Post: #1

I want to introduce you all to my favorite Red pill Russian blog that I fallow:

http://www.fit4life.ru/ by Dennis Borisov

This blog deals mainly with bodybuilding and nutrition but also touches many other subjects like red pill relationship advice, exposing feminism (he calls it matriarchy), teaches men to be lovers and not providers.





He also talks about topics you cannot hear in anglosphere. Of particular interest to me is this video in which he demonstrates how Russian language may be the original european language. This contradicts many thing we were taught in history at school, but as we all know history is written by winners.





Basically he reveals that many English words have their roots in Russian suggesting that in past Russian influence was much wider then official history admits.
I am not sure what to think of this. He may be just spilling Russian propaganda, but on the other hand he is right in that for me being a natural Russian speaker it is easier to learn and understand other languages like English and German - even easier than to English and Germans themselves because I kind of intuitively know how the English words have originated. It is also logical that the Russian being probably the most rich and complicated language in the world with many tenses, would be the original and the simple flat English would be a very derrived. According to his theories Latin is basically a made up language fabricated in somewhere 17th century to conceal that Modern western languages have come from Russian and so the myth of Rome and Latin language was created. He argues that Rome was actually a proto-Russian civilization with an actual center in Constantinople.

More about his view on real (alternative) history:





This is a must watch for everyone who speaks or learns Russian. I would like if anyone could make any arguments for or against what is said here because it has left me puzzled. Everything he says seems wrong from historic perspective as we know it, bet everything he says seems legit from linguistic perspective. You will never believe him if you cannot speak Russian. But if you know Russian then it will make you question many things.

Post: #2

I'm sure his ideas on fitness and exposing feminism are sound, but the very idea that Russian is "the original European language" strikes me as blatant ethnocentric bullshit (which Russians are very, very highly skilled at). English is a Germanic language, which has its roots in the Germanic-speaking tribes western-central Europe, later absorbing influence from the Romance family (via William the Conqueror of Normandy as a result of the Battle of Hastings in the year 1066 A.D.).

Russian as a language was synthesized by Aleksandr ("Alexander") Pushkin during his writing career in the early part of the 1800s (brilliant man). Before Pushkin, there was no Russian language; it very simply didn't exist before then. It was a mish-mash of Slavonic regional languages and dialects. Even then, the Slavonic languages had only ever been unified by the Greek missionaries Sankt Kirill (St. Cyril) and his brother St. Methodius of Thessalonika during the 9th Century, who synthesized it into what we call "Old Church Slavonic", and by the time Old Church Slavonic (the progenitor of Russian) was ever spoken by anybody, English had already been a language for at least 7 centuries, documented, among sources, in the epic poem "Beowulf", as composed during the Viking Age.

I would like to point out some other absolutely preposterously ridiculous bullshit:

Bullshit #1: "Russian being probably the most rich and complicated language in the world with many tenses":
Russian is neither rich nor complicated. Granted, there are many rules and forms, but the underlying <i>functions</i> that those rules and forms accomplish and achieve are embarrassingly few. And I actually physically laughed out loud, very hard when I read "many tenses". If by "many", he means "three", then yes. Russian has three tenses. Compare this to the 16 in English, Finnish (the hardest, richest, most complex and sophisticated language I've ever studied in my life) having 4 basic verb "tenses" (though I personally think that "time fields" or "time regions" would be a more accurate term") undergoing six moods and five participles (forming a total of 120 tense-forms in the classical sense) which combine with 3 voices (passive, active and "zero") to shape themselves into 360 total forms altogether, then there's Turkish with its 20 verb tenses, Spanish with 32 tenses (20 indicative and 12 subjunctive), each verb having two indefinite ("non-finite", they're called) forms (participlar and gerund), combined with the tenses as they are, forming 64 verb tense functions in total, there's Greek with its 15 tenses combined with 2 voices (30 in total). And Russians want to peddle their snake oil bullshit? Russian has three tenses (past, present and future), which combine with two "aspects" (perfective and imperfective).

Bullshit: "Latin is basically a made up language fabricated in somewhere 17th century"
Latin was already a fully developed language which was widely and commonly spoken in what we call "Italy" today, at the time that the Roman Empire was established (the year 27 BCE)
http://tjbuggey.ancients.info/images/coinread.jpg

Bullshit: "He argues that Rome was actually a proto-Russian civilization with an actual center in Constantinople."
Go to Transylvania and tell that to Romanian historians. See how they respond.

