Why Russia should reject using the name "Eurasia".

Why “Eurasia” is wrong.

In an essay I wrote titled “The Russia – Europe Paradox”, in which I stated why I believe it a dangerous mistake for Russia to accept being labeled as in any way “European”, I also speculated briefly on why Russia might have been so willing to accept this piece of domination by a foreign entity. 

I wrote: “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”.

Whilst I was able to show the methods used to manipulate popular perceptions, I could not find a reason for their success. This difficulty extended to the equally contentious and possibly more dangerous acceptance by nearly all of Russia of the term “Eurasia” for the Northern part of the Northern Continental Land Mass. 

I believe that I know what may have caused this acceptance of what I consider to be a dangerous re-naming of Russia; that it is part of an asymmetric attack by undermining her Cultural Hegemony, and thus sense of National identity.  

In the following I will show that, added to the techniques mentioned in “the Russia – Europe Paradox” we can see that Russia has been under sustained Cultural attack for years; that this has increased since the end of the USSR and that trying to rename her as both European Russia and Eurasia is part of that attack which could have dangerous consequences. {Please note that emphasis using bold and red colour within a quote from another work is my emphasis}.

Known Continents and their established names.

In The Russia-European Paradox, I wrote:

It has been widely and strongly promoted across most of the world, that there is a “continent” sometimes called Europe, but which has recently come to be more frequently referred to as “Eurasia”, which extends from the Atlantic Spanish Coast to Pacific Coast, including not only Europe, but the Oriental nations and their Southern Nations.   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 a similar objective name], was “the World”. 

For millennia it was all the people who inhabited it knew. Therefore, it didn’t have a formal name, as do the other known continents.

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 the name it’s original inhabitants, the Quechua and Inca peoples, gave to its range of mountains “The Antis” from their word for Copper which they mined there extensively; 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; the invading AngloSaxons however, treated it as if it were Terra Nullius, as indeed they did to Australia - and that thought needs to be kept in mind.

Australia was named for the South of the globe where it is located [austral = southern].

These are all objective names, based on landforms, coastlines [related to the Continental Plates] and measurable data [latitude and longitude for example] not open to subjective interpretations, emotional baggage, or subversive influences.  However, when we come to the largest Continental Land Mass of all, where the majority of humans have lived since recorded history, things are a little different. 

The Land Mass was never recognized as such for to the inhabitants it was “the world”. It has no objective, Geographical name.   Consequently it has become open to being labeled by political and subjective criteria, rather than objective Geographical data. 

If we are to be objective and eschew emotional baggage and political claimings, 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 – parts of Russia extend into the Arctic after all. It certainly fits the definition of a Continent, 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 strong reason for rejecting use of its current title “Eurasia”. 

I would like to explore where the name “Eurasia” came from; where the naming of the Northern Continental Land Mass as Eurasia came from; and then why it has become so readily accepted by all Anglo Empire writers and thinkers, but also by Russia and her Islamic Near Abroad brother nations, [INAN]’s and how this has been perpetrated, finally to clearly see what these reasons show; that for Russia to accept this as she has so far done is a potentially dangerous act for herself.  

“Eurasia” the name: where did it come from?

“Eurasian” was the descriptor given in British India during the days of the British Raj to the children of mixed parentage; Asian [India] and English. They were despised by both parent cultures and led pretty miserable lives.  Such people were often pejoratively called “half-breeds” or “half-caste”; they were socially excluded, banned from clubs, avoided socially and isolated. The more impolite term used was “blacky –white.” It certainly wasn’t used in any positive or inclusive way.  It started to be less used after the British left India in 1947.

However in 1949 the Englishman George Orwell wrote his classic dystopian novel “1984” in which he describes a future where three major nation blocks are constantly at War. One of these blocks was called  “Eurasia.”

As we will see, Orwell carried on with the stereotypic profile of a Eurasian i.e. a person of Eurasia, as being of mixed raced, described as Slavic but having Mongoloid genes. There is a saying among some of the AngloSphere  “scratch a Russian, you will find a Mongol”.  This concept is furthered by a majority of AngloEuro “historical” online web sites, all of which carry variations on the theme. 

The theme that all Russians are a people of mixed Caucasian and Oriental Genetics.

Illustrative is the following taken from the All Empires History Forum;  

“Russian alcoholism and the “Mongoloid gene”.

Scientists researching cures for alcoholism and hangovers say that they have found a genetic link between Russians’ traditional weakness for drink and the marauding Mongol Armies.’

As many as 50% of Muscovites are estimated to have inherited Mongol genes that make them absorb more alcohol into the bloodstream and break it down at a slower rate than most Europeans do, they say”.

This means that they get more drunk and have worse hangovers and are more likely to become addicted to alcohol”.

From the same Site we have a discussion topic: Topic: How much MONGOL BLOOD do Russians have? The discussion traces much of the Russian History via it’s rulers, deducing from Ivan the – so-called – Terrible, to Peter the Great and Vladimir Lenin, to claim all had the blood of Mongols and that this is a pointer to the rest of the population.

YouTube carries “History” documentaries with commentaries such as:

“..there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by three centuries of slavery. The so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Arabic spoken as freely as Russian.

