Mongolia Isn’t Sorry

Genghis Khan killed approximately 40 million people–so many that historians debate whether the massive decrease in agriculture caused by the deaths of so many farmers helped trigger the Little Ice Age. DNA analysis indicates that 1 in 200 people alive today is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan or his immediate male family.

The Genghis Khan Equestrian Statue, erected in 2008 near Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, stands 130 ft (40 m) tall, its pedestal an entire museum. It is one of the world’s tallest statues–and the tallest equestrian statue–a status it shares primarily with the Buddha and other eastern deities.

Mongolians regard him as the father of their country.

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “Mongolia Isn’t Sorry

  1. And why should they be sorry? I don’t understand this concept of apologizing for the deeds of your ancestors, seems like moral exhibitionism, frankly. You personally did nothing, what are you apologizing for? Reminds me of a critique by Theodore Dalrymple on the custom of British politicians who apologize for the Empire’s perceived historical misdeeds, something like “politicians will apologize for all mistakes except their own”.

    Whatever our predecessors have done, they enabled us to be here. Life is harsh, we should be thankful.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. This is just another reminder that “white guilt” is just that, and that other races – ever highly intelligent and conscientious races like Asians – just don’t feel this odd compulsion, and a good thing too, at least from their standpoint. And as Symmetriad points out above, why should they? Why should we?

    As they say on World Star Hip Hop, “White people B crazy…”

    Liked by 1 person

    • why should they? Why should we?

      Good questions. It must be a deleterious mutation in POP. I’m barely genetically literate, but I assume that the mutation will be purged from the gene pool at some point in the future.

      Like

      • While there may well be a genetic angle, and there certianly are other factors, I am fair certian Mongolia hasn’t gone through generations of near on full spectrum proganda preaching both a literal physical and cultural genocide courtesy of a tribe full of Tim Wise’s, Gerogre Soros’s and the like

        Like

  3. Emphasize that your estimate “1 in 200 people alive today” is of patrilineal descendants, father to son. His descendants, tracing through both sons and daughters, presumably include almost all of us alive today.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Well I think it’s a mistake to lump together Archaic east Asians such as the Mongols (even in inner Mongolia were they are heavily mixed with Han, their average IQ is 95….and much of it is due to their very high special IQ (reflexes). Their verbal and math IQs are in the high 80s, with Populations that had agriculture and civilization for millennia (Han, Koreans (also calling themselves Han) and Japanese who are basically Korean settlers). It’s no surprise that a low performance warrior people, that can’t really adapt to the modern world is nostalgic about an era in which strengths of their people could grant them so much power as to be hated and feared by the rest of the civilized world for centuries to come. After all what followed this destructive glory was the Russian empire marching through all the great steppe, breaking tribe after tribe and then spreading Vodka among them to keep them docile….

    On another note….I do find it interesting how Europe and China had exchanged one another as centers of civilization over the course of history. In antiquity it was the Mediterranean, Greako-roman world that formed the most advanced civilization on the globe, with Han china being inferior in most fields, be it metallurgy, infrastructure, urbanization or literacy. Then barbarians (Germanics, Huns, Slavs, Awars and finally the Arabs) tore it down and the west fell into a dark age from which it would only recover 800 to 1000 years later. In this period China took the central stage and became the most advanced civilization in the world with most technological inventions done in this period being done in China. It reached its peak during the Song dynasty. Then the Mongols came and tore it all down, leaving only pyramids of skulls were once stood massive cities. China didn’t reach per capita Song levels till probably 1985 (2 years prior to the birth of yours truly) Western Europe tough was spared and maneged to get ahead of China…a position it has kept till now. Following this logic of history the way for China to pull ahead again is trough having some Attila the hun rapemurder Europe like last time…..