The reason why there are so many vocabularical similarities between English and Russian is because of the so-called "high culture" in each society taking vocabulary and language from Latin and Greek. All of our science does it. And considering that by the year 117 CE, the Roman Empire had made it to the Romanian Dacia along with Greek territory
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co..._117AD.png
Sankt Kirill (St. Cyril) and his brother St. Methodius would've had plenty of lexical and linguistic material to work with.

The very idea of English "coming from Russian" and all the other chicken-hawk jingoist clowning is blatant ethnocentrism at its finest (which, again, Russians are incredibly highly skilled at). This should be throw into the same category with chemtrails, GMO paranoia, vaccines causing autism, the "moon landing hoax", the JFK assassination, HAARP, RFID chips, the New World Order, and fuckin anything peddled by Alex Jones.

I would say it's definitely bullshit.

Post: #3

I will also say that this is a fantastic video-blog to listen to in order for a Russian language student to train his listening skills for vocabulary, grammar, usage and intonation. He speaks smoothly and regularly without too much slang, and a lot of the words he uses are in the common frequency-vocabulary lexicon. So, this this sense, I can definitely vouch for it.

Post: #4

^^^

An overblown ethnocentrism is probably the culprit here, but I want it refuted more thoroughly then just basic course of official history. I would still like to play devils advocate to see where it leads.

My example with tenses was probably a bad one (I speak 5 languages but I don't know what a tense is lol, I don't really care for grammar), but on overall Russian is still more complex then any Germanic and Romanic language which are the two significnat groups of european languages. Finnish is not an indo-european language and therefore is not to participate in this.

You didn't watch the video thoroughly - the similarities he points out are definately nothing to do with greek and latin words because similarities exist in words that are absolutely non-greek and non-latin. Also the similarities are not symetric. They make no sense from English side but make great sense from Russian side. Implying that we are dealing not with a third language influencing both languages but rather with one language being a simplified cousin of another.

The suspicious thing about Latin is that there is no one who speaks it. Very strange for a language once used by biggest empire in the world that is claimed to have ruled over 1/4th of earths population.

Historians, like all scientists are often very biased and historians are probably the most biased of all. Just look at feminism being pushed at modern universities and loved by all these scientists. History is a propaganda tool. We can never be sure.

GMO paranoia is a wise caution before a great unknown new technology, vaccines probably do cause side effects in rare cases just like any medicine can have bad side effects in rare cases, doesn't means we must stop using vaccines but truth must be acknowledged and JFK did get assassinated one way or another. You are definitely too big a skeptic if you deny all of this, not any conspiracy theory is false just because some are, therefore I am not to willing to accept your refusal. There is some fire behind the smoke.

Post: #5

Lithuanian is actually the most archaic/closest to Indo-European... It has many words very similar to Sanskrit.

Post: #6

(09-17-2014 05:35 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  Lithuanian is actually the most archaic/closest to Indo-European... It has many words very similar to Sanskrit.

This is officially so.

But Russian also has plenty of similarities to Sanskrit.

http://1000petals.wordpress.com/2013/08/...-sanskrit/

Even as a child I wondered if "Baba Yaga" - Russian for witch is not actually a "Baba Yoga" (Old/Saint of Yoga). Turns out it is.

The very word "Vedas" - means "to know" in russian.

Post: #7

Fair enough. I'll have to collect together a larger base of documentation with source citations and references. These days (as well as for the remainder of my foreseeable life), I'm documenting and deconstructing the grammar and usage of a sequential list of languages in pairs and triplets in order to produce study materials for them (I'm currently working on English, Russian and Persian), though I can definitely take on the proposition of a better, clearer, more thoroughly-analyzed explanation and refutation. For this reason, I'm not sure how long that will take me, but for sure, I can say, challenge accepted.

Post: #8

"To know" is "знать" ("znat' "). Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages in the world, and, again, Russian was synthesized by Aleksandr Pushkin in the early part of the 1800s. There's no possible way that Sanskrit comes from Russian.

Post: #9

http://www.vedu.ru/expdic/2802/

(09-17-2014 05:50 AM)fvaetha Wrote:  "To know" is "знать" ("znat' "). Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages in the world, and, again, Russian was synthesized by Aleksandr Pushkin in the early part of the 1800s. There's no possible way that Sanskrit comes from Russian.

