0023) The "Mongol" Turks

"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches, ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."

-- Genghis Khan (Father of all Turks.)

From A Greek Web site, repeated in several . . other Greek and Armenian sites

GENGHIS KHAN, as portrayed by...
super-USA patriot John Wayne? Let that be
a lesson to all you Mongol racists... an attack
on the Mongols is an attack on America!



All right, Genghis!



Was Conan a Turk?


What a really remarkable quote. I have no idea what newspaper reporter with a press card was lucky enough to get this quote... and managed to accurately translate such words from the original Mongolian... but since I ran into it from one of the ubiquitous anti-Turkish sites (this one happened to be Greek-run), we know it must be true.

Then again, maybe someone watched CONAN THE BARBARIAN, when Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the title role, was asked: "What is best in life?"... he replied:

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women."

ADDENDUM: Reader Andrew Patrick informs us: "With regard to the quote from Genghis Khan, the 'slay your enemies…plunder…etc.', was not actually said by Genghis Khan. After he had been traveling around, conquering various peoples and subjugating them for many years, Genghis looked at his three sons and asked them what was best in life. One of his sons replied with the aforementioned quote. Genghis told him that he was wrong, that what was best was riding in the open steppe, with the wind in your hair and a falcon on your wrist (which, ironically, is the opposite of the way it was depicted in Conan, not that Conan is a source of historical knowledge!). Apparently, Genghis was missing the good old days before he set about creating his Empire."

WHAT! How could that be, for the anti-Turkish web sites to get their facts completely wrong?? (Thanks, Andrew.)




Mongol women, circa 1920


At any rate, you get the connection. If Genghis Khan actually said this... and given some of Mr. Khan’s destructive exploits, I’m not saying he might not have said something close... and since there is a Turkic element to the Mongols... bingo! Now the world can conclude there is an essentially barbaric nature to the Turks. (The Orthodox peoples’ ability to make their point from such connections is legendary. Take a probably non-existent quote of Hitler’s that was directed against a people other than the Jews [i.e., the Poles], and... bingo! Instant Holocaust tie-in to the Armenian “Genocide.”)

By the way, let’s put our cards on the table. Another of the West’s favorite bad boys, Attila the Hun, had a Turkic element in him, as well.

History is a matter of perspective. Whose butts did Attila kick? The Romans, during their phase of decline. Yes, the same Romans who engaged in such civilized practices as feeding the Christians to the lions, crucifixions, and spreading terror and misery throughout the far corners of the known world, from the Germanic lands to Britain to Egypt. These lands were not conquered through the practice of tossing daisies.

(To digress for a second, but still in support of the bias of history: a bad boy of Roman history, Nero, is commonly believed to have set fire to Rome while he played his fiddle. In fact, Nero was commanding the thousands of firefighters the city employed, to try to put out the flames. He blamed the Christians afterwards, but now there are a number of historical circles who are convinced Nero was right on the button... and the evidence is pretty compelling. Kind of should make one think about who really burned Izmir.)

Getting back to the Mongols. Yes, the Mongols were jaw-droppingly good at what they did, conquering and pillaging and generally not being very nice. (From the Western viewpoint, which is what I have been exposed to.) However, it was the Age of Empires. The Mongols simply happened to spill blood better than the rest of their foes. Imagine... they subjugated (Southern) Russia, whose natives aren’t one of history’s most civilized folks, as far as conquest is concerned. (It was the Russians’ monumental ethnic cleansing methods of Turkish lands that inspired similar genocidal practices of their fellow Orthodox peoples, the Greeks, the Serbs, the Bulgarians, and the Armenians.) Even the Teutonic Knights could not handle the Mongols, when they directed their attentions westward. Yes, the same Teutonic Knights who gave Russia such Hell. The Mongols even tried to sock it to the Japanese, but the waters that separated them proved too much of a barrier.



