Why Soyboys Like the Mongols

Why do Libtards pretend to be fascinated by empires they ought to hate?

If you spend any time in history circles online, you’re bound to encounter people who browbeat “eurocentric” history enthusiasts. Oh, you can’t ONLY focus on European history… That’s PROVINCIAL!!! Why don’t you like the AZTECS and the MONGOLS holmes! They’re so kewl n shit… AY YI YI oalgo… Many of these people are reacting to what they see as a right-wing White aestheticization of White history, which is why it annoys them. But… Why do they choose these barbaric peoples? With all due respect, of course, the Mongols, Persians, and Turks are guilty of many of the same “atrocious behaviors” which these types despise the Spaniards for. The Mongols, by most measures, were actually far more brutal than the Spaniards. The Mongols were almost unbelievably destructive. Their invasion of the Chorasmian Empire is estimated to have killed anywhere from 50-90% of the Persian population. Entire cities were regularly wiped off of the face of the earth. 25-50% of the Hungarian population is expected to have perished by the Mongol arrow and flame. China’s population is believed to have dropped by half. The Golden Horde is also famously credited with throwing bodies ridden with bubonic plague over the walls of Caffa in Crimea, hastening its spread across Europe. The Mongols are also credited with ending the so-called “Islamic Golden Age”. This is often associated with their sacking of Baghdad, but really the greatest centers of knowledge in the Islamic world (not accounting for Al-Andalus, which just so happened to also be in decline at the same time) were on the eastern fringes of the Persian world. Chorasmia, Transoxiana, Parthia, and Khorasan.

Much of the great minds of the Islamic Golden Age were from these regions. Al-Khwarizmi, Avicenna, Ferdowsi, Omar Khayyam, many such cases you get the point. The significance of Baghdad was that it was simply where this crowd went to spread their intellectualisms, it linked the Persian world to the Near East. The Mongols did not simply sack Baghdad, they near completely annihilated the last vestiges of an Iranic Central Asia. The Turks, who the Mongols always had something of a vague affinity with, occupied that area not just as an elite group but as the general population henceforth, and Iranians from the western half of the plateau also likely came in droves.

The main thing the Mongols are given credit for is securing the Silk Road. If the most deadly and destructive fighting force in history plowing over Eurasia is worth it in the end because they facilitated trade, then I don’t want to hear jack shit from these people about what the Portuguese, Dutch, and British were doing. But I will. When they are not glazing Genghis, they are framing the British as the most evil people in human history for forcing their ancestors to eat with a fork and knife instead of by clenching the food with their buttcheeks and gobbling it into their anuses or something. It is depressing and demoralizing watching people view what is likely the most unnecessarily altruistic empire in human history as Satan 3.0 (2.0 was Nazi Germany, of course).

So why does Genghis get the pass? Why do the Aztecs get the pass? I mean, they were also doing things which cannot possibly be defended under any sort of altruism. They sacrificed tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people a year to their gods, and these were people captured through what are called Flower Wars. The Aztecs would encircle less powerful city-states and basically feed vampirically off of them, occasionally engaging in ritual warfare with them and capturing their people to be used as human sacrifices in the big cities. That’s why when you look at maps of the Aztec Empire, it has these weird holes in it.

The Aztecs were not really like any other culture in human history with how dedicated they were to ritual killing. They would even bloodlet themselves every day as a sort of small libation.

Oh yeah, and the example I listed also mentions some less common ones which were likely learned by these clowns from their high school world history classes. Well, I certainly hope knowledge of the Achaemenids is ubiquitous, but the Mughals is an AP World thing. I remember you are taught that Akbar is the good guy, Aurangzeb is the meanie weanie because he was an actual Muslim who enforced Muslim supremacy. Akbar might have not even been Muslim behind closed doors. He had a Hindu wife and was very much something of a perennialist. I don’t think that people who soy over the Mughals realize that Indians really hate the Mughals and consider the Rajputs and Marathas who fought against them to be national heroes. They have come to realize this over some other empires which is why you won’t really see them soying over the Ottomans. Here you are already getting a glimpse at what inspires this version of history… Empires are not off-limits for their transgression of universal ethical standards, but by if they can send off controversy-inducing signals in the modern world. It is all a convoluted form of virtue signaling — SHOCKER!

