Attila was not a Hun
Thu 1:25 pm +00:00, 7 Aug 2025
Source: https://mileswmathis.com/attila.pdf
by Miles Mathis
First published August 7, 2025
I was the first one to tell you Genghis Khan was really Phoenician, real name George Kohen. He
wasn’t a Mongol and wasn’t from Asia. They made up that whole story. Well, we find a similar thing
with Attila the Hun, 700 years earlier. It is basically the same story twice. We know they love to
recycle these fakes.
They have actually tried to rewrite the old Attila story even more recently, making him a Mongol as
well. Most people don’t even know that.
In the 18th century, French scholar Joseph de Guignes became the frst to propose a link between
the Huns and the Xiongnu people, who lived in northern China from the 3rd century BC to the late
1st century AD.[3] Since Guignes’s time, considerable scholarly effort has been devoted to
investigating such a connection.
Also see this depiction of him by sculptor George S. Stuart for the Museum of Ventura County.
A Mongol, down to the cheekbones. Doesn’t really match the old painting above, does it? Why would
they do this? I guess the old lies were wearing thin, so they needed to come up with some new ones.
The usual.
If you read the Wikipedia page on Attila or the Huns, you find almost nothing is known about Attila or
the Huns. They came out of nowhere, conquered half the world, then disappeared in about 75 years,
leaving barely a trace. But what you do notice at Wiki is the heavy misdirection, starting with the
name Attila. They have a whole section on this, telling you the name is German, Gothic, Turkish,
Mongolian, or Russian. But we know that can’t be right since many famous Modern Italians have the
name Attilio. We saw one of them recently in my papers. Are we supposed to believe they were all
named for this Hun of the fifth century? Even worse for these fake mainstream historians and
etymologists is that it is known the name comes from the Roman name Atilius, predating Attila the
Hun. See the Roman consul Marcus Atilius Regulus, hero of the First Punic War of 264BC, 700 years
before Attila the Hun. Wikipedia again lies about him, hiding his family and telling us he was a
Plebeian. But Plebeians didn’t become consuls. That is the same old lie it is today. Regulus was a
Patrician, meaning he came from old Phoenician stock arrived in Italy from Troy via Carthage, see the
Aeneid. So he wasn’t a Mongol, a Turk, or a Hun, and neither was Attila.
We do get a nearly invisible clue on this same Wikipedia page for Huns, one no one but me would
notice.
The name Hun is attested in classical European sources as Greek Οὖννοι (Ounnoi) and
Latin Hunni or Chuni.[26] John Malalas records their name as Οὖννα (Ounna).[27] Another
possible Greek variant may be Χοὖνοι (Khounoi), although this group’s identifcation with the
Huns is disputed.[28] Classical sources also frequently use the names of older and unrelated
steppe nomads instead of the name Hun, calling them Massagetae, Scythians, and Cimmerians,
among other names.[29]
Do you see it? Take your time.
It is the Greek variant Khounoi. In Hebrew you drop vowels, so what do you have left? KHN. Or? . . .
Kohen.
You just need eyes to see.
This explains why Attila never attacked Byzantium: the Kohens were Komnenes and the Komnenes
already ran Byzantium. That is admitted a few centuries later, but we may assume it was already true
in the time of Attila. Don’t believe me? Well, let’s pull up another famous guy, the Emperor Justinian
the Great, from about a century after Attila. Was he a Komnene? Not according to mainstream
historians. According to them, the Emperor of half the known world at the time came from nowhere.
He was an adopted peasant, family name unknown. He was adopted by his uncle Justin, so they called
him Justinian. This is what they expect us to believe. His real name was allegedly Petrus Sabbatius, or
Pete Saturday. No, seriously. That’s what they decided to go with. Pete Saturday. It was that or Man
Friday, and Defoe had beat them to that one. His uncle Justin had already been Emperor, and we are
told he had been a swineherd before becoming commander of the Imperial Guard and then Roman
Emperor. As you do. At least he wasn’t a possum trapper.