The {Mongol} hordes were actually professional armies. The story of Mongol invasion was created by German court historians of the new Russian dynasty - the Romanovs. It has served the end of justifying the Romanovs' claims for the throne and demonising their longtime adversaries -  the professional Russian army.”

Genetic studies showing there are no Mongol genes among Slavs have little effect on the perception carefully fostered so that such comments as these “Left over from the days of the Golden Horde's grasp over Russia and all of Eastern Europe, 99% of Slavic people's in Europe contain Mongolian genes related to Genghis Khan” are common on the Internet.

These statements are recent and from current web sites; thus it can be seen that the concept of Russians as a despised race of “half-breeds” is perpetuated; many from the Anglo Empire believe using the word “Eurasian” for Russian is as merely an accurate description.  It is worth emphasising here that, although many cultures have highly valued being “pure-bred” or at least of one recognisable variant, as the Japanese did until recently, none perhaps have treated those it regards as “half-breeds” with more disdain, contempt and vitriol than the English. The Nobel Prize winning English novelist, John Galsworthy, in his novel series “The Forsyth Saga” has a member of the “landed gentry” classes describing people of Peru as “half-breed dagoes” in terms of contempt, as of a people ignorant of every aspect of civilisation.

In the 1920’s several émigré Russians from Bolshevism used the word to describe themselves, as fighters for a true i.e. Czarist, Russia; the philosopher Dugin certainly is specific in his description: he claims that Eurasia is the name for the history and current situation where a Western Hegemony seeks to overthrow Russia and the World and only Russia has the strength and determination to face them down and resist. The name of this characteristic is “Eurasian” says Dugin. Why he used such an alien, non-Russian word, for what he claims is a uniquely Russian characteristic and fight is, therefor, something of a mystery. Certainly no-one else uses it this way. What is additionally non-aligned in Dugins’ view is that his “Eurasianism” is warlike; it describes a “Russia against the World” mentality, which is not really particularly predominant among Russian people.

All these uses were, for a long time, minimal; found in literature, various history tracts but not common among mainstream dialogue. However from 1991, this changed in a substantial and significant manner. This happened very recently and thus bears further investigation.

Modern Use of “Eurasia”.

In their paper “Eurasia and Eurasian Integration” Yevgeny Vinokurov and Alexander Libman opened up with “ ‘Eurasia’ seems to be a relatively clear concept in terms of physical geography, but much less so for social sciences. While the word ‘Eurasia’ is constantly used in various contexts  (more today than twenty years ago), the specific notion of what it actually means is unclear. According to Laruele  (2008), the term “Eurasian” was actually invented in the 19 century to refer to children of mixed European-Asian couples. Throughout the last two decades, ‘Eurasia’ has been used more commonly by both scholars and practitioners, but the definition of the term remained unclear”. {Bold type my emphasis}

Identifying that there are three general uses and definitions of the term “Eurasia” they go on to observe that:

The first and probably the most often  cited  concept  of  Eurasia  is  also  the youngest  one: it  came  into  existence  in  December  1991,  when  the  Soviet Union ceased to exist. While originally the former Soviet republics have been naturally described as ‘post-Soviet’ or ‘post-Communist’  (also terms like  ‘new Independent states’ or – in Russia the  ‘near abroad’ was used), over  time

using this term became less and less reasonable: defining a group of countries only through their common historical past, even if the latter is highly important, is a questionable approach.

There are three reasons why the post-Soviet countries are considered  as  a  unified entity  in  academia and  outside  it. First, they still constitute a natural group for comparison of different institutional, political and economic developments. While this view seemed to be obvious twenty years ago, today it requires justification: it is likely that, for some research questions, comparing

post-Soviet countries is meaningful,  while  in  other  aspects  they deviate a lot  from  each  other.

Secondly, there exist intensive links between these countries, so they do influence each other strongly.  Third, and finally, studying most of these countries requires a set of common skills:  for example, knowledge of the Russian language still may suffice for a researcher dealing with these countries a crucial influence on the chosen objects of investigation is an issue of extreme importance. Therefore, it is necessary to find a new name for the region under investigation:  a natural solution chosen within academia and outside it seems to be ‘Eurasia.’

What these authors don’t consider is that the name “Eurasia” was first coined as the name of the Northern Land Mass by the British author George Orwell, in his dystopian futuristic novel “1984”.

In his novel Orwell describes a world in which the majority of the worlds land masses and nations have become grouped and divided into 3 major areas, which have been renamed, any 2 of which are perpetually at war with the third. The two major ones, with which the novel is concerned are called Oceania and Eurasia.  From Wikipedia we have this brief summary, which is, in fact, very telling.

Oceania.

Oceania is the superstate. It is mainly composed of the Americas, Britain, Ireland, Greenland, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, Polynesia, and Southern Africa.. It is in perpetual war with either one of the other two. Oceania lacks a single capital city, but London and apparently New York City may be regional capitals. It was formed as a result of the United States coming under authoritarian rule and subsequently absorbing the British Empire. Oceania's primary natural barrier is the sea surrounding it.

