The Russia Europe Paradox.

Why Russia is NOT “in Europe” 

Background to, and History of, the subject “Europe, Russia, and what is their relationship to each other”.  

A growing source of argument across disciplines ranging from land form studies [Geography], History, social anthropology and international politics has been growing in the so-called “West”, i.e. those nations of the Anglo-Euro Sphere Empire, regarding how to label, name, recognise and refer to the sprawling, dominant, Northern Continental Land Mass, and the nations which have resided on it for the past few thousands of years.  

Much misunderstanding and disagreement clearly exists, from how to define a continent, how to name one, the extent to which the subjective “interpretations” can subsume the simple objective facts.  Lately, that has been a growing trend, as one can see from the many cases of  “this writer goes with the such and such view”  “it seems to me that the better view might be……” and the cherry picking, where it’s considered acceptable to see the Ural Mountains of Russia as a division point, making Russia into 2 continents, yet not to see the much more massive Himalayan Mountains in the same way; in spite of their presence, India is not seen as a separate continent.  

There is only one way to resolve this mess of subjective opinions, views, arguments, and that is to search for what is objective, measurable data-based, and ignore everything else.  

It is this writers contention that the concept “Continent” does carry a scientific, measurable definition; that within this definition Europe is NOT a continent, that Russia is the major, biggest nation on the biggest continental Land Mass on earth; that the names given that are based on opinions and perceptions are dangerous, misleading and open to being used dangerously to twist minds and perceptions to fit a dominant and very aggressive agenda.  

The following is written to give support for this assertion.  

Known Continents.  

It has been widely and strongly promoted across the AngloEuro Sphere, that there is a “continent” called Europe, which extends from the Atlantic Spanish Coast to the Ural Mountains of Russia, cutting Russia in half.  This is taught in schools across the West, from True Europe to America and the Anglo Sphere including the Andean Nations, in geography classes and textbooks, where this highly subjective, contentious issue is presented as solid, objective, geographical fact. 

The borders of True Continents are not open to dispute, for the simple reason that they were named for their geographical features on discovery; at this time the Land Mass some are calling “Eurasia”, which should more objectively be named as the Northern Continental Land Mass [or similar], was “the World”. 

For millennia it was all the people who inhabited it knew. Therefore, it didn’t have a formal name: Africa had been discovered by the Egyptians, who named it for the negro people south of the Sahara, called by themselves the Afris.  

The Andean Continent, was named for its range of mountains before its acquisitive and grasping northern neighbour re-named it as part of an act of conquest; the northern continent lying between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, stretching South to the swamps of the Caribbean lands, North to the edge of the North Polar region, is now named for a supposed explorer – Amerigo - who found it before it was lost : it was home to about 80 million people at that time. However, it was renamed by the invading conquerors the American Continent, although it houses two nations, America and Canada.  

Australia was named for the South of the globe where it is located [austral = southern]. These are all objective names, based on land forms, coastlines [related to the Continental Plates] and measurable data [latitude and longitude for example] not open to subjective interpretations, emotional baggage, or subversive influences. They also have finite, geographical limits - the coastline of the continent, and the Continental Plate they sit on.  

However, when we come to the largest Continental Land Mass of all, where human have lived since recorded history, things are a little different. 

The Land Mass was never recognised as such. It has no objective, Geographical name.  Consequently, it has become open to being labelled by political and subjective criteria, rather than objective Geographical data. 

If we are to be objective and eschew emotional baggage and political claiming, we need to give it a name reflective of its geography. It is certainly a Northern land rather than of either the West or the East. It certainly fits the definition of a Continent [see below], and it is a Land Mass, by definition again.  Such a title better fits it than anything on offer right now. Most of all there is reason {detailed in another article}, for rejecting use of its current title “Eurasia”.  

Where did the concept of “Europe” come from? 

There's a vague mixture here of geology/ geography [a scientific objective study of land forms], nations, [a sociological grouping of people], politics [the ruling of nations] and concepts; those abstractions we use to identify everything concrete which we deal with, specifically in this case the identity of peoples and an ideology - not known in the West, nor probably by the vast majority of Russians. 

