Commentary on Timur V. Mussin's article, László IV - a Hungarian of Kipchak origin

(http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-history/1703)

leszerelt: magyarmegmaradasert.hu.

I should point at the very beginning of my commentary that I am not a historian, let alone a medievalist. Also, it should be kept in mind that, though history relies on the sciences, it is not a science itself, and that recorded history is a political tool used to shape worldviews, not a source of reliable information regarding past events or people.

Timur V. Mussin's article, László IV - a Hungarian of Kipchak origin, is one of those works worthy of attention. Although some of his assertions are open to debate, his article reveals a sincere desire to break down artificial barriers between the various clusters of the substantially homogeneous aboriginal inhabitants of Central Eurasia by finding the seeds of truth of their relationship, often deliberately buried under mountains of decoys and chaff. Such an undertaking, though certainly noble, is at best packed with monumental challenges - tests of resolve, endurance and disciplined thinking - only those who hear the calling are willing to answer. Those who do must work with scanty, misleading and contradictory information. To make matters worse, their needs are generally ignored by politically indentured historians, and they are ridiculed and, if needed, openly attacked if they venture too close to the truth. Therefore, to pick up this banner means accepting a seemingly impossible mission and maltreatment, often at the hands of those its bearer tries to raise from the abyss of ignorance. But it also means a level of personal fulfillment others never get to taste. This article suggest, its author has picked up this banner.

Since the author refers to "Hungarian scientists" as one of his sources, it should be made absolutely clear at the beginning that the Hungarian scientific community consists of two, separate and mutually exclusive schools. One is the publicly funded and politically oriented Magyar Tudományos Akadémia (MTA) (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) and it affiliates. The mandate of this institution was changed for political reasons by the Viennese Court to the routing of the Magyar-Hun nation's historically positive self-image, the eradication of its history, and the fabrication of a fictitious history for Hungary and its inhabitants, a mandate it has been fulfilling ever since (Baráth Tibor, The Early Hungarians(http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-history/1667). The membership of this institution consists of politically indentured scientists and pseudoscientists. This "Academy" does not tolerate activity that could potentially undermine its mandate, and ostracizes scholars who publish objective findings that undercut its disinformation efforts. Consequently, all information that emanates from this school can only be considered at best strongly biased against the Magyar-Hun nation; at worst, blatantly false. The MTA, however, is generally a reliable source of information in fields that do not threaten its political mandate.

The other school is made up of volunteer scholars expelled from the above institution for refusing to falsify history, scientists not associated with the MTA, retired scholars and savants, and the unindentured Hungarian intelligentsia, both in the Carpathian Basin and abroad. The latter do not always qualify as experts in any of the required fields, but have taken an interest in seeking the truth regarding their nation's identity and history, and actively participate in independent studies and contribute material to research conducted by those who are experts. This school operates without any funding other than token private donations by patriotic Magyars and incidental revenues from its published works. Its expatriate members occasionally receive partial backing for specific projects from institutions of higher learning abroad, though such support is usually offered in the form of free or cost-based information exchange. Other than unbiased foreign scholars, this school has been the only source of reliable information regarding the Magyar-Hun nation for the last two centuries.

Both groups have their domestic and foreign supporters. Generally speaking, the MTA's domestic supporters consist of the foreign-controlled Government of Hungary of the day since Habsburg times, the proletariat, the impressionable masses, and the majority of aliens living in the Carpathian Basin and their mass media and other instruments of mass control. Abroad, it is supported by the Western mass media, the clergy, public schools below graduate level, and the entertainment industry. Supporters of the apolitical Magyar group consist of the unindentured intelligentsia, the peasantry and cultural societies domestically, and unindentured postgraduate institutions, both Eastern and Western, and Eastern thinkers and cultural institutions and societies abroad.

The above clarification is not meant to classify the author's source in this case. Its purpose is to point out the importance of identifying the source of information whenever a general definition includes two, mutually exclusive schools. To determine which camp a propagated information originates from, it often helps to look at its support base.

In this commentary, the words "Magyar" and "Hungarian" are used to refer to a Central Eurasian nation and people, the "Magyars", also known as Huns throughout Eurasia, and the Magyars of Central Europe, specifically of the Carpathian Basin, the West calls Huns, Kuns and "Hungarians". Where no distinction is intended, the English variant, "Hungarian" is used.

Any analysis should begin with nailing down those definitions that are likely to cause confusion. The same word often means different things to different people. And understanding a thought demands comprehending the meanings of words its author intends to share. Therefore, the author is invited to correct any misinterpretations in these comments.

Definitions

HUN: Ignoring politically motivated fantastic definitions, this word is the object of lengthy debates. There is no consensus on its etymology or meaning, even among linguists of the same school. One reasonable proposition is that it is a variant of the Hungarian word hon used to label the concept of home and homeland, Patrie in French, and the inhabitants of that home or homeland. Some of its forms still in use in the Hungarian language are itt-hon and ott-hon, here at home and there at home, Hun-garian, hon-os and hon-os-ít, indigenous, naturalized and naturalize, and others. It also refers to the relationship between the inhabitants of that home or homeland as in (h)un-oka, grandchild, literally, little Hun, (h)un-oka -testvér, -öcs, -húg, cousin, nephew, niece, etc., all of which are still in use today in their original sense.

According to the Isfahan Codex, the Huns trace their origin back 28,000 years (Detre, 2004, 2005, Fehérlófő Study Group, The Scythian(http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-beliefs/1666)). The recorded use of this word can be traced back to the establishment of the first monarchy in China, the Xia Dynasty, named after the Xia Hun nation whose king, Huang Di, founded the Chinese civilization in the 3rd millennium BC. This word also appears in the Hungarian legend of the Csodaszarvas (Magic (miracle, wonder) Stag) in the form of Hun-or, a variant of Hon-úr, literally, homeland-lord, as the name of one of Nimrod's (Ménrót in Hungarian, Gilgamesh' in the epic, Nib-ur's in Mesopotamian cuneiform texts) twin sons - along with Mag-or, Magyar, literally, seed-lord. The use of this word peaked in the West in the 4th-5th centuries during King Atilla's reign when the Hun Kingdom stretched from today's Kazakhstan to today's France. It was still commonly used during the 16th century¹ to refer to the last identifiable people to retain typically Hun characteristics, both physical and cultural, the Székely-Magyars. It is therefore safe to say that the word Hun refers to a nation and peoples, their Central Eurasian homeland, and their descendents who kept most of their culture - including language - the Hungarians. (It should be noted that pockets of Huns who have also kept their Hun heritage are found throughout Central Eurasia, even as far west as Switzerland. E.g. Val d'Annivers, Salamin András - Salaminné H. Mária - Erős Gábor, A svájci hun-völgy különös története, in Hungarian, abstract: (http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/kiletunk/rokonaink/item/2886).

MAGYAR: This word, too, is the object of - sometimes heated - debate. There is no consensus on its etymology or meaning, though there is agreement that its current spelling is recent². It appears to derive from the root mag, seed, from which hundreds of words derive in Hungarian and in many other languages, e.g. mag-us, mag-i, mag-nus, mag-na, mag-num, mag-ic, mag-istrate, etc., all of the Celtic Mac, Mc, "son of" surname prefixes, etc. Its earliest recorded use dates back to 2nd millennium BC India (Puranic Encyclopedia, 1989, p. 667, Grandpierre Atilla) as the Mag-hadi people of Saga, their language as Mag-hori and their magi as Mag-a - which also means "self" in Hungarian. This word also appears in the Hungarian legend of the Csodaszarvas (See HUN). In biblical literature it appears as Mag-og and refers to the non-semitic autochthonous (Scythian) population of the Fertile Crescent - variably, their homeland - the archenemies of the biblical Hebrews and Jews.

