/kc/ - Krautchan

I read Dancing in the Glory of Monsters. It was interesting, basically everyone hates everyone else, the Tutsi are madmen and the Congo wars are all their fault. Oh and Europe should never have left.

 >>/40493/
Actually the book itself doesn't mention the Europe part, in fact it tries to blame them for things that are not their fault.

It says that the Hutu and Tutsi coincided with each other and that there was no real racial divide until Europeans came and in a European fashion kept the Tutsi in high positions as the Tutsi had been in control of the Administration and military before they arrived. If the Tutsi were in control of the Administration and military before they arrived then clearly there was a divide, this does not just happen naturally.

 >>/40494/
> If the Tutsi were in control of the Administration and military before they arrived then clearly there was a divide, this does not just happen naturally.

Oddly worded. Natural divides are commonplace.

 >>/40494/
You might want to look into this.

http://www.auricmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Operation-Crimson-Mist.pdf

 >>/40503/
It was exacerbated by policies in making.

 >>/40503/
Yes, the author however sates that the divide was made by the colonial administration and that was the cause of the Genocide. Even though he mentions the divide as being there before they arrived.

Is Evola really worth reading or is it just some meme shit?

 >>/43166/
If you want to look into traditionalism, then he's the go to one. I've pal with philosophy degree who appreciated his work.
Just because something is popular on IBs, /pol/, and related places, it can be good.
I don't think I read anything, from him, maybe couple of lines.

tiger-face png
(14.71 KB, 648x648)

nationalism-globalism jpg
(164.61 KB, 1280x812)

 >>/43166/
> Is Evola really worth reading

He is boring, although he isn't a good writer anyway so it is normal. His book about tiger is relatively ok, but not so optimistic.

https://www.amazon.com/Etymological-Dictionary-Sumerian-Language-Set/dp/9521094923

Magyar bernd might want to read it.

 >>/44460/
For sure. Thanks.
> Simo Parpola
He might be Finnish.
There are Hungarian researchers - considered pseudoscientific (some sure, others I would rather call "a bit unconventional") - who looked into this, or still have ongoing work. I even have somewhere a photocopied Sumerian dictionary put together by a Hungarian bloke.
Sumerian is an old language, way older than it's first recorded instances. It wasn't indigenous language in Mesopotamia, those people came either from the NW (from Europe) or from the NE (Turanic plains), bringing their language (or even languages) with themselves. But no matter where they came from, "back home" they were in contact with other people with other languages, and even if those languages weren't in the same language family (if we accept the model of language families) these relations they had, had to make mark on both groups of languages. And even this isn't researched by noone. And not one "real" researcher, linguist ever made an effort to compare, and has no experience to really say that Sumerian has no relation to Uralic languages for example.
Hungarian linguists sometimes learn and specializes in Semitic languages, learn Assyrian and such, but Sumerian, no. Those foreigners, who get into Sumerian, do not know Hungarian at all, or Finnish, or any other Uralic language, so they won't even get a sense that it might be related (or were any contact between them), or won't get a random thought to compare them, just for the hoots.

 >>/44461/
Libgen has a couple of books from Parpola. He seems a legit Assyrologist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Parpola

The first serious work about the relation between Hungarian and Finnic language was published in 1770, the title (in short): Demonstratio. It was written by a Jesuit astronomer, Sajnovics János, who traveled to Norway to stare at the stars (he frequently called a linguist as if it meant the same as it means to be a linguist today or 50 years back, it makes no sense).
He acquired a couple of books, made by Danes and Swedes and whoever was around, about the language of Finns and Lapps. These books contained dictionaries, but the words looked absolutely strange. He had to speak with Lapps to ascertain it is similar to Hungarian.
Those foreigners tried to transcribe the sounds of Finnish languages with their inadequate alphabet. So for example as vowels one bloke used 39 diphthongs in his effort to put words onto paper. This resulted in words like "vuoigi" or "zhioaarve" with little help how to pronounce them really. In Hungarian these words are vaj (butter) and szarv (horn). Sajnovics could simplify the writing with the use of that Latin alphabet which was already fit into the Hungarian language more or less.
It is very important that those work on the research of their languages who are natively speak that. Too bad noone knows how Sumerian sounded in reality. I do not believe in the "reconstructions" or that song someone put onto youtube neither.

