Slavs and the History

Slavomír

1989 - 2002

Contents:

Preface
	Scholars
	Ontology
	Gnoseology
History of the Race
	Homo primigenius
	Homo sapiens
	Homo sapiens sapiens
Germans
Celts
Duality
Trinity
Name of Slavs
	Differentiation
Slavic Language and Script
	Script
Slavic Habitations and Migrations
Migrations to the East
Migrations to the South
Migrations to the West
Proto-World of Slavs
Sumer
Europoid Racial Type
Factor of Time
Slavic Women
Slavs and Indo-Europeans
Albanian Toponyma
Nostratic Group
Scandinavia
Blondism
Slavs and the Scriptures
	Names of the Bible
	Jews
	Ham, Shem, Japhet
Racial Changes
Military Force
Nimrod
Slavs and Economics and Demography
Rule of prosperity
Rule of chaos
Victory of christianity
Rule of winds
Infomal sector
Formal sector
Sub-Saharan Africa
Romans
India
China
Latin America
Denationalization of Slavs
Hungaria
Justinian I. the Great
Germania
Three Branches of Slavs
Mechanism
Local, national, transnational
World from Slavic View
Family
Big and Great Men
Conceptions of the Race
Nine
White Nationalism
Future
Som Slovan
Sources

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.

Scholars
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).

Ontology
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. 

Gnoseology
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.

Other examples:
* 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. 

Homo primigenius
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.

Homo sapiens
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.

Germans
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
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.

Duality
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.

Trinity
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. 

Name of Slavs

I will try to write the names of Slavs, I know: Slovania, Sloveni, Slované, Slaviani, Słowiane [suoviane], Slaveni, Slavoni, Slovieni, Slavíni, Sklavini, Sklaveni, Sakaliba, Slawen, Slavs, Veneti, (V)Enetoi, Venedi, Vinedi, Wenden, Vanna...

According to A. Horák all titles above are from one root - "Sěłoján" read [sieuoya:n]. It comprises from two parts: "sěło" is "selo" (Russian) and means the village, farm in the country, "ján" is a substantive participle from "u-jať (sa)" (Slovak) meaning to begin some activity and in this grammatical form means activity which has been beginning, starting. Together the title means people which as the first in the world started to live in continuous settlements and to sow, plough and reap. Also in Serbian, Croatian is the word "seljanin" meaning the villager, peasant. The name of Proto-Slavs had a social character (farmers and seddentary herders) as the opposite to the hunters and gatherers. Nomadic herdsmen propably developed later as a mix of the both. The name of Slavs is not only ethnic or racial, but philosophic and practical one. Slavs were the race first beginning with the agriculture in the history.

The second name from Veneti to Vanna belongs to the same stock, race. It is not, as some scholars say, the title of some other Slavic sub-race, resp. group of tribes. It is only shortened form of "Sěłoján", its second syllabe - "Ján" [ya:n], which in Proto-Slavic language was evolved to "Wán" read [uoán]. It was the name of Slavs in the Classical times, e. g. historians in the empire, Plinius and Tacitus, called themselves Venetians. So the scriptors in Byzantia in the 6th century A. D. Understand it not, that they were only >from Venetia, the north-eastern corner of present Italy, but that they were part of Venetian, Slavic race living everywhere. Slavs, if free, never lived in tribes (as Cro-Magnons), but in families, communes and counties, shires called "župa", read [zhupa], respecting the individuality and personal integrity of a member.

Germans called Slavs still in the 15th century "die Wenden". A couple of villages around the city of Nuremberg on the River of Regnitz have composite names, their second part is "-wenden", i. e. the village inhabited by Slavs. The Regnitz River is  Slavic "Reznica", compare to the Regen River, left-bank tributary of the Danube River flowing from the Bavarian Wood, "Rezná" in Slavic. In the Medieval times the name of Slavs was slowly returning to the original, a bit changed one, "Sěłowán" read [sieuouoán], i. e. Slovan, Slavian, Slaven, Slavón etc. This development was strengthened in the modern times, during the enlightenment of the 18th century.

Differentiation
Slavs were always the bulk of humanity. It was already hard in the times of the Roman empire to govern all of them by one body, tetrarchia was implemented by Diocletian in 293. The government was acted by two augusti and two caesars, their assistants and successors. Later, the empire was devided into the Western and the Eastern (Byzantia) part, after the death of its last integrator (395), Theodosius the Great, approximately by today meridian of the 20° of the eastern longitude. Also the empires of Samo (the 7th century) and Svätopluk (the 9th century) covered only central Europe. Slavs were politically divided and they begun to differ among themselves. When you say you are a Slav, it is too wide term, if you say you are a Pole, you are from central Europe north of the Carpathian Mountaines. According to A. Horák, the names of differentiation are of various origin. (i) Some are derived from the ruling tribe: e. g. Bulgars, Russians (from Roxolanians), Danes, Frenchmen (from Franks), Romanians (from Romans), Iranianas (from Aryans), Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Englishmen (from Anglo-Saxons) etc. (ii) Some are derived from a characteristic mark or element of the land they live on: e. g. the name of Serbians is from "srp" (Slovak) and means the sickle, the scythe to one hand, they were peasants of the lowlands, Croatians ("Chorváti, Horváti" (Slovak) read [Khorva:ti, Horva:ti]) are from "hora, horal" (Slovak) meaning the hill, resp. the highlander, they were farmers and herders of the highlands, Siberians are from "sivir, sever" (Russian, Slovak) meaning the north, northern land, from the position of Iranians and Indians. (iii) Some are derived from the typical activity of inhabitants of the teritory: e. g. Italians are from "taliti" (Serbian, Croatian) meaning to smelt metals, it was the land of metallurgy wellknown already in the prehistoric times. (iv) And others as e. g. Ukrainians, it is from "ukraj, okraj" (Russian, Slovak) meaning the land at the margin, periphery, in this case from the position of Russians (Great-Russians, Moskowy).

Slavic Language and Script

My aim is to describe the present situation in Slavic languages, not to describe Proto-Slavic. Some of its signs are mentioned in other articles, and it is analysed in details in the title from A. Horák (see the sources).

Slovak language is the key to all living Slavic dialects. It is also due to it that after the comming of Slavs from the east (the proto-world), the Valley of the Danube River became the second cradle of Slavs (see the chapter on the Slavic Habitations and Migrations). Important is that Slavic dialects are geographically inter-connected, they are continuous, but with interruptions. Ukrainian is continuous with Bulgarian but with the interruption in Romania. Slovak is continuous with Serbian and Croatian but with interruption in Hungary etc. It is the accountable evidence (i) that Slavs did not emerged from the Swamps of Pinsk, because northern Ukrainian or southern Belarussian do not have the quality of the central dialect and (ii) that Slavic is in its merit one language. 

Slovak is devided into three groups: western dialect is connected with other western Slavic dialects (e. g. Czech, Polish), central dialect is the most northern offshoot of southern Slavic dialects (e. g. Slovenian, Serbian) and eastern dialect is connected with other eastern Slavic dialects (e. g. Ruthenian, Ukrainian). This is a linguistical fact. Not political one.

Congresses of slavists have long tradition. One was held in 1943 in Warsaw (in the General Guberny of the Third Reich). One participant, prof. John D. Price proposed to declare Slovak language as the original language of Slavs. Polish delegation after it proposed to approve the definition of the first Slavic language, that is Slovak language. All delegations agreed, except of Czechs. Actually, Slavic dialects of Balkans are older according to the migrations of Proto-Slavs from the east. Slovak is one of the possibilities in finding the tongue of communication among Slavs (lingua Slavica, Venedica). 

Script
The starting of Proto-Slavic script is again excellent described in the publication from A. Horák. It is based on the principle of acrophony. You choose some object in your language, e. g. eye, in Proto-Slavic "óko" ("oko" in Slovak), you make a simplified drawing of the eye as "O" and attach to it the sound [o]. From that time until today "O" means "O" and sounds [o]. "B" is from the first vocal sound of Proto-Slavic "barzá" and means woman`s breast, "prsia" in today Slovak (compare the breast and the letter B). "I" is from the first vocal sound of Proto-Slavic "íhau" ("ihla" in Slovak) and means the needle (compare the needle and the letter I). And so on. Originally, Proto-Slavic tongue was syllabic, so the signs of Proto-Slavic script were syllabic as linear script A and B on the Island of Crete. Later Proto-Slavs simplified it as their language developed and so the needs of communication. Slavs had the script long before not only the brothers Sts. Cyril and Methodius (cyrilics, glagolics), but before Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians and Sumerians. It is prooved by the many inscriptions on the stone or the ceramics from the prehistory and Classical times. They were made on the less durable materials too: the linen (e. g. wall linens to the kitchen), the wood (the furniture). According to the method of A. Horák, the contents of the inscriptions are related to the everyday life (wedding, death, love, humour, disputes of neighbours, spending of free time, work etc.). This is in strong opposition to the other scholars trying to decipher the incriptions, because they find in them at all costs pagan gods, heroes or whatever else supermen. They are also (according to A. Horák) devoted to the social life, the contacts and experiences of Slavs to the elites: sacrifices - the swastika is used as the symbol of the human sacrifice, exploitation of their work and mind, slavery... Slavic national script is from cca 80 % today Latin alphabete (better said abecede), 15 % azbuka of the orthodox east (first of all it retained Proto-Slavic letters for vocal sounds [sh], [ch], [zh], [shch]) and 5% the rest. All other scripts are based on this Slavic principle of acrophony, including that ones of eastern Asia.

Tacitus, Roman historian and public official, who lived in the 1st century A. D., wrote in his Germania XX: "Local aborigines compose the script on the linen from branches of trees." (1) "On a linen", among Proto-Slavs was common the tradition to hang wall linens in the kithen or other rooms of the house. It was fulled with ornaments and the inscriptions (e. g. proverbs). The letters were painted or composed (as Tacitus writes) of branches of tree. (2) "Of branches of trees", most favourite was the beech, because his branches are straight and they were naturally so combined that they created shapes of the letters used by scriptors. 

Slavic Habitations and Migrations

Before the short decription of the original habitations of Slavs, I recommend you again to read the publication already mentioned, from A. Horák. It was the first greater book I read about Slavs. I was fifteen and I could not understand how it was possible that the Slavs enlarged themselves from nothing, i. e. from the marshes around Pinsk after the fall of the Roman empire, which are still today thinly inhabited, on the waste spaces of Europe and others. The official science acknowledges that Slavic toponyma (the names of rivers, mountains, hills, valleys, sees, residences of man etc.) are situated on the 2/3s of Europe approximately to the east of the line Hamburg - Trieste. Trieste (Italian), in old-Greek "Tergesté" means "Tržište" (Slovak) - the town of markets. And the like Turku in Finland "Trh, Targ" (Slovak, Polish) - the market. He tries not only to reconstruct the human history, but its greater part is dedicated to the decoding of the scripts from the Classical and prehistoric times: e. g. linear script A and B from the Crete, Etruscian script, runic writings from the Carpathian Mountaines, Balkan... The author came to the conclusion that the language of inscription was Proto-Slavic. Today are discovered other old writings, in Russia, Siberia, Central Asia, Mesopotamia, the Valley of the Indus River, even in southern America. A. Horák is the author of the summary above. 

I repeat that the original habitations of Proto-Slavs can be equalized to the final widening of the Neolithic revolution on the earth. In the prehistoric times the Proto-Slavs were everywere. But they did not infiltered everywhere in big amounts or as first (they met there aborigines). Later, during written history they as Neolithics mixed with Mongoloid (CroMagnons) and Negroid (Neanderthals) populations. Mixed races emerged, of different combinations of different amounts, of different sexes etc. Modern humanity is a mix. We can speak about the populations with the prevalence of some element. So in the modern times the Slavs live in territories with Europoid signs in men: Europe, western and central Siberia (until the Bajkal Lake), northern Africa, Near and Middle East, Central Asia (to the west of the Tan-Shan Mountaines), north-western India, northern America (to the east of Rocky Mountaines). Bigger enclaves are situated south of the tropic of Capricorn (counting up to 200 millions): southern Brasilia, Argentina, Uruguay, the Cape Province, Australia, New Zeeland. 

Migrations to the East
Europoid types are also in minority in other places, which are situated on the routes of the migrations of Neolithics (Proto-Slavs) in the prehistory. They stormed from proto-motherland between the Caucasus and the Pamir (the Hindukush) Mountaines into all directions. To the east there were two pathes. The northern one through Central Asia and Siberia to the Yellow River in northern China (most known is the province of Che-nan), Manchuria, Korea and Japan. E. g. Europoids live in the northern China until today (thick beard, round eyes, three-dimensional face), who are connected with Ainus on the most northern island of Japan, the Hokkaido. The southern one led through India, Indochina to Indonesian islands and the northern shores of Australia. These two migrations met themselves in the islands of the Pacific and continued to central and southern America. Spanish conquistadores of the Aztec empire described that some aborigines there had blue eyes. They are yet found in the Mexican country. 

