Tag Archives: China

Was Genghis Khan the first Communist?

Fine, I must concede the title is bit click-baity, however I do find many accounts of the alleged accomplishments of Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire somewhat questionable. On top of that there seems to be sort of modern attempt to paint Genghis Khan as some sort of progressive good guy. Let’s dig in.

First I should explain some of the background of where I’m coming from. I’ve written in the past how I don’t think that Marco Polo went to China, but to Cathay which was another kingdom. I’ve also expressed criticism of the official history of the Great Wall of China, which may or may not be relevant to this article. I’ve also discussed the theory put forward by others that the name Mongol did not used to refer to the people we we think of as Mongols today, but to another race of people. I’ll add links below.

I should also point out that we cannot know much of what truly happened in ancient history. What we think of history is always based on interpretation, which may be liable to corruption due to lack of evidence as well as political and ideological bias. How do we know, for example, that Julius Ceasar existed, or the very least, the did the things attributed to him such as being a proficient military commander in conquering barbarian tribes in Europe and then falling victim to the conspiring senate? There are some old coins that supposedly depict Julius Caesar, a caesar of that name probably did exist, but can we know the stories we associate with him actually took place? How do we know that the character wasn’t invented by Shakespeare, for instance? As Napolean infamously said “History is a set of lies agreed upon.


Primary Sources

There are loads accounts in books and on the internet depicting the achievements the Mongol Empire, but most of them are simply people repeating what the experts have said. To glean any actual clues to the veracity of the claims you have to go to the primary sources, which would be texts written around the time of the historical events or artifacts from that period.

As an example of shoddy evidence for the historicity of Genghis Khan we need look no further than Wikipedia. The article on the Khan states how he conquered China, Korea and Central Asia. After that the article states: “Many of these invasions repeated the earlier large-scale slaughters of local populations. As a result, Genghis Khan and his empire have a fearsome reputation in local histories.” After this sentence there is a link to a book titled Mongolia: a guide to economic and political developments by Ian Jeffries. The title does did not fill me with confidence as it sounds like the book discussed Mongolia in a more modern context. I did, however, manage to find it on the internet and checked out pages 5-7 that supposedly explain Wikipedia’s claims.

On page 5 it says “Mongolia built the world’s largest contiguous empire in the thirteenth century under Genghis Khan”. So apparently it was bigger than Alexander the Great’s, the Roman Empire or the British Empire. Quite an achivement for a bunch of horseriding nomads. What sort of technology or bureaucratic system did they have to manage that? Apparently by landmass the British Empire was larger, but Mongols supposedly had the largest continous empire. It also said the Mongols managed to kill “30 to 60 million people across Asia and Europe”.

Page 6 states that Korean and Mongolian elites engaged in considerable intermarriage in the thirteenth century and Koreans believe their ancestors come from Mongolia. That is the only evidence of “large-scale slaughters of local populations” and “fearsome reputation in local histories” that were on pages 5-7 of Jeffries’ book. However, ultimately this only proves that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy source for information, which is not news.

There is a book known nowadays best by the name The Secret History of the Mongols. It was supposedly written back in the 13th or 14th century, and the introduction describes it as follows:

“This book, known to Mongols as the Tobchi’an [Tobcha’an]
or ‘History’, has appeared under a variety of names,
including The Secret History of the Mongols, The Life of
Chinggis Qahan, The True Record of Chinggis Qahan, and
The Secret History of the Yuan Dynasty. It has been
translated into many languages, including English,
Japanese, French, German, Chinese, Russian, Hungarian,
and Polish. Like Chinggis himself, the book is highly
controversial. We cannot be sure when it was written or
who wrote it. I myself argue below that it was written in
1228, but other scholars date it to 1240 or 1323. Whatever
the case, the book is unique, as the only available account
of the life of Chinggis Qahan [Genghis Khan].”

It is not known who wrote it and when, and it is the only account of the life of Genghis Khan. Sounds dubious to me. It might as well been written as a fiction, or a deliberate deception.

The Secret History of the Mongols mentions two other so-called primary cources. The first one is this:

“The War Record of the Holy Hero (Chinggis Qahan), by
Qoriqosun, 1266–1273.48 This book was published by the
Institute of National History established by Qubilai Qahan
at Daidü in 1264. For details, see The War Record of the
Holy Hero, p. 4. Qoriqosun was a chairman of the Institute
of National History after 1264. He was not only a Mongol
scholar but a court painter who painted the portrait of
Chinggis Qahan and other Qahans in 1278–1279.”

I could find no record of this book existing on the internet at least. Maybe it exists only in another language such as Mongolian or Chinese. However, I do not find this a credible source either, since if it provided important evidence on the Mongols, you’d think it had been translated.

The third one is even less credible:

“The Real History of the Mongol Qahans, published by
the Institute of National History in 1303–1304 in Mongol
and Chinese by an anonymous author. Unfortunately, this
work has not been found.”

The work has not been found? What does this mean? How can they claim this book is a source of any kind? Maybe the book never existed to begin with.

How about the physical evidence then? If the Mongols had this vast militaristic empire shouldn’t there be Mongol forts or other structures littered about in their former territory like central Asia or Russia? I couldn’t find any. There should plenty of Mongol artifacts such as weapons and armour littered about in their former territory. I managed to find a few pictures of these on the internet, but very few, and most pictures seem to be of later Mongol equipment, or simply replicas. I’ll take a look at the Mongol armour in more detail later on.

I must point out that I am an amateur when it comes to history, and specifically Mongol history, so the lack of primary evidence may speak more of my own lack of ability and access to resources than the existence of those resources, so I am not going to make any definitive statement to the existence or non-existence of Genghis Khan or the Mongol Empire. Yet were all of the claims of this vast empire self-evident fact, I would expect the evidence to be abundant, which it does not seem to be. If someone can point me to some sort of primary evidence that I can verify for myself, I’d appreciate it.


