White Turan Against Gay Atlantis: Polarity, Plurality, and Ancient Sexuality

December 31, 2016

The following article was originally published pseudonymously, in large part because this writer was not yet satisfied with its scholarship. The problem was not that the original theses were wrong, but that they were vague and lacked notations. Here, some corrections have been made, and the brief article’s length is more than doubled by citations and notes.

The Real Turan: Confusions and Clarifications 

An abundance of archeological evidence shows us that the ancient Indo-Europeans, or Aryans in older writings, originated on the Pontic Steppe, which stretches from eastern Romania to Central Asia, but especially in present-day Ukraine and southwestern Russia.  They were the first in human history to domesticate the horse.[i]  They vastly expanded from Western Europe to Western China, though their direct and permanent influence in the east may have more or less stopped at India.  (The extent of their influence on China remains a bit of a mystery.)[ii]

Since the Middle Ages, even a little bit before Islamic scholars mostly concocted the confusing identification, the word “Turan” or “Turanian” has been associated with the Turks, or with Turco-Mongolian peoples in general.  This confusion was cemented in the 19th Century by the “Magyarized” Jewish atheist thinker Armin Vambery, the main popularizer of the pan-Turanist ideology.  But the original “Turan” and “Turanians” referred to an Aryan-Iranian people, bitter rivals of the Zoroastrian Persians.  It was thus that Oswald Spengler, in his unfinished posthumous work, could refer to the original Aryan homeland and horse-driven culture complex as “Turan.” (He called Old Europe “Atlantis” and argued that it was the first maritime culture.)

Spengler wrote that the Indo-Europeans emphasized “sky instead of sun” and “did not think of the sun as a star, but rather the light, the redness, brightness, heat of the heavens…” The gods of this “Turan” were elemental “expressions of polarity,” not the southern “colorful image of a set of figures.”  They were “weaving powers, not concrete figures… No personal gods.” [iii]

The most interesting and convincing aspect of this portrait of the Indo-Europeans is that their spirituality was fundamentally anti-humanistic. It can arguably be seen as a pagan anticipation of St. John Chrysostom’s doctrine that God has nothing in common with man, or at least somewhat analogous to it.[iv]   It is far removed from later cabalist-infused revisionist Renaissance and Masonic attempts to supposedly revive Europe’s pre-Christian heritage.

The conquering Indo-Europeans smashed the by-then-degenerated fertility goddess of Old Europe, who had most likely become a pornographic “fag hag” anti-matriarch—the appropriate and rightful mistress of any culture based on homosexuality.[v]  She partially survived into the Classical civilization, but was virulently opposed by everything that was truly Indo-European in it, until finally being crushed by Christianity.  Nothing is more humanistic at its essence than homosexual sodomy, so the Indo-European spirituality could not have been based on it in any way.

From this brief study, we have clarified several misunderstood points. Firstly, that the name “Turanian” for Turco-Mongolians is a confusing anachronism, and that the term would actually better refer to the Indo-European culture complex.[vi]  Secondly, that humanism and pluralism, unlike Christianity, are totally alien to the original Indo-European spirituality. Thirdly, that sexual deviancy, the ultimate expression of the humanistic spirituality, is therefore alien to the genuinely Indo-European heritage as well.[vii]


[i] Anthony, David W., The Horse, The Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, Farrokh, Karra, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War

[ii] The final chapter has not yet been written on the branch of the Indo-Europeans that had travelled to China, apparently not as conquerers so much as mentors of the seminal Qin dynasty. These people later became the Tocharians, then for some reason adopted a Turkic language and became the blonde, blue-eyed Cumans. The latter pushed west into Eastern Europe and assimilated into Vlach (Romanian) culture. These Vlacho-Cuman intermarriages produced the ruling classes, first of the Second Bulgarian Empire (or Vlacho-Bulgarian Empire), then of the Romanian principalities. This mysterious East Asia branch of the Indo-Europeans therefore had more of an impact on history than commonly thought.

