Posted by DanielS on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:33 | #

I would take it by the map that you are suggesting that these linguistic-genetic-territorial corollaries should also provide some political warrant in claim to a territory.

In the grand scheme of things that would appear unfair in truth and honesty to Europeans - to be left only a small corner of the Eurasian continent. While I can agree that extension over the whole of north Asia can be looked upon as excessive, I believe that in existential/ political terms as history has unfolded, that the European territorial claim should extend farther east than that. How much farther I am willing to discuss. However, to begin, at least the language-geography correspondence does already include the Urals for Europeans.

Furthermore, not only does recent genetic evidence show that both European and Asian peoples evolved from a primeval genetic group in central Asia; but there is strong reason to suspect that Asians - infamously, the Mongols - could have genocided the more European kinds who may have lived farther into central Asia at one time. After all, if the Mongols went so far as to genocide Europeans well into Europe [e.g., the Mongols completely wiped-out the Polish population in Wroclaw in the 1200s; that was when the Germans moved in and it became “Breslau” until Stalin shifted the borders Westward (having Poles swap L’vov for Wroclaw and moving them there)], then why would we presume that the Mongols could not have committed genocide fairly recently against European peoples, perhaps European or semi-European people long evolved in a habitat in what is now called central Asia?

...

The Asian claim to all of the Americas is largely contestable too. Asian peoples had the convenience of having no other people or barriers between them and the Bering Straits to migrate into the Americas. Following an absolute argument from this map, that migration would give them absolute claim to all of the Americas. Not only was it a migration, but a migration that happened not all that long ago in evolutionary terms - 12-13 thousand years ago.

How “native” that makes them is disputable at any rate. The fountainhead place of their evolution seems rather to have been in the area of a mountain range Southwest of Lake Baikal.

Moreover, there is evidence that some European peoples made their way to the Americas well before these Asian peoples, but they died, were killed-off and/or were assimilated into the Asians (“Amerindians”).

Thus, justice requires hermeneutics in the case of central Asian and the Americas (elsewhere too). Genocide and the wrongful, facile taking of territorial claim can work both ways, not just in the way of Europeans killing Asians and taking their lands.

Posted by Natives & Displacement on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:58 | #

So happens that they are talking about Amerindian nativeness and displacement in The Americas at TOO as well:

John, January 23, 2016 - 3:55 pm | Permalink

North American Indians didn’t even have a written language. Every institution in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand was built by Europeans. When the third-world started to flood into the West in the 1960s it wasn’t because they were looking to build (they could have done that in their own countries) they wanted to take advantage of all that the Europeans had built.

The natives were defeated at what they did best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutthroat_Gap_Massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars

A call for sympathy

gubbler chechenova’s Gravatar gubbler chechenova, January 23, 2016 - 6:17 pm | Permalink

  “The natives were defeated at what they did best.”

  That is true. But I still feel for them because they had been in the Americas since time immemorial.

  See it this way. There had once been a time when Europeans were like the American Indians. They were barbarians or even savages without written language. They used primitive weapons. And they lived by hunting and gathering.
  Now, suppose the Chinese or Hindus had been far more advanced in civilization and reached Europe when white folks were like red savage Indians.
  Suppose, with their superior organization and weapons, the Chinese or Hindus mowed down the white barbarians and took over Europe and settled it for their own people.

  While we can understand such historical process, it would still be sad for indigenous white folks.

  So, even though I see what happened to the Americas and Australia as inevitable and even necessary, I do recognize the tragic narrative of how American Indians may feel about their land.

“had been in the Americas since time immemorial”

Again, it was 12-13,000 years, not time immemorial in evolutionary terms; and there are arguments that they had genocided Europeans who had come to America even earlier.

Posted by "Native American" orgins in Siberia on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:49 | #

DM, ‘Native Americans actually came from a tiny mountain region in Siberia, DNA research reveals’ 26 Jan 2012:

Tiny region in central Russia has DNA link to native Americans today
 
Ancestors thought to have walked across ice 13,000 years ago

                 

Altai is ‘key place’, because central location means ancient peoples passed through

Altai in southern Siberia sits right at the centre of Russia. But the tiny, mountainous republic has a claim to fame unknown until now - Native Americans can trace their origins to the remote region.

DNA research revealed that genetic markers linking people living in the Russian republic of Altai, southern Siberia, with indigenous populations in North America.

A study of the mutations indicated a lineage shift between 13,000 and 14,000 years ago - when people are thought to have walked across the ice from Russia to America.

Altai in Siberia: A study of genetic markers in DNA showed that the lineage of Native Americans changed around 13-14,000 years ago - when people are thought to have walked across the Bering Strait

This roughly coincides with the period when humans from Siberia are thought to have crossed what is now the Bering strait and entered America.

‘Altai is a key area because it’s a place where people have been coming and going for thousands and thousands of years,’ said Dr Theodore Schurr, from the University of Pennsylvania in the US.

Among the people who may have emerged from the Altai region are the predecessors of the first Native Americans.

Roughly 20-25,000 years ago, these prehistoric humans carried their Asian genetic lineages up into the far reaches of Siberia and eventually across the then-exposed Bering land mass into the Americas.

‘Our goal in working in this area was to better define what those founding lineages or sister lineages are to Native American populations,’ Schurr said.

The region lies at the intersection of what is now Russia, Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan.

Dr Schurr’s team checked Altai DNA samples for markers in mitochondrial DNA which is always passed on by mothers, and Y chromosome DNA which sons inherit from their fathers.

Because of the large number of gene markers examined, the findings have a high degree of precision.

‘At this level of resolution we can see the connections more clearly,’ Schurr said.

Looking at the Y chromosome DNA, the researchers found a unique mutation shared by Native Americans and southern Altaians in the lineage known as Q.

Mitochondrial DNA is found in tiny rod-like ‘powerplants’ in cells that generate energy.

Both kinds of DNA showed links between Altaians and Native Americans.

In the Y chromosome DNA, researchers found a unique mutation shared by Native Americans and people from southern Altai.

The findings are published today in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Calculating how long the mutations they noted took to arise, Schurr’s team estimated that the southern Altaian lineage diverged genetically from the Native American lineage 13,000 to 14,000 years ago, a timing scenario that aligns with the idea of people moving into the Americas from Siberia between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago.

An engraving of early native Americans from the 1500s: DNA research hints that their ancestors came from one tiny region in central Russia

Though it’s possible, even likely, that more than one wave of people crossed the land bridge, Schurr said that other researchers have not yet been able to identify another similar geographic focal point from which Native Americans can trace their heritage.

‘It may change with more data from other groups, but, so far, even with intensive work in Mongolia, they’re not seeing the same things that we are,’ he said.

In addition to elucidating the Asia-America connection, the study confirms that the modern cultural divide between southern and northern Altaians has ancient genetic roots.

Posted by One migration Siberia to America on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:05 | #

Discovery, ‘One Migration from Siberia Peopled the Americas: Study’, Jul 21, 2015:

Siberian Skeletons Confirm Native American Origins

Native American ancestors reached the New World in a single, initial migration from Siberia at most 23,000 years ago, only later differentiating into today’s distinct groups, DNA research revealed Tuesday.

The United States has had in place a number of policies whose goal is to help struggling Native Americans. Have those initiatives worked? Find out.

Most scientists agree the Americas were peopled by forefathers who crossed the Bering land and ice bridge which connected modern-day Russia and Alaska in Earth’s last glacial period.

And it is known through archaeological finds that humans were already present in the Americas 15,000 years ago.
See Faces of Our Ancestors

But there was a long list of outstanding questions.

When did the migration take place? In one or several waves? And how long did these early pioneers spend in Beringia — the then-raised land area between Asia and America?

On Tuesday, analysis of Native American and Siberian DNA, present-day and ancient, sought to fill in some of the blanks with two studies carried simultaneously in the journals Science and Nature.

The first, led by the Center for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen and published in Science, found there was only one initial migration, no more than 23,000 years ago.

This ancestral pool split into two main branches about 13,000 years ago, coinciding with glacier melt and the opening of routes into the North American interior, researchers found.

These became the groups which anthropologists refer to as Amerindians (American Indians) and Athabascans (a native Alaskan people).

Previous research had suggested that Amerindian and Athabascan ancestors had crossed the strait independently.

“Our study presents the most comprehensive picture of the genetic prehistory of the Americas to date,” said Maanasa Raghavan, one of the study’s lead authors.

“We show that all Native Americans, including the major sub-groups of Amerindians and Athabascans, descend from the same migration wave into the Americas.”

Bones in Submerged Cave May Be Earliest Native American

This was distinct from later waves which gave rise to the Paleo-Eskimo and Inuit populations, she added.

Given that earliest evidence for the presence of humans in the Americas dates 15,000 years ago, the first ancestors may have remained in Beringia for about 8,000 years before their final push into the New World, the team said.

This is much shorter than the tens of thousands of years of isolation theorized by some earlier research.

But diversification into the distinct tribes we know today, happened only after arrival in the Americas, not before.
Genocide Wiped Out Native American Population

The second study showed that, surprisingly, some Amazonians descend from forefathers more closely related to the indigenous peoples of Australia, New Guinea and the Andaman Islands than present-day fellow Native Americans.

“Present-day groups in South America have a small but distinct genetic link to Australasians,” co-author Pontus Skoglund of the Harvard Medical School told AFP of the research published in Nature.

This may explain a long-standing riddle: why, if Native Americans came from Eurasia, do some early American skeletons share traits with present-day Australasians?

But how and when this forefather came to the Americas remains “an open question,” said the study.

Related Link

DNA Links 8,500-Year-Old Kennewick Man to Native Tribes

Posted by The Autochthony Argument on Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:10 | #

Dr. Greg Johnson has unearthed the term “autochthony” for what Kumiko and I have been discussing here. And as I discussed with her, I was not really suggesting that either of us seriously held the position that those who came to a land first and mutated in their distinction there have an absolute and incontestible warrant to that land on those grounds - Johnson is posing that matter as something of a straw-man, as if it is presented as an argument for absolute warrant. Still, it is a warrant, one among several, which Johnson discussed quite handily in this essay. For her part, Kumiko has told me that she does not maintain autochthony as absolute warrant - I knew that but am provoking argument for the sake of discussing these important matters - she recognizes autochthony as a factor among a complexity of factors which she will discuss with us.

Here is an essential excerpt from Johnson’s essay, which resolves, as we would, to construct autonomous ethno-nations and amicable relations thereof:

Counter-Currents, ‘The Autochthony Argument’ 25 Jan 2016:

The autochthony argument holds, in essence, that the first organism on the scene is in the right, and all who follow are illegitimate interlopers. The Darwinist would argue that the last organism on the scene is in the right, simply because it is successful, and that all that came before have no legitimate claims, simply because they failed. Both arguments are equally morally absurd, because there is more to right than just being present at the beginning or the end of a struggle for power.

Second, the autochthony argument does not distinguish between occupying and appropriating territory. Just being on a piece of land does not necessarily make it one’s own. To appropriate land, one has to do something. One has to make something of it, and in doing so, one takes responsibility for it.

Third, the autochthony argument also ignores the distinction between nomadism and settled occupancy. Often times, the first people were merely passing through. Nomads don’t own land, they merely inhabit it, as do the buffalo. They do little to it, and they take little or no responsibility for it. Nomads are less tied to a piece of ground than settled people, and nomads can share the use of the same region, whereas settled ways of life require exclusive ownership. This is not to say that nomads have no interests and rights that more settled people need to respect. But to own land, is it sufficient merely to be on it, or does one have to do something with it—i.e., improve it and take responsibility for it?

Fourth, the autochthony argument overlooks the fact that if one owns land, one can therefore disown it. If indigenous peoples actually own their homelands, then they can alienate them to newcomers. For instance, not all North American natives were dispossessed through wars of aggression. Many natives began by selling some of their lands to newcomers and only later did conflicts arise. Moreover, American Indians were sometimes dispossessed after losing wars they had started. There’s a huge moral difference between stealing land outright and securing one’s own people by dispossessing and banishing aggressive and implacable enemies. Sometimes indigenous peoples lose their lands fair and square.