The unofficial language of Oceania is a restructured English language devised in order to eliminate unorthodox political and social thought by eliminating the words needed to express it. The national anthem is “Oceania tis of thee” {NB. “America my country tis of thee” is a patriotic American anthem. 

Eurasia.

It is stated that Eurasia was formed when the Soviet Union annexed Continental Europe, creating a single polity stretching from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Orwell frequently describes the face of the standard Eurasian as "Mongolic" in the novel. The only soldiers other than Oceanians to appear in the novel are the Eurasians. When a large number of captured (Eurasian) soldiers are executed, some Slavs  are mentioned, but the stereotype of the Eurasian maintained by the Party is Mongoloid. This implies that the Party use racism to prevent any sympathy towards an enemy, selectively parading Central Asian troops in front of the Oceanians.

 Eurasia's main natural defence is its vast territorial extent, while the ruling ideology of Eurasia is identified as "Neo-Bolshevism".

The parallels between the Anglo Empire as it is today with “Oceania” and The Northern Continental Land Mass with “Eurasia” need no emphasis. Not only the names of the entities, but that “Oceania” was in perpetual war, as has America been for most of hits history, and certainly the last few decades. It may undertake re-branding exercises, but whether it’s “Operation Desert Storm” or “Operation Enduring Freedom {sic}” it’s all the same perpetual war.  That “Eurasia” really refers to Russia is strongly implied by the “Mongoloid” features of it’s people and it’s “vast territorial extent”, since neither characteristic can be said to apply to the Franco – Germanic, Latin-Greco people of the Atlantic Peninsula i.e. Europe, nor the Oriental peoples of the Pacific Orient.

That the name “Eurasia” was deliberately chosen by American Universities, [and with a strong likelihood that it was Harvard] - and given that most Humanities students of the West are familiar with the classic work by Orwell, it’s hard not see a certain deliberateness here.

What does this tell us regarding the context – which is so very relevant – to the sudden recent onset of using this word?  First, and of considerable importance, is that “intellectuals within academia” started it, which these days means University Academics and related “think tanks”, and that this was in 1991.

In 1990 the Soviet Union ceased to exist on the determination of three men against the expressed wishes of large swathes of the people. These were the Presidents of Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine.  However, it becomes increasingly clear that other influences were at work, helping to undermine a USSR going through difficult time, namely American interests. It is worth noting that many American cultural institutions such as the fast food Macdonalds outlets opened their first place in Moscow in 1991, with the American owned “Moscow Times” describing it in it’s publications as “a breath of fresh air, introducing Russians to the clean, pleasant world of good food which exists beyond the iron curtain, and which they had not encountered in the dreary world of Russian food and hardships, in dirty restaurants, with surly service.”

Perception manipulation at its finest.

We understand that a name was being sought for the post-Soviet nations – many were new, as they had been once part of the Russian Empire and then the Soviet space, which was essentially all one country. Now they were not to be referred to as either Soviet, nor were they Russia?  What were they?  The idea was to label the entire region, not just the “Russian Near Abroad”, or the brother “ Islamic ‘Stans” but the entire region, inclusive of Russia.  Venikurov & Libman claim that Eurasia was the selected word, which was chosen in 1991 and with great probability by Harvard, and quickly spread through the Humanities Departments of Universities across the American European space.

Now the word is used extensively, albeit mainly in specific circles, but with it’s use as a name on some maps and with academic Russia adopting it. The name has been chosen for various Academic departments and indeed free associations, with many once “Russian and Oriental” institutions renaming themselves as “Eurasian”. Its use seems to be spreading – from the spread across the level field of University Academia Humanities Departments, and it’s journals, papers and conferences, trickling down to wider use in the greater world. Venikurov and Libman list over 20+ University Departments, journals, centres of Study, Schools of study, which all changed from using either the word “Russian” or “Oriental” to “Eurasian” in a matter of a few years or so, and state this is a small sample. Given the speed of this spread, across Universities and related Institutions throughout America, UK and Russia and others, it’s hard to believe it was a natural perfusion. That it was either deliberately encouraged, or that it’s speed of spread was due to landing on a very receptive social “soil” provides a more logical explanation.

What else was happening in 1991 to put this into context?   Along with the collapse of the Soviet Union, was the collapse and virtual invasion of Russia by America.  This is something that requires deeper consideration as it is the greatest contributor to the move we are witnessing here; the greatest of all.

It was in 1991 that Harvard selected Orwells’ name for Russia and the Orient plus the Islamic Near Abroad nations {INAN’s} and rapidly infected other high order Universities i.e. Colombia, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford in England, et al.

As many now know, in 1990, in a subversive way, the US virtually invaded Russia.  Although the ending of the Stand Off over the partition of Berlin and Germany, with US promising that NATO would move “not an inch further East” and the ending of the Cold War was supposed to be a “win-win” situation it was treated immediately by America as their own victory – over Russia. . No-one from Russia went to Washington to start telling Americans how to live and conduct their economy. No Russian schoolbooks were provided for American children; no Russian eateries opened up in Times Square NY.

