Following the Battle of Korinthos in 146 BC and the subsequent Battle of Aktion in 31 BC, Greco-Makedonian hegemony was superseded by Roman power. The Hellenistic kingdoms were dissolved into the Roman machine, and one would imagine that the cultural identity of ethnic Greeks and Greek-speaking peoples would come into question as they became assimilated into a single foreign power. The Second Sophistic, which was a flourishing of Greek authorship from the first century through the fourth century, already challenges this assertion as authors like Philostratos, Polybios, and Pausanias wrote on subject matters of Greek interest. Particularly, travel writers like Pausanias and Strabon displayed distinct interest in Greek regions and geography. Pausanias’ methodology was to identify particular locations within a chronotope to reveal the defining character of space by the Greek history that flourished within the space. Pausanias focuses on the Greek identities of regional groups like the Arkadians and Lokrians to reveal that they either assimilated or maintained a Greek identity. Among regional practices, Pausanias directs readers’ attention to the local practices of the people of Knidos. Finally, Pausanias uses national historical and mythological figures, such as Themistokles and Pyrrhos, to attribute a distinct Greek identity in confrontation with foreign regional powers. Pausanias, through emplacing the legacy of historical and mythological figures, local customs, and relation to non-Greek culture in space, relays a patriotic autochthony unique to the Greeks within their sites.

Read more

To the ears of many, the “Nation” and the “State” are synonymous with one another. But is that really the truth? Are these two words really referring to the same thing? If you are a part of a nation, are you also a part of the state? And vice versa, if you are a part of the state, are you also a part of the nation? If you love a nation, must you also approve of its state?

For the modern mind, the answer is usually assumed to be yes. We are taught from childhood that the borders on a map define a people, and that citizenship alone determines who belongs to a nation. Yet this understanding is remarkably recent. For most of history, men distinguished between the political authority that governed them and the people to whom they belonged.

Subscribe now

A state is a political institution. It governs, legislates, taxes, wages war, and maintains order. States rise and fall. Constitutions are rewritten. Dynasties collapse. Governments come and go. A nation is something far older and far deeper. It is a historical community of people united by memory, ancestry, language, culture, traditions, heroes, and a common destiny. A nation can survive without a state, as we Greeks did for centuries under the Turkokratia. Likewise, a state may govern many different nations, as the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and countless others once did. To confuse the nation with the state is to mistake the house for the family that lives within it.

Ion Dragoumis recognized this confusion when he said the following in Ελληνικός Πολιτισμός :

The politicians of the Greek state (Elladites) ended up identifying in their minds the state with the nation—or rather, being unable to rise to the generality of the “nation,” they turned their incapacity into a theory. They generalized the meaning of “state,” saying: “Every state has one people; therefore the Greek state also has a Greek people, and ‘people’ are those who pay taxes.” And so, in their minds, people, state, and nation became one and the same. The state was no longer temporary; it had not been created to gather the nation around it. It was no longer a stage but an end.

These words were written over a century ago, yet they remain so evidently relevant. Still to this day, we see politicians, journalists, public speakers, celebrities, etc, speak about the nation and the state in this way. They speak as though the Greek Nation consists only of those who happen to reside within the borders of the present Hellenic Republic. To them, the nation is measured by census data, tax records, passports, and electoral districts.

A HELLENE is reduced to nothing more than a TAXPAYER. But this understanding would have been foreign to nearly every generation of Greeks before us. When the Revolution of 1821 began, the overwhelming majority of Greeks did not even live within what would become the Kingdom of Greece. Constantinople was Greek. Smyrna was Greek. Pontos was Greek. Northern Epirus was Greek. Cyprus was Greek. Macedonia, Thrace, and the islands remained under Ottoman rule, yet no patriot of the Revolution imagined that these Greeks somehow ceased to belong to the Nation simply because they lived outside the borders of the fledgling state. The state was created FOR the nation, not the nation for the state.

Dragoumis continued :

...when those from outside (Greeks beyond the state) disturbed them, they would say: “First let us govern ourselves well (we, the Greeks of the state), and then we will consider taking others under our administration.” – as if Greece were already a finished, complete state, like England that, having secured its national self-existence, seeks to expand into foreign lands, into Africa or Australia. But they did not see that the English state lives naturally because it has found the natural boundaries of its nation – and even surpassed them – whereas the Greek state does not live naturally, because it has neither gathered the entire nation nor even properly realized the extent of its own people. Even now, the state resembles an octopus that does not feel its own limbs, and thus thrashes about.

His criticism was not directed at Greece as a civilization. It was directed at a state that had forgotten the very purpose for which it existed. Unfortunately, this tendency has not disappeared. Even today, the Greek state often treats the Hellenic Diaspora as little more than distant relatives rather than integral members of the Nation. Greeks born in America, Australia, Canada, Germany, South Africa, or elsewhere are frequently spoken of as though they are simply “Americans,” “Australians,” or “Canadians” with Greek surnames. Their Greekness is viewed as sentimental or symbolic rather than real.

But nationality does not evaporate the moment one boards an airplane. A Greek family that settled in Chicago remains part of the Greek Nation. A Pontian family in Melbourne remains part of the Greek Nation. A Greek child born in Johannesburg inherits the same historical tradition, the same ancestors, the same saints, the same songs, and the same Civilizational inheritance as a child born in Thessaloniki.

So what is the Nation and what is the State? Are we patriots because of the State, or because of the Nation? The answer is obvious : We are patriots FOR the Nation, regardless of the State. You will sometimes come across certain Men, they will say : “Greece sucks today. I would never wanna live there. The politicians are corrupt, there is no money, the people are wicked. We were great in the ancient times but, today I don’t care for it.” This is a man who has fallen for the propaganda. Sure, sometimes these observations contain genuine truths about the present condition of the Greek state. But these people unknowingly go one step too far. They conclude that because they despise the condition of the state, they therefore owe nothing to the Nation. This is a man who thinks that the Nation is synonymous with the State. And due to his error, he betrays in his heart his own people.

We do not feel this way. To criticize foolish and stupid politicians is one matter, to cease loving one’s own people is another. I do not love Greece because I love her politicians. I do not love Greece because I love her tax-policy. I do not love Greece because I love her run-down city buildings. I love Hellas because she is mine. I love Hellas because from her I was born. I love Hellas because God commanded me to honor my Nation. I love Hellas because she runs in my blood. I love Hellas because she runs in my soul. I love Hellas because my brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, are also a part of this Nation, regardless of where in the World they were born and raised. My fellow Hellenes in Chicago are just as much a part of the Nation as my fellow Hellenes in Thessaloniki. It is not the State that we honor. What makes a Greek is not whether he pays taxes to the current Greek state. What makes the Greek is whether his face is shaped like the statues, whether his tongue speaks the same way mine does, whether he dances in a half-circle hand-in-hand with his peers, whether his fathers and mothers were Kolokotronis, Makriyannis, Bouboulina, Kapodistrias, Mavrogenous, Achilles, Perikles, Alexandros.

The Nation is carried in a people’s history, language, faith, memory, customs, and blood. It is preserved in the family, in the Church, around the dinner table, in the village festival, in the Pontian lyra, in the island dance, in the names handed down from grandfather to grandson, and in the shared remembrance of both glory and suffering.