Fifth, the autochthony argument presupposes that legitimate ownership derives solely from the past (first occupancy) rather than from the future (what one is likely to do with it). For instance, even if the American Indians were the first people on this continent, they weren’t doing much with it. It strikes me as a moralistic absurdity to declare that the farms, factories, highways, power plants, towns and cities of America, plus all of the cultural and technological achievements of Americans, from bluegrass music to the space program, are somehow illegitimate because there was a thin population of Stone Age people on the continent when our ancestors first arrived.

Even if we grant that first occupancy confers rights, doesn’t later use also confer rights? And what is more important: how our people acquired our homelands or what we made of them? Given that the first occupants of all lands are primitives, whereas later occupants are usually more socially and technologically advanced, doesn’t the autochthony argument contain a built-in bias against civilization, progress, and the races that can produce and sustain them? Why should whites, of all peoples, accept such a stacked moral deck? Encounters between radically different peoples almost always end up badly. But at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain.

Sixth, the autochthony argument is usually offered in bad faith, as part of a swindle. In the United States, for instance, American Indians who did not suffer from the acts of white colonists in centuries past, demand apologies and favors from whites (including recent immigrants), who never did anything to harm an Indian.

[...]

What should the New Right’s position be on colonialism and indigenous peoples? We are universal nationalists. We hold that the best way to secure peace and amicable relations between different peoples is to give every people a sovereign homeland. Where this is not possible — for instance with tribal relict populations in the Americas, Siberia, and elsewhere — the just solution is give these peoples ethnic reservations with maximum local autonomy.

But notice that our aim is to secure a homeland for every people, not to secure the indigenous homeland of every people. That would be nice, but sometimes it is just not possible, and sometimes autochthony should be overridden by the greater good of creating homelands for otherwise homeless peoples.

[...]

The focus of politics should always be the future. We cannot right all the wrongs of the past, but we can create an ethnonationalist world order that minimizes new wrongs in the future.

Posted by Skolkovo on Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:26 | #

To appropriate land, one has to do something. One has to make something of it, and in doing so, one takes responsibility for it.

...to own land, is it sufficient merely to be on it, or does one have to do something with it—i.e., improve it and take responsibility for it?

...at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain.

Kumiko, It’d be very instructive to hear you talk about the example of Skolkovo, whether in comment or a post.

Also about the ways in which The Russian Federation economy can be looked-upon as more contingent upon parasitic expansion, exploitation, extraction and trade in resources than based in responsible development of manufacturing and production.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:14 | #

When I initially created that post, I wasn’t even considering that there would be an argument about it, given that my aim was merely to show that linguistics were strengthening the case for the existence of discrete population groups. In the case of Europe, it becomes pretty much indisputable that Europeans exist and are native to Europe.

But no one else seems to have read the map in this way, instead everyone’s eyes seem to have become fixed on Siberia and the Americas.

Pretty much all responses to this post seem to contain a basic element of hypocrisy, in the sense that everyone usually speaks of ‘universal ethno-nationalism’, as though there is some kind of measure of justice to be found in ‘autochthony’, but then as soon as a map is presented which happens to show the United States and Siberia in colours that are not blue, lots of hemming and hawwing starts up from pretty much everyone. I didn’t even say anything about those places, it was simply automatic.

I’ve maintained for a long time that moralistic arguments carry almost no weight at all, and that the best arguments come from economic power and military power arguments unfiltered. Everyone else seems to in reality think the same, although they don’t like to say it.

When I put up this article initially, I was not intending to explore this argument, but that is the response that has pretty much been given, so I think it’s appropriate that I can now start saying these things. Usually when I talk about the use of force, people say ‘no, we are ethno-nationalists so that is not allowed’, and so on. But in the end, if it serves someone’s interests they will advocate the use of force, and they will support using material assets gained from past imperial conquests.

Well, I support the same, but in different ways. I just hope that after this, no one in the movement will be coming to me telling me that they dislike my ‘amoral’ approach to geopolitics, or that they think I’m ‘too much of a warmonger’. I’m no more and no less of an unrepentant warmonger than any of the rest of them are.

The logic behind Greg Johnson’s article can be used to support just about any foreign policy action anyone could care to think of, it’s just that up until now, no one had actually decided to write it down. Particularly that line, “at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain”.

In the future when people get mad with me for supporting conflicts that they don’t like (eg, anything involving getting oil and natural gas to power factories), I’ll just quote that kind of thing back at people.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:55 | #

Kumiko, I think that you are being a bit sensitive. More, autocthony and the genetic-linguistic links are a warrant to land, just not the only warrant and not completely unassailable. Nevertheless, they are stronger arguments than you seem to grant in this comment of yours; you seem almost to be going to another extreme, to sheer industrial/technological might-makes right.

My concern about the Euro space indicated in blue is not that it confirms the existence of European peoples (gee, thanks), but that it is a niggardly portion of the Earth’s turf and the implication of Asians is overly generous by that metric.

Of course this metric matters too, but yes, you are right that in the grand scheme of things, ability to use land and resources is probably more meaningful. Nevertheless, I have respect for people who will leave nature alone - even if its because they cannot do anything with it. Even if they are nomads, I don’t believe their claim is negligible. Even more-so if the more technologically advanced people don’t really need to take it from them and disrupt their way of life.

Nevertheless, if the argument on behalf of Russia as opposed to Asia is technological advance… I’d love to hear what you have to say about the Skolkolv example, and the like difficulties in developing an industrial economic base; along with common criticisms of Russia’s appropriation and use of land.

More, though I did not post that part of his article, it seems that Johnson was taking a bit of jab at us - me, for the argument (and maybe having posed one too many pictures of sympathetic looking, Amerindian looking native Asians) that Asia was contestable turf, particularly a place like Birobizhan - and you for the fact that your more personal EGI are impacted over in those parts.

While we can agree, as ethnonationalists, that Jews should be largely confined to an ethnostate, that we do not want to spread Jews around, say to Birobidzhan also, it seems a deliberate slap in the face for him to have arbitrarily suggest that gypsies should be sent there:

Greg Johnson: So in the case of Israel and Palestine, the solution is to have two states. A similar solution would be desirable for Europe’s gypsy problem. (Perhaps next door to Birobidzhan.)

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:52 | #

Okay, I see four basic points here which I want to address, so I’ll address them briefly one after the other:

1. Europe is not exactly a small or meagre area of the planet in my view. It’s a particularly choice area because it contains a wide agricultural belt across western and central Europe and in eastern Europe. It has no risk of water scarcity, and with the exception of the southwestern Iberian peninsula it doesn’t sit across any major subduction zones and so the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis is pretty low, and overall the area that is visible is habitable with a fairly low overhead.

It’s not exactly a bad place to be based, I think.

2. Regarding respect for those who leave the land alone, of course, yes, in many cases it’s better for people not to develop some areas, because overdevelopment can actually end up being unsustainable. It’s also the case that in might makes right, while technological sophistication is an exponent of destructive force, a more unsophisticated group can use someone else’s weapons to inflict defeat on an invader, as was seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

3. Skolkovo was simply an amazing example of Russia’s inability to do anything productive without the overhead going into the stratosphere due to looting and a lack of actual innovation:

Wikipedia, ‘Skolkovo innovation center’:

The Skolkovo Innovation Center is a high technology business area that was planned to be built at Skolkovo near Moscow, Russia.[1][2][3] The site aimed to be a highly modern complex created to encourage science and technology companies. Although historically Russia has been successful with development of science and technology, its lack of entrepreneur spirit led to government intervention of patents and nonproliferation of Russian tech companies beyond the scope of regional service. This site was theoretically tasked with not only the development of technology start-ups but also marketing them correctly. As corporations and individuals were to become “residents” of the city, proposed projects and ideas would receive financial assistance.[4] Skolkovo was announced on 12 November 2009 by then Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.[5] The complex was headed by Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg and co-chaired by former Intel CEO Craig Barrett.

Everyone from all over the world was invited, nothing of any partcularly note happened, but Vekselberg and many others managed to somehow loot a lot of money out of the pot which no one could actually account for, and no innovation happened.

But why did no innovation happen?

Well:

Boston Globe, ‘Russian science is amazing. So why hasn’t it taken over the world?’, Leon Neyfakh, 04 Jan 2015:

[...] In recent years Russia has become almost a petro-state—a nation of roughly 140 million people, many of them highly educated, whose wealth comes mostly from the blunt-force industries of resource extraction, and whose economy rises and falls on individual fluctuations in the price of oil or natural gas. When the price of oil started to slide, the ruble was suddenly vulnerable.

Other growing nations, like China, India, and Brazil, have diversified, building wealth from a wide base of technology and manufacturing. You can see this as you walk down the aisles at your local Best Buy, where the shelves are stocked with computers made in Chengdu and hard drives from Thailand, and again when you drive down the street, alongside cars made in Germany and Korea. But Russia has thrown off no such great global technology products. It’s unthinkable that you’d seek out a Russian laptop, or make a call on a Russian cellphone, or watch a movie on a Russian flat-screen TV.

The MIT science historian Loren Graham has spent years trying to understand how this possibly could have happened. What makes it so startling, Graham says, is that Russia isn’t a technology backwater—in fact, Russian scientists have been responsible for some of the most important scientific advances of the 20th century. Among their achievements, they invented lasers, did pioneering work on computers, and even came up with the idea of fracking—all of which were later developed and commercialized in other nations.

The ongoing inability to turn ideas into commerce has proved to be a profound problem for Russia—and ultimately for the rest of the world as well. The longer this massive nuclear power is economically dominated by resource oligarchs, rather than a stable, independent business sector, the longer the developed world will have to put up with it throwing its geopolitical weight around in unpredictable ways.

[...]

4. Johnson seems to think that Siberia is the waste-dump of Europe or something, which only further demonstrates that Russia can’t be trusted with the land, as I argued in a recent news post.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:40 | #

1. Europe is not exactly a small or meagre area of the planet in my view. It’s a particularly choice area because it contains a wide agricultural belt across western and central Europe and in eastern Europe.

Choice land or not, it is not nearly enough, and especially not when it is being invaded. But that is too large a topic to detail just yet.

However, I’d like to add some weight to the argument that Russia doesn’t necessarily have claim to lands due to advanced stewardship - you’ve located a significant counter-argument in a pattern of Russia’s mismanagement of land, resources and in failed development.

Greg Johnson: And what is more important: how our people acquired our homelands or what we made of them?

Pollution

Krasnokamensk is an example of their wonderful land and industrial stewardship. It is a Russian Federation city in a once native Asian area along the Chinese border that is now suffering devastating pollution:

According to the Blacksmith Institute, Krasnokamensk has generated fifty to seventy-five million tons of tailings, making it the largest waste stream at a uranium production site in the world. A Baley community survey documents hundreds of homes with radiation levels as much as 10-20 times the permissible levels. About 500-1000 homes or more suffer from radiation exposures far above international standards.

In recent years, the dangerously high levels of radioactivity led to evacuation and resettlement of residents living near the tailing dumps.

“Natures mistake”, The Aral Sea is another classic example. The once vast sea that imposed itself on the globe of my childhood was drained-off into irrigation channels for a “great” Soviet cotton farming project.

It destroyed the local way of life and sustenance, leaving a toxic desert instead in its wake - among its catastrophic effects, windswept toxic sand causing lung disease among the native peoples.

Posted by Russia's sea & land stewardship on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:05 | #

Russia’s sea, er land stewardship

While China, India, other places in Asia and Western nations do not necessarily get highest accreditation, Russia’s stewardship hardly ranks incontestable sea and land-use warrant.

But give credit where credit is due: Russia invented fracking.

Posted by Kant's house: neoclassical Putinism on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 03:08 | #

Neoclassical Putinism:
                   
House near Kaliningrad (Konigsberg) where Immanuel Kant lived and worked as a teacher for two years.

Posted by Kant is a moron on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:36 | #

        More worthy stewardship - of legacy

Kant is a moron

       
        Neo-classical Putinism

DT, “Kant is a moron’: vandals critique the philosopher’s home” 18 Mar 2016:

Police in Kaliningrad are searching for vandals who daubed graffiti on the side of a home once lived in by Immanuel Kant - no reason was given.

Russian police are hunting for vandals who called one of the greatest thinkers in the history of western thought a “moron.”

Police in the Kaliningrad region launched the probe after a local journalist found the unedifying smear daubed on the side of Immanuel Kant’s house in a village in Russia’s Baltic exclave.