Conceptually, the word Magyar typically refers to the Hun nation's progenitor and progeny, its seed and seed-bearing fruit. Today, the Magyar's European siblings are the Croats, Poles and Ukrainians, both genetically (Semino, et al., 2000) and culturally - excepting language. (For a list of their close and distant relatives, see http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english). Western disinformation campaigns propagate the notion that the word Magyar (variably, Megyer, Megyeri) refers only to a tribe that played the leading role in the so-called "invasion and occupation" of the Carpathian Basin in the 9th century. This assertion remains unsubstantiated and appears to be politically motivated.

Magyar also refers to this people's language. There is today agreement among unindentured scholars, Hungarian and foreign, regarding the Magyar language, its origin, spread and characteristics. However, due to the sheer volume of disinformation regarding this topic, several examples of said agreement appear to be warranted to dispel beliefs founded on disinformation. Skipping over Hungarian sources to preclude the appearance of bias, only the findings of foreigners are mentioned.

Grover S. Krantz, anthropologist at Washington State University studied the history and origin of the various European languages and published his findings in the book, Geographical Development of European Languages (Peter Lang, 1988). He states, "It is usually stated that the Uralic Magyars moved into Hungary from an Eastern source in the 9th century A.D. I find instead that all the other Uralic speakers expanded out of Hungary in the opposite direction, and at a much earlier date" (page 11) ..."Given these objections the actual Uralic-speaking distributions would allow only one alternative explanation - that the family originated in Hungary and spread out in the opposite direction. This poses no serious problem if the time for this origin and dispersion is put at the earliest Neolithic. If this is true it means that Hungarian (Magyar) is actually the oldest in-place language in all of Europe" (page 72).

Archibald Sayce, Professor of Oriental Studies in Oxford deciphered the first Sumerian text and gave a linguistic analysis of the language. He used comparative linguistics to study different branches of the language. In the course of his research, he examined the relationship of the languages of the entire Turanian language family with the Sumerian language. He found the closest relationship to Sumerian in the Hungarian and Basque languages. He went to Hungary to learn Hungarian, and found it to be "the most useful language to read Sumerian texts."

Jules Oppert emphasized the relationship of the Sumerian and Hungarian languages.

Jakob Ludwig Karl Grimm established the rules for sound progression and was the first to write German Grammar. He stated that the Hungarian language is logical, has a perfect structure and surpasses every other language, and recommended Hungarian as the ideal universal language.

R. Nisbet Bain, a savant with the British Museum was extraordinarily proficient in languages. He described a Hungarian sentence as "A miracle of agglutinative ingenuity."

Ebersberg, Austrian linguist: "The construction of the Hungarian language is as if it had been created by a task force of linguists striving for conciseness, regularity, harmony and clarity."

Cardinal Giuseppe Mezzofanti, Italian, director of the Library of the Vatican, spoke many languages, including Hungarian. He stated (with a hint of scorn) that "The Hungarians do not even know what cultural treasure their language possesses."

Sir John Bowring, English traveler and writer visited Hungary and published an anthology in English of the work of Hungarian writers and poets. He remarked that "The Hungarian language goes far back. It developed in a very peculiar manner and its structure reaches back to times when most of the now spoken European languages did not even exist. It is a language which developed steadily and firmly in itself, and in which there are logic and mathematics with the adaptability and malleability of strength and chords. The Englishman should be proud that his language indicates an epic of human history. One can show forth its origin; and all layers can be distinguished in it, which gathered together during contacts with different nations. Whereas the Hungarian language is like a rubble-stone, consisting of only one piece, on which the storms of time left not a scratch. It's not a calendar that adjusts to the changes of the ages. It needs no one, it doesn't borrow, does no huckstering, and doesn't give or take from anyone. This language is the oldest and most glorious monument of national sovereignty and mental independence. What scholars cannot solve, they ignore. In philology it's the same way as in archeology. The floors of the old Egyptian temples, which were made out of only one rock, can't be explained. No one knows where they came from, or from which mountain the wondrous mass was taken; how they were transported and lifted to the top of the temples. The genuineness of the Hungarian language is a phenomenon much more wondrous than this." (Fehérlófő Study Group, The Scythian(http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-beliefs/1666).

Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the word Magyar is synonymous with the word Hun and Hun-garian as one of the names of the autochthonous inhabitants of Central Eurasia in general, and of the Carpathian Basin in particular, and their language.

KIPCHAK: This word appears to identify a racial or ethnic group, distinct from others, namely, fair-haired, pale, blond, white(skinned). It is also used to refer to the language spoken by the group so defined. According to Mirfatyh Zakiev, the word Kipchak etymologically ascends to ku-chak, which consists of two roots: ku (kub, kuba) pale, white, light, and chak, meaning Sak-chak, the ancient name of the inhabitants of Central Eurasia also called Turkic by geographic reference. In Ku-chak, White Sakas, -chak can be identified with a respectful-diminutive affix -chyk. The word ku is applied also as swan, also called ak kosh, white bird. Kuu white, white bird, makes another ethnonym with a word kiji-keshe, man, Kuukiji, white men, swans. The word ku, kuu is applied with a word man as Kuman, Kumandy. Consequently, in Western Europe the word Kuman is used instead of Kipchak. In Slav languages some form of the word Polovtsian, blond, straw-colored, labels the Kipchak ethnic group. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that the word Kipchak, Polovtsian do not refer to a specific nation, but rather to white, fair-skinned, typically autochthonous Caucasians, distinct from members of other racial or ethnic groups who have migrated to and also inhabited Central Eurasia.

POLOVTSIAN: SeeKIPCHAK

TURKIC: There is no consensus on the etymology or the meaning of this word either, even among linguists, though there is no shortage of speculation. One contending proposition is that it derives from the root Tur, as does the word Tur-anian, which also refers to the same inhabitants of Central Eurasia as those labeled Turkic. There is considerable disagreement regarding the origin and meaning of the root word Tur as well. The earliest recording of this word is found in Mesopotamian cuneiform texts where it is found as part of the word Tur-Ullu, new light (Badiny J. F.), retained to this day in the ancient Hungarian faith as the name of the Hungarians' sacred hawk, Turul, often depicted on Atilla's banners and elsewhere in Hungarian symbolism. According to Bobula Ida, Tur-Ullu is the name of the Invincible Sun rising on the morning following the winter solstice where Tur means new, young, younger child, and Ullu, shine, glitter, twinkle, luster, sparkle. Therefore, etymologically, Tur-kic seems to be rooted in the concept of either something new, young or a young child, or more likely, people who symbolize divinity (God) and that entity's invincibility by the Sun and its invariable victory over darkness. When referencing a people, Turanian is probably a better word.

As a language, Turkic refers to some thirty or more variants of a common verbal expression from Anatolia to China, distinct from neighboring languages. Byzantine sources call Turkic the agglutinative languages of Central Eurasia, including Hungarian. While it is undeniable that there are parallels between the Turkic languages and Hungarian, these parallels are too few to suggest a relationship beyond a possible pre-neolithic or neolithic Hungarian donor and Turkic recipients, as observed by Grover S. Krantz (see MAGYAR). As a reference to people, it is a collective name by which the neighbors of Central Eurasia refer to the inhabitants of that landmass. It is a geographical reference and, consequently, does not identify any segment of humanity racially, ethnically or culturally - though it is frequently misused for that purpose. Therefore, it is probably safe to say that this word means the Turanian people who believe in a divine entity symbolized by the Sun, inhabit Central Eurasia, and speak one or more variants of a common language that is different from those of their neighbors, of their ancestors, and of the newcomers living amongst them. It does not seem to refer to a nation, nor to today's Turkish people (Turks) beyond the inclusion of their geographic location and language in the definition Turkic. It is best to restrict this word to define a language family.