But, let’s go through the commonly stated defenses of Mongol appreciation among this crowd:

1. “The Mongols endorsed freedom of religion”

Not true. The Mongols did not enforce a state religion because the Mongols had very light administrative authority over the places they conquered, but when they could they banned religious practices they found distasteful. From the Great Khan himself:

Among all the alien peoples only the Hui-hui say “we do not eat Mongol food”. [Cinggis Qa’an replied:] “By the aid of heaven we have pacified you; you are our slaves. Yet you do not eat our food or drink. How can this be right?” He thereupon made them eat. “If you slaughter sheep, you will be considered guilty of a crime.” He issued a regulation to that effect ... [In 1279/1280 under Qubilai] all the Muslims say: “if someone else slaughters [the animal] we do not eat”. Because the poor people are upset by this, from now on, Musselman [Muslim] Huihui and Zhuhai [Jewish] Huihui, no matter who kills [the animal] will eat [it] and must cease slaughtering sheep themselves, and cease the rite of circumcision.”

So the Khan bans the barbaric practices of circumcision and Dhabihah off the bat. The Khans themselves were Buddhists, with some Taoist influences and obviously the influence of their native Tengrism. Only among the Khan’s western Diadochi did Islam become favorable, and that was in large part due to the formation of a Turco-Mongolian elite. The Turks had already converted to Islam centuries prior, with the exception of the Cumans, and maybe the Khazars.

2. “The Mongols just destroyed everyone, they didn’t see color”

No, again, the Mongols clearly found a common affinity both among themselves and among other peoples from the eastern steppe like the Turks. The Mongols even as early as the Pannonian Avars (who were just early Mongolians) were making efforts to preserve themselves in enemy territory by marrying wives from all the way across the Steppe back in Mongolia. The Para-Mongolian Khitan were similarly somewhat endogamous, banning marriage among their elites with the women of subject ethnicities. Today we can see the Kalmyks as a testament to Mongol purity of blood, as they have been west of the Urals for centuries, surrounded by Russians and Turks and Caucasus folk, and yet genetically they are still basically pure Oirat Mongols.

During the Yuan Dynasty, the Mongol rulers of China established themselves as an elite and privileged caste above the Chinese general population, and also distinguished their Turko-Iranic helpers (the Semu) from the Han majority. The Chinese actually have a recorded strategy of sending their women to enemy peoples to subvert them as wives, funnily enough. But anyways, the Mongols forbade the Chinese from taking Mongol names, learning the Mongol language, or wearing Mongol attire. They clearly recognized the Chinese as fundamentally a problem that had to be managed by the Mongol elite, and not capable of simply assimilating into the Mongol culture. Which, for the record, was an astute observation that the Manchus would also correctly make centuries later.

3. “The Mongols were heccin’ nice-to-womanerino!

This is a common thing said about nomadic cultures, like the Scythians, but all of these cultures were still extremely patriarchal from a modern lens. The Mongols had bride prices. They kidnapped women and had concubines. They managed their society patriarchally and patrilineally just like historical European societies. Pastoral nomadic societies are pretty much always bound to be strongly patriarchal, you see this in the Americas as well. The Plains Indians have basically the same patrilineal kinship system as the Mongols and were historically much more patriarchal than the more horticultural societies of the east coast.

So, let’s be honest. The main reason that Libtards online glaze this brutal empire, is because he’s not White and his bands of Turks do not have the sort of political importance today that some contemporaneous groups like the Crusaders do. At least not in the west. Well, the Khans seem to have had distant Aryan ancestry, judging by Oegedei Khan’s red beard and blue eyes.