The graffiti showed a flower, a Valentine’s heart, and the slogan: “Kant is a moron”.

“‘Kant is a moron’ appeared in paint on the wall of an old house. Although we have not yet received any official request from the local authorities, the police intend to investigate this and find the vandals,” Svetlana Postavichnaya, a police spokeswoman, told Interfax.

The Russian word used is a relatively mild term of abuse for a slow-witted or foolish person, and could also be translated as “loser,” “dumb-ass,” or “chump”. The vandals did not, however, leave any accompanying critique of Kant’s thinking to justify the smear on his intellectual powers.

           

Kant (1724-1804) is generally considered one of the most formidable philosophers to have lived, and is credited with breakthroughs in epistemology and moral philosophy that continue to define the fields to this day.

The vandalism came to light when local journalists visited the village of Veselovka, outside Kaliningrad, to check on a continuing lack of long-promised restoration work on the historic building.

They found graffiti inside and out, part of the interior missing, and a turf fire 200 metres away that could have set the building on fire.

Immanuel Kant spent almost his entire life in Koenigsberg, a German city on the Baltic coast that was annexed by the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War.

The graffiti is all the more unusual because Kant has been adopted as a mascot by the modern Russian inhabitants of his renamed home town.

The local university is named after him, a (smallish) statue of him stands in the centre of town, and newly married couples are in the habit of laying flowers on his marble tomb at the restored Gothic cathedral in the city centre.

His country house has not been so lucky, however. Despite years of promises to restore it, the building is run down, close to collapse, and favoured by the local youth as an underage drinking den, reported newkaliningrad.ru, a local news site.

Last year the local government announced a plan to open a Kant museum in the village, but so far little has materialised.

“The building continues to collapse, with part of the interior decoration going missing since the our last visit,” the website reported. “We found no sign of preservation or restoration of the house.”

The Atlantic, ‘Kant Is a Moron’: Graffiti Artists’ Unreasonable Critique, 18 Mar 2016:

‘Kant Is a Moron’: Graffiti Artists’ Unreasonable Critique

Russian police are investigating vandalism on the walls of a crumbling house where the philosopher once lived.

Not for the first time, vandals are wreaking havoc in central Europe. Russian police say they’re looking for the intellectually minded miscreants who graffitied “Kant is a moron”—along with a flower and heart—on the philosopher’s home outside Kaliningrad.

Kaliningrad is the capital of a small Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea, but in Kant’s day it was Königsberg, a Prussian and German city. It was only at the end of World War II that it switched to Soviet control as the Nazi regime crumbled, and in 1946 the city was renamed.

With Arthur Schopenhauer dead for 155 years, however, authorities start off with few strong leads. They say no reason, pure or otherwise, was given for the crime. Whoever left the marking did not elaborate on their antipathy, though they reportedly used a relatively mild term.

Even the timing of the crime is unclear—journalists discovered the note, at once crude and rather refined, while exploring Kant’s derelict home. Despite repeated promises of restoration, the house remains in sorry shape, according to The Telegraph.

Philosophy may have a reputation for impenetrability and for arid classroom discussion today, but for those who would reclaim the discipline’s more raucous reputation of the past, the graffiti is perhaps a positive sign, and maybe the first salvo in a war between Situationist and Enlightenment thinkers. Indeed, a critic of Kant’s ideas might feel a categorical imperative to take such direct action.

Situated identifying

With his focus on the importance of space and time, Kant would surely want us to note that it appears the existing house is not the one he inhabited. Prior to his appointment as professor at the University of Königsberg in 1770, he taught in towns around the city, which is when he lived at the site. The original house seems to have been largely demolished at some point in the 19th century, with the present structure later constructed atop the same foundation.

We don’t have any way of proving this to be true, of course—nor any way to prove that it is false. But for the sake of morality, it is perhaps enough to believe that the house is Kant’s, and that the vandalism is therefore immoral. Fans of the philosopher are left hoping that police can determine who is behind the petty crime, and that they can be rehabilitated by the justice system. Yet as the great man warned, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.”

Related Story: Sex, Morality, and Modernity: Can Immanuel Kant Unite Us?

Posted by Russia/Russian on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:20 | #

Counter-Currents , ‘Alexiey Shiropayev’s Prison of the Nation: An Ethnonationalist History of Russia, Part 1:

Jarosław Ostrogniew

Part 1 of 2

Алексей Широпаев
Тюрьма Народа. Русский взгляд на Россию
Москва 2001

[Alexiey Shiropayev, Prison of the Nation: The Russian Perspective on Russia (Moscow, 2001).]

There are different approaches to telling the history of Russia and the Russian people. There is the patriotic Orthodox version of the tale, the Communist one, as well as liberal and democratic narratives. There are, of course, some important alternatives. The one that seems to be currently the most popular among European nationalists is the Eurasianist imperialist version as promoted by Alexander Dugin but actually created by Lev Gumilyov. However, there is also an explicitly white nationalist telling of the history of Russia. The most important presentation of this vision is Tyurma Naroda (Prison of the People or Prison of the Nation) by Aleksiey Shiropayev. As you can see from the title alone, Shiropayev’s view of the Russian state is extremely critical.

As the book is available only in Russian, and it is rather unlikely that it will ever be translated into English (or any other language), I will first present a detailed synopsis of Shiropayev’s argument and then I will present a critique of the book.

Rus’ protiv Rossiyi: Rus’ versus Russia

One issue that must be clarified right away is the matter of terminology. Two completely different realities are made one by the English terms “Russia” and “Russian.” In the Russian language two distinct words exist as the name of the country: “Rus’” and “Rossiya.” Rus’ stands for the lands originally inhabited by Eastern Slavs, whereas Rossiya means the larger Russian state: the tsarist Russian empire, the Soviet union, or the contemporary Russian Federation. And both those terms are often translated into English using one word: “Russia,” thus causing some confusion.

“Two completely different realities are made one by the English terms ‘Russia’ and ‘Russian.”

Precisely, that is why I (DanielS) have tried to be careful to use the word Russia where critical.

Carry on ..

Ibid: In Russian there are two distinct terms: “Russkiy” and “Rossiyskiy.” “Russkiy” (both an adjective and a noun) means an ethnic Russian, a person of East Slavic origin who speaks the Russian language. “Rossiyskiy” (as an adjective) or “Rossiyanin” (as a noun) stands for a person, who speaks Russian or who considers himself a part of Russian (“Rossiyskiy”) culture, and who might be a citizen of the Russian state – but who can be of any ethnic origin. Again, both are often translated into English as one word: “Russian.”

Thus, a Muslim Chechen whose mother tongue is Chechen, who knows basic Russian, and who considers himself a loyal citizen of the Russian Federation is without a doubt “Rossiyanin” and without any doubt is not a “Russkiy.” A pagan Russian, whose mother tongue is Russian and whose family has lived on Russian soil and worked it for countless generations, who abandons the Russian Federation and joins Ukrainian volunteer forces to fight against the separatists of Novorossiya, is no longer a “Rossiyanin” but he surely is a “Russkiy.”

Many Russian politicians and theoreticians (including Putin and Dugin) have made it clear that they support the imperial, statist, patriotic “Rossiyskaya” identity instead of the ethnic, racial, nationalist “Russkaya” identity. On the other hand, certain Ukrainian nationalists have stated that they are fighting for Ukraine, Rus’, and Europe (the slogan of Azovian “Reconquista”: “Today Ukraine, tomorrow Rus’ and the whole of Europe!”).

“Rossiyanin” is also a pejorative term used by Russian nationalists to describe someone fooled by the government propaganda, similar to American use of “patriotard” or “lemming.”

This is my contention of how Russia/Russians should be treated in White nationalism: their Federation and rule looked upon with the same extreme criticism that White Nationalists (at their best) have learned to apply to Western governments and empire building…. I.e.,  while we ought to observe patterns among the sheeple, it is the elite, as White Leftists, that we need to hold most accountable to leading our people astray and into unnecessary injustice and conflict with others.

He goes on…

Ibid: Thus, it can be stated that Shiropayev sees the history of Russia as a story of a struggle of Rus’ against Rossiya (Rus’ against Russia), Ruskiye against Rossiyanie (Rus’ people against Russians), or rather of a thousand-year fight for the liberation of the Russkiy nation from the prison of Rossiya. Hence the subtitle of the book: Russkiy vzglyad na Rossiyu: The Russian (Russkiy) Perspective on Russia (Rossiya). And hence the opening quotation of the book: “IM nuzhna Vyelikaya Rossiya, a NAM nuzhna Velikaya Rus’”: “THEY need a great Rossiya, and WE need a Great Rus’.”

And that despite the understandable rancor that adjacent nationals can sometimes retain toward Russians as a whole - which has grounds as well, as there were conflicts resulting in vast deaths of neighboring peoples, obfuscation of peoplehood and appropriation of land resulting from non-Jewish Russian aspects - that indeed, one must identify the influence of Jews in Russian and Russia’s policy and practice, if one wants to be fair to ethnonationalist warrant in distinguishing it from what are perhaps expressions of Jewish instigation…

Ibid: Shiropayev names the source as “from the pre-death thoughts of Stolypin?.” The question mark clearly shows that this is an educated guess made by the author. Pyotr Stolypin, tsarist minister, is widely considered to be one of the greatest Russians (or even the greatest) of all time. He was a liberal patriot who aimed at reforming the Russian Empire according to the modern democratic Western model which he saw as the only way to save his fatherland. He was assassinated in Kiev on September 14, 1911, by a Jewish revolutionist, Dmitriy Bogrov. Many Russian authors, politicians, and ordinary citizens believed and still believe that if only Stolypin had lived longer and finished his reforms, there would have been no collapse and no communist revolution.

And this Russian-people-based ethno-natioalism in a more natural and manageable delimited territory, is “the carrot” that we can uphold as positive incentive to cooperate with the European-Asian alliance…

Ibid: In one of his speeches in the Russian Duma (Parliament) Stolypin stated that, “We need a great Russia (Rossiya).” Shiropaiev suggests that in his final moments Stolypin might have understood the true state of affairs: that Rossiya and Rus’ are two opposing forces, and reforming Russia means actually replacing it with Rus’. It is quite an irony that this actual quote of Stolypin is now one of the slogans of the so-called “Russian Spring,” the propaganda campaign of Putin’s regime aimed at reviving the imperialist policies of the Federation.

The plot thickens

Ibid: Origins of Rus’ and the Rus’ people

Shiropaiev adopts the modern historical view of the origins of Russia: Eastern Slavic peoples inhabiting modern day Ukraine and the European parts of Russia were united by Vikings (Varyags also known as Varangians) under the leadership of Rurik. This new culture and society have ever since been known as Rus’, and the people as the Rus’ people. Thus, Shiropayev considers Rus’ to be a Germanic-Slavic and truly Nordic entity, the natural orientation of which is North and West.

Many Slavophiles reject this view and see Rus’ as a completely autochthonic and Slavic entity, whereas Eurasianists consider the German influence as something unnecessary and unwanted, which has rightly been replaced by Mongol (thus Islamic) and Khazar (thus Jewish) components.

But despite complex relations, the White Nationalist instinct to treat Russians as fellow Whites is correct..

In Shiropayev’s perspective, the identity of the Rus’ people already transcends the tribal Slavic and Germanic division, and due to the presence of non-Aryan neighbors (Ugro-Finns and later Mongols) naturally had an ethnonationalist, racial, and white component. Shiropayev points to the many similarities and common elements of Russian language, culture, and symbols with those of Western European peoples of Germanic or Celtic origin. The Rus’ people (narrowly understood Russians) are thus a Western, European nation living in easternmost European territory. They are not an Asian, Eurasian, or eastern people.

Posted by Ontology: Russian/not Russian required here on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:24 | #

Continuing and coming to this part in the same Ostrogniew article, some ontological work, the kind of which GW has undertaken, would be necessary at this point to discern and tease apart what is rightfully described as Russian and what is not. With my basic understanding of the situation, I see some cities in there, such as Polotsk, which identified vehemently with others (non Russians) - in the case of Polotsk: Lithuanian Catholics - who were violently quelled by Russian imperialism - and in this instance, Peter the Great personally went into the Polotsk cathedral to kill leading Catholic priests who defied the Russian Orthodox church and Russian imperialism ..