The concretes claimed are continents and peoples.  So, we are going to have to ask “What and where is Europe? and what is a continent? 

When we try to define what it means to think of “Europe” one thing we must keep very clearly in mind: these are Anglo words. They are derived from Greek and the English – and they play into English speaking minds – even those people of the minor “sub-Continent” - France, Germany, Italy, Spain and its smaller nations.  

But first – a definition. 

What is “arbitrary?” 

We need very much at this point to make clear regarding what it is that constitutes “arbitrary”.  The definition is thus given that it is something “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system”. That is, something based on a subjective individual choice as opposed to an objective, dispassionate one.  

It is also used to describe the behaviours of a power, or a ruling body, which is unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.   

Synonyms in online dictionaries give the alternative words used as part of the understanding of what is "arbitrary" : autocratic; dictatorial; undemocratic; despotic; tyrannical; authoritarian; capricious; whimsical. 

The manner of the decisions regarding the supposed identification of what constitutes “Europe” can be seen to be exactly that – Arbitrary; made by so-called “intellectuals”, geographers, academics, philosophers both amateur and academic, politicians and rulers. And done out of the pursuit of the implementation of a personally held ideology, or for some form of self-advancement. It also needs to be noted, that that which is arbitrary is subjective; it is based on a whim, wish, desire and viewpoint of one or few individuals. The objective data which over rule the subjective are ignored.  

The wishes and wellbeing of the Russian people are, very clearly, last in the minds of those who have devised this system. 

  

Europe – Where and What is it? 

As Frank Jacobs in “Where is Europe” states “Where is Europe? You might as well ask: What is Europe? For it is a concept as well as {part of a} continent, and the borders of both oscillate wildly. For the ancient Persians, it was that small stepping stone separating them from Greece. In the Middle Ages, it became virtually synonymous with Christendom. A relatively recent and generally unaccepted theory sees Europe spanning half the globe, from Iceland to the Bering Strait, nearly touching the so-called “Far East of the Oriental nations”. 

“Europe” the name comes from an old Greek myth of Gods and from two words meaning “broad” and “face” which was considered beautiful. This was the name given to Europa, the Goddess Zeus stole from Phoenicia.  It was seen originally as the passageway from Turkey across to the Greek mainland only. From Homer we get “Europa” referring to that region: It wasn't until 1730 that the name was officially given to the sub-continent. 

However, these ancient myths not only gave rise to a name but a concept. Ancient Greece has long been stated quite flatly to be the birthplace of modern civilisation [forgetting that most of what the ancient Greeks had they got from Dynastic Egypt!!].  From this was born the European Paradigm. This is the belief held by many that Europe itself is “special” - the Father of all modern “First World” nations because of that long-ago Greek civilisation and the Roman one which followed on.  It is because of this Paradigm – accepted by force of habit – that the collection of small nations which are held to comprise “Europe” are also accepted as being one of “the 7 continents of the world” in spite of the fact that it fits the definition of a continent in no way.  

In fact, it commits the fallacy of Reification pretty well. This is defined as the mistake of treating an abstraction, i.e. a belief or an arbitrary hypothetical construct, as if it were a concrete, real event of a physical entity. 

What is a continent?  

The definition given almost everywhere is “any of the world's main continuous expanses of land (Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, South America).”  

Take a look at that descriptor and see if anything stands out for you.  A continuous expanse – Africa, Asia, the Americas, Antartica, Australia – yes.  They are large in area, and are continuous yet limited – they have geographical boundaries, predominantly the coastline onto the oceans that border and contain them.   

But Europe – is very small.  It is NOT a “continuous land mass” 

Let’s look at what both the National Geographic and Wikipedia give us [Note these are American based publications]. 