This essay is part 1 in a series of essays meant to define Hellenism as a philosophical and political ideology for the 21^st century. Many in our circles speak of a broad idea of Hellenism, but rarely is it ever defined as a cohesive worldview. We are seeking to change that. Before establishing a political or philosophical framework, we must clearly define the subject of our ideology : The Greek person. By analyzing the Greek Ethnos, this text seeks to move beyond the Modern civic definitions and restore the Classical and organic understanding of identity. It establishes who the Greek people are, where they came from, and what constitutes their spirit, providing the foundation upon which the future of Hellenism will be built.

It has been said many times, but it is good to repeat here and remember the way in which the ancients defined Nationhood. Herodotus famously defined a Nation as a group of people with : Ὅμαιμον, Ὁμόγλωσσον, Ὁμόθρησκον, Ὁμότροπον (the same blood, same language, same religion, and same customs). This of course emphasizes that an Ethnos is a living community of people sharing a distinct biological, linguistic, and cultural inheritance tied to a specific geographic homeland. The Greek Ethnos does not stop at the borders of the modern Hellenic state either. The Greek Diaspora is also included in this Ethnos. Not only is it an extension of the Nation, but it also is an intrinsic part of its living body.

Throughout history, the Greek people have been a colonial people. In the ancient days, we had Magna Graecia, Greek communities living in Italy. Greeks even lived as far as Ukraine and Afghanistan. And today, Greeks live in many places around the World: the Americas, Australia, Germany, Russia, etc. Despite living on foreign soil, they have maintained the Ὅμαιμον through lineage, preserved the Ὁμόγλωσσον within their homes, anchored their communities around the Ὁμόθρησκον of the Orthodox Church, and fiercely guarded the Ὁμότροπον through traditional customs.

Ion Dragoumis recognized Hellenism as a powerful spiritual force that cannot be confined by borders. During the Struggle for Makedonia, he understood the importance of the Greeks who lived and struggled outside of the Greek state of the time. He did not abandon them to lose their identity, he did not say “they are not real Greeks, for they were not born within the borders of our state.” He said “They are our brothers”, and he did everything he could to help them. The Greek Diaspora acts as the front-line defenders of Hellenic interests abroad, the preservers of Traditional culture in a Secular World, a living testament to the endurance of the Greek Spirit. In the greater Greek story, the Diasporan is an essential guardian of the flame, proving that the bond of the Ethnos is metaphysical, eternal, and unbreakable.

We should address here as well the question of our Faith. Some have claimed that we are not the same people as before, since our ancestors were Pagans and we are Orthodox Christians. Of course, this claim is silly, but we will humor these people for a moment with a response. The Greek people were some of the first peoples to embrace the True God, Jesus Christ. They understood that they needed to stop worshiping the false gods of the ancient pantheon, and convert to the True Faith. All the peoples of the World are called to worship Christ. Therefore, the true expression of a people is only found when they are followers of The Way. And so we cannot say that the Hellenic people died when they converted to Orthodoxy, but actually we must say the contrary, the Hellenic people only began to truly express themselves to the fullest once they became Orthodox. And with this conversion came the rise of Byzantium, of Eastern Rome, of Ρωμανία. With this rise of Byzantium, the classical foundation of the Greeks did not vanish. Hellenism underwent a spiritual synthesis. It fused with Orthodoxy. The Roman political structure, the Greek culture, language, and philosophy, the Orthodox Faith, all combined to create an empire, the vast Byzantine Civilization. The Hellenic people of today are the direct heirs of both the Ancient Pagan Hellenes and the Byzantine, Romaic people.

When the Greek people rose against Turkish oppression in 1821, they were not fighting for, as many so-called scholars and intellectuals erroneously claim today, Masonic and Liberal political theories stolen from Western Europe. No, as General Theodoros Kolokotronis stated, our Hellenic forefathers fought for the Holy Faith of Christ and the freedom of the Homeland. They fought not for an abstract concept of “freedom”, they fought to free their brothers from slavery. This is the holy freedom that we desire. The Modern World today makes reference to “freedom”, but what they mean is “freedom to sin”. What our ancestors meant was “freedom to love God and our Nation”.

Since 1821, many great thinkers have expanded on the meaning of Hellenism. Ion Dragoumis saw the Nation not as a stale state mechanism, but as a living and breathing organism. For Dragoumis, the Greek state was merely the shell, while the Ethnos was the soul. He emphasized the preservation of Hellenic culture, Folk-Traditions, and the unique spiritual energy of the people, warning against a blind imitation of Western materialism (and how desperately do we need this warning again today!). Dragoumis believed that Hellenism possessed a distinct destiny to bring light and balance to the Eastern Mediterranean. Today still, this message should resonate with us. We Greeks should work in the future to see Hellenism be a beacon, especially in the Balkans. Our many Orthodox brothers in Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc, should look to Hellas as a great Nation and State, and seek to form closer bonds with us and be inspired by our Folk-Ways. In many ways this has already naturally occurred. Many Balkaners listen and feel inspired by Greek music for example, and engage in small ways with our culture. But we can go even further than this. And, naturally, we will be inspired by their ways as well. And this is a beautiful thing, so long as it does not result in the destruction of our peoples!

Ioannis Metaxas is also a figure who has expressed Lived Hellenism. Under his 4^th of August State, Metaxas attempted to great a grand ideological synthesis which he called the Third Hellenic Civilization. He argued that the First Hellenic Civilization (Ancient Greece) provided beauty, philosophical rigor, and discipline, and the Second Hellenic Civilization (Byzantium) provided spiritual depth, Faith, and imperial unity. Now, I would like to address here a claim from Metaxas. He once claimed that Byzantium did not produce great works. At a certain point, this quote was shared by KTE, which was met with great backlash by one particular woman, whom we shall not name. She was very unhappy by this claim from Metaxas, and she accused us of spreading incorrect information and of being “Populists”. We would like to clarify three things (so that no one can say that we never did):

First of all, we are not Populists. It should be clear to anyone who has read our work that our ideological depth is much, much deeper and wiser than any sort of ideology that a Populist theoretician could ever dream of having.

Secondly, the claim from Metaxas must be understood in full, within context, and should not be broken apart and used as a way to attack Metaxas and his ideas without fully comprehending what exactly he meant and believed.

Thirdly, we at KTE obviously disagree with Metaxas’ specific claim that Byzantium did not produce great works. But this single error of his should not take away from the many other great ideas that he held. Only a fool would be so intellectually incapable of independent thought that they would pause all study of a figure solely on the fact that they disagreed on one, two, or even three points.

With that cleared up, we shall return to Metaxas’ Third Hellenic Civilization. This Civilization was envisioned to be a synthesis of these two golden eras of Greek Civilization, combining the courage and discipline of Ancient Sparta with the deep Christian piety of Byzantium. This was Metaxas’ vision. In many ways this is representative of much of modern Greece, for better or worse. We can go further than this. We should build a Third Hellenic Civilization. Not only should we take what was best from Ancient Greece and from Byzantium, but we should seek to make this Third Hellenic Civilization into something unique, new, and more glorious than any Hellenic Civilization which existed in the past!

The Greek people are not defined by sterile statistics based on random, Kosmophilophilic-opinions. 1 The Greek people share an inheritance of common Blood, Faith, Language, and Soil. We have a continuous chain of memory and duty that connects the Heroes and Saints of Antiquity, Byzantium, and all the years past on our land to us today.