Ibid: The center of the Rus’ was at first Novgorod — the northern Russian city, oriented to the North and to the Sea, maintaining trade and cultural relationships with other Northern and Western European states and nations. The other cities of Rus’ were the locations of Varangian settlements: Ladoga, Beloozero, Pskov, Polotsk, Gnezdovo-Smolensk, etc. (current North-Western Russia). Cities such as Kiev and Chernigov were the results of further southward expansion of this Nordic state, with Moscow being one of the latest, lying on the eastern periphery of Rus’.

The political culture of the Rus’ people was based on tribal organic democracy (embodied by the Vyeche — the gathering of all free people which has made all political decisions, analogous to the Scandinavian Thing) linked with warrior aristocracy. The Rus’ people highly valued freedom — but it was a harsh freedom, associated with the European Faustian spirit that sought fulfillment among the cold landscapes of the North.

Posted by beginnings of virulent Russian imperialism on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:05 | #

And so we move into the sources of Russia’s imperialist aggrandizement to the utter destruction of racial biodiversity and ethno-nationalism proper:

Ibid: Anti-Rus’: The Eurasian Project

According to Shiropayev, Rus’ since the very beginning has faced something he calls “the Project.” The Project is the plan of different groups (ethnic, cultural, religious, political, etc.) to change this originally homogeneous Nordic, North-oriented, and European culture, based on the ideals of freedom, honor, and ethnic identity, into a multiracial, despotic Empire, based on tyranny, slavery and terror, where the original population is turned into slaves of different ethnic and cultural minorities.

The first incarnation of the Project was Saint Vladimir the Great: the grand prince who baptized himself and Kievan Rus’. Vladimir was the son of Svyatoslav I Igorevich: the great pagan ruler and leader, who destroyed the Khazar Empire (a nomadic, Asian state which had adopted Judaism as the state religion) and moved the capital of Rus’ to Kiev — a more fitting center of future expansions. However, Shiropayev focuses more on Vladimir’s maternal ancestry. Vladimir was an illegitimate son of Svyatoslav and one of his servants: Malusha. While some of historians argue that Malusha could have been of Nordic origin (daughter of one of Varangian warriors) or Slavic origin (daughter of one tribal rulers), Shiropayev takes the side of other historians, who claim that Malusha (actual name: Malka or Mala) was of Khazar and Jewish origin. This Jewish ancestry would explain much of the life of Vladimir who was despised by people around him. While it is usually said that the cause was his illegitimate and low origin (his mother was a servant), Shiropayev claims that the real cause was his mixed-race origin. While Rus’ leaders and people did not scorn Germanic-Slavic interbreeding, they frowned upon mixing with aliens such as Jews and Khazars. The mixed race of Vladimir was also the reason he was rejected by Rogneda (Ragnhild), daughter of Rogvolod (Ragnvald) of Polotsk. Vladimir later raped Rogneda in front of her family, which he then ordered to be killed in the presence of Rogneda.

And People wonder how, say, true Belarusian nationalists could hate Russia and wish to distinguish themselves from it? And that is a mere sample among vast grievance.

Is Dugin a spin-doctor for The Eurasian Project? It would seem so.

Posted by Orthodoxy imposed Jew jurisdiction on Russia on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:11 | #

Orthodox church imposed Jewish jurisdiction/ universalism on Russia

Aha, indeed, The Abrahamic - Jewish jurisdiction established and imposed its race-mixing agenda upon Russia and the Russians through the Russian Orthodox Church:

Ibid: It is in Vladimir that the multicultural despotic Rossiya finds its progenitor. Vladimir chose universalist Christianity as the official religion of his state, as it moved the focus from blood to culture. It was he who laid foundations for the religious-statist-cultural-linguistic understanding of a Russian, no longer someone of Nordic or Slavic blood, but now any baptized Russian-speaker, who accepted the rule of the Prince. Christianity also made possible the introduction of people of other races into Russian community: Khazars and Jews, Vladimir’s half-brothers, could become Russians by the touch of holy water. The now embodied Project right away showed its genocidal character: a large part of the population of Rus’ died in the religious conflict of bloody Christianization.

Posted by Baptism into conflict of EGI on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:23 | #

Baptism now enough to become “a Russian”, Asian groups begin to be mixed-in and conflicts of allegiance emerge:

Ibid: The adoption of Byzantine Christianity introduced a new element into the racial constituency of Rus’, namely all non-white elements (Khazars, Ugro-Finns, and later Mongols) who could now become part of the community through baptism. The Project consisted now of two elements: Byzantium and the steppe. Shiropayev identifies a new champion of the Project: prince Yuriy I Vladimirovich, known as Yuriy Dolgorukiy, who was a ruler of a new Russian center – Moscow. Dolgorukiy aimed at uniting all Rus’ under his rule. Moscow, on the easternmost borders of Rus’ with many contacts with non-white populations, became a new center of the Project, the Nyerus’: Non-Rus’ or Anti-Rus’. The level of alienation of Asianized Muscovite princes was so high that the son of Dolgorukiy, Saint Andriy Bogolyubskiy, considered Kiev to be an alien, “German” city. Bogolyubskiy, whose mother was a Cuman princess, sacked and plundered Kiev in a truly Asiatic, steppe-fashion. Andriy’s brother, Vsevolod the Big Nest, punished Ryazan and Belgorod by burning them to the ground.

Posted by European roots of Ukraine independence on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:51 | #

Showing that Ukrainian nationalism and its movement for independence has legitimately and deeply sovereign European roots (where Victoria Nuland does not interfere); and its opposition has non-European roots..

Ibid: The Tatar Yoke

According to Shiropayev, Nordic-Slavic Rus’ was still alive and struggling against this despotic Muscovite tyranny of the Steppe, this Anti-Rus’ or proto-Rossiya. The center of the white Russian tradition was the oldest city of Rus’, Northern Novgorod with its aristocratic republican rule and traditions, trade routes as well as cultural contacts with Northern and Western European states and cities.

Shiropayev glorifies one of the anti-heroes of Russian historiography (and a hero of Ukrainian historiography): Prince Daniel of Galicia, who was crowned the first king of Rus’ by a papal archbishop, for the promise of bringing Russian lands under papal authority (a promise never fulfilled). Shiropayev considers this westward turn of Daniel as the reaction of a conscious Aryan, who was seeking a union with Western Europe against the expansion of Muscovite princes (whom he considered alien Asians) and then against the openly Asian Golden Horde.

On the other hand, Shiropayev condemns one of the heroes of Russian history: Alexander Nevsky (a saint of the Orthodox church). Nevsky was a loyal servant of the Horde, who always fulfilled the will of his Mongol overlords, while viciously fighting the Western powers intervening in Rus’. For Shiropayev this is a treason against the Nordic blood and traditions of Rus’.

One of the turning points of Russian history is the battle of the Kalka River in 1223 in which the united armies of Russian princes suffered a great defeat at the hand of the Mongol armies of the Golden Horde (who are called “Tatars” in Slavic countries). The cruelty of the Mongols was much greater than that of the Western world. A good example is the fate of the Russian princes, who surrendered on the condition that they and their soldiers would be spared. Mongols exterminated the soldiers, then the princes were bound and a platform was placed on them, on which the Mongols celebrated their victory, suffocating the princes and nobles underneath.

Posted by European territorial grievance claims east on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:05 | #

Strong evidence that territorial injustice is not a one way street: genocide and brutal territorial aggrandizement was not only the way of European peoples toward Asians - it has also been the case that European peoples could have rightfully dwelt some distance east (probably beyond the Urals) and suffered brutality, been killed and forced from their habitat by Asians…

After this defeat, all Rus’ was under foreign rule, the so-called “Tatar yoke.” Tatars had a specific way of ruling the conquered nations. They didn’t occupy the lands or place army garrisons there. They forced the local rulers to rule themselves and pay huge tributes to the Mongol overlords. In cases of lack of subordination by the local populations or rulers, Mongols organized punitive expeditions, or joined local princes in suppressing rebellions, during which they burned cities to the ground and exterminated the populations. Mongols also encouraged miscegenation by marrying local princes to the daughters of khans and Mongol nobility, as well as practicing sexual slavery and forced marriages of Mongols with local women. They also supported Tatar settlements in the conquered territories. The princes not only had to pay tributes to the khans, there was also a lot of symbolical violence. They had to visit the khans regularly and pay their respects by prostration or even placing their heads under the foot of the khans, or licking up drops of kumys (fermented mare’s milk) which were spilled by the khan on the ground.

Posted by Mongrel roots of Russian Federation on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:17 | #

Mongrel roots of Russian Federation and its imperialist expansion, imposition against ethno-nationalism

Ibid: Shiropayev straightforwardly calls Golden Horde the USSR of the medieval world: an Asiatic multicultural tyranny. It is during this time that Russian princes “went full Asia” and adopted the despotic customs of the Horde. The great freedom-loving Nordic Rus’ was replaced with the Asian tyranny of Anti-Rus’. All of the worst practices of Russian states, including the genocidal policies against conquered populations, rule by minorities, bloody expansionism, and miscegenation can be traced back to the Golden Horde.

Shiropayev and his Eurasian adversaries agree in this matter: Mongol rule was the beginning of Russia as we know it. However, Shiropayev considers it the great victory of the Project against which the true Russia has struggled ever since. On the other hand, Eurasianists consider this the true beginning of Russian (or rather Russian-Mongol) culture, the Russian empire, and Russian might. The Golden Horde forced the unification of Russia, and many of the administrative rules and divisions survive to this day. Eurasianists even go as far as naming the eras of Slavic-Nordic princes and then the tsars as periods of the “German yoke.”

Posted by Orthodoxy's key role in mongrel imperialism on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:38 | #

Orthodox Church’s crucial role in mongrel imperialism

Ibid: The attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Mongol yoke is a very important and telling aspect of the development of the Project. The Church did to some extent resist Tatar rule, not on racial or national but on religious and political grounds. The Orthodox priesthood did not have a problem with baptizing Mongols, accepting them not only as members of the Christian-Russian community, but also as priests or monks, even making them high-ranking officials of the church and proclaiming them saints. This was in line with the policies of the multicultural Byzantine imperial tradition, which had always supported full-blown miscegenation on the condition that all parties involved are baptized.

However, what the Church did not like was that the Mongol overlords, presiding over loyal Orthodox local princes, were not Christian and did not respect the authority of Orthodox clergy. Thus, the Church always fully supported the Russian princes — whether they were loyal to the Horde, tried to gain local autonomy, or attempted to overthrow the Tatar yoke. Had the khan himself become an Orthodox Christian, the Church would have proclaimed him the highest authority on earth, recognized the sacred right of khans to rule over the Nordic population of Rus’, considered any act of resistance to the Tatar rule both a crime and a blasphemy, and (most probably) would have proclaimed the Orthodox khan a saint after his death.

he attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Mongol yoke is a very important and telling aspect of the development of the Project. The Church did to some extent resist Tatar rule, not on racial or national but on religious and political grounds. The Orthodox priesthood did not have a problem with baptizing Mongols, accepting them not only as members of the Christian-Russian community, but also as priests or monks, even making them high-ranking officials of the church and proclaiming them saints. This was in line with the policies of the multicultural Byzantine imperial tradition, which had always supported full-blown miscegenation on the condition that all parties involved are baptized.

The Orthodox Church since its very beginning has been loyal to the imperial tradition of supporting the state — as long as it remained Orthodox. The Orthodox clergy have always been to some extent considered representatives (or defenders) of the state, and state officials have always been to some extent considered representatives (or defenders) of the Church. The whole Orthodox theology was quite different than the Western Christian tradition. The members of the Orthodox Church are not considered God’s children or even servants of God — they are named “ryaby Bozhe”: the slaves of God. Orthodox ritual is full of prostrations and bowing to the priests as well as sacred objects. The Mongol system in which people are not citizens of a state but slaves of the khan, which demands total obedience and ritualistic self-abasement before the khan and his officials, was much in line with the teachings, practices, and rituals of the Orthodox Church. The Mongol yoke emphasized and developed those elements already present in the Byzantine Church

Posted by Moscowian Mongrel dominion over Rus on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:55 | #

From Moscow, Mongrels establish dominion over Rus

In opposition to the more European Rus, Mongrels establish dominion through a centralized control point, more Asiatic in blood - Moscow ..