1 “Asia”: 17+ million square miles [Defined by America as all the Oriental nations, the Russian Near Abroad, India and Russia] 

1. Africa: 11.6 mill sq. mls. 

2. 3. North America 9.3 mill.sq.mls [Includes Canada, Greenland, Mexico and Central America and Caribbean countries. ]  

3. South America 6.8 million square miles 

4. Antarctica. 5.5 million square miles 

5. Europe 3.9 million square mils. 

6. Australia 2.96. million square miles  See?  No Russia. However, on the maps these sources provide, the nation of Russia is listed as Asia from the Pacific coast to the Ural Mountains, and Europe from there.  However, this is a “Europe” greatly expanded since the onset of the EU, and NATO.  If we look at the “core countries” of those included as Europe from the 1700's, of Germany, France, Austria, Poland, Italy, Greece, Denmark + Netherlands, Switzerland and Spain, then Europe covers only 828.3 thousand Square miles.   However, Russia covers 6.6 mill. square miles. . Yet “Europe” gets to be a continent, and Russia doesn't rate a mention??   Ecuador kindly tells me that “Russia is in Europe”.  Rather like telling me a pint of tea is in a 100ml teacup, isn’t it?   In point of fact, a continent is a geographical term, and the few countries which form the original Europe do not fit any part of it.  If you take a look at a map after freeing your mind of your perceptions of Europe as the centre of all Modern civilised life, we see a huge land mass which extends from the Pacific Ocean bordering the Far Eastern Oriental countries of China, Korea,  Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia et al, to the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Finland.  From "The World Map" the area of nations in square miles is ranked, and we see that -  

	Russia	17,098,242
	Canada	9,984,670
	United States	9,826,675
	China	9,596,960
	Brazil	8,514,877
	Australia	7,741,220
	India	3,287,263
	France, at no 43 in size ranking is 643,801 - the biggest of all the European countries.

Clearly, the dominant nation is Russia.  How is it that the tiddly little Atlantic spur gets to name this massive land mass, with which the nations of Europe have little to do, but the massive nation of Russia which has so much in common with all but the oriental or European nations, doesn't get a mention?  Could anything be more absurd??   

 How could this happen?  Two ways. One was the acceptance of the European Paradigm, the other the belief fostered and still held today, of Russia as “not really “us” - not like us, not our kind of people”.  

As Frank Jacobs writes in his excellent “Where is Europe? 

“The northern border with Asia posed a different problem for geographers because, as knowledge of and self-consciousness in that part {of the world} increased, it turned out that “Europe” was not connected to Asia via a narrow isthmus, {as had been thought by the Greeks} but rather via the widening expanse of Russia. The problem being that any definition of Europe will divide Russia in two. The question is thus: How much of Russia is European? Or, even: How European is Russia? 

As seen from the west, the earliest answer always seemed to be, not much, or not at all. The French minister Sully (1560-1641), when dreaming up his “Grand Design “for a “Very Christian Council of Europe,” objected to Russia’s inclusion in his scheme saying: “[T]here scarce remains any conformity among us with them; besides they belong to Asia as much as to Europe. We may indeed almost consider them as a barbarous country, and place them in the same class with Turkey.” 

Sully’s opinion sounds awfully modern. For centuries, the urge was to include Moscow and its lands within the European continent, even though doing so made for some rather arbitrary {sic} distinctions. In the Renaissance, geographers solved the problem of Europe’s eastern border by being creative: Ortelius, in his “Theatrum Orbis Terrarum” (1570), started from the ancient border, the river Don, then drawing a straight line north towards the White Sea, near the city of Archangel. 

By the end of the 17th century, the eastern border of Europe had shifted, following the courses of the rivers Don, Volga and Kama, and then leaping in a straight line across the northern Ural Mountains to join the river Ob north into the Arctic Ocean. 

This border, championed by the geographer Philipp Clüver, made the Gulf of Ob, at 600 miles the world’s longest estuary, the border between Europe and Asia. Had this extension of Europe east of the Urals persisted, the northernmost part of Europe would now be the tip of the Yamal Peninsula, poking 400 miles into the Arctic and home to Russia’s largest remaining reindeer herds (and largest remaining natural gas reserves).” 

In fact, readings continually show Europeans seeing themselves and Europe as the special, civilised, advanced entity, and Russia as being of dubious sufficiently advanced peoples, akin to what some have called “white African savages”. [See Laurens van der Post “Journey into Russia”] 

What is very clear is that [a] the inclusion of a part of Russia as “Europe” is arbitrary, [note the definition of this word] opinionated, ideological, driven by European intellectuals. 