The Provisional Government of National Defense, established in Thessaloniki in 1916 under the leadership of Eleftherios Venizelos, is often remembered as a temporary wartime government created during the turmoil of the First World War and the National Schism. Yet such a characterization understates its ideological significance. While formally a provisional administration, the State of Thessaloniki embodied many of the essential characteristics of a Greek Ethno-Nationalist state. It defined political legitimacy through service to the Greek Nation, pursued the realization of national territorial ambitions, and sought to mobilize the Hellenic people around a shared national destiny rather than dynastic loyalty.

To understand the nature of the Thessaloniki government, one must first examine the circumstances of its creation. Greece was deeply divided between supporters of King Constantine I and supporters of Venizelos. The King favored neutrality/semi-pro-Germanism, while Venizelos believed Greece should enter the war alongside the Entente powers. At its heart, this disagreement was a conflict over the source of political legitimacy. The Royalist position emphasized loyalty to the Crown and the existing constitutional order. The Venizelist position emphasized the interests and future of the Greek Nation itself.

The Provisional Government explicitly justified its existence through the claim that the Nation’s interests were being endangered by the policies of Athens. By establishing an alternative government, Venizelos and his supporters argued that the Nation possessed rights and interests that transcended the authority of the monarch. In this sense, the State of Thessaloniki represented a distinctly Nationalist conception of politics. The Nation, rather than the dynasty, became the ultimate source of legitimacy.

The military objectives of the government further reinforce its Ethno-Nationalist character. The Thessaloniki regime entered the First World War not for abstract ideological reasons but to secure the national aspirations of Hellenism. Venizelos believed that participation in the war alongside the Entente would allow Greece to expand into territories inhabited by Greek populations and complete the national project that had animated Greek politics since the War of Independence. The government therefore pursued policies directly linked to the expansion and protection of the Greek Nation.

This orientation was consistent with the broader vision of the Μεγάλη Ιδέα. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Greek political thought was dominated by the aspiration to unite all Hellenic populations within a single state. The Thessaloniki government embraced this objective wholeheartedly. Its leaders viewed the war as an opportunity to strengthen the Greek Nation and extend its political sovereignty over lands historically and ethnically connected to Hellenism. Such goals are characteristic of Ethno-Nationalist movements throughout Europe, which sought to align state boundaries with national communities.

The social composition of the National Defense government also reveals its Nationalist foundations. The movement attracted military officers, intellectuals, refugees, and middle-class supporters who viewed themselves as champions of the national cause. They frequently contrasted their activism with what they perceived as Royalist passivity and indifference toward the interests of Hellenism. Their rhetoric emphasized sacrifice, national unity, military service, and collective duty to the Greek nation.

Furthermore, the government’s close relationship with the armed forces reflected a common feature of many Nationalist movements. The army was a vehicle for national regeneration. Military participation became a demonstration of loyalty to the Nation and commitment to its future. The National Defense Army was therefore more than just the military force of the Hellenes ; it was a symbol of the Political-Nation.

Critics may object that the Thessaloniki government was primarily Liberal rather than Nationalist. Indeed, Venizelos was a Constitutional Liberal who supported Parliamentary government and cooperation with the Western powers. But this needs to be understood within context. Firstly, Liberalism and Nationalism were not mutually exclusive in the early twentieth century. Across Europe, many Nationalist movements combined Liberal Constitutionalism with strong commitments to national unity and national expansion. The State of Thessaloniki fits comfortably within this tradition. It was Liberal in its constitutional outlook but Nationalist in its conception of political purpose.

The government also displayed a clear distinction between national and dynastic loyalty. Royalists argued that allegiance to the King was essential to Greek political stability. National Defenders countered that loyalty to the Nation superseded loyalty to any individual ruler. This shift from dynastic to national legitimacy represented a significant hallmark of modern Nationalism and placed the Thessaloniki government firmly within that ideological framework.

Ultimately, the State of Thessaloniki should be understood as more than a temporary wartime administration. It was an experiment in national politics that asserted the primacy of the Greek Nation over the Monarchy, mobilized society in pursuit of national objectives, and sought to advance the territorial and political aspirations of Hellenism. While differing from later forms of Nationalism in both tone and method, it nevertheless exhibited the core characteristics of an Ethno-Nationalist state : the elevation of national identity as the foundation of political legitimacy, the pursuit of national unity, and the commitment to advancing the interests of the Hellenic nation above all other considerations.

Subscribe now

On May 21st, we commemorate the repose of Saint Constantine whom is honored alongside his mother Helen.

It is no secret that Constantine was the Roman Emperor to issue the Edict of Milan and end the centuries old persecution against the Church, but Constantine had varied influences in his life that caused him to go against the historical Roman precedent against Christians.

Among these, there was no more eminent an influence than Constantine’s mother Helen. She was a Christian and a Bithynian Greek during the tetrarchic persecution and raised her son in piety as Saint Ambrose indicates. Most sources leave the faith of Saint Helen at this time ambiguous, but Saint Ambrose says that Christ rewarded Saint Helen with the royal purple for she “preferred to be esteemed as dung in order to win Christ.” While his father, Constantius Chloros, was not a Christian, he maintained a more tolerant approach to Christians than his co-emperors. He abstained from executing Christians and even honored those who earnestly defended the faith, but had no qualms in the destruction of churches or restricting true worship. In this, Constantius’ love of peace could only merit him so much. He likely wasn’t a significant influence in Constantine’s life having divorced Saint Helen to marry Theodora, the daughter of Maximianus. This made Saint Helen the significant parental influence in his childhood.

Constantine did not perpetuate, in his youth, the faith of his mother. He became infatuated with the cult of Sol Invictus and saw him as a patron. It was in York that Constantius died and Constantine was proclaimed emperor. After this, Constantine received a vision of the Chi-Rho which proclaimed to him, “ἐν τούτῳ νίκα,” which is to say, “in this sign, conquer.” He, entrusting God with victory at the Milvian Bridge in Rome, had his forces paint the Chi-Rho on their shields into battle which ended in victory against Maxentius in 312 AD. Eusebios claims that, before this vision, Constantine was already convicted by reason of the consistent dishonor met by those who sought the Roman gods for aid to honor God alone. At this point in his life, Constantine had little formal catechism and sought priests of the Church to instruct him on the matters of the faith and become his personal counselors.

When Constantine unified the empire and his mother was proclaimed as empress, Saint Helen conducted a pilgrimage to Jerusalem during which she discovered the true Cross. She promptly established the Church of the Nativity among others on the site and had relics of the Cross transported to Rome. Saint Ambrose says that, surely out of a sense of motherly boldness, Saint Helen sought the relics to give to her son to protect him in battle.