Ibid: The Moscow Ulus

The Mongol empire was divided into provinces: uluses. Khans preferred every ulus to have one local ruler who would answer directly to the khan, gather taxes and tributes from all other local rulers and entities, and put them back in line in the case of disobedience. The Mongols did not intervene in local customs, administration, or religion, as long as the ulus remained loyal and payed tributes. Thus, the khans supported the unification of Russian lands under one ruler, who would either dominate other princes as the local hegemon or simply replace them as the sole king. Moscow, with its rulers and culture (mongrel in blood and spirit), seemed to be the most fitting new center of the ulus. And thus began the next phase of the project: unification of Rus’ under Muscovite domination.

According to Shiropayev Mongols did not view Muscovite princes as just their servants. They saw them as fellow Asians, who helped the colonization and exploitation of the white population of Rus’. Even the Russian hero Alexander Nevsky did not perceive Mongols as aliens but as his noble compatriots. Prince Yury of Moscow married a khan’s wife, which proves that the khans considered them to be among the highest of Tatar nobility – subject to the khan, but nevertheless of common blood. Moscow was an Orthodox ulus of the Horde. It was the Muscovite princes who presided over all Rus’ and answered directly to the khan. To all naive Russians asking: “How could the Muscovite princes wage punitive expeditions with Tatars against their own Russian brothers?,” Shiropayev answers: “Muscovite princes were attacking alien Russians, hand in hand with their Tatar brothers.” Shiropayev states boldly: Moscow is not Rus’ but anti-Rus’. Rulers of Moscow were not Russian, but Muscovite princes. Rus’ remained only in its first major center – in Novgorod.

Posted by internal Mongrel conflicts not Rus victory on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:11 | #

Internal Mongrel conflicts dreamed and mythologized as native Rus rebellions and triumphs over the Mongrels..

Ibid: Shiropayev crushes the myth of the Battle of Kulikove Field in 1380. According to the official and popular story, during the battle united Russian princes defeated the Mongols and tore down the Tatar yoke. This is one of the archetypical triumphs of the light forces of Europe over the dark forces of Asia. However, Shiropayev claims that this is completely wrong. In reality it was a rebellion of the local Asian rulers, Muscovite princes, against their former overlords. It was not a triumph of Rus’ over the Horde and the local ulus. It was a mutiny of the Muscovite ulus, which decided to become an independent state (a new Horde) and colonize Rus’ by itself. It was not an European-Asian conflict — it was an internal conflict within the Horde. Shiropayev explains the origins of the Russian myth of Kulikove Field as the voice of racial archetypes of the Russian folk. Russians were white and wanted to remain white. They always dreamed of overthrowing the Mongol tyranny, and once the ulus had overthrown the Horde, they re-imagined it as a racial victory, commemorating it as such in folk songs and poetry.

In the 14th century the Golden Horde was experiencing a deep political crisis. Prince Dmitriy Donskoy decided to take advantage of this situation and become a khan himself — thus he lead united Muscovite ulus forces against khan Mamai’s army in the Battle of Kulikove Field. This conflict did not have an anti-Tatar character, the proof of which may be Serkiz, a famous Tatar leader who had accepted Orthodox Christianity and was one of the most loyal and powerful comrades of Dmitriy Donskoy. Serkiz was later accepted as a full-time Russian and founded a village Serkizovo (now a district of Moscow).

Dmitriy Donskoy did not succeed in creating a new Horde of the Muscovite ulus. The defeated khan Mamai was overthrown by one of his generals, Tokhtamysh, who has then organized a punitive expedition which sacked Moscow. Dmitriy Donskoy accepted the rule of Tokhtamysh and tried to gain some independence from the khans. For his achievements he was made the Mongol principal tax collector and Grand Duke of Vladimir by the khan and proclaimed a saint after his death by the Orthodox Church. (The endless canonizations of successful princes are quite similar to the Soviet posthumous awards and honors for leading Party officials.)

Posted by Europa resists Othodox mongrelization on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:21 | #

Rus, Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians resist Othodox mongrelization:

Orthodox Church sees opportunity for consolidating integration with despotic mongrelism; Rus and Poland/Lithuania (largely what we today know as Belarusians) resist the mongrelization..

Ibid: The Orthodox Church supported the struggle for the independence of the Muscovite ulus. It was the embodiment of the vision of the perfect Orthodox state, in which the oriental despotism of the Byzantine and Mongol traditions as well as imperial multiculturalism were official doctrines. The state and church could finally become one, this time under the auspices of an Orthodox ruler: a baptized khan.

After the Battle of Kulikove Field, the Muscovite ulus sank in almost a century of infighting between princes and factions, but the dream of a united Russian land, an independent Orthodox Horde, a new embodiment of the anti-Russian Project, was alive. It was with the Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan III, later known as Ivan the Great, that the Project found its new champion. Ivan attempted to achieve two main goals: to gather all Russian lands under his rule (that is – under the rule of the Muscovite ulus and later the independent Orthodox Horde) and to become the supreme leader, the new khan. His main opponents in achieving this were the Golden Horde, the Novgorod Republic, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Posted by Mongrel pre-emption of western liberation on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:24 | #

Mongrel/Orthodox intervention - pre-emptive quelling of the liberation of Rus and the west..

Ibid: The Novgorod Republic was the last land of Rus’ which had stayed true to its Nordic roots: a northern state with a European style government (prince and strong vyeche, council of most prominent citizens) and a tradition of maintaining trade and cultural ties with Western and Northern Europe. Although it has never been conquered by the Golden Horde, Novgorod paid tribute to the khans but managed to remain a truly European state. There was also a truly inspiring tradition of Ushkuiniks – Viking-style Northern Slavic pirates who sacked the Horde and often were in alliance with the Republic.

On the other hand, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a new power in Europe: a union of the Polish kingdom and the Lithuanian state (Lithuania was actually a merging of the pagan Lithuanian state and parts of the Orthodox Kievan Rus’). While the rulers of Lithuania had been baptized in the Catholic church, much of the nobility remained Orthodox. The Commonwealth defeated forces of the Teutonic Order (supported by many Western European knights) in one of the larger medieval battles in 1410 (the Battle of Grunwald, or the First Battle of Tannenberg) and managed to become one of the major European powers with an original vision of state and culture. Due to its ties with Kievan Rus’, the Commonwealth could also aspire to “gather” some of the Russian lands.

The alienation between the Mongolized Muscovite ulus and the Nordic Republic of Novgorod was enormous, and Novgordians looked with hope to the Commonwealth, with which they had much in common. The only obstacle was the faith, as the Commonwealth was united under the rule of the Polish king, who was Catholic.

Ivan III could not let that happen. If Novgorod entered the Commonwealth, this would create a true alternative: a European Rus’ which would able to fight the Project embodied by Muscovy. Thus, Ivan III decided to invade Novgorod. In 1471, Ivan III organized his first expedition against Novgorod, which Shiropayev calls simply an invasion of a foreign country aimed at the genocide of the citizens. Muscovite forces were ordered to exterminate the people, including women and children. The Mongols supported Ivan III and provided him with Tatar horsemen.

Ivan III took partial control of Novgorod and began the process of subjugating the republic under the rule of Moscow. Punishing the pro-Commonwealth nobles, exterminating the population, robbing Novgorod’s riches, stripping the Republic of its land — the actions were the same as the Mongol treatment of Russians right after the defeat at Kalka River. Novgorodians tried to rebel and throw off the Muscovite yoke, but Ivan III punished them terribly. In 1478 he seized the city and massacred the inhabitants. This was the fulfillment of a long-time dream of the Muscovite princes and a great leap forward for the Project: the last center of the Nordic tradition of Rus’ was finally destroyed.

As Shiropayev points out this was not an inter-Russian conflict. Forces of the Horde, represented by the Moscow ulus, attacked an independent state: the last land still loyal to the Nordic-Slavic tradition. The aim of Ivan III was total destruction of Rus’: he ordered extermination of the people, burning the city, destruction of the Vyeche (Council) and the nobility, burning of books and artifacts. The blood and spirit of Rus’ were to be annihilated by the Horde. But the freedom-loving Aryan spirit of Novgorod could not be quelled, and even after the destruction of the city, people would rise against the Muscovite despots, who retaliated ever more violently, in a truly Asiatic fashion.

Posted by Mongrelizing Orthodoxy expands empire on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:23 | #

Mongrelizing Orthodox church consolidates Moscovy and bulwark against Europe, then turns its sights eastward…

Ibid: With Novgorod subjugated and the threat of Commonwealth-Rus’ alliance prevented, Ivan III continued the process of “gathering Russian lands,” which in reality meant brutal incorporation of autonomous and semi-autonomous principalities into the Muscovite ulus.

In 1476 Ivan III decided to gain independence of the ulus from the Horde and refused to pay the annual tribute. Khan Akhmat organized a punitive expedition which resulted in one of the strangest battles in history: the Great Standoff on the Ugra River in 1480. The armies of Ivan III stood on one bank of the Ugra facing the armies of the khan occupying the other bank. Both sides waited, and waited . . . and then both of them retreated! This was of course a victory for Ivan III, who had demonstrated his power over Russian lands, and a defeat for the khan, who displayed weakness and was soon murdered by his compatriots.

The Ugra River Standoff is often perceived as the “end of the yoke” and Ivan III as the liberator of Russia. This is far from the truth. The yoke did not end.

Its mongrelizing sights were then set eastward…

Ivan III maintained Mongol despotism and treated his subjects with the same cruelty as the Tatar overlords. Mongolized in blood and spirit, Muscovite princes became the new khans. The independent Moscow ulus, the Grand Duchy of Muscovy, was now the incarnation of the anti-Russian project supported by two pillars: Mongol despotism and the Byzantine-Orthodox church, both equally imperialistic and multi-cultural – both equally alien and hostile to the Nordic-Slavic tradition.

To strengthen the Byzantine pillar of the Project, Ivan III married Sophia Spalaeologue, daughter of Thomas Palaeologus, brother of Constantine IX, the last emperor of Byzantium. This marriage introduced much Byzantine symbolism into the Muscovite culture, including the double-headed eagle. A good example of the Byzantine-Mongol marriage is the Cap of Monomakh, the crown of Russian Grand Princes and later tsars, which was of Tatar origin, probably a gift of the khans who used it to designate the chief of the ulus. With a cross added on top, it became now the symbol of Muscovite sovereignty and was claimed to be of Byzantine origin. The other Russian crown, the Kazan Cap, was simply a crown of the local Kazan khans.

All of the above commentary on the Counter Currents / Ostrogniew article by DanielS

Posted by Russians/Asians & DNA today on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 23:37 | #

In Part 2, Ostrogniew continues to detail events of a Mongol and Tartar - generally what he calls “Asiatic”  - persecution of Russians, the takeover of Russian lands and the expansion eastward into Asia, largely with the guise of the Orthodox church.

I (DanielS) am prepared to believe his argument in significant parts and detail, though it is apparent that he may be over attributing “Asianness” both as a genetic fact and to some extent as a source of blame. At very best he is not doing much in the way of distinguishing kinds of Asians, e.g. Mongols from others; nor the fact that Tartars, e.g., were famous for having fought on the side of the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom. Those are just ready to hand counter arguments without having taken on a probing critque.

Nevertheless, looking at Russia/Russians through Shiropayev is apparently a perspective convenient to the Catholic Church.

While a useful premise to investigation, it resembles arguments of those who want to see every bad person as a Jew - only in the case of Shiropayev, every bad person is “an Asian” and/or acting under the aegis of the Orthodox Church.

There is little reason to doubt that the inhabitants of Moscovy in times gone-by were not “clean” Europeans, i.e., that some were Asian and many were mixed, but it is also probable that Ostrogniew is understating, through the perspective of Shiropayev, the extent to which the Muscovy were of European extraction.

Most people would look at today’s Russians and make an educated guess that they are “White” (European), with perhaps some Asian admixture, more or less here and there, among their people.

Obviously, Shiropayev did not have DNA analysis at the time.

Today’s population will not represent an exact corollary descent from populations of the time, but it would seem likely that it is proximate. And after all, if there was the kind of Asian hegemony that he describes, it should express itself in the DNA of the present Russian population. But it does not:

Russians are 51% Northern European, 25% Mediterranean, 18% Southwest Asian (don’t get excited - all Europeans have about that much Southwest Asian, including Germans and English), and (only) 4% Northeast Asian.

