When Absent Names Become Absent Character: Renaming, Identity Loss, and the Colonial Reshaping of Peoples

A Comparative Study with Primary Emphasis on Hebrew/Israelite Identity under Empire

Abstract

Colonization is not only a political or territorial conquest but a systematic reconstruction of identity. One of the most powerful instruments of this reconstruction is the forced alteration, suppression, or replacement of indigenous names. Names carry cultural, spiritual, genealogical, and historical meaning; when they disappear, so does a part of the self. This paper examines how the erasure of names leads to the erosion of character, using the Hebrew/Israelite experience under Greek and Roman imperial rule as a central case study. It then expands into a broader, comparative analysis—drawing parallels with African, Indigenous American, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations—to demonstrate that renaming functions as a universal mechanism of colonization used to dominate and redefine subject peoples. The paper concludes with an exploration of contemporary name reclamation as an act of identity restoration and decolonization.

1. Introduction: Names as Vessels of Identity

Names are not arbitrary linguistic sounds. Across cultures, names function as:

• Inherited identity markers

• Indicators of lineage and ancestry

• Descriptors of character, destiny, or divine purpose

• Anchors of cultural and linguistic heritage

• Social and spiritual signifiers

Colonizing empires understood this.
They saw that to control a people, one must control how they name themselves.

The absence of true names—replaced by imposed, foreign ones—creates an absence of authentic character. Individuals and communities lose not only their labels but also the worldview, memory, and dignity embedded in those names.

2. The Hebrew/Israelite Case: Identity Under Greek and Roman Colonial Pressure

2.1 The Hebrew Name as Theological Identity

In the Hebrew worldview, names expressed:

• Character (e.g., Yaakov = “one who grasps the heel,” Israel = “one who prevails with God”)

• Destiny (e.g., Avraham = “father of nations”)

• Divine relationship (e.g., Yehoshua/Yeshua = “Yahweh saves”)

• Tribal lineage

To remove a Hebrew name was to erase covenant identity.

2.2 Hellenization: The Greek Assault on Hebrew Names

After Alexander the Great’s conquests, Jewish people encountered forced or pressured name conversion:

This linguistic transformation was not just phonetic—it diluted Hebrew theology embedded in the name structure.

Greek rule introduced:

• Pressure to adopt Greek cultural markers

• Replacing theophoric Hebrew names with neutral or Greek ones

• Discouragement of Hebrew language usage

When a Hebrew name disappeared, a core part of Israelite identity disappeared with it.

2.3 Roman Occupation and Forced Renaming

Rome further intensified identity erosion:

• Latinized versions of Hebrew names (e.g., Saul → Paulus)

• Roman naming conventions imposed in political contexts

• Administrative use of Latin/Greek over Hebrew/Aramaic

• Suppression of native cultural expression

Even Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) underwent this transformation:
Yeshua → Iēsous → Iesus → Jesus

Each change carried cultural distance from the original Hebrew context.

Thus, John 5:43 (“I have come in my Father’s name”) becomes particularly poignant:

The colonial renaming of the Son reflects the broader erasure of Hebrew identity under foreign rule.

3. Absent Name as Absent Character: Mechanisms of Colonial Identity Erosion

Across cultures, three key patterns emerge:

3.1 Breakage of Lineage

When original names vanish:

• Family lines cannot be traced

• Ancestral memory is broken

• Tribal or clan connections dissolve

Names are genealogical maps; colonizers erase them to sever history.

3.2 Loss of Cultural Meaning

Indigenous names carry:

• Cosmology

• Spiritual worldview

• Moral expectations

• Cultural metaphors

Replacing them with foreign names removes embedded meaning and replaces it with colonial values.

3.3 Psychological Reprogramming

Renaming forces:

• Identity confusion

• Internalized inferiority

• Dependence on colonial validation

• Shame toward ancestral language

A person begins to see themselves through the eyes of the oppressor.

4. Comparative Global Examples: Renaming as a Universal Colonial Tool

4.1 Enslaved Africans and the Diaspora

Enslaved Africans were stripped of:

• African names

• Clan identifiers

• Ethnic markers

• Spiritual references

Replaced with:

• European Christian names

• Plantation-owner surnames

• Names used for inventory and property records

This produced generational disorientation and the loss of pre-slavery identity.

