Recommended Posts



The Indo-European languages have covered Europe and appear to have origins in the areas we know to be Iraq, India and Pakistan. The related languages traveled though Asia Minor into Europe and are widely spoken today. 

One competitor language to the Indo-European is the Finno-Ugrian language group and derivatives. Finno-Ugrian languages are spoken in Finland, Estonia, Karelia, Northern Russia and Leningrad and south to Hungary.

Finno-Ugrian is not related to Indo-European. 

The Finns and Hungarians originally came from the Black Sea area, basin, and shores. That is, prior to the filling of the Sea once and twice; and that displaced the peoples to higher ground, who went upstream along the Danube, Don, and Deneiper Rivers, and along the upper Volga. The Finno-Ugrian speaking peoples lived along the now submerged shores of the Black Sea, and they also lived along the Northern edge of Asia Minor. They were more shoreline peoples in about the years -7K to -5K before the flooding of the Black Sea.

My maternal grandfather, a Finn, said that a study of the Finnish language was done in Finland during the 1900s that traced Finno-Ugrian language spoken sounds all the way south to the Northern shore of Asia Minor, and that they surmised that their language had its origin in years -7K to -5K in what is now Turkey and the now submerged lower elevations of the Black Sea.

Inland in central Asia Minor -2K years later or so came the Hittites and they spoke Indo-European. However, Finno-Ugrian spellings and sounds apparently still exist in Asia Minor. and several countries in Europe and many towns in northern Russia including the area of Leninrad and north to Include Karelia and to the East of there in Russia, today speak Finno-Ugrian. The numbers of Russian Finno-Ugrian speakers is in decline. How far upstream along the Danube past what we know to be Hungary into the southern Germany area we don't know.

Ralph Hertle





Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting. My Mom's parents were from Sweden and Finland.  In the seventies three family members went to Sweden, Finland, and Russia, and if they did not say anything, merchants and hotel people, would assume they were locals.  peter  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are Indo-European languages while Finnish, Karelian, and Estonian are Finno-Ugrian.

I gather that possibly 10 or 20 percent of Finns speak Swedish.

During the Viking days, the Swedes conquered into Finland and Russia. The Swedes founded the first organised Russian society with their trading empire that extended into the Russian rivers all the way to the Mediterranean Sea.

My maternal side of the family, who were Finns, spoke Finnish. However, their family name was Lindroos. The Viking Swedes were known as the "Rus", and the Russians became known as the "Rus". My family on that side had the name "Lindroos", meaning 'Land of the Rus'. Or, possibly "one who came from Sweden or Russia", or who was one of them. My family name came from Sweden; however my nationalistic grandfather, Isaak Lindroos, just wouldn't hear being called a Swede; he was fervently and passionately a Finn.

Ralph Hertle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and immigration Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:17:00 EST. I was asked what Ayn Rand would say about immigration to America today. I could not recall the subject being discussed with her, although I was reasonably certain what she would say. I asked Nathaniel if he remembered any discussion of immigration. Here is his response, with which I agree:

 Like you, I have no recollection, although I am fairly certain what she would say.   She would say, I think,  that in a true laissez-faire society there should be open immigration, but that cannot be justified in a welfare state for obvious reasons.  As with so many issues, there is no "ideal" answer for problems arising in a mixed economy.>> Barbara

 From: "Richard Lawrence" To: <atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and immigration Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:02:18 -0800 The new book _Facets of Ayn Rand_ by Charles and Mary Ann Sures includes a passage that seems relevant to this discussion. The book is in interview format, and includes the following exchange on page 108:

 --begin quote-- ARI: Can you give a specific example of when she [Rand] responded angrily to a question?

 Mary Ann: Someone asked her for her views on immigration, if she thought it was a good thing. And she got indignant immediately at the very idea that anyone might be opposed to immigration, that a country might not let immigrants in. One of the things she said in her answer was, "Where would I be today if America closed its doors to immigrants?" [...] In her answer, she was defending people who were seeking freedom and a better life. And I think she was assuming that immigrants would be like she was -- ready and able to make their own way, accepting help if voluntarily given  by individuals but not expecting government handouts. [...] --end quote--

The immediate topic being discussed in _Facets_ is Rand's temper, but the specific example used presumably indicates Rand's general views on immigration. (For brevity, I have omitted a few sentences from the response. These are marked above with the bracketed ellipses.) -- Richard Lawrence

From: "Greg Johnson" To: "Atlantis"  Subject: ATL: Individualism, Immigration, and Race Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:22:27 -0400. I have been pondering the question: How is a commitment to individualism consistent with (1) racial discrimination and (2) immigration restrictions? 

I really think that the question hinges on one's definition of individualism. Many people make the mistake of thinking that individualism simply means "treating everyone as an individual." I certainly have made that mistake in previous posts. Why is it a mistake? Because it cannot be done. There are 7 billion people in the world today. Given the limitations of time and knowledge, no policy of treating them all as individuals could be practiced. (What sort of policy applies to all seven billion? U.S. immigration policy would apply to every non-US citizen.) There are more than 280 million people in the United States alone, more than 4 million within the metropolitan area in which I live, tens of thousands within a one-mile radius of my computer. On a busy day, I interact with hundreds of individuals. This is only possible because I do NOT treat them as individuals. I treat them as members of groups, e.g., professions, races, etc.