    If one follows the Neoreactionary principle of “The only morality is civilization”, Genghis Khan as the most absolute embodiment of everything barbaric known in history would be the incarnation of the devil….. To be fair thats how he was seen by most Europeans until recently.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Admittedly, Mongols might not be typical NE Asians (although I don’t know if I would call them “archaic”) but other Asians don’t seem to be very keen on the whole racial guilt thing, either. The Japanese killed 10-15 million people in WWII, but they do not seem exactly crushed with guilt over it. The Vietnamese carried out a ruthless purge of ethnic Chinese in the 1970’s, that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. If they have apologized to anyone, I have not heard about it. And Mao killed 40-60 million of his own people; the judgement of the Chinese Communist Party? “70% good, 30% bad”, and Mao’s giant portrait remains in Beijing.

      And yeah, from my standpoint, Genghis Khan was one of history’s great monsters. But as far as the Mongols are concerned, he was good for the Mongols, and besides, it was all a long time ago. From the social standpoint, one could argue that that’s healthier than tearing down stature of former heroes just because their values did not correspond to those held on the Avant-Garde Left today.

      Like

      • All of life is some version of conflict. It’s pretty churched up these days, but eccnmoincs is conflict, politics is conflict as well as overt conflict such as war, all most all of it tribal by nature. Most folks are pretty far removed from this reality but that doesn’t change what’s going on and peoples failure to realize these things is by and large why we here in the West are fucked.

        Why should they give a fuck about what was done to other tribes? It is conquer or be conquered. Much better to be on the winning side, which is another truth lost on modern Western people. Well semi lost. A lot of what drives the blind eye to tribalism is the fear of harmless words like “racist”

        Like

      • “Much better to be on the winning side, which is another truth lost on modern Western people.”

        Depends on your value system I suppose. Thing is that most westerners over the course of history weren’t content with such an easy explanation.

        I thought your movement wanted for the west to survive and grow in power because you believed that the West was well suited to advance civilisation and human evolution towards a higher stage.

        The question is off course if conflict exists for its own sake…such was certainly Genghis Khans vision, as well as the “vision” of any animal in the state of nature, or if it is a mean to advance a higher cause. Isn’t this what civilisation is after all…not the eradication of conflict but its direction into a pattern that advances it? After all a competition pattern that rewards brute strength and impulsive aggression will lead to a very different society then one that rewards intelligence and self-control.

        If I was a Mongolian or a Bantu for that matter I certainly can’t imagine being anything but ashamed of my culture. I wouldn’t want it to devour all others for this would be a disaster and its objectively easy to see that.

        Liked by 2 people

    • “Then barbarians (Germanics, Huns, Slavs, Awars and finally the Arabs) tore it down and the west fell into a dark age from which it would only recover 800 to 1000 years later.”

      This is a disputed hypothesis. There is a very real line of scholarly work that postulates that what we call the ‘Dark Ages’ are more a product of shifting our focus away from Rome as the centre toward France as the centre, and that while Roman civilization went through a severe transformation and the Roman people themselves were replaced by barbarians (mostly of Germanic extraction, more or less diluted with the original Italian stock) that did involve some loss of prestige and capability, the Roman Empire only ‘fell’ with the Peace of Westphalia. So what we call the ‘Dark Ages’ is more a product of Gibbon’s biases than a matter of settled history.

      Of course the Roman Empire went through some severe retractions and transformations, but we don’t have to believe that the Germanic/Italian/betimes-French confederation calling itself the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ is a lie.

      As to the genetics of the Mongols and the Han: it’s an interesting idea; do you have sources? How do you square it with the Manchu replacement of much of the population of mainland China as an effect of the fall of the Song dynasty? I’d want to see haplotype studies, at least. I suppose it’s possible, for example, that all the smart, genetically-superior Mongols went south and raped all the Chinese women while their stupid northern kin stayed home and expanded into the vacuum. Or that the Tang dynasty’s genetic legacy in Mongolia is more diluted than it was in 1280 and they’ve been undergoing strong selection pressure for riding horses and killing each other and against long-form poetry and calculus.

      Liked by 2 people

      • This is a disputed hypothesis.”

        Modern leftists do surprisingly agree with various romantic nationalists on this point, but archaeology paints a rather one sided picture here. Whatever you look at, be it shipwrecks, urbanity, coinage spread of written records or even quality of the script, everything shows a vast decline. Population did also strongly decline, especially in Western Europe and then also in the east following the “Justinianian plague”. The disaster was indeed terrible and it was merely in the 11th century that Europe started to recover.