4.2 Indigenous Peoples of the Americas

Colonizers imposed:

• Christian names through baptism

• Boarding school renaming policies

• Suppression of native naming ceremonies

The result was cultural amnesia and the internalization of colonial identity standards.

4.3 Asian and Pacific Islander Renaming

Examples:

• Hawaiians forced to adopt Anglo names

• Filipinos given Spanish surnames by decree (Claveria Edict, 1849)

• Indians assigned Anglicized names by British administrators

In each case, renaming was connected to administrative control, spiritual reorientation, and social restructuring.

4.4 European Groups Under Empire

Even Europeans experienced this:

• Slavs renamed under Germanic rule

• Celtic names suppressed under Anglo-Saxon domination

• Basque names replaced by Castilian Spanish variants

Colonization is not limited to continents—it is a pattern of power.

5. The Theology of Naming: Why Identity Loss is Spiritual Loss

Across Hebrew, African, Indigenous American, and Asian traditions:

To name something is to call forth its essence.

Thus:

• Erasing a name = erasing a destiny

• Replacing a name = replacing an identity

• Mispronouncing a sacred name = distorting character

This is why the renaming of Yeshua into Jesus, though linguistically natural, is symbolically connected to the larger pattern of colonial dilution of Hebrew identity.

6. Contemporary Movements of Name Restoration

Today, many peoples are reclaiming names to restore character:

• Africans adopting pre-colonial surnames

• Indigenous communities reviving tribal naming traditions

• Jewish communities restoring Hebrew pronunciation and usage

• Pacific Islanders reasserting ancestral names

• Individuals changing back to birth names erased by colonization

Restoration of names becomes restoration of identity, memory, and spiritual dignity.

7. Conclusion

Colonization conquers through renaming.
When names disappear, character—individual and collective—erodes.

The Hebrew/Israelite story under Greek and Roman rule exemplifies this pattern:

• Sacred names altered

• Theological identity diluted

• Cultural character reshaped

When considered alongside African, Indigenous American, Asian, and Pacific Islander experiences, the global pattern becomes unmistakable:

Absent name → absent identity → absent character.

To reclaim one’s true name is to reclaim one’s true self.

Saint Nicholas of Myra (also known as Nicholas of Bari) was a Christian bishop of Greek background from the port city of Patara in Anatolia (in today’s Antalya Province, Turkey) during the Roman Empire. 

Tradition says he was born on 15 March 270 and died on 6 December 343. Because many miracles were credited to his prayers, people called him “Nicholas the Wonderworker.” Over time he became the patron saint of sailors, merchants, archers, repentant thieves, children, brewers, pawnbrokers, toymakers, unmarried people, and students in many parts of Europe. His reputation grew in the usual way early saints’ reputations did: through pious stories. His habit of secretly giving gifts, especially to the poor, eventually turned into the legend of Santa Claus (“Saint Nick”) through the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas.

Historically, very little about Nicholas can be known for certain. The first written accounts of his life were composed several centuries after he died and are full of legendary material. According to tradition, he was born in the wealthy Christian family of a couple in Patara, a seaport in Lycia in Asia Minor. 

One of the oldest and most famous stories about him says that he saved three young girls from being forced into prostitution. Their father was poor and could not provide dowries so they could marry. Nicholas is said to have gone to their house at night on three different nights and thrown bags of gold coins through the window, enough for each girl’s dowry.

Other early legends say that Nicholas calmed a storm at sea, saved three innocent soldiers from being executed, and cut down a tree believed to be haunted by a demon. As a young man he is said to have gone on pilgrimage to Egypt and to the Holy Land (Syria Palaestina). 

After he returned, he became bishop of the nearby city of Myra. During the persecution of Christians under Emperor Diocletian, Nicholas was supposedly imprisoned and possibly tortured, but later released when Constantine became emperor.

Some early lists say Nicholas attended the First Council of Nicaea in 325, but he is not mentioned by writers who were actually there. Much later legends, not supported by early evidence, claim that at the council he slapped the heretic Arius across the face, for which he was stripped of his bishop’s garments and jailed, only to be miraculously restored by Christ and the Virgin Mary in a vision. 

Another late legend says that he brought back to life three children who had been murdered by a butcher, cut up, and pickled in brine to be sold as pork during a famine.