The relationship between Saint Constantine and his mother is one that is that the Church celebrates by commemorating them both on this day. Constantine was a convert to Christianity and his heritage to the faith is not well attested by contemporary accounts. Whether or not Saint Helen truly was a Christian before Constantine’s conversion and provided some measure of influence in his life, the faithfulness of these Saints became strongly observable later in their lives when they lived in unified service to Christ and his Church. There wasn’t so much an observable unity between Constantine or Helen and Constantius Chloros who did not convert at any point in his life. Inevitably, his marriage failed and his relationship to his son became limited to political contexts. How could there be any meaningful love between people without Christ who energizes people to participate in true love? This is why the persecution and the tetrarchy collapsed. Christ ultimately had a providential use for the Roman empire which required Constantine’s ascent to power. Without Christ, the power of the impious tetrarchs failed and they fell into terrible vices. These are thoroughly accounted by Lactantius and how the Roman citizens, Pagan and Christian alike, suffered terribly under these rulers. There was no unity, peace or joy that was truly enjoyed under their provinces, but the joy that is found in Christ was observed when Constantine was met with joyous cries entering the city of Rome. May Christ preserve the unity of the Orthodox Christian peoples as He brought peace to the Romans.

Unfortunately, many people today misunderstand the Revolution of 1821. They wish to paint it as just another “Enlightenment” revolution that existed within the times of its era. Yet how can we say that the Greek Revolution only happened because of the Enlightenment, when the Greeks had been in constant revolt against the Turks since the very first days of our enslavement? Let us not forget that the Greeks revolted over 100 times before the successful Revolution of 1821! And let us also look to the words of the great General Theodoros Kolokotronis himself, who said : “My own uprising is neither similar to the French, nor anyone else. We will resurrect a homeland whose head will be Christ, not any man.” Where is the Humanism in this remark? Where is the Liberal Secularism? We don’t see this here. What we see in the Greek Revolution was a struggle in defense of Faith and Nation. Kolokotronis also said that “when we got our weapons, first we said for Faith and then for the Nation.”

Let us praise the great Bishop Germanos of Patras, who raised the revolutionary flag at the Monastery of Agia Lavra! Let us venerate the great martyr Saint Patriarch Gregory V, who was martyred at the hands of the Turks!

“The wild sea over there

remembers on your neck

the bloody rope

and on your holy face

the heavy beatings

your scream

your panic

the people’s clatter

it remembers the mist

the stone they put on you

your naked body

the great unrest in sea of you sinking

Monk how don’t you wake up to see your miracles

Morea is being restored

Rumelia is roaring”

Let us remember the words of Kolokotronis when he said “Greeks, God has signed our liberty and He won’t take His signature back!” Let us remember the words of Rigas Feraios in his Thourios : “An hour of free life is better than forty years of slavery and prison”. Let us remember Alexandros Ypsilantis’ “wild dreams of ambition!” To all the heroes and the martyrs of the Greek struggle for our independence, we shout, Αθάνατοι!

As Hellenes of the Diaspora, let’s not forget that the Greek Revolution began in the diaspora! The Filiki Eteria which was of the utmost importance to the success of the revolt was founded in Odessa. Alexandros Ypsilantis started his revolt in Romania. The plan was to revolt in Romania and in the Peloponnese, and then meet in the middle. Unfortunately, the revolt led by Ypsilantis failed. We can only wonder what would have happened if Romiosyni had successfully freed themselves together from their enslavement by the Turks. Perhaps a new Eastern Roman Empire would have been formed? Let us also remember the many Greeks of the diaspora who financed the revolt, such as Manto Mavrogenous who was born in Trieste, part of the Habsburg Monarchy. Manto financed and privateered at her own expense 2 ships which she used to pursue pirates around Mykonos and other islands of the Cyclades. And of course, we can’t forget to give our thanks to the honorable Phil-Hellenes who helped us in our struggle, such as the great Lord Byron, who after his death, the Greeks, before shouting Χριστός Ανέστη, asked “Where is Lord Byron?”

Unfortunately today, many of our people do not value what our ancestors fought for in the Revolution. They mock and disrespect our heroes and would rather spend their time in frivolity and foolishness. To honor our ancestors today is a revolutionary act. By celebrating 1821, we keep these things which our Nation has fought for alive : Our Hellenic language, our Orthodox Faith, our Traditions. Kolokotronis, Papaflessas, Diakos, Bouboulina, Karaiskakis, struggled in their day for freedom from Turkish enslavement. Today, our struggle is different, but it is still a struggle. Today we struggle to keep our Hellenic and Orthodox identity alive in the face of Globalism and the destruction of Traditional values.

Today, we cry aloud : Ζήτω η Ελλάς! Ζήτω η Ορθοδοξία! Ζήτω η 21η Μαρτίου!

To fully comprehend the significance of this victory, it is important to lay out the historical context regarding the region of Northern Epirus within which Himara resides. Northern Epirus, which today is located in Southern Albania, has its importance to the Greek nation stem from the sizable Greek population which had resided in the region since antiquity. More relevantly however, in the early 20th century, the region’s history was characterized by a constant back and forth struggle between Greek and Albanian interests. The sizable Greek minority of Northern Epirus desired unity with the Greek nation. The region, having been under Ottoman control for centuries, declared independence during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, and despite a brief Greek occupation, and a sizable Greek population in the region, the land was ultimately ceded to Albania following the cessation of hostilities and signing of treaties. Local Greeks, outraged with this outcome, declared independence from Albania, however following a lack of Greek intervention and involvement from great powers, they ultimately settled with an Autonomous Republic as stipulated by the “Protocol of Corfu.” This republic ultimately ended up being plagued by instability during the First World War and would be subsequently dissolved following the war’s conclusion and Greece’s defeat in the Greco-Turkish war. During the Interwar years and beyond, Northern Epirus would see renewed Albanian efforts to assimilate the native Greeks by systematic means of cultural suppression, especially after the conclusion of the Second World War.

October 28th marked the entry of Greece into the Second World War. The Italian ambassador issued an ultimatum to Greece, essentially requiring Greece to surrender its sovereignty, which was famously rejected by Prime Minister Ioannis Metaxas. This decision would ultimately plunge Greece into a defensive war against Italy, however after merely two weeks of conflict, the motivated Greek defenders forced underprepared Italian forces into a rout. During this rapid counteroffensive, the Greek 3rd Infantry Division pushed Northwards along the coast towards Himara before being halted by heavy resistance. After sporadic skirmishes, on the 19th of December, a detachment of Evzones from the 3rd Division launched a surprise attack on Italian positions, securing strategic heights, and over the coming days, more strategic heights would be secured around the town, outflanking the defenders. Italian forces, now being threatened with encirclement decided on withdrawal from Himar., Greek forces finally entered on the 22nd of December, being greeted by the cheers of Greek locals. The battle resulted in over 400 casualties and 900 taken prisoner of war on the Italian side, with roughly 100 casualties taken by the Greeks, proving to be a very significant victory against a superior force.

Being chased back into Albania, the Italians were forced to take up a defensive posture, ultimately slowing and halting the Greeks, but not before suffering heavy materiel and territorial losses. The frontline would remain relatively stagnant until April 1941, where the political situation rapidly changed to Greece’s detriment. Metaxas would die under suspicious circumstances earlier in the year, leading the new government, under Alexandros Koryzis to allow the landing of British troops to assist in Greece’s defense in March ‘41, officially aligning Greece with the allies. To the north, following a coup of the pro-Axis government, Yugoslavia was invaded and quickly defeated by its Axis-aligned neighbors. Greece, now being supported by British forces, was invaded by a joint German, Italian, and Bulgarian force, having its defenses quickly overwhelmed, leading the Greek military to honorably surrender to the Germans by April 23rd, 1941 to avoid an unnecessary slaughter. The King and his government would then flee the mainland, and Greece would remain occupied until October of 1944.