Both Justin and Justinian allegedly had curly blond hair like the previous Emperor Domitian, though
that doesn’t really come through here:
Strange Justinian would look just like Domitian, though Justinian was allegedly from Thracian
swineherds while Domitian was from gens Flavia and the Sabines who founded Rome. But whatever,
you aren’t supposed to ask any questions. Just memorize this for the test later.
For myself, I assume they both were Phoenicians of the highest class, and that Justinian was a
Komnene/Kohen like Attila. Otherwise why the ridiculous misdirection about his ancestry? Likewise
for Attila, since there would be no reason to make up these absurd stories if he weren’t Phoenician.
They point to this covertly when they admit he may have been a Goth, though they want you to believe
the Goths were wildmen or tribal people of Northern Europe, when they weren’t. They were early
Vikings, and the Vikings were also not savages. They were simply Phoenicians that had settled further
north. They were the purple people by another name, sometimes squabbling with their cousins in the
South. But I now assume most of these old wars were like the modern ones we have unwound: entirely
on paper or otherwise faked, in order to gather taxes for “defense”, create patriotism, and control local
populations.
Here is what we are told of the Huns:
According to European tradition, they were first reported living east of the Volga River, in an area
that was part of Scythia at the time.[1] By 370 AD, the Huns had arrived on the Volga, causing the
westwards movement of Goths and Alans.[2] By 430, they had established a vast, but short-lived,
empire on the Danubian frontier of the Roman empire in Europe.
A vast empire was created in sixty years? Really? Five years later under Attila they signed the famous
Treaty of Margus with Rome, by which Rome paid tribute to the Huns. You read that right, Rome was
not paid a tribute, Rome paid the tribute, and it wasn’t a few cows or coins or virgins, it was 700
pounds of gold a year. From Rome to the Huns. In 449 that was tripled to 2,100 pounds of gold. Key
on that, please. Two years later Attila fought the Roman army in Gaul, then—as if that weren’t enough
—he invaded Italy the very next year (452). And Attila wasn’t attacking via guerrilla warfare or
attacking small villages. In Gaul he attacked Orleans, a big city even then (by the standards of the
time), and in Italy he marched on Rome. He might have sacked it, but was met personally by Pope Leo
and paid handsomely to leave. Attila allegedly died the next year and his Empire almost immediately
collapsed and disappeared into mist. Convenient, eh? He takes thousands of pounds of gold, rides off
on a horse, and is never heard from again.
So an Empire capable of defeating the Roman Empire came from nowhere, was led by no one, and
disappeared completely in just 70 years? I remind you the Roman Empire had been around for 1200
years by that time. To say this story makes no sense is a vast understatement. Which means it must be
covering some greater truth. It looks to me like these wars were staged as the excuse for moving huge
sums of gold out of the Roman treasuries and stashing them somewhere else. But where? You can be
sure it wasn’t “Attila’s Court”. Which reminds me to show you this:
That’s from the Wiki page on “Huns”. Notice the capital of the Hunnic Empire. Attila’s Court. You
have to laugh. So the Huns didn’t even have a capital? No city or town, eh? Just a tent in some field, I
guess, with a few goats and pigs. That’s convenient in a way, since when Hunland went extinct in 453
there was no clean up. No buildings to raze, ones that might have been excavated later. Nothing but a
few tattered flags and furred helmets (which have also not been found).
Best guess is the gold never left Rome or Byzantium. It was just looted from the treasuries and moved
to private banks owned by the Phoenicians . . . like now. Fake tributes: war profiteering in its most
direct form. They don’t do that much anymore, though the current cons are barely more complex. See
the current Golden Dome con, the AI data centers con, the nuclear weapons con, the serial killers con,
the Presidential assassination cons, the Israeli hostages con, the vaccines con, the fluoride con, the egg
shortage con, the bitcoin con, the Fort Knox con, the school shootings con, the exploding airplanes con,
the 911 con, the Jan6 con, the genital herpes con, the 1 in 3 raped con, the quantum mechanics con, the
electron orbital con, the Higgs Boson con, the Mars lander con, the nuclear reactor on the Moon con,
and the on and on and on and on and on con.