Migrations to the South
To the south it was the path along the eastern shores of Africa down to the Cape of Good Hope. E. g. the aborigines of South Africa have brown or light brow skin. According to a theory, the savanas (grasslands, with thin forests) in eastern and southern Africa are results of activity of the man, resp. of prehistoric grubbing of tropical rain forests.
Migrations to the West
To the west there were two pathes. The southern one along the shores and islands of Mediterranean sea (northern Africa, southern Europe), through the Iberian Peninsula and today France up to today Netherlands, British Isles, Ireland, Danemark and Scandinavia, where it met the second western migration, which stormed through the Balkan Peninsula and the Valley of the Danube River into the whole continent icluding Russia and western Siberia. E. g. Berbers living in the highlands of the Atlas Mountaines are known of light complexion, when compared to the surrounding Arabic population. Western migration of Neolithics proceeded through the Atlantic Ocean, with the stop on Iceland, to northern America, today Quebec province, New England, and along the banks of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers down to the Mexican Gulf. E. g. there are messages of European pioneers down to the 17th century about villages on these rivers that their inhabitants were blue-eyed and blond-haired.

The degree of slavicity among peoples can be measured e. g. by occurrence of Slavic words in local languages, songs, by costumes and traditions, local toponymia etc. I would describe my relationship to Slavs by one borrowing from the book about Ján Palárik (see the sources). It is a parafrase of Cicero. A. Horák reveals Cicero as the Slav, "Čičero" (Proto-Slavic) read [chichero] or "titrný" (Czech) means tiny, smallish man, and he was really small. Cicero studied Greek and Roman literature, came through several offices, until he became the consul, the highest official of the Roman Republic. He critisized when things went bad, especially the triumvirates, which endangered the Republic. He was not friendly to the Roman gods, because it was against a common sense. He was several times threatened or escaped to the exil. In his letter days he was got on the list of unwanted persons. In 43 B. C. he was murdered according to the order of Marcus Antoninus, the member of the second triumvirate. Slavs created in the Roman empire basic population - plebs, losing in the west, after Christ, their mother tongue by force. The citation:

Slavus sum: slavici nihil a me alienum puto. 
(I am the Slav, it is nothing alien to me, what is Slavic.)

Proto-World of Slavs

I take you a little time by a short consideration. Official science seeks the homeland of Proto-Slavs in the Swamps of Pinsk on the border of Ukraine and Belarus, A. Horák on the Pamir Plateau, O. N. Trubačov [trubachov] in the Valley of the Danube River, others in the Caucasus Range...  My consideration. In the chapter on the Slavs and the Scriptures I propose that Slavs come from Shem, who was son of Noah. According to the Bible, Noah landed on one of slopes of the Mount of Ararat, a part of the Caucasus Minor Mountaines. It composes of two peaks, the Greater is 5165 m high above the sea level, the second one has a bit below 4000 m and they are connected by the ridge 18 km long. Iranians call the mount Kúhe Nuh, the Mount of Noah. Sons, resp. all offsprings of Noah originate under this hill. I know it is hard to believe, but consider that in the prehistoric times the placement of races was other than today. Negroids reached much more to the north than today, they were in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Palestine, southern Mesopotamia, southern Iran, India... Mongoloids were present on the plains of Iran, Central Asia, southern Russia... 

Sumer
Other point of view. Proto-Slavs became with the founding of kingdoms and empires writers in royal scriptoria. Kings were originally illiterate. Slavs first has to learn the language of the rulers, these languages were poor, so they incorporated in them their own Slavic words. Than they created a script suitable for the new (mixed) language, i. e. a script which suited to superstitions and prejudices of CroMagnon priests. This model of a common life was first tested in the Lower Mesopotamia, Sumer, which had many state forms from the independent cities to the kingdom. Scriptors invented cuneiform of script there, which was wedge-shaped. To the core of the problem. The sign of the script for the word "sun" composes of two hills with the sun between them. It means that the scriptors had to come from some valley in mountaines, where they saw the sun to rise between the hills. The sign for the word "land or homeland, motherland" comprises of three hills. Again the indicaton of some valley in mountaines as the land of origin. I know only one country in the world which has in its state symbol three hills - Slovakia. In details, it is the white double cross (propably influence of Byzantia) on three blue hills with the red backround (colors are from the French revolution). By us, it is in use an explanation that the three hills mean the three mountainous ranges in the western Carpathian Mountaines: Tatra, Fatra and Matra. I propose that it is the remembrance of our (Slavic) proto-homeland. 

What Valley? Perhaps the Pamir as A. Horák says. It can be also some of the valleys of the tributaries of the River Tigris in the Zagros Mountaines. Zagros or Zagoros sounds as "za-gorije" (Croatian), "za" means something is trans-, behind, and "gorije" means mountaines, hills, together transmountaines (behind other mountaines) or the land behind them. There is the typical country in Croatia next to its capital Zagreb, named "Zagorije", and other one in the most western corner of Slovakia, behind the Small Carpathians, named "Záhorie".

It can be the valley on the Upper Euphrates River which is divided from Mesopotamia by mountaines of east-western direction, i. e. the valley of the Lake Van (today eastern Turkey), or other one north-east of the Mount Ararat, the valley of the Lake Sevan in the basin of the Aras River (today Armenia). The Lakes of Van and Sevan.

Europoid Racial Type

Who is the bearer of White race, resp. of Europoid traces in humanity? One example: today Egypt is made of mixed races as India (all three main types), but Europoid features are still the strongest (in India not!). In the Classical times Egyptian country was much more Europoid than today. The present situation is, first, the result of the immigration, mainly from Negroid south. Second, it is the result of the disappearing of White stock. The stock of ruling elites or common people? See today Latin America, minority elites of Whites rule over the masses of mixed populations, Blacks and Indians and sooner or later they will be swamped with them. My answer is, that common people (Proto-Slavs) are the holders of Europoid signs of any kind all over the world. Where they were enough in numbers (especially Slavic women as I explain futher), they retained their qualities and these territories are today called as White. Where they counted less than half of population, they melted to mixed races. Where they were in small minority, these areas are today called Yellow and Black.

Problem is that scholars in creating of conceptions of races and White race proper derive from actual, present situation and from uncomplete findings from the past. E. g. the method of burying of deaths. CroMagnons originally buried their deaths by a skeleton mode. Proto-Slavs by a cremation mode. This explains relatively large number of artefacts of hunters and small or no ones (from some periods of history, e. g. the Bronze Age) of farmers, whereupon we know that the farmers were much more numerous than the hunters. Cremation outlasted until Romans, the 3rd century A. D. So it is with the chronicles from the Classical times. They wrote, resp. they should write about the acts and glory of ruling elites and not about common people, which were again much more numerous. Simply what students are learned in schools about the history is less or more deformed and the more remote is the past the more deformed is the knowlidge about it.

Factor of time
The physical appearance of Slavs is related with this. Important is the factor of time. Germans described Slavs during the last stages of the Roman empire as ones with dark eyes and hair. First, it was the result of a long mixture with CroMagnons invading during the history from Asia. The second, there were at that time many Slavs with light eyes and hair. It was a mistake in choosing of the sample of statistical meaning, Slavs prevailed all over western Eurasia and not all of them could be met. The third, many Germans were dark too. A. Horák writes that Vikings described themselves as tall, robust, with dark eyes, dark and curly hair. 

Today Whites are mostly mixed of Proto-Slavs (small, light, brachycefalic - shortheaded) on the one side and CroMagnons (tall, dark, dolichocefalic - longheaded) and, in the south, Neanderthals (middle tall, the darkest, dolichocefalic) on the other side. In Anglo-Saxon literature (in one of racial conceptions) are mentioned Alpines (small, dark, brachycefalic), Mediterraneans (small, light, dolichocefalic) and Nordics (tall, light, dolichocefalic). This theory says that blondism comes from Nordics. I say blondism comes from Proto-Slavs and the previous three groups of White race are only mixers of them with CroMagnons and Neanderthals. This mixing took place in a large scale in the Classical times as I explained in other articles. Nordics are northern, relatively late derivation of Mediterraneans. There are also other tens and tens of mixed types in White race: e. g. Norics (small, light, brachycefalic that is Proto-Slavs proper), Atlanto-Mediterraneans (tall, dark, dolichocefalic), Dinarics (tall, dark, brachycefalic) etc. Still a large amount of Whites remains not classifiable into the previous types. And there are other factors of racial sorting as hairness, shape of hair, highness/flateness of skull vault, thickness of bones and so on.

The imagination of the original appearance of CroMagnons can be offered by terracotta statues of soldiers, resp. a total army, in the burial ground in today Xi`an [si`an] of the first sovereign emperor of China, Ching Sh`-huang-ti [chkhing sh`-khuang-ti], the last one from the dynasty of Chin [chkhin]. He died in 210 B. C. Each statue represents an individual man, no two ones are the same. They are in average a head higher and with rougher Mongoloid features than today Chineses, they are dolichocephalic and have massive faces. 

Short conclusion. The original physics of Slavs should be found in the prehistory (Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, Proto-Slavs). During the Classical times they mixed among, it could happen that sign of one race could be borrowed to an other and vice versa (light Nordics, dark Alpines). It continued in the Medieval times. Today Whites are totally mixed. Each type is present everywhere. Nordics live in Scandinavia, but only the minor part of the local population can be classified to this type. At present, there is no Celtic, Roman, German or Slavic racial type. Gene of brachycefaly seems to be dominant, today Europe is from brachycefalic to mesocefalic. Anglo-Saxon authors could not explain the contradiction between this fact and total prevalence of dolichocefalic and mesocefalic skulls in the artefacts from the past. It was caused by the different mode of burial of hunters and farmers (see above). Gene of blondism seems to be more recessive. Gene of tallness seems to be partly heritable (differences among arithmetic means of tallness) and partly depends on a nutrition (concrete height of an arithmetic mean).

There is a gap, period of time, of evolution between prehistoric and modern races. Proto-Slavs evolved to today Europoids in Europe, especially in the Danube Valley, by the way the homeland of so-called Nordics too. CroMagnons developed to today Mongoloids in eastern Siberia and northern China, the Yellow River Valley. The second homeland of Neanderthals is situated in eastern Africa, the Upper Nile Valley and the Ethiopian Highlands, and as the futher step, western Africa, the Niger Valley. Bantoids (Bantus) were created there, Black farmers, which finished the colonization of sub-Saharan Africa towards the south in the 20th century. Whites make up today in South Africa with more than 40 millions cca 13 % minority.

Slavic Women
It should be made a special notion to Slavic women. I propose that in mixing of different races the race direction of a child in average determines a woman. Not only in child`s appearance but first of all in his mentality. I say that the child inclines to the race of its mother. That is why the mulattoes of the United States are counted by the public and count themselves to Blacks, their mothers were mostly Black women. New branch of mixers from the mixing of White men and women from eastern Asia on the Pacific coast of the United States will share the life of Mongoloid race, not Europoid. Europe is White due to White, i. e. Slavic women and girls. CroMagnons had always shortage of women of their own stock. Shamans at first forbade to kidnap women of farmers (Slavs) from ideological and religional prejudices (a curse). When they begun to settle and rule over them, they also mixed. They lived in polygamy, originally they did not know such customs as wedding or monogamic marriage. They simply took from them, whom and how many they wanted. See the mythology of Romans, the known scene of kidnapping of Sabines. "Sabine" is "Sławin", read [suoauin] and means Slavic woman or girl. Slavs are aborigines of Europe.

Imagine two races, A and B, both counting 15 men and 15 women. The race A lives in polygamy, the first man has 5 wifes and 30 children with them, the second man has 3 wifes and 18 chidren, the third has 2 wifes and 10 children, the fourth has 2 wifes and 6 children and the fifth has 3 wifes and 11 children. For other 10 men remains nothing. The race B lives in monogamy, each man of fifteen has one wife and has 10 children with her. The number of children for the race A is 75, i. e. 5 children per wife, the race B has 150 children, i. e. 10 children per wife. Muslims have due to the Koran the right to marry four women. The reality is that Muslim elites gather their wifes in harems, much overrunnig permitted number of them (first race) and the bulk of rank Muslims live in monogamy (second race). Word "harem" is propably from "hora, hro-mada" (Slovak) meaning the hill, resp. a gathered amount of soil to create the heap, but also from "hárať" (Slovak) meaning to mate (among animals), resp. to gather animals for mating. I want to show that (1) more wifes a man has, he has more children, but with a lower ratio of children per a wife compared to a man with one wife. E. g. Solomon, king of Israel (the 10th century B. C.) had in his harem about 1200 women, and the ratio was surely well bellow 1. (2) The race A has a more effective tool of selection, less men can mate and leave decendants, it is under stronger control. Tribes and nations are created. The race B practices the selection in the form of natural restricting of defectives (physical, psychical) to leave children. Tribes and nations can not be created, only local communities determined by geographical accessibility.