George C. Scott as Patton


General George Patton also had a bone to pick with people he liked to deride as "Mongols." Only he wasn't thinking of Turks. At least in the person of George C. Scott, mouthing lines that seem to have been inspired by historical reality, in the 1986 TV movie sequel, "The Last Days of Patton." Hear who Old Blood and Guts thought of as the Mongols (in a talk with "Ike"), and next hear him embellish his views. It all sounds so very familiar!



ADDENDUM (5-06):


A documentary on the diaries of Joseph Goebbels revealed that on the Nazi Propaganda Minister's final radio broadcast, April 21, 1945, as the enemy was threatening Berlin, Goebbels used the same disparaging term as well... the Turks ought to sue! (Here is the sound.)







Sultan Bayezit I



Timur the Great


The Mongols were so good at what they did, they totally defeated another incredible fighting force... the Ottoman Turks! It was Bayezit I, nicknamed "Yildirim" or "The Thunderbolt" (not the same sultan who opened the Ottoman gates to Spain and Portugal’s persecuted Jews... that was Bayezit II) vs. Timur the Great (Tamarlane). I always wondered how Timur accomplished this, as the Turks were in their fighting prime. (The main reason appears to have been: Timur was smart enough to position his forces in a way that allowed him to cut off the water supply to the Turks. The Ottoman Turks then battled two foes... the Mongols, and thirst. That was one decisive tactic..!) Bayezit lost the battle near Ankara in 1402, and died in captivity a year later, reportedly by suicide; Timur would stop breathing in 1405, taking his empire with him.

NEWS FLASH! Guess who fought alongside the Turks in the above war, in a separate battle at Sivas. Yes, the Armenians. (Hmmm... now I'm getting another thought as to why the Turks might have lost the war, but I'm stifling it.) At any rate, this "military alliance" comes from Armenian historians, and they have focused on the awful fate of the Armenians, at the hands of Timur. (No word on what Timur did to surviving Turks, of course.) [Read Here]


Genghis Khan looked a bit like
Charlie Chan, don't you think?
See ADDENDUM* below

At any rate, racist Greeks and Armenians have a field day in their web sites and guest book comments by describing the Turks as Mongols. Isn’t that awful? Not as far as the Greeks and Armenians’ insults, because it’s their calling to make sure the Turks suffer from the worst possible negative image, no matter what. However, what have they against the poor Mongols? (Granted, the Mongols have a definite image in the West as being somehow subhuman... they have it even worse than the Turks’ perceived sub-humanity.) Today, the Mongols are subjugated by the Chinese, and live in the most poverty-stricken lands in the world, their days of glory long behind them. How low can you get, kicking a people when they’re down. If anything, the Turk-haters should be grateful to the Mongols, for it was Timur the Great’s devastating victory against the Turks that prevented the Turks from threatening Europe again for a long time. Gratitude, however, is one thing that has always been in short supply, where the Orthodox peoples are concerned.

By the way, if what I ran into in a "Proud to be White" site (while searching for a picture of the real Genghis Khan, shown above) is true.... and the reported history appears fairly accurate, despite the racist bent... the Germans are credited with stopping the advance of the Huns, saving white Europe from "destruction." The Germans' contribution sounds credible... pretty ironic they were regarded as "The Hun" during World War I, huh? (I understand that nickname was first given to the Germans by the Germans themselves, by the way.)


The extent of Hun domination in Europe... from the "White"site.



In fairness... as if fairness is a priority with extremist Greeks and Armenians.... Greeks and Armenians should be careful before launching into their racist tirades. What they are saying is, they are white, and Turks are not... which makes them better. This is a funny thing, because the centuries have proven to be the great racial equalizer. Put a Greek, Turk and Armenian together, and there would be no clear-cut Caucasian champion. Perhaps Armenians might edge out a little in pure whiteness, if we are to listen to Adolf Hitler, whose regime declared the Armenians to be an Aryan people (And we know what a scholarly authority Hitler was on the Armenians, based on the aforementioned quote he very likely never said).

(Actually, the jury is out on whether Hitler concluded the Armenians were Aryan, or whether the Armenians came up with the idea... in order to cozy up to the prevailing force at the time. Only to change sides, once the Nazis' cause was lost.... displaying typical Armenian loyalty.)

