BTW LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING GUYS: ARE YOU GONNA BELIEVE PERO OR KAISER > OR KARLUKOVSKI IF ONE OF THEM ADDUCE SIMILAR "EVIDENCES" IN THEIR > SUPPORT? > MR. DONSKI, THERE IS NO SUCH INSCRIPTION AT ALL. THERE IS ANOTHER ONE, > FOUND IN BITOLA, BUT ABOUT IT WE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT LATER. > Nonsense Number 1 > "Podocna, poradi ova vostanie, Bugarija brgu propa|a pod naletot na > Vizantija." > > WHAT A PEARL OF THE HISTORICAL THOUGHT! FIRST DONSKI FABRICATE AN > NONEXISTENT UPRISING AND NOW IS TRYING TO PERSUADE HIMSELF THAT BECAUSE > OF IT "Bugarija brgu propa|a" Donski nicely omit to say anything about his "scientific conclusion" BTW let me ask Mr. Donski, does he know that the legitimate successor of Tzar Perar his son Roman (Simeon's grandson) was the nominal ruler of that state in Skopje, where he built the "Sveti Georgi Brzi" monastery, until 991, when he was captured in battle by the Greeks? Does Donski know that Samuil proclaimed himself a tsar only in 997 AD, when Roman died in the Byzantine dungeon? Yes. He knows. But these facts don't suit him and he keeps silent on them. How come Mr. Donski: the Bulgarians were driven away by Samuil and his brothers with an uprising, and in the same time the Bulgarian Tzar Roman rules the state, builds monastery, and defends the state together with Samuil? No wander you hide these facts because you can't ground your imaginary uprising. Lie Number 3 > > "Imeno, vo drevnata Zografska istorija, za nesoglasuvawata pome|u bratot > na Samoil David so ostanatite bra}a pi{uva: Bidej}i makedonskite gospoda > ne mo`ea da go trpat mirot, zapo~naa lo{o da zboruvaat (protiv David, z. > m.). Koga toj razbra za toa, dobrovolno se otka`a od carstvioto i zamina > vo manastir." > > BLA BLA… IN "DREVNATA ZOGRAFSKA ISTORIJA" (ISTORIJA SLAVJANOBOLGARSKAJA, > 1762) WRITTEN BY PAISII HILENDARSKI (BORN IN BANSKO, PIRIN MACEDONIA) > HAS NO SUCH TEXT. GO AND SEE: http://slovo.orbitel.bg/paisii/ > LET SUPPOSE THE TEXT EXISTS SOMEWHERE IN SOME ANCIENT SOURCE. LET'S READ > IT AGAIN: "…MAKEDONSKITE GOSPODA…" > WHO ARE THOSE "GOSPODA"? DONSKI NICELY OMIT THE FACT THAT AT THAT TIME > "MACEDONIAN" MEANS "BYZANTINIAN". FOR EXAMPLE EMPEROR BASIL II IS > MACEDONIAN. > Donski nicely omit to say anything about his lie. He talks about Todor Zhivkov, about who is Paisii Hilendarski about many other irrelevant things, but they don't change the fact that there is no such text. Nonsense Number 2 > "Vo eden prethoden napis ve}e spomnavme deka poetot Ivan Kiriotes u{te > vo toa vreme gi spomenuva Makedoncite kako `iteli na Samoilovoto > Carstvo, Lie Number 4 >a Dukqanskiot prezviter Samoil go narekuva kako makedonski > car!" > > BLA BLA… > 1. DONSKI DISTORTS THE THINGS AGAIN. AS I JUST SAID, "VO TOA VREME" ALL > SOURCES USE "MACEDONIAN" AS SYNONYM OF BYZANTINE (ROMAN) MAN. OF COURSE > IN SAMUIL'S KINGDOM THERE WERE MACEDONIANS - HE (SAMUIL) WAS IN WAR WITH > THEM. > 2. ABOUT "DUKQNSKIOT PREZVITER": ONE MORE OF DONSKI'S LIES! READ WHAT > THE AUTENTIC DOCUMENT SAYS: > > "AT THAT TIME AMONG BULGARIAN TRIBE HAS RAISED SOME SAMUIL, WHO > PROCLAIMED HIMSELF REX. HE HAS BEEN IN WAR FOR LONG TIME WITH GREEKS AND > HAS DRIVEN THEM AWAY FROM WHOLE BULGARIA, SO DURING HIS RULING GREEKS > HAVE NOT DARED TO APPROACH NEAR THERE." > > MIDDLE OF XII CENTURY > "DUKLJAN CHRONICLE" (HRONIKA POPA DUKLJANINA). > AN EXCERPT FROM TITLE #5, SECTION XXXII. > > IF SOMBODY FINDS "MAKEDONSKI CAR" IN