In Russian the proper "to know" is - ("vedat") "ВЕДАТЬ" - which is the same as "Vedas"

"знать" is a more modern and sadly more popular word that may have came after Pushkin reformed the language. If you learn the language as a foreigner you will be taught "знать" but if you are the natural speaker then you will also know "ВЕДАТЬ"

You may not know this like most English speakers don't know that the word "dog" is new and the proper word is "hound" which only more advanced or native speakers know.

http://www.vedu.ru/expdic/2802/

Post: #10

Every native English speaker everywhere knows the word "hound"; it's still in use today, and has a more personal feel than the more physically-distant- and emotionally-detached-sounding "dog". I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about when you say that. It's derived from the Old Germanic "hund" (which is still used in Modern German and the Norse-derivative languages).

Post: #11

(09-17-2014 05:35 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  Lithuanian is actually the most archaic/closest to Indo-European... It has many words very similar to Sanskrit.

I don't know anything about Lithuanian, so I'm not in any position to make any statements about it. I know that Lithuanian is spoken in Lithuania, and that's basically the extent of my knowledge.

Post: #12

(09-17-2014 05:50 AM)fvaetha Wrote:  There's no possible way that Sanskrit comes from Russian.

Maybe. But have you ever head about Aryans invading India from north and teaching them Vedas? Funny how official history never explains who were these mystic "aryan invaders" from north.

Post: #13

(09-17-2014 06:05 AM)fvaetha Wrote:  Every native English speaker everywhere knows the word "hound"; it's still in use today, and has a more personal feel than the more physically-distant- and emotionally-detached-sounding "dog". I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about when you say that. It's derived from the Old Germanic "hund" (which is still used in Modern German and the Norse-derivative languages).

Just like that every native Russian speaker knows the word "ВЕДАТЬ".

Medved (bear) - the one who knows where honey is.

neveza - a fool.

nevezistvo - ignorant behavior.

nevedamo - unknown.

Most of these words have the same emotional old timely personal feel that the "hound" has relative to the "dog"

Post: #14

It absolutely does; they were Persians. That's common knowledge. The word "Arya" is the ancient Persian word for "Persia". The English word "Persia" comes from the Persian word for the "Fars/Pars" tribe. In Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian languages, the name for any language, or any people who spoke that language who are localized or regional to some given place, if the name of the place ends in a consonant, you add "~i", and if it ends in a vowel, you add "~ni". Thus, any of the "(-i)[stan]" countries ("-ni" meaning "of the" or "from the" and "-stan" meaning "country"), you have "afgha" (something like "afghanian" in English) which shifts to "afghani" ("[afgha][ni]"), thus "[afgha][ni][stan]" being "country of the afghanian people". Same goes with "Iran" -> "Irani", "Tajik" -> "Tajiki", thus, "Arya" -> "Aryani". As this was the center of trade for many many centuries, over time, people got lazy with their pronunciation (since everybody everywhere within range of the Silk Road knew exactly where the hell the land of Arya was), and dropped the "-i" at the end, and over time, it became "Aryan". In modern-day India (called "Hindustan" because it was really "Sindustan) and other invading Arabs couldn't pronounce the "s" sound, so the replaced it with that Arabic "KHKHKHKH" throat sound), in North India are the Aryan Indians (who are related to Persians) and in South India are the Dravidian Indians (related to black African merchants/traders). "Official history" definitely explains who the "Aryan invaders" were. It's commonly known. Everybody in India, Persia, China, Tibet and Eastern Africa knows this.

Post: #15

^^^ This is so as far as the word "arya"

Do you want to say persians started Vedic culture in India?

Or maybe the label "aryan" attributed to the invaders who started vedic culture is wrong?

I don't know if there is similarity between Persian language and sanskrit. But there is similarity between pre-Puskin Russian and Sanskrit.

Maybe Persians and old time Russians have something in common too.

Suggestive question: Ever watched the movie "300"? Why do they make such propaganda about West vs. East?

Who would be the modern counterparts (maybe successors) of Greeks and Persians?

Post: #16

It just hit me that the -stan ending is the same as "strana" (side, country) in the same Russian. Minus letter r.

Post: #17

Both Russian and Lithuanian are part of the Baltic/Slavic branch of Indo-European languages so they have plenty of similarities. That said, I believe mainstream linguistics views Lithuanian as more conservative, that is, it has conserved more attributes from Proto-Indo-European than any other European language.

If you are interested in population genetics, there are indeed links between the populations in Northeastern Europe and India.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Ind...bution.png

Post: #18

(09-17-2014 06:05 AM)fvaetha Wrote:  Every native English speaker everywhere knows the word "hound"; it's still in use today, and has a more personal feel than the more physically-distant- and emotionally-detached-sounding "dog". I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about when you say that. It's derived from the Old Germanic "hund" (which is still used in Modern German and the Norse-derivative languages).