KUN (CUMAN, CUMANIAN): Several researchers (e.g. Horvát István, Ipolyi Arnold) have convincingly argued that Kun and Hun are two spellings of the same word and label the people the Greeks called Scythians. Indentured sources dispute this finding, and claim that these two words refer to different people, but to date have not been able to refute it, or to present rational arguments to support their claim. These two spellings are frequently interchanged, but always refer to the same people. One example of the free interchangeability of these two spellings is found in the Hungarian words kun-halom Kun-mound and hun-halom Hun-mound believed to be burial mounds found throughout Hungary and elsewhere throughout Central Eurasia. In the Western part of this landmass the Hun spelling is customary (e.g. Hun-enbette, Hun-engräber). Therefore, is can be safely stated that Kun (Cuman, Cumanian) is synonymous with Hun. (See HUN)

PECHENEGS: Hungarian Besenyő from Beseneu, is the earliest (11th century) known translation written with the new Latin alphabet in Hungary. No known recording written in the Hungarian (rovás) alphabet of this word exists. This word appears to refer to a Turanian people who inhabited the Carpathians and regions east as far as the Caspian in the 8-11 centuries, and their language. Opinions vary on the origin and meaning of this word, variously written as Bisseni, Bessi, Pecinati, Baja and other forms, and claimed by some to mean "brother-in-law." What is known is that they did not belong to the group called "Slavs". (see SLAV).

SARMATIANS: The origin and meaning of this word is unknown, though speculations abound. Several interpretations are in circulations ranging from a warrior nation of Eastern Europe that drove the Scythians West, to simply Scythians whose presence was observed during a different time and place. Based on what information is available, the most logical answer appears to be the latter. The bulk of information available regarding this people is sourced from Herodotus. He calls the Sarmatians Royal Scythians, and says they were the descendents of Scythian men who married (warrior) Amazon women - from the region of modern Ukraine. C. Scott Littleton identifies them as Scythians (C. Scott Littleton - Linda A. Malcor, From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail, also, Tomory Zsuzsa, The Scythian - Scottish - Hungarian Relationship(http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-history/1647), and Susan V. Tomory, A New View of the Arthurian Legends(http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-legends/1638). Other scholars have also come to the conclusion that Sarmatian is simply another name for Scythian. (See SCYTHIAN).

KAZAKH: This word is a later name of the descendants of that branch of Huns (Kuns, Cumans, Cumanians), Blond, Fair People who lived in and around today's Kazakhstan and formed the Kazakh Khaganate (state) in the 15th century, and generally refers to the autochthonous inhabitants of that country and its surrounding region, and their language. The interlaced endless knot on the flag of the Kazakh Khaganate appears to symbolize that nation's ties to its Scythian roots (See the Royal Scepter of Hungary, the Celtic Knot and other works of art that display this Scythian symbol).

SCYTHIANS: Much, often heated debate, bitter opposition and an inordinate amount of disinformation exists regarding the origin and meaning of this name and the people it identifies. It is safe to say that the bulk of the disinformation is politically motivated,. All the evidence regarding the Scythians keeps pointing back to the entire autochthonous Caucasian race that once populated Central and Western Asia, Europe and the Fertile Crescent, a territory rich in human and natural resources an alien people, variably called Hebrews or Jews, has been trying to usurp for centuries. To that end, the architects and executors of the disinformation campaigns have aggressively falsified the identity, history and culture of the original inhabitants of that landmass - with considerable success. These falsifications include not only the hiding of the Scythians true role in the history of Eurasia, but also the fabrication of negative characteristics for the Scythians. The incontestable evidence of the Scythians' continuous existence and established civilization in the Fertile Crescent dating back to pre-Sumerian times appears to be particularly threatening to those who fraudulently claim Semitic ancestral rights to that region. Against such an onslaught of mendacity, a somewhat detailed definition and description of the Scythians seems necessary.

The origin of the word Scythian is unknown. Its Hungarian variant is Szittya or, more recently, Szkíta. Herodotus calls the people this name identifies Sacae, Saca, Saka, the name by which the Indians called the Huns, more precisely, the White Huns with whom they were in contact. In Europe, most of the Scythian records within reach of the Church of Rome and the enforcer of its policies, the Holy Roman Empire and its successors, have been destroyed during the cultural genocide that began in 10th century Hungary. The scale of destruction and the number of Scythian texts burned to ashes cannot even be estimated. The edict of 1047 (Hungary) bans—under penalty of “loss of head and property”—the “Ancient Scythian Religion and Pagan writing.” These waves of assault on the Scythian culture and its safe-keepers included burning down entire libraries, book repositories and family collections. During the Inquisition, tracking down and burning runic-written Scythian text, along with their safe-keepers, the magi and the táltos (see footnote #21), is the prime function of the bishops assigned to Hungary by the Holy See. Save a period of sanity during the reign of (Hungarian) King Hunyadi Mátyás (15th century), the scourge and systematic destruction of the so-called “pagan Scythian culture” ordered by the Holy See goes on for a thousand years. Leopold (Habsburg, 17th century) alone orders all of Hungary's 150 forts filled with Scythian historical records destroyed. And this assault on Scythian culture was not limited to Hungary. It included all of Europe within the reach of the Church of Rome, from Italy to Spain³.

What remains and has been recently discovered, however, is sufficient to construct a mosaic of this people. Anthropological and archaeological evidence shows an unbroken, substantially uniform Europoid race and culture dating back to at least the Linear Band Ceramics culture (5700 BC), centered in the Carpathian Basin (T. Douglas Price et al., 2001). This people discovers and gives mankind all the metals (John Dayton, Metals, Minerals, Glazing and Man, London, 1978). For example, the Bronze Age is already well established in the Carpathian Basin by the end of the 6th millennium BC, as evidenced by a 5000 BC bronze adze, inscribed in Scythian runic script, found in Torontal county (Greater Hungary). Three thousand years before the Bronze Age reaches Western Europe, the Scythians are already producing gold and bronze artifacts, treasures rivaled only (later) by Egypt in number, quality and artistic value. Scythians are mentioned throughout the Fertile Crescent in both religious and historical records, by early writers and poets - Herodotos, Pliny, Strabo, Eschyl, Homer, Pindar, Plinius - and chroniclers of Asia and Europe. They bring writing from the Carpathian Basin to their brethren in the Fertile Crescent around 3000 BC (Jemdet Nasr people, name of excavation site, Iraq). 3rd century BC Babylonian historian, Berossos, links the Magyars' mythological patriarch, Nib-Ur, (Nimrod) to the Scythians. They build cities that bear their name (e.g. Scythopolis), establish the civilizations of the Ancient World, and help the later Greeks transition into the Age of Ancient Greece. (Tomory Zsuzsa: The Third Dynasty of Egypt (http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-history/1646), Meuli, 1935; Dodds, 1951; Grandpierre Atilla, 2001; Grandpierre K. Endre - Grandpierre Atilla, 2006, Gnoli, 1995, Ancient People of the Royal Magi: the Magyars (http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-beliefs/1669)). Plinius maintains that the Scythians were previously called Arams. Specifically, they came from an area in Northern Mesopotamia inhabited by a Turanian people, a region often called Urartu and Arameos named after its first king, Aram (Fáy Elek), who spoke Arameic, an agglutinative language akin to Hungarian. (Indentured linguist try to force Arameic into the Semitic language family - specifically Hebrew - despite the well-established fact that it is a agglutinative language which Hebrew is not - nor are any of the Semitic (inflecting, synthetic, fusional) languages.)

Summed up, the word "Scythian" seems to identify the leadership of the autochthonous peoples of Central Eurasia. Their home was the Carpathian Basin, whence their elite, the magi and their families regularly traveled in great numbers on a variety of missions - mainly towards the East - in the service of humanity - e.g. to help clusters of their brethren organize themselves into nations, nations into peoples -, missions which often lasted a lifetime or more. They and their descendents and successors kept in touch with their bases - institutions of higher learning, cosmology, arts and science - in the Carpathian Basin and, if able, returned home following the completion of their assignments. Archeological evidence (Mikhail I. Artamonov, 1965) suggests that such missions to the East and back were undertaken regularly and in great numbers over the millennia. (It is conceivable that to the outside observer who merely took the snapshot of the moment, these large-scale expeditions might have appeared as popular migrations.) Both Atilla's and Árpád's retake of the Carpathian Basin were such homecomings, which by necessity included driving out foreign marauders who were ravaging the land and terrorizing the Hungarian population there.