However, Americans went in their thousands to Russia. The Harvard University products of Jeffrey Sachs and cohorts introduced an economic theory they called “Shock and Awe”. They were quite blatant that the aim was to destroy the Russian culture, and everything that formed it, introduce their version of “winner takes all” – that very American individualistic, grasping, “Mammon as your God” economics, and “privatise” all Government enterprises.

Which of course meant sell them;  “ ‘sell for pennies on the dollar’ to the most grasping and criminal of oligarchs”. 

The theory held that, because the people would be in a state of crisis because of the Shock Therapy, they would be unable to resist. It had been tried in Chili following the ouster of Pinochet, and in Poland. The results in Russia were worse even than those two, as the country had become mired in the swamp of Communist ideology trying to run a centralised economy and was in need of change no-one knew how to implement. Wars in Afghanistan didn’t help matters. 

From Documentaries “The Unknown Putin” by well-known Russian journalist Andrei Karaulov and “Putin – the documentary sure to change everything you thought you knew” by  Andrei Kondrashev, we gain further insights into the havoc America brought to Russia during those dark years.

The following are excerpts from experts commenting on a time they lived through.

From “the Unknown Putin”:

All Russian laws were not even written by Russia, but on the backs of foreign grants. Even natural resources were not under Russian jurisdiction until 2004 : Evgeny Federov, Duma Deputy.

It was the Americans who had written our laws for us, including oil.  It was a standard developed for countries of the 3^rd world, a colonial Law. Before we overturned those laws in 2004 we received 20 cents for every petro dollar – and non-one said a word about it. Dmitry Belousov, Ph.D. Economic Science.

Before 2004, there was a special law regulating what happened to the income from Russia’s oil and gas. Over 2/3rds was paid away under a “Product Sharing agreement”.  Russia was losing nearly all its income. That money was the property of foreign states, it was not Russian.  Federov.

From “Putin – the documentary sure to change everything you thought you knew”-

They want Russia back the way it was in the 1990’s.  Do you remember that GKChP circus, and how the CIA director marched along the Red Square together with mariners from the {American} Embassy; from the Historical Museum up to the Mausoleum?  They were celebrating their success.

ep. 1. “Putin, everything you thought you knew” Nikolai Tokarev; President of Transneft

These are but a few examples of the very many which demonstrate how Russia – still somewhat shell shocked from the collapse of the Soviet Union, which happened overnight, after polls showing a huge percentage of the people didn’t want this – were treated by an invading culture, and one which had been trying to get it’s hands on Russia for a long long time. 

They are a demonstration of how, in a large sense, and for a while, Russia in essence lost its sovereignty.

What I am now suggesting is that although in many regards Russia has regained most of her  sovereignty, certainly militarily, there is still one area where the recovery may perhaps be a bit  “patchy”; the hardest part to see and realise is there, the part, in the long run, which it is the worst to lose – cultural sovereignty.

 Cultural Sovereignty – what is it, what does it do, and what happens if you lose it.

In 2010 the Russian historian and philosopher Nicolai Starikov published a paper in which he depicted State sovereignty as comprising 5 separate sub-sovereignties. He wrote: 

“ What is State Sovereignty?

It consists of five sovereignties:

1. Recognition by the international community of the country, its flag, emblems and anthem.

2. Diplomatic sovereignty – the ability to pursue an independent foreign policy.

3. Military sovereignty.

4. Economic sovereignty

5. Cultural sovereignty.

This, the Fifth sovereignty, as demonstrated by our history, is the most important. In its absence, a nation begins to walk down a road to nowhere

Only if all five sovereignties are firmly in place can we talk about the availability of Full State Sovereignty”.

Starikov demonstrates how since the 1990’s Russia lost, and then over the next 10 – 20 years regained the first 4, but he contends that there is only a partial regaining of the 5^th, Cultural Sovereignty. It is this last I’d like to address.

Cultural Sovereignty, National Identity and self identity.

Cultural Sovereignty exists when we are clearly aware of our own national identity without input from a foreign one.  The two – culture and identity - are inextricably combined.  Our culture consists of the memories of the History of “our” people, those with whom we share a common genetic ancestry, and identify with as an extended family; of our music, literature, achievements; our natural heritage of land, forests, and seas; our myths and religious beliefs, our wars and battles and leaders, our traditional foods.  It is from these that, as children, we begin to build our sense of personal identity.

Before we start to learn for ourselves our own answer to “who am I; with what do I empathise; where do I come from and where do I want to go?” which for most begins somewhere in our late teens, the sense of national identity is the foundation, beginning from our earliest memories at the dawning of an awareness of environment beyond our immediate needs and perceptions. 

Why is this of such tremendous importance such that Starikov can claim that without it we are on a road to nowhere?  It is because it forms a point of stability, of a fixed immovable absolute with which we face an ever-changing world. Without it, we have no reference point to face challenges, both to our sense of self and how we regard the world. 

One small example is in some odd reports we get from the UK, or US. They are of a case of sudden anger, spontaneous abuse, of a person who has none of the attributes we can identify with as “me, us”.  A recent case was of a woman sitting on a London bus being abused by an old man because she was wearing a burqua. He was castigated for “racism”, but it’s more than that. It’s the anger because this person, represented to him as “English” has nothing English that he identifies with; nothing from his memories, his past, his nations’ history, his sense, in other words of “who I am” which starts off from “who are we?”  The anger comes from confusion, from a sense of a great loss. And indeed, it is a very great loss – his sense of identity.