        Also Italy did remain the centre of western European commerce, culture and religion till the 17th century. It was usually divided into many city states and thus unable to carry much political weight but the “fall of Rome” did not destroy its overall dominant position, it merely lowered the level of all of Roman Europe. France didn’t get into Italy until much later btw, Pippin the short in the 8th century. Prior to that the Romans (now Byzantines) fought with the Langobards (literally the “longbeards”) and the encroaching Muslims. In truth the Romans might have retained controll over most of the Mediterranean were it not for the Arabs giving them the killing blow, reducing them to a degraded rump state in Anatolia.

        The picture we get through archaeology is that by the 2nd century AD we there is a thriving civilisation all across the Mediterranean, one that is more developed then anything Europe saw till the 17th century, then it slowly starts to decline, until it suddenly radically collapses in the west, with its remnants then declining even further.

        As for the Mongols: well studies of IQ of actual outer Mongolia are as far as I know non existent, but studies of (heavily intermixed) inner Mongolia are collected here: https://openpsych.net/forum/attachment.php?aid=616

        “How do you square it with the Manchu replacement of much of the population of mainland China as an effect of the fall of the Song dynasty?”

        I’m sorry but that’s the first time I hear such a hypothesis. Also didn’t you want to say “Mongol”? The Manchu were called Jurchen back then and while they did take over Northern China during the fall of the Northern Song, most China remained under Han rule. Also the Jurchen (the Jin dynasty) were far too few in numbers to replace anyone, preferring instead to make use of the Han run bureaucratic apparatus. Although much of the population from the lands they took over fled south, there were still more then enough Han left for a bunch of forest savages to have a nice life…until the Mongols came and slaughtered them all that is. Also the Mongols didn’t replace the Han….. Genghis Khan did have initially the plan to slaughter all Han in northern China and turn their land into steppe for his herds, but was convinced by some mandarin to tax the population instead. The Mongols did indeed kill a huge chunk of the Han population, but settled in China proper only as garrisons…garrisons that were then slaughtered by peasant rebels if they didn’t run back to the steppe prior to that.

        The Tang while controlling the Turanian steppe for large periods of time never allowed Han to settle there en masse, actually even heavily restricting Han merchants to do business there.

        As for Mongolians, to be honest I’m surprised they even have 95 IQ points, I mean most of their relatives in Siberia and central Asia have around 90 (if even that much), all of them are heavily skewed towards the visuo-spatial tough.

        Mongols do seem like your average Siberian barbarians, who’s IQ rose to about 90 due to cold climate, while the Chinese, Koreans etc. got an extra boost due to agriculture. After all it seems that climate and a history of at least 500 years of agriculture are 2 factors that have large influence on IQ wherever we look.

        Also North and southern Chinese do have rather similar genetic compositions.

        I have a good graph showing the genetic composition of various east asian groups. Id upload it here if I would know how :(

        Liked by 1 person

      • Also I dont think the modern Italian population even in the north shows much germanic DNA, as for the Mongols, one shouldnt forget that they have abducted Han women for centuries, which might have had some influence on their genetic traits.

        Like

      • OK, after further expansion you and I do seem to broadly agree about Rome and the Roman Empire. I’m merely claiming two specific things: a) the people on the ground, though they changed from Roman to different stock, lived in a to-them unity with the transformed Roman Empire, and b) claims of a universal, clearly-delineated ‘Dark Age’ that Europe then overcomes with a clearly-delineated ‘Rennaissance’ are a horrible oversimplification of history. There was, in many places in Western Europe, a decline in central authority and a reversion to simpler forms of governance, but the manorial system and the preservation of culture through the monasteries was done in the milieu of preservation of a Roman domain, albeit one that had shifted from pagan emperors to the Christian Pontifex Maximus.

        My sideline about France was to mention that, to Anglophones, there’s a lot more emphasis on the France/Britain/Austro-Prussian history as the history of Europe than there objectively should be, and when you transfer your view from Justinian to Charlemagne you see a huge disparity in cultural and material ‘advancement’ – a term I don’t like because it smuggles in theories of history with which I violently disagree. (Aside not aimed at you; I just have a pedantic streak.)