The Scythians' surviving descendents are today's Croats, Poles Ukrainians and Hungarians - among whom the Székely-Magyars retained most of their Scythian character. Of theses, only the Hungarians kept their Scythian (Magyar) language, while their Eastern brethren, safe from Western contamination, kept more of their Scythian beliefs, traditions and rituals. Additionally, a few pockets of Scythians live in distant lands throughout Eurasia, some of whom still speak a more or less recognizable Hungarian dialect. The Celtic (from Hungarian, kel, kelet, rise, East, literally "rising") nations of the British Isles - Irish, Scottish, Welsh - also point to their Scythian roots (Community of Scotland, The Scots declare their Scythian connections, The Declaration of Arbroath (http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-history/1649), Tomory Susan: The Scythian - Scottish - Hungarian Relationship (http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-history/1647).

SLAV: The term Slav, sclave, Latin sclavus, slavus, Byzantine Greek sklábos, "slave," does not appear in this article, but should be addressed here to counter disinformation propagated by foreign interests regarding the people of Central Eurasia. This word does not define "a people": it defines "people" (persons) and their language. In Central and Eastern Europe, Slavs consist of the descendents of unrelated individuals who arrived from the Balkans in two separate groups, separated by centuries. The first were a relatively small military force of Byzantine's Bulgarian Slav army that invaded the region in the vacuum created by the collapse of the Avar Empire (Grandpierre, K. Endre). They were mostly absorbed into the autochthonous Hungarian population, though Árpád did find pockets of their descendants who retained the Bulgarian culture they picked up in the Balkans.

The second and larger group consisted of a mix of individuals and their descendants from many conquered territories of the Roman Empire, from North Africa to the British Isles to Pannonia. Captured members of defeated military units and their support organizations were enslaved and driven or shipped to some part of the Roman Empire to serve their Roman "owners" in one capacity or another. Many of them ended up in Byzantine after the 4th century, and were later supplemented by new slaves captured during Byzantine's own expansionist periods. By the 11th century, these unfortunate slaves had been completely severed from their roots. They had no national self-awareness, not even tribal. The very concept of nationhood was unknown to them. This group gradually gained its freedom from slavery after the 11th century with the progressive collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire. Having gained their freedom but without knowledge of their past or their ancestors beliefs and value systems, this group took up a pastoralist lifestyle and wandered into neighboring lands, ignorant of social structures other than those founded on human husbandry. With time, this migrant group's elements started showing up squatting in the kingdoms of Hungary and Poland, and other parts of Central and Eastern Europe.

Only a small fraction of the people indentured sources label "Slavs" are former slaves. The overwhelming majority of people propagated by mainstream sources as Slavs are the free autochthonous inhabitants of Central Eurasia with a solid, traceable and proud past, culture, value system, beliefs and laws. A cartel composed of influential Jews - centered in the Church of Rome it directed (and directs) - who migrated from the Middle East to Rome in the 1st century and gradually infiltrated all of Europe and parts of Western Asia after Rome's collapse, began financing efforts to "slavonize" these autchthons during the 9th century. Using religion as a vehicle, its organizations fabricated for these autchthons a fictitious origin, history and culture, including an artificial language - and alphabet - as part of the cartel's political strategy for Central and Eastern Europe⁴. These efforts were mostly successful. Consequently, the Church of Rome committed much of its resources during the High Middle Ages to accelerate the "slavonization" of this region. That, too, proved to be successful. Today, a significant number of the Turanian autochthons of Central and Eastern Europe are not only convinced they are Slavs, they join popular movements against their own kindred, organized activities instigated by demagogs who masquerade as nationalist of various so-called Slav states.

The same backers also finance the demagogs of the opposite camp. In the Carpathian Basin, Hungarians and their historically loyal relatives (e.g. Bunyevác, Ruszin (Ruthene)), as well as the equally resolute Hungarian allies, the descendents of German speaking families who settled in Hungary centuries ago - mostly from Swabia (Bavaria) - are constantly fed anti-Slav propaganda and are incessantly incited against their own kind, the victims of the "slavonization" campaign. One example of this incitement is the disinformation Hungarians are fed regarding their close relatives, the Tót-s who are portrayed as aggressive "Slav foreigners". Mainstream historians claim, the Tót-s were Slavs who lived in the northern region of the Carpathian Basin during the 4-5th centuries, though no evidence has ever been presented to supports this claim. Their name, (Teuton)⁵, culture and trail, however, all point to the Celts (Scythians of Western Europe) and Avars (post-Atilla Huns of Europe and West Asia) who sought refuge in their ancestors' homeland, Hungary, following their defeat in Western Europe. They were given land in Felvidék, Fölvidék (literally, Upper country, Northern Hungary), in the same region others seeking refuge in large numbers - mostly Slav speaking refugees from the Balkans - were later settled. Over the centuries most of the Tót-s were reabsorbed by their Hungarian brethren. A small number, however, picked up the language of their much more numerous Slav speaking neighbors. Pointing to this minority, the cartel's pseudo-nationalist hirelings in Hungary have been propagating the false belief that the Tót-s are Slavs, a scheme to drive a wedge between closely related Hungarians.

This well-financed effort gradually evolved into a powerful political weapon in the 19th century (Pan-Slavism) and, though masqueraded as a unifying movement, was effectively used by that cartel (by now centered in France) to completely sever a large chunk of Hun (Kun, Cuman, Cumanian), Blond (Fair) People, Sarmatian, Scythian, people from their roots and each other. This fabricated people-concept and forged history was later cited by the the same cartel - reinforced by financiers from North America (Loeb, Khon, Schiff, Rothschild, and others) - the backers of Bolshevism and Communism, as "justification" to claim territory in Eastern and Central Europe. The cartel's investment began to pay big dividends in 1920 when the Trianon Dictate created artificial "Slav" ("slavonized") states mostly out of confiscated Hungarian territory. These states have since self-destructed but large segments of their populations have retained their misperceived "Slav" self-identity. The Trianon Dictate also pushed the borders of other neighboring "Slav" ("slavonized") states deep into historically Hungarian territory.

This political weapon is still used today by the same cartel who now finance pseudo-nationalist demagogs of countries of the Carpathian Basin and surrounding regions to further chop up the autochthonous people of Central Europe - most recently (2014) in Ukraine, orchestrated by Galician Jews and financed and politically supported by their European and American financiers' indentured governments. The majority of those caught up in the fever of such nationalistic Slav ideologies are unaware they are not Slavs, and that they are being deluded and used to eradicate their own close or distant relatives to advance the interests of the alien minority.

NOMAD, NOMADIC: This word is problematic in this article because its meaning in Western cultures cannot be associated with the referenced peoples or their lifestyle. It defines people (persons), peoples and lifestyles alien to the autochthons of Central Eurasia - save some Arctic and subarctic Samoyedic tribes. Dictionaries of the English language define "nomad" as individuals or groups who have no fixed residences and wander from place to place in search of food, water and grazing land, and their life-style. Etymologically this word means wandering in search of pasture, derived from the Greek word nomas, from nemein, "to pasture". In the English speaking world, the word "nomad" carries the negative connotation of primitiveness or social irresponsibility, or both.

There is no equivalent word in Hungarian for this concept as there were no nomads among the Magyars (Huns, Kuns, Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.) or any of their relatives in the sense defined in Western cultures. Those Magyars whose occupation was animal husbandry based on breeding and herding livestock on open ranges had a fixed homeland and a prescribed territory within their homeland. Their lifestyle was similar to that of today's cattlemen in the Americas (vaquero (buckaroo), gaucho, cowboy). The names of these people were specific to the kind of livestock they raised or herded, e.g., gulyás cattleman, cowboy, lovász, csikós "horse-handler", wrangler, "colt- foal-handler, or the general term, csordás herdsman. Although they did not live in fixed buildings while on the range, they were neither wandering nor searching for food. They had specific destinations, known routes to their destinations, supplies for the duration of the herding season, and schedules to meet.

