Share
Share
TL;DR: Slave Trades of Earth History & Moor Etymology: The paradigm-threat timeline treats the fracture of the Hordian Empire as the pivotal event of the early 17th century (Romanov Seizure, Deep State breaks up the Hordian Empire). Status: Active
Date: 2026-03-07
Focus: African slave trade, white (European) slave history, Moor involvement in slavery, and the etymology of "Moor"—including the hypothesis that "Moorish" was perceived as "People of Death" (Latin mor) due to slave-trading.
Validation: Moor/Berber/Arab North Africans were central to the Barbary slave trade. The Moors were heavily involved in slavery—this claim is well-supported.
Claim: The Moors were heavily involved in slavery.
Status: Validated. The Barbary states (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya)—the core "Moorish" sphere—operated the Barbary corsair slave trade. Moors/Berbers were raiders, slaveholders, and traders. Europeans captured by Barbary corsairs were sold in North African markets. The trans-Saharan trade also involved Berber and Arab (Moor-adjacent) networks. The historical record clearly supports heavy Moor involvement in slavery.
Source: Etymonline, Wiktionary, Britannica, 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, Wikipedia.
Claim: The name "Moor" may have been perceived—or even derived—from Latin mor (death). To "everyone's ears," the Moorish were the "People of Death" because of their engagement in slavery.
Linguistic assessment:
Author's sentiment: Whether or not "Moor" derives from mor, the idea that contemporaries heard "People of Death" in the name—because of slavery, raids, and conquest—is plausible as a layer of meaning. The Moors were heavily involved in slavery; Europeans captured by them would have had strong reason to associate the name with death and bondage. Folk etymology often encodes how a group is perceived, not how a word was first formed.
| Claim | Status |
|---|---|
| Moors heavily involved in slavery | Validated — Barbary corsairs, trans-Saharan trade |
| Origin of "Moor" unknown / disputed | Partially validated — Phoenician "Westerners" and Mauretania are standard; ultimate origin still debated |
| "Westerners" as meaning | Validated — Mahurin (Phoenician), Maghreb, etc. |
| Moor = "People of Death" (Latin mor) | Speculative / folk etymology — Not supported by formal etymology; plausible as perception/folk etymology |
| White/European slavery under Barbary/Moors | Validated — 1–1.25M Europeans enslaved, 16th–18th c. |
| Colonization/slave trade = direct result of Rus-Horde fracture | Investigative — Timing aligns; splinter states more extractive than unified empire (speculative) |
Claim: Colonization and the great slave trades were a direct result of the breaking up of the Rus-Horde (Russia-Horde / Hordian Empire). The old Serbian/Slavic empire was far more humanitarian than the splinter empires and detached aristocracies that arose from its fracture — who went on to commit the worst crimes in human history for centuries.
The paradigm-threat timeline treats the fracture of the Hordian Empire as the pivotal event of the early 17th century (Romanov Seizure, Deep State breaks up the Hordian Empire). The Romanov seizure (1613), coordinated with the King James Bible (1611) and Petavius's chronology (1627), destroyed the world's only superpower and replaced it with vassal states — Russia, Ottoman, Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, France, Spain, Egypt, England, Persia, China, Japan, India, America. Each region had aristocratic families that had once owed fealty to a single Imperial throne; as ties were cut, they became Kings and Queens of their own states.
The transatlantic slave trade peaked in the 17th–18th centuries — immediately after the fracture. The Barbary slave trade (16th–19th c.) and European colonial expansion (Portuguese, Spanish, British, French, Dutch) coincide with the same period. The timeline's British Empire as Deep State thesis — that Britain did not want to retain colonies but to divide, arm, and leave — describes a detached aristocracy operating as an instrument of a non-state entity, not as a traditional empire.
Under the Horde-Fracture thesis, the unified empire had:
After the fracture:
Author's sentiment: The irony is that the old Serbian/Slavic empire — often portrayed in mainstream historiography as "Mongol hordes" or "oriental despotism" — may have been more humane than what followed. The splinter states, freed from Imperial constraint and driven by competition, engaged in mass enslavement, genocide, and resource extraction on a scale the unified order had no structural motive to pursue. The worst crimes of the modern era were committed not by the empire but by the splinter empires and detached aristocracies that replaced it. Once again this world-wide networked behavior is evidence of a Deep State influence, even if it only traces back to protestant literature.
| Claim | Status |
|---|---|
| Colonization/slave trade coincided with Horde fracture | Validated — timing aligns (17th c. fracture, 16th–19th c. slave trades) |
| Fracture produced competing vassal states | Validated — timeline 11.01.00 |
| Splinter states more extractive than unified empire | Speculative — requires comparative analysis of Hordian vs. colonial governance |
| Old empire more humanitarian | Investigative — contradicts mainstream "Mongol barbarism" narrative; Fomenko/NC sources may support |
Keywords: #Slave #Trades #Moor #Etymology