The English writer and journalist, Douglas Murray, claimed in his researches into the sudden growth of so-called “Political Correctness” and the insane “gender identity” with it’s politics, that people who have faced crisis become very vulnerable, and especially to bad ideas. He points to the market collapse of 2008 to explain the Empire and it’s Anglo vassals PC madness. 

If this is true, then no people have suffered through more than the Russian people from overwhelming crises, from the “revolution” of 1917, the Stalin purges and early Communist ideological insanities, the Nazi invasion and starvation, the loss of 25 million people, the collapse of communism and the Black years of 1990s when even the statistical life span collapsed.  They, if anyone, would be susceptible to “bad ideas”. 

In the main, this doesn’t seem to have occurred.  Russian Film remains characteristic, much of the music, the best loved, is typically Russian, the rise of the Orthodox faith again, and a sense of belief in themselves, are certainly evident and growing. The passionate adherence to “being Russian” shown by the Crimeans on their return to the Motherland, the determination of the Donbas residents to resist an alien invasion show the same sense of strong identity.

And yet, …and yet,… there is a Disneyland, Macdonalds, Starbucks, “rap” songs about “sex, drugs and rock and roll”. Torn new/old jeans, young women with stars in their eyes over the American disaster of guns everywhere, wanting to see the same appalling mess in Russia.  There are over 400 Macdonalds throughout Russia, and dozens of Starbucks over Moscow.  The newspaper “the Moscow Times” was owned until 2015 by the publishing house Independent Media Sanoma Magazines, which also publishes the newspaper "Vedomosti", the journals Harvard Business Review, National Geographic, Robb Report, Esquire and others.

 This newspaper carries such phrases as “Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, which is held to be illegal by Kiev and Overseas countries”.  A frankly, out and out subversive piece of distortion and lie framed by the dominant culture – the American one. The one that seeks to destroy Russia, as it has for years.  It is encouraging that it’s sales became so poor it has become a wholly online publication.

Further evidence of the active presence of this infiltration is the naming, not only of several international Study Institutions in Russia as “Eurasian Studies, Russian and Eurasian ..etc” but of a major trading block of Russia with her brother ‘Stans. The Republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, in 2011, agreed to form a free trading Union, which they called “the Eurasian Economic Union”. Armenia and Kyrgyz later joined. These are countries of the old Soviet block, of Islamic brother ‘Stans to Russia. None has any affinity with the nations of Europe, located on the Atlantic Peninsula, nor with “Asia” the alternative name for the Pacific Orient. So – why Eurasian E.U?  They have BRICS, why not BRAKK Union?  BRAKK Cooperative?  Why “Eurasian” when it’s a foreign word and concept to all their various histories and cultures?

Cultural Hegemony. America and UK were pushing the name at a respectable level – Universities and such like – so it sounds authoritative and commanding. Again, as Gramsci said “it seems like common sense to those under the yoke of cultural infiltration”.

Returning again to the information of the cultural invasion by America documented in “The Unknown Putin” we learn how biased were school childrens’ history books so that 3 sentences were given to the pivotal, stunningly heroic battle of Stalingrad, which turned the tide against the Nazi aggression, but 4 pages to the meet up at the Elbe {which features the US army}; that inside covers of notebooks did not carry multiplication tables as they once had {and did in Anglo countries} but pictures of American presidents down the years. 

The journalist asks, “Why would Russian children want to see such pictures”?  They could not “want” to of course. They were given them in order to undermine their sense of identity - of being Russian, of what Russia was, that’s why. 

So we would have to admit that Russian recovery of her cultural identity was perhaps a bit “patchy”; that, rather like the curates boiled egg, it is  “good in parts”.

Venikurov and Libman can say, “………defining a group of countries only through their common historical past, is a questionable approach.”  Why indeed is it a “questionable approach” to define nations and places by their shared historical past which contributes to their national identity, but is not questionable, apparently, to define your and your brother nations using a suspect word, taken from a Western, English, dystopian novel, and propagated by an American University notorious for the horrific ideas it has cultivated and spread??  

In fact, so many University Humanities Department of UK and USA have been the seed beds and breeding grounds of so many of the ideas that have caused disaster around the world, it’s hard to understand why any of them are still in existence. From the Frankfurt School; Neo-Darwinism and its destruction of religion; increasing lunatic manifestations of unprovable Psychiatry; destruction of education into barely a base training and propaganda unit; the Harvard “Chicago Boys” of economic “shock and awe” and privatisation, the list goes on. The recent neo-Liberal tsunami of weird and wonderful “gender benders”, of “trans” genders, of kindly consideration for proven terrorist killers, of lunatic feminism were tracked back by Douglas Murray to one paper by one Professor from Wellesley College, USA. He asks the question “why and how” did this - could this - happen? How could such lunacy erupt from what he found to be a mere set of allegations, with no evidence of any kind?  I would suggest – mostly because they were unleashed on a people badly damaged in their sense of cultural, national identity, to the point where most feel they no longer have one.