Slavs and Indo-Europeans

You ask me, why I am claiming that Albanians are of Slavic origin, resp. they are only deformed Slavs. The base of my claiming is that Proto-Slavs are the authors of the Neolithic revolution. The first farmers arrived to the Balkan peninsula and in general to Europe, after various sources, between the 7th and 5th millenium B. C. Illyrians are first mentioned in the first millenium B. C. I want only to say, that the Slavs are original inhabitants - autochtones of the Balkan. The name of the peninsula can be taken from the word "Vlk, Volk" (Slovak, Russian) - a land of wolves, of a wild nature. My explanation of the name is as follows. The Balkan Peninsula was long settled by Neolithics, as the first in Europe. The periods of thick settlements were varied by the periods of thin ones. Today name of the peninsula can be connected with some situation of the depopulation in the past. Such event, resp. catastrophe was the backward immigration of Celts (Killers) in the beginning of the 4th century B. C. to the region from western Europe. They sacrificed men to their pagan gods and massacred local population. Wild animals as wolves reappeared.

Back to the topic. Illyrians were the ruling caste. It is always written in chronicles about the elites, but never about the common people. Take to the attention Hungaria in the 19th century. The western community regarded this land as democratic and as the national state of Magyars. They knew nothing about other nationalities living there. Slovaks were in numbers so strong as Magyars yet in the times of the empress Maria Theresia (the 2nd half of the 18th century). And how was the national and language situation in the region 1000 years ago. Read the the book from J. Stanislav: Slovak South in the Middle Ages, 1943,  and you learn that the whole Valley of the Danube River, according to the philological analysis of local toponyma, was Slavic and these Slavs spoke in majority Central Slovak dialect. Even it can be determined the time limit, until which a settlement was Slavic, by the fact if it was in use simultaneously Latin, Magyar, or German version of the name (the authorities) and Slavic version of the name (common folk), or not. Biharia, territory of today Hungary approximately between the Rivers of Tisza and Maros was Slavic still in the 13th to 14th century, Pannonia, Hungary west of the Danube River, at least until the battle of Mohacs in 1526, which started the 250-year overlordship of Turks in the Danube Valley. Today northern Hungaria was prevailingly Slavic (Slovak) still in the 18th century.

Today Albanian has many Slavic words, of cource it is not pure Slavic, it is a mix of Proto-Slavic and some Asiatic (I mean Mongoloid) language. Anglosaxon authors before the World War II on this topic claimed that Indo-European languages came into existence by mixing of Ugro-Finnic languages and some unknown tongue, which they named as "Caucasic" according to its supposed place of origin. In the chapter on the History I argued that Indo-Europen languages, of whatever origin (Mongoloid, Negroid) they are, are connected among themselves due to a common base - Proto-Slavic. Slavic language does not fit to the Indo-European system, comprising of two main groups according to the voicing of the number hundred: the western one called "centum" (Latin) [kentum] - Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans and the eastern one called "satem" (Avestan, old-Persian) - Iranians, Indo-Aryans, Balts. Slavic tongue influnced more the eastern group, because it was situated closer to the cradle of Proto-Slavs. Today, Slavic is set to the end of the development of Indo-European. But Slavic does not belong not even to the beginning of it, only as the basic ingredient (e. g. words from agriculture, crafts, nature etc.). Simply, the Slavs are not Indo-Europeans. By the way, students in German schools are yet today learned about Indo-Germans, and they are right. Old Germans are of Asiatic origin. In other words, without Slavs there would be not Whites in Europe or elsewhere. 
Nostratic group
There is used in philology a wider term for the group of languages named Nostratic. The group includes Indo-European, Hebrew, Arabic, Caucasian languages (e. g. Georgian, Chechenian), Ugro-Finnic languages (e. g. Finnish, Hungarian), Turko-Tatar languages (e. g. Turkish, Uzbekistani) and Dravidian languages in India (of strong Negroid influence). The same rule of inter-relations as by Indo-European languages operates by Nostratic ones. I call Nostratic languages Indo-European in a wider sense. In other words, there can be distinguished several grades of slavicity of a tongue, non-Nostratic, Nostratic, Indo-European and Slavic proper. Ugro-Finns invading Europe were already influenced by Proto-Slavs, resp. they were influenced by Proto-Slavs in several steps, and that is why today Germans or Magyars have very little common with original Ugro-Finns, not mentioning pure CroMagnons. Magyar language is not classified as Indo-European (has thousands od Slavic words), because there was not enough time to Slavize it, Magyars came to the Danube Valley only one thousand years before. On the other hand, Germans were under Slavic impact nearly two thousand years longer.

Albanian Toponyma
I enclose the map of Albania (scale 1 : 1250000). I name here some Slavic toponyma (they are written in Slovak alphabet, "š" is [sh], j [y, Y(ork)], "ť" [tj], "č" [ch], "ž" [zh], "ch" [kh]), I found on it:

1. Settlements: Vermoš, Boga, Ivanaj, Koplik, Drišt, Obot, Bušat, Gramš (twice), Manatija, Milot, Kačinar, Rešar, Bliništ, Tropoje, Kruma, Bicaj, Šistevec, Klos, Plošťan, Peškopi, Selište, Chomeš, Šupenze, Škreta, Kruje, Bazje, Preza, Šijak, Tujan, Priska, Peza, Divjake, Rogošina, Čerma, Pekišt, Ďžinar, Driza, Golem, Lušnja, Pošnje, Semen, Pojan (twice), Cakran, Bališ, Grešice, Penkove, Selenice, Peškupi, Mavrove, Tradžas, Dukat, Demblan, Brataj, Logora, Vasjar, Mežgoran, Tepelene, Progonat, Kuč, Malešove, Grabove, Borš, Duvjan, Leskovik, Glina, Čaršove, Poličan, Libochove, Kukar, Kakavi, Drhovjan, Libražt, Hotolišt, Dragoštun, Selce, Velčani i Mokres, Hudeništ, Pogradec, Starove, Gorica, Podgorie, Pustec, Moglica, Skrepar, Ložan, Malič, Zamblak, Progar, Biliš, Korča, Mborje, Božigrat, Voskopoje, Lavdar, Drenove, Kamenica, Štika, Čorovoda, Vodice, Rachovice, Borove (above 100 settlements all over the country!).
1a) and some examples of Slavic settlements in neighbouring Greenland: Pogoňane, Janina, Vovusa (Volosa), Doľana.
2. Mountaines, hills: Prokletje, Maja Jezerceza, Maroca, Korab, Dešat, Cermenika, Špatit, Belize, Ostrovica, Nemarčka, Trebešina, Griba, Radomit, Gur i Topit.
3. Rivers: Drin, Išm, Mat, Škumbin, Semen, Osum, Kalasa, Bistrica, Drina.

These together count more than one half of local names on the map. The degree of slavicity of the territory can be compared to that one of eastern Germany. If maps of Albania >from the medieval times are taken, 80-90% of the settlements would be Slavic there. It is the degree of slavicity of until today Slavic speaking lands as Slovakia, Poland, Croatia etc. The result would be similar, if I took maps of Greenland, Turkey, Romania, Moldova, Hungary (as J. Stanislav did for the Valley of the Danube River), Austria, Germany, Italia, France (as two Slovenes Jozef Savli, Matej Bor and German Hans Haid did for the arch of the Alpes Mountaines), England, or Baltic states.

Other example. In the last week of february 2002 I have seen one TV-shot about Moldova (1/3 of its population speaks Slavic - Russians, Ukrainians). Many Moldavians enterded a protest to establish obligatory learning of Russian into all schools. Also they wanted to learn more about Romanian history. This is Slavic movement. The first, they want not to learn Russian. And they can not. Russian is spoken behind the Dneper river. Someone wants to (re)slavize Moldavian population. It is possible, but only when they will speak their own Slavic dialect. Slavic was spoken in Romania in the far country until the French revolution, and so the church-Slavic in local orthodox churches. Romanian-Slavic dialects were somewhere in the middle of the three modern Slavic branches. Walachia was connected with southern Slavs, Moldavia with eastern Slavs and Transylvania with western Slavs. The second, they want to learn more about Romanian (and Moldavian) history. And they must. Local or municipal means Slavic. A. Horák claims that the Greek word "demokracia" is of Slavic origin: "demo" is "dámo" - "dom, domov" (Slovak) and means home, local community, "kracia" is "karáčija" - "karovať, kárať, karhať" (Slovak) and means management, guidance, administration. Together it means home- or self-management, self-government. That is why each town, each village or region, each production unit in the world has its foreman as moderator, intermediary between common people and the state (central government). The genius of the race works.

Scandinavia

There are studies about Scandinavia (in wider sense, with Danemark, Faroe Islands and Iceland) that its inhabitants are of German origin, other group of materials claims that they are of a different origin. I try to explain it similarly as in the case of Albania. I claim that common people of the territory are Slavic, but denationalized. They are Slavs according to their body (genofund), but their mother tongue disappeared, resp. was deformed. Today, inhabitants of the area speak Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Faroese and Icelandic. These are languages formated by mixing of Slavic (Proto-Slavs) and Asiatic languages (Germans). See the chapter on the Slavs and Indo-Europeans.

German mythology speaks about two groups of gods: Ases (As) and Vans (Van). It describes, they fought between them to reach the dominion in the heavens of pagan Germans. The word "As" means one who originates from Asia, Asiatic, Mongoloid. The word "Van" means Slav, the shortened version (second syllabe) from "Slovan" (Slovak), in Proto-Slavic "Sěłowán", read [sjeuouoán]; to closer explanation see the chapter on the Name of Slavs. Germans were skilful and very capable to proove their supremacy over aborigines in occupied areas. They (and CroMagnons as a whole) were good ideologists. Vikings (the winnings, victorious) named the slaves "Vanna" still in the 13th century, that is Vans (Slo-Vans), Slavs, because originally only Slavs were in Scandinavia as all over the earth enslaved. The Peninsula of Scadinavia has the name from the most known Germanic tribe, Goths (compare to "Skåne", the country in the most southern part of the peninsula). 

Blondism
A. Horák prooves that the authors of runic inscriptions in Scandinavia are Slavs too. In the publication of M. Drastich (see the sources) he decodes one inscription from the 9th century. It was a gravestone for one German chieftain. The language of inscription was Slavic and the topic was an eulogy about the life and acts of a German heroe. Besides it, it underlines that in the Scandinavian country Slavic was spoken still in the 9th century, in the time of Great Moravian empire in the south. It is logic, because Scandinavia was colonised by Proto-Slavs (Neolithics) by the emmigration from the proto-world in the east as the last one. The territory is thin inhabited until today. Where there were few Neolithics, there was little wealth too. Such area less attracted CroMagnons as compared to the south fulfilled with milk and honey. That is why Slavic language was preserved in the north for a longer time. I think, the same can be said about physical features of local people. Light eyes, hair and skin are from Proto-Slavs, who, in the perifery, mixed with immigrants (other race) in a lesser extent as on the continent. In other words, important is the time of origin of blondism. If it is from the Classical times, it can be of northern origin (from Indo-Europeans of Nordic appearance). I am persuaded that this is more ancient racial sign, from the prehistory and so it can be traced to Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons or Neolithics. In other articles I explain that Neolithics are authors of Europoids (Whites) and the core of blondism is connected only to Europoids, so Proto-Slavs as Neolithics and Europoids are authors of a light complexion - blondism (to closer view see the chapter on the Europoid racial type). 