 And, more pragmatically, [b] at first the border was held to be to the near side of the Urals Range, until they discovered that these hills are highly minerals rich, especially holding the best diamonds in Russia, and so the border was shifted to the far side.  

This article from the magazine “counter-culture” by Andrew Hamilton [https://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/europes-continental-boundaries/] gives a fairly good summary. 

“It was in 1730 that the modern version of a European – Asian border was first coined by the Swedish army office and scholar of German descent, Philip Johan von Strahlenburg – [1676 – 1747]. In his book “The North and East of Europe” [Stockholm 1730], which was translated from Swedish into English, French, and Spanish [Please note – not Russian. They weren’t thought sufficiently important to be told the plans for the division of their land]. 

Strahlenburgs’ border followed the Ural Mountains North to South, and then further south along the Emba River to the Black Sea. This boundary cuts Russia into two – called by Strahlenbergs successors “European Russia” and “Asian Russia”. The Western part is the major portion of Continental Europe, and home to more than 75% of the Russian population, her industry and agriculture [thus demonstrating why Europeans are so keen to claim only this part. It should be noted that at first, they put the boundary on the Western rampart of the Urals, until its vast mineral riches and diamonds were discovered when they moved the “border” to the Eastern side.] 

South of the Urals the “border” becomes more contentious, with a variety of claims for its marker; the Volga River, the Emba River and the Russian Kazakhstan border being the most favoured”. 

Writers differ – again demonstrating how subjective, non-scientific and non-objective this exercise is [This article states “this writer opts for the Russian – Kazakhstan border”]. Note, None of the other, true Continents has this subjective, variable idea of what is its border.  

However, the context of when this book was published and its contents strongly supported needs examination.  In 1707 – 1709 Sweden invaded Russia and fought for subjection of the land. It was defeated; although by aligning with Turkey’s Ottoman Empire, it remained a threat to Russia for a few years to come. Thus, it was in this atmosphere of antipathy to Russia when a Swedish Army Officer wrote a book stating that [a] there was an entity called Europe, which encompassed all the nations of the Atlantic Spur plus Sweden, and [b] The Western third of Russia was a part of it. Russia was not informed of this, the translations provided by the publishers were not in Russian, only major European languages!!  

Regarding the “opinions” of where the so-called “border” south of the Urals lies, it should be noted that there are no such subjective opinions re True Continents, with writers opting for a variety of borders of the continents. The borders of Africa, Australia, the Andean Continent, even the small Island of Greater Britain, are fixed by their coast line and undersea platforms, and that is that. 

The idea of forming an abstraction called Europe and another called Asia, and trying to fit Russia in has been originated and driven by Anglo Empire Westerners, but sadly there has been a cachet of Russians who have bought into the argument, themselves trying to decide “where is the border between Europe and Asia” in their own country, and never seeing that by doing this, they are dividing their country up, which attacks her greatest strength. 

The argument continues to this day among a few Russian geographers, who base their view largely on the innovations of Peter the Great and his move to modernise Russia by copying European practises. What they, then and now, could not see, is that throughout History, subject nations copy the artefacts of the dominant Nation / Empire. Just as Britain copied the Roman Occupation in building aqueducts, tiled homes, bathrooms, Peter copied Europe in dragging Russia out of the Medieval Ages. But these things don’t make Britain Roman, nor Russia European.  

However, the grounding for the argument was based on an older view of what was “Europe”. It stayed very much an abstraction until in 1928, Count Coudenhove-Kalergi proposed his “pan-Europeanism” which formed the basis for Modern Europe.  

The following excerpt from Wikipedia gives a good quick summary of this event: 

“ (Count) ..Coudenhove-Kalergi is recognised as the founder of the first popular movement for a united Europe. In 1922, he co-founded the Pan-European Union (PEU) with Archduke Otto von Habsburg, as "the only way of guarding against an eventual world hegemony by Russia." 

In 1923, he published a manifesto entitled Pan-Europa, each copy containing a membership form which invited the reader to become a member of the Pan-Europa movement.  His ambition was to create a conservative society that superseded democracy with "the social aristocracy of the spirit". European Freemason lodges supported his movement, Pan-Europa was translated into the languages of European countries plus Japanese, Chinese and others. [Notably, as with Strahlenburgs’ book claiming Western Russia for Europe, not into Russian]. 