It’s obviously a fake-edgy sort of faux-masculinity. “I think being a brutal warlord is kewl… As long as you ain’t heckin’ RACIST!!!” Very similar to “I hate everyone equally” types.

The idea that the Mongol gentry faded into obscurity before the modern age is false, by the way. Many of them became associated with the Eight Banners, the community of elites formed by the Manchus. The Mongol gentry who remained sided under Bogd Khan with the armies of the Bloody Baron himself and later with the Japanese, and the Manchus were also prized by the Japanese. Puyi, the last claimant to the Qing throne, was backed by the Japanese. I can no longer talk about this, it makes me very emotional. Sternberg was supposed to win and reestablish Dharma in the world. The Japanese were supposed to spread Shinto piety across the world. Everything went so wrong. We are in the cursed timeline, we are in the rotten and cursed timeline. It didn’t have to be this way, in fact 99 times out of 100 it was not supposed to be this way. Fuck!…

Anyways… What about the Aztecs? What is with the Aztec cock-gobbling? Well, isn’t it obvious? LatinX people claim descent from them. Even though the Spanish were much more likely to have bred with their allies against the Aztecs. I doubt there is much true Aztec blood in modern day Mexicans, they were a proud people who were brought to their knees by their own slaves with the help of the Spaniards. The Aztecs, by the way, were also not even from the area, they were foreign invaders from the land of Atzlan (likely in northwestern Mexico or the southwestern United States) which they believed they were guided away from to their new homeland by the sun-god Huītzilōpōchtli. This is the god they sacrificed primarily to, and in some sense from what I understand they viewed themselves as something of a chosen people. This is actually extremely common among Native American groups, and many of their names basically just translate to “the people” or “the principle people” or something very ethnocentric like that. Aztec religion justified their imperialism just as much as the Spanish justified their imperialism with religion, although it is difficult to find much materials on how the Aztecs treated intermarriage with their subordinates.

The Aztecs were correct in their claims that they come from elsewhere, they spoke the Nahuatl language which we now know is related to languages in the American west, including Comanche. Are Uto-Aztecans just fucking evil demon people? The Aztecs were sacrificing as much blood for the sun god as they could get their hands on, while the Comanche were slow-roasting babies alive and cutting prisoners’ eyelids off and forcing them to look at the sun. The Aztecs actually look extremely tame compared to the Comanche.

Speaking of Demon people… Let’s talk about the Persians.

The thing with Persian civilization is that these lefty types more often use Zoroastrianism as their counter-fixation rather than the empires themselves. Zoroastrianism is seen by a lot of anti-Christian types as “the religion that Christians stole all of their ideas from” and to some extent they might be correct. Zoroastrianism certainly has a lot of motifs that are later found in the bible, and is probably older based on linguistic analyses of the Avestas. But, this includes a lot of the things they don’t like about Christianity, for example Zoroastrians have a long history of being against homosexuality. The Vendidad records this:

“The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas

The Vendidad, however, a more recent Zoroastrian text than other parts of the Avestas, but it is heavily contested when it was written. It could have been composed anywhere from 800 BC to 400 AD, so the verdict is still out on whether this was an Abrahamic influence, or whether the Zoroastrians influenced Abrahamism here. It wouldn’t be the first time Jews took something almost verbatim from a foreign culture (for example, there is a funny Thales quote about how thankful he is to not be born a woman, an animal, or a barbarian which is almost copied verbatim in the Talmud with the ethnicities switched). Greek authors have mixed descriptions of homosexuality among the Persians, but some might imply that it was actually not a part of Persian society until the Greeks introduced them to it. The Vendidad itself says it plagues the Hyrcanians, which I assume is why Richard Burton’s “Sotadic Zone” includes only that part of Persia. Anyways, the Vendidad provides many extremely harsh treatments for homosexuals, even suggesting that it is morally acceptable to kill the passive member of such an arrangement (it criticizes both parties, but the passive member is considered worse). Zoroastrians also have a myth for the creation of evil and impurity where Ahriman, basically the Zoroastrian devil, sodomizes himself.