Today is a quiet day. I rose late. But I have dealt with a secretary, a telemarketer, a mailman, a fellow at a publishing firm in Germany, two people who are selling books to me, one who is buying a book from me, and a Fed Ex delivery man already. I know the name of only one of them. I have all sorts of warranted  assumptions about these people depending on the groups they belong to. Most of these assumptions are probably true of the individuals in question. I strive to be polite in dealing with all people. But I do this because they are human beings. I would probably be disinclined to be kind to many of them if I knew them as individuals!

By contrast, in the same time period I have dealt with only three people I know as individuals, all of them by e-mail. Later today I will have dinner with a good friend. In the car and in the restaurant, however, I will interact with hundreds of strangers simply as "motorists," "pedestrians," "police," the "parking attendant," the "hostess," the "waiter," the "guy with the water pitcher," etc., etc. I am sure that I know several thousand individuals by name, but how many do I REALLY know as individuals? Not even 50.

Because it is impossible to treat everybody as an individual, we have to treat individuals as members of groups. This allows us to predict things about what they know and what they can do. These can be professional groups. But those are not the only groups people belong to. Racial, ethnic, and religious groupings also allow us to make predictions about their members. Such predictions are disdained, however, as "prejudices" by dogmatic individualists. Edmund Burke, however, distinguishes between wise and foolish prejudices. Wise prejudices are based on experience and constantly tested and modified by it. Foolish prejudices are not.

The dogmatic individualist cannot, however, allow himself any prejudices. Of course he allows himself prejudices about people in police uniforms when he is in danger. But he will not allow himself any racial, sexual, or ethnic prejudices, even though these have great predictive power as well. So what does he do? He praises "blindness" as a matter of high moral principle. Instead of judging based on race, sex, or ethnicity, he does not judge at all. When a woman walking on a lonely street at night sees a black man ahead of her and nobody on the other side of the street, she piously tells herself to walk on. How this is consistent with a philosophy that stresses (1) objectivity and (2) self-interest is a complete mystery to me!

What, then, is real individualism, if it is not "treating everybody as an individual"? An individualist society is one that protects individual rights, a society that protects private property and freedom of association with the force of law, leaving each individual free to live his life as he pleases, so long as he does not violate the equal rights of others. Does the state in such a society treat everybody as an individual? No. It treats everybody the same. The only exception to this is when there is a question of guilt and innocence in court. But in day to day life, all individuals should be treated merely as citizens--or non-citizens (visitors, residents, etc.)--not as individuals.

And, it turns out that the society in which individuals have the most freedom is precisely the one in which they are the most free NOT to treat others as individuals. Progress in civilization can actually be measured by the extent to which people do NOT have to be treated as individuals. If I had to be a perfect individualist, interacting with everyone as an individual, I could only live in a society of 50. I would have to be a hunter-gatherer or a peasant in a tiny village.

My freedom to develop my individual talents and interests, and my range of individual options, would be less restricted in a larger society. Size, however, depends on division of labor, and division of labor depends on the ability to assume roles and interact as role players, not as individuals.

Social anonymity often increases freedom as well. As one friend who grew up in a small Georgia town put it, "I moved to Atlanta so I could sin." I have much greater freedom if my job application is examined by a complete stranger than by somebody who knows me--even if that person likes me and gives me an advantage over the competition. I might get the job, but I also incur a personal debt that I would not have gotten if a stranger had given me the position.

Socialists often whine about the scale, specialization, and anonymity of modern society. Hell, I find myself whining about them too. They do have their downsides. But I always remind myself of how these features of modern society expand my freedom--and how my freedom would be constricted by a society in which I had to deal with everybody as an individual.

As for immigration restrictions, I do not think that unlimited immigration can be established simply on the basis of the principle of free trade. In a free society, as opposed to the state of nature, free trade is NOT merely a binary relationship between two consenting individuals. (In the state of nature, such trade is hardly free insofar as one has no legal recourse should the deal be broken.) In a free society, there is always a third party, the state, protecting the rights of the two trading partners. In a state of nature, one may possess certain things and even have a natural right to them, but absent a government, one does have a legally enforceable claim. One may have all sorts of natural rights, but they will not do you any good unless you have a government that legally protects and enforces them. This means that one's natural rights are fully actualized only when one is subject to the jurisdiction of a government that protects them.

If this is the case, then the immigration question can then be formulated as follows: Does everyone have the right to demand that their rights be not merely respected by the US government, but actually defended by the US government? To re-use an example I gave before: If I lived in Afghanistan, I surely have the natural right not to be aggressed against by the US government. But do I have the right to call the US government to enforce my rights against the guy who stole my donkey?

Since the protection of the US government is paid for by US taxpayers, is it unreasonable for taxpayers to demand certain conditions be met before the US government protects the rights of a foreign national? I think not.