Slavs and the Scriptures

First I indicate some names of persons and local names in the Scriptures that can be Slavic:

(1) Eva (Eve in English) - the meaning of Eva is explained as the mother of all livings. Words beginning with "e" in Proto-Slavic were read as [ye], e. g. the faith was written as "era" and read [yera], in today Slavic languages it is covered with "v", as "viera" in Slovak. Eva or [yeva] is then from "jev" (Czech) meaning the action, phenomenon, resp. man who is active, alive. In modern Slavic we should use words "Viva" or "Živa" read [zhiva] with the same meaning.
(2) Noe (Noah in English) - Noe was the man chosen by God to be saved from the approaching flood of the world. So, after building the ship and comming of the right time, he was saved, with his wife, three sons and their wifes. These eight people than entered the new and changed world after the flood. You might not believe in God. I want to say that Noe means simply new, the new man, the founder of a new mankind. This word is known in Slavic and through it in all Indo-European languages: "nový" (Slovak), "neu" (German), "nouveau" (French), "naí" (Hindi) etc.
(3) Japhet - the son of Noah. The meaning of Japhet is explained as the man, whose descendants will very widen. It composes of two words, "ja" is in many names of the Bible, e. g. Jared, Jacob, Jason. If it is Slavic it means "ja" (Slovak) read [ya] and means I or me. It played in the composite names a possessive role, something is my, of me. "Phet" is read [fet] and can be from Proto-Slavic core "wět" read [uojet] as today "vet-va" in Slovak, the first syllabe (the word core) means the branch of tree, space of animal or race. I think that Japhet means this: me who will widen, expand into the space and into numerous, various branches, that is nations. But this does not mean numerous race as such!
(4) Ján (John in English) - all is explained in the chapter on the Name of Slavs. "Ján" [ya:n] means the man who is beginning, starting some activity. It became one of two names for Slavs first starting with agriculture: "Wán" read [uoán], later "Ván", that is Venetian. In Russian or Slavic speech of the Balkan is John said as "Ivan", here you have it black on white: "(I)Van" that is "Van". In Slovakia there are in use pairs of surnames as "Jančo" [yancho] and "Vančo" [vancho], "Janko" and "Vanko", "Janík" and "Vanek", or "Janiš" [yanish] and "Vaniš" [vanish]. Finally, compare it to the Roman god Janus (Jan-us), the god of the beginnig (and the end), or january (jan-uary), the first month in the year.
(5) Mor(i)ja - the land and the hill in Palestine around Jerusalem. The meaning of Morja is explained as vision, revelation of Lord. It was the land, resp. the hill of sacrificing of Isaac by Abraham, of course not done. It is from "mor, moriť" (Slovak) and means the plague, death, resp. to tire, destroy, kill. It was the hill where regular sacrificings, propably to pagan gods long before Abraham, were made. 
(6) Horeb - also called Sinai, on the Peninsula of Sinai. It was the hill connected with the exodus of Israelites from Egypt to the engaged country in Palestine. God gave through Moses to Israel two stone tablets of Ten Commandments there. It can be from "hora" (Slovak) meaning the hill, mount or literally "hrb" (Slovak) meaning the hump, hunchback (of a man), an object rising from the surface. 

Partial conclusions: (i) Proto-Slavic and Non-Slavic names are in all patrilines and places, so you can not say, he has Slavic name so he is Slav, he has non-Slavic name so he is not Slav. It was written by a third (neutral?) person. (ii) Layout of races was different in the prehistoric times, different in the Classical times and is different at present. 

Names of the Bible
There is one problem with the personal and local, geographical names in the Bible. I call it a principle of dual decoding of the meaning of the word: spiritual and philological one. Take the last speech of Christ on the cross before his death. In the Evangelium of St. Mathew is written: "Eli, Eli, lema sabakthani?" and explained as "God, God, why have you left me?". In the Evangelium of St. Mark is written: "Heloi, Heloi, lema sabakthani?" with the same explaining. In the Evangelium of St. Luke is not written the sentence in unknown language, but the speech is connected with the same event: 12 hours of midday, for 3 hours the earth was covered with darkness: "Abba, I bequeath to your hands my spirit". In the Evangelium of St. John is not written the sentence in unknown language, but the last speech is propably connected with the same event: "It is completed". First, this three different decodings of the same last speech are spiritually correct. The evangelists were, by writing, inspired by Holy Spirit. Christ was God and man (body) in one. God Father wanted to describe the last agony of God and man on the cross from several points of view and he made it. Second, this has nothing in common with the philology, because for the same sentence in unknown language there are three linguistically different explainings. A. Horák reads it in Proto-Slavic as follows. First, he devided the sentence to proper words: "Eli, Eli, lam asab akt(h)a ni". Than, "Eli" is "Veli" (for this rule in Proto-Slavic see above the decoding of Eva) and means the Great as "Veliký" in Slovak, "lam" is as "len" (Slovak) meaning only, "asab" is as "osobiť (si)" (Slovak) meaning to appropriate, accept, "akt-a" is as "akt, aktivita" in Slovak (the word is in wide use in all Slavic and Indo-Euroepan languages) meaning the act, deed and "ni" is as "ní" (old-Czech) meaning our, ourselves. The whole sentence sounds: "Great, Great, only accept our deeds". Theologically, it is in harmony with previous three spiritual explainings of the speech. The mother tongue of Jesus, the Christ, was propably Proto-Slavic. But as each Slav, he had to learn other languages too, to be fully engaged in the life of society (education, profession /he was a carpenter/, official authorities): Arameic, Hebrew, Latin and perhaps Greek. He was simple and wise man. 

I propose that the rule of dual (spiritual and philological) decoding of names works for many other names and titles in the Scriptures. Work for experts. This rule shows the mental differences between CroMagnons and Slavs, resp. when two make the same, they do not make the same. CroMagnons used by giving a title religional, secret, mystic words, names of famous men, spirits, Slavs used for the same title objective, matter-of-fact words, connected with everyday life. What is proper: to sacrifice or to kill? My answer is, it depends on what you sacrifice: bread, animals or men. In the Roman empire, legions got numbers, which were occasionally added by qualities. One group of names from the 2nd century A. D. was: the I. Legion the Italian, the V. Legion the Macedonian, the IX. Legion the Hispanic, the XIII. and XIV. Legions the Doubled, the XX. Legion the Victorious, the XXI. Legion the Ravenous. Another group of names was: the I. Legion of Minerva, the II. Subsidiary (Auxiliaris) Legion the Pious and the Faithful, the III. and VIII. Legions of Augustus, the XI. Legion of Claudius, the XII. Legion of the Lightning (Fulminea), the XV. Legion of Apollon. Three legions, the XVII., the XVIII. and the XIX., destroyed by Arminius, the chieftain of Cheruskians, in 9 A. D. in the Teutoburger Wood, were never restored. Other example of Chazars of Asiatic origin (called themselves Ashkenazim) converted to judaism. In the Medieval times, their rabbis were terribled that their customs are of Slavic, i. e. non-judaistic origin: their clothes, songs, dances, fests. E. g. the Slavic ceremony of glass-breaking ceremony to scare the devil away from the married couple at a wedding was reinterpreted as a remembrance of the dectruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. 

Jews
Several decades later after the crossing and the resurrection of Christ (70 A. D.) Jews uprised against Romans, were besieged in Jerusalem, defeated and many killed. Hundreds of thousands of people of all ages died from sword, hunger and cold. The rest was dispersed all over the world and swamped in it. I speak about Jews as Israelites, descendants of Shem, resp. about two remaining tribes, Juda (from which the name Jew was taken) and Benjamine. Other ten, so-called lost tribes, were dispersed sooner. As centuries were added, more and more people of ever (and non-Israelite) origin converted to judaism.

Ham, Shem, Japhet
Here is the core of my considerations. Noah before the death spoke to his sons: Shem (Sem), Japhet and Ham, the blessings and curses. 
To Ham he prophesied:
"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew his youngest son had done unto him. And he said, cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." [Gen 9:24-25]
To Shem he prophesied:
"And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." [Gen 9:26]
To Japhet he prophesied:
"God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." [Gen 9:27]

Shem means the famous name. How Slovak poet and great Slav P. O. Hviezdoslav described the name of Slavs, read the poem at the end of the study "Som Slovan" (I am the Slav). Shem will behold the true belief, the belief into Lord God. God chose Shem as his own property, the pupil of Eye. The enlargement (in nations) was prophecied to Japhet. But the increasing in numbers, resp. population explosion was prophecied to Shem and three times. Twice to Abraham (second one as the confirmation) and once to Efraim, younger son of Jozef, one of the twelve sons of Jacob (Israel). I propose that Europoid (White) race comes from Shem, Mongoloid race from Japhet. In other words, Proto-Slavs come from Shem, CroMagnons from Japhet. In the prehistory Proto-Slavs (Neolithics) shared on the mankind by 80-90 %, in the Classical times by one half, they continued reducing as other races were developing and the mixed were excluding themselves, but until today they (Whites) still share by cca 1/3. On the other hand, CroMagnons after mixing with Proto-Slavs created a lot of Indo-European and a couple of eastern Asian nations (India and Latin America are only big melting pots, for sub-Saharan Africa is typical tribalism). 

Japhet will migrate to the territories inhabited by Shem. The proof of the duality of White race. The total majority of the population - Shem, is ruled by minority elites - Japhet. Shem is at home, Japhet is and will remain the immigrant. Shem was one nation, one tongue, one race! Japhet devided him into nations. Later, three centuries after Christ and after a bitter resisting to the new religion, Japhetites (CroMagnons, Asiatics: Romans, Greeks, Germans...) converted. 

Other example, that Shem is a predessessor of Europoid race. The king David was red haired and had "nice" that is light eyes. Other example, that Japhet is predessessor of Mongoloid race, Askenez. "As" means the man who is from Asia, old term for Tatars, Mongols etc., "kenez" is from "kňaz" (Slovak) read [knjaz] meaning the priest, offerer, later it developed to "knieža" (Slovak) read [knjiezha] meaning the prince, duke. Askenez was son of Gommer (that is Cimmerians), son of Japhet. I do not go any deeper to search patrilines of sons of Shem, perhaps Slavs went down the Salvator`s line from Arfaxad, son of Shem, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But Shem had also other sons, and, finally, some patrilines could die out.

Racial Changes
Ham is meaning hot, in wider sense the race living in hot, that is the tropic and sub-tropic geographical latitudes. Negroids. It is accentuated by Kush, son of Ham, the word means black. Canaan was other son of Ham. The prophecy related to him spoke about most serious racial changes in human history. In the prehistory, the Mediterranean (word by word the territory around the sea in the middle of the earth) was a meeting place of all three races. Negroids were erased in the areas touching the Mediterranean Sea, partly swamped by natural penetration of Shem (Europoids), partly destroyed by organized political and millitary force of Japhet (Mongoloids), and partly pushed out to the south of the arising deserts. One exception were propably Celts moving to Europe, through the Balkan Peninsula. I understand these changes in a wider sense, they were valid for Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, but also for Egypt, Libya, Numidia, Mauretania, southern Iran, partly India, Indochina, southern China up to the delta of the Chang Jiang River, Japan Islands and central and southern America. Japhet spread his wings not only above Shem but Ham too. The Mediterranean was cleansed of Negroids, except of slaves, until the turn of the eras. It was a process, consequence of several steps. The common base of Mediterranean countries was filled by Proto-Slavs, elites were altered by CroMagnons. I propose that the nationalities as Egyptians (Mizraim, son of Ham), Hittites (Heth, son of Canaan, son of Ham), Phoenicians, Carthaginians (descendants of Phoenicians), Etruscans (descendants of Carthaginians), Celts, Moores, were regardless their mixings later originally Negroid. Concrete examples, the attack of sea nations in the middle of the 13th century B. C. on the south, which caused the destruction of the Hittite empire in Asia Minor, also Palestine and Syria were impacted. Egypt only with a biggest effort drove back the enemies, and at this time begun its decline as a great power. 

Phoenicians took the hegemony in the Mediterranean from the Island of Crete propably during this incident. Greeks founded their first colonies in the 8th century B. C. Phoenicians were defeated by Romans, younger brothers of Greeks, by three steps, Etruria was finally occupied by Romans through the 3rd century B. C. (decisive battle of 283 B. C. against common forces of Etruscians and cis-Alpine Celts), Carthago was conquered after three Punic wars (first started in 264 B. C.) in 146 B. C. and Phoenicia (as Epypt) was added to the Roman empire as a province in the 1st century B. C. by common effort of the triumvirates. The same happened to Celts (Romans called them Gals), to the Iberian and cis-Alpine, than the trans-Alpine ones. All what was behind the Danube River, was slaughtered by Germans and Dacians. From Slavic point of view only the elites were changed. It was decided on the future of Europe, weather it will be governed by Hamites or Japhetites. Noah made it clear in his prophecy. These wars were hard, genocidal! Romans while widening their holdings in Europe fought against Germans, but as a matter of fact they both devided Europe between them (by the Limit on the Danube River). Even, a place was found for another Japhetites later, e. g. Magyars in the 10th century. Or see the cooperation of Russians and Turks (Togormah, son of Gomer, son of Japhet), resp. northern part of Turks, in the former USSR. Present so-called Celts living in the most north-western edge of Europe have, except of several words, nothing in common with original Celts. Welsh is used everyday by 20 % of the population of Wales, Irish Gaelic by 3 % of Ireland, Breton by more than 5 % of Bretagne, Scottish Gaelic by more than 1 % of Scottland.

Japhetites (Cro-Magnons, Asiatics) would propably never or only temporary defeat Hamites (Negroids) if Semites (Proto-Slavs) not participate. What is the reason of the participation of Slavs on the struggle? I would say, they have two choices, two evils, and they have chosen lesser one. E. g. Phoenicians, who created relative advanced society, perfect traders and courageous travellers. They steered their merchant ships not only in the Mediterranean Sea, but behind the Pillars of Heracles too. They knew African coast far to the south. They sailed with their big ships overseas. There were found signs of them, resp. their culture in the mouth of the Amazon River (Phoenician coins). Main god of Phoenician pantheon was Baal. They brought him sacrifices of ever kind, e. g. oaxes, but most valuable were men - war captives and children. Baal prefered sons of the noble, but they to avoid their duty bought (stole) children from the poor (of different race). They gathered them for a later sacrifice. During the ritual, they put a child on hands of the statue of Baal called Moloch, than they slung the child to the heated ditch or stove or they sat it on the heated throne. Drums and pipes played over a scream of the sacrificed. At least from that time each Slav knows what "moloch" means, something terrible, the horror. So, Proto-Slavs, fought on the Roman side against Phoenicians, as in the field so on the vessels. 