How does this point to an explanation of why Russia has accepted being told she is “European” and her nation is “Eurasian”, that the continent on which they live is “Eurasia”, named as such in a British dystopian novel for a Mongol -Bolshevik people, in constant war with the Anglo Empire?  

Here we need to go talk to Antonio Gramsci. 

The Loss of Cultural Hegemony.

Gramsci (1891 – 27 April 1937) was an Italian Neo-Marxist philosopher.  Trying to answer the question “why was Marx wrong in believing that the enslaved lower classes would rise up to overthrow their ruling masters”, Gramsci noticed that those that Marx called “the bourgeoisie”, the people who had grasped the means to hold most of the wealth and thus power of a nation, and whose overwhelming aim was to maintain that system and their preeminence in it, in perpetuity, actually did this by using, not force and physical coercion, but what he referred to as Cultural Hegemony.

Indeed, long before him the English philosopher David Hume in his “Of the Firsts Principles of Government”, almost 250 yrs ago, pointed out that:

“Nothing appears more surprising to those who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is, therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular”. 

This has in modern times meant that, via such things as manipulating perceptions, using language, propagandistic news sources, media, entertainment, and anything else that came to hand, those who would rule penetrated the object culture, thus making sure the exploited classes believed their slavery to be a good thing, and in their own interest, unable to see that they were being exploited.   Observation shows us that this has, indeed happened. However, it doesn’t stop at rulers controlling their own people – it is extended to one nation trying to take over another, without using force or an invasion, especially when they suspect they cannot win this way.

Power of naming with a vague, unclear word.

Professor Immerwahr, writer of the book “America: how to hide an Empire” noted that for most of the 19^th Century America was annexing, or just appropriating, land to build it’s Empire; vacant Pacific Ocean Islands plus inhabited ones, like Guam and Hawaii, and using force of war as in the Philippines. However, during the 20C it stopped doing so because, according to Immerwahr, they had learned how to “lob” themselves into a nation; that is, it didn’t need to make war in order to become the supreme power of that nation.

How they performed this “lobbing”, what they did, along with economic manipulation as described by John Perkins of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”, was by inserting themselves into the culture, such that what they proposed and wanted became seen to be “common sense” to adopt.

One way has been via cuisine – if it can be so called!   Most places America wants to invade it does so firstly by economic pathways that promote it’s own culture: Macdonalds, Pizza Hut, Starbucks Coffee and so forth.  Another major way, in addition to and as part of perception manipulation, has been via language and re-naming, especially using Maps, and here we come to “European Russian” and “Eurasia”. 

Since Vladimir Putin came to power and began to restore Russia, much if not all, sovereignty has been regained. However, clearly there are some aspects which Russia has let slip through. An example is seen in the adoption of the American dress [jeans with everything!], fast foods and perception manipulation.  However, the use of language via Maps has proven to be the most effective and this most especially includes the renaming of places, which is where we return to why Russia needs to stop letting herself be re-named “Eurasia”. 

Why did America pick “Eurasia?”

America renaming Russia ‘Eurasia’ is a two-pronged attack.

Firstly, it attacks that foundation and core which is the strength of any peoples, their sense of a national identity. Some maps have been produced out of America which eliminate the Russian Steppes and taiga, renaming them the European Steppes. However there are also references now to “The Eurasian Steppes” – thus a double step removing a profound and important symbol to Russian people. It also pleases, no doubt, certain of those of Academia who are Russophobes, to see Russia adopt as a name for themselves, a word which is seen by many Anglos of a certain class, as demeaning, – that they are the despised “half Mongol half breeds” as a Western Stereotype has always portrayed them.  However, although this is despicable, it is, of itself, not that important. Russians don’t see themselves that way, which is more important.  However, there is a second prong to this attack, which does matter, very much.

Discussing his latest book “How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States” Professor Daniel Immerwahr states that for a long time, the lands which the descendants of the English invaders of the ship “Mayflower” had taken for their own, was not called “America”.  It had a variety of names, as each state or territory was, for a while, virtually autonomous and the major aim was to destroy and disposes the centuries long owners of the land, called by the invaders the “Indians”, or “Red Indians”.   Many names implying a Republic, a union of free states, were tried, but none found acceptable to purpose, as the Settlers began to add Pacific Islands to their territory to form an empire. Even the national anthem doesn’t contain the name “America”.

 However, immediately following their war with Spain and subsequent annexation of the Philippines, a new name was sought – and it was to resurrect and popularise the name “America”.  Immerwahr reports that he found more references to “America” in 2 weeks of speeches by President Roosevelt than all previous Presidents put together.

The reason for this choice, explains Immerwahr, was that the name “America” is vague; it carries no specific meaning or emotional baggage. It has no objective basis that could restrain its range and field of territory. As Immerwahr puts it “it’s very capacious”, meaning “roomy, spacious”. In other words, it can carry many meanings, apply to many settings, or, as we might say “cover a multitude of sins”.

 In fact, it has been used exactly in that manner; as Professor Immerwahr points out, the claims that “Japan bombed America” in the lead up to it’s involvement in WWII were false. Japan attacked Hawaii. However it also attacked many many other Pacific Islands – in fact, what Japan really attacked was the Pacific Ocean. However, because of that vague, generalised “America” the powers in Washington wanting war used the Empire name to distort reality.