The overall aim of pan-Europeanism was to create a people of mixed “Asian – African racial ancestry, that would look like the Mediterranean Africans of Ancient Egypt, with no sense of a cultural or national identity they would feel a belonging to, or a desire to fight to defend. {They would be the products of miscegeny,  thus easily controlled by the few rulers of them}”. There is a Coudenhove-Kalergi Association which presents a prize every 2 years for the person “who has done the most to foster European integration”.  This has been won by leading European politicians who have of late fostered the immigration of peoples of Arabic and African racial grouping into Europe in defiance of the wishes of the people.  In 2010 the prize was won – and proudly accepted - by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.!! 

Modern day Europe would appear to be a very different entity to that which we remember her as being – and one created, it must be remembered, with the prime, over-riding aim, of being against Russia; as seeing Russia as an enemy to be contained.  

There is something of a double vision to this inclusion of Russia into the structure of Europe.  The Swedish Army Officer, Strahlenburg is arbitrary – Russia just belongs to a collection of Atlantic Spur nations because it “just does”. The modern pan-Europeanism of Coudenhove-Kalergi is specifically against Russia, is in fact a political unity to contain Russia. Neither is based on any objective data. Both are products of European minds clearly out of sympathy with Russia if not actually antagonistic to her, both shared their ideas with other Europeans, but carefully excluded Russia from any knowledge of or discussion with, their plans for her.  

Sadly, this view of Russia as being “of” Europe, as being “European,” has found a home among many of Russias’ intellectual, academic and senior political leading lights. Why is something of a mystery.  The writer L. van der Post, in his “Journey into Russia” which is highly Colonial racist in its view of Russians, states that it is because the people are desperate to leave behind their recent history of being mud hut living “white African” savages!!  They still want to “be” European, in spite of the horrors inflicted on them by Europeans, especially the siege of Leningrad by German Nazis.  Post reflects that only a massive sense of inferiority could leave a people treated so appallingly want to identify with their tormentors.  

He may have a point re psychology, except that evidence shows that Russians had no basis for considering themselves in such a lowly light – and no evidence to suggest they did.  Soviet Russia was a leading light in science, literature, architecture and engineering, and proud of her culture of mutual aid and support.   

It is still something of a mystery until we consider how much of this subliminal attack has been mounted. So, this takes us to the next stage of this argument – how did it come about that Strahlenbergs’ claims of Western Russia for Europe, after the Swedish invasion of Russia, has been so accepted by the target people themselves.  

I propose that Russians especially, but also just about all the people of the Anglo Euro Empire, have been subtly manipulated by three things: perception manipulation by use of select words, images and language constructs; use of Ambiguous names, name changes for places; how we read and how this influences us – and Maps. Most of all, Maps.  

Since these topics are of equally considerable relevance in considering the renaming of the Continental Land Mass as “Eurasia”, they are dealt with in some detail.  

Perceptions – what are they? 

Definition of Perceptions: “a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression”.  

“Your perception of something is the way that you think about it or the impression you have of it. ... Perception is the recognition of things using your senses, especially the sense of sight” 

i.e. 

“He was delighted to be going to Europe; for years his perception of France was of a sophisticated place, full of high-quality restaurants, elegant clothes, fine wine and artistic people”  

Perceptions form our view of our world. We cannot learn something new without first forming a perception of it which we store. This has important ramifications for how we process writing when we read.  However, it is more, for as the psychologist David Perkins states;    “90% of our mistakes come from mistakes in our perception and only 10% of our mistakes come from mistakes in our thinking”. So .. see the world correctly, the thinking that follows is easy.  See the world incorrectly …...our thinking must be limited. Managing our perception is more important than managing our thinking”. [ http://www.paulhugheslive.com/what-is-perception-management-and-why-it-matters/ ]
 
 So – perceptions, about which few think or are even aware, are of massive importance.   