sumerianur... pdf
(2.63 MB, 0x0)

 >>/44461/
Well it's not pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience doesnt mean you are wrong, in fact one can reach a wrong conclusion with scientific method and a correct conclusion with an unscientific method. For example claiming all hungarians are fatsos because some jewish cabbal stated that doesnt mean the hungarian anon can't be fat due to pseudoscientific origins of the info. Being wrong and involving in pseudoscience are unrelated, science can be wrong and revise itself, if it was always right it would be dogma afterall. Anyway I digress..

The reason why these theories are shrugged off because the social sciences are far from being a hard science and they are highly circlejerk places if not political. 

I highly assume both of our language Uralic and Turkic language are evolved in siberia unlike mongolian which evolved in east of altai mountains close to present day manchuria. 

So despite the fact uralic and turkic is far from being a family there is most likely contacts either direct or undirect such as contacting a third party at the same time without even knowning each other.

Or we emerge from anatolia and due to vastness of asia lost contact and developed isolated language families who knows but this one is too fringe to be properly considered at. 


> And even this isn't researched by noone. And not one "real" researcher, linguist ever made an effort to compare, and has no experience to really say that Sumerian has no relation to Uralic languages for example.
Actually I think it was made in pre 1950 era I think but eventually it just disregarded without giving a valid reason. Our researches are still continuing as we have good amount of common words most notable teñri which is dingir in sümerian (it's not spelled as ten-gri it's nasal n)  but our researches are not enough and too dependent on english translation of others studies. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2740574

Here is an another study I assume the guy is Hungarian, his name sounds I suppose.

parthian... jpg
(219.29 KB, 800x1076)

 >>/44463/
>  Too bad noone knows how Sumerian sounded in reality. I do not believe in the "reconstructions" or that song someone put onto youtube neither.
Forgot to write it's absolutely brain damaging how people can believe this. Like let's listen sumerian song hurr durr they totally buy it. I particularly suspect from the "I love science" types, science is based upon falsiciation method, criticism not academic circlejerking.

 >>/44465/
> Pseudoscience doesnt mean you are wrong...
I concur with everything you wrote. But see the following.
In Hungarian historiography as far as back to the late 19th century there was (and still is) an "official", sometimes called "academic" line of research and education, especially on the field of Hungarian prehistory (them labeled as "Finnugrists"). As the opposite of them, there is a "national" researchers, who are looking into alternative explanations (how alternative, the palette is very colorful and wide).

Note:
Those participating in the official research always denied the official research's existence, saying there is no official and national, but there is history and pseudoscience, them researching history ofc. These are noted scientists, holding high positions in universities and in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Those participating national historiography are the ones who came up with this categorization, pointing out how the "official" researchers and professors handling history ex cathedra style. They consider themselves national, because they believe the official line serves foreign interests (they frequently subscribe to /pol/-tier ideas as well, about Jews and such), and the academists/Finnugrists are anti-nationalist, mostly socialists, and lately liberals. They have some truth in that considering during the 40 years of communism, very few people getting positions in education and research could avoid politics, if any could - quite a few nationalist researchers are/were emigrants (mostly US and Argentina). Before 1945 however, things were different.