THE ABOVE BETTER TO GO TO SEE A > DOCTOR. > Donski didn't give any answer to the above. He didn't say even single word on the fact that at that time in all sources Macedonians and Byzantine men (Romans) are synonyms i.e. one and the same. Like deaf or absentminded he repeats "poetot Kiriotes gi spomenuva Makedoncite" Epa spomenuva gi Sande, ama mora da mislish prvo pa posle da pishuvash. He nicely forget to comment his lie about "dukqnskiot prezviter" Nonsense Number 3 > "Samiot Samoil bil krunisan so blagoslov na papata Grigorij V... So > krunisuvaweto Samoil steknal me|unarodno priznavawe. Toj ja nasledil > bugarskata kruna, a mo`na pri~ina za toa e {to makedonskata kruna ve}e e > zafatena od strana na Vasilij II." > > HA, HA! ANOTHER JOKE OF DONSKI'S. THE POPE GIVES AWAY CROWNS LIKE IN > STORE: SORRY MR. SAMUIL BUT WE ARE IN SHORTAGE OF CROWNS. THERE IS ONLY > ONE BULGARIAN LEFT. DO YOU WANT ME TO WRAP IT FOR YOU? > WAIT! THE NEXT ONE IS EVEN BETTER THAN THIS. HAVE YOU EVER MET MORE > STUPID CONCLUSION: > Again, Donski did not answer anything. I really don't understand what historian he is after making such "scientific" suppositions. Nonsense Number 4 > "Sepak, ako Samoil bil etni~ki Bugarin, pripadnik na turko-mongolskite > Bugari, koi dotoga{ vladeele so Bugarija, toj svojata prestolnina bi ja > smestil vo Pliska ili Preslav, t.e. me|u "svoite etni~ki bra}a" > > I DO WORRY ABOUT BULGARIANS. I SUSPECT MR. DONSKI WANTS TO KILL THEM BY > JOKES. Again, Donski did not comment at all this brilliant "scientific" conclusion. And again I ask: "What historian is he if makes such absentminded conclusions?". Nonsence Number 5 and in the same time Lie Number 6 > LET'S BE SERIOUS. IF DONSKI PREFERS TO CALL BULGARIANS TURKO-MONGOLS IT >IS HIS PROBLEM. IT SHOWS ONLY HIS IGNORANCE. In his answer Donski quotes a lot of sources stating that Bulgarians are Mongols or Tartars. Vain, because nobody denies the existence of those textbooks. The problem with all of them is that they present an old supposition about the origin of the Bulgarians. Present history refuted that supposition. Present historical science proved that Bulgarians have nothing to do with Mongols or Tartars. Mr. Donski being historian (as he claims) must know this, but obviously he is too engaged in writing his epochal book and have no time for reading history. Someone can say what the nonsense here is. The nonsense is in the mere fact that Mr. Donski, who time and again repeats that Bulgarians are brainwashed by Todor Zhivkov's historical books now suddenly quotes them in his support. The lie? Donski knows very well what the present history says on the matter. At least because I informed him with some "Educational stuff" here and in Big-Blue forum. Even though he continue to spread the story about Mongols and Tartars because that suits him. Nonsense Number 6 > I WOULD ONLY ADVISE HIM TO > GO TO BITOLA'S MUSEUM AND SEE IVAN VLADISLAV'S INSCRIPTION. IT CLEARS UP > ENOUGH WELL THE MATTER (EVEN FOR PEOPLE LIKE DONSKI). FIND BELOW THE > TEXT OF THE ISCRIPTION: > > "V LETO 6523 (1015) OT STVORENIA MIRA OBNOVI SJA GRAD > ZIDAEM I DELAEM JOANOM SAMODERZHECEM BLGARSKOM > I POMOSHTJU I MOLITVAMI PRESVETA VLADICHICA NASHA BOGORODICA I V > ZASTUPENIE 12-TE I VARAHOVNUJU APOSTOLI SE ZHE GRAD DELAN BE NA > UBEZHISHTE I NA SPASENIE I NA ZHIZN BLGAROM NACHAT ZHE BE > GRAD BITOLA MESECA OKTOVRA V 20 KONCHE ZHE SJA MESECA… > …ISHODJASHTA SE SAMODERZHEC BE BLGARIN RODOM UNUK > NIKOLA ZHE I RIPSIMIA