The significance of this battle not only rests in the military aspect of it, but in recognizing that the Greek nation extends beyond its physical borders and with its diaspora abroad. While it is important to remember the heroic sacrifices of our ancestors during the Second World War, it would be foolish to forget the history and cultural heritage of our people that they were fighting to defend. As our forefathers preserved our identity, both under foreign occupation and as a diaspora, it is critical that we carry on with our inherited duties to both preserve, and pass on our culture and traditions through these times and beyond.

Late this summer, KTE received an exclusive quote from Tomasz Froehlich, a member of the EU Parliament and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) politician, regarding the concept of a potential partnership in the EU Parliament with Niki, Greece’s leading conservative Orthodoxy-first party.

Froehlich confirmed his party’s interest in an organized cooperation with Niki as part of the larger ‘Europe of Sovereign Nations’ group in the EU Parliament, which was formed by AfD in June of 2024.

“We view such a partnership with great interest and see it as an opportunity to strengthen our shared vision of a multipolar world order,” said Froehlich. “The AfD stands for a world in which several equal powers can realize their regional ideas of order, rather than being subjected to unipolar dominance. Niki shares this conviction and, like us, stands for a sovereign, self-determined policy for its own nation.”

Niki, headquartered in Thessaloniki, was founded in 2019 by Dimitris Natsios, a teacher and theologian. They currently have one seat in the EU Parliament, and are characterized by their strict adherence to Orthodox Christian values and Greek protectionism against globalism.

For their part, AfD secured 15 seats in the EU Parliament in the June 2024 elections, making it the second-largest party from Germany. What’s more, on the 15th of October, AfD polled above 40 percent in a German state for the first time in an Insa Institute survey.

“The Greek party Niki embodies those authentic conservative values that Europe urgently needs. Dimitris Natsios and his party stand for the triad “Faith, Nation, Family” – principles that also guide our policies. Their deep roots in the Greek Orthodox tradition impress us and represent a solid foundation that not every European right-wing party can claim,” stated Froehlich.

As of the June 2023 general election, Niki won 10 seats in the 300-member Hellenic Parliament after receiving 3.69% of the national vote.

“Greece is the cradle of European culture and anthropology, and philosophy – those ancient roots which, together with Christianity and Roman law, have shaped the German guiding culture and the entire Western civilization. The AfD recognizes this Greek tradition as an indispensable part of our shared European heritage,” continued Froehlich.

Their politics are similarly characterised by conservatism, traditionalism, and, although AfD is not a Christian party, representatives of the party have spoken out about Germany’s “de-Christianization” (Beatrix von Storch, Deputy Parliamentary Leader of AfD).

“Niki has demonstrated that decisively religious-conservative politics can mobilize people,” said Froehlich. Their success in their first parliamentary and European elections provides a solid basis for traditional values and national identity to resonate. Thus, an important step has been taken in Greece as well, putting pressure on the established center-right party Nea Demokratia and ensuring it can no longer pursue an increasingly left-liberal agenda unopposed.”

Niki is also well-known in the Greek political arena for their uncompromisingly conservative policies and lack of social media presence. They currently occupy a distinct space in Greece’s traditional right-wing, alongside Elliniki Lysi (Greek Solution) and Foni Logikis (Voice of Reason).

“Due to the economic upheavals during the euro crisis, discord arose between Germans and Greeks, which is not in the interest of either of our countries. We want to look forward and emphasize our common interests. Both our countries face a growing loss of identity due to the disastrous social policies of the established parties, worrying mass immigration, and geopolitical uncertainty caused by Western-Atlantic escalation policies. Further issues, such as opposition to the Green Deal and the associated move towards deindustrialization of the continent, also unite us,” explained Froehlich.

The AfD have exploded in popularity in recent years; they have used social media to their advantage, pulling in youth voters and shattering demographic barriers. At the federal election in February, they received more than 20% of the vote. Recent polls place them near 27% nationwide and around 40% in East German states, where elections are set for next year.

“A partnership between Niki and the ESN would strengthen both sides. Niki would gain political weight at the European level and access to a network of sovereigntist movements. At the same time, our group would be enriched by an important Christian-Orthodox voice that would further our vision of a ‘Europe of Fatherlands.’ I observe the parliamentary work of NIKI MEP Nikos Anadiotis with approval. He’s doing a great job,” declared Froehlich.

“After all, a Europe without the Greek element is unimaginable, and we want to honor and preserve the roots of this continent. We offer Niki the opportunity to join forces with us and thus increase Greek influence in the European Parliament,” he concluded.

Whether the traditionally independent Niki chooses to align with the ESN group remains to be seen. Yet the AfD’s outreach underscores a growing trend across Europe: national-conservative parties moving toward coordinated influence within the European Parliament.

Unfortunately, modernist presuppositions frame the answers to such questions. Worse, they can make people uncomfortable with even asking them. For a Greek-American to say, for example, that he cares enough about his heritage that he wants to have Greek children seems anachronistic and outdated to many in the West.

Nevertheless, such a modernistic understanding of fealty to one’s own nation is simply incongruent with the historical Christian perspective on ethnicity. Modernist Christians may cite St. Paul to brow-beat nationalists and shame them for their national pride. The Evangelist writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28). However, the modernists err in reading liberal notions of “equality” into the sacred words. For them, his words are ammunition to perpetuate the elimination of the distinctions between men, or rather to pretend such distinctions do not exist. Of course, the Orthodox Christian understands that in Christ, all nations, whether Jew or Greek, were equally bound under the law of sin, equally redeemed by the precious Blood of Christ, and now they are equally judged by the same Gospel. However, the modernist goes further by extrapolating from this truth that all the distinctions between nations are merely accidents of geography and therefore “socially constructed.” Accordingly, the Christian has no need to care for his own heritage. To do so, for them, would constitute pride or, even more absurd, the heresy of ethnophyletism. On the contrary, to claim that the words of St. Paul here constitute the elimination of national or ethnic distinctions would also mean they constitute the elimination of the differences between the sexes. Of course, the more honest of the Progressive Christian denominations have already taken the modernist interpretation to its logical conclusion and imported both critical race and gender theory into their churches.

How then, should the Christian understand his heritage? First of all, everything a Christian has is a gift given to him by Providence. His life, economic circumstances, family, social standing, and nation have not been earned but rather bestowed upon him by God. As the priest exclaims at the end of every liturgy, quoting the epistle of St. James, “For every good gift and perfect thing is from above, coming down from thee, the Father of lights, and to Thee do we ascribe glory.” Therefore, just as with every other gift from God, the Christian is not meant to squander it and let it perish, lest he be found as the servant that buried the talents instead of multiplying them. Rather, he is obliged to care for and even transfigure it in the Christian life.

The Christian loves his people, both his progeny and his heritage, in the sense that he thanks God for his circumstances and then in turn desires the best for his own people, which would ultimately be their salvation. One may note the parallels here between the Christian attitude toward one’s family and one’s ethnos.