        On the Mongol front, I’m getting most of my history regarding the fall of the Song dynasty and the aftermath from Spandrell, whom I don’t want to link at the moment because I’m on a university network and while EvolutionistX can be defended as acceptable-if-fringe content he definitely can’t. I’d be more than happy to see a debate between him and you on the topic.

        Like

  5. I do wonder tough. Now in Russia there is a grand debate (going on for the last 27 years really) about all the Lenin monuments around the country. As well as on the status of Lenin’s corpse in his mausoleum.

    In a way Communism can be compared to Genghis Khan and the Turanian/Altaic steppe nomad culture he most embodied. A force of pure destruction, able to tear down and ruin but pathetic at building anything lasting on the ruins they have created, the cultural achievements of these steppe Nomads are somewhere around 0….but the destruction they caused was greater than any other people on earth. They have probably thrown mankind back by at least a millennium if not more. Communism was not that destructive in percent and in a way it did even make use of the tools of civilisation because you really cannot get power in the modern world any other way. Still almost all of their efforts in industry and technology were focused on making war, its industry was unable to compete on a free market and quickly collapsed when coming into contact with it as if it never even existed, every country this ideology managed to infect got ruined, some extremely so (Russia whaus imperial population today would number between 400 and 700 million if not for the disasters the Reds caused), to east Germany which mealy experienced a brain drain and economic degradation.

    Still many people (around half of Russia’s population) cling to Lenins and especially Stalins memory because “our history” and “glorious victories” and “the west was afraid of “us””. In a way this is much more bewildering then the cult of Genghis Khan, he might have butchered 15% of the world population (with his sons killing even more), but at least he made the Mongolians feel powerful and did not ruin his own country (not that there was much to ruin there in the first place).

    I tend to be firmly on the side of “Tear down all monuments to the commies and restore all prerevolutionary ones. Also get the mummy out of his ziggurat, burn it, put the ashes into a rocket and launch said rocket into Switzerland were he came from”….but thats just me :)

    Like

    • “the cultural achievements of these steppe Nomads are somewhere around 0”

      I hear they have some impressive skull-pyramids still dotting the steppes. Do those count?

      Like

      • Are they still standing? I dont think so…same goes for most of the stuff commies built…..If you dont count rusty ruins.

        Like

    • Yes, at least the people Genghis Khan killed were for the most part non-Mongols. The Communists overwhelmingly killed their own people. If I lived in Russia, I would probably want the monuments to Lenin torn down, but, in a country where “non-persons” were routinely airbrushed out of official photos, I can also understand those who think “enough with the re-writing of history, if our people once venerated Lenin, we have to deal with that”. This is one of those rare issues where I can see both sides.

      Like

    • Oh I indeed do agree that some semblance of Roman authority or at least an illusion of such was preserved. After all most Germanic warlords who took over chunks of the western half of the empire did immediately declare themselves “loyal subjects” of the roman emperor in Constantinople (and no he wasn’t called “eastern roman emperor”, let alone “Byzantine”, with the western emperor retired there was only one emperor left…the roman one, after all even the western emperors hadn’t resided in Rome for about a century by then. It was only with the Arab invasion that the Mediterranean system of trade based on roman naval dominance (Mare nostrum) was ended and the various regions isolated from each other, which made the 8th century the low point of the west in terms of development. This created a certain vacuum in Europe, which gave rise to a new system. That the monasteries managed to preserve some knowledge does not mean that much knowledge wasn’t lost or that there wasn’t an overall decline in literacy and culture. Murrays human accomplishments show this picture very well too btw.

      As for Spandrells texts, I have read them as well and have to say that I did miss were he was describing any widespread population replacement in China, especially since he did state that the Jurchen were a very small tribal group of mostly hunter gatherers and couldn’t have replaced anyone even if they wanted to.

      btw if you could tell me how to post pictures here Il link the DNA map of east Asia.

      Also sorry for my bad English, its not my native language.

      Like

      • No need for apologies; your English is fine.

        Honestly I’d have to go back and read Spandrell’s series again to base any strong claims on it, which is why I was asking questions more than making assertions.