And on the topic of Zoroastrian views on race… Well, many of you are probably aware of the modern day Parsees and their unwillingness to convert anyone to Zoroastrianism. This is more related to an oath they made to their Indian hosts when they first arrived in India, and is not connected to older Zoroastrian beliefs, but Zoroastrianism was always an ethnic religion for the Aryans. And by Aryans, I specifically mean the Iranic (and possibly Indo-Iranic) tribes which reside in the 16 good lands of the Avesta. While the Indo-Aryans used the term to refer to aristocratic blood or noble qualities, the Iranians used it mostly to refer to nations. The Elamites refer to Ahura Mazda with the epithet “God of the Aryans”. The Greeks say that the Medes and Persians were once called the Arioi, and the Armenians called them Ari. The Alans and Rhoxolani’s names are both etymologically related to Aryan. Xerxes refers to himself as an Aryan, particularly as “an Achaemenid [clan], a Persian [nation], a son of a Persian, and an Aryan [race], of Aryan lineage”. The Zoroastrians were and still are not opposed to converts, but they did not consider it important to convert non-Iranic peoples because Ahura Mazda had already revealed himself to non-Aryans in other forms. This is why the Persians made particular issue of the Elamites (who were partially Iranicized by this point) and the Scythians not practicing Mazdayasna, but not other subject peoples.

During the twilight of Zoroastrianism in Iran, Persian thoughts on certain exotic races reveal a very advanced and epic, almost Theozoological level of racism. From the Bundahishn:

“This, too, they say, that in the reign of Azi Dahak [Zohak] a young woman was admitted to a demon, and a young man was admitted to a witch (pairika), and on seeing them they had intercourse; owing to that one intercourse the Negro arose from them. When Faridoon came to them they fled from the country of Iran, and settled upon the sea-coast; now, through the invasion of the Arabs, they are again diffused through the country of Iran.”

Just brilliant stuff right here. The issue at the bottom, by the way, is a reference to the mass importation of black agricultural slaves into Mesopotamia by the Arabs, which eventually culminated in the Zanj Rebellion. Yes, Arabs are just terrible for doing things like that. Even our friend Ferdowsi is very critical of the Arabs and hates the fact that the Arabs invaded Iran. Ferdowsi is very sympathetic to Zoroastrianism despite being nominally Muslim. Many such cases!

Okay, uhh… What are some other wholesome chungus characters libtards like in history? Sikhs. Libtards looooove Sikhs. They’re just so quirky with their headscarfs and whatnot! I don’t know why Libtards like Sikhs, their loyalty to the British is very right-coded. I think it is just because Sikhs, like all South Asians, are extremely left-wing in Western countries like Canada, but they are a bit more conventionally attractive than Indians.

Okay okay what’s next uhh… *parses finger through CrashCourse episodes* Pacific Islanders! You know, they never shut the fuck up about how these guys are fatasses but it’s okay because they’re “strongfat”. Yet another example of people who hate when white people do warrior-culture stuff embracing a warrior culture. And they also balk on about how great at sailing they were and what technologically advanced people they were. Umm, all I have to say is… read this article by Stone Age Herbalist! I don’t think they’ll be depicting this event in Moana 2… KEEEEEK!!! Mali Empire… Participated in the Slave Trade. Oh wait, I forgot Libtards don’t really care about the pre-columbian African Slave Trade in the Islamic world. There really isn’t that much written sources for Maori or Malian history, so the idea that you could satiate the autism of a Romaboo, a Frankaboo, or a Byzantboo with African or Polynesian history is retarded. Nubia… Umm, okay. Whatever. Take it. I honestly couldn’t give a shit because this is so obviously forced. But I hope you know that the Nubian pyramids are actually way smaller than they are made out to be. Not comparable to the Egyptian pyramids.

Also, East Africans aren’t Black, okay? *drops mic* We somalians are white lol