Those who wander from place to place without a fixed home are variously called vándorló rover or kóborló vagabond in Hungarian, or csavargó vagrant, drifter if they have no lawful or visible means of support. These people were not and are not involved in any kind of animal husbandry: they are simply searching for subsistence, often by engaging in criminal activity. The name for these people's lifestyle is cigány Gypsy, in reference to roaming clans who migrated from India during the Middle Ages and began squatting and living off charity or the proceeds of marginal occupations or criminal activity throughout Europe. While justified in a historical sense, this adjective is today less accurate - and in some ceases unjust - because a significant number of Gypsies have since settled down in shantytowns. Some of them have even integrated successfully into their host societies and have assumed their social responsibilities.

If such wanderers lived off herding livestock - typically sheep and goats - the literal "nomads ", then they are specifically identified in Hungarian by their point of foreign origin, ethnicity or race, e.g., the oláh Wlach, who migrated to Hungary - and elsewhere - along with the Slavs (see, SLAV) and Gypsies in the Late Middle Ages. Hungarians use the Latin derivative word nomád to express this foreign concept. Others associate the word "nomad" with biblical Hebrews and their lifestyle⁶. I have no knowledge of equivalent words in other languages or their literal or implicit meanings - unfortunately. Perhaps someone can fill that void.

In popular usage, the word "nomad" in Western cultures refers to:

1: Primitive hunter-gatherer clans who inhabit wilderness regions and follow and live off wild herds, and their lifestyle.

2: Primitive individuals or groups without ties to settled communities or to any homeland and living off pastoralism who wander aimlessly without knowledge of territorial boundaries, and their lifestyle.

Beyond its literal meaning, the word "nomad" may also refer to:

3: Typically financially independent individuals, groups or clubs whose members temporarily or permanently leave their settled communities and travel from place to place, often in "Recreation Vehicles", sometimes in caravans, and their lifestyle.

4: Vagabonds, vagrants or other shifting and shifty population elements without ties to settled communities or homelands who drift aimlessly with the tides of opportunity from place to place, often living off charity or the proceeds of criminal activity, and their lifestyle.

The word "nomad, nomadic" is also used in Western cultures to refer to larger segments of humanity - tribes, nations, peoples, ethnic groups and races, often as a subtle pejorative to propagate strategic disinformation for political advantage. Considering themselves sophisticated but ignorant of the world beyond their own, westerners could not envision societies other than primitive - let alone more advanced - that could exist in other lands. In the early days of the development of their languages, their contact with such "outsiders" took three forms, two direct, one indirect. They traveled to lands they may have heard about but did not know to gather information, conduct trade, establish diplomatic relations, spread ideology, or to conquer. They noted their observations and reported them upon their return. Their reports usually included the physical appearance, social structure and organization, character, value systems, beliefs and lifestyle of those they came in contact with. Those parts of their reports that could obstruct the West's political aspirations were locked away or destroyed. Those that served its interests became widely publicized. Hence, if the report contained such details as farmers' and their families' large-scale seasonal relocation between their winter homes in their villages and their summer dwellings in the fields they cultivated - activities typical of crop growing in the plains of Ukraine, Hungary and other regions well-suited for seasonal soil cultivation - the purpose, expediency and logic of those activities were edited out of the report before it was released for public consumption, leaving only the notion of a "people aimlessly wandering in the plains searching for food" in the mind of the deceived westerner.

Reports of the highly structured and organized activities of herdsmen and herd-owners of Central Eurasia underwent the same editing process. The herd-owners' carefully planned roundup and herding of livestock to and from grasslands, water sources and markets - activities typical of animal husbandry in much of Central and Western Asia and other regions where the soil is unsuited for cultivation or the growing season is too short - as part of their nation's complex economy was reduced to roaming the Steppes subsisting on marginal pastoralism. In both cases, the social structure and organization, character, value systems and beliefs of the people observed were hidden if positive, and only their movements in large numbers from place to place were popularized as "evidence of their nomad and, therefore, primitive" stage of development. Consequently, the misinformed westerner associated such people with primitive hunter-gatherer clans who inhabit wilderness regions and follow and live off wild herds, or with marginal tribes living off pastoralism without ties to any homeland.

Alternatively, people from such "unknown" lands visited their Western neighbors for much the same reasons. If they came in numbers, they often brought their families and supply trains for the long journey to their destinations and back, which included their mobile accommodations similar to the Wagon Trains of the North American pioneer centuries later. Having no knowledge of these visitors' origin, homeland, social structure, character, value systems and beliefs or lifestyle, the locals associated them with the illegals of their own world who were constantly on the move, socially irresponsible individuals or bandits who led a lifestyle typical of opportunistic parasites.

The third form of contact was indirect. Westerners confined to urban or coastal village life observed or received reports of movements of people over land on horseback or in caravans traveling between two points, both beyond the urbanites' or villagers' known world. Unbeknownst to them, these movements were routine activities associated with domestic and international - occasionally intercontinental - trade and commerce, military and commercial transportation of goods and supplies, scientific expeditions, or simply the regular maintenance of diplomatic or cultural ties between nations and peoples. Since these urbanites' and villagers' total knowledge of these "strangers" was limited to "people on the move", they concluded that these travelers must be either searching for a place to settle down, or were still too primitive to contemplate "civilized" settled life.

It is clear that the author refers to "herdsman" and "herd-owners" of complex societies of Central Eurasia engaged in open-range animal husbandry, which necessarily included the herding of livestock to designated grasslands, water sources, ports, road and railway terminals and markets within their homeland, and their activities and lifestyle. The word "nomad" in Western cultures, however, does not define these Central Eurasians or their lifestyle: it does not convey the author's intended concept. English-speaking societies did not include elements similar to those of Central Eurasia during the development of their language. Consequently, there is no equivalent word for the author's intended concept in English, just as there is no equivalent word for "nomad" in Hungarian. The only such societies the Englishman came in contact with were the Scots, the Irish and other Celtic peoples. However, those peoples spoke their own Gaelic language, not English.

Since the word "nomad" carries strong negative connotations and politically motivated disinformation, it is best to avoid its use when addressing Western cultures to preclude the "primitive" or "socially irresponsible" stigma it conveys in those cultures. Those who apply the word "nomad" - or any derivative of its Greek root - to the Central Eurasian autochthons or their lifestyle are, deliberately or inadvertently, defaming those peoples and their way of life. (This article suggests its author is doing so inadvertently.) "Open-range animal husbandry" seems to be the most accurate term to define the activities and lifestyle of those autochthons of Central Eurasia who live on lands unsuited for soil cultivation or where the growing season is too short. Other suggestions to label this concept are solicited.

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: It is difficult to speak of "European countries", distinct entities in political geography individuals or groups of people claim as their own, during the periods associated with Huns, Sarmatians, Scythians, Fair or Blond People. Eastern Europe - the landmass between the Urals and the Carpathians - was a vast, sparsely settled territory inhabited by Huns and also by the Norse in the north after the 8th century. Politically, this landmass was controlled by a loose confederacy of regional Hun (Kun) chieftains until Atilla unified them in the 5th century into the Hun Empire - more precisely, the Hun Monarchy. Following Atilla's death, its southern half reverted to a Hun confederacy centered in Kiev while the Norse (Rus) took control of the headwaters of the Volga which became the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the 13th century. There is no evidence to suggest "countries" existed in Eastern Europe during the referenced periods.

Geographically, Central Europe is generally considered to stretch from the Eastern foot of the Carpathians to the first risings of the Alps and also includes the entire watershed of the Vistula. This fertile land has been continuously inhabited since at least the Neolithic by a Caucasian (Europid) people, today's Croats, Hungarians, Poles and Ukranians⁷. It had been controlled by a close confederacy of Hun had-s (see footnote #20) since recorded history before the Roman conquests. The Romans tried to conquer it for half a century at the turn of the 1st millennuim, and succeeded in controlling its Southwestern regions until Atilla evicted them in the 5th century. He took over the leadership of this confederacy when the Huns elected him their king, and made the Carpathian Basin his administrative center and his headquarters today's Hungary at the crossroads of the continent. Except for the Mediterranean, the Carpathian Basin was the most populated region of Europe - prorated to area - until the High Middle Ages. During the Avar period (6th to the 9th century) its political reach extended west into Bavaria and possibly beyond. By the 8th century, this region had been implicitly referred to as the Kingdom of Hungary "The life story of Hungary’s Berta" (Charlemagne's mother, died 783)⁸. In the Vistula, the Poles struggled against aggressors from both sides, the Rus from the east and Germanic peoples from the west, while the Croats defended Central Europe in the south from alien invasions from the Balkans. There were no "countries" in Central Europe before an alien hegemony, founded on the fraudulent "Donation of Constantine", the "Holy Roman Empire"⁹, brought in the concept of "land ownership"¹⁰ in the Late Middle Ages.