Until this point, we have dealt with the theoretical Christian attitude toward one’s people, but we have yet to see how this has played out in the Orthodox Church. Is there any historical basis for an ethnic consciousness in the history and life of the Church? To the dismay of the modernists, the answer is a resounding yes. Even in the early Church, an ethnic consciousness was already presupposed and applied to the practical Christian life. Commenting on the words of the Sermon on the Mount, St. Cyprian of Carthage writes, “If it is a source of joy and glory to men to have children like to themselves — and it is more agreeable to have begotten an offspring then when the remaining progeny [corresponds] to the parent with like lineaments — how much greater is the gladness in God the Father, when any one is so spiritually born that in his acts and praises the divine eminence of race is announced!” (Treatise 10, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050710.htm) Note here the parallel between exhibiting the characteristics of one’s lineage and nation and then exhibiting the divine characteristics of virtue. St. Cyprian takes the natural human instinct to preserve one’s ethnic heritage for granted, and then applies it to spiritual life. In other words, “If it is natural for the father to pass on the traits of his people, how much more does the Heavenly Father want to pass on the divine characteristics of holiness?” Furthermore, an ethnic consciousness is even present in the liturgical life of the Church. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church commemorates St. Vladimir and the baptism of the Rus on July 28th. Such a liturgical celebration transcends imperial and national boundaries, as it is celebrated not only in Russia itself, but also the surrounding Slavic nations and even in the diaspora (see here: https://orthochristian.com/161943.html).

Thus, the liturgical celebration demonstrates consciousness of an ethnic lineage spanning over ten centuries back to the Kievan princes. Even further, one can see the ethnic variance in how the Greeks and Russians each celebrate in October the Pokrov, or the Protection of the Mother of God. Whereas the Greeks commemorate the feast on October 28th, Oxi Day, as the Mother of God’s protection of the Greek people, the Russians commemorate the 10th century invasion of Constantinople by the still-pagan Slavs. On that day of the invasion, the Theotokos appeared before the Blachernae Church and the Slavic fleet was miraculously defeated (read more here: https://orthochristian.com/86742.html) . Despite this event occurring prior to the Baptism of the Rus, it is celebrated as the Slavic people’s first direct encounter with their future God. If an ethnic consciousness were not present in the life of the Church, then such celebrations would be impossible. The Church, then, recognizes each nation and their dynamic relationship with God. One can even see national characteristics manifest from things as substantial as hymnographic traditions to those as minute as local customs of piety specific to the national churches. Like a beautiful mosaic, all these variances reflect each nation’s unique relationship with God in the Orthodox Church. In 1971, Metropolitan Vitaly Ustinav of ROCOR, commenting on the Civil Rights Movement in America, expounded profoundly on the relationship between nationality and religion. His thoughts perfectly summarize the Orthodox spirit of an ethnic consciousness. He writes,

“The culture of each nation is, first of all, its view of heaven, its relation to divinity in general, to the Holy Trinity if it be a Christian nation. This orientation toward heaven impresses its own deep mark on the activities of a given nation: on its life, its habits, its productions in any field, science, music and art. Every nation strives toward the Unembraceable, Boundless, Uncircumscribed God. The nation follows its own path, establishes its own heaven: Russian, German, French — but invariably its own. And God opens their heaven to them. Here we have the highest value of any nationality, the window, as it were, of every race into heaven, into the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no man without a nation or tribe, nor is there a religion without a nation, just as there is no nation without a religion. These two phenomena are mutually dependent and cannot be separated either in time or in composition.” (Source: https://www.rocorstudies.org/2012/08/30/belye-negry/)

The Orthodox faith does not erase ethnic identity but sanctifies it, transforming national heritage into a vessel for divine grace. National and ethnic consciousness, far from being a modernist construct, is woven into the Church’s history, liturgy, and theology. To love one’s people is not arrogance; rather, it is gratitude for God’s gifts. Thus, the Christian honors both his heavenly and earthly inheritance, preserving his nation and striving for its salvation as an offering to Christ, the Lord of all.

In 1919, Plastiras led the 5/42 Evzone Regiment in Ukraine during the Russian Civil War. The supporters of the Tsar, the fighters against Communism, are known as the “White Russians”, and Plastiras led this regiment into battle on their side. In the beginning, this was a challenge, as the regiment was largely undisciplined. When Plastiras first took command, the soldiers treated him with hostility, however he was able to gain their respect and raise moral. Their involvement in this war was seen as being a part of the same struggle to take back Asia Minor for the Greeks. Eventually Plastiras took command of two other Greek battalions, along with local French units. They came to be known as the Απόσπασμα Πλαστήρα (Plastiras Detachment). Their adventure in the Ukraine proved to be useful later on during the Asia Minor Campaign, as their close contact with Cossacks led them to acquire horses.

During the Greco-Turkish War, the Turks called Plastiras “Kara Biber” (The Black Pepper). Plastiras and his regiment fought against Turkish nationalists in Asia Minor. They held Manisa for 3 months, eventually being allowed to expand even farther, capturing many cities. In November 1920, Venizelos was defeated in the elections and the Royalists took power. Most of the Venizelist commanders were replaced by Royalist ones, although something interesting happened with Plastiras. He was a Venizelist, but most of the men under his command were Royalists, however these men identified with Plastiras so strongly, that he retained control of the regiment.

Eventually, the Greeks were defeated, and they had to evacuate. Plastiras was even accused of being responsible for the defeat of the 4th Greek Infantry Division. On September 11th, 1922, Plastiras, along with Colonel Stylianos Gonatas and Commander Phokas, staged a coup against the political leaders in Athens. Plastiras forced King Constantine I to abdicate, and he invited Venizelos to return and lead the peace negotiations with Turkey. They had the support of the Army and the majority of the people, and they took the city of Athens with ease, being met by a cheering crowd. According to Penelope Delta, Plastiras exclaimed to the crowd : “Why do you cheer? We lost, we came destroyed”. It was at this time that the Trial of the Six occurred, which resulted in the execution of Royalist politicians. Plastiras struggled to lead the country, having many difficulties. However, he was admired by his enemy, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

In 1924 he retired from public life. The National Assembly declared him “Worthy of the Fatherland”. Greece was faced with many political struggles between the Venizelists and Royalists for years. He was even persecuted during the dictatorship of Theodoros Pangalos.

In 1933, Plastiras attempted a coup against the anti-Venizelists, but it failed, and he was forced to flee to Nice, France. While in France, he had an interest in some of the new European political ideologies of the time. According to George Souvlis :

“The results triggered an attempted coup by Venizelist officers headed by Plastiras aiming to reverse the outcome of the elections. It was a failure and Plastiras was forced into exile. At that point General Plastiras invoked the Mussolini model, suggesting the failure of parliamentary government in the face of the communist threat.

This action should not be considered as surprise since Venizelos the leader of the liberal camp few months earlier had recommended amending the constitution by introducing a provision parallel if not similar to the Diktatur Article 48 of the Weimar Republic constitution aiming to strengthen the executive power.” (Source - Towards an Anatomy of Metaxas Fascist Experiment: Organic Intellectuals, Antiparliamentarian Discourse and the Authoritarian State Building, George Souvlis, 2019)

In 1941 while in exile in France, Plastiras blamed the Royalists, Ioannis Metaxas, and King George II for getting Greece involved in an “unequal war” against Italy and Germany “which could have been avoided”. Despite this, he was the titular leader of ΕΔΕΣ, the resistance group, and eventually after the war he was brought back to Greece by the British to rule, due to his popularity. Because of his Venizelism, the British distrusted him, and he only remained in power for three months.