The Progressive Khan

Jeffries’ Mongolia: A Guide to Economic and Political Developments has a quote from The Times on page 5 stating that “The Mongol empire was the first to know religious tolerance. In the capital, Karakorum, churches, mosques and temples stood side by side. In his empire women had equal rights with men, even among subject peoples.”

First of all, The Times is not a credible source when it comes to history. And the two statements made by them are ridiculous. What does it mean that the Mongols were “the first to know religious tolerance”? It’s a nonsensical blanket statement. Do they mean that no society in history had any sense of religious tolerance before the Mongols? How about the Religion of Peace, Islam? At least according to liberals, it used to be so tolerant. If they had said “compared to earlier empires in history, the Mongol Empire showed a much greater deal of tolerance of religion” I could take it with some degree of seriousness.

Women having “equal rights with men” sounds like utter nonsense. Surely they did not have equal rights with men in any sense that the modern West conceives of the idea? Did the women fight alongside men in battle? Did they play an equal part in slaughtering 30-60 million people? Perhaps the position of women was good among Mongols when compared to Christian, Muslims or the Chinese, but once again the article did not say that. Nor is there any evidence to qualify the statement.

The Times is not the only outlet to make Genghis Khan sound like a progressive warlord. Dr. Timothy May of North Georgia College and State University wrote in his article that there was religious tolerance “throughout the empire”. If I think about what it means, I suppose the Mongols might have been fairly callous when it came to religion. If they conquered Christians, Muslims or Buddhists, they only wanted obedience and did not care what gods their subjects adhere to. However, I would call it disinterest rather than tolerance, if that was the case. At least the writers should qualify this alleged tolerance with some details.

An article in The Spectator says: “the same man who is said to be responsible for the deaths of a world record 40 million is also noted — admittedly less widely — for his religious tolerance, enlightened diplomacy and championing of women’s rights.” Same propaganda of Genghis Khan having been a progressive conqueror.

Another blog on WordPress, Course Correction: An Insider’s Look at Mormon Culture, at least tries to clarify these progressive tendensies of Genghis Khan in some way:

“Although they adopted literacy, arts, and sciences from other countries and tolerated Taoism, Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity, Mongols kept their own culture—including an active role of women in their social and political life. Mongol society lacked the belief that female sexual purity was a value to be defended at all costs—including defense of and seclusion of women. When one tribe was ambushed by another, the men fled on horses so they could live to fight another day. Captured women were taken as wives by the conquering warriors. If the men escaped, they attacked and recaptured the women. A recaptured wife might be pregnant with her captor’s child, but the child was raised by her husband as his own.

While the warriors were off sacking and looting—sometimes for more than a year at a stretch— Mongol women ran the country. Mongolian girls as well as boys were educated when schools were established. Both Genghis Khan’s wife and mother influenced his governing decisions.

True, Mongolian women did not have total equality, and prosperous Mongols could take more than one wife. Yet, compared to women in 13th century Europe, China, Persia, and the Arab world, Mongolian women had a good deal.”

I do not know how accurate these statements are, but at least they are sensible.

I do however get the impression that there is some sort of liberal agenda at play in promoting, this idea of the progressive Khan. In fact, I have two different scenarios: Genghis Khan was the first Communist leader of powerful nation, or this is just another Marxist ploy in attempting to downplay the achievements of Europe by praising non-Europeans.

Perhaps, there had been a proto-Communist cabal that put Genghis Khan into power. After all, if main stream history is accurate, Genghis Khan did what Communists tend to do; wage war and kill a lot of people. Mao supposedly killed 45 million in four years during the great leap forward. Stalin had 60 million killed according to some estimates. So according to history, the Mongols caused more deaths than Mao, and equally the death’s of Stalin. Of course the 20th century Communists achieved their deaths in a shorter time-span, as the Mongols took a century or two (and several Khans) to do it, but they did not have access to modern technology so I think it evens out. At least according to the presumed liberals who are praising Genghis Khan, he was similar to modern Communist leaders; the was a violent conqueror who caused millions of deaths, but later on he is being hailed as a progressive hero. Of course there is the difference that Genghis Khan probably didn’t spend as much effort on killing his own people as Commies tend to do.

I think the second scenario is more likely that liberals who hate Europe and everything related to it, find any excuse ignore the achievements of Europe, and praise the achievements of non-Europeans peoples, be their achievements factual or fictional. I am not of the camp that thinks that Europeans excell in everything and should be praised for everything, I simply think credit should be given when it is due, and not given when it is not due.


Feats of the Empire

Let’s get back to the Mongols and their alleged feats. The Secret History of the Mongols states that “just two million Mongols, with 129,000 cavalrymen, could establish the largest land empire in world history.” Two million people with a bit more than 100,000 cavalrymen were able to conquer the largest land empire in history, and butcher up to 60 million people? I don’t find it credible, although possibly this two million refers only to the Mongols who were alive during the time of Genghis Khan, and during his day they hadn’t killed all of those millions yet. They had no access to modern weaponry or transport, they did have even the telegraph, nothing like that. I might believe this if the people they conquered had been weak pacifists who were unwilling or unable to fight back, but they weren’t.

I think something doesn’t add up, yet I don’t claim to know what the truth is. Perhaps it lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe the Mongols did manage to conquer some places like China and Korea, but it doesn’t sounds credible they’d be able to do all that they supposedly did. Or maybe the Mongol Empire is a fabrication to begin with, possibly to cover-up the existence of another race of people or empire, or a coalition of races.

I don’t know the truth, but I still have more to speculate about the Mongols and the possible Mongol deception, but I’ll do that at a later date.




Marco Polo did not go to China: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/marco-polo-did-not-go-to-china/

By whom, when and why was Great Wall of China built?: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/by-whom-when-and-why-was-great-wall-of-china-built/

Genghis Khan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

Mongolia: A Guide to economic and political developments: https://books.google.fi/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xxB9AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Mongolia:+A+Guide+to+Economic+and+Political+Developments&ots=5OIy5iR-0Z&sig=PnZ2WZHCm7efX95t4aFpKD_aOgM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Genghis Khan (1165-1127): https://web.archive.org/web/20100306053246/http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/mongols/empsub1.html

Genghis Khan was tolerant, kind to women – and a record-breaking mass-murderer: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/the-mongol-empire-by-john-man-review/

Genghis Khan was tolerant, kind to women – and a record-breaking mass-murderer: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/the-mongol-empire-by-john-man-review/

Genghis Khan and Women’s Rights :https://annmjohnson.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/genghis-khan-and-womens-rights/


By whom, when and why was Great Wall of China built?

I find several details on the official history of the Great Wall of China questionable. This has been bothering me for over a year since I claimed that Marco Polo did not go to China, he went to Cathay, a different kingdom. As this is somewhat of a current issues since Donald Trump may be building his own Great Wall of ‘Murica I thought of revisiting it.


The Qin Wall

According to official history, the first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, built the first section of the wall around 220-206 BC. Prior to this China consisted of several small kingdoms, but the emperor unified them, and built the wall to keep out hostile nomads. Or rather he unified already existing fortifications and walls from the various kingdoms in China and unified them into a bigger wall. This wall was, according to China Highlights website, 5,000 kilometers long. It supposedly took 20 years to build. China Highlights points out that there are historical records that suggest that “300,000–500,000 soldiers were assigned to both build and guard the Qin Great Wall with the help of 400,000–500,000 conscripted laborers. Other records suggest that up to 1.5 million men were used during the peak of Qin construction.”

This sounds like a huge amount of people, especially since Qin, according to a Wikipedia estimate, had a population of 20,000,000 at the time. If 1.5 million men were involved in the construction of the wall, it would be around 13% of the population. Moreover of that 20,000,000 at least half would be women, then there would be young boys and old men who couldn’t work, so I wonder how many of the able-bodied men in Qin would not have been working on the wall? This sounds dubious to me. On top of that, building the wall supposedly took 20 years. According to Wikipedia the Great Pyramid of Giza also took around 10-20 years to build. Building the great wall was probably even more arduous than the pyramid. And of course, many critically thinking people find the official claims about the building of the pyramid dubious as well.

The Great Wall of China website states that over a million men died building the wall. Wouldn’t it have been easier just to have those men fight the invading nomads instead of working them to death on the wall?


The Ming Wall

Much of the Great Wall we know today was built during the Ming dynasty around 1368-1644 AD. Much of the Qin wall has been lost. The Ming wall was 6,259 km long, a bit over a thousand kilometers longer than the Qin wall. According to China Highlights it took over 200 years to build this wall. This sounds more reasonable, however, it doesn’t mean necessarily that they spent all of the time building the wall. There might have been periods of inaction when it came to the wall.

The Great Wall certainly is genuine enough. I’ve climbed it as well, the feeling up there was marvellous. It really felt like a spiritual place, and not a place of war. Certain historical claims of the wall though might be different.


Lack of References

A book by J. Marshall Unger titled “Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning” has a chapter by the name of “The Great Wall of China and other exotic fables”. In it the author suggests that the Great Wall is indeed a fable constructed during the Ming period, and no older references to it exist. Even Wikipedia, i.e. main stream history seems to concur.

In an article on the History of the Great Wall of China, it is mentioned that “One of the first mentions of a wall built against northern invaders is found in a poem, dated from the seventh century BC”. Yet this is 500 years before the Great Wall of Qin was allegedly built. Walls and fortifications certainly existed before the Great Wall did. However, in the section on the Qin dynasty the article states: “Details of the construction [of the Qin wall] were not found in the official histories, but it could be inferred that the construction conditions were made especially difficult by the long stretches of mountains and semi-desert that the Great Wall traversed, the sparse populations of these areas, and the frigid winter climate.” Yes, you can infer whatever you want if you unquestionably accept the story, however it seems off that there are no records the greatest feat of human engineering ever that took decades to finish. You’d think there was some sort of scholar who would have recorded the details for posterity both to ensure that Qin could maintain their defenses and also to glorify the magnificence of their emperor. Perhaps someone did, and the records have been lost, or perhaps there was no record since there was no wall.

Wikipedia does quote a Han dynasty (206 BC-220 AD) statesman Zhufu Yan’s comment on the construction. However, it appears his quote comes from the histriography book “Zizhi Tongjian”, which was published in 1084, at least 800 years after the Han dynasty ended. This sounds unreliable to say the least.


What does all of this mean?

I believe there is disinformation and a cover-up regarding the Great Wall. For what reason, I do not know, but I have a few different scenarios.

One is that the Qin wall never existed and it was invented during the Ming dynasty for some reason. One might be to give posthumous prestige to emperor Qin Shi Huang. Another might be that there had been another construction similar to the Great Wall, but the purpose had been different. Perhaps the lack of scholarly evidence of this construction is due to Jesuit missionaries creating ties with China around the time of the Ming dynasty. They might have confiscated ancient manuscripts or destroyed them.

If the construction was not simply a wall used for defense and transporting troops, what was it then? This is purely speculation, but it might have been some sort of aqueduct or perhaps even a power grid of some sort. China could hold all sorts of ruins and relics of an ancient civilization that are kept under wraps. There are pyramids in China that have not been excavated. Perhaps there are ruins under some sections of the Great Wall, and since the wall is there, it is a great excuse not to excavate there.

We have a clear image of how the walls look today, many people, like myself, have visited the wall, or at least seen many pictures of it. Perhaps it looked different in the past.

In 2009 it was announced that new sections of the Great Wall were uncovered spanning 180 miles. This might be true, or perhaps they are simply manufacturing these ruins, or “reconstructing” them, for tourism. Maybe there are ruins that would reveal an ancient civilization with an advanced technology in China and they are destroying it and making look like just another section of the wall.



The Great Wall of the Qin Dynasty: http://www.chinahighlights.com/greatwall/history/qin-dynasty-wall.htm

How Long It Took to Build the Great Wall of China: http://www.chinahighlights.com/greatwall/fact/building-time.htm

Great Pyramid of Giza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

Why was the Great Wall of China Built ?: http://www.great-wallofchina.com/why-was-the-great-wall-of-china-built.html

Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning: https://books.google.fi/books?id=fRqKreZFVTYC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=china+great+wall+was+an+aqueduct&source=bl&ots=1-XsgUj7X9&sig=O3dF5rhNmWKcnm9Lntm0Rzwv9Z4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC8ZmDm7DKAhUGqHIKHUjxB2wQ6AEISDAJ#v=onepage&q=china%20great%20wall%20was%20an%20aqueduct&f=false

History of the Great Wall of China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Great_Wall_of_China

Zizhi Tongjian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zizhi_Tongjian

Jesuit China missions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_China_missions

180 Hidden Miles of Great Wall Found: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/world/asia/21wall.html?_r=0

My other writings on ancient China:



Founders of China came from Egypt and Greece?

Last January I argued that Cathay, associated to be the archaic name for China, did not refer to China, but to another kingdom north of China, which was inhabited by white, not Asian, people. I suggest you read it first. I’ve recently discovered two claims that sort of support my argument.

One claim comes from a Chinese geochemist, Sun Weidong, who suggests that the founders of the Chinese people originated from ancient Egypt. The other is that the Terracotta Warriors may have been built with the aid of Greek artisans.

I’ll look at the Egypt connection first.


From Egypt to China?

Business Insider reports on Sun Weidong who studied Chinese literary classics. The terrain described therein supposedly matches Egypt better than China. Weidong suggests that the Hyksos may have been the progenitors of China. They were “the Western Asian people who ruled parts of northern Egypt as foreigners between the 17th and 16th centuries B.C., until their eventual expulsion.” This may be true, but then again I think Michael Tsarion has stated that the Hyksos were the Jews.

I get the impression from the article that Weidong thinks the founders of China were Asian people who lived in Egypt but migrated to China. I’m more inclined to think they were white, or whatever race the ancient Egyptians were. They came to China in much the same way as the Viracochas did in South America. They brought various social and technological advancements to the South Americans. According to Chinese myth Fuxi and Nuwa did similar things. Here’s a picture of them:


Maybe they were Reptilians, or then again maybe the snake/fish-tail is only symbolical of something, such a bloodline or DNA. I think Zeus also had a similar tail.

Then there’s the small fact that Egypt is famous for its pyramids, but there are also pyramids in China, although they’re not as famous.


I think these pieces of evidence suggest that a global interconnected culture existed in the ancient world.


Terracotta and the Greeks

The other interesting claim I found was reported by The Telegraph. They write: “An extensive study of sites in Xinjiang Province, China, have revealed European-specific mitochondrial DNA, suggesting Westerners travelled, settled and died there before and during the time of the First Emperor: 1,500 years earlier than currently accepted.” The scientists also suggest that the Terracotta statues may have been inspired by Greek art, and that a Greek sculptor may have been at the scene to aid the locals in making the statues.

The article does not explain in great detail how exactly are the statues based on Greek art, and Xinjiang isn’t really part of China as the majority of inhabitants there are the Eurasian Uyghurs. I’m also not sure how the finding of the European DNA in Xinjiang is connected to the Terracotta Warriors, as the statues are in Xian which is in Shaanxi province, which is quite far away from Xinjiang. It sounds like The Telegraph is trying to force two disconnected stories into one, the DNA discovery and alleged similarities between Greek art and the Terracotta statues. Nevertheless, if these scientists argue that white Europeans were in China 2000 years ago, I’ll still take it as supporting evidence for my Cathay-theory, even if it is a bit shaky.


Relation to Cathay

How do these stories support my idea that Cathay was not China then? They suggest that there has been kingdom north of China inhabited by white Europeans since 200 BC. The kingdom, Cathay, was destroyed probably a few centuries ago and the evidence of it was covered up by the Jesuits. Even the Wikipedia article on Cathay offers evidence of this cover-up.

Either China was already inhabited by the Chinese when the founders of their civilization came from Egypt, assuming Weidong’s hypothesis is correct, who taught them new technologies. Or the immigrants from Egypt came to China first, and the Chinese arrived later from elsewhere in Asia.



A decorated scientist has ignited a passionate debate with claims that the founders of Chinese civilization were not Chinese: https://archive.is/hfFVx

Famed Chinese Terracotta Warriors could have been made with the help of the Greeks, archaeologists reveal: https://archive.is/LREiP

Marco Polo did not go to China: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/marco-polo-did-not-go-to-china/

Multiculturalism in China

This a continuance to my previous post on how the Cultural Marxists are pushing multiculturalism in Japan and South Korea. This time I discuss China. The push from the Marxists seems weaker in China than the two aforementioned countries, yet Mao’s Cultural Revolution about 50 years ago and the capitalism of the last couple of decades have eroded the Chinese identity somewhat already.



A BBC article discusses how the Chinese view multiculturalism. The journalist mentions a trip to Shanghai where he was shown around by a Chinese student. The student mentioned other Chinese who studied in America and ended up marrying Americans. Then the journalist writes: ” I told her that I had recently seen such a mixed couple in Hong Kong, a Chinese woman with a black American. This was clearly not what she had in mind. Her reaction was a look of revulsion. I was shocked. Why did she react that way to someone black, but not someone white? ”

Racism is bad, ‘mmkay. This seems to be the gist of the “problematic” view the Chinese have when it comes to multiculturalism; they don’t think everyone is equal. And that is a thought-crime, of course.

The article admits that 9 out of 10 Chinese belong to the Han race, and that China has existed as a single country for over 2000 years. The reason for this is: “[W]hereas all the other great empires of the world have long since broken up, China remains united. Why? In one word – the Han. The Han identity has served as the glue which has kept a geographically and demographically vast country together. Without that shared identity, China would long ago have fallen apart.” So a strong, unified national identity is strength, even the BBC admits it, yet it’s bad because the Han have a “relative lack of respect for difference”. Minorities like the Tibetans and Uighurs from Xinjiang are expected to integrate. And, of course, since the Chinese ” attitude has been to regard those of darker skin as inferior”.

The Cultural Marxists really look down on Black people. They seem to view Blacks as inherently retarded or something, and the only use they have in the world is to make others feel guilty for their ableism, i.e. not having been born Black.

The lowdown of this BBC article is then that the Chinese have a unified identity, which gives them strength, but it’s bad because they don’t like Black people.


How Multiculturalism works in China

The Huffington Post writes that officially China consists of 56 different ethnic groups, and although China presents itself as a  “united socialist multiethnic state”, but this is a lie. The Han oppress the minority groups: “The areas populated by minorities like the Tibetans and the Uighurs still experience extreme poverty.” “Tibetan children face corporal punishment and abuse by authorities for wearing traditional dress and singing Tibetan songs.  More recently, the Muslim Uighur population has clashed with authorities. Resentment has grown towards the government which discourages the practice of Islam. At job fairs in the mineral-rich region, signs often read, ‘Uighurs need not apply.'”

Presumably the journalists just want the government to promote the culture and faith of these minorities, but it doesn’t occur to them that independence from the central government could be an actual solution. Free Tibet is so 1990s. Nowadays everything has to be controlled by an inclusive central government.

An article on the La Trobe University website notes that when the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949 “as a ‘unified multiethnic country’, comprising 55 distinct ethnic minorities and a single Han majority. It followed the model of the Soviet Union in creating a complex system of institutions and statutes aimed at promoting the equality, harmonious coexistence and mutual prosperity of all these groups.” Also “the 1954 Law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy created an extensive regime of special educational rights and privileges for minorities, including extra funding and subsidies, preferential enrolment quotas, remedial classes, and specialised schools and curricula.” So the Affirmative Action prevalent in contemporary America is literally a Communist idea.

The author points out that despite this the minority communities are underdeveloped, and the Han majority resent these policies, and possibly the minorities as well because of them.

One particular omission regarding these people discussing multiculturalism and mistreatment of minorities in China is that they focus solely on the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, but ignore other types of oppression. The Han Chinese government mistreating the Uighurs or Tibetans is bad, but there’s no problem when the government oppresses other Han Chinese. Hong Kong is being inundated by immigrants from mainland China. The central government has taken steps to suppress the usage of the Cantonese dialect in Guandong and Hong Kong, but since they’re all of the same race, there’s no problem. People of the same race fighting each other is good, people of different races fighting each other is bad.


Multiculturalism and Human Stupidity

An article in The Diplomat mentions how White people are getting preferential treatment in China simply because of their race. Simply having White people in your company gives the impression of being international, so they get hired regardless of their skills. Some White people are getting hired as musicians or English teachers, even if they don’t really know what they are doing, and are getting paid better than Chinese people for the same job, according to the article. I don’t think this is just some Marxist propaganda. I’ve heard similar stories from Chinese I’ve met.

The writer imparts one very interesting account: “white English teachers make considerably more than their bilingual Chinese counterparts and often more than Chinese-Americans too. It doesn’t matter that Chinese-Americans are native English speakers. If parents see an Asian person teaching their children, they often assume the person doesn’t speak English well (even if they themselves speak it too poorly to be able to judge). I once met a Russian who taught at a local English school in Chengdu. He could barely string a dozen words together in English. Nevertheless, he was paid more than four times the average Chinese salary. Naturally, he was white.”

The story is a perfect example of why multiculturalism is a bad idea; human stupidity. Some people, certainly not all, are just stupid and cannot discriminate between the race of a person and the individual themselves. They seem to think that people of another, distant race are all mass-produced cookie-cutter replicas of each other, i.e. some Chinese believe all White people are good at English. While this is a fairly benign form of stupidity, but we can go to Europe for really disturbing examples of this phenomenon. Let’s take the German woman who apologized for the Muslim immigrants that raped her. Since Muslims are all oppressed and cannot help their actions, and they cannot be individuals where some are good and some are bad.

Some people are just so dumb and incapable of seeing the world outside of their own cultural context, so they should not be put in situations where their lack of understanding can cause damage to themselves or others.



Multiculturalism doesn’t seem that strong in China, although Marxists in the West wish to strengthen it. It seems more like a bureaucratic hindrance than a truly nation-threatening problem. That is not to say that China doesn’t have plenty of social problems, but at least they do not seem to be suffering from multiculturalism as much as the West, or even Japan and South Korea.

The White Genocide-crowd who claim that nobody is saying that East Asia should become multicultural has been proven wrong as well. Some Marxists, such as the ones working for the BBC, want the Chinese to be more accepting of Black people for example, but the Chinese don’t seem to care. Once again we should ask why people of European stock are much more deeply afflicted by this “pathological altruism” than others?



Cultural Marxists are pushing their agenda in East-Asia as in the West: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/cultural-marxists-are-pushing-their-agenda-in-east-asia-as-in-the-west/

A Point Of View: How China sees a multicultural world: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20083309

China’s Diversity Doesn’t Mean Multiculturalism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-and-marc-kielburger/chinas-diversity-doesnt-m_b_125967.html

Multicultural education in China: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2010/opinion/multicultural-education-in-china

Guangzhou Television Cantonese controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangzhou_Television_Cantonese_controversy

Rethinking Multiculturalism in China: http://www.asiapacific.ca/op-eds/rethinking-multiculturalism-china

‘Monkey Shows’: Being a Foreigner in China: http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/monkey-shows-being-a-foreigner-in-china/

GERMANY: Muslim-loving leftist/socialist woman who was raped by 3 Muslim invaders apologizes to them: http://www.barenakedislam.com/2016/02/13/germany-muslim-loving-leftistsocialist-woman-who-was-raped-by-3-muslim-invaders-apologizes-to-them/

Marco Polo did not go to China

Marco Polo, assuming he actually existed, went to Cathay during the 13th century. We are usually told that Cathay was the name that Europeans used to use for China. That appears to be false, however.  According to Marco Polo Cathay was the name of a kingdom in northern China, whereas Wikipedia claims he called the kingdom in southern China, Manji (or Mangi). The belief that Cathay and China were two separate kingdoms was fairly common even back in the 17th century.

Wikipedia states that the word Cathay originates from Khitan. I find this assertion plausible enough. The Khitan were, according to main stream history, a nomadic people who used to live around the area of modern Mongolia and Manchuria. I am not sure if I agree.



Let’s take a look at an alternative view on history. A youtuber called newearth, who bases much of her videos on the New Chronology by Anatoly Fomenko, says that there used to be a huge empire ruled by survivors from Atlantis or Hyperborea (basically the Aryans) called in western Europe as Tartaria or the Tartar empire just a few centuries ago. Main stream history claims that Tartaria was basically a name for the geographical area in northern and central Asia inhabited by various nomadic people. According to newearth this is false. Tartaria was an empire inhabited by white Christian people. I know this sounds nonsensical to anyone who hears this information for the first time, therefore I suggest you look deeper into the matter yourself.

Newearth explains that Genghis Khan and the Mongol Golden Horde were part of this white Tartarian empire. They were not the ancestors of the Asiatic people we know today as Mongols. The meaning of the word Mongol or Mogol was different centuries ago. The words Tartar, Mongol, Scythian, and probably also Khitan refer to the same people, or maybe they are different groups of the same people, like Germans, Swedes, Danes and English are all members of the Germanic people.

I cannot say for a fact whether this view of history is correct, but I find it plausible, and I will continue this essay assuming it is.


Cathay and China

Let’s get back to Cathay and China. Newearth has provided a link to a file with images of various old European maps, which you can find below. I had a look at some of the maps and made a few observations.

First of all, most of the maps from the 16th century clearly mention Tartaria. Many of them depict Cathay (or Cathaio) and China as separate areas. Have a look of these maps.

Francois De Belleforest 1575 Abraham Ortelius 1572

Tartaria can be seen on the left, and Cathaio and China on the right.

There are a few maps that do not seem to differentiate between Cathay and China, or at least I didn’t see Cathaio on them, but clearly the old European name for China was China.

The Wikipedia article has a map by John Speed that even describes Cathay: “Cathaya, the chief Kingdome of the Great Cam”. Cathaya was an important kingdom in an empire, it woud seem.

John Speed Cathaya

The modern conception that Cathay is a quaint way of writing China is false. There’s an airline from Hong Kong, that I’ve flown several times, called Cathay Pacific. They should not use it. There is no connection, especially since Hong Kong is in the south. Beijing is closer to the old Cathay, so it would not be completely out of place for them to use the name.

In the turn of 16th and 17th century many Europeans believed that Cathay and China were separate nations. It was the Jesuits who managed to convince people they were not. Wikipedia mentions several Jesuits were working on this.



The Wikipedia article on Marco Polo says that he called southern China, Manji, Mangi or Manzi. Another article describes Manzi (蠻子) as being Chinese for “southern barbarian”. However, I’m gonna call bullshit on that.

First of all, I didn’t see any map depicting southern China as Manji. There is the thing that the maps I’ve been looking at were made 300-400 years after the death of Marco Polo, so it is possible that Manji was used during the 13th century, but not later. Yet the one map on the Wikipedia article on Polo that shows Mangi even further north than Cataio. China is called China, and Mangi is in the north next to Xanton, which is probably an old name for Changchun.


The area is modern Manchuria. There is one mention of Mangi I found in the old map collection. There could be more that I missed since the picture quality isn’t the best and there are lots of names, but one map by Gerard De Jode has this image.


I don’t see China or Cathay on the map, but Mangi is up in the north. Both references to Mangi that I’ve seen on maps say it was in the north, so I’m inclined to believe that’s where it was.

What is this Mangi/Manji then? I don’t know, but I have a few ideas. the first thing that came to my mind when I read the word was that the word for swastika  in Japanese is Manji (まんじ). The swastika is a symbol used by the Tartars and certainly by the Aryans. I cannot say whether there really is a connection, but I find it possible.

Mangi also seems to be in the area called Manchuria or Manchu. Mangi, Manchu. Sounds similar, doesn’t it? Whatever the origin of the word Manchuria, Mangi probably refers to the same thing.


Marco Polo

Before I finish, let’s take a look at Marco Polo again. He supposedly traveled to the court of Kublai Khan in Cathay. I see no particular reason to doubt that. However, I don’t think Cathay was China, and Kublai Khan wasn’t an ancestor of the modern Mongols. He was a white Christian Aryan Tartar.

Wikipedia mentions reasons why some people suspect he didn’t go to China: “he fails to mention the Great Wall of China, Chinese characters, chopsticks, or footbinding.” If he wasn’t in China, he naturally wouldn’t know about those things.

Wikipedia even states that Kublai Khan asked Polo to bring a letter to the pope and go get consecrated oil from Jerusalem. Apparently Polo did so. The concecrated oil is a Christian thing. If Kublai Khan was an Asian pagan, why would he be so interested in that? I can understand if he was curious, but sending someone to go all the way to Jerusalem for oil sounds a bit excessive.

When Marco Polo returned home to Venice, he was imprisoned for some reason. He dictated stories of his travels to another inmate, sort of like Hitler, and that became The Travels of Marco Polo.

This is conjecture, but I think the reason Polo was imprisoned is that there was some sort of cold or hot war between Europe/Vatican and the Tartars. He was colluding with the enemy, so he was punished.



I don’t think Marco Polo traveled to China, but to the Aryan kingdom of Cathay. This stuff doesn’t sound as far fetched as one might initially think, if you really start looking into history. Much of what were told about it is a lie. Of this I am sure, but the hard part is figuring out the truth.

My aim is not to promote any kind of racial supremacist agenda either, nor to take history away from the Chinese. Especially if the account of the Aryan Tartar empire is true, it would ultimately make Europeans look worse, since clearly some of our ancestors have played a part in genociding them and erasing their history.

One thing popped into my mind. Perhaps the words Cathay and Cathar are related to the same group.



I found another map with Mangi by Sebastian Munster from 1588. Mangi is separate from Cataio and China, in the north and next to Xanton.

Mangi Munster



I found a mention of a possible connection between Cathay and Cathar in a book called A General History and Collection of Voyages and Travels, Arranged in Systematic Order: Forming a Complete History of the Origin and Progress of Navigation , Discovery and Commerce, By Sea and Land, From the Earliest Ages to the Present Time from 1824 by Robert Kerr. It says the provinces of northern China were called “Cathay and Tehar Cathar, or Cathay, which produces tea” by Arabic merchants. So according to this book Tehar Cathar was the tea-producing section of Cathay.





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

Khitan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_people

Marco Polo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo

part 31Genghis Khan, the Great Mongol, the unknown History of Mongolia, Biblical Gog and Magog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz4vdphlMD8&list=PLJk0yT4erxuSEyHu-0wfUQ0WulbjtWJOu&index=30

part 30, The last Heirs of the Hyperborean Kings, Great Tartaria, 1776 USA, Великая Тартария, (with maps): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjW4Fr6vDuA&list=PLJk0yT4erxuSEyHu-0wfUQ0WulbjtWJOu&index=29

Old maps: https://yadi.sk/d/eNJWg8b94sVH8

Is true Religion Race-based?

When we think of religion we usually associate it with world religions such as the Abrahamic religions or Buddhism. More modern religions are the New Age and Wicca. Although Wicca certainly borrows many old, pre-Christian ideas and concepts my perception of it is that it’s a light religion for people who are not religious, but don’t wanna be merely gray atheists either. A fad to occupy your time with. Yet, I don’t really see any of these religions connecting their followers to any spiritual reality. The only spirituality that comes out from them is consensus spirituality, i.e. as long as everyone present agrees on a pseudo-spiritual concept they can pretend it’s true.

True religion, or true spirituality, is something quite different. My definition of spirituality is connection to the truth. This can be contrasted with science which is intellectual knowledge of the truth, or pursuit of it. True spirituality is something that comes naturally to you, not something you have to learn at a lecture or from some hierophant. This natural religion would be the ethnic or racial religion of each individual ethnic or racial group. Every culture on this planet has its innate Pagan pantheon or animistic system of spirituality. Connection to these beliefs was something our ancestors did quite naturally. They did not need to argue over theology and form countless different sects and denominations to have their own version of the same core religion, as it is for Christians, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists. It was understood that different locations can have different gods and spirits, and certainly that different people have different gods. These religions are in our blood, whereas the world religions are in our minds.

The world religions are more of a spiritual ideology or philosophy than a religion. It does not mean that they are innately false, but must keep a certain intellectual distance to them. There are several Christian and Buddhist ideas that I agree with, yet overall I abhor the notion of following their robotic rituals and believing all of the dogma. The world religions give us various ideas such as an author gives you ideas in his book. You might agree with many of the ideas the author proposes, you might even say that you whole-heartedly agree with the overall message, yet you would not proselytize that everything the book says is holy, and to disagree with it is heresy. Not unless you are insane.

The natural, ethnic religions are different. You are a part of your personal ethnic religion whether you like it or not. It takes you back to the past of your ancestors and can also direct you to a future that you should be heading. One reason why it looks like we have no future, especially in Western countries, is that we have lost connection to our tribal gods. We either don’t care, or simply think they are childish fairy tales. But we should care as they are a part of us, those stories, those archetypes are a part of us, and knowing of our ancient religions is a necessary process to knowing ourselves. If you don’t know yourself, you cannot know anything at all.

I won’t conjecture on the possible metaphysical significance of our ancient gods here. It would take too much space.

My first hands-on experience with ethnic religion was in Japan almost 10-years ago with Shinto. Shinto (神道), the way of the gods, is the original religion of the Japanese. The name Shinto did not exist before the introduction of Buddhism to Japan, since they had no need to differentiate between the religion that was natural to them and another faiths. It was simply something natural. I too enjoy Shinto-shrines greatly. The aesthetic, the atmosphere and so on, but since I’m not Japanese I cannot fully understand it.

More recently I went to Hong Kong and Taiwan. The people there too had small shrines in their homes or even in some restaurants. Some of them had Buddhist deities (?), other Daoist or Confucian, but overall I got the impression it’s really just the Chinese ethnic religion, which has adopted Buddhist elements into it. Daoism and Confucianism are originally Chinese religions too, of course, but in some sense they have become disassociated from the ethnic religion. Not necessarily by the Chinese people, but by scholars.

Anyways, based on these experiences I though why don’t we have anything like that in Finland? Every Finn knows some stories about our pre-Christian beliefs and gods, but not that much. Maybe we should re-discover them. Another inspiration for this post is the recent trend of Red Ice Creations to promote Asatru, the Norse religion. I’m happy to see its resurgence, even though we Finns are not the descendants of Norsemen. I’ve always found the Norse myths such as Ragnarok quite fascinating. I first heard the word Asatru around ten years ago, and thought it sounds fascinating. Then I heard it was “racist”, even though I didn’t really see how, but I didn’t look further into it. I’m now very embarrassed of my past wussiness. But all true religion is racist. Deal with it.

It does not, of course, mean that if spirituality is related to your race that you should impose it on others or persecute others based on religion. It’s the opposite. Only with the advent of the “universal” religions that religious persecution has become a common thing. A sane Norseman would not presume that a Japanese man would have to follow his religion, or wise versa. Only when you take race out of religion is that this has happened.


“The locust, a harmless desert grasshopper. But, from time to time, locusts swarm in their tens of millions and become creatures of terror. They leave behind them desert and desolation. Why they swarm is yet a mystery. Perhaps, like all of us, they dream of grass and sparkling water, of a safe and perfect land.”

– (Supposedly) from Monkey, a Japanese TV series based on the Chinese story Journey to the West


Hong Kong has a problem with overpopulation. It’s made much worse by tourists and immigrants from mainland China who cause all sorts of problems. They come to Hong Kong to shop or enjoy the greater freedoms that Hong Kong has compared to socialist/ totalitarian China. The Hong Kong people call the mainland Chinese locusts. They cause problems due to cultural differences (even though both parties are Chinese there are still many difference between the offspring of Maoist China and descendants of subjects of the British crown). Moreover the mainland Chinese exploit the welfare system in Hong Kong. The local government has naturally sold out to the central government in Beijing, and does not represent the people.

Sounds familiar? It’s not that different from the immigration problems in Europe and USA. The main problem is Europe is immigrants from Islamic countries who have little desire to integrate into European culture. In the US the problem is mainly, to my understanding, Mexican and South American immigrants, legal and illegal. Both in US and Europe the governments have been quite happy to ignore the needs of their citizens in favour of some insane ideology based on “multiculturalism”. I assume this isn’t news to anyone.

It is not racist nor intolerant or anything like this to admit there is a problem with excess immigration. Immigrating to another country can be great thing for the immigrant and the foreign country he’s going to. Exchange of ideas, communication with new people, learning new ways of doing things and so on. However it’s not that simple in reality. Immigrants will experience various kinds of problems. I should know, I’ve lived one year in Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea as an exchange student.

They were great experiences, and I certainly have mostly fond memories of each experience. Yet when you are actually living in a foreign country you will experience all sorts of problems like culture shock, language barrier, different climate, the bureaucracy and so on. It’s not all fun and games even though I chose to go live in those countries myself. I wanted to go there, but it still doesn’t mean I could adapt that well to many things. Although overall I would say I did alright. I’ve also met loads of other exchange students. Some of them adapted very well, others couldn’t really adapt at all. And most of them also wanted to go live in that foreign country.

How about people who don’t really want to live in a foreign country, but are forced to do so by other circumstances. Finland received lots of Somali refugees when I was a kid in the early nineties. There controversy and debate in the media whether they should be allowed to come or not. How easy is it for an African to adapt to the cold, dark and long winters of Finland, not to mention the culture? This is not so much a moral issue to ask whether or not Finns are racist or Somalis are lazy or prone to crime or something like that. It is merely a practical issue. Will it work? Has it worked? I guess to a certain degree. The regular Finns haven’t forced the Somalis into concentration camps, nor have the Somalis wrought major havoc. Still, I’m not so convinced that was necessarily the most practical solution. It sounds more like an ideological one to me.

But nowadays most of the immigrants coming to Europe aren’t really refugees, are they? Why the fuck are they coming? Because the top politicians have an ideological goal to dump bunch of non-Europeans to Europe, and they use the welfare system to give the immigrants benefits. It’s not about compassion or helping people from third world countries. That’s not a major global agenda. What seems more pertinent is turning European nations into third world countries in an artificial multiculturalist experiment.

Really, what motivates the masses of immigrants to come to Europe? I don’t think it’s the love of European culture, or to work there, but to have an easy life. Does an immigrant from an Islamic country moving to England or France hold love for his new home? I doubt it. The motivation is what matters the most. I’m Finnish, and naturally love my country (although it’s not Finnish to say that), but Japan, Hong Kong, China and Korea are close to my heart too. I can honestly say that. I didn’t go there just to parasite resources off of Asia. I was, and still am, fascinated by those countries. Is this what motivates the countless immigrants flooding to Western countries?

I am not opposed to anyone visiting Finland or living there if they do it for righteous reasons. I’m happy if foreigners are interested in Finland for it’s culture, nature, heavy music or whatever reason. It doesn’t matter what someone’s race, nationality or religion is. However when a few genuine individuals grows into a swarm of locusts we have a problem. To make it simple, I don’t have a problem with Africans or Middle-Easterners coming to Finland, or even moving there permanently, if that is what they really want. When swarms of them are coming to colonize Finland, there is a great problem.

The issue is between a small of group of individuals and the subtle distinction when it becomes a swarm, a mob, a herd. Don’t let bunch of outsiders swarm your country wherever you are. This is not Western vs Oriental, or White vs Black/ Brown. I wouldn’t want Finns swarming Riad or Kabul. Nor do I want to see Americans swarm Helsinki or Turku. Individuals from those places are fine. Many Hong Kong people have friends and relatives in mainland China. They become a problem only when they grow into a swarm. We should prevent it before it happens, alas it is hardly the human way of doing things.




Monkey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)