 >>/44467/
So.
By the end of the 19th century the research of Hungarian prehistory was monopolized by linguists, whom represented the Finno-Ugric research line, after they won the so called Ugric-Turkic War (this war was a heated discussion between researches about the origin of the Hungarian language, is it Ugric or Turkic). Since the topic is prehistory, no historical sources are available so historians generally could only chime in from the sideline. The other science that could really help, archaeology was also subordinated to the linguistical line, and put to work to find material proof of their theories (and stop creating their own theories deduced from the material they found). There were sharp exchanges, like "historians shouldn't play linguists" said the ones, and "then linguists shouldn't play the historian" came the reply from the other side (note: these were official researchers). 
These researchers consciously made exclusions during their studies, for example they made geographical exclusions, the Hungarian ancestral lands or even related ethnicities couldn't be searched south from the 50th parallel, or further east then the Ob, and if you were an archaeologist for example who dug - let's say - in Kazakhstan and said "hey, I found something that could be related to Hungarian prehistory", then your fellow professors (archaeologists, linguists, historians) in their publications would label you dreamy, romantic, dilettant, imbecile, etc. - most recently: pseudoscientific -, and say you produce far-fetched fairy tales, instead of scientific work. Your work would be shut down, if not sacked outright then sent to bumfuck nowhere to a minor position, no hope for promotion, if member the HAS (the Academy previously mentioned), then your membership cancelled, etc.
They also created dogmas, questioning them resulted in the same treatment.

Now.
As I said the alternative theories include a variety of colors, and aspects. From the simpler Turkic line, to such ideas which try to find our origins on Antlantis, Mu, and the Sirius. From the suggestion that the Huns and Hungarians might have been related to stating that Jesus was Hungarian this one is actually true ofc. And it's easy for the "academists" to lump everyone together and say "he is sumering again" made up verb from Sumer, is really in use IRL.
Luckily times are changing and some aspects of certain topics can be questioned or put in different light.

 >>/44465/
 >>/44466/
It actually is possible to piece together how languages sound to a degree. Poetry and the like help in this as the way words are used in a poem or song and what they were paired with can give you a vague idea of how they were pronounced. Of course, we can never know what it really sounded like but we can do the best with what we have.

 >>/44469/
>  vague idea
only if we are being optimistic. try speaking a language without ever hearing anything from it, it wont even come close no matter how hard you study the materials and guess how it will sound.

 >>/44467/
 >>/44468/
I rememember you mentioned that the  finugor-turk war in the academies. 

> They consider themselves national, because they believe the official line serves foreign
how so?

> Your work would be shut down, if not sacked outright then sent to bumfuck nowhere to a minor position, no hope for promotion, if member the HAS (the Academy previously mentioned), then your membership cancelled, etc.
so much for academic freedom and muh university-campus autonomy, same case here altough for different cases.

I generally don't understand the resentment against such "pseudoscientific" theories or the worshipping the academic consensus even where the cases there is no consensus at all. Thank this world actually have intelligent and independent thinkers otherwise we would continue to circlejerk into same ideas otherwise we wouldnt able to progress. This is not first council of nicaea and you dont get to decide what is canon and what is heresy, suck it up circlejerkers.

 >>/44471/
The Finno-Ugric origin was established in a time when Hungary was under strict rule, denied her freedom (after we lost the War of Independence of 1848-49), by two Germans (who learnt Hungarian late in their lives). Now, the national camp claims they served the Austrian court which wanted to break the Hungarian spirit, tearing our roots was one of their way. Up to that point there was little question of our ancestry, leading back to the Scythians and Huns (whom were thought the same anyway), they say with the new theory this chain of continuity and identity was broken. Since Finns and Lapps were some subjugated forest people in some backward shithole far from anything civilized back then many felt this as an insult too.
During the communism, it is undeniable that the Central Committee of the Soviet Union decided everything that happened in the Eastern Block (and therefore at us), they set the tone of the education and historiography as well. The communist chain of command also demanded loyalty and trustworthiness from all who aspired to hold an office (like a cathedra at a uni). The national researchers say after the German influence we fell victim of the Slavic one those times.
All this is usually tied to some Jewish plot too somehow. Right now I'm not sure how that goes.

I wanted to add previously but forgot. All the alternative theories are followed by a specific crowd, whom expect from the lecturers to say certain things, to cater to their expectations. So usually those who fell out from the good grace of the leading strongmen of the academics, for relatively minor deviance from the official line, they have to correct what they say to the new audience, so at least someone hears them out. Making peace with the Scytho-Christian Sirian Shamans is a must.