Later in life, he founded a new political party, and preached national reconciliation, attempting to heal the schism between the Left and the Right. He managed to assist the economy, and also was responsible for Lake Plastira, an artificial lake in the Tavropos River.

He died in poverty in Athens in the year 1953. He was buried with the honors of a Prime Minister, and his heart was removed and preserved. In 1980 his heart, covered with the Greek flag, was transferred to Karditsa in the presence of the Archbishop of Athens and many government officials.

Eventually, the Kingdom of Pontos was established. Its most well known ruler was Mithridates VI Eupator, who expanded the kingdom to its largest extent. He was of both Hellenic and Persian stock. Mithridates, while living in the wilderness, began to cultivate an immunity to poison. During his rule, he came into conflict with the Romans, and seemed to be at his end. According to Appian of Alexandria, he began to mix a poison, and his two daughters begged him to let them take it first, which they did, and it effected them immediately. However, Mithridates survived the poison because of his immunity, and so he asked a Gallic guard to kill him by sword instead.

Pontians continued to live in Pontos. With the Sacking of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, the Kingdom of Trebizond was established. The last emperor of Trebizond was Saint King David Komnenos. Mehmed the Conqueror had besieged the city and captured Saint David and his three children and nephew. In a synaxarion found at the Monastery of the Theotokos on the island of Halki, we read : “On November 1st, a Sunday, in the fourth hour of the night, he was executed by sword together with his three sons and his nephew, in the year 1463, the 12th Indiction, in Constantinople” (Source - John Sanidopoulos) Saint David and his family are considered martyrs in the Orthodox Church, for Mehmed had given him two choices : They may live as long as they give up their Orthodox Faith, or they will be killed. Saint David said to him : “No torture is going to bring me to the point of renouncing the faith of my fathers.” And so, he bravely became a martyr.

Pontians survived for hundreds of years under Turkish rule. During the 1910s to the 1920s, the Ottoman Turks began a genocide, killing millions of Armenians, Pontians, Assyrians, and others. Some estimates put the number of killed Pontians at 700,000. In 1919 the Greco-Turkish War began, and the Greeks hoped they could rescue the oppressed Greeks living under Turkish occupation, not just in Pontos, but also in Constantinople, Smyrna, Cappadocia, et cetera. Unfortunately, this failed. Some have argued the Greeks were betrayed by the Great Powers. With this failed invasion and the genocide, some Pontians in Pontos took matters into their own hands, and there were resistance groups who tried to fight back. The independent Republic of Pontos was also established.

Eventually, there was a population exchange made, sending Greeks from Anatolia and Turks from Greece back to each others territories. Many Pontians went to Greece, while others travelled to the Russian Empire.

Today, Pontos lives. Despite all these struggles, the Pontian people have not gone away. Pontians have made an important impact on Hellenism. Pontian culture has become very popular among the Hellenic youth. Pontian music is especially popular, with many Pontian musicians creating great music such as Stelios Kazantzidis, Vasilis Karras, et cetera

Δεν ξεχνώ! Ο Πόντος ζει!

Primarily, we are Orthodox Christians. Before we can organize the state, the nation, or the family, we must organize the individual and collectively come closer to Christ. KTE wants to encourage the already very apparent resurgence of Orthodox Christianity within the Greek community and beyond. We want to work hand in glove with the Greek Orthodox Church to promote religiosity within the Greek nation and continue to assist evangelization efforts abroad.

Secondly, we believe that the Greek diaspora has both a right and a responsibility to reconnect with our homeland. The Greeks living abroad have done an amazing job of maintaining a distinct cultural identity, resisting assimilation to a much greater degree than many other immigrant groups in the West. The Greek diaspora has been able to maintain many distinct and unique aspects of Greek culture while also immersing itself in the economic and educational systems of our respective countries. This unique combination of Western education and capital, juxtaposed by the traditional and patriotic inclinations of the Greek diaspora, makes for an especially useful group when compared to Greece’s current shortcomings. The Greek diaspora has not only earned the right to reengage with Greece, but the intention of the Greek diaspora to return to Greece comes at a time when assistance is sorely desired by the Greek state. KTE believes that organizations such as ours can both rally the Greek people to our cause and petition the current government to remove the barriers to entry for the Greek diaspora to return.

Thirdly, we see the Greek diaspora as the solution to the spiritual, economic, and political issues of Greece. KTE believes that in the event of a repatriation, the Greek state will benefit massively from the arrival of the well-educated and traditionally-minded diaspora. KTE wants to position itself as the voice of the Greek people and the Greek diaspora, working tirelessly to lift Greece up from its current global position and use the influence and resources of the diaspora to make Greece a great country. Throughout Greeces history, especially in the post 1821 era, it has always seemed like Greece was an ascending power. Wars of reconquest, economic growth, and political stability were the norm in Greece throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. However, it seems like Greece is declining in almost every single sector. There seems to be practically zero areas of growth within Greece, with the notable exception of our economic revival after the financial crisis.

In America there is a different story, the Greek diaspora has never been more educated and endowed in its long history on this land. In fact, the third and fourth generation Greek Americans and Australians have transcended the success of previous generations, leaving the restaurants and diners behind to enter the professional world in massive numbers.

KTE believes that Greece has what the diaspora lacks, and the diaspora has what Greece sorely needs. While Greece itself can provide the diaspora with the religious and cultural infrastructure that they so crave, the diaspora can offer their ingenuity, industriousness, and capital in return. T

his organization exists to bridge that gap in any way it can. First, by building awareness and consciousness among the Greek diaspora abroad. Secondly, by transitioning into real political action, both in Greece and abroad. Thirdly, by assisting the Greek people in any way possible, using our resources to better our communities, and encouraging integration and investment into Greece. Our dream is to actualize the massive potential of the Greek people and make Greece a modern superpower, built by the hard work and genius of the Greek people themselves.

The Greek colonization of the Levant began in the Mycenaean period, around the 14th century BCE. When Alexander came in the 4th century, Hellenic influence and culture spread, dominating the region. Throughout the Roman (and later Byzantine) Empire, the fortification and expansion of Greek civilization resulted in the continuation of a robust 3000 year presence in the region. This presence was only challenged by the Arab expansion and eventually the rise of the Ottoman Empire which quickly began the ethnic and linguistic transformation of the region. Notably, the Ottoman Empire would give tax breaks to Arabic speakers, while Greek speakers were persecuted for their language and faith. Slowly, Arabic replaced Greek as the language of the region; social and political pressure led to the slow decline of Hellenic life and civilization in the region. However, the descendants of the Hellenic settlers, Macedonians, and Byzantines did not physically leave. Of course, there was a degree of admixture with Arabs and other pre-Arab populations, but the Hellenic DNA remained a fixture of the Levant throughout the centuries of persecution.

During the Greek Revolution, armed action against the Ottomans signalled to the other ethnic and religious minorities of the empire that it was now possible to separate ourselves from the Ottoman yoke. However, widespread armed conflict never reached the Middle East, with the notable exception of the sole Greco-Levantine expedition, led by Vassos Mavrovounitis and Hatzimihalis Dalianis. Ioannis Kolettis, saw that a potential uprising of Levantine Greeks would help draw away Ottoman soldiers from the Greek theatre. Once the Greeks landed in Beirut, Mavrovounitis called the Levantine Greek Orthodox Christians to rise up and fight with them. Ultimately, the expedition was a failure, the Christian population did not rise up in massive numbers, and the local Druze Chiefs mobilized against the Greeks. After this, a local pasha arrived in Beirut with 500 Albanian soldiers, who immediately started attacking the Christian community. Nevertheless, this chapter of Greek history, although ultimately unsuccessful, shows the continued connection between the Levantine Greeks and the homeland.