BLAGOVERNOJU SIN ARONA SAMOILA > ZHE BRATA SASHTA CARE SAMODERZHAVNAGO NASHE I RAZBISTE > V SHTIPON GRECHESKI VOISKI CARA VASILIA KDE ZHE VZETO BE ZLATO > … A SE ZHE V… CAR RAZBIEN > BE CAREM VASILIEM 6522 GO LETA OT STVORENIA MIRA > V KLJUCH I USPE LETU SEMU ISHODJASHTOJU" > > REM. > THE TEXT IS IN ITS ORIGINAL SPELLING. THE ISCRIPTION HAS BEEN FOUND IN > 1956 DURING RECONSTRUCTION IN THE TOWN OF BITOLA. THE DOTS SUBSTITUTE > DAMAGED TEXT THAT COULDN'T BE RETRIEVED. THE SCRIPT HAS BEEN CUT OUT ON > MARBLE PLATE 92X58 CM. > REX IVAN VLADISLAV IS NEPHEW AND SUCCESSOR OF REX SAMUIL. HE DESCRIBES > HIMSELF AS REX OF BULGARIANS (SAMODERZHEC BLGARSKOM), BEING BORN > BULGARIAN (BLGARIN RODOM). > Unfortunately for Sando the stone plate is not fake and that's why the communist government hid it in the basement of the museum. One small detail: When the Turks came in XIV century in Bitola they built a mosque. For that mosque they used stones from the old Bitola's stronghold. All those centuries it was a step in the mosque. That's why it is so chafed. It was there all those years and it became known after demolishing the mosque in 1956. The inscription on it says clearly "GRAD DELAN BE NA UBEZHISHTE I NA SPASENIE I NA ZHIZN BLGAROM". (Do you understand Sando? "NA UBEZHISHTE I NA SPASENIE I NA ZHIZN BLGAROM" !!!) It says also that Tzar Ivan Vladislav "BE BLGARIN RODOM" (BLGARIN RODOM Sande, ne RODEN VO BLGARIA) If Donski is normal human being he must know that "blgarin rodom" means " Bulgarian by blood" If he is historian he must know that it is practice the rulers at that time to determine what their origin (rod) is. Mr Donskis conclusion? In short: "blgarin rodom" means he is not Bulgarian. That's it . If this one is not nonsense, then what it is? BTW I have to recognize that Mr. Donski possess a phenomenal ability to explain everything in the way that suit him. He is King of the prevarication-interpretation-explanations. I believe if it is necessary he can explain that the water actually is a metal the birds are fishes the men are women. Everything! I like it. He could be a great politician if he was not engaged in writing books. Look at following pearl: "NE POSTOI NITU EDEN DOKUMENT OD SREDNIOT VEK, VO KOJ, KOJ I DA BILO ETNICHKI MAKEDONEC (NASH PREDOK) SAMIOT SEBESI SE DEKLARIRAL KAKO "BUGARIN"!" Of course there is no one such document. Neither there is document "VO KOJ, KOJ I DA BILO ETNICHKI MARSIANEC SAMIOT SEBESI SE DEKLARIRAL KAKO "BUGARIN"!" And it is so, not because Marsians are not Bulgarians, but because there are no Marsians on the Earth. Ne postoi Sande, se razbira deka ne postoi. Kako da postoi, koga vo toa vreme nema nitu eden zhiv etnichki makedonec? Nonsense Number 7 > "Kako vtoro, Vasilij II bil nare~en "bugaroubiec" poradi toa {to > terminot "bugari" (so malo "b") toga{ vo Vizantija imal navredliva > sodr`ina za lu|e "varvari", koi, spored vizantiskite hroni~ari, bile pod > kulturnoto nivo na razvienata i civilizirana Vizantija. Zatoa taka bile > nare~eni site `iteli na Samoilovoto Carstvo bez razlika na nivnata > etni~ka pripadnost. Dokaz za ova e i faktot {to kako "vulgari" ili > "bugari" (so malo "b", {to zna~i - varvari) od strana na vizantiskite > hroni~ari bile nare~eni duri i bosancite, iako tie `iveele von granicite > na Bugarija. Zna~i, spored niv, i bosancite bile "bugari", t.e. varvari > i prostaci {tom `iveele von civilizirana Vizantija. Zna~i terminot > Bugari ne sekoga{ se upotrebuval kako etnonim i ne sekoga{ se > upotrebuval vo pozitivna smisla, barem ne od strana na vizantiskite > hroni~ari od vremeto na Samoilovoto carstvo." > > HA HA! ANOTHER PEARL OF DONSKI'S WISDOM. BULGARIANS DID NOT TAKE THEIR > NAME FROM BYZANTINE. THEY CAME ON THE BALKANS BULGARIANS. BEFORE THAT > THEY FOUNDED 4 MORE BULGARIAN STATES. 