Military Force
Slavs (denationalized or not) fought in Troya, in the armies of Nabuchodonozor (Nabukadnessar), Dareios, Alexander, Augustus, Karol, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin. I want to say that Proto-Slavs were sedentary people (farmers, craftsmen) and very numerous. Peasants created, especially in mass armies (I mean the armies of the civilized world), the core of armed forces - the infantry. The cavalry was excluded for the noble. Peasants took place in the Roman campaign against Etruscians and significantly contributed to the victory of Romans; Roman position was politically and economically much worse (especially in the 6th to 5th centuries B. C.). Barbarian tribes propably did not, resp. could imply in their fights, attacks or wars among them or against the empires the peasants - Slavs. Their rule over them mostly changed as seasons in the year. State (static) structure was missing. So called Slavic attacks on Byzantines in the Balkan Peninsula down to the Peninsula of Peloponese (7th to 9th century A. D.) were partly military efforts of local, seddentary Slavs in the empire, or out of the empire, e. g. Walachia, Moldavia, the Valley of the Danube, the Valley of the Dneper, and partly raids of nomadic tribes, non-Slavic or Slavicized tribes, as e. g. Antes, originally an Iranian (Aryan, Asiatic, Japhetite). 

Millions of soldiers took place in wars in the flow of the history, and remained unknown, were forgotten. Commanders, members of personal guards, treasurers, logists, the common soldiers of the field, special or subsidiary units. Some of them came through a military career from the common to the highest ranks. Some died during the fights, some came back and continued their civil life. Slavs, in general, were good soldiers, disciplined, but with invention, carefully, but with courage.

Nimrod
"And to Kush was born Nimrod: he begun to be mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." [Gen 10:8-10]

Nimrod was as his father, Black. Nimrod was the first of the conquerors in the earth (around 2750 B. C.). His kingdom was placed in the southern Mesopotamia: Sumer, Accad and the city of Babel. Further is written that he marched to the north (Assyria) and he found there the city of Ninive. This does not mean that rank inhabitants of the teritorries were Black, sure is only that the ruling dynasty was Black. Negroid race is disponible of exeptional individuals, often using their talents to the benefit of non-Negroids. Charismatic leaders, generals, artists... For example, across Asia, in Japan, ancestors of modern Japanese streched themselves to the north against the Ainus (Europoid aborigines of the islands), the leader of their armies was famous general Sakanouye Tamuramaro, the Black. Several poets of Islam were Black too. Back to the present (2002), the Secretary-General of the United Nations is Kofi Annan, the Black from western African Ghana. "To love a king is not bad, a king who loves you is better", thought one African.

In the chapter on the Europoid Racial Type I explained that present Whites are mixed of Proto-Slavs (Europoids) on the one side and Cro-Magnons (Mongoloids) and Neanderthals (Negroids) on the other side. There came from Shem nationalities which became famous and mighty, which does not corresponds to the subjected position of Slavs in the history. For example, Assyrians (Asshur, son of Shem) or Israelites (Jacob in the messianic line). First, these examples are not such numerous as Hamite or Japhetite nations. Second, they were nomades and already mixed with CroMagnons (the prophecy of Noah to Japhet). Third, in the end they were conquered and controlled by nations of Japhet. You do not hear starting from Nabuchodonozor about the independent activities of Israelites, resp. the existence of Assyrians at all. 

I know the considerations above are a bit complicate, but the main relations of dependence and independence, if of dependence, of positive or negative one, of progressive, linear or degressive one, are set clear. If you read all the articles in the study you will better understand the message. 

Final conclusions: (i) White race comes from Shem. (ii) Slavs are original tracers of Europoid racial type (see the chapter on the theme). (iii) Slavs come from Shem. Slavs are Semites! 

Slavs and Economics and Demography

How is it possible to hide the major Slavic population all over, at least western Eurasia? Wise men say if you want to hide something before men put it in their hearts. They will not surely look there. I try explain it by today accentualized part of life - the economics. First, I will shortly describe the history of the race in the Roman empire, i. e. its civilized part called oikomene (100 to 120 million of people, 2/3s of the race - not 4/5s because many Whites lived in civilized areas of Persia and Hapta Hindu), not its free part behind Limes Romanus in barbaricum, after St. John wrote the Revelation:

Rule of prosperity (2nd century A. D.)
- Pax Romana. From Nerva, through Traian, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius to Marcus Aurelius. All five emeperors got the titul Germanicus, because of their numerous, more or less succesful campaigns against Germans.

Rule of chaos (the 3rd century A. D.)
- After Marcus Aurelius up to the death of Diocletian there were 40 emperors. It caused depopulation of 25 % in the whole empire due to civil wars, economic decline, high living costs, criminality, famine, deseases and spreading of wild animals.

Victory of christianity (the 4th century A. D.)
- After the 10th and largest persecution of Christians under Diocletian, i. e. after 313 when the official persecution of Christians on a world scale was stopped, resp. after the Edict of Milan of 323 when christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. Majority of the race converted to christianity in the flow of one and half of a century. It was an unprecedented event in the history. Today evangelization among Blacks in sub-Saharan Africa (today 1/3 is Christian, 1/3 Muslim and 1/3 animistic) is only a rustle of antelope compared to a step of elephant.

Rule of winds (the 5th century A. D.)
- Tribes (Germans, Huns...) from all directions wandered over the empire, and finally, brought its end in the west. St. Hieronymus (347-420), the native of Dalmacia, one of the Church Fathers, the editor of Vulgata, until today one official Latin version of the Bible in Catholic Church, in his Letters 60, to Heliodorus, described: "The spirit is terribled to follow the destruction of our times. It is a good 20 years, when the Roman blood is poured between the City of Constantinople and the Julian Alpes Mountaines. Scythia, Thracia, Macedonia, Dardania, Dacia, Thesalia, Achaia, Epirus, Dalmacia and all Pannonias are devastated, plundered, looted by Gothes, Sarmathians, Quades, Alanians, Hunes, Vandals, Marcomans. How many matrons, how many virgins dedicated to God, how many persons of free and noble families became an object of entertainment for these beasts? Bishops captured. Priests killed with acolytes of various grades. Disrupted temples, horses stalled next to the altars of Christ, rests of saints martyrs digged up - ,everywhere only the griefs, everywhere only the mournings, and the images of death in all forms.` The Roman world is collapsing." To better understand these eventful times, times of transition from one complex human and social system to the another one, study the life of St. Severinus representing an attitude of a human and Christian to the environment in the flow of the history. He was active as a missionary from the 450s in the Province of Noricum (present Austria south of the Danube River) and died in 482 A. D.

The empire, the civilization created stable environment for all aspects of life, i. e. an economic one too. It created markets. The business developed with all its pros and cons. E. g. a peasant in a village or farm, if he was not a slave, had two possibilities: to produce food for himself, his family, his commune or to produce it for the market, or as the third solution, partly for both. The economy of the empire was at least dual, but more propably multi-sectoral. And so the society. 

Infomal sector
The informal sector: Proto-Slavs producing food and tools for their own comsumption, retaining their language, culture, traditions. The informal sector was based fully on an exchange of food and other goods or only partly on money issued by the emperor. 

Formal sector
The formal sector: ruling elites of all possible origin (Mongoloid, Negroid), mixed populations, slaves (white /Slavic/, black) and denationalized or bilingual Proto-Slavs (Slavic and good or bad mastering of Latin, Greek): e. g. Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus, Horatius (compare this name to "Horák" used in today Czech Republic) etc., because they were talented, ambitious, they wanted to be active in public life, to gain social status, make trade, be soldiers etc. They took Latin name or Latinized their native names. Life is a question of priorities: money, women, status, glory, knowledge, research, family, nature... The formal sector practised mass production (manufactures) and exchanged money, papers and other financial tools. It meant the unified system of education (three grades as today), script, weights and measurements, standard gauge of wheels of the wagons, roads, post and relay stations, charges and fees, administration (military and civil administrator of the province, later separated, imperial confidant). 

Roman historian Cassius Dion (the 2nd century A. D.) describes Bassuss Rufus, a common soldier who later became prefect of personal guard of the emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. He (Rufus) was uneducated, because was from the country and lived his whole youth in poor conditions. Cassius Dion in his Roman History 71 writes: "Marcus (Aurelius) spoke with someone in Latin, but the concerned and no one of the present did not understand, what he in reality said. Rufus was also there and mentioned: ,Of course, emperor, he did not understand, what you said. You know, the man can not Greek.` How it can be seen, he had not the slightest idea what was said there about." He was from the informal sector, the native, the aborigine, and I propose the Slav.

Tacitus, Roman historian and public oficcial, who was born in trans-Padane Italy (55-117 A. D.), in his Germania XX wrote: "Local aborigines compose the script on the linen >from branches of trees." (1) "Aborigines", Tacitus was Slav (Venetian), but he could not openly write (the Roman control) that common people in the territories under Germans (Germania Libera) were Slavs. But he wanted to differ two groups of population in barbaricum. It is simply, Germans are Germans and aborigines are aborigines, the Slavs. (2) "Aborigines", the word aborigines is not only the mean of the differentiation but of the statetment of the origin too. Germans were not the first (e. g. Celts), not the last (e. g. Magyars), from the point of view of aborigines. Slavs are aborigines of Europe, and authors of the White race proper.

Rome managed and reformed its economic policy (monetary, fiscal, trade, home and foreign), administration (relation between the centre and the provinces, territorial distribution - divide et impera) and Slavs in the informal sector could remain untouched or could be only partly influenced. Especially young people were not satisfied with the situation from the reasons mentioned above and gradually moved to the cities. Cities were in general cosmopolitan, the country was White.

Sub-Saharan Africa
This process could be compared to that one of today sub-Saharan Africa. I have to mention one speciality of the continent. Blacks live there in tribes, nations do not exist. Some have several hundreds of members, others count several millions. The voice of a chieftain is more important than that one of a member of a parliament. African economies are multi-sectoral. They are devided into domestic and foreign sectors, state and private sectors and formal and informal sectors. Sectorr have its own rules of operation underlied by law. The formal sector usually contains whole foreign, private and state sector and shares on the Gross Domestic Product of a single country, according to its stage of advancement, by 50 % to 90 %. By the employment it is vice versa, 50 % to 10 %. I want to say, that in present sub-Saharan Africa about 3/4s of population live in the informal sector (no or partly use of money, law, facilities, evidence) in the country as their forefathers (and Proto-Slavs) did thousands years ago. Blacks are aborigeenes of the continent, regardless, they were governed by European metropolis politically (up to the year 1960), or are governed economically. 

Romans
A critic says we know that the Roman empire was an advanced society, the peak of civilization. The multi-sectorality does not suit to it. But do not forget that Romans had fun in colosea, where men killed men or animals, they killed their own child if it had some defections. Panis et ludi. Antique society was based on the masses of slaves. Imagine, you are a slave. You are young, you like a girl, you want to marry her. But suddenly, your master sends you to the other corner of the empire to dig for his aunty a tomb, into limestone or granite. You will lose there your best years and health. Perhaps your sister sends you a letter asking, how do you do, and describing, what`s new at home. Behind each slave should be seen a person with the name, the face and its own, unrepeatable fate and destiny. Romans had no inhibitions to get rid of the rival, man of an other opinion. See the example of Cicero in the chapter on the Slavic Habitations and Migrations, or Socrates in the chapter on the World from Slavic View. In Rome, the general attitude was that only persons in authority (e. g. members of the Senate) enjoyed the privilege of speaking freely. Public persecution and punishment (from burning the publications to an extreme of burning alive) occurred. The Roman empire maintained a policy of toleration toward the many religions and cults of the diverse nations it ruled. The only demand was that Roman citizens, as a political act, worshiped the imperial person or image. Such worship had to be made by people in the countries of the former socialistic block, obligatory lessons of marxism-leninism on all grades of education and in every company. 

So could there be in the empire the informal sector. Their members were free, if they were not enslaved, resp. they were free according to their abbilities and capital. They worked for themselves (self-consumption) or for someone as employees, or they were employers seeking for workforce. They operated small and middle businesses. There could be several sectors as transitional between the formal and informal ones. For example, the salary could be paid totally in kind, partly in kind and money, in kind and counter-services (public facilities). Relations of small companies to suppliers and customers could be managed similarly. 