Naturally, the Hellenic language and culture remained, although diminished, especially in the aftermath of the revolution of 1821. The Orthodox Church remained one of the few institutions that was allowed to maintain its Hellenic identity throughout the Ottoman and Arab persecutions. However, the final domino to fall came about with the intervention of the Russians. After Greek independence, the Megali Idea became the state policy of Greece. As Greece began to expand their territory and make ever grandiose irredentist claims, naturally Russian influence in the Balkans waned. Russia was traditionally the protector of Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire, the Christian minorities looked primarily to the Russians for protection and diplomatic support. The period of revolution in the Balkans was a double-edged sword for the Russians, although the independence of Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro was effective in accelerating the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the new Balkan states were now free to pursue their own policies and goals which may not necessarily be in the interests of Russia.

Greece was a perfect example. their state policy included a very aggressive form of irredentism, Greece wanted to unite all of the former regions of the Byzantine Empire, especially those that still possessed a significant Greek population. The Levant was a complicated region, although centuries of Arab migration had fundamentally shifted the demographics of the region, the Levantine Greeks still comprised a significant percentage of the population and dominated trade and commerce in the region. A French census of Lebanon in 1862 showed that Greek Orthodox and Catholics comprised 48% of the population, showing that the area would be of strategic interest to the new Greek state. Clearly, Greek political and social influence in the Balkans and the Levant was rising, and Greece certainly could have become a rival power to the Ottomans, at the expense of the Russians.

The Russians began a campaign of the “Arabization” of the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch, which were previously dominated by the Greek speaking hierarchs from Constantinople. Tsar Alexander III sponsored the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPOS) with the goal of advancing the Arab Orthodox identity. Russian consuls to Damascus and Beirut, Ivan Yastrebov and Nikolai Ignatiev, began the project by assisting in the construction of hundreds of churches, schools, and printing presses in the Levant. These schools and presses began to publish theological works in Arabic, educated Levantine clergy, and promoted the Orthodox Arab identity. The Russian Patriarchate backed the Arab candidate for Patriarch of Antioch, Meletius II Doumani, who was enthroned in 1899 as the first Arab Patriarch. With this, the Patriarchate of Antioch was fully Arabized, which marked a turning point religiously and culturally in the Levant. These educational institutions produced most of the Orthodox Christian leaders of the region, all of whom were now fully indoctrinated into the Arab identity.

The Hellenic identity in the Levant didn’t die, it was killed. Arab expansion, Turkish oppression, and Russian political engineering forced the decline of the Hellenic identity in the Middle East. Like many other Hellenic communities abroad (Northern Epirus, Rumelia, Monastir, etc.), the people themselves were not exiled like the Greeks of Asia Minor, they were assimilated into the culture of whatever government they were unfortunate enough to live under. The 3000 year presence of Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean never truly ended. Rather, the constant subversion and erosion of our identity caused people with Greek ancestry to self identify as a group that they had nothing in common with. Naturally, mixing and intermingling with other communities may have occurred to some level, but on the whole, Hellenic genes remained a fixture of Levantine civilization from its inception until the modern day.

For those unfamiliar, the seasonal labor market works differently than most typical jobs in Greece. The majority of seasonal workers only work for 6 months a year, using the money they make in the summer to sustain a long winter vacation, or to pay for their education. The workers themselves typically work as many hours as possible during the summer season because they won’t have any income during the winter months. In my experience working seasonal jobs in Greece, I see many young people voluntarily working easily 10 to 12 hours per day. This bill would benefit most of these seasonal workers who would be working over 8 hours per day, regardless of any government regulation on the matter.

Employers in seasonal positions typically provide room and board for employees, which is costly and may limit the number of staff they can afford during the tourist season. Housing is one of the largest expenses for business owners in Greece, who prefer a smaller number of employees who are expected to work for long hours. This bill would essentially regulate and govern an existing trend, seasonal employees working well over the 40 hour work week, the majority of them being compensated under the table which further increases the size of Greece’s “black economy”, already the largest in Europe.

The criticism of this bill isn’t necessarily related to the provisions of the bill itself, which promise that this 13 hour workday will be limited and optional in nature. Critics of the bill, myself included, realize that this represents a slippery slope into declining working conditions and increasing pressure to work the 13 hours by employers. Historically, bills which loosen regulations on labor will inevitably transition from the exception to the expectation. If employees are willing to work for over 12 hours a day, they will become preferential candidates for any job. These candidates will incentivize businesses to hire exclusively from the pool of employees who wish to work in poorer conditions, which in turn alienates the existing employee pool which met the previous expectations.

In Greece, employers are actually not allowed to hire foreign laborers unless they can prove that a Greek citizen or EU citizen has not applied or met the requirements of the posted job. By significantly raising the amount of working hours expected by employers, there is a growing likelihood that Greeks will be unwilling to accept these jobs, in turn opening the doors for more foreign workers to enter Greece. Typically, the migrant workers who take seasonal jobs are willing to work these hours without question. Their livelihood and presence in the country is dependent on their work performance, they are cheaper than hiring Greeks and thus become the obvious choice for employers searching to cut costs in an economy which already has 24% VAT on food and 13% on beverages, much higher than the EU average.

The government promises that the 13 hour workday will remain optional. However, the very nature of these labor laws puts unnecessary pressure on workers to constantly lower their standards to maintain employment and keep their competitiveness in the labor market. Greece’s economy is heavily reliant on tourism, and this trend of continuously longer hours and stagnant wages amid a cost of living crisis is setting the Greek workers up for failure. Rather than try to legislate the clear shortcomings of the labor market, it would be more profitable for the Greek government to reconsider the place of seasonal labor and tourism in the economy. If the Greek people need to work 13 hours a day to afford life during the winter, perhaps we need a more foundational reconstruction of the Greek economy.

Photo via The Metaxas Project

A regime change took place in Greece on August 4, 1936. Greece had just become a monarchy once again, and political unrest between the Liberals and the anti-Liberals led to a man named Ioannis Metaxas being appointed Prime Minister. Still, political unrest continued. Riots by KKE, the Greek Communist Party, were very alarming to King George II. So, on August 4, Metaxas declared a state of emergency, citing the Communist threat as the chief reason, and he, along with the King’s support, established himself as the sole leader. ¹

From that day onward, Greece was ruled by a regime known affectionately as the Fourth of August Regime, in honor of the date of its inception. The Fourth of August Regime had a significant effect on Greek identity both during the regime and after the regime, even affecting the modern Greek identity that persists to this day. Metaxas and those loyal to him had a very specific idea in mind for what the Greek identity should be, and they pushed for this type of identity to become the norm throughout all of Greece.

The regime was known by this name not just by its opponents, but also by its supporters. It was also very open about the fact that they were a regime. In this context, the term “regime” refers to a group of people ruling over a nation in a non-liberal manner. Metaxas was proudly against Democracy and Liberalism. He is quoted as saying:

Read more