Less than two hundred years after his death, Emperor Theodosius II ordered a church built in Myra in honor of Saint Nicholas, on the site where he had served as bishop, and his remains were placed in a sarcophagus there. 

In 1087, when the region’s Greek Christians had fallen under the control of the Muslim Seljuk Turks and relations between Eastern and Western Christians were tense, merchants from the Italian city of Bari secretly took most of Nicholas’s bones from his tomb without permission and brought them to Bari. There they were placed in the Basilica di San Nicola, where they remain. Later, Venetian sailors took the remaining fragments during the First Crusade and brought them to Venice.

No writings by Nicholas himself survive, and no contemporary historian mentions him, which is not surprising given how troubled that period of Roman history was. Still, by the sixth century his cult was already well established. The building and later renovation of churches dedicated to him, and references by Byzantine writers, show that his name was well known. 

His name appears in some lists as “Nicholas of Myra of Lycia” among the bishops at Nicaea, and he is mentioned briefly in the life of another saint, Nicholas of Sion, who reportedly visited his tomb. The simple fact that he had a tomb people could visit is one of the strongest signs that there really was a historical Bishop Nicholas of Myra.

Around 583, the theologian Eustratius of Constantinople cited one of Nicholas’s miracles, the saving of three generals, as proof that souls could act apart from the body. Eustratius said he found this story in a now-lost “Life of Saint Nicholas,” probably written not long after Nicholas’s death, in the late fourth or early fifth century.

The earliest full biography that still exists is a “Life of Saint Nicholas” written by Michael the Archimandrite in the early ninth century, about five hundred years after Nicholas died. Although it is late, scholars think it uses much older written sources and oral traditions. The exact nature and reliability of those sources is uncertain, but many historians view Michael’s Life as the only account likely to preserve some historical truth.

Some scholars note that Michael’s Life does not include a dramatic “conversion story,” which was common in later saint biographies, suggesting he may have copied an older source written before that style became popular. 

Many stories about Nicholas in Michael’s work resemble stories told about Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century pagan philosopher, whose life was written by Philostratus in the third century. It was common for Christian saints’ legends to borrow from earlier pagan stories. Since Apollonius’ hometown was not far from Myra, it is possible that popular tales about Apollonius were gradually transferred to Nicholas.

One traditional story says that when Nicholas returned from the Holy Land, the bishop of Myra had just died and the priests had decided that the first priest to enter the church in the morning would be chosen as the new bishop. Nicholas went to pray early, was the first to arrive, and so was made bishop. 

Another tradition says that he was imprisoned and tortured during Diocletian’s Great Persecution but later freed by Constantine. This sounds reasonable but is not found in the earliest sources and may therefore not be historical.

A famous early miracle story, first clearly recorded by Michael the Archimandrite, tells how Nicholas saved three innocent men from execution. The governor Eustathius had condemned them to death, but as they were about to be beheaded, Nicholas appeared, grabbed the executioner’s sword, freed the men, and scolded the corrupt officials who had taken bribes. 

Another story has Nicholas appearing in dreams to Emperor Constantine and the consul Ablabius, demanding the release of three generals who had been falsely accused and imprisoned because of lies and bribery. Later versions combine these stories and add details: three trusted generals are forced by bad weather to stop in Myra, Nicholas stops their soldiers from looting, rescues three innocent men from execution with their help, and later appears in dreams to clear the generals’ names after they are slandered.

The legend about Nicholas at the Council of Nicaea says he was a strong opponent of Arianism and a supporter of the doctrine of the Trinity, and that he signed the Nicene Creed. Early lists of council attendees sometimes include his name, sometimes not. Some scholars think his name was added later out of embarrassment that such a famous bishop seemed to be missing; others think he really was there but his name was later removed.

The story that he slapped Arius is only found in sources more than a thousand years after his death and is not considered historically reliable by most historians, though some argue it might be true precisely because it is embarrassing rather than flattering. In later, more dramatic versions, he is stripped of his bishop’s garments, imprisoned, then miraculously freed and restored by Christ and Mary, and the scene of him striking Arius became a popular subject in Eastern Orthodox icons and later artwork.