Within living memory, the Roman citizenship was a special law priveleged to a minority part of the society, Patricians. Later it was bestowed to soldiers after obliged service, traders and other important and less important people of public and less public life: sportsmen, actors, researchers, bussinesmen as today. Roman citizens were growing until the 2nd decade of the 3rd century A. D. New emperor of Rome, Caracalla, in the first year of his office (212 A. D.) issued the bestowal of the Roman citizenship to all free (!) man of the empire. This was the time, when the diminishing of the frontier between formal and informal sector begun. Later, at the end of the century, it was enforced by monetary reforms of Diocletian. He stoped the hyperinflation, introduced a regulary year budget of the empire and reformed taxes. He rised the taxes on real estates and implemented the tax from employed staff. In other words a free man was through the tax law rectricted to change the profession and the place of residence. It was also made, because people were leaving the soil, a wild nature enlarged on the account of a cultural country. The state had no money to subsidize farmers after the horrors of the century as the European Union today. This put the common folk under closer control of  imperial authorities. The conscription to the Roman army was shaped in the same manner. As a form of the tax, landowners were responsible for the sending of quotas of soldiers, and the burden fell on the agricultural population. The Roman army (field army and auxiliaries) was enlarged from 300 000 men in the times of Augustus up to 500 000 men! The danger was felt and it was comming. Such mass army was, after the fall of the Western empire, gathered again 1300 years later, by Napoleon through the general conscription (Grande Armée).

In the 3rd century A. D. begun the denationalization of Slavs west of Mesopotamia. The process in Europe was started in Italy. After the fall of Romans in the west it was not stopped, only elites were altered by Germans, especially Franks, than Magyars... Imperial economy was altered by more basic one (diminishing of the formal sector), e. g. the common usage of the potter`s wheel was left, people returned to a hand-made pottery. Another evidence of the sectorality are, in the past very advanced and today developing societies of India and China or the example of Latin America. 

India
India is a conglomerate of units on all stages of evolution. From Negroid tribes of Stone Age living in the jungles to the mixed people (of Europoids, Mongoloids and Negroids) speaking several languages, surfing Internet and using mobil telephones in the luxurious districts of Delhi, Ahmadabad or Madras. They are devided into thousands of castes as a result of adjustment of tribes forced by rulers to melt, resp. to be incorporated into the state system. The most developed nationality is that one of Gudjarats and Maraths. Members of the lowest caste, resp. of no caste, are called "untouchable" or "paria". They live partly or totally in the informal sector (money is rare, no education, no insurance). They count 300 millions, 30 % of population of the Republic of India, or 25% of the whole sub-continent.

China
China is a conglomerate of several hundred thousands of village communes, respecting and managed by the central government (the head and its apparatus). They are partly mixed with Proto-Slavs, but they retained their Mongoloid appearance due to a large mixing of Proto-Slavs (less numerous as in the west) with CroMagnon women and due to a controlled evolution, resp. conscious selection among CroMagnons for the benefit of intelligence, discipline, reserve, corporate feeling, isolationism, endurance. Cro-Magnons in the western Eurasia mated freely with Slavic women and they swamped in Slavic flood. Cro-Magnon tradition is strong in China, because all Chineses call themselves Hans [khans], the Mongol/Tatar word for the kings. Also there is a class of temporary, seasonal workers there, wandering all over the country (especially to the coastal provinces) seeking for job for money or food. They count 100 millions, with their families the same figure and share as in India. 

Latin America
Latin America is much alike as India, but its society is a bit other stratified. In an ideal example (all races and mixed are present), Whites are on the top (they divide themselves into born in Europe and natives), than the mixed (Mestizos, Mulattoes, Zambos), Blacks, and Indians at the bottom. Again, the lowest rank inclines to live in an informal sector (partly exchange in kind). E. g. Indians in Mexico count 30 millions (30 %) and they are gradually (as Whites from the top) included to the so-called Hispanic culture and learn Spanish language. They name themselves Mestizos, but genetically they are full Indians. Such modern society of information as the United States has an semi-informal sector too, composing of illegal immigrants, mainly from the Spanish-speaking south, and could amount to 5 % of total population. According to the Population Reference Bureau there were in 1994 880 000 legal immigrants to the States and 2,5 millions entered them illegaly. Back to the Romans. 

In my opinion the number of the inhabitants of the empire mentioned at the beginning (it was the highest figure I found) is still underestimated. Problem of counting of total population is, that nobody knows how large was the informal sector. At the university I made my diploma work on the topic: Sub-Saharan Africa - Chosen Economic and Social Problems, 1998. It dealt with many problems of development, one of them is already explained factor of multi-sectorality. In the middle of the 1990s the mean share of the informal sectors on the employment on the treated continent was 70 %. Official (low) estimates of total population of the empire in the 2nd century amount to 50 millions. If this is 30 %, the total figure including informal sectors (+ 70 %) amounts to cca 170 millions! In the next century there was a decline of 25 %, that is of cca 40 millions, to 130 millions. Unimaginable numbers. And it proceeded next two centuries (here occurs to me today popular model of one child family, abortions, divorces, rising infertility). We in Europe, in the rush of the 20th century (the beginning of real Armageddon): two world wars, epidemics, revolutions, persecutions of nazism and communism, ecological catastrophes, emmigration to the overseas, have enlarged our numbers in 70 % from cca 450 to 800 millions. Common folk shared on the whole population, both in the empire and the barbary, by 80-90 %, so it easy to count the Slavs in Classical times. 

Slavs are aborigeens of Europe. Partly linguistically, fully genetically and mentally. 

Denationalization of Slavs

Loosing of mother tongue among Slavs had (and has) several aspects. They could (can) be forced to it by threats to their life, economic existence, social status, by education only in the non-Slavic language of istruction etc. It had (has) also an psychological aspect. Young people like new ideas, new "way of life". Important is that it is "modern". Such modern movement was learning the language of ruling classes in the Classical or Medieval times. Imagine, you live in a Slavic village or small town on the lowland between the Elbe River and Hannover. First, the public persons (mayor, notary, priest, doctor) will learn German. They will be billingually, their children will speak only German. Rich inhabitants of the community will add to them, than poorer and at the end the poorest. During 100 to 500 years (it depends on the geography of a village: highlands, lowlands, crossing of communications etc.) there will be only several persons countable on fingers of one hand who could say a dog in Slavic. If someone of the oldmen says a Slavic word in the public he becames an object of ridicule, perhaps by his own grandchildren.

Hungaria
Other example are brutal methods of Magyars (Apponyi`s school laws of total denationalization, kidnapping of children to the south - the Lower Hungaria, shooting of 15 men before the church in Černová in 1907 etc.) to denationalize Slavs (Slovaks) in the Upper Hungaria during the 19th century, especially after the Austro-Hungarian agreement, resp. settlement in 1867, and performed up to the World War I. Some scholars from the West appelled on the west public to stop the barbary (Seton-Watson from Scotland, Björnson from Norway, Denis from France). Also L. N. Tolstoj in Russia protested. Such great men of Magyars as Sándor Petöfi (1823 - 1848) and Lajos Kossuth (1802 - 1894) are of Slovak (Slavic) origin. Petöfi was poet of romanticism, the greatest one among Magyars. His originally name was Petrovič read [petrovich] and his both parents were Slovaks. He grew in Magyar environment, he studied through his youth in several schools, had Magyar and had Slovak fellows according to the seat of a school, came into a contact with Slovak patriots. His parents and he are an example of assimilation of Slovaks of the lowlands in Hungaria. Kossuth was politician of Hungaria, the leader in the revolutionary times of 1848. He originated from a noble family from Turiec, at that time, the county in northern Hungaria. His originally name was Košút read [koshu:t] and his father was Slovak. His brother Juraj (George) was conscious Slovak. He supported democracy for Magyars, not for non-Magyars, especially not for Slovaks. So it was in Germany of the Medieval times, e. g. the wife of Martin Luther, the founder of the reformation movement in the Church, was Slav (Wendin) from eastern Germany, or in Italy of the Classical times.

Justinian I. the Great
Here is concrete person adviced me by one fellow from Slovenia (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1911). It is the most famous of emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantia), Justinian I. the Great. He was born (483) in Tauresium in the district of Dardania (today Macedonia and southern Serbia). His originally name was Uprauda! "Pravda" (Slovak) means the truth. Uprauda means a man who is just, seeks the truth, stands by the law. He was born in 483 about 1200 km south of the Swamps of Pinsk! Justinian was a Roman name, which he took from his uncle Justin I. (he was born as a peasant in Macedonia too), who adopted him, and to whom his advancement in life was due. As still a young man he went to Constantinople ("Car(i)grad" (Bulgarian), i. e. the city or castle of the emperor, caesar), and received there an excellent education. He knew Latin before Greek, and he always spoke Greek with a barbarian (Slavic) accent. When Justin ascended the throne in 518, Justinian became at once a person of the first consequence, receiving high rank and office at his hands, and soon coming to be regarded as his destined successor. On Justin’s death in 527 Justinian succeeded without opposition to the throne. Justinian’s reign was filled with great events, both at home and abroad, both in peace and in war: his legal reforms (Corpus iuris civilis, Codex Justianus), his administration of the empire, his ecclesiastical policy, and his wars and foreign policy generally aimed at the renovation, restoration of the Roman empire (restitutio imperii). His commander, Belisar(ius) won for him several important victories. He was Justinian`s countryman from Macedonia. In 533 Belisar defeated Vandals in northern Africa and destroyed their kingdom, in 536 he conquered Rome from Ostrogoths, four years later he took them Ravenna. Finally, Ostrogoths were erased from history in 552. Belisar is a composite name. "Beli" means in Slavic the white. But I prefer the meaning great, main, someone who is in command, by changing "Beli" to "Veli". Similarly, the city of Beograd (Belehrad in Slovak) in Serbia is "Veograd", in Proto-Slavic "Wełograd", read [vjeuograd], that is great castle, fort or other important point, main fort in commnad (it was Byzantian fort against invasions from the north). In Moravia (Czech Republic) is the settlement "Velehrad" with the same meaning. The second part "sar" is "car(j)" read [tzar(j)] in eastern and south Slavic dialects and means the caesar, emperor. "Belisar" means the great caesar, caesar who is in command. Of course, the emperor was Justinian, but it could be a nickname to describe that Belisar was his right hand, the commander to put through his will in the life. Justinian and Belisar died in the same year, 565. Three Slavs from country in the southern Balkans (at least their mothers and wifes were Slavic), on the halfway between the Cities of Rome and Constantinople. What a career!

Germania
Denationalization of Slavs is a great unjustice in the history. An example, the origin of standard language of today Germany. German language is devided into two large groups, old-upper-German - e. g. Bavaria, Alemania and old-lower-German - e. g. Saxonia, Netherlands (or into three if old-middle-German is counted). The German dialects are much different and not very understanable among until today. In the 15th century (with the beginning of letter-print) begun effort to create one official language spoken all over German countries. It is interesting that the language was evolved in eastern Germany (today Saxonia). One of the  liguistical changes was that German language accepted new consonants typical for Slavic, [sh] and [ch]. It was the influence of Slavs who lived in the area at that time (Milchane, Glomachi etc.). After it, they were all, apart from Lusatia, germanized. German language was influenced by Slavic at least two times, (1) after the comming of German tribes from the East (cca 1000 B. C.) and (2) after the invention of letter-print (1436). In other words, there are in German language two groups of Slavic words from the two periods.

This is a general sign of Indo-European languages. My theory is that they were influenced by Slavic tongue in different historical times. As Slavic developed and as Slavs were disappearing (denationalized) and reappearing (moving >from rural areas to the cities), so developed Indo-European. Old-Anglo-Saxon and old-German are by today English (created by Shacespeare in the 16th century by the method "make it yourself") or German speakers understood as foreign languages. Here, one detects the quality of Slavic. It retains its cohesion (lexic, syntax...) in the space (world) and time (history).

The process of denationalization of Slavs begun propably with the founding of first empires over the known world (Near and Middle East, Egypt, later other northern Africa, southern and western Europe, central Europe, eastern Europe, than New World). I name symbolically several names as Nabuchodonozor (6th century B. C.), Dareios, Alexander, Augustus (the birth of Christ), Mohamed, Samo, Charlemagne, Philip, Elisabeth, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin (the 20th century). The shortened description of denationalization of Slavic ethnicum over the history and space. In Europe this process started propably in Italy after the birth of Christ.

Each of these men, resp. the epoche of these men, brought to the race something good and something bad. E. g. French revolution, as continuing of the edition of the Patent of Tolerance in 1781 by Austrian emperor Joseph II., begun practical and complete slaughter of the feudal, at that time archaic system, but begun to change the society, the country, natural source of Slavic element in the world. So it is with the integration in western and central Europe today, frontiers of all kind are falling, but simultaneously they are falling for all (races) and it rises the tension in the South and East (Islam and Russia). 