 Immigration is not a right, but a privilege, and it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on who can receive that privilege. Since there is no right to immigrate to the US, no rights are violated by such restrictions. And I have already given perfectly good reasons for making race, education, intelligence, and religion criteria for immigration. Greg

From: "William Dwyer" To: "'Atlantis'" Subject: ATL: RE: Individualism, Immigration, and Race Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:31:32 -0700 I wrote, "[T]here is nothing wrong with denying protection to foreign immigrants who do not pay for it.  In a fully laissez-faire society, anyone who did not pay for protection would not have a right to it.  But this cannot be used as an argument for denying someone the right to immigrate to the U.S. and to pay for that protection.  Nor can it be an argument for denying a prospective immigrant the right to live here without that protection, if he chooses not to pay for it."

 Greg Johnson replied, "This does not advance the argument one bit, for two reasons: (1) people who refuse to pay for the protection of the law still benefit from it, and they are free riders in a sense that even George Smith will probably not quibble about...."

Let's stay focused on the main issue, which is respect for a foreigner's individual rights.  As Rand observed, "The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action -- specifically, to freedom of action.  It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

 "Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a ~positive~ -- of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own ~voluntary, uncoerced~ choice." [VOS, p. 94]

 Thus, according to Rand, one's right to freedom of action cannot be violated even to prevent one from being a "free rider," i.e., from being an indirect beneficiary of police protection that other citizens have chosen to pay for. On the contrary, to force one to pay for such protection in order to ~prevent~ one from being a free rider is to make one a FORCED RIDER -- an unwilling buyer of something that one has declined to purchase.

 In her essay "Government Financing in a Free Society," Rand proposes that government financing be arranged so that wealthy individuals would have an incentive to pay voluntarily for insurance protecting their contracts.

 [T]he cost of such voluntary government financing," she notes, "would be automatically proportionate to the scale of an individual's economic activity; those on the lowest economic levels (who seldom, if ever, engage in credit transactions) would be virtually exempt -- though they would still enjoy the benefits of legal protection, such as that offered by the armed forces, by the police and by the courts dealing with criminal offenses.  These benefits may be regarded as a bonus to the men of lesser economic ability, made possible by the men of greater economic ability -- ~without any sacrifice of the latter to the former~. (VOS, 119)

 There is, according to Rand, no breach of morality or rights from allowing people of lesser ability to "free ride" off people of greater ability, who have a correspondingly greater incentive to pay for protection of themselves and their assets.

 Greg continues, "...and (2) the state still should have the discretion, based on an assessment of the good of the American people, to be hired as a person's protector."

 Yes, it should have the discretion to be hired as a person's protector, but all that means is that the state should not be required to take a protective action that it hasn't contracted to provide.  It does not mean that the state may itself interfere with a person's freedom of action in order to prevent him from benefiting indirectly from that protection.

 If I kill a dangerous criminal, say, who has just broken into my home, do you as my neighbor have to pay me for it, since by acting to protect myself, I have also protected you from a similar fate?  In a sense, you are a "free rider" off of my action, but the fact that you benefited from it indirectly does not give me a right to charge you for that benefit or to force you to compensate me.

 Or suppose I install a bright light on my house that deters prowlers around my property, but also has the unintended effect of deterring them around your property as well.  Do I have a right to force you to pay half the cost of the light?  No, because you didn't ~agree~ to pay me for it.  The fact that you benefit indirectly from it -- the fact that you are a "free rider" off of its benefits -- is irrelevant.

 Moreover, even if it were true that one should have to pay for police protection in order to reside in the United States, that condition could easily be satisfied by an immigrant's choosing to do so, in which case, there would be no basis, on Greg's argument, for keeping him out.  But it is my understanding that even in this case, Greg would demand that a foreigner be prevented from immigrating to the U.S., if he or she is of the wrong race, ethnicity, religion or level of intelligence.

 So even if one were to accept the validity of Greg's argument, it wouldn't justify the kind of restrictions that he is proposing. Bill

 From: Ariana Binetta To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Against the Draft Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:34:17 -0800 (PST)

 Sandra is right: People should be required to EARN their citizenship. And their visitation rights too. It shouldn't just be free. Moreover, certain people who already HAVE citizenship or visitation status should get it taken away. For example: Many blacks refuse to celebrate July 4th, embrace that absurdly racist "Kwanza" and otherwise show in 1000 different ways that they DESPISE America and most of its people. Their citizenship should be STRIPPED, and they should be deported as the enemy aliens which they are. And so, more importantly, should most of those virulently anti-American moslems who are currently bedeviling us.

 Ever Vigilant, Ariana

--- earlier today Sandra of

wrote:  I would hate to see a young Bill Gates or Steve   Jobs drafted to serve his country as a grunt. What a waste.  Want to hear a brilliant musical argument against conscription? Listen to  Ravel's piano concerto for the left hand. Ravel   wrote it for a concert   pianist who lost his right hand in World War I.   The music brilliantly evokes the trenches of WWI.

 On the other hand, I agree with Robert   Heinlein's argument in STARSHIP   TROOPERