Preface My contributions to the webpage can be compared to a mosaic. You take one stone, you know its weight, shape and color. You make the same with others. You know stones. But if you put the stones together in accordance with a plan, you create a picture, gain an image of beauty and an information of a higher rank.
Imagine you would live in one point. Your world has no dimensions. You could anticipate that they are but can not reach them. Or you live on a line. You live in a world of one dimension. You can live anywhere on the line, could anticipate that there is the second dimension. That who lives in a world of two dimensions can step on your line or not. He is visible for you or not.
It is similar with the articles. The article on the History of the race is the main, other articles try to explain closer claimings in it. The articles are relative short, but comprehensive. Perhaps, they let someone stop, to look over, to ask, to answer. At the end I named the sources. Majority of them are in Slovak language, but if you can read them, you will better understand, what is written futher. At best read all the articles, resp. if you divide the picture of Mona Lisa into sixteen squares, how many you need to lay on to guess the author of the picture? But the best teacher is the life alone.
There are many experts, scholars and institutions on the topic, philologists, historians, sociologists, politologists, etnographers, anthropologists etc. If I make mistake, proove it or continue further. Examples: (1) German philosopher L. F. Pasof said in 1815 that Homer`s language is as a matter of fact a form of Slavic (his work was translated into English and published in 1850 in New York). He said that Homer`s lexic actually corresponds to the lexic of Slavic. (2) Two young scholars of history from Slovenia, Jozef Savli and Matej Bor, issued the title "Unsere Vorfahren die Veneter" (Our Forefathers, Venetians), 1988, prooving that local names (toponyma) in the Range of Alpes are of Proto-Slavic origin. The book caused commotion in the west, but later its conslusions were supported by Hans Haid, "Mythos und Kult in den Alpen" (Myth and Cult in the Alpes). (3) Other author dealing with the prehistory of Slavs is G. S. Grinevich from Russian Physical Society (1994, Moscow). His linguistic decodings show that the literacy of Slavs existed much before the creation of letters of Slavic by brothers Sts. Cyril and Methodius. This Proto-Slavic written language was close to the later one introduced by two brothers of Thessaloniki. (4) Or, look at the publication of Antonín Horák: O Slovanech ůplně jinak. Co nebylo o Slovanech dosud známo 1970-1990 (About Slavs Totally Otherwise. What was not known until today about Slavs 1970-1990), editor Lípa, Vizovice 1991, Czech Republic. I recommend to read this book, because it helps to understand many reflections in the articles and A. Horák is the author of the idea of connecting the Neolithic revolution with the origin and spreading of Proto-Slavs. (5) Finally, Slovak prof. Dušan Haruštiak (2000) claims by means of the comparative phylology that Proto-Slavs lived side by side with Sumerians already in 3000 B. C. Proto-Slavs functioned in Mesopotamia as the basis of the cradle of the civilization, because there are in Sumerian language borrowed Slavic words from agriculture, natural phenomenons etc. Sumerian is amazingly akin to Slavic tongue (ethymology, lexic, phonetics).
What is the being, the existence of the race? Read the Scriptures. The complete man is the body and the soul. The race is composed of men, as Christ`s body is composed of the limbs, Christians. The race is the body and the spirit. When you seek for Slavs, seek for their physical features, for words of their language, for names from their language..., but seek also for their philosophy of life, their relation to the nature, to their own kin, to other races, for their customs etc.
For example, surnames. Non-expert says that a surname is German, English, Italian, Greek, Polish or Arabic. They determine the nationality of the surname (and person) by the language. Proto-Slavs created names connected to the reality, they were ground-based and so are the surnames of today Whites. They are of many types expressing: filiation (son of someone), place of origin, color (black and white are the most favourite), animals, profession, qualities etc. The types are in a general use all over the race. E. g. someone who is the son of John: Johnson (English), Johansson (Swedish), Jensen (Danish), Johannes (German), Janáček [yana:chek] (Czech), Janík [yanji:k], Jančo [yancho], Jankovič [yankovich], Janko [yanko], Jančík [yanchi:k], Jančovič [yanchovich], Janoška [yanoshka], Janota [yanota], Jankech [yankekh] / Vanek, Vanko, Vanček [vanchek], Vaňo [vanjo] / Ivančo [ivancho], Ivanič [ivanjich], Ivanička [ivanjichka]... (Slovak), Jankowski (Polish), Ivaniševič [ivanishevich] (Croatian, Serbian), Jovanovski [yovanovski] (Macedonian), Ivančuk [ivanchuk] (Ukrainian), Ivanov (Russian). E. g. the wolf: Wolf (German), Farkas [farkash] (Magyar), Vlk (Czech, Slovak), Volkov (Russian). E. g. the smith (or son of the smith): Smith (English), Schmidt [shmit] (German), Herrero [erero] (Spanish), Ferreira (Portuguese), Kovář [kova:rzh] (Czech), Kováč [kova:ch] (Slovak), Kovačevič [kovachevich] (Croatian, Serbian), Kovács [kova:ch] (Magyar), Kovalev [kovaljev] (Ukrainian), Kuznecov [kuznjetzov] (Russian). Of course, there are differences in the method. In the west there are more used composites, in the east suffixes. The filiation in the former is expressed by adding the word of "-son", in the letter by a lot of suffixes "-ek", "-ik", "-ík", "-ski", "-ič", "-uk" etc. In the south (Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Tajiks, Pakistanis, Indians) is in wide use suffix "-í" read [i:], in Proto-Slavic the suffix for adjectivum (Ashravi, Jaziri, Trabelsi, Hravi, Hariri, Karami, Talabani, Barzani, Nuri, Khamenei etc.). All these surnames are the same, resp. of the same logical system and that is of the same race.
Yet a bit of exercise of the social behavior of the man in the society:
The ethnicum A lives a nomadic way of life, composes of hunters and herders, and speaks the language α. They are agressive, designated to fight and rule. The ethnicum B lives a seddentary way of life on the territory X, composes of peaceful farmers, and speaks the language β. The ethnicum A comes by force among the ethnicum B, to rule over and exploit. In the flow of time the elite of A accepts the language β. After another time the elite of A speaking β decides to move, and invades to the territory Y, which is more civilized and richer. The territory Y is inhabited by two ethnica too, the same ruling ethnicum A, but retaining its language α, and the same folk of B, but denationalized to speak α. The inhabitants of the territory Y, in this case only A speaking only α, will regard the invaders as B, speaking β. After the centuries, scholars will read in a chronicle, the ethicum B emerged from the darkness and attacked our country (Y) and our people (A), invaders of B robbed, raped, made atrocities. We, B. are peaceful and civilized, A is wild, barbarian! The lesson: Study the A and B, resp. the α and β in the territory X, before and in the time when A came to B. Study the cause, not the consequence.
My method of knowlidge comes from the nature of a man. Men, if they are from village or from city, educated or not educated, young or old, poor or rich... have weak moments, make mistakes (as I make), are influenced by many less or more prosaic reasons, they are imperfect. The spirit is ready but the body is weak, St. Paul says. I want to say that if somebody is a specialist in archeology, history, phylology and other disciplines it is needed to take this in account. E. g. archeology: there are many artefacts of the life of ruling elites (tombs, barrows, palaces...), but less artefacts of common people, even, if they were much larger in numbers. E. g. history: writers, clerks of chronicles, literatures of all kinds had first to write, what the things should be and not what they were. Ideological shadow. I am the donor and I determine what you write. Also compare the credibility of written sources, the number of immediate descriptions of four evangelia is amounting tens of thousands and that ones of chronicles of Classsical writers is amounting several tens. E. g. phylology: always it was valid that common people adjusted to the elites and not vice versa. Twofold it was valid for language. Not only in mother tongue, but secondary in the names of setllements and people too. What was the first? Ravenna (city in northern Italy, alternately with Miland the capital in the letter times of the Western Roman empire) or "Rávina" from "rovina" (Slovak) meaning the lowland, flatland. Mainz (city in Germany on the River Rhine, originally Roman military camp on the Limit), "Mogontiacum" (Latin), or "Moguč", "Mohuč" (Slovak) read [mohuch] from "moc, mocný, mohutný" (Slovak) meaning the might, someone who is strong, mighty, capable, in a transfered sense the great as the word "mahá" in India.
One example from the Chronicle of Cosmas (the 12th century), the creator, or the panel of creators, of the history of Czechs (not Slavs!). From A. Horák: About Slavs Totally Otherwise, 1991: "...devoted only to a stomach and sleeping, not teached and not educated, they used their body against the nature, for their lusts and passions, they resembled the cattle. But be we silent about those about whom it is to be silent"! Romans also called plebs a speaking cattle. This prooves that the Chronicle of Cosmas is conscious silent about the majority population of Bohemia and so Cosmas (or his patrons) totally deforms the history and truth. The chronicle is more a tale for adults. We would never learned about Slavs in Bohemia if they were denationalized, resp. germanized. There would be only the Chronicle of Cosmas mentioning Germans and Czechs (as German tribe) in central Europe and no one else. This is the mechanism how Slavs "disappeared" in Germany, France, Hungary and other areas.
It is useless to create theories and theories not applicable in a practise. It must be verified in the practical life. Who finds, will find. I must say, yet 120 years and I will find.
History of the Race Besides generally known Slavic lands, large Slavic populations, respectively minorities live in other countries too:
Latvia cca 40,0% 0,950 mil. (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Poles)
Estonia 33,0% 0,450 mil. (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians)
Lithuania 17,0% 0,625 mil. (Russians, Poles, Belarussians)
Moldova 30,0% 1,300 mil. (Ukrainians, Russians)
Kazakhstan 40,0% 6,700 mil. (Russians, Ukrainians) !
Kyrgyzstan 20,0% 0,950 mil. (Russians, Ukrainians)
Uzbekistan 5,5% 1,400 mil. (Russians)
There is probably a big Slavic group in Canada (Poles, Ukrainians) and some western European countries: Germany (Slavs from central Europe and the Balkan), France (Slavs from central Europe, mainly Poles).
But this is not so important. E. g. in the 10th century A. D. these territories were Slavic too: eastern Germany, Austria, northern Italy, Denmark, Scandinavia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Romania, Albania, Greece, western Turkey (Asia Minor). In the 5th century A. D. there were Slavic some other territories: entire Germany, Netherlands, France, Great Britain, Ireland. In the beginning of the Christian era: entire Italy, Spain, Portugal, northern Africa, Palestine and Syria. I am not going any deeper into the past: Mesopotamia, Caucasus, Nubia (northern Sudan), Arabia, greater Iran (with Central Asia), Hapta Hindu (Sapta Sindava; seven rivers in the Valley of the Indus River)... Iordanes, Byzantine historian, who lived in the 6th century A. D. mentioned that Venetians (Slavs) inhabited immense spaces of Europe.
I do not want to say that there were no Celts, Greeks, Romans, Jews and other historical nations there. I want to say that the Slavs were common people in the areas (plebs) with 80% to 90% share (greater by females) and that the rest - historical nations - ruled over them with all consequences for them. They remained unknown, silenced, enslaved - duelos (by Greeks), servi (by Romans), paria (by Indo-Aryans), vanna (by Vikings), Sklawen (by Germans), mameluks (white slaves by Arabs and Turks as the opposite to black slaves - abds) etc. An example, see the times of Jeremiah in the Old Testament (the 6th century B. C.). God was wroth that the slaves (working for food and wear), after 7-year service, were not freed by Jews. Who were these slaves, the Jew never enslaves his own blood (it is markedly a cryptogram). I am persuaded, they were of different race, Slavs.
* When Arabs in the 7th century conquered the space after the fall of the Roman empire in the west, they recorded that in Syria lived people with pink skin and blue eyes, Slavs (in Arabic "Sakaliba" taken from Greek). They fought as mercenaries in the Byzantine army, later on the Arab site too.
* In the 17th century are mentioned Slavs (respectively Slavic folk customs) in the villages and towns on the Naaba river, northly of Regensburg (Rezno) in the present north-eastern Bavaria.
* From the first half of the 18th century there is a message from Johann Parum Schulze (1725): "I am 47 years old. When me and three other persons pass away in our village, then nobody can say a dog in Slavic (Wendisch)". He lived in Wustrow (that is Bystrow), a village between Hamburg and Hannover, in so-called Wendland (land of Slavs). He spoke different dialect from today Slavic languages.
* At the beginning of the 20th century, a census had been made by Italian government. They found out that in the Molisano Mountains (the central Apennines, east of Rome, north of Naples) lived half a million of Slavs. They spoke a different dialect from today Slavic languages again.
In my opinion, Indo-European languages are not interrelated due to the proto-Indo-European language invented by scientists (never heard, it is a fiction), but due to the Proto-Slavic as a common base (Slavic is continually spoken in approximately two thirds of Europe), mother tongue of Neolithics (farmers, trades- and craftsmen), ancestors of White (Europoid, Caucasoid) race. They came from the East, the Caucasus or the Pamir Mountaines (perhaps "Pra-mir", "pra-" (Slovak) means proto-, ancient, and "mir" (Russian) means the world, that is the proto-world).
Proto-Slavic names of rivers, mountaines, hills, valleys, water surfaces, regions or traces of the Europoid race and the proto-Slavic language and culture are all over the world. They are connected with the spreading of the Neolithic revolution (agriculture, crafts), which begun cca 10 000 years B. C. somewhere between the Caucasus and the Pamir and directed into all sides. There was no land that was not colonized by the Neolithics. But they did not superseded everywhere. In some areas they came too late (both Americas through the Pacific Oecan before arriving of Columbus), in small amounts (sub-Saharan Africa) or were too early attacked by and mixed with CroMagnons (eastern Asia). What stayed for them: Europe, northern Africa, Near and Middle East, India, central Asia. But Indian sub-continent besides the north-western region (Hapta Hindu) is inhabited by a mixed population. Today, you can find Europoid types moreover in the country of northern China, in Korea, northern Japan and central America. In modern history, Whites have gained Siberia and northern America. I think that it was only their return to the lands of their forefathers. Blessing from heavens for the good work and the fulfilment of the mission, spreading the base of civilization.
As a secondary movement, resp. a restructuring of an original racial layout, came to the Europoid (Caucasoid) areas tribes from the North (Aryans!, Scythians, Sarmathians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Huns, Avars, Arabs, Vikings, Bulgarians, Magyars, Russians, Turks, Tatars...) and the South (Phoenicians, Etruscans, Carthaginians, Celts) - Mongoloids and Negroids - to rob and kill, to rape and kidnap girls and women of farmers and rule over them.
As far as Negroids are concerned, they originally lived up to the 40° - 50° of the northern latitude. Later, they were pushed out of the place and the history to the south first by CroMagnons and then by Neolithics. Negroids (Blacks) survived relatively untouched south of the Sahara Desert and left their signs in mixed populations of India, southern China, south-eastern Asia, Australia, northern Africa, Arabia and central and southern America before arriving of Columbus. I think, Negroid populations are somehow descendants of Neanderthals (homo primigenius - original, first or simply aboriginal man). They were hunters, but gathering was equally important due to the tropical climate. They lived in a matriarchy. They were dolichocefalic, strong and vital, darker and smaller, alike aggressive and dominant as CroMagnons, but in average (not by individuals!) with lower mental abilities. See the defeat of Carthaginians or Celts in the struggle with Romans, respectively Germans.
Mongoloids, resp. so-called CroMagnons, were originally hunters too and marginally gatherers. There were important among them, besides chieftains, the magicians or medicine-men ("shaman"). They became with the arising of the first states their kings and ideologists (see pre-Christian mythologies). CroMagnons (homo sapiens - wise man), were dark, dolichocefalic, of tall and robust stature, aggressive and dominant. They lived in a patriarchy. Their important inventions were religion, state and stamp.