Western Europe - excluding the British Isles - was a completely different world. Here, countries did exist but only centuries later. Following the collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire, Western Europe became, and for centuries remained, an uncivilized, lawless land sparsely inhabited by pockets of people who lived in forest clearings, tree-houses and caves. There were no buildings here nor people to fill them. The total population of Europe in 650 AD, excluding the Mediterranean and Hungary, was less than that of today's Switzerland or Tajikistan, for example¹¹. Here, everyone who could pay a handful of mercenaries' wages overran a parcel of land and began to claim it as his own personal property, while the victimized inhabitants ran for their lives and hid wherever they could.

'The Kingdom of France was unified under Louis XI (1461 1483). Bismarck (1815-1896) unified the German states. Italy was unified by Garibaldi (1807-1882). Ernst Sackur, a Jesuit priest, writes about the situation in Europe in the tenth century in his book Die Cluniacenser Halle in 1894. He states that the aristocrats robbed and killed each other and among them, the princes were the worst robbers. If a wandering knight gathered a few rocks on top of a mountain, it was declared a castle. Europe was prey to wild animals but people were in greater danger from bandits. Everyone was a fugitive and a nomad with no permanent residence. They did not build walls, but lived in caves and lean-to shelters. In the Chronicles of Charlemagne we see that "their buildings were built of mud and wood."[34 Ann. Lauriss A. 789: "ex ligno et terra".] The French bishops ordered the monks to build stone walls around their monasteries as a defense against the Norman invaders. The monks asked how they could do that because they had no knowledge of masonry and nobody to teach them. "What they built in the daytime fell down at night." [35 Rudnay, Egyed, A Nyugati Kulturáról, Ősi Gyökér, 1990, Sept/Oct. p.135, from the writings of Sackur and Krieg von Hochfelden.] Widukind, the chronicler of Henry the Fowler, (926-936) called the towers built for defense against the Magyars "cities" because they were built of stone, yet they could accommodate only nine soldiers. Widukind noted that, besides these "cities", there were no other stone walls in the German states.[36 Rudnay, Egyed: Op. Cit. - Pertz Georgicus Henricus: Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores, Hannover, 1826, Chapter 35. "Villa aut nulla extra urbes fuere moenia."] In Belgium, all the old houses were made of wood, in spite of the fact that this territory had very few trees but was rich in stone as a resource. The stone castles of Holland were built after the fourteenth century. Cellini, the famous Italian gold and silversmith, who spent two years in the service of King François I of France (1515-1547), complained that, whenever he traveled in France, he was accommodated in a tent because there were no buildings.' (Botos László, The homeland reclaimed (http://www.magtudin.org/Homeland%201.htm)).

Therefore, the notion that Huns, Sarmatians, Scythians, Brother-in-law or Blond People "fell upon" the European countries "like an avalanche" is difficult to support because no such countries existed. Eastern Europe was a sparsely settled open territory without any political borders. Central Europe consisted of the shared homeland of the Magyar-Hun nations centered in the Carpathian Basin who, like their brethren throughout Central Eurasia, had no concept of land ownership. They, like the majority of the Kos people's (KOSOK) descendents, still held the cosmic worldview according to which they were constituent elements of the Universe, rather than "proprietors" of any of its parts.

And Western Europe was still in its "Dark Ages" - by its own definition - a lose network of usurped pockets of land controlled by members of a handful of wealthy families who fought each other and regularly robbed the inhabitants of their produce, grain and other staples, and livestock. These unrelated looters even raided farms, ranches and villages as far east as Hungary. Instigated by the Church of Rome, they joined forces only when Árpád put an end to their looting of the Carpathian Basin's agricultural wealth and human and natural resources¹². The Hungarians, of course, welcomed¹³ the return of their kindred from the East to help them put an end to the constant raids from the west and reestablish order in the Carpathian Basin. So the referenced peoples would not have "fallen on" their own kind "like an avalanche" but rather joined them to eliminate the uncultured Western threat.

Western Europe finally emerged from its marginal existence thanks to the knowledge, skills, technology and civilization it received from its Eastern neighbors, the Huns - as claimed, quite correctly, by the author - even art from the Huns of Tuscany¹⁴.

Now that a few definitions have been addressed, I would like to comment on the content of this article. I would like to start by reiterating that I hold its author's intentions in the highest regard. Not many people have the moral courage to speak up and do what is right, risk publication bans, ridicule and attacks of their work by proponents of mainline propaganda and its deceived victims. I wish Timur V. Mussin the strength to continue his research. I offer my views in a spirit of helpfulness, information he is, of course, free to consider or reject.

First a few words about historical research. The study of a person usually includes such areas as his ancestry, his time, based on some arbitrary calendar, his lifespan, people he came in contact with, his assumed beliefs and aspirations, his struggles, victories and defeats, and his legacy. It does not address his ancestors origin, history, location, lifestyle or culture beyond that presumed necessary to establish a background. Neither does it extend to events he was not associated with, people and their activities elsewhere, historical eras before or after his time, or the age he lived in.

The study of an event includes a description of the activity, its protagonists and antagonists, if any, and their presumed goals, as well as that of observers and coincidental individuals caught in the event. It also includes a time period based on an arbitrary calendar, and an absolute or relative location and its recent history. It does not address the history of participants, of casual bystanders, or of any human activity beyond that presumed necessary to establish a background. Nor does it address people not associated with the event or people and their activities elsewhere or in different times.

The study of a location includes absolute or relative geographic coordinates and geography, the timeline the study covers, observed natural and man-made changes, the location's population, if any, and its activity, and the location's inferred or presumed antecedent state. It does not address other locations, events or ages, or human activity believed to have had no effect on it.

The study of an era usually includes peoples, their cultures, civilizations and activities in an absolutely or relatively defined location during a defined period based on an arbitrary calendar or relative time-marker. It does not address peoples or their activities, events, locations, or time periods the student does not believe are relevant to the era he is studying.

Finally, the study of an age includes a broad overview of geological, climatological and biological states and changes of an absolutely or relatively defined location, backdated from the present. It also includes humans, where present, their inferred state of development, lifestyle and activities. It does not address taxonomy beyond the presumed needs of the study, nor does it concern itself with states and changes elsewhere or in a different age the student believes have have no effect on the object of his concentration.

It should be clear from the above that all of theses studies suffer form tunnel vision and that those parts of the student's mental image that lie outside his concentration are the products of speculation - insofar as his research project is concerned. Consequently, they could lead to delusions if allowed to generate conclusions beyond the object of the study. Beliefs regarding a people's culture, for example, will be as false in the absence of knowledge of its value system as cause-effect inferences will be false without understanding the culture of the people responsible for the event.

The danger of tunnel vision is not missing relevant information, but rather the risk of jumping to conclusion. A scholar becomes so focused on the object of his research, he does not see beyond the world of his object. A student of medieval European history, for example, will not see Asian rulers who waged wars in the East or events that took place anywhere thousands of years earlier. When his work is nearly complete, he sometimes tries to fit his object into his overall view of humanity and global human activity. For example, if he researched a historical figure, he might color the portrait of his subject according to his knowledge of that individual's race, ethnicity, culture, era or location. Needless to say, his characterization will be unreliable if his knowledge of that race, ethnicity, culture, era or location is scanty, faulty or nonexistent.