This importance leads us not only to how our wrong perceptions can cause us great strife, but more: they are open to manipulation. In fact, for a long time now, the perceptions of the mass of people have been manipulated using lies, distortions, careful word choices, selected images – in order to push people to think the way some with agendas want – and to react as they want also. The psychologist nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, was the first to see how perceptions could be manipulated in the name of advertising – pushing acceptance and sales of objects in order to maximise company profits. But he also understood the use of this tool in propaganda techniques, to substantially aid governments in getting their own agendas accepted by the mass of the people.  

The point at issue for our topic is the perception most have of a vague place called “Europe”.  For the majority of people, the perception of Europe is of a place of high civilisation – sophisticated, intelligent, people who are great innovators of architecture, art, fine foods and wines, clothing : well dressed people.  Advertisements and films especially, have promoted this perception. Europe is promoted and thus seen as romantic, a place for honeymoons, special holidays for those living in dark, cold, wintry and supposedly less advanced countries. Europe too, is seen as the cradle of all modern civilisation, from where we get our laws, arts, engineering.   

In fact, Europe as we know, got most of its sophisticated knowledge from Dynastic Egypt via Greece. Even the mathematical, numerical view of the entire Universe of Pythagoras can be seen inscribed on ancient pyramid walls.   

However, there is another truth to Europe; it is made up of countries that are relatively modern in their current state, Italy and Germany for example; of nations that waged war with each other and neighbouring nations for millennia; that invented the concentration camps; the Inquisition; the burning alive of women for superstitious reasons; dictatorial autocrat rule by the Roman Catholic Church.  So – that first perception is at best very limited thus misleading.   

However, it is used to convince Russia that, to be considered to have outgrown a medieval, brutal past of being savages, she should consider herself now a European country, good enough to join a grouping that has sought, for hundreds of years, her destruction.  

Appealing to the perceptions is a powerful weapon. Arguing that Western Russia is “European Russia” is perception manipulation.  

How does perception manipulation get done? 

By the clever use of words and images and the “void of ignorance” of the mass of the targeted people.   

Here we have to first tease apart a few different areas of knowledge, and then see how they weave back to form the cloth.  

Words. Benjamin Lee Whorf explained that words direct our actions because of the subliminal meanings we ascribed to them. He was able to do this by comparing different Native peoples languages to each other and to English.  He was a brilliant man, who learned many languages but retained his primary job as an Insurance executive assessing Insurance risk. He described how he watched men tossing around used barrels of a substance which, as a liquid, was not dangerous, but as a vapour was highly explosive and combustible. Curious, he talked to them to discover that once the liquid had been emptied out, the men referred to the barrels as “empty”. Now, in English, we subliminally interpret “empty” to mean “nothing there at all”.  I might say “that cupboard is empty”, meaning it has no solid objects in it. But it is not in reality clear of everything – it contains a gas, which we call “air”.  As with the men, calling barrels drained of the liquid “empty” caused them to think of them as having nothing at all in them, and overlook the highly dangerous vapour!!  

In fact, we are seeing a wrong perception in action!!  

How does this fit with the things we read?   

Reading happens quite fast – most average readers who are not “skimming” or speed reading, read at about 3 – 5 words per second.  Modern research strongly suggests that we don’t process each word in its entirety. We form an image – i.e.  a perception - on first acquiring any word, thereafter simply “matching” it to subsequent readings, adding any new information we might acquire.  The first time we see or read a description of a seagull, we have an image, thus a perception of what it is. Then when we subsequently read the word “seagull” we match it to the perception in a split second - literally. Finding no new knowledge, we make an identification and move on. Any new knowledge we identify is simply added to the “base” concept or perception.  

This action can be seen to matter in the example of use of the word “Annex” when used as the verb “to Annex”.   

The peaceful, fully democratic and legal re-unification of Crimea with the Motherland, Russia, was and still is, written of across the Anglo Empire as an “annexation”, using the verb form “Russia annexed Crimea”.   

Does this matter?  Yes, very much. To know what your – or any other persons’ – perceptions are, you can play a word game. Within a few seconds, say a word and get people to quickly speak the associated words they instantly think of.  If you say “Ocean”, they will gabble out words like “wet, water, blue, sand, cold, fish, waves” and so forth. Then say “to annex” and you will hear “army, boots, guns, tanks, warfare, take over, killing”.   Thus, when they read, within 0.3 of a second the words “Russia annexed Crimea” these are the concepts they will hold and match, even though unaware they are doing so.  Thus a majority of Anglo-Euro readers of news become fully convinced they “know” that Russia violently invaded and subdued Crimea against the occupants wishes.   