On the Indo-European influence on China, see Beckwith, Christopher I., Empires of the Silk Road:A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. [pp. 45-48] On the Cumans, see Nicolle, David, Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe 1000-1568. See also Barber, Elizabeth Wayland, The Mummies of Ürümchi.

[iii] [http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Spengler,+Oswald/Frühzeit+der+Weltgeschichte.+Fragmente+aus+dem+Nachlass]

(translation author’s)

[iv] St. John Chrysostom’s metaphysical affinity with the anti-humanistic spirituality of the Indo-Europeans is exemplified in his rejection of theological anthropomorphism:

“What has God in common with man? Why do you mix what may not be mixed? Why confound things which are distinct, why bring low what is above?” (Homily 1 on John 1:1)

“You see, in saying, ‘Let us make a human being in our image and likeness’, he did not stop there, but through the following verse made clear to us what was the reason for choosing the word ‘image’. What in fact does the text go on to say? ‘Let them have control of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, and all the reptiles creeping on the earth.’ So ‘image’ refers to the matter of control, not anything else, in other words, God created the human being as having control of everything on earth, and nothing on earth is greater than the human being, under whose authority everything falls. Yet if, despite such precision in terms, there are still those spoiling for a fight who would want to say ‘image’ is used in terms of form, we will say to them: that means he is not only man but also woman, for both have the same form. But this would make no sense.” (Homilies on Genesis, 1-17, pp. 110-111)

[v] Archeologist April Nowell disputes the popular but controversial hypothesis that the figurines of the pre-Indo-European cultures represented a form of prehistoric pornography. It is quite possible that both extremes of this debate are partially right, and that these antiquated cultures drew no distinction between religion and pornography. These figurines, she notes, “are incredibly varied beyond the few figurines seen over and over again: the Venus of Hohle Fels, the Venus of Willendorf, and the Venus of Dolní Věstonice. Some are male, some are female; some are human, some are animals or fantastical creatures; some wear items of clothing, others do not.” But does all this really preclude pornographic eroticism, or just make it even dirtier?

[vi] Khan’s Mongols, whom posthumous Spengler and others have argued were originally part-Aryan, added a genuinely East Asian invention—gunpowder—to the culture-complex they otherwise copied from the Indo-Europeans.

[vii] The Mongols, who actually give us the clearest picture of what the original Indo-European culture-complex of the steppe had been like, punished homosexuality with death. The Mongolian and “Turanian” beliefs—as Mircea Eliade, like posthumous Spengler, argued—are accurate reflections of the Indo-Europeans who had initially invented that horse-driven lifestyle. Furthermore, according to Tacitus, the ancient Germanic tribes had similar anti-homosexual laws.

The Indo-European heritage of the family-centered Romans reflected Aristotle’s heterosexual vision of the family and the state, and Christ was still a child when Augustus enacted anti-homosexual measures in Rome. The rampant homosexuality of the Classical world was already frowned upon by the Romans, at least in theory. Plutarch, for example, treats it as a vice at best. We can therefore conclude that Christianity answered what the Romans already saw as a social problem.

The Aryan-Turanic steppe’s emphasis on polarity over plurality can also be noticed in Virgil’s work, which Spengler, like Houston Stewart Chamberlain before him, wrongly dismissed as “servile” and inferior to Homer. (“Servile” compared to what? Homer’s unbridled artistic freedom?) The Aeneid, that “Godfather Part II” of Classical literature, replaces the pluralistic chaos and other residually Old European elements of The Illiad with heterosexual, celestial polarity.

[On the Mongolian anti-homosexual laws see Onon, Urgunge, The Secret History of the Mongols, p.11. For the best example of Eliade’s argument that the Indo-European outlook was dualistic, see his Zalmoxis: The Vanishing God. ]

Local Solutions to the Globalist Problem Forums White Turan Against Gay Atlantis: Polarity, Plurality, and Ancient Sexuality

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  stern 1 year ago.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Skip to toolbar