Similar traps are laid in the path of the student of historical events. For example, to infer the origin of a people from a snapshot of their direction of movement, no matter how accurate, is a logical leap reason simply does not support. It supports only the inference of that people's position immediately preceding the moment the observation was made, its position at that moment, its projected position a moment after, and its direction of travel by plotting the two position on a map if the movement is spacial, or on a timeline if temporal (as in the development of a people).

This sort of jumping to conclusions can be best explained by an example. A child sees a family he has never seen before pull up in a moving van next door. He jumps to the conclusion they are strangers to his neighborhood moving in from another part of town or another city. What he does not know, is that the family simply moved back into its own house from a military base it lived on for a number of years.

Similarly, an archeologist 10,000 years from now might find the remains of a 20th century grindstone-maker's shop. The excavation does not yield any clues other than a few finished and semi-finished grindstones with a hole in the center, and a few sandstones nearby. If he concludes that at some point in the past the shop was used to produce circular stones with holes in their centers, then his reasoning is sound. However, if he speculates that the shop was used to make fishing net weights, then he is jumping to conclusion because the find does not yield evidence of that fact. And if he jumps to the conclusion that the 20th century man of that area was making and using stone tools or that he lived in a Stone Age, then his reasoning is flawed. In the first case grindstones, regardless on their number, do dot constitute the set we call tools. In the second, even if it were established that different kinds of tools were being made of stone at some point in the past, that evidence is insufficient to declare that era Stone Age. Survivalists routinely make stone tools; and modern kitchen cutting boards and countless other modern tools are made of stone, including today's grindstones.

These examples shows just how easy it is to fall into delusion when only a short segment of a timeline or insufficient samples are visible to the observer. Add to that historical falsifications for political advantage that muddy the waters of what information is available, and the worldview in the mind of the researcher is all too often more a product of fantasy than that of reality. Many, otherwise noted researchers fall into this trap. They study a few centuries and note the activities of a sampling of individuals during that period, and then base theories covering thousands of years or more, or even the origins and stages of development of nations and peoples on that blink of an eye in the history of humanity.

Modern Age historians have a particular tendency to jump to conclusions, either inadvertently or deliberately, regarding peoples' origins, race, ethnicity and culture. At times, they are not even satisfied with absurd leaps of logic: they bypass it completely. A good example of inadvertent faulty conclusions is a proposition according to which the origin of the Hungarians can be traced back to the so-called Sumerians - whom mainline history often credits with the forming of the first civilization - and that they brought their culture with them from Mesopotamia to the Carpathian Basin. Whereas the research this proposition was founded on is sound, and proves that these two peoples are related, maintained close ties over the centuries, and that a significant movement of Scythians did take place from Mesopotamia to the Carpathian Basin following the collapse of the Parthian Monarchy (3rd century), it does not prove that the Hungarians' origin is Mesopotamia, that they are the descendents of the autochthonous Scythian population there, or that the direction of their culture's propagation was what the proposition advanced. What these researchers were unaware of or failed to take into account is that both these peoples share a common ancestry that leads much farther back. Consequently, their relationship is that of siblings. As for cultural flow, these two peoples did share a common culture except that it was the Mesopotamian Scythians' Carpathian brethren who bought them writing, not the other way around (c. 3000 BC, the Jemdat Nasr people, A.H. Sayce, J. Oppert, F. Lenormant and C. Rawlinson). Reports of this relatively brief period of unidirectional but significant migration of Scythians from Mesopotamia to the Carpathian Basin created quite a havoc among historians. Those under Western influence immediately condemned it to death by silence for political reasons. Others formed theories the findings simply did support and were, therefore, ignored. The end result was that few scholars are even aware of the relationship between the Scythians of Mesopotamia and those of the Carpathian Basin - and elsewhere (e.g. Eastern Europe, the British Isles and Gaul). (See, Book Review: Bobula Ida, Origin of the Hungarian Nation(http://magyarmegmaradasert.hu/in-english/our-history/1570)).

Deliberate falsifications of peoples' origins, race, ethnicity or culture are political instruments used to unjustly popularize, or obscure or discredit a segment of humanity. One example is the now bankrupt Finno-Urgrian theory fabricated by historians indentured to the Habsburgs' Viennese Court to discredit the Hungarians' birth right to the Carpathian Basin, and maintained by the equally indentured historians of foreign dictators who have been usurping power in Hungary ever since¹⁵. Although this theory still lingers in popular literature published for the masses, it elicits, at best, a smile from most serious scholars, even in the West. In response to this awakening, some indentured historians have distanced themselves from this defunct theory, and started fabricating a new one, hoping to achieve the same results. This new supposition still tries to take the Magyars out of their native Hungarian homeland - and thereby confiscate their birth right to the Carpathian Basin - but it now sends them east to Central Asia instead of the Baltic. Unfortunately, a large chunk of the uninformed public, both in Hungary and abroad, have been deceived by this new ruse. Today it should be clear that though there are close genetic and cultural ties between the various autochthon peoples of Central Eurasia, their overwhelming majority still live today where they have been living for thousands of years¹⁶. And that includes the Hungarians (See footnote #7).

Another form of jumping to conclusions is assumption in the absence of adequate knowledge. A native of the Amazon, for example, who finds himself in Portugal will wrongly conclude that the people there are Brazilians. So, whereas an assumption of relationship is probably safe, assuming direction of propagation based solely on relationship is just as flawed as assuming a cause-effect direction based on co-existence alone. Likewise a resident of Main, USA, will automatically conclude that the French owner (from France) of a local restaurant in Maine is a Quebecer simply because all his French-speaking contacts were Quebecers. Assumptions are not necessarily faulty - but should be confirmed. For instance, the ancient Greeks were on the right track when they called the inhabitants of Central Eurasia Scythians based on their knowledge of their distant Northern and Eastern neighbors, whose appearance, language, customs and values they associated with those of their close Scythian neighbors and magi teachers (Mede, Chaldean) whom they knew very well¹⁷.

Finally, false beliefs are sometimes born out of propositions of absolute truths based on relative facts. Elephants are giants to mice; mice are giants to flees; and flees are giants to bacteria. People invariably compare and contrast the customs and lifestyles of others to their own, and draw absolute conclusions, even though comparison and contrast are by definition measures of relative similarity and difference. Hence lawmen who patrol open ranges are called rangers by people who live in houses and travel only seasonally to distant farms to pick produce. They themselves are called migrants by those who work in their own locale. Likewise, the latter are called commuters by those who work at home. And those who work at home but go to stores to buy their groceries are called free by those who are incarcerated. Conversely, those who live in cities or are tied to any fixed place are considered by rangers - who consider themselves free - as much prisoners as those incarcerated. All of these definitions suggest delusion if proposed as absolute reality. It is, therefore, best to always specify that such definitions are relative. E.g. a farmer's lifestyle could be considered independent compared with a city dweller's, but not with a ranger's.

Commentary

We can now recast this article using the definitions and events believed to be accurate. It should be kept in mind that no attempt was made to verify the accuracy of the author's statements beyond those addressed in the definitions section.

László IV - a "Blond" Hungarian

Tens of thousands of the Hun-Turanian people gathered in the small town of Bugac, Hungary, in 2012. Guests included representatives from Kazakhstan.

For what purpose, a stranger might ask?

Hungarian scientists report a blood-relationship between the Kazakh and the Hungarian peoples, a finding based on the results of their latest research. The descendants of these peoples, they claim, migrated from the territory of modern Kazakhstan in the 9th century.

Can this be true?

There is little doubt, the Kazakhs and the Hungarians are related, certainly culturally, and most likely genetically as well. But the claim that Hungarians are the descendants of peoples who migrated from the territory of modern Kazakhstan in the 9th century, before, or after, seems to be pure fabrication. It has no historical, archeological, anthropological or linguistic basis. This claim appears to be an example of politically motivated disinformation fabricated by foreign interests to deny Hungarians their birthright to the Carpathian Basin. All evidence¹⁸ to date points to the current Hungarian population's continuous existence in the Carpathian Basin at least since the Neolithic, possibly much earlier.