This same use of certain words has been done to convince everyone of the Anglo-Euro Empire that Russia is a country split in two, with a border down the middle. There is “Asian Russia” on the Eastern side of the Urals, and “European Russia” covering the Western portion which holds about 75% of the population and its industrial and agricultural riches.  

The subliminal manipulation has been enriched and firmed by that most powerful of tools – the production of Maps.   

Maps 

How powerful is a Map, an official Map? They are issued to drivers, to tourists, to students; used by exploration parties, Armed Forces; published online and in Encyclopaedia’s and sites giving information of countries and nations.  They carry the sense of reliable information, of the absolute, objective, undeniable, authorised and known.  No-one on seeing a Map ever doubts it. Thus, for Westerners to see, and as school children be taught from, a Map of “Europe” which includes Western Russia, makes Russia a part of Europe an undeniable, objective fact. That it is nothing like that they simply cannot accept. I get told over and over, by relatively young people who have not been exposed to the classical, objective teaching of pre-WWII and immediately post war found in good British Schools – that “Russia is European whether you like it or not, it just is”. Ask them for objective proof and they cannot produce it.   

Map after Anglo-Euro map now lists what was always known as part of Russia, the Russian Steppes and the Taiga, as the European Steppes. Taiga is not mentioned in many. In many – for example the Encyclopaedia Britannica printed in Chicago, the Taiga is, they say “merely a Russia word {sic} meaning “wood” and thus has been removed”.  

That this is a modern innovation is shown by a little reading of past literature. In a P.G. Wodehouse humorous novel one can find the sentence “he was left with a bereft expression like a Wolf on the Russian Steppes, seeing his peasant shimmy up a tall tree”. 1922.  I was educated in physical Geography to GCE level a few decades later – maps carried “The Steppes of Russia, the Taiga”.  

Yet now, suddenly, for no apparent reason, across the Anglo Euro Sphere including Andean Nations, they are listed as European Steppes and “Taiga” is removed.  

This removes much more than a name, for by these names two dear and important symbols to Russian civilisation are destroyed. And that is something that hits at identity.  

That they can say as much shows that once you allow them to claim you are “European” then your own national identity and its symbols become obsolete.  

As pointed out by President Putin and made public on video tape, in a speech to the Russian Geographical Society, he noted that few were aware of the original names of many islands in Antartica, which were discovered by Russia. He said that “Today, only a select few know that the original name of Smith Island [Antartica] is Borodino; Snow island is Maloyaroslavets; Livingstone is Smolensk”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-L0F4LI5K0 

Interfering with Maps in order to push an agenda is not new though.   

In his excellent book – “The Hidden Empire. How to Hide an Empire”. Daniel Immerwahr, Professor of History, Northwestern University demonstrates how the early names for the States and Territories on the continent now known as America were a variety of names which were designed to describe the “Union”.   

He shows us how the current empire started as a few groups of independent States and governed Territories, based on the principle of apartheid – The East and West coast for Anglos and their slaves, the centre for Native Peoples, who still held a lot of land titles. For 3 years only the map which we know now as “America” was accurate. Professor Immerwahr calls it “The Logo Map”.  

Eventually, by annexation, purchase, invasion by “settlers”, the lands were taken from the Native Peoples and extended domestically. By simply taking and declaring ownership, many Pacific Islands were annexed to the “Union”, and the overseas empire was born, of which the then rulers were very proud – they boasted they had joined the Age of empires, and had the Empire the British had. Before 1900 Maps of the continent “America” also contained insert maps of the overseas acquisitions, like Guam and Hawaii.  