3 OF THOSE STATES ARE DATED > CENTURIES BEFORE BYZANTINE APPEARANCE AND EVEN ANCIENT GREEKS AND THEY > HAVE BEEN EVER BULGARIANS. > SO MR. DONSKI BEFORE WRITING ABOUT THE HISTORY YOU'D BETTER READ SOME > MORE ABOUT IT. NE SUTOR SUPRA CREDITAM! (DON'T SPEAK ABOUT MATTERS YOU > DON'T UNDERSTAND!) > Again same Donski's prevarication-interpretation-explanations in order to suits his theory to the facts. Unlike Mr. Donski the Byzantine historians knew who the Bulgarians were very well. If he is historian he must know the European regions settled by Bulgarians (Not only the Bulgarians of Asparouh). He also must know where the borders of Bulgarian state reached during Tzar Simeon The Great. But these facts don't conform Donski's desires and he disposes them. He doesn't want to hear that the Bulgarians came on the Balkans as highly civilized people. It doesn't suit him. When I say Bulgarians came Bulgarians, I emphasize that they brought their thousands years old knowledge. The only people on the Earth that founded 5 states and ever survived. They outlived many Empires and civilizations. Unlike the barbarians of the steppes - nomads, Yahuns, Avars, Hazars and also unlike the Slavs, Goths and Vandals who led a settled life but who had a very primitive rural culture, the Bulgarians, whenever they settled anywhere, built enormous cities of stone, which had all the characteristics of a highly developed urban culture - orderly systems of roads and streets, water supply systems, drainage, baths and even heating installations (the so-called hypocausts). Their Calendar, a proof of their very exact astronomical and mathematical knowledge, was, and still is today, the most accurate. Analyses of seeds of cereals, found in archeological excavations, have shown that they were high-yielding sorts, such as obtained after a hundred years' selection work. From bone material unearthed in digs, it has become clear that all the Old Bulgarian medicos performed difficult operations, ones which would be intricate and hard even for a present day medical surgeon for instance, trepanation of the skull. The achievements of the Bulgarians in ore output, metallurgy and metal working impress us as being amazing for that time. The great amount of iron extracted made it possible for them to think up and make the instruments and tools they needed and to maintain a fighting force of 30,000 warriors and horses, clad from head to foot in iron. Bulgarian society at this time was built up according to a simplified and efficient pattern. Every member of society was personally free and chose his profession and occupation himself. The religious tolerance was incredible for that epoch among the Bulgarians there were Animists, Christians, Buddhists, Judaists and Moslems. The state authorities did not interfere with the religious concerns of their subjects but required strict obedience to the civil laws and mainly, of course, loyalty to the state authorities themselves. The highest state authority lay with the Kan, called in the Christian epoch the King. The decisions, however, were not taken authoritarianly but after discussions and voting by the COUNCIL OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNORS. Decisions of high state importance were taken by the COUNCIL OF THE PEOPLE, that is by PARLIAMENT, consisting of deputies. The Samuil's state organization was exactly the same like the one of the 1st Bulgarian empire from the pre-Christian times, i.e. the high officials had proto-Bulgarian titles; and the same was in Petar Deljan's state; the same was during the Georgi Voiteh's and Konstantin Bodin's uprising of 1072 and all those "Carot Samuil, no i negoviot naslednik Petar Deljan (koj, po propasta na Samuilovoto carstvo, vo 11. vek, krenal vostanie protiv Vizantija) bile izbrani za carevi od narodot na ist nachin kako shto svoevremeno bile birani i antichko-makedonskite carevi, t.e. preku opshto Sobranie na vojskata, a ne kako shto bile birani vashite hanovi za vreme na Prvoto bugarsko hanstvo…" are miserable attempts to falsify the history changing the names and the subjects in it. Lie Number 7 > "Inaku denes od pove}e istori~ari vo svetot Samoilovoto carstvo e > nare~eno kako makedonsko." > > BLA, BLA… ANOTHER OF DONSKI'S DREAMS (LIES). NO ONE "ISTORICHAR VO > SVETOT NAREKUVA SAMOILOVOTO CARSTVO KAKO MAKEDONSKO". NO ONE! (EXEPT > DONSKI AND RADULE. FORTUNATELY BOTH ARE NOT HISTORIANS) > In his reply Donski did not indicate even single present historian who "narekuva samoilovoto carstvo kako makedonsko" Why? Because there are no such historians. > *** > > So my compatriots? These are the methods and brain capabilities of a > person who claims to be our standard-bearer. Any comments? > I'll tell you what: > People like him and Slavko (posmali)Mangovski are not danger for > Bulgaria. They are danger for Macedonia. What am I talking… They are > disaster for Macedonia. > > Best regards, > > P.S. For those who are interested - find bellow a quote of Paisii's > history in its original spelling. > > "O nerazumne i jurode! Poradi chto se sramish da se narechesh bolgarin i > ne chetish na svoi jazik i ne dumash? Ili ne sa imali bolgari carstvo i > gospodarstvo!? Za toliko leta carstvuvali i bili slavni i chueni po sva > zemla i mnogo puti ot silni rimlane i mudri grci dan vzimali…i ot > slovenskago naroda nai-slavni bili bolgari, prvo se oni carove narekli, > prvo ono patriarha imeli, prvo se oni krstili, nai-bole zemla oni > osvoili. Tako ot svego naroda slovenskago nai-silni i chestni bili, i > prvi sveti slavenski ot bolgarski rod i jazik prosial…i za to imejut > bolgari ot mnogo istorii svidetelstvo, zshto e istina sve za bolgari… > No ot chto se ti, nerazumne, sramish ot svoi rod i vlachish se na chuzh > jazik?…Dali ostavja nekoi grk svoi jazik i uchenie i rod, kato ti > bezumne, shto ostavlash!" > At the end I would like to mark following. For my post (3 pages) I got reply of 15 pages and as a matter of fact it is as if I haven't got any. Donski wrote 15 pages in order to say nothing. As you just saw, NO ONE of raised by me questions did not get answer. He did not comment at all his lies and nonsense. Instead he send 15 pages full with additional fictions and nonsense. Examples? Here is one: Attila is neither Mongol nor Tartar and every serious historian knows it, everyone but Mr. Donski. I'll stop here because I do not want afterwards to get 125 pages reply. Well, I love laughing but I don't want to die with laughter. Yet to be honest in Mr. Donski's reply there is one thing that I fully agree with. It is his admission "Unfortunately I'm historian". Yes, unfortunately! I would only add: for Macedonia.