Search for the true history of Eastern Europe

[mike bayko]

The "official" history of Eastern Europe that is regurgitated to us by the system is essentially an incomprehensible amount of loosely correlating lies, most of which were rewritten during the latter half of the 17th century and throughout the early 18th century. I want to be very clear this post is not intended to talk badly of the house of Rurik in any way, I myself descend from the house of Rurik from various lines of my family. I only wish to help find the truth of the history of Eastern Europe.

 

Why do millions of people in the region all speak the same "slav-ic" (sleif-ic/slaff-ic) language, in spite of DNA evidence clearly showing distinct differences among the various populations of the region suggesting separate origins. It only takes two generations to impose a new language upon mass groups of people. In truth the only thing that links slavic people together is the universal language they all speak, which has evolved into various different dialects over the decades as a result of a potential collapse of whatever old system provided the language as a universal standard of communication among the various people of the region, hence causing many ethnic groups across eastern Europe to be incorrectly labeled as "Slavic".

 

The house of Rurik goes back to the house of Uppsala-Munsö the old dynasty of the coat of arms with the eagle mid flight, who were princes of Novgorod (Garðaríki) many many centuries before Rurik, and ruled basically all of Scandinavia from antiquity to the middle ages. The term Russian is a rather new term brought about during the 18th century, along with the term Ruthenus allegedly coined by Michał Rogala Lewicki. Almost every noble family of the empire of Russia was ennobled during the 18th and 19th centuries, before that there were very few, and almost all either descended from foreign knights or the house of Rurik. Has nobody realized that the common "ov" ending in many Russian surnames is simply a different way of pronouncing the Germanic/Scandinavian "off"/"aff".

 

The only sources I can find that put a name on the people of Novgorod, St. Petersburg, and Moscow label them as the Muscovites, what Bohdan Chmelnicki and many other Szlachta (warrior) families described as a nation of slaves in which everyone was bound to slavery to the ruling house. Why is the coat of arms of Ukraine the coat of arms of the house of Rurik? In noble court records the Hungarian nobility and the Polish Szlachta recognized the differences between western Ukraine (Lemberg-Munkacs-Tarnopil) and eastern Ukraine (Kiev and eastward), so as to suggest that the western half was not ruled by the houses of Rurik and Romanoff, and yet according to the official narrative of the history of the region, western Ukraine was apparently always ruled by the house of Rurik. I don't think that is a valid claim as the main source of this claim, Nestor's chronicle, has very questionable origins, as it has been remorselessly edited and rewritten over the years which could easily have resulted in translation errors. Furthermore the original copies are lost, and the rewrites could easily have been rewritten to favor specific politics at the time.

 

Poland and the Szlachta are a separate predicament. Do not forget that the house of Jagiełło goes back to Gedminas, who was a member of the house of Rurik. Many Szlachta families also go back to the house of Rurik, which could theoretically allow one to view the kingdom of Poland as an extension of the lands of the crown of Rurik. It does not help that we do not know the true origins of the Piast family, although it is interesting to me that both the Piast and Premysl families have legendary origins back to Piast the wheelwright and Premysl the ploughman, two peasants, and yet there are two stories, one in the Wielkopolska chronicle mentioning three brothers Lech, Czech, and Rus, and a story in Estonian folklore mentioning three brothers that were peasants, Rahurikkuja, Sinius, and Truvaar. According to the folklore the three brothers went off to become kings of three different lands. Could this story be the same retelling of Lech, Czech, and Rus? It is not a coincidence that the coat of arms of the house of Piast was literally the white eagle upon the red sky described in the story of Lech. Perhaps Sineus and Truvor were kin of Rurik (they could have lived in slightly different eras), and ventured out to conquer Poland with the emergence of the Piasts, and Bohemia with the emergence of the Premyslids. According to Nestor's chronicle Sineus and Truvor died shortly after obtaining Belozersk and Izborsk, but Belozersk and Izborsk were already lands held by the house of Uppsala-Munsö for centuries before. Who is to say they did not go on to conquer Poland and Bohemia.

 

In my opinion, the idea of "slavic" unification is very ignorant, and has caused so much unnecessary confusion and debating regarding the history of eastern Europe. The mere idea of "slavic" tribes being riddled across the region has given others a false sense of nationalism in a way which has hindered many peoples' abilities to look at the history of eastern Europe objectively, and intuitively. Poland has been a victim of many wars causing many of their historical documents to be burnt down and lost, and it is difficult to believe that it is merely a huge coincidence. If you look at a typical Pole or Muscovite (what people would consider to be a "slav"), and compare it to a typical Scandinavian, they are quite similar genetically. Usually they are tall, with pale skin, lighter hair, and blue/gray eyes. This is true today and was true during the 10th century as the travelling moor Ibrahim Ibn Yaqub stated there was little to no differences between a Slav (Sleif/Slaff), and a Scandinavian. He even went as far as to call Scandinavia the Peninsula of the Slavs. Many people will deny this and the objective evidence behind it however, out of their incapability to challenge their own beliefs and their inflated senses of nationalism. Compare the typical western Ukrainian to the typical Slav and they are indeed quite different genetically, whereas the Slav is generally tall, pale, light haired, and possessing blue or gray eyes, the western Ukrainian is typically short, darker complexion, dark haired, and possessing brown eyes. It is no coincidence that the frequent "-slav" (-sleifr/-slaff) suffix to Bohemian, Polish, and Muscovite given names was practically never used among the western Ukrainians before 1850. Only after 1850 when propaganda of false nationalism, and wars were being orchestrated so as to destroy the cultural identity of the west Ukrainians, did they very infrequently begin to use names such as Wladyslaw.

 

Throughout the noble court records of the Hungarian nobles of Zemplén county, and to lesser extent Sáros, Szepes, Liptó, Árva, and even Trencsén counties, can be found instances that speak of west Ukrainian noble families, separate from the Polish Szlachta, and separate from the Muscovite Rurikid-Romanoff empire. As well as testimonies and records of west Ukrainian noble families which were later ennobled in the kingdom of Hungary throughout the early 17th century. The house of Rurik has always forced their millions of slaves (Slavs) to fight in their wars as knights, hence where the Szlachta began to emerge in the middle ages basically as glorified warrior families (the word Szlacht/Schlacht literally meant battle/fight), this was how they buffed their military numbers into the millions while having almost no other noble families other than the house of Rurik and its cadet branches.

 

To conclude I have always been disgusted with the amount of ambiguity and contradictions in the official narratives of the history of eastern Europe, and I am trying to add some potential insight to help discover the true history of the region. I never see anyone like David Icke really talk about this, nor any historian such as Graham Hancock mention this part of history. The history of eastern Europe might be the most propaganda and lie filled history that we have been given, and nobody seems to care at all about pointing out the bullshit, they would rather stay caught up in their bubbles of nationalism or slavic identity or whatever, and I am tired of nobody ever calling it out. The history of eastern Europe is the one elephant in the living room that I have never heard David Icke or anyone address.

 

I welcome all opinions and research to be added to this post, so we can try to find the truth of the history of the region.