Another well-known miracle story, from the late Middle Ages, tells of a horrible famine during which a butcher murdered three children, chopped them up, and put their bodies in a barrel to cure them as if they were meat. 

Nicholas discovered the crime and, by making the sign of the cross, brought the children back to life. Modern scholars see no historical value in this story, but it became extremely popular and was often depicted in medieval art. Over time, people began to associate Nicholas with children and with barrels. This helped make him the patron saint of children and, in some people’s minds, of brewers.

Another story about the famine in Myra around 311–312 tells of a ship loaded with wheat bound for Constantinople. Nicholas asked the sailors to unload some grain to help the starving people, but they refused at first, because they had to deliver a precise weight to the emperor. 

Nicholas promised they would not lose anything by helping. When they finally agreed and gave a portion of the wheat, they later discovered that the total weight of the cargo had not changed. Meanwhile, the grain left in Myra fed the people for two years and provided seed for planting.

Traditional accounts agree on the outline of Nicholas’s life: he was born in Patara in Asia Minor, in a wealthy Greek Christian family, and later became bishop of Myra. Different sources give different names for his parents, and some say his uncle was the previous bishop of Myra and ordained Nicholas as a priest. When his parents died, Nicholas is said to have inherited their wealth and given it away to the poor.

The most famous example is the story of the three daughters, where he secretly gave money for dowries. In art, this scene is often shown with Nicholas wearing a hood or cowl, the three daughters in bed in their nightclothes, and sometimes a tree or cross-topped building nearby.

Some historians think this dowry story may have a real historical base because it was recorded relatively early and is not told about other saints in quite the same way. Others point out that a similar story is told about Apollonius of Tyana, but the differences—especially Nicholas’s aim to protect the women from prostitution—fit well with Christian values of the fourth century.

Nicholas is also said to have gone to the Holy Land, where the ship he was on nearly sank in a violent storm. He prayed and scolded the waves, and the storm suddenly calmed, which is why seafarers and travelers came to regard him as their special protector. 

In Palestine, tradition says he lived for a time in a small underground cell or crypt near Bethlehem, the place where Jesus was born. A church dedicated to Saint Nicholas now stands there in Beit Jala, a Christian town that still honors him as its patron saint.

Diocletian was born in the Roman province of Dalmatia, probably near the town of Salona (modern Solin in Croatia), where he eventually retired. His original name was Gaius Valerius Diocles, possibly derived from the name of his mother and her birthplace, Dioclea. His official birthday was 22 December, and based on later accounts that he died at about 68, he was likely born between 242 and 245. His parents were of low social status; some ancient writers say his father was a scribe, others that Diocles himself had once been a freedman of a senator called Anullinus. The first forty years of his life are poorly documented. We know that he was from the Illyrian regions and served as a soldier under the emperors Aurelian and Probus. Later sources claim he held high commands on the Danube frontier, but details of his early career remain uncertain. The first firmly attested point in his life is in 282, when Emperor Carus appointed him commander of the protectores domestici, an elite cavalry bodyguard. This position brought him enough prestige to become consul in 283.

After Carus died suddenly during a successful campaign against Persia—rumored to have been caused either by lightning or by enemy action—his sons Carinus and Numerian became emperors. Carinus took control of the West, ruling from Rome, while Numerian remained with the army in the East. During the return march from Persia, Numerian reportedly developed an eye disease and began traveling in a closed coach. When the army reached Bithynia, the soldiers noticed a foul smell coming from the coach, opened it, and discovered that Numerian was dead. The powerful court official Aper, Numerian’s father-in-law, announced the news in Nicomedia. The generals and tribunes gathered to choose a new emperor and selected Diocles. On 20 November 284, the army of the East met outside Nicomedia and hailed him as Augustus. In front of the assembled troops, Diocles swore that he was not responsible for Numerian’s death and accused Aper of murder. He then killed Aper with his own hand before the soldiers. Soon afterward, Diocles adopted the more Latinized name Gaius Valerius Diocletianus—Diocletian.

Diocletian’s first major challenge was the rival emperor Carinus, who still ruled in the West. Diocletian appointed an experienced senator, Lucius Caesonius Bassus, as his consular colleague, signaling a break with Carinus’ regime and an alliance with the Senate. At the same time, another usurper, Julianus, proclaimed himself emperor in northern Italy and Pannonia, minting coins and briefly complicating the political situation. Carinus defeated Julianus but then had to face Diocletian. In the spring of 285, their armies met on the river Margus in Moesia (in the Balkans). Although Carinus commanded a larger and stronger army, his rule was unpopular; there were accusations that he had mistreated the Senate and seduced the wives of his officers. During the battle, his prefect Aristobulus defected, and Carinus was ultimately killed by his own men. Diocletian emerged as sole emperor recognized by both the eastern and western armies, took their oath of loyalty, and marched toward Italy.

In the early years of his reign, Diocletian probably campaigned against Germanic tribes such as the Quadi and Marcomanni and consolidated his position in northern Italy. It is unclear whether he visited Rome immediately; if he did, he did not stay long. He preferred to rule from strategic provincial centers closer to the frontiers rather than from the traditional capital. Diocletian dated his reign from the day the army proclaimed him emperor, not from senatorial recognition, emphasizing that his power came from military acclamation, not the Senate. Nevertheless, he maintained a working relationship with the senatorial class, appointing prominent senators as consuls and retaining many officials who had served under Carinus. In a show of clemency unusual for that period, he even confirmed Aristobulus—who had betrayed Carinus—as praetorian prefect and later entrusted him with other high offices.

Recognizing that the empire was too vast and troubled for one man to rule effectively, Diocletian soon chose a colleague. In 285 he elevated his trusted fellow officer Maximian to the rank of Caesar, effectively making him junior co-ruler and heir, and soon afterward promoted him to Augustus, making them equal emperors. Together, they divided responsibilities: Diocletian took the East, Maximian the West. They strengthened their bond symbolically by adopting one another’s family names and by presenting themselves in religious terms: Diocletian associated himself with Jupiter (Iovius), the chief god and supreme authority, while Maximian associated himself with Hercules (Herculius), Jupiter’s loyal and powerful helper. This imagery reinforced a vision of cooperative rule in which Diocletian planned and commanded and Maximian acted as his heroic partner.

While Maximian struggled with revolts, including that of Carausius, who set himself up as a breakaway emperor in Britain and parts of northern Gaul, Diocletian focused on securing the Danube frontier and managing relations in the East. He fought Sarmatian and other tribes along the Danube, reorganized the frontier defenses, and fortified key cities. In the East, he took advantage of instability in the Sassanid Persian Empire. Through diplomatic and military pressure, he gained recognition of Roman control over parts of Armenia and Mesopotamia, strengthened the frontier, and earned the title “founder of eternal peace.” In Egypt, Diocletian faced serious rebellion after he attempted to reform taxes and administration. A usurper, Domitius Domitianus, seized control of Alexandria and much of the province. Diocletian personally led a campaign to reclaim Egypt, suppressed the revolt, besieged and captured Alexandria, and then reorganized the province, bringing its bureaucratic and fiscal practices more into line with the rest of the empire.

To stabilize government and succession more permanently, Diocletian created the Tetrarchy in 293. He and Maximian remained senior emperors (Augusti), but each appointed a junior emperor (Caesar): Galerius in the East and Constantius in the West. These four rulers each governed a portion of the empire, with their own courts, armies, and administrative centers, but they were bound by a carefully constructed network of family ties and formal adoptions. The system was meant to provide orderly succession: the Caesars would eventually become Augusti, while new Caesars would be chosen, ideally avoiding civil wars over the throne. The four emperors spent much of their time on campaign or dealing with local crises: Galerius fought Persians and Sarmatians, Constantius eventually defeated Carausius’ regime in Britain, and Diocletian continued to strengthen the Danube and eastern frontiers.

Diocletian was a traditionalist in religious matters and devoted to the old Roman gods. At first his policy toward Christians was relatively tolerant, but around 299–303 a shift occurred. An attempt at divination at court allegedly failed because Christian officials refused to participate in sacrifices. Influenced especially by Galerius and by oracular consultation, Diocletian ordered increasingly harsh measures. Christian soldiers and officials were required to sacrifice or lose their positions; then a series of edicts ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of scriptures, the arrest of clergy, and forced public sacrifices under pain of imprisonment, torture, or death. This period, known as the Great Persecution, was the most severe anti-Christian campaign in Roman history, though it was enforced unevenly: some regions, particularly in the West under Constantius, saw relatively mild application. In the long run, the persecution failed. Within a generation, Christianity would gain imperial favor under Constantine, and later Christian writers portrayed Diocletian as a villain for his role in these events.