It is undeniable that a sense of kinship and cultural ties have always existed between Hungarians and Kazakhs and, despite various centrifugal forces and separation, continue to exist. This fact is exemplified by the life and times of a Hungarian king, descendent of the Blond People, King László IV, known in his time as László III and Kun (Hun) László.

The steppe of the Dasht-I Blond People ("desht-i" = "steppe" in Islamic sources), also known as the Blond or Fair People's Great Steppe, has been from time immemorial a home to the peoples of Central Eurasia who lived off animal husbandry on open ranges. In the territories of modern Kazakhstan, the Volga region, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, states formed and dissolved, heroes and legends were born. According to European and Byzantine historic sources, the Blond People, the Huns - called the Fair People in the Russian Chronicles - were such herdsmen and herd-owners. Their belief was rooted in a divine being symbolized by the Sun and its never-ending rebirth. They were the autochthonous people of Central Eurasia who spoke a common language distinct from that of their neighbors and the foreigners amongst them. They became an integral part in the formation of modern nations such as the Kazakhs, Nogais, Kumyks and many others.

Over the centuries, Asian Huns, Scythians and a people called their "Brothers-in-Law", all of whom were also known as the Blond, Fair People, maintained close ties with their European kinfolk. They regularly traveled to their brethren nations' lands during their routine trade and cultural expeditions along their traditional east-west routes, exchanging goods, traditions, philosophy, military arts and crafts, and to help their kindred drive out foreign invaders and bandits. Eastern Europe continued to be the melting pot of Huns of Central and Western Asia and their relatives, the Huns of Eastern and Central Europe, who shared parts of a common belief and a related language. These waves exerted a cultural influence on the sparse, primitive population of Western Europe during its Dark Ages, to whom they eventually brought civilization. One such wave was Árpád's homecoming to Hungary. He had sent word to six other Magyar had-s¹⁹ to join him in his father's (Álmos) vision to return to his great, great, great, grandfather's, Atilla's, land, Hungary²⁰ and restore order there. The hadvezér-s (commanders, see footnote #19) agreed and adopted King Álmos' vision. They formed a new confederacy - Blood Alliance - in Etelköz (Scythia, the Dniester River Basin) and elected Árpád as its fejedelem²¹. Large groups of other Hun nations also joined them as their allies, including Middle jüz Argyns. The confederacy's adopted vision and the year of its implementation are hotly debated. Mainline historians claim it was a conquest which took place in the late 9th century. 13th and 14th century Hungarian chronicles, however, mention a return to the ancestral Magyar homeland and tie it to the 6th century, more precisely, to 100 or 104 years after Atilla's death.

Several centuries later, in 1272, a progeny of the Blond People, László IV, whose history has been closely associated with his ancestors' lifestyle, ascended to the throne of the Kingdom of Hungary. To put his life and reign in perspective, a look at 13th century Hungary is necessary. Starting with Vajk (later István I, Stephen I), a segment of the Hungarian aristocracy emasculated by Western influence and put into power by foreign (German) troops, began to distance itself from its ancestors worldview, traditions and beliefs, and forced the Hungarian population to do so as well. Whereas the Hungarians' Eastern brethren drifted away gradually over the millennia from their once common comprehensive Faith of Light to Tengriism²², Hungarians were converted by force relatively quickly to the ideologies of the Church of Rome²³ after the 10th century. By the early 13th century, the Hungarian royal Court was under complete Western influence. This lead to the devastation of the country and the decimation of its population as a consequence of its Western policies which opposed Genghis Khan's attempt to reunite Central Eurasia. Following the devastation, Hungary's king, Béla IV, needed to repopulate the country. This need coincided with the arrival of waves of Blond People from the East who elected not to submit to Genghis Khan and were seeking refuge in Hungary. A mutually advantageous solution was to settle them on Hungarian soil. And so Béla IV gave his Eastern brethren - numbering several tens of thousands of families - land holdings within the kingdom.

László's story begins with one prominent Hun figure to arrive in Hungary, Erzsébet (Elizabeth) of the Fair Haired people, Kötöny (Kotyan) khan's daughter. Following her father's defeat by the invading Mongol armies of Batu Khan in 1238, her family moved to the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom with the approval of Hungary's king, Béla IV, and married the king's son, István - later, István V (Stephen V). László was born from this marriage in 1262.

The young László identified with the Eastern variant of his mother's Hun culture. He preferred the company and lifestyle of the free-spirited Fair Haired herdsmen and herd-owners over that of the Magyar's nobility, who were by that time much westernized. He expressed his preference in both his attire and in his customs. Consequently, he earned the nickname Kun, a name Hungarians used to refer to their Eastern European and Western and Central Asian Hun brethren, including the ancestors of the Kazakhs of the Eurasian steppe, called Fair or Blond People by outsiders.

In 1277 the Magyars convened a National Assembly during which they acknowledged 15-year-old László as their king. And so László ascended to the throne of the Kingdom of Hungary at an early age to endure the hardships of civil wars and attacks by neighboring states. Tired of the constant wars and hardship, the people rejoiced with one voice at the coronation of the new king. Henceforth, László began reigning over the largest state of 13th century medieval Europe.

The following year, in 1278, the Czech king, Ottokar II was killed in the Battle of Moravian Field. His forces were scattered, and the lands he previously captured were returned to the Hungarian Holy Crown. Young King László's successes in the struggle against foreign enemies raised his status and the importance of his power among the Blond People who settled in Hungary. He, in turn, relied on their allegiance, the same loyalty they had shown earlier when the country was in peril. Given his and his mother's roots, the Blond People willingly supported the king in all his endeavors. In fact, they were the main strike-force of the Hungarian Kingdom - the military elite - during László's reign. Their loyalty was due in part to László's status and origin, and to a certain social status, guarantees and privileges they enjoyed during his reign.

Although László tried to accommodate the Church of Rome, that institution, nevertheless, considered him a defector to "paganism"²⁴, placed an interdict on him, and thereby drove a wedge between his major allies - those of the old faith - the Faith of Light taught by Scythian magi or its simplified variant, Tangriism, and those converted to the new foreign ideology of the the Church of Rome. The result was the destruction of all that he had achieved. The country was left without a part of its army. Eastern Hungary was looted by the former wards of the King, those Huns Hungarians called Kuns, who rebelled against him for betraying his heritage. Only after the suppression of the "rebels" was László readmitted to the Church. However, a mere five years later, in 1287, he was once again excommunicated. The Church of Rome even called for a crusade against the "negligent"²⁵ King of Hungary.

Thus, by age 25, László had been twice interdicted, overcame internal and external enemies, strengthened the Hungarian state, and lost it all. In the summer of 1289, after a series of unsuccessful attempts to re-establish relations with the Church and to restore a strong royal power in Hungary, László distanced himself from public life. In his final years, he re-embraced his Blond People identity and returned to his original traditions, faith, language and way of life, and thereby confirmed his Eastern Hun self-image. Henceforth, his Fair background governed most of his actions and, ultimately, formed his legacy. László IV was the last king of the Árpád male blood-line, a dynasty that ruled Hungary for more than four centuries. After the loss of its power, foreign kings began to foment a strong bias towards the Hapsburg Empire. A great story that had just begun ended suddenly, resulting in the loss of Hungary's independence.

All this shows that the Blond People's culture significantly influenced the Hungarian Kingdom, a subculture which left its mark on the history of present-day Hungary. As a result, the first Kurultáj of Magyars was convened in Kazakhstan, in 2007, which provided the basis for the creation of kin-conventions of Hun-Turanian peoples. This event has been held continuously for several years in Hungary. Such events once again confirm the centuries-old cultural and blood ties between our peoples, the Kazakhs and the Hungarians.

Closing thoughts

Timur V. Mussin's research enriches the knowledge-base regarding the history of the Hun people in general, and that of the Kazakhs and the Magyars in particular. One can only wish and hope others of the Hun family of nations will also accept such a challenge in the emerging age and spirit of free cultural exchange between, and reunification of our peoples.

________________