That's a good point-English has different styles of use depending on word origin and the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic words and grammar are used for the more personal and emotional communications and have deepest resonance.

For example it's known that mothers speak to their children in almost entirely Germanic vocabulary and grammar:

Sit down

Wash your hands

Eat your food

Don't hit your brother

I love you

Children first learn Germanic English and only later learn words or French and Latin origin

Post: #19

Have none of you heard of Indo-European language group? Of proto Indo-European language?
The similarities between the languages listed above are due to this:

[img]http://fr.guyderambaud.wikia.com/wiki/Culture_d'Afanasievo?file=Aca18.jpg[/img]

http://fr.guyderambaud.wikia.com/wiki/Cu...=Aca18.jpg

Sorry, posting from phone. Images are not coming out correctly.

Post: #20

Mage, are you familiar with Mikhail Zadornov? He's a Russian comedian, and although highly ethnocentric, has some interesting takes on the language and its origins.

Thanks for the share, by the way. I came across this guy on Vkontakte.

Post: #21

To say any present-day language was the "original European language" shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

Languages change over time. 2,000 years ago, English did not exist. Russian did not exist. French did not exist.

These languages evolved from languages which did exist 2,000 years ago. But Russian is just a branch of slavic languages, one of many that come from a similar source.

English, Russian and French, which are Germanic Romance and Slavic lnguages respectively, all are Indo European languages, which share a common source, Proto Indo European, which was spoken somewhere on the steppes of Ukraine/Russia/Central Asia about 5-6 thousand years ago.

English and Russian undoubtedly have many similarities, they are in the same language family and have both been influenced by many of the same sources. Both languages have Latin and Greek influence no doubt. There are also direct loan words in English from Russian and in Russian from English.

But to claim that English developed from Russian is completely off base. Russian and English are distant cousins who have had similar influences.

Does Russia get brownie points because Proto Indo European may have developed in what is now Russia, long before slavs as a people or slavic languages ever existed? Sure, why not. Its like Iraqis being proud of Meopitamia, not really related to whats going on now, but go ahead, be proud of something from 6,000years ago accomplished near where you live.

Post: #22

Links between the Rig Veda and Indo European mythology are many and there are many theories linking them together. I have not seen anything beyond the level of literary analysis confirming this though.

Regarding South Asian Dravidian speakers, they are no more related to Africans than are Russians or Chinese people. We are all from Africa. Ancestral South Asians, the population that represents the pre Indo European expansion into South Asia, arriced there about 60,000 years ago. They are as distinct as any other group. Ancestry is much more than skin color.

Finally, why would you "play Devils advocate" with the idea that Russian was the original European language if your only evidence is some bloggers say so? It is a bit like saying "I believe Christianity was the original Chinese religion" when China has a history older than Christianity itself...

Post: #23

(09-17-2014 01:21 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Mage, are you familiar with Mikhail Zadornov? He's a Russian comedian, and although highly ethnocentric, has some interesting takes on the language and its origins.

Thanks for the share, by the way. I came across this guy on Vkontakte.

I am familiar with Zadornovs very well, who isn't?

(09-17-2014 01:21 PM)Sansowey Wrote:  Finally, why would you "play Devils advocate" with the idea that Russian was the original European language if your only evidence is some bloggers say so?

There are many who say so. This same blogger gives references to where he gets this info. Also Michael Zodornov whom Cunnilinguist mentioned. There are russian scientists who do research on Russian-vedic culture altraugh they are not mainstream.

Every one of you who says that Russian is similar to Germanic merely because of common Greek and latin words (which make all the worlds languages more similar including japanese and zulu) - watch the video I provided. This shows how Russian influances GERMANIC words!

Sansowey you are right trough that we must take pride from our present and not dwell on past. But understanding history is still important to understand the wolrd better. Do you know that official history is different in different countries? Normally the schism goes back as far as WW2, but it's intresting to explore if this doesn't go further back.

Post: #24

I started learning Russian aprox. 2 weeks ago and I couldn't have seem this thread at a better time. Even though I'm obviously way too novice to understand this (I can understand a few common words), I will keep this thread in mind.

By the way Mage are you Russian? Or is Russian a non native language for you?

Post: #25

(09-17-2014 05:15 AM)Mage Wrote:  ^^^

The suspicious thing about Latin is that there is no one who speaks it. Very strange for a language once used by biggest empire in the world that is claimed to have ruled over 1/4th of earths population.

Sure there are a lot of people who speak Latin now.

It's just called "Italian," "French," "Spanish," "Romanian," "Portuguese."

Try taking any language, example modern English is as different from Old English as Italian is from Latin.