        Yes, of course much was lost or transformed with the loss of realistic Roman hegemony and the ultimate reorganization of Europe on a multilateral basis. I just mean that claims of a sharp and obvious cutoff date for the ‘Western’ Roman Empire in theoretical historical continuity truly felt by the local rulers and subjects or a sharp and obvious cutoff date for technological sophistication – like the Greek Dark Age, for example – are somewhat overblown, unless you locate said date as far down the line as the Fall of Constantinople or the Peace of Westphalia or even the Treaty of Versailles. (After all, Austro-Hungary was calling and considering itself the Holy Roman Empire even then, and had theoretical plans for the re-annexation of Italy and so forth).

        As for posting pictures, I’m not sure how to do so in WordPress comments, but you could always upload it to some image hosting site like Imgur and paste a link.

        Like

      • Also: after further reading, it appears I was assuming that the founding of the Yuan dynasty involved widespread rapine and destruction by the invaders, probably because they were Mongols and being taken over by the Mongols always means utter scouring of the subjugated population by the conquerors, right? (Making fun of myself here.)

        Meanwhile, in the real world, that appears not to have been the case; while there was a fair amount of intermarriage between the Han and, for example, the Jurchen, the latter group wasn’t large enough to genetically impact the Han to a significant extent. Instead, the Mongols ‘settled in’ as an extreme-minority ruling class and largely adopting Chinese culture and customs, at least when facing the locals.

        (This is all according simply to Wikipedia, but it’s good enough to show me up, at least.)

        Also, I might very well be confusing distinctions between Jurchen/Manchu/Mongol and maybe others.

        Thanks for the correction!

        Like

    • I obviously don’t have the same emotional connection you do to Russian history, but it seems like if there are people who like the statues or want to keep them, you could let those people keep the statues, or buy them. Or put them all in a museum together with a display about the tragedies they caused.

      Like

      • Well opponents of them staying at city centres usually do argue that they should be put on less central places. For many soviet artefacts museums are indeed proposed. And few want to remove the mausoleum, only get the mummy out of it. And whatever my (not so secret) dreams concerning communist symbols may be I would be ok with that. The strategy of the current government and Putin in particular is to preach “reconciliation” between “Reds and Whites”” and to support booth sides in their propaganda, sometimes the one sometimes the other. All in all whenever something internally problematic to the regime happens the “internal civil war” is heated up again and questions like “burry Lenin or not” or “Put monuments to Stalin up or not” are raised to distract from said issue…..Works quiet well every time.

        According to surveys the population has been about evenly split on these issues since about 2000….right around half anti soviet pro White and pro-Russian empire and the other half pro Stalin and anti-empire. In a way this does benefit the government but on the other hand makes a clear focus on the one and rejection of the other unprofitable for it.

        Like

  6. Oh the mongol conquest of China was extremly brutal and the Mongols did institute a caste like system in which some ethnicities ranked above others. Population remained much lower then in the song period and the Mongol relation the Han mandarinate was rather rocky……It all broke down in a massive peasent rebellion 70 years after the conquest. China never recovered BUT its genetic stock remained undefiled by the Mongols. Just like in Russia. You see if a mongol wanted a Chinese women for himself he took her with him and made her part of his harem, their children would then become part of Mongol society, influencing the Mongol but not the Chinese gene pool. If some Mongol warrior raped some chinese women…well children of rape usualy have much smaller survival chance then other kinds of children. And even should they grow up theyr outcasts, which substantialy loweres their chances at further reproduction. Thus its no surprise that the Mongol occupation of China/Russia, the ottoman occupation of the Balkans ect didnt leave much of a genetic imprint.

    Like

    • Sounds rather like the de-facto system for Sub-saharan ancestry in the States today, at least in results. Pretty much anyone with any but the faintest traces of ‘Black’ blood is categorized by society and self-identifies as Black. They might take ‘White’ (or, much less often, other meta-ethnicities) women, or more rarely men, but their children are still Black. (Sometimes they emphasize that they’re ‘biracial’, but that’s usually when they’re looking for White fellow-feeling, and it never works.)

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s