In his later years, Diocletian’s health declined. After a taxing campaign on the Danube and a collapse during a public ceremony in Nicomedia, he spent months out of sight and was rumored to be dead. In 305, appearing visibly weakened, he did something unprecedented: he voluntarily abdicated the imperial throne. On 1 May 305, at the same hill near Nicomedia where he had once been proclaimed emperor, he formally laid down his powers. On the same day, Maximian also retired. The two Caesars, Galerius and Constantius, were promoted to Augusti, and two new Caesars—Severus and Maximinus Daia—were appointed. Notably, the adult sons of the Augusti, Constantine and Maxentius, were passed over, a decision that would later help destabilize the system.

Diocletian retired to his native Dalmatia, to a grand fortified palace he had built near Salona, at Spalatum (modern Split in Croatia). There he lived as a private citizen, tending his gardens and enjoying a quieter life far from the intrigues of court. When later emperors and generals urged him to return to power to resolve the civil conflicts that erupted after his retirement, he reportedly refused, saying that if they could see the cabbages he had grown with his own hands, they would never ask him to give up such peace for the storms of power. He lived to see the Tetrarchic system he designed collapse into a new round of civil wars, and to hear of the suicide and condemnation of his former colleague Maximian. Diocletian died in his palace in 311 or 312, possibly by his own hand, leaving behind a transformed empire.

His legacy rests largely on his reforms. Diocletian greatly expanded and reorganized the imperial bureaucracy, dividing the empire into many more provinces grouped into larger dioceses, each overseen by new layers of officials. He separated military and civil authority, giving military command to duces and comites, while governors handled justice and taxes. He strengthened frontiers, especially along the Danube and in the East, and reorganized imperial finances and tax systems. Ideologically, he abandoned the old fiction that the emperor was merely “first among equals,” instead presenting the emperor as a distant, sacred monarch, surrounded by ceremony, jeweled robes, and strict protocol. Though many of his arrangements unraveled after his retirement, Diocletian’s reordering of the state laid much of the groundwork for the later, more centralized and militarized Roman Empire of Late Antiquity.

A Reflection on Faith and Hypocrisy:

A judge has ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits to ensure that American citizens are fed. Yet, the self-professed Christian Trump administration continues to appeal to the Supreme Court in an effort to keep these vital payments frozen.

What kind of Christian actions are these?

Trey Knowles urges people to reflect on this deeply. Those who claim to follow Christ but stand behind such policies reveal a troubling contradiction. They profess Jesus with their lips, yet their hearts and spirits seem far removed from God. Their faith appears hollow—words without the substance of compassion or justice.

The Qur’an also speaks about this kind of hypocrisy. In Surah Al-Baqarah (2:19), it describes:

“Or [it is] like a rainstorm from the sky, within which is darkness, thunder, and lightning. They put their fingers in their ears against the thunderclaps in dread of death. But Allah is encompassing of the disbelievers.”

This parable illustrates the condition of hypocrites—those who live in fear and confusion, unable to embrace divine truth.

The storm symbolizes the turmoil within their souls.

The darkness reflects their doubt and moral blindness.

The thunder represents their fear when confronted with truth.

The lightning is that brief flash of understanding they cannot hold onto.

Their fingers in their ears signify denial—a refusal to truly hear or follow divine guidance.

Ultimately, Allah’s encompassing presence reminds us that no hypocrisy is hidden. He knows what lies in every heart.

This verse follows others describing those who find light but lose it again—people who move forward only when faith feels easy and retreat when challenged. It serves as a timeless reminder: true belief is measured not by words, but by deeds rooted in compassion, humility, and justice.

Truth & Knowledge: Episode 88 “The Power of Jesus’ Love”

4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north—an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, 5 and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was human, 6 but each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. All four of them had faces and wings, 9 and the wings of one touched the wings of another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.  

10 Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a human being, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle. 11 Such were their faces. They each had two wings spreading out upward, each wing touching that of the creature on either side; and each had two other wings covering its body. 12 Each one went straight ahead. Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, without turning as they went. 13 The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it. 14 The creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning.