 >>/44473/
I understand now, it all makes sense considering the fact linguistic divisions were basis of quasi scientific racism and nationalism wave. Fun fact kurds are classified as turanids since many couldnt not speak kurdish especially their feudal lords and other higher ups. Fast forward to republic times we wanted to take Mosul due to Turkmen population and Kurdish population to strenthen our thesis in Leauge of Nations we put forward the fact of that era Kurds are turanids therebefore Mosul should be ours and we showed encyclopedia brittanica as citiation that was the moment of course they rejected, they also changed the clasiffication of kurds. Muh Turk bad overly nationalistic, we the blue blooded ones never involve in politics god forbid.. this is the thing they want us to believe. 

Anyway I digressed a little. In that era linguistics and genetics were definitive when it came to definition of race that was the motivation behind the classification of the kurds, so speaking something non indo-european could degrade you not to mention lumping you with seemingly unrelated finns who are also in yoke of another nation might be seen as degrading to the point to a deliberate made up claim to crush hungarian national spirit. 

By the way Scythian language have shitloads of Turkic words but again they are not even answered. Pomponious Mela the roman geographer has used the word Turcae around Crimea, some people claim it must be thracians but thracians on the map are already pointed out on a place where they ought to be.  Now I don't make the claim all scythians were Turks and shiet but the whole Turks were residing in east of mongolia not even true considering we most likely become what we are in west of lake baikal which is not east of altai mountains where mongolians and manchus resided perspective seems too unlikely when you consider how the coincidences.

 >>/44476/
That's a good story with the Kurds.
When they figured out languages are "related" they thought they figured out the question "who we are, where we are coming from" - just follow languages! It's way more complex as it turned out since then. Now some are fell into the same trap with the haplogroups.
I think I wrote this here, but some say we are better off associated with the Finns than the Mongols, since that way we're somehow has some Skandi in us, while Mongols were (are) associated with barbarism, and Down-syndrome. They usually point it out that Attila is also widely hated.

Deleted the duplicate post.

 >>/44523/
> Now some are fell into the same trap with the haplogroups.
I think I wrote this here, but some say we are better off ass
Exactly.

> They usually point it out that Attila is also widely hated.
Well he roflstomped half of eurolands, it's normal. I wonder if Attila is pure blooded ugoric name.

> Deleted the duplicate post.
Thx, that was not intended.

 >>/44524/
> I wonder if Attila is pure blooded ugoric name.
For the origin of the name usually two views are noted. One it's Germanic origin, from Gothic Atta = father. The other is the Etele/Itil/Etil, which is one of the big rivers in Southern Russia, usually the Volga I think, but maybe the Don (one of the Dons, we went through that topic somewhere else on this board).
One thing what they never consider that maybe Atta is father in Gothic, but atya is father in Hungarian as well (which is an ancient Uralic word, most likely in ata form, perhaps even the name of the river comes from this).

 >>/44525/
Ata means father in Turkish. 

> Etele/Itil/Etil
Yeah, in Turkish we call him Atilla, not Attila. Which is closer to Etilli, İtilli etc. Which means from Etil (volga). It is most likely not his real name, rather his cognomen.

Maybe Uralic ata and Turkic one is unrelated, maybe coincidence or.. Atilla is meant to be perfect case for Uralic-Altai language group thesis. it's a mystery

 >>/44526/
> Ata means father in Turkish. 
Oh yes I forgot.
Hence one hypothesis says it's German in origin, and the other Turkish.
Maybe he was born at the Volga. We don't know the extent of the Hun Empire towards the East (they usually just draw the line at the Volga, but the only thing we actually know they crossed it about 370-375). And we even have less idea about it's northern borders.
It seems like Attila's palace in the Carpathian basin was a western "command post" where he directed the campaigns from (where Priscus visited him), and not his capital, which was back somewhere in the Pontic Steppes. Maybe at the Volga, the later Khazar capital.

Starship_Tr... jpg
(37.77 KB, 205x300)

 >>/40482/
> What books are my fine bernds recommending?
Haven't read, but recommend.

 >>/44550/
It's on my list for a while now, but I only saw the movie. I expect the book to be a bit different. I assume you also watched the movie, right?