Speaking of which, Northeast Asians are among the “Asians” that Ostrogniew doesn’t distinguish in his description of nefarious Asian doings. Of course WN will be quick to note that Ostrogniew doesn’t have much to say about Jews either - at least not yet. Perhaps that part of the history is yet to come..

Lets wait on that and set out the DNA of a few more Asian groups before re-engaging Ostrogniew’s narrative, which I believe to be very useful nevertheless.

Mongolian: 67% Northeast Asian, 12% Southwest Asian, 4% Native American, 9% Southeast Asian, 6% Northern European

So, between Russians and Mongolians, not a great deal of admixture has come down to the present. Russians have 4% Northeast Asian and Mongolians have only 6% Northern European.

Lets look at a few other populations:

Japanese: 75% Northeast Asian, 25% Southeast Asian

Altaian (Siberian): 53% Northeast Asian, 2% Mediterranean, 22% Southwest Asian, 4% Native American, 17% Northern European…

Hmm, so there is a considerable amount of European in the Siberians - 17% - but who was screwing whom? Further inquiry needed.

A final group we might look at..

Finnish: 7% Northeast Asian, 17% Mediterranean, 17% Southwest Asian, 57% Northern European

The Finns have some Northeast Asian, but not a lot either.

With the credulity of current DNA data, we might come back better equipped to evaluate, shape and craft Ostrogniew’s account through Shiropayev’s perspective, a specificatory structure on Russians/Asians..

Counter-Currents, Alexiey Shiropayev’s Prison of the Nation: An Ethnonationalist History of Russia, Part 2
- Jarosław Ostrogniew

Viktor Vasnetsov, Ivan the Terrible, detail, 1897

Part 2 of 3

The Archetype of the Tyrant: Ivan the Terrible

While Ivan III laid the foundations of an independent Russian kingdom (or rather a Muscovite Orthodox khanate) it was his grandson Ivan IV Vasilyevich, better known as Ivan the Terrible who created tsarist Russia and began the real Muscovite expansions of the 16th century.

Shiropayev identifies the foundation of the Oprichnina as the biggest achievement of the anti-Russian Project under Ivan the Terrible. The Oprichnina is a term used to describe the internal policy of Ivan the Terrible: brutal strengthening of the tsar’s power and suppression of all dissent, which meant crushing internal opposition from the boyars (Russian nobles) or any separatist tendencies. The executors of this policy were the Oprichniks: members of an elite guard, who answered directly to the tsar. They were proclaimed his dogs and brooms (to watch and clean his kingdom). The methods of the Oprichniks were torture and executions, terror and treason. Shiropayev considers Oprichniks to be a model for the later Soviet security force, the Cheka, which exterminated Russians after the revolution.

Ivan the Terrible is often portrayed as an unstable, mentally disturbed man, who — despite of his illness — managed to build an effective Russian state. Shiropayev has a different perspective: Ivan’s actions seem abnormal in comparison with European rulers. But if you compare him with Mongol khans, his outbursts of anger, extermination of entire populations, fondness for cruelty, and even murdering members of his own family are just typical characteristics of an Asian despot. His policies of terror and expansion should not be considered mere personal quirks. They are exactly the way that Mongol tyranny and the Horde always worked.

The mother of Ivan the Terrible was Helena Glinskaya, whose family was descended from the Mongol khan Mamai himself. Ivan the Terrible was Asian in blood and spirit, which is one of the reasons he had no reluctance in exterminating the Russian population, whom he considered his slaves of alien origin. Under the reign of Ivan the Terrible, Asians suffered no discrimination; quite the contrary. The tsar respected the Asian noble titles and considered the Mongol nobility to be of higher rank than his white subjects (or, more accurately, slaves). However, Ivan the Terrible favored Orthodox Christianity and promoted Christianization, which basically meant that the eastward expansion of Russia resulted in miscegenation, as baptized Mongols were considered to be regular members of the Orthodox society.

The last khan of the Kazan Khanate, Yadegar Mokhammad, first fought against Ivan the Terrible but finally accepted the tsar’s rule, converted to Christianity, and became a Russian noble under the name of Simeon Kasayevich. Another khan, Sain-Bulat, later known as Simeon Bekbulatovich, married one of the daughters of Ivan the Terrible and was made (for a year) the Grand Prince of Rus’ by the tsar; Simeon was later made Grand Prince of Tver and Torzhok, one of the commanders of the tsar’s army, and finally became an Orthodox monk. Another Tatar in the tsar’s court was Boris Godunov, one of the Oprichniks, a member of a Christianized Mongol family (descended from the Genghis Khan himself), who was one of favorites of Ivan the Terrible and became tsar after Ivan’s death.

Shiropayev mocks patriotic Russian historians who rejoice in Ivan the Terrible’s alleged antisemitism: when Ivan’s army seized Dvina, they murdered all Jewish inhabitants of the city. However, as Shiropayev points out, they also murdered all Catholic clergy, who were whites. Furthermore, this massacre was carried out by Tatar troops.

Shiropayev presents a long list of executions and massacres carried out by the Oprichniks at Ivan the Terrible’s orders. They are not only terrifying in numbers of victims but also in the methods of execution, a tradition created by the Mongols which later culminated in Soviet communist genocide. The most important massacre ordered by Ivan the Terrible was (once again!) the destruction of Novgorod. This center of Nordic-Slavic Rus’ again attempted to rebel against the “Rossiya” Project. The city was plundered and burned and the inhabitants exterminated. All the murders and destruction had one aim: to unify all Russian lands under the Muscovite yoke of the new Orthodox khan. All possible dissent, forms of self-government, regional traditions, and local autonomy were eradicated.

However, the spirit of Rus’ could not die as it is written in the blood of true Russians, the “Russkiye.” This longing for freedom was used by Ivan the Terrible in what Shiropayev identifies as one of the tsar’s most cunning schemes: the expansion of tsardom into the East. Russians who were suffocating under Asian tyranny were encouraged to enter — first as traders, then as military expeditions — the vast territories of Siberia. It was especially the Cossacks, whom Shiropayev identifies as the embodiment of the free Russian spirit, who heeded the call, and under the leadership of Yermak (a Cossack himself) they began the long journey into the East. But they were tricked by Ivan. The Russians believed that they would drive out the Asian inhabitants of Siberia and settle down to create a wilder and freer society. But Ivan has made the local rulers nobles, thus they maintained their local power. Baptized Asians were considered the equals of Russians. And Yermak’s followers were made subjects to the Asiatic warlords and princes they fought against. Siberia did not become a new autonomous Russian land, but just another division of the multi-ethnic Muscovite despotism.

Posted by "Faustian Spirit" or imperial genocide? on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 10:27 | #

Kumiko, I understand that you are concerned with Ostrogniew’s narrative as it can provide a way for culpable Russians to weasel out of accountability; that you are keen on holding the White component of Russians accountable, as White, so as not to allow it off the hook where it has been blameworthy for not abiding in ethno-nationalist coordination..

Near the beginning of this next section comes the hole that you are looking for - i.e., where Russians, as Whites, may have been “blameworthy” expansionsists from an Asian perspective…

As the Cossacks were exemplary “remnants of the original Nordic-Slavic spirit of Rus” with their “veneration of the military, longing for freedom and adventure, the clannish character of this specific warrior aristocracy, the tradition of combining authority of the leaders…their ‘Faustian spirit’ was cynically used by the Tsars to expand the Empire’s borders eastward”...

That is obviously a positive spin, another version of “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.”

Ibid:

Against the Project: Stepan Razin and Peter the Great

For Shiropayev, the Cossacks are an embodiment of the original Aryan spirit of Rus’. The tsars used their Faustian longing for freedom and expansion as a tool of subverting this spirit and expanding the Empire’s borders. However, Cossacks were not always fooled and were able to turn against the Project. An example of this, and a great hero of Rus’, is the Cossack leader Stepan Razin who rebelled against the tsarist regime in 1670–1671.

Shiropayev points to the fact that many of the Cossack traditions — the veneration of the military, longing for freedom and adventure, the clannish character of this specific warrior aristocracy, the tradition of combining authority of the leaders with the voice of the best of the people through councils, even the symbolic imagery, folk tales and religious imagination — are all remnants of the original Nordic-Slavic spirit of Rus’. In other words, Cossacks remained loyal to the traditions of the Slavs and Vikings.

Posted by decidedly non-European influences there on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:29 | #

Ibid: The uprising of Stepan Razin is portrayed in racial terms, as a conflict between Aryan Rus’ and Asian Russia. Shiropayev connects Razin’s rebellion with the uprising of the Solovetsky Monastery, where monks rejected the reforms of Patriarch Nikon. And although Shiropayev considers Orthodox Christianity to be a force of spiritual subjugation of Rus’ under the yoke of the Project, he considers this uprising as an expression of the spirit of Northern Rus’, of the resistance of Novgorod against Moscow. Unfortunately, both uprisings were drowned in blood, and Muscovy had its way. After these repressions, the tsarist regime and Orthodox Church, both stronger than ever before, had an iron grip on all Russian lands.

       
Come to think of it, there is something distinctly non-European about a lot of this…​

Posted by Peter the Great on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:49 | #

Peter the Great re-orients Russia Westward and toward its Northern European roots and The Enlightenment..

Ibid: However, a threat to the Project arose from the least likely person: the new tsar Peter the Great. Peter was a product of the Romanovs re-connection with Europe, even marrying into the Danish and German nobility. He did not lean towards the South and East – towards the Mongols and Byzantium — but towards the North and West, towards Europe and the Enlightenment. During his travels in Europe he encountered countries on a higher civilization level than his fatherland, and he decided to reconnect Russia with the West.

Contrary to many of the anti-European critics of Peter the Great, he did not wish to make Russia subject to the West, but to renew it with Western ideals and to make it a major European (not Asian) player. Shiropayev reminds readers that Peter’s curbing of some of the “traditions” of Russia was not a betrayal, since many of these traditions were a product of the Mongol-Byzantine enslavement of the Rus’ people. Has Novgorod won its struggle against Moscow, Russia would develop in a similar manner as Sweden, Germany, or Poland. Thus, cutting off many Russian customs, meant restoring older traditions of Rus’.

The modernization of Russia by Peter the Great meant reintroducing European philosophy and sciences, subjugating the church to the state, curbing monastic and ecstatic traditions, reforming the law, and creating new civilizational projects such as building the Northern fleet or the new capital of Saint Petersburg. Peter the Great moved the center of Russia northwards, back to its place of origin.

Posted by virulnce baked in the Russian cake on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:01 | #

Peter represented a turn toward Europe, though the virulent Mongrel and Orthodox influence remained baked in - the cake became stabilized as Russian on balance.

Ibid: Shiropayev considers this re-approaching of Russia and Europe under the West-leaning Romanovs a positive phenomenon which had a chance of turning the Project on its head and overthrowing it. Thus, he considered the rebellions against Peter (the Bulavin Rebellion, Pugachev’s Rebellion) as negative phenomena, a reaction of the Project against Rus’. Razin fighting against Moscow was a European, but Pugachev fighting against Saint Petersburg was an Asian.

This of course does not mean that Peter the Great (and especially not his successors) were completely positive figures. As Shiropayev points out, they still showed many traits of oriental despotism, tyranny, and cruelty. They were also not aware of the racial aspect of the struggle they were involved in. However, their reforms were mostly positive as they were making Russia again a part of Europe.

Unfortunately, none of them – although Peter the Great was closest to this — decided to sever ties completely with the Project, which would probably mean cutting off Orthodoxy or reforming it, so it would remain Byzantine only by name. Thus, the rule of the Romanovs since Peter the Great can be considered “a Petersburg interval”: a moment of rest between two bloody phases of implementation of the Project. After some victories of the great tsar Peter, there was not too much of a fight against the Project, but, on the other hand, the Project did not make any great progress.