Shahid Bolsen dismantles the sudden “expertise” around Sudan and the scripted smear of the GCC—especially the UAE. He lays out how narrative factories redirect anger toward Muslim governments, erase Sudanese agency, and sabotage Arab-African cohesion. The monologue tracks RSF’s long roots inside Sudan, the economics of illicit gold, the broken incentives of Western outrage cycles, and why real outcomes will come from regional negotiation—not imported scripts. It ends with a warning: America’s system is propped up like a body on a staff—it looks upright until it collapses.

3I/ATLAS and the Finality of America’s Doom:

In this allegorical message, Trey Knowles shares a revelation of thought—a warning to a nation that has forgotten its foundation, blinded by pride and power. America’s sins have risen to the heavens. Her bloodline is stained with the cries of the innocent—nations conquered, lives destroyed, and blood spilled upon the earth. She has built her throne upon the suffering of others and her wealth upon the bones of the poor. The question now echoes through eternity: Is it time for America’s “Mystery Babylon” judgment to fall? Has the hour of reckoning arrived? Will the empire that once called itself blessed now face the curse of its own hands?

Then a mighty angel lifted a great millstone and cast it into the sea, declaring, “With such violence, the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again. The music of harpists, musicians, pipers, and trumpeters will never be heard in you again. No craftsman of any trade will be found in you again. The sound of the millstone will never be heard in you again. The light of the lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of the bridegroom and the bride will never be heard in you again. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, and by your sorceries all nations were deceived. In you was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people, and of all who were slain upon the earth.”

3I/ATLAS marks the watchtower vision—the unveiling of judgment and truth. It represents the Third Insight, seeing beyond the illusions of empire, and ATLAS, the bearer of the world’s weight, now collapsing under its sin. The stage is set. The characters have taken their places. The script of prophecy is unfolding before our eyes. The final act of Babylon—the fall of deception and the rise of divine truth—is at hand.

Stage – Character – Script

William Shakespeare once said, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women are merely players.”

CHARACTER – The mental and moral qualities that define who a person truly is.

STAGE – The platform of life where people act out their beliefs, choices, and identities.

SCRIPT (PLAY) – The written plan or story that guides the actions and words of each character, revealing what role they are truly playing.

In today’s world, this stage is not a theater—it is reality itself. Every nation, every people, and every individual takes a role, knowingly or unknowingly, in a greater script of truth and deception.

The House of Jacob—the true people of God—has been imprisoned and forgotten, their identity hidden from the eyes of the world. Meanwhile, others have taken their place upon the stage. The Khazars pretend to be the descendants of Jacob. They have stolen the scripts and now perform the parts as if the story belongs to them.

Trey Knowles wants you to think about the Beever’s character.

What does the beever do? The beever works tirelessly, building dams and controlling the flow of water to suit its own design. Likewise, the Khazars act like bevers—working constantly to block and redirect the natural flow of truth. They construct barriers to control knowledge, faith, and history, shaping the world’s perception to fit their script.

But every dam the beever builds can only hold back the water for so long. The living water of truth will always find a way to break through.

The Balkan Wars were two conflicts that took place in the Balkan states in 1912 and 1913. In the First Balkan War, the four Balkan states of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria declared war upon the Ottoman Empire and defeated it, in the process stripping the Ottomans of their European provinces, leaving only Eastern Thrace under Ottoman control. In the Second Balkan War, Bulgaria fought against the other four combatants of the first war. It also faced an attack from Romania from the north. The Ottoman Empire lost the bulk of its territory in Europe. Although not involved as a combatant, Austria-Hungary became relatively weaker as a much enlarged Serbia pushed for union of the South Slavic peoples. The war set the stage for the July crisis of 1914 and as a prelude to the First World War. 