If we take a look at this "Proud to be White" site — which sounds like it could have been written by Greeks and Armenians who love to regard the Turks as "hordes from Asia," declaring the Turks an inferior race — let's see what they have to say about the Greeks:

This darkening of the population (caused partly by the Nordic and original European elements of Grecian society warring themselves to death — and partly by the importation of masses of already mixed Middle Eastern peoples) runs directly in tandem with the decline and fall of Classical Greece.

The gradual darkening of the Grecian peoples was noted by many famous Greek writers of the time. By drawing comparisons with the Greek peoples, the surrounding Nordic tribes were of fair complexion. Hippocrates makes reference in his works to the "long heads" (that is, Nordic skulls) of the Macedonians — while Aristotle made copious references to the fairness of the Scythians and the Macedonians. The Greek soldier and historian Xenophon (430-354 BC) also made a point of referring to the blond haired and fair eyed Macedonians and Scythians in his book Anabasis, which described a Greek expedition against the Persians.

By the time of the Roman Emperor Octavian Augustus (who reigned directly after Julius Caesar), the Roman historian Manilius counted the Greeks as amongst the dark nations of the world, referring to the Greeks as part of the "colorate gentes" (Astronomica, iv, 719.)

This process, which happened over a period of centuries, was to be aggravated by the Turkish invasion of Greece and the Balkans nearly 1,200 years later.

So don't feel bad about being "colored," Greek people... the "White Power" historian mostly has it in for the Turks, as you can see!



* ADDENDUM regarding the picture above, of Genghis Khan. Reader Hannah Morong wrote: "The portrait of Genghis Khan on your website probably doesn't look anything like Genghis Khan at all. Genghis Khan didn't let anyone paint his picture or sculpt him. No images of Genghis Khan were made until 50 years after his death. The portrait in question was commissioned by Genghis Khan's grandson Khubilai Khan in the Chinese style to make him appear Chinese... A book I would highly recommend as both fascinating and informative is Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Another good one is 1421- The Year China Discovered America." (Thanks, Hannah.)



ARMENIAN-TURKISH COMMON ANCESTRY?

The Urartu were a confederation of indigenous tribes of
the area that covers much the same terrain as the later kingdom of Armenia in Eastern Turkey near Lake Van. The word Ararat comes from them. The Armenians claim descent from them. So do the Turks. It is thought now that the people who became the present-day Armenians came down from the Balkans, and the people of the region that became, for a little while, Urartu, had been there for centuries when the Asiatic Turks poured across Anatolia.

Mary Lee Settle, "Turkish Reflections," NYC, 1991, p.184

---------------------------------------------------

ANOTHER TURKISH ORIGIN THEORY

In the 15th Century, the Ottoman Turks took the Trojans to heart. Sultan Mehmet II, Conqueror of Constantinople, visited what he believed was the site of ancient Troy, in 1462, and paid his respects at the tombs of the heroes Achilles, Hector and Ajax. “It is to me,” he is quoted to have declared, “that Allah has given to avenge this city and its people.”

Also, according to some European scholars, the name Turk, Turkey, came from the Trojan general Turkus, who, after the end of the war fled to Asia. His descendants the Turks, returned later to avenge the fall of Troy, reconquered and then spread throughout Europe. (Source: James Harper, Rome vs. Istanbul: Competing Claims and the Moral Value of Trojan Heritage)

Kristina O’Donnelly, from a backdrop of her novel, "Trojan Enchantment"


An Armenian's View:

There are Armenians who look like filthy Arabs and yeah most of them are dispora Armenians, but it's not their faut that someone in their family got mixed with either an Arab, Kurd, Turk and maybe even a Jew or some other non-Aryan regional rat.

The solution to this problem to clean the Armenian population of this abnormality-ll males should marry Slavic women who are already familiar with the Armenian culture.

Give it some time and no Armenian will look like them ugly sandniggers.