Posted by Russian Othodox race mixing empire on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:47 | #

The Russian Othodox Church’s race mixing empire

Ibid:

The Tsarist Empire: The Gracious Side of the Project

Although in the 19th century there were no great purges or ethnic cleansing of the native population of Rus’, the peasant and working classes were exploited by overwork, and the elites were being mixed into a “racial cocktail” under the auspices of the Orthodox Church. The Project created a new identity: the Russian imperial identity, a mix of all elements of the empires ethnic components, European (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Romanian, German, etc.) and non-European (Ugro-Finnish, Mongol, Jewish, etc.) — loyal to the tsar and to the empire, speaking Russian, and (with some exceptions) practicing the Byzantine rite of Christianity. It was a universalitic and totalitarian cultural project of full-on race-mixing, planned and made hegemonic by the agents of the Eurasian Project. Shiropayev cites memoirs and diaries of Russian aristocrats proudly discussing the multi-ethnic, racially-mixed character of the imperial families and institutions.

Posted by Orthodox mongrelizing imperialism on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 16:32 | #

Orthodox mongrelizing imperialism

Ibid: The turn of the 20th century was the climax of the imperialist Byzantine phase of the Project which was manifested by Pan-Slavism, militarism, universalistic and aggressive official rhetoric, as well as the domination of the Orthodox Church in culture, state celebrations, and everyday life. The often maligned “nationalism” of this time was in reality Eurasian imperialism. The radical imperialists disliked everyone who did not speak Russian, professed a faith different than Orthodox Christianity, or did not embrace imperialist policy. However, they had nothing against peoples of different nationalities or races who decided to become loyal subjects of the empire by accepting its language and religion. This was true not only in the case of Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, Balts, or other European nations, but also in the case of Armenians, Ugro-Finns, Mongols, Jews, and even Africans (as in the case of Abram Petrovich Gannibal, the black African great-grandfather of Aleksander Pushkin). They were not only considered regular subjects of the tsars, but they often were made noblemen and rose to the most prominent offices of the empire.

       
        Pushkin

Posted by mongrel expansion on backs of Europe on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:53 | #

The more western people were the builders and the serfs. The more Asian, mongrelized and Jewish were in ruling and middle classes as the empire expanded.

Ibid: While the Anti-Rus’ Project has always been highly successful in exploiting the masses, exterminating rebellious populations, aggressive and bloody expansion, and creating a culture of slavish obedience, it has never been as good at creating a well-functioning administration, non-corrupt officials, the rule of law, advanced industries and infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), or enabling people to make a decent living.

Thus, after the original Nordic culture of Rus’ fell under Mongolized Muscovite rule, all the most important construction and infrastructure projects had to be created by western European specialists invited by the tsars. The most famous achievements of Russian architecture, including the Kremlin, were constructed by Western architects. Large numbers of Germans, especially, were imported to create or modernize industries and bureaucracies.

As Shiropayev emphasizes, Russia was a land of paradox. It was built by white people, but they did not have the status of the ruling nation, being subject to multi-ethnic oriental ruling class. The ethnic Russians (the Rus’ people) and other white subjects of the Russian Empire (Ukrainians, Poles, etc.) were the most exploited groups of all. Jews, for example, were never serfs. They were free citizens of the Empire. While whites were literally starving and dying from overwork, the elites coddled the Asian provinces, vast and rich in natural resources, to uphold the territorial greatness of the empire.

Posted by Frankenstein fights his monster on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:06 | #

Shiropayev sees that Orthodox vs Bolshevik conflict as an in-fight between mongrels and Jews as to which group would head the Eurasian race-mixing project.

Ibid: Shiropayev considers the tsarist Orthodox versus Bolshevik communist conflict to be just a quarrel between two versions of the Eurasian project: the Byzantine and the Jewish. Although there was a difference of opinion on who should constitute the ruling class of the empire and whether the cross or the star should be the imperial symbol, both forwarded the Eurasian Project of universal race-mixing. Thus, Shiropayev calls the Bolshevik revolution only a change of the form, not of the content and aim, of the Project. In his words: “the Kahal took place of the Steppe.”

I do believe the Jewish side would be far more responsible than the Asiatic, as they are responsible for creating Christianity and thus, Orthodoxy as well as Bolshevism. Therefore, thei fighting with mongrels is akin to Frankenstein fighting with his monster.

Posted by key of Intermarium yet to account on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:21 | #

Some correct description and aspirations along with some surprising heroes, means and symbols…

Ibid:

Stolypin and Rasputin

Pyotr Stolypin...his assassin, Dimitry Bogrov

As Shiropayev treats the tsarist and Bolshevik regimes as just two heads of the same hydra, both hostile to the Rus’ people, the question arises: was there any hope for the native Rus’? The answer is yes, but it comes from unlikely sources.

One of these hopes arose from liberal democratic circles, which were hated and fought by both the imperialists and the communists. The liberals believed that Russia should turn away from the East: culturally, politically, and even religiously, and reconcile with the West. They aimed at a great and radical pro-European reform, just like that of Peter the Great. This project was once again led by a Peter: Pyotr Stolypin, the great visionary minister of the tsar, who was assassinated before he could realize his reforms.

Shiropayev believes that these liberal reforms could become a true ethnonationalist project, as racialist thought was rising in the West at this time, especially in Germany, and Germany was often considered the European country that was closest to Russia — especially due to the many officials and noblemen of German descent in Russia. Also, since both communists and imperialists were highly universalist, pro-statist, and anti-national, the democrats had to become particularist, pro-national, and anti-statist to gain the support of the common people of different nations inhabiting the Empire.

Grigori Rasputin

Whereas Stolypin and other reformists are maligned by both communist and imperialist historians, they are praised by democratic historians, especially in the West. Another figure, who is hated by all sides — and indeed may be the most hated Russian of all time — is regarded by Shiropayev as a very positive figure: namely, Grigori Rasputin. Rasputin is usually portrayed as a mad monk, a cunning sectarian who beguiled the royal family into forwarding his evil aims.

Shiropayev dismisses these claims as propaganda. He presents Rasputin as the sanest man in the royal court, who wanted to prevent the bloodshed of the First World War by reconciling Russia and Germany. Yes, he was an intensely spiritual person who believed he was on a mission to save the world. But his spirituality was non-Orthodox traditional folk spirituality, and if he had managed to change Russian’s international policy, he really would have saved the world, or at least Russia and Europe. Yes, he had great influence on the Empress, and he indeed tried to form a conspiracy to bring peace between Germany and Russia. But it was the right thing to do, and the Empress was a natural ally, as she was a member of German nobility. Just as Stolypin was hated by both imperialists and communists, and murdered by a communist before he could realize his reforms, Rasputin was hated by both imperialists and communists, and murdered by imperialists before he could realize his plan.

As a side note, Shiropayev points out an interesting fact: one of the main symbols of the Varangians and the Rus’ was the swastika. This symbol keeps showing up each time there is resistance to the Eurasian Project, in various rebellions and uprisings. This is true also in the case of Rasputin. The swastika was a symbol connected with his closest circle of believers and acquaintances, including the Empress and her daughters. A swastika was also found drawn in the Ipatiev House, were the royal family was held prisoner and then executed by the Bolsheviks. Shiropayev, in a truly conspirological fashion, considers the Swastika to be an esoteric symbol of organized resistance against the Eurasian Project

The price paid by them and the millions of Russians sandwiched between Judeo-Mongrelism and German esoterica, to “integrate it”, speaks for itself. Though part 2 has begun to speak of Jews and their adversarial role to ethnonationalism, their instigating role in pan mixia, it does not yet take into account the keystone role of the Intermarium, and its more imaginative and promising place in an alliance of ethnonationalisms with regionalism, especially Asian and European.

Posted by E.Michael Jones: blacks/Jews on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:31 | #

E. Michael Jones: The Black / Jewish Alliance

...a pro-Russian argument from E. Michael Jones, but good to know what’s out there.

Posted by Jewish Bolshevism - Red Terror of Whites on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:42 | #

Beginning part 3, Ostrogniew acknowledges the predominant role of Jews in Bolshevism and its “red terror”, but maintains that what it replaced wasn’t something particularly Russian, but a mixed race empire commandeered by Orthodox Christianity.

However, Jewish Bolshevism took into overdrive the process of destroying remaining Europeans .

Alexiey Shiropayev’s Prison of the Nation: An Ethnonationalist History of Russia, Part 3:

Jarosław Ostrogniew

Part 3 of 4

Roses for Stalin by Vladimirskij

The Red Terror: Lenin and the October Revolution

Prison of the Nation presents an original view of the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917. First of all, Shiropayev sees this as a change of the ruling elite of the Eurasian Project. The Byzantine Christians were simply replaced by Bolshevik Jews. Thus he does not see many reasons to support the ancien regime, which had already been realizing the multi-racial, anti-European utopia, only under a different banner. Secondly, he considers the greatest sin of the revolutionaries to be the destruction the two most positive forces tsarist Russia, which could have saved the country, namely the liberal populist reformers and the Germanophile circle of Rasputin and Empress Alexandra. Thirdly, the Revolution should not be considered solely in economic, geopolitical, or religious terms. The most important aspect of the Revolution was racial: it was a throwback to the bloodiest phases of the Project, analogous to Christianization of Rus’, the Mongol invasion, and the Muscovite struggle for autocracy. But this time it was the Jews (lead by a Jew-Mongol-white hybrid, Lenin) that were exterminating the white population of Rus’.

Shiropayev recounts the atrocities committed by the Bolsheviks against the Slavs: the bloody extermination of whole families and villages, the torture of the victims, etc. It is often said that these atrocities are unimaginable and incomprehensible. They are from a “color-blind” economic or political perspective. But if we consider the Revolution an act of racial warfare — the extermination of a racially distinct population by a fanatical and bloodthirsty ethnic minority aiming at total domination — then everything becomes imaginable and comprehensible. Shiropayev quotes from leading Communists, who (using racial slurs) present their plans to create legions of “white slaves” serving the ethnic minority ruling this new dystopia.

The greatest crimes committed by the Commissars were, of course, the extermination through starvation of Ukrainian peasants (the Holodomor) and the system of extermination camps throughout the whole Soviet empire (the gulag). However, it must be stressed that there were numerous other uses of starvation as a weapon in USSR: for example, the suppression of the Tambov Rebellion and other peasant uprisings, as well as the suppression of Cossacks and other nations of the empire, who rose up to regain their lost freedom.

Soviet, Russian, and Western historiography tend to present the USSR as a cruel but nevertheless well-functioning totalitarian state, where, after a few bloody years, dissent has been suppressed and society remained rather peaceful. This picture is false. From the very beginning to the very end, the USSR was a bloody mess, in which various nations and groups rose against the government; dissenters were put in concentration camps, prisons, and psychiatric wards; organized and unorganized crime were rampant; and various party cliques conspired to take over the system. There were numerous assassinations and attempted assassinations of leading political figures, including Stalin himself.

Posted by Bolshevik permutation of "The Project" on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:00 | #

The Jewish head arises in the from of Bolshevik instigated conflict and slaughter of Europeans. It is a furthering of “The Project” (Mongrelizing empire at the behest and direction of Jews) that had been facilitated by The Orthodox Church before the Bolshevik revolution.

Ibid: Shiropayev sees an occult dimension to Soviet Communism, especially in its symbolism. For instance, the Red Star might have been chosen as a symbol of the Red Army as a reference to the Jewish rebels fighting the Romans. There have been reports of occult symbols found in places where the white nations of the empire were exterminated, including the site of the slaughter of the tsar and his family. The torture of victims can be likened to Jewish ritual murder. And the extermination of the Slavic population may be considered a bloody sacrifice to the Eurasian Project. Especially interesting is the cult of the mummified Lenin’s corpse, analogous to the cult of the incorruptible bodies of dead Orthodox saints. At the start of the war with Third Reich, Stalin has publicly made a vow to Lenin to wage a victorious war against Germany. Shiropayev presents this as a public incantation and the promise to sacrifice the “biomass” of Russian and German soldiers to the “ever living” mummy.

Shiropayev criticizes the “White movement.” He considers them tsarist sentimentalists, clinging to the previous phase of the anti-Rus’ Eurasian Project. Nevertheless, he gives them credit for facing the Bolsheviks in battle. On the other hand, had the Whites not been so fixed on keeping the old empire, with its unjust and outdated social structure, maybe they would have gained more popular support and eventually won. Interestingly, Shiropayev compares the emigre Russian Fascist Party, which has clung to the imperial understanding of Russia and Russians, to civic nationalism and Byzantine Christianity. For him the true opposition were the rising peasants and especially the Cossacks fighting for independence.