Well, the name “Eurasia” is the same.  As Venikurov and Libman say, “the specific meaning of the word is unclear.”  Whilst they outline the three major “knowns” they acknowledge there are many others around. We see this in so many opinion pieces, news articles, and a wide variety of media interests.  We can see phrases such as “Europe and Eurasia …………” Leaving the thought, well, if “Eur” of Eurasia is Europe, the first word is redundant. Comments about “Eurasia and the Orient…” are seen, yet if the “Asia” of Eurasia includes the Far East, once again the name is redundant. 

Yet this appears very often – especially from pieces written by Europeans, who, it seems have little desire to be thought of as “Eurasian”.   Complaints were made that “those wanting to apply for American Visas may have fly from Vladivostok across Eurasia to Moscow”!!  The Oriental host of a FEE forum stated that “Russia is the only country in Eurasia”, and the INAN’s are almost always referred to as “Central Asia”, never Eurasia. 

The advantage of using a vague, unclear word is that it becomes a blank slate, so that anyone engaged in manipulation can write their own preferred meaning onto it.

Which brings us to the final point, of where a major danger for Russia lies with her acceptance of being labeled using this word.

In the New Eastern Outlook Journal, a regular writer, Vladimir Platov, tells us of a recent project innovation by the USA Washington Brookings Institution [considered the top “think tank” in America] and the UK London School of Economics: called “The Internal Displacement Project”.

 Platov tells us that:

“Due to the increasing geoclimatic disaster risk, in recent years, the current political “elite” had to start thinking about the issue of relocating its citizens. At the end of 2011, the London School of Economics and the Brookings Institution (USA) even created The Internal Displacement Project.  It was quite symbolic that Washington joined forces with London to work on this initiative, as this showed that relocation of vast numbers of people from the North Atlantic region to Northern Eurasia was a real possibility. It is probably not worth elaborating that the term Northern Eurasia refers to modern-day Russia. According to forecasts by experts, even in the event of a serious geoclimatic disaster, for the next 200 to 300 years, Russia should remain a stable and resource-rich and therefore, attractive place to move to, not only for Americans but also citizens of a number of Western European nations. It is believed that the United States and Great Britain will be most affected by a geoclimatic disaster.

It is also worth mentioning that the territory of Russia has long been a source of inquietude for the frenzied representatives of the Western ‘elite’, ranging from Adolf Hitler to Madeleine Albright. The latter even stated that it was unfair Russians had such vast territories at their disposal.

Recently, the possibility of relocation has received greater attention because of the increasing likelihood of a global catastrophe that could be triggered by the eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano in the USA in the nearest future. Official media outlets in the United States have been trying to ease tensions in the US society, caused by this issue. They have been publishing reports with ‘expert opinions’ that rule out the possibility of this catastrophe unless an earthquake occurs in that area.

However, actual recent events paint quite a different picture. A number of significant tremblors and movements in the area, especially California, which are caused when hot magma and gases move into proximity, have been giving cause for alarm. It is estimated that, if the Supervolcano in Yellowstone were to “blow” it would take out all life for a radius of 100 miles, with some believing that America as we know it, would cease to exist. Thus it is claimed, there would be ample warranty for claiming right to simply move millions of people to “Northern Eurasia.”

Everything we have ever seen about the way in which the Anglo nations have moved into occupied lands treating them as if they were terra nullius i.e. empty land, is encompassed in this statement, which shows us clearly the way the minds of Anglos on both sides of the Atlantic are moving.

At no point do we see the initiation of discussions with Russia re being able to relocate “millions of Anglos” and Europeans into Russia; No suggestion that maybe they should start discussion with Russia regarding such an eventuality; No discussion with any Government.

After all, there is no President of Eurasia, is there? No Government of Eurasia to discuss anything with. Eurasia exists everywhere and no-where  - which is what is wanted from a name with no clear understanding and not one antecedent in the native Russian culture. In other words, just as was done with the Western Continent, with Australia, it could be treated as if were terra nullius, and just seized.

There is a movement now in Siberia to use American money to withdraw from Russia and establish a Siberian Republic – backed by America. Although just now this seems remote, that it is accepted as a valid discussion topic in Siberia, among University students and academics, is alarming.

 “The idea to separate Siberia and annex the territory to the United States of America has been engrossing the minds of Siberian separatists for a long time already. Surprisingly, or maybe not, they find the support from across the ocean”.

This might be a small insignificant “nothing to worry about” just now. However, what it does show is that there is a fertile soil for the American idea that it is free to move “millions of Americans” into “Northern Eurasia”, thus starting up a “American-Eurasia” country, in the same way they took the Western Continent and Australia from those who already inhabited it.