By the early 20th century, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Serbia had achieved independence from the Ottoman Empire, but large elements of their ethnic populations remained under Ottoman rule. Over the course of the Macedonian Struggle these states fought for influence between themselves and the Ottoman government within Ottoman Macedonia, during which their governments came under the control of nationalists. In 1912, these countries united to formed the Balkan League. The First Balkan War began on 8 October 1912, when the League member states attacked the Ottoman Empire, and ended eight months later with the signing on 30 May 1913 of the Treaty of London negotiated together with the Great Powers. The Great Powers - particularly Italy and Austria-Hungary -- included independence for Albania in the Treaty. The Second Balkan War began on 16 June 1913, when Bulgaria, dissatisfied with its allotment of territory from Macedonia, attacked its former Balkan League allies. The combined forces of the Serbian and Greek armies, with their superior numbers repelled the Bulgarian offensive and counter-attacked by invading Bulgaria from the west and the south. Romania, having taken no part in the first conflict, had intact armies to strike with and invaded Bulgaria from the north in violation of a peace treaty between the two states. The Ottoman Empire also attacked Bulgaria and advanced in Thrace, regaining Adrianople. In the resulting Treaty of Bucharest, Bulgaria managed to retain most of the territories it had gained in the First Balkan War. However, it was forced to cede the ex-Ottoman south part of Dobruja province to Romania.

The Balkan Wars were marked by ethnic cleansing, with all parties being responsible for grave atrocities against civilians, and inspired later atrocities including war crimes during the 1990s Yugoslav Wars.

The background to the wars lies in the incomplete emergence of nation-states on the European territory of the Ottoman Empire during the second half of the 19th century. Serbia had gained substantial territory during the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), while Greece acquired Thessaly in 1881 (although it lost a small area back to the Ottoman Empire in 1897) and Bulgaria (an autonomous principality since 1878) incorporated the formerly distinct province of Eastern Rumelia (1885). All three countries, as well as Montenegro, sought additional territories within the large Ottoman-ruled region known as Rumelia, comprising Eastern Rumelia, Albania, Macedonia, and Thrace.

The First Balkan War had some main causes, which included:

The Ottoman Empire was unable to reform itself, govern satisfactorily, or deal with the rising ethnic nationalism of its diverse peoples.

The loss of Libya to Italy in 1911 and the revolts in the Albanian Provinces showed that the Empire was deeply "wounded" and unable to strike back against another war.

The Great Powers quarreled amongst themselves and failed to ensure that the Ottomans would carry out the needed reforms. This led the Balkan states to impose their own solution.

The Christian populations of the European part of the Ottoman Empire were oppressed by the Ottoman Reign, thus forcing the Christian Balkan states to take action.

Most importantly, the Balkan League was formed, and its members were confident a coordinated and simultaneous declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire would allow all of them to expand their territories in the Balkan Peninsula even though they had not arrived in advance on an agreement with each other or with the interested Great Powers, Austrian-Hungary and Italy, on how Ottoman territory would be divided.

Policies of the Great Powers

Throughout the 19th century, the Great Powers shared different aims over the "Eastern Question" and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Russia wanted access to the "warm waters" of the Mediterranean from the Black Sea; so, it pursued a pan-Slavic foreign policy and therefore supported Bulgaria and Serbia. Britain wished to deny Russia access to the "warm waters" and supported the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, although it also supported a limited expansion of Greece as a backup plan in case integrity of the Ottoman Empire was not possible. France wished to strengthen its position in the region, especially in the Levant (today's Lebanon, Syria, and Israel)

Habsburg-ruled Austria-Hungary wished for a continuation of the existence of the Ottoman Empire, since both were troubled multinational entities and thus the collapse of the one might weaken the other. The Habsburgs also saw a strong Ottoman presence in the area as a counterweight to the Serbian nationalistic call to their own Serb subjects in Bosnia, Vojvodina and other parts of the empire. Italy's primary aim at the time seems to have been the denial of access to the Adriatic Sea to another major sea power. The German Empire, in turn, under the "Drang nach Osten" policy, aspired to turn the Ottoman Empire into its own de facto colony, and thus supported its integrity. In the late 19th and early 20th century, Bulgaria and Greece contended for Ottoman Macedonia and Thrace. Ethnic Greeks sought the forced "Hellenization" of ethnic Bulgars, who sought "Bulgarization" of Greeks (Rise of nationalism). Both nations sent armed irregulars into Ottoman territory to protect and assist their ethnic kindred. From 1904, there was low-intensity warfare in Macedonia between the Greek and Bulgarian bands and the Ottoman army (the Struggle for Macedonia). After the Young Turk revolution of July 1908, the situation changed drastically

How to Be Righteous?