Posted by Hitler, "the liberator of Russia" on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 16:26 | #

I find this part of Shirpayov’s perspective tedious and the comment below sufficing for what I might have said..

Ibid: Rus’ Reawakens: Operation Barbarossa

Shiropayev sees Germany’s invasion of the USSR, Operation Barbarossa, as the last great chance to save Rus’ from the Eurasian Project. He maintains that Hitler’s strategy was the only right thing to do

Leon
Posted February 4, 2016 at 4:04 am | Permalink

Any sympathy I might have had towards Shiropaev and his theories has melted away after reading this section. It seems that both he and the vile Eurasianist marxists and universalists that he so criticizes have one thing in common: they both place abstract ideals and politics above the lives and wellbeing of actual Russians. Only in his case the abstract ideal is named ‘Rus’ and ‘Nordic’ rather than ‘Rossiya’ and ‘Soviet man’. How else could he conclude that a German nationalist regime with a proven Slavophobic record occupying Russia and murdering its citizens to provide living space could mean the salvation of the Rus? Or that collaborating against your folk with an invading regime that has absolutely nothing but contempt for you and your kind constitutes heroism while trying to maintain any amount of autonomy makes you part of an anti-White “Project”? Shiropaev speaks as if the majority of Russians murdered were Party functionaries. This is a blatant lie. The Germans murdered most any Russian that fell into their hands, even common soldiers that had surrendered were starved to death. The Fuhrer was himself responsible for wiping out the Rus race as much as anyone.

Then as to even further prove my point, Shiropaev complains that Hitler should have been more ruthless. Disgusting. I suppose he should have wiped out the entire Russian populace to make room for German colonists? That surely would have saved the Rus! Up to now his narrative seemed flawed but promising, opening the possibility for a nationalist way forward for ethnic Russians. Now it is clear that Shiropaev is more concerned with his own personal interpretations of history and hating the Russian state, than with forming any positive solution.

Posted by Conclusion of mongrel/orthodox empire on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:16 | #

Shiropayev and Ostrogniew do well to provide helpful critical/analytical tools to look at The Russian Federation - viz., as an expression of a mongrelized and mongrelizing Empire, key driving and nefarious component being The Orthodox Church and Jews. However, in his overcompensating wish to find Russians to be pure and innocent, he seeks to make them something like pure and innocent Germans.

Alexiey Shiropayev’s Prison of the Nation: An Ethnonationalist History of Russia, Part 4:

Jarosław Ostrogniew

Prison of the Nation does not cover Vladimir Putin’s era, but Shiropayev has criticized it in depth in his other writings. He considers Putin’s regime “Orthodox neo-Stalinism”: a mix of the worst elements of the Byzantine and the Bolshevik phases of the Project. It is a rule of commissars blessed by Orthodox clergy who are expanding the Empire at the cost of the white population of Russia, while promoting civic patriotism, race-mixing, alcoholism, and mysticism, since God-fearing (or rather: priest-fearing) drunk patriotards will never rebel against their overlords.

This next sentence sounds the dead ringer.

Ibid: And once again it is the “other races” who are the true beneficiaries of the Eurasian Project: the Russian population pays the bills for all non-European provinces, where the local despots are bribed into obedience by Moscow.

Kumiko, what do you have to say about the “hard work upon Russian backs” that is supporting Asia?

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:47 | #

DanielS wrote:

Kumiko, what do you have to say about the “hard work upon Russian backs” that is supporting Asia?

It’s the usual Russian nonsense, of course. I said from the beginning that the narrative would end up there, that’s basically what they always do.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:55 | #

It’s the usual Russian nonsense, of course.

I encourage you to make the rational case. Mere assertions against the prevailing narratives of WN are not likely to win people over. However, WN should not be incorrigible as it adheres to principles of ethnonationalism, the necessity of proper resource and human ecological management and control - i.e. concerns beyond ethno-states, notably the Silk Road and Regional cooperation.

I look forward to the articles you have coming to disabuse WN of some of its more poorly understood and conceived positions.

Posted by Altai also Denisovan Cave location on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:09 | #

Interestingly, the Altai region is also the aboriginal place of The Denisovans; it is the location of the Denisovan Caves.

Posted by YKW may not flock to Russia, but r already there on Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:29 | #

Jews might not “flock to Russia” upon Putin’s offer, but they are already firmly affixed.

European Jews will not take up Vladimir Putin’s recent offer to take “refuge” in Russia, even though the Russian Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are Jews, Mikhail Skoblionok, a leading member of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress has said.

[...]

“The Jews all over the world know and have assessed this situation. This is why I don’t think that there will be a mad rush of Jews from the whole world to Russia.”

However, he then said that that there was no danger to Jews in Russia.

Under the heading “Country headed by Jews,” Skoblionok said that “in Russia, the attitude of both ordinary citizens and the government to the Jews is good.

“In addition, there are large numbers of Jews in the Russian government.  [Prime Minister Dmitry]  Medvedev has Jewish roots. [Deputy Prime Minister Arkady]  Dvorkovich is Jewish. What attitude will they have to themselves?” he rhetorically asked.

Posted by Mal'ta-Buret: a source of Europeans & Amerindians on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:17 | #

Wiki: Mal’ta-Buret’ culture

The Mal’ta-Buret’ culture is an archaeological culture of the Upper Paleolithic (c. 24,000 to 15,000 BP) on the upper Angara River in the area west of Lake Baikal in the Irkutsk Oblast, Siberia, Russian Federation. The type sites are named for the villages of Mal’ta (Мальта), Usolsky District and Buret’ (Буреть), Bokhansky District (both in Irkutsk Oblast).

Research published in 2014 indicates that the Mal’ta people belonged to a population which may have made a substantial contribution to the genetic ancestry of the American Indians.

[...]

Relationship to American Indians and Europeans

Research published in 2014 suggests that a Mal’ta like people were important genetic contributors to the American Indians, Europeans, and central and south Asians but did not contribute to and was not related to East Eurasians. Mal’ta had a type of R* y-dna that diverged before the hg R1 and R2 split and an unresolved clade of haplogroup U mtdna. Between 14 and 38 percent of American Indian ancestry may originate from gene flow from the Mal’ta Buret people, while the other geneflow in the Native Americans appears to have an Eastern Eurasian origin Sequencing of another south-central Siberian (Afontova Gora-2) dating to approximately 17,000 years ago, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as Mal’ta boy-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum.

Posted by How the Scythians vanished on Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:48 | #

TNO, “How the Scythians Vanished” 2 Aug 2013:

A group of researchers led by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) has discovered the first scientific evidence of genetic blending between Europeans and Asians in the remains of ancient Scythian warriors living over 2,000 years ago in the Altai region of Mongolia.

Contrary to what was believed until now, the results published in PLoS ONE indicate that this blending was not due to an eastward migration of Europeans, but to a demographic expansion of local Central Asian populations, thanks to the technological improvements the Scythian culture brought with them.

The Altai is a mountain range in Central Asia occupying territories of Russia and Kazakhstan to the west and of Mongolia and China to the east.

Historically, the Central Asian steppes have been a corridor for Asian and European populations, resulting in the region’s large diversity in population today.

In ancient times however the Altai Mountains, located in the middle of the steppes, represented an important barrier for the coexistence and mixture of the populations living on each side. And so they lived isolated during millennia: Europeans on the western side and Asians on the eastern side.

The research conducted by researchers from the UAB, the Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont and the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (UPF-CSIC) sheds new light on when and how this Eurasian genetic blending took place.

At the UAB palaeogenetic laboratory researchers analysed mitochondrial DNA (inherited from the mother, it allows us to trace our ancestors) extracted from the bones and teeth of 19 skeletons from the Bronze Age (7th to 10th century BCE) and from the Iron Age (2nd to 7th century BCE) from the Mongolian Altai Mountains.
READ The Fall of Maaloula: A Parallel with the Fall of Constantinople

The remains were extracted from the tombs discovered seven years ago, in which the skeletons of Scythian warriors were discovered and which represented the first scientific evidence of this culture in East Asia.

The results obtained demonstrate that the population from the Iron Age, corresponding to the time when the Scythian culture resided in the Altai Mountains, had a perfect blend (50%) of European and Asian mitochondrial DNA lineages or sequences.

The discovery is relevant, taking into account that previous populations showed no signs of lineage mixture: the DNA analysed in the tombs located in Russia and Kazakhstan belong to European lineages, whereas DNA from the eastern part, in Mongolia, contain Asian lineages.

“The results provide exceptionally valuable information about how and when the population diversity found today in Central Asian steppes appeared. They point to the possibility that this occurred in Altai over 2,000 years ago between the local population on both sides of the mountain range, coinciding with the expansion of the Scythian culture, which came from the west”, explains Assumpció Malgosa, professor of Biological Anthropology at UAB and coordinator of the research.

A Scythian mummy on display at the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.

Studies conducted until now on ancient DNA samples from the Altai region already indicated that the Scythians were the first large population to be a mixture between Europeans and Asians. However, the only populations to be studied were those on the western part of the Eurasian steppes, suggesting that this mixture was due to population migrations from Europe to the east.

The current research is the first to offer scientific evidence of this population mixture on the eastern side of the Altai and indicates that the contact between European and Asian lineages occurred before the Iron Age when populations were present on both sides of the mountain.

The study suggests that the Asian population adopted the Scythian culture, technologically and socially more advanced, and this made them improve demographically by favouring their expansion and contact with Europeans.

The idea poses a new hypothesis on the origin of today’s population diversity in Central Asia and allows for a better understanding of the demographic processes which took place.

From 2005 to 2007, UAB researchers worked jointly with French and Mongolian researchers in a European project to excavate Scythian tombs in Mongolia’s Altai Mountains.

In the three excavation campaigns carried out over twenty tombs were excavated. Many of them were frozen and contained mummified human remains of warriors buried with their possessions and horses. This was the first time Scythian warrior tombs had been discovered in Mongolia, since all other tombs previously found had been located on the western side of Altai.

The Scythians were an Indo-European people dedicated to nomadic pasturing and horse breeding.

They crossed the Eurasian steppes from the Caspian Sea until reaching the Altai Mountains during the 2nd and 7th century BCE. The Scythians are known most of all thanks to ancient texts written by the Greek historian Herodotus.

indianiec

August 17, 2015 at 6:22 am -

According to DNA, Scythians had R1a (M458, Z280), which concentrate today is in Poland, Czech Republic and Baltic states. So looks like they didn’t vanish.

Posted by Ice age European super language on Sun, 08 May 2016 02:15 | #

DM, “The-ice-age-superlanguage-Europeans-spoke-15-000-years-ago.html]Ice age superlanguage Europeans spoke 15,000 years ago” 7 May 2016:

‘Ershver tooni monhrr!’ In other words, hey, can you give me a hand! The ice age ‘superlanguage’ Europeans spoke 15,000 years ago - and we can still understand today

  Researchers uncovered language Ice Age people used to communicate - with many of the words still in use today
  Believe ‘superlanguage’ may have existed so different groups could communicate
  Experts say we could ‘hold a simple conversation’ using the language.

Researchers have revealed the ‘superlanguage’ they believe Ice Age people living in Europe 15,000 used to communicate.

The University of Reading study shows many of the words, such as I, you, we, man and bark are still in use today - and found there was even a word for mother.

The researchers even show that complete sentences could still be understood today.

Where Europe’s language came from: The ‘common words’ point to the existence of a linguistic super-family tree that unites seven major language families of Eurasia.

The first common Language? Researchers found these common words could be used across Europe 15,000 years ago

Researchers believe the findings show a linguistic ‘common language’ allowing different groups to communicate.

Using statistical models, Professor of Evolutionary Biology Mark Pagel and his team predicted that certain words would have changed so slowly over long periods of time as to retain traces of their ancestry for up to ten thousand or more years.

Researchers believe the findings show a linguistic ‘common language’ allowing different groups to communicate.

Where Europe’s language came from: The ‘common words’ point to the existence of a linguistic super-family tree that unites seven major language families of Eurasia., shown here

Using statistical models, Professor of Evolutionary Biology Mark Pagel and his team predicted that certain words would have changed so slowly over long periods of time as to retain traces of their ancestry for up to ten thousand or more years