Three Branches of Slavs

There are several methods how to divide White race. But one they have common, they count three branches. Politicians, resp. geopoliticians devide the world into seven blocks: China with the surroundings, India with the surroundings, Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, Liberalistic world (600 millions), Islamic world (500 millions) and Slavic world (400 millions); the figures are rough for a comparison. The first four ones represent the core of four races of mankind (two main and two mixed) and the last three represent White race. Also the Roman empire was destroyed by three steps, the western third by Germans, the southern third by Arabs and the eastern third by Turks. There are several groups in White race according to the spoken language: Celts, Greeks, Latins, Germans, Arabs, Turks, Iranians etc. But only one group is devided into three divisions mentioned above, Slavs. According to until today preserved Slavic dialects, they are composed of eastern Slavs (Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Ruthenian), western Slavs (Slovak, Czech, Polish, Kashubian, Sorbian) and southern Slavs (Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian). The frontier between western Slavs and eastern Slavs is also frontier between the western and eastern culture of White race. The frontier between western and eastern, i. e. northern, Slavs and southern Slavs is also frontier between the western and eastern culture on one side and the southern culture of the race on the other side. The genius of the race works. Slovakia is in the middle of these three cultures, resp. in the junction of them. I propose that today western Slavs (60 millions) and southern Slavs (30 millions) are only relics of much larger bases. Eastern Slavs were through the history less touched by civilization.

It is said that Easterners are family-oriented, less disciplined, they incline to be idealistic, they like express their feelings, they seek enjoy and pleasure etc. An example, when you travel for your holiday through Europe, you will see that to the east of Vienna (in Roman times Vindobona, "Vindo" means Venetian, Slavic, "bona" (Latin) means something good, pleasure, nice, but also patriotic) the roadways in the villages are a bit dirty, perforated, there is in the courtyards a bit disorder. To the west of Vienna its vice versa. Different cultures. It is said that Westerners are strong individualists, disciplined, they incline to be materialistic and pragmatic, they hide their feelings, expressions, they seek profit etc. An example, a rank German does not act conscious against the state, as a citizen or an official, things are functioning in a practice. It is said that Southerners are family-oriented, less and more disciplined, religious, they show or hide their feelings and expressions, they seek pleasure and profit, they are less legible. An example, some Arabic traders, politicians trace dark glasses to hide their pupils (of an eye), not to show when it is broadenning (the proof of being suprised). Different culture.

Mechanism
I think, these three cultures are integral parts of the greater White culture, real Slavic in wider sense. Each of three branches has something good to provide it to the others, to be it benefitial for them. Family-orientation is good for the future of the race, upbringing and education of children, protection of women and old people. Individualism is good to seek for new ideas, to make inventions, to advance. The lesser legibility is good for preserving interests of me, family or community. Christ says, be cunning as a snake and mild as a dove. These are the statics, dynamics and flexibility of the same system, the race.

See the folklore on the European continent. Folklore units are separated not by boundaries of nations or states, but they follow geographical characteristics of a landscape and the traces of prehistoric migrations. I name several parts of folklore as clothing, footwear, linens, ceramics, songs, music, dances, oral literature, crafts, buildings, cultural type of country, settlement emblems etc. Clothing: type of male`s shirt, of male`s trousers, of male`s apron, of male`s belt, style of sewing a sleeve on female`s shirt, a cover of woman`s head (virgin, married, widow) etc. Linens: tableclothes, scarfs, type of pattern and color on linen, this folklore is very ancient (circle, square, cross, spiral, vegetable, animal) etc. Ceramics: shapes, type of decoration of utensils etc. Songs, music: types according to topics, metrical system, melodies, musical instruments etc. Oral literature: tales (their structure, styles) etc. Buildings: types according to purpose, layouts of courtyard, fasades of houses, gates, roofs etc. Cultural type of country: style of cultivation of land, type of layout of houses in settlement etc. Emblems: motives - agricultural, wild animals, religious, professional, persons, buildings etc.

These components of folklore devide the continent into areas, belts, islands, offshoots embrancing several states or several villages. For example such parts of oral literature as tales. According to the investigations in the end of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, tales in Slovakia were more archaic, they were more fantastic, had a three-gradation of the action. In Bohemia, tales were more realistic, adventurous, had comic components. It was caused not by it that Slovaks were Slovaks and Czechs were Czechs, but it was a part of the continental development from the west to the east, >from fantastics to realistics of spoken stories (today action or commedy films of Hollywood are an extreme of this development). Slovakia was connected to Ukraine, Russia; Bohemia to Poland, Austria, Germany. But Slovak tales had also long prefaces and conclusions, many ornaments. This is connection to the south, the Balkans and through it to Turkey, Arabian and Iranian countries. Yet one example, folk music, the usage of the metrical system. In the west (to the west of the River of Morava) it is used the three-time system, in the east two-time system, in the Balkan Peninsula it continues to the asymetric system. Music bands, associations. In the Carpathian Mountaines and related territories: eastern Moravia, Slovakia, Hungary, southern Poland (country of Podhale), western Ukraine, Romania, the bearers of dance music are bands composed of stringed instruments. In the west, Austria, Slovenia, western Moravia, Bohemia, Germany, Poland, Switzerland, northern Italy (but south-western Slovakia too), the bearers of dance music are bands composed of the brasses. Beginning from southern Hungary to the Balkans, the bearers of dance music are bands composed of the tamburas. Tambura is stringed strumming instrument (akin to a guitar). I personally like bands playing on stringed instruments, it it not because they are better or more Slavic, but they are closer to my mentality, my appetite.

Local, national, transnational
There is not national folk culture. There is national culture and folk culture. National can be the hockey team which won the olympic tournament in Sapporo (1998) for Czechs. Folk culture is in its merit local culture, it is bound to the community. From the second end,  transnational can be Jan Amos Komenský (teacher of nations) for a branch or all the race. Gothic, renascence, baroque, classicism, romanticism, realism, impressionism, naturalism, symbolism... - I would say turning of sides of one coin: idealism and materialism - did not know national frontiers. According to one ethnographer, from Šariš [sharish], the country in eastern Slovakia, you took place (short after the World War II) on a wedding in one village, than you went to the next village, behind the brook or meadow, for another wedding, and you experienced considerable different customs. There is a great potencial in modern information technologies in preserving and management of local cultures. Unity in diversity.

World from Slavic View

Slavic thinking is embracing all humanity. It does not mean that races should mix. It means that each race has to live in its homelands created through the history and they should communicate among themselves, to know themselves. Who knows, do not fears. The truth makes you free. Ask the Christian missionaries of Slavic origin in today world (e. g. cardinal Jozef Tomko, the chair of Congregation for the evangelization of peoples, by the Holy See, who is Slovak), they will explain it to you with pleasure. 

Slavs are not good nor bad. They are simply as they are. And you will like it, dislike it or you take no attention to it. Slavs have both, it could be said positive and negative qualities. Take a short penetration into some aspects of Slavic nature. Habit is as a stone, first it is a corner stone, than it is a stone hindering in way.

Family
Slavs have strong common feeling, within families (in the east and south) and within communities of any kind (in the west too). Slavs on the Peninsula of Balkan had through the ages created special institution, called "zadruga" and retained it until the 19th century. It was a commune of people connected through blood, they were relatives. Their life was common, economic, social, cultural. It was strengthened by an official law too. The members had some personal rights restricted, e .g. restricted ownership, heritage, and at the same time they had special protection within the community, e. g. from economic disaster. But if they wanted, they could quit the commune and found new zadruga or live we say today as a physical person of civil code. He had than the right on a part of the property of zadruga. They had this possibility of life, but it was not obligate. Slavs are democratic, not dogmatic. So it was with the method of determination of a leader. Somewhere he was elected by all adult members of zadruga, somewhere he was nominated by elders. In Russia, Slavs used more authocratic method, the leadership was simply inherited from father to the oldest son and so on. You could choose.

Big and Great Men
Slavs have also other quality. They like to show their wealth, their metals and diploms, tittles, their daughters, they like gaining honours, they like fests and celebrations. After the fall of the empire in the west begun a chaos. Eastern part of the empire (Byzantia) had a lot to do to retain the civilization. There are many interesting notions of Byzantine scriptors about one Slavic quality, the disunity. Number of interests and impacts even on a small territory (as  the present political scene in Slovakia). They used for the leaders in Slavic communities terminus technicus: "big men" and "great men". Big men were big, resp. respected, honoured, because of their wealth, office, contacts to Romans (Byzantines) etc. The bosses. The enemity among them was frequent, so killings of big men were usual during fests. Great men were great, because they gained honour by some act, e. g. in warfare or in arts. If he was vistoriuous the local folk was with him (because of booty). If he was defeated he fell among average to be forgotten (if he was poor, had not a relative among big men). Byzantines skilfully used this quality to rule over Slavs on the Peninsula of Balkan and in Asia Minor (Slavs fought there as mercenaries one time on the side of Byzantines, another time on the side of Arabs, or rebelled from time to time as the uprising of Thomas the Slav in 821-823 A. D. in western part of Asia Minor).

Greeks or Romans called common people barbarians, the men with a beard. But it could also mean people without the faith, compare to Arab term for highlanders in the Atlas Mountaines - Berbers, with the same meaning. Slavs were for Greeks, Romans the race without a faith (into pagan gods). E. g. Socrates, one of the greatest philosophers, who lived in Athens. A. Horák deciphers his name as Slavic, from "škrata, škriatok" (Slovak) read [shkrata, shkriatok] meaning the ugly man, resp. the smallish man, dwarf, and it was his accurately appearance. He had opinions and ideas which were uncomfortable for the elites. In Athens the democracy for excluded for the chosen (aristrotacy, rich men and free men). People were equal and some were more equal. The real might was in the hands of the oligarchy. He did not recognized gods recognized by the state. Finally, he was judged by the authorities and sentenced to the death. He trunk the glass with a poison (399 B. C.). Jesus Christ made a great damage to CroMagnon ideologists: not sacrifices, alive (food, animals, men) or non-alive (gold, gems, ivory), but the law written into human hearts.

Conceptions of the Race

Past and today conceptions of White race, i. e. alternatives of its future:

Aryans
Japhet. First bread and salt. Than women and gold. Curse is the word.

Communism
No God but rod. No ghost but rust. Add to our trust.

Islam
Seven hills. Seven valleys. Seven rivers. Man is seeking a lost one third. It is misty.

Judaism
Askenez. Not sword, but money and word. Dual code.

Liberalism
Social to myself. Hostile to the environment. Many hands, many wings, many children, and many names. The number is the same.

Masonry
The eye. Rank, rank and ranks. Republic or monarchy, monarchy or republic. Other circles.

Nationalism
Peace and war. Pros and cons of peace. Pros and cons of war. Way of opening the door.
 
Nazism
All for the race. Our race. All for the cross. Our cross. Total victory or die Götterdämmerung.

Paganism
Sun, moon and stars. Rise your price. Above us, for us and in us. 

Papacy
I ride the empire. One empire. I ride the lands. Three lands. I ride the souls. All souls. Yet two.

I think each of the conceptions was somehow useful in the history of the race, some were contradictory and some strengthened efects one another, were combined in the implementation. It is like a competition. One conception regards persons and events of its own as postitive, of an other conception as negative or tries to appropriate them. The conceptions create externatilies. Industry damages the natural environment, because no human advanced producing process is without waste. Industrial technologies change the social environment, produce noise, isolation of people... So it is needed to pay increased costs due to the conceptions, I tried to describe in cryptograms above. 

Slavs do not need to be teached what is the marriage. There was not invented better mode for social life as family and marriage. Monogamic marriage. It is the fastest tool to enlarge numbers. Slavs do not need to be teached what is the democracy, see the decodig of the word in the chapter on the Slavs and Indo-Europeans (self-government). It was their style of life from the very beginnings of their race. If you want to be single, be sigle, if you want to marriage, marriage, if you want to be priest, be priest. Freedom measured by responsibility. 

White Nationalism
For example the movement of White nationalism in northern America. White nationalists study the reality, they collect data, analyse them, create messages and try to publish them. Their situation is very similar to that one in the Roman empire, cosmopolitan cities and, except of the south and south-west, White country. They can thank their elites, WASPs - White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The first step was the approval of the Immigration Act by Congress in 1965, in the times of cultural revolution. The act was signed by President Lyndon Johnson. It eliminated the "national origins" principle that was in favour of Europeans since 1924. It was reinforced in 1986 by Immigration Reform and Control Act (iniciative of President Jimmy Carter), because it brought more chaos and unclearness to the practice (formal, not real control).  President George Bush signed in 1990 Immigration Act raising the amount of legal immigrants. 