------

Armenians are Caucasian. If you are not Caucasian and look like an Arab than I guess that's your problem and you are not a pure Armenian by blood. Race mixing is wrong on many levels.

I'm not saying it's the Armenians fualt, it's because of the genocide that Armenians ended up living with filthy Arabs and jews and other semitic rats and turkic animals.
Recognize the problem and fix it !

Already most people cannot tell the difference between fucking ragheads, kikes, dune coons and Armenians because of mixed fucks from the middle east. Sick to your own race.

Parskahay, Armenian Forum entries, January 23, 2002

(Holdwater adds: "Sick to your own race," ehh? Truer words were never spoken.)




What utter stupidity. Wouldn't it be a much nicer world if Greeks and Armenians (the extreme ones who write in these forums... or course, not all Greeks and Armenians think the same way; it's just that the "human" ones are rarely heard from, publicly) let go of their racist ideas that gives them a crazy feeling of superiority... and instead concentrate on the genes that bind us? After more than a thousand years of the Turks' inhabiting Anatolia, there are more similarities between Greeks, Turks and Armenians than differences. (Alas, the forces of hatred that rage in the veins of these Orthodox folks are much too potent for that to happen anytime soon.)


Mr. Great; reportedly, a hero
of Suleyman the Magnificent


At any rate, one can understand how this Greek web site “quoted” Genghis Khan in an attempt to demonstrate what a low form of human Genghis was. After all, the Greeks were so much better than the likes of Genghis Khan. If the Greeks were to produce a conqueror the likes of Genghis Khan, no doubt he would have been much too civilized to inflict upon conquered peoples anywhere near the terror and slaughter Genghis Khan produced. A conqueror such as... ohhhh... say, Alexander the Great? (Yes, I know the Macedonian Alexander was not Greek, although the Greeks tried to pass him off as Greek for the longest time (and still do). Alexander’s forces were composed mainly of Greeks, so that’s a good enough parallel. One has to think about why Genghis and Attila are regarded as such monsters in the West, when Alexander is thought of as an amazing hero...)


LATER ADDENDUM:

ARMENIANS LOVE NEO-NAZI HISTORIANS

Travelling through yet another Armenian forum, I came across a Sept. 2003 post by one "Teutonic Knight," reproduced below; the one he refers to as "Moshe" is really an Armenian named "America-Hye," who complains that "Teuton" presented data that was selective, choosing "this interpretation over others." Furthermore, he gripes: "The confusion you find is because you place everything in boxes. All black and white with no grays." Doesn't that describe Armenian historiography to a tee?