However, now they ran into confusion with their name. They weren’t sure if it were accurate to say they were a Union of States, as this implied a free voluntary association sovereign States, which was not the case. Also, it could never be applied to their overseas annexations. “Republic” was tried, along with “Imperial Republic”, “Greater US”, and a few others. The word “America” was rarely used until the first President after the Spanish war [and the acquision by America of the Philippines] - Teddy Roosevelt. It was he who began calling the entire land and its Empire “America” and used it extensively. Immerwahr reports that he found 2 weeks of speeches by Roosevelt who used the name “America” more times than all preceding Presidents put together.  Previously all nationalistic songs had not used the term – America is one of the very few nations whose national anthem carries no reference to the name of the nation !! - but after 1898, songs such as “America the Beautiful” began to be written.  

The Maps America made now called the country “America”, and the flag said to be of America was shown on all its Overseas Bases and territories.   

Not for nothing did Hilary Clinton, in her presidential campaign, state that she could and would like to, have the Pacific Ocean re-named the American Ocean!!!  

It’s clearly no accident that this move to be recognised purely by the abstract, pretty meaningless, name was no accident. To answer “why” Professor Immerwahr says “it carries no baggage. There’s no need to live up to being a Republic of Laws, of being a free Union of independent States. It’s a more “capacious” name”, by which he means, it can mean many things, it’s “spacious, roomy”, it can cover “a multitude of sins” as we say. It’s also very Ambiguous. It can mean anything or nothing – which makes it very spreadable.  And we have seen how it has done so – from a claim to be a Republic of Laws adhering to a Constitution which guarantees individual rights, to the lawless tyranny of Kleptocrats it is now.  

This explains much of what American Rulers have tried to do to Maps, both by claiming, without any agreement or foundation in facts, that Western Russia “belongs to” Europe – a German led but American ruled Europe, it should be noted – but also Asia.  

Poland recently lost a beautiful stand of ancient trees to a claim by a German company that as it was now Europe, then Europe could claim them – and it did. Turned out the land was wanted by a company called Kraft. It’s an American company!!   

Is there really any need to ask, why would America go to such lengths to promote the specious claim that Western Russia is European?  

There is, of course, another possibility.  A recent article in a major American political magazine recent ran with this idea:  

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/03/russia-separatism-vladimir-putin- 

Its whole theme is that America has no need to worry about Russia in a military or economic sense – it just has to wait for Russia to implode from its internal tension caused by the desire of various ethnic groups and regions to separate from Russia and Moscow and “go it alone”.  Russia without Putin, runs the article, will collapse. He’s the only one holding it all together, preventing these separation activists from pulling the nation apart. Is it reasonable to suppose that America – the land which has made Russia its prime enemy for generations, will just sit twiddling its thumbs waiting?  That it isn’t going to go seeking people like those of the Siberian Republic movement, and foster the discontent that eventually blows up either into fragmentation, or a tyrannical control to hold it together?    

No-one has more to gain than Russia’s enemies from Balkanising Russia, and we learned that they had planned this during their 1990’s occupation and virtual ownership of Russia.   

It’s hard to bite a big chunk off in one mouthful. Usually a series of smaller bites does the job better.  Splitting Russia into two via the Europe / Asia “border” would be a good start for them. And then there’s this:  

http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/120104-siberia_russia_usa/ 

It is just about impossible to find ordinary Russians of the Far East who see themselves as either European or Asian [ in fact, many see the latter as an insult]. In a recent documentary by Vesti regarding Vladivostok and it’s growth, one young ship building worker stated “Peter the Great opened a window to Europe, here now we are opening a window to Asia”. Note he doesn’t identify Russia as part of either – but a link with a view to them. For Western Russia to accept being labelled as “European” is to make a dangerous division among her people, and could have many beginning to see themselves in need of secession.  

The biggest worry of all is that Russia seems unaware of this – and in all Anglo law, silence is always, always, taken to mean consent.  

So far Russia has remained silent on this issue of “being European”. It's to be hoped she wakes up to the danger and very publicly rejects it before it’s too late.  

Note:. The second essay "why Russia should reject using the term Eurasia" is a follow on from this essay, but adds substantially to the reasons for the acceptance of these terms, via identification of Cultural Hegemony and National Identity which are attacked whenever any country is culturally invaded by a dominant culture. The identification of the racism underlying the name Eurasia and it's origins from George Orwells' "1984" are recognised and highlighted.