Homo sapiens sapiens
Europoids, resp. Neolithics (homo sapiens sapiens - withal wiser or simply double wise, clever man) were light, brachycefalic, of small stature, working, thinking and peace-loving. Their important inventions were apart from agriculture and crafts, wheel, ship and script.
The two entities: hunters and farmers were mixed (among Whites brown and black eyes and hair appeared, probably green, yellow and gray eyes too) and so were their languages. I think, Whites speaking non-Slavic are somehow, more or less, deformed Slavs. I know it is hard to accept it.
I am persuaded that e.g. Germans were savages from East and of Asiatic, propably Ugro-Finnic (Ugric) origin. Strabon, Romano-Greek historian, who was born in 63 B. C. (as Augustus), made in his Geography VII the testimony (paraphrase): "Germans easy changed their positions, because they were nomadic people, herders as their predecessors. They, all the property on the wagon, lived in quickly built log-cabins. They did not operate agriculture and stocks". Germans are mentioned in chronicles as fighting, conquering, always "with sword in hand", never with plough or loom. There were not German farmers, only princes, fighters, priests and landlords! It simply means that when it was needed, they robbed the corn after the season, resp. the stocks from the seddentary folk! They offered farmers (see about Celts below) and threw the dead bodies away into swamps. Now archeologists explore stabbed bodies in the Netherlands, northern Germany, Denmark...
Celts were denominators of the cult. In the line of their pagan faith they killed (sacrificed) millions of boys and girls (for them it was a sin to damage the earth with agriculture, mines). See tens and tens of thousands of skeletons in the dolmens all over Europe. It was stopped by authorities of Rome around the birth of Christ (by the way, Christ was, according to a commander of the Roman Legion in Palestine in his report to the emperor Tiberius, blond and blue-eyed as his mother). Well-known Stonehenge in England was the place serving for this purpose. It does not make any sense to continue any further (Greeks, Carthaginians, Aztecs, Mayas and others). Note: Mongols (medicine-men) offered women and slaves until the 16th century when buddhism prevailed.
The history of White race is strongly dual, respectively antagonistic. Slavers versus slaves, lords versus villeins, elites of present democracies versus rank citizens. In my opinion, the unification of the race will become when this duality - embracing all aspects of life (spiritual, genetic, socio-economical, information, law, military, cultural, political, administrative) falls. The dial, to go slowly but surely to the victory.
It is not important to me, whether he/she is Anglo-Saxon or Frenchman, German or Czech, Serb or Croat, Italian or Spaniard, Swede or Norwegian, Pole or Lithuanian, Russian or Ukrainian, Hungarian or Romanian, Greek or Turk, Arab or Jew, Armenian or Azerbaijani, Iranian or Pakistani... Of course, there are differences among Europoids (Caucasoids), especially between northern (light, Christians, atheists) and southern (dark, Muslims) Whites, and then between western (e.g. individualism) and eastern (e.g. family-orientation) Whites, as the result of the eventful history of the race. The Neolithic revolution, the town and cities, the states, the world empires, Jesus the Christ, the fall of the empire in three steps, the overseas discoveries, the French revolution, the nations, the Russian revolution, the two world wars, the common house. At least three great events are waiting for their time.
An example of difference, there is the group of musicians in Slovakia (territory between the East and the West) called "Musa Ludens". They play medieval (gothic, renaissance), baroque music and have visited several countries, both in eastern and western Europe. According to their personal experiences, when they played in the east (e.g. Ukraine), the positive reaction of the public was immediately. When they performed in the west (e.g. France), it took the audience some time to show the positive reaction. The memory of the common origin in the West is a bit deeper in the minds and hearts than in the East. Facts are around. There is a need to look at them as they are.
In villages, in towns, in cities. In civilization, in barbary. In lowlands, in highlands. Among farmers, among craftsmen, among workers, among teachers, among doctors, among artists, among officials, among priests, among soldiers... I am only saying that the Slav has brothers everywhere.