Moshe, since you like most jews value nazi opinion so much here's what modern neo-Nazis say about Armenians.
Unlike jews they are pro-Armenian and support the Armenian genocide recongition.
Here's what the mos famous White Supremacist on the web Arthur Kemp says about Armenians:
~~~

I dealt with the tragedy of Armenia in quite some detail in chapter 35 (), the relevant piece I reproduce below.

In it you will read that I beleive that great numbers of White Armenians fled that country in the run up to the Ottoman destruction of the territory, and this accounts for the fact that most Armenians I have met in the West are White, and that the present day inhabitants of the territory of Armenia show some signs of genetic damage.

As to the debate around Hittite or Phrygian origin, I cannot say that I went into it deeply enough to come to a conclusion. Which ever of the two it was, we can say for sure that it was a result of the Indo-European movement of peoples, and that is good enough for me!

Regards
Arthur

Those of you into White Supremacy can tune into Mr. Kemp's version of Ottoman history at white-history.com/hwr35.htm... where every mention of "Turk" is preceded by the word "Non-White." Entitled, "The Ottoman Holocaust," the essay begins with: "The Ottoman Empire was the longest lasting non-White invasion of European soil ever."

Of course, the Armenians love these guys... especially since White Supremacists provide the kind of account about their "genocide" the Armenians can drool over. However, the rest of you who might experience a knee-jerk reaction against racism.... let's be fair. The White Supremacist historian is only providing a version of history that we read practically everywhere else in the West... relating the agonies of how Constantinople has been "lost," and how revolting it has been to have Turkey in Europe.

At least the White Supremacists are honest enough to wear their racism on their sleeves.




Among the truly amazing things he (Mark Sykes, author of an anti-Turkish propaganda book authorized by Britain's infamous Wellington House) wrote are statements such as that the Turks had invaded and destroyed Baghdad. The historians in the audience are shaking their heads. It was the Mongols, of course. Sykes knew much better. Conflate the history of the Turks and the Mongols? Put all the harm caused by the Mongols on the shoulders of the Turks? Well, you can get away with these things it you know that those who will read the article have no idea about the history. But Sykes knew the truth.

From Professor Justin McCarthy's Presentation on British Propaganda




The Young Turks' Ideas on Race

...(D)espite their adherence to Le Bon's, Letourneau's, and Haeckel's theories, the Young Turks refrained from formulating a nationalist theory involving race during the formative years of their movement. Although in their scientific writings they frequently discussed the importance of race, they proposed no theory evaluating "the Turkish race." There is little doubt that this was because, in the Darwinist racial hierarchy, Turks were always assigned to the lowest ranks. Darwin himself had a low opinion of "the Turkish race." This, coupled with the participation of many non-Turk members in the nascent movement, prevented the Young Turks from focusing on the race issue.

However, a strong focus on race did emerge immediately after Japan's first victories over Russia in 1904. Yusuf Akcura pointed out that one of the choices before the Ottoman Empire was to pursue a course of Turkish nationalism based on race, and the organ published by the nationalist faction required Ottomans to follow the advice given to the Japanese by Herbert Spencer: To eschew marriage with Europeans in order to preserve racial purity. When Abdullah Cevdet met Gustave Le Bon in 1905, he questioned him about where the European thinkers had erred when they placed the Japanese at the bottom of the racial schema. The Japanese victory had cast serious doubt on the way the races had been hierarchically categorized.

The Young Turks embraced the race theories except for the placement of Turkish and Asian peoples in the lowest rungs. With Japanese successes, they achieved a new freedom to use race theories, because now they could rearrange the hierarchical assignments:

" Some Europeans and some Ottomans, who imitate whatever they see without understanding, regard us as a race in the lower part of the racial hierarchy. Let's say it in plain Turkish: They view Turks as second-class human beings. Japanese people, being from the stock of the yellow race, are obliterating this slander against nature with the progress in their country, and with their cannons and rifles in Manchuria."

Sukru Hanioglu, "The Young Turks in Opposition," Oxford Univ. Press, 1995





To Those Armenians Who Regard Mongols as Beneath Their Contempt:

Avedis K. Sanjian, who largely enjoys the respect of the Armenian community, wrote (The Armenian Communities in Syria Under the Ottoman Empire, 1965, p. 14):

In the first half of the thirteenth century the Mongols swept through Armenia and far into Anatolia. Hence, with a view to protecting the integrity of Cilicia, King Het'um I concluded military alliances with the Mongol Goyuk Khan in 1247 and also with his successor Mangu Knan in 1253 .... Not only did the Armenians cooperate with the Mongols in the economic blockade of Egypt by withholding exports of Cilician timber, but Armenian contingents fought side by side with the Mongols in Anatolia as well as Syria.

Hypocritical Armenians!

Well... not the only time Armenians have sided with "barbarians." Seven centuries later, Armenians would find themselves "fighting side by side" with the Wehrmacht. (That is, until the Nazis discovered the Armenians made poor soldiers, wherein they were relegated to operations behind-the-lines... including clean-sweeping the very people Armenians love to associate themselves with, in hopes of attaining genocidal sympathy.)


"The Turks have a very heterogeneous gene pool," says Stanford University geneticist Peter Underhill. "Ultimately we're all Africans, anyway, as we all came out of Africa less than 100,000 years ago."

Click here for a contemporarily scientific perspective

--------------------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater
www.tallarmeniantale.com/mongol-turks.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------