Trade with slaves was always good one, higly profitous. So for traders with slaves from the 17th century onward in the American colonies. The article were Black slaves and ... White slaves! The Anglo-Saxon establishment created the misnomer of indentured servitude to minimize the fact of White slavery. In reallity 9/10s of White slaves were under the so-called custom of the country, that is slaves merchant. These White slaves were slaves for life, and the slavery was hereditary to their born children. Whole families were auctioned and sold, children were separated from their parents, wifes from their husbands. Other possibility how to gain White slaves was kidnapping children on the streets of cities of England (the word "kidnap" is from "kid-nab" an means to steal children). White slaves transported overseas suffered big losses of life, often of 50 %! In average it was a loss of 25 % through the 18th century, compared to 10-20 % lossses for Black slaves. Some comments collected by M. A. Hoffman on the topic: (1) "The human cargo, many of whom were still tormented by unhealed wounds, could not all lie down at once without lying on each other. They were never suffered to go on deck. The hatchway was constantly watched by sentinels armed with hangers and blunder busses. In the dungeons below all was darkness, stench, lamentation, disease and death." (2) "An average cargo was three hundred, but the shipmaster, for greater profit, would sometimes crowd as many as six hundred into a small vessel ... Mittelberger (an eyewitness) says he saw thirty-two children thrown into the ocean during one voyage". The Slavs I am speaking and writing all the time about. 

It is good, when the aims of the ruling class and common folk are the same, both will profit. It is bad, when the aims of the ruling class and common folk are different, only the former will profit. The attitude of the majority of elites is pragmatic. Come down from Aryan highs to Slavic ground. Present times require a bit more, >from each individual. The requirements of physical and spiritual renovation, restoration of Slavs. Tonny Blair is a good pupil, in one European conference or symposium or summit he said (2001): "The future of Britain lies in the heart of Europe"; have I to understand it in Slavic Europe? Thanks, Tonny. Restructuring and consolidation of the race.

Future
You ask if I know Slavs speaking such languages as Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian... I thank God that Slavic speech was preserved on such a waste area until today. God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Advisor and Actor. The Strenuous and Zealous. God who gives the glory to the victors and honour or shame to the defeated. Try to use what do you have, resp. what was established: the European Union (the European Parliament) or other unions of states. Will these entities desappear? The life and the race continues. It is a question of management and SWOT analysis. Aims, procedures and tools. What would be your attitude to the environment and the history, if you lived in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th century A. D.? Let the manager manage and let the tool serve.

Solidarity of a practical life. Take the example of St. Augustinus, the Church Father, the author of the title "God`s community", who lived in the 5th century A. D. There was a great famine in the provinces of northern Africa. Short after it there were made on the continent public collections of food, clothes, money to help their brothers and sisters (we can say fellow-citizens) in a lack. Buddha says, if you strech the string too little you can not play, if you strech the string too much you crack it. Nostradamus says, to be warned means to be armed in advance. St. Columba says, there will be no the end of the world, until Iona (the island of Hebrides near north-western coast of Scotland) will be as once it was. St. Giovani (John) Bosco says, today it is not enough to pray, it is needed to combine it with an activity. You can invest in Ukraine, or Russia, in Canada, or the United States. Who fights, lives. King can slip too. But who knows the future, it is enough to him to be a castle pawn. Elephant makes a damage as elephant, mouse makes a damage as mouse and fly makes a damage as fly. Whore, hills and islands, false prophet. Great city and Gog. End of times. Space. End.

It is unbelievable that all I mentioned in the previous chapters, is summarized in one poem from Pavol Orságh Hviezdoslav, one of the greatest Slavic poets (by civil profession a lawyer). I have to describe one story from his life (1849-1921). He was the native of Orava, typical country west of the High Tatra Mountaines, in northern Slovakia. Once he recited his poems in a public meeting, where he invited his mother. He read in Magyar language. His mother quietly cried. At that moment Pavol Orságh understood, at this moment his transformation begun, to write in mother tongue - Slovak. He added to him the name Hviezdoslav, translated word by word as Star-Slav. The name of the poem is "Som Slovan" (I am the Slav).

Som Slovan!

Riecť mám, kto som? Či svetlom a či stínom, 
bo iné vám nič jasna nepodá? 
Ó, slepci ! Veď na oceáne sinom 
sme predsa nie, kde voda a voda 
len jednofarbá. Nuž, keď chcete: synom 
som najväčšieho v svete národa! 
Či k poznaniu už dosť? Vraj známok chcete
viac ešte, bo že mnohý obor v svete ? 
Odhalím ich, lež či im srozumiete!? 
Keď Boh chcel stvoriť svet, tu slovo, slovo
len bolo, všemoc ktoré snieslo v smes. 
A pred mžikom kde všetko nehotovo 
a mŕtvo: už sa hýba skrz a cez -
tu hustne noc, tam kmitá naružovo - 
hľa, slnce, hviezdy, zem, huk mora, les - 
konečne človek, ha! -Nuž slovo slova
či dostačí vám, čo vás chaos chová? 
Som Slovan, Slovan! - Či to pečať nová?
Deň kráľom je, noc družkou jeho iste. 
Dňa kráľa trónmi dvojsté zore sú. 
Opustil prestol ranný koruniste 
a kráča ríšou v každom okresu, 
navštíviac svojeť: háj, kvet, vody čisté -
Jak Prešiel. anjeli tu vynesú 
hneď diadém a v čelo složia noci: 
že moc sa strieda v sláve, sláva v moci ... 
Som Slovan! - Nuž jak príklad dňa a noci? 
Som Slovan-Slavian! Čujte, vedzte teda, 
keď nevidíte známky na čele! 
Tak myslím, meno to sa zmýliť nedá, 
jak v týždni nie deň svätej nedele. 
To názov, nie jak dáka páska bledá, 
to písmená - složené umele 
v skvost plný jasu, v trblietavé pruhy! 
Snáď oslepil vás toten jagot tuhý? - 
Som Slovan! Či to nie pás mena z dúhy!? 
No, závidíte iste moje meno, 
keď zhíkli ste a jak list osiky 
sa chviete túhou, vám by privlastneno. - 
Ej, nedám, lebo to dar veliký, 
dar už pri krste, amulet i veno, 
tie písmená - to k sláve rebríky! 
Hej, závidíte česť tú, slávu mnohú,
päsť zatínate a spierate nohu - 
Som Slovan! - Sláva na výsostiach Bohu! 
Nie pýcha, spupnosťe zo mňa hovorí, 
nií streštenosť, ni hravá výtržnosť: 
keď poviem: ja som kvapkou v jednom mori
keď poviem: ja som obra drobná kosť
keď poviem: ja som vetva pra-prahory
a jednej hviezdky v nebi kmitavosť - 
nie, chvast to nenie, duch sa nepechorí: 
že toľko nás, jak všetky anjel-sbory ... 
Som Slovan! - Závisť, nie,vás skôr strach morí
Ľakáte sa, viem, toho obra: preto 
zachvenie vaše jeho pred menom! 
Váš srd sa uhol, ako byľky tieto 
pod vánku krídlom, nôžkou, kolenom. 
Strach na čelo vám dýcha znojné leto: 
že ak sa na vás zvalí tento dom, 
strach, hrôza, žasnutie - ó, vidím, slyším, 
bo z neho blas: ja toto telo vzkríšim: 
Som Slovan! - či sa píšim, či nepýšim. 
Vy škrípate zubami, na rtoch peny, 
žlč v oku, čelo vaše sberá jed, 
ste bez seba, ste víchrom rozježení, 
ste nedotknutí, vzácni ani vred: 
že prečo obor ten tak nezmožený 
a Dávid chlapec prečo nejde hneď 
so svojou zbrojou ...? Ja vám šepnem čosi: 
niet kuše, pušky, dela, smrti kosy - 
Som Slovan! -Briliant: meno, kto ho nosí!
Bojíte sa, bo mnoho na rováši: 
bo nejedného v kríž ste pribili, 
po stepách duše chvatní jak na paši - 
a mnoho halúz v lup ste zlomili ... 
Nuž svedomia had obrovský vás plaší, 
že do vlastnej vás smietne mobyly!? 
Strach márny! Pomsta Bohu - nech ju koná! 
Len dobrých darov môž' dať Slovan v odplat z lona, 
nič nemá z vás - tak preč od hradieb Iliona! 
Len krok čo zrobil obor: pŕchli myši - 
hja, strach je strach! Hoho, no, vráťte sa, 
lež držte sa, jak sluší v obra ríši. 
Tak ako nezrútite nebesá: 
i jeho hlava večne vzpätá k výši - 
Keď úctiví vy, ni on nehne sa! - 
Som Slovan! Čujte, jak to meno zvolám: 
hneď tleskot ozonný; je milé nielen holiam 
tým, lež i výšam nebies, morským jak podmoliam ! 

Pavol Orságh Hviezdoslav (1883)

Sources

* Antonín Horák: O Slovanech ůplně jinak (Co nebylo o Slovanech dosud známo 1970 - 1990), Vizovice, Lípa 1991 (About Slavs Totally Otherwise. What was not known until today about Slavs 1970 - 1990)
* Ján Stanislav: Slovenský juh v stredoveku I., Bratislava, Národné literárne centrum 1999 (reedícia z 1943) (Slovak South in the Middle Ages I)
* Pavol Mačala: Etnogenéza Slovanov v archeológii, Košice, Slovo 1995 (Etnogenesis of Slavs in Archeology)
* Miloš Drastich: (Slo)Wáni z tieňa? (Expedícia do minulosti II), Ružomberok, Epos 2000 (Slavs from the Shadow. Expedition to the Past II)
* Blahoslav Balcar: Tajemství potopy, Praha, Nový život 1991 (Secret of the Flood)
* Jozef Vavrovič: Ján Palárik (Jeho ekumenizmus a panslavizmus), Martin, Matica slovenská 1993 (Ján Palárik. His Ecumenism and Panslavism)
* Kol. autorov SAV: Slovensko (Európske kontexty ľudovej kultúry), Bratislava, VEDA 2000
(Slovakia. European Context of Folk Culture) 
* Ján Steinhübel: Veľkomoravské územie v severovýchodnom Zadunajsku, Bratislava, VEDA 1995 (Great Moravian Territory in the North-Eastern Pannonia)
* Dominik Hudec: Veľký omyl - Veľká Morava, Martin, Neografia 1994 (Great Mistake - Great Moravia)
* Štefan Šmálik: Boží ľud na cestách, Bratislava, LÚČ 1997 (God`s People on the Ways)
* Leoš Šatava: Národnostní menšiny v Evropě, Praha, Ivo Železný 1994 (National Minorities in Europe)
* Augustín Marko, Pavol Martinický: Slovensko-maďarské vzťahy (História a súčasnosť vo faktoch), Bratislava, Signum 1995 (Slovak-Hungarian relations. History and Present in the Facts.)
* Harald Steffahn: Hitler, Olomouc, Votobia 1996
* André Boutet: Napoleon, Žilina, Knižné centrum 1999
* Richard Marsina a kol.: Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov (Územie Slovenska pred príchodom Slovanov, I. zväzok), Bratislava, Národné literárne centrum 1998 (Historical Sources to Slovakia and Slovaks, I. Volume)
* Dušan Čaplovič: Včasnostredoveké osídlenie Slovenska, Bratislava, AEP 1998 (Early-Medieval Habitations in Slovakia)
* Fred P. Miller: The Revelation of St. John (A Panorama of the Gospel Age), Moellerhaus Publisher 1999
* Ján Paulíny: Arabské správy o Slovanoch (9. - 12. storočie), Bratislava, VEDA 1999 (Arabic Messages about Slavs, 9. - 12. century)
* Roman Zaroff: Germanization of the Land between the Elbe-Saale and the Oder Rivers (Colonisation or Assimilation?), 1995
* Sir Arthur Keith: Evolution and Ethics, New York, G. P. Putnam`s Sons 1947
* Vladimír Kubišta a kol.: Fakty o druhej svetovej vojne, Bratislava, SZPB 1974 (Facts about the World War II)
* Carleton Stevens Coon: The Races of Europe, New York, The Macmillan Company 1939
* Madison Grant: The Passing of the Great Race, New York, Charles Scribner`s Sons 1916
* Vladimír Mináč: Odkiaľ a kam Slováci?, Bratislava, Remedium 1993 (From Where and Where Slovaks?)
* Jan Tesař: Sme autentickí dedičia, Bratislava, Stála konferencia slovenskej inteligencie SLOVAKIA PLUS 1995 (We are the Veritable Heirs)
* Bořek Hnízdo: Mezinárodní perspektivy politických regionů, Praha, Institut pro stredoevropskou kultúru a politiku 1995 (International Perspectives of Political Regions)
* Viktor Krupa, Jozef Genzor: Jazyky sveta (V priestore a čase), Bratislava, VEDA 1996 (Languages of the World. In the Space and Time)
* Lothrop Stoddard: The Rising Tide of Color, New York 1922
* Lars Beckman: A Contribution to the Physical Anthropology and Population Genetics of Sweden (The World Distribution of Human AB0 Blood Types by Peoples), Lund 1959

and other book publications, articles, statistics, internet sources and mainly maps, which provide number of comparements in the space and time. From different areas: history, archeology, anthropology, geografy, etnografy, filology, psychology, geopolitics, politics and others. Some publications contradict themselves, they have different conslusions. I say it to prove I know many opinions on the topic from various sources (Anglosaxon, German, Central European, Russian literature). Perhaps is the truth about Slavs simple, but the way to it is large-scale and complex.