How fertile is that “soil”?  Well, recent research by several University departments has shown that, as in physics, there is a “critical mass point” [CMP]  at which an idea has to be totally accepted by a percentage of the population in order to hit that CMP and growth and acceptance through the society becomes more than exponential. This percentage is not great – it’s ten. It may take a few years to get to the 10% point, but when it does acceptance occurs almost overnight. However, in these days of “peaceful change” as opposed to armed revolution, another recent study has shown only 3.5% of the population need be engaged in demonstrations and other “peaceful rebellious activity” in order to overthrow governments and put their own view of rule into place. The researcher was able to point to a good number of successful “revolutions” of recent years from around the world, which were more than twice as successful in effecting change as violent revolutions had been. However, there was still “despite being twice as successful as the violent conflicts, peaceful resistance still failed 47% of the time. As Chenoweth and Stephan pointed out in their book, that’s sometimes because they never really gained enough support or momentum to “erode the power base of the adversary and maintain resilience in the face of repression”.

Perhaps a union of the two would bring greater results?  If a subversive force were to push an idea, - say Siberian secession from Russia and union with America – persistently in order to gain a 10% CMP acceptance of the idea, and THEN mount their 3.5% of the population in an uprising, the success rate could soar. 

Whether a newly minted Russia, now very averse to using the iron hand tactics of their Soviet predecessors, would find a way to prevent this, is something we cannot foresee.

Would America fake a massive accident in order to make its move into Russia?   It seems a long bow to draw; But then again if asked “Would America drop atomic bombs onto undefended cities killing thousands, just to show the Russians who’s boss”? would we not have said ‘No. No-one would do such a thing.  “Would Americans, wanting to occupy a small rebellious Middle East nation, bomb a known citizen shelter harbouring women and children and kill 2000 people?” Would we not have said  “No – who could do such a dreadful thing”? But America did both.

Perhaps it is a concern over little – but we have watched the ways the Anglo Empire has subverted peoples, seen over and over their “modus operandi” – and this choice and pushing of the word “Eurasia” fits the pattern.  We feel safe today, with President Putin at the controls, but he cannot always be there. When strong men ruled Russia, who would have suspected a Gorbachev, a Yeltsin could come along? Such may come again, and openings like this vague renaming are meat to an aggressors cause.

Again, the ground plan to achieve a minimum number to achieve a critical mass for change via attacks on Cultural Hegemony are being laid, and evidence of some success is evident.  After all, even Vladimir Platov says, of this plan to transfer millions of Americans to Northern Russia “In such circumstances, the issue of relocating (on an emergency basis) Americans would become more relevant and warranted. Incidentally, as far back as 2014, there were reports the US government was researching the possibility of a percentage of Americans moving to South Africa. ..(and) …according to unconfirmed sources, Hillary Clinton and a number of other members of the US Democratic Party had earlier expressed increased interest in relocating Americans to Ukraine. [NB. We have already seen how US clearly sees Ukraine as it’s own back yard]

Hence, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that instead of hearing the Ukrainian language in Ukraine and {Russian} in Siberia, we would be more and more exposed to voices of American settlers in these regions. And this would lead to improved relations between the United States and Russia”.

One has to ask, “on what basis does Mr. Platov believe such a thing?” When Anglo settlers relocated to the Western Continent, did this improve relations with the native “Indians”?  The Aboriginals in Australia?  The Mexicans in California??  When Americans have invaded anywhere, have the local relations been for the better, ever?  They would spread, re-name everything. Take the land and resources, and destroy the native peoples as they always have – after all, it’s terra nullius.

How can Mr. Platov be so blind as to not see this, we wonder?   Well – easy; Cultural hegemony a la Gramsci; “because it’s common sense”.  He is seeing what the dominant culture would feed him – yet more evidence that perhaps Mr. Starikov is correct, and to a certain extent, Russia has not fully regained her Cultural Sovereignty.

 Just because something starts small doesn’t mean it should be ignored. As the poem says: 

 A Cloud no bigger than a mans’ hand.

It approaches from the sea, too small

For thunder and lightning

But ominous as a closed fist

And what it will bring

Nearing us, growing larger,

It is completely unknown.

Beware the leaves blowing,

Beware the spot on the sun.

All is turned toward it. It rides

The brow of the mind.

Soon, it will shadow one cliff

And a small coastal shrine.

Beware the leaves blowing, 

Beware the spot on the sun

Do your work well.

Behold the work yet to be done.

Dick Allen.

Perhaps in the end, it’s simply an indication of how the minds of a certain group of people of the Anglo Empire have always worked; perhaps it would come to nothing.

But for so many reasons, using the name given by an American University Humanities Department, which has spread so many disastrous ideas around the world, caused so many million of deaths and despair, and which has nothing but negative implications for Russia, seems like a very bad idea.

Russia needs to drop this, to insist that institutions in Russia change the name; to remove it from all maps, to reject its label when the Anglo Empire applies it.

For tomorrow is given to no-one – and it’s better to be safe than sorry when the risk isn’t that one may perhaps achieve some thing wonderful, but has no positive rewards attached to it.

There are three profound truths relevant to this situation.

“The loss of National Identity is the greatest defeat a nation can know, and it is inevitable under the contemporary form of colonisation”. Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia

“The tyranny exercised unconsciously on men’s minds is the only real tyranny, because it cannot be fought against.” Gustave le Bon "A Study of the Popular Mind" 

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’

            ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things–that’s all.’

            ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master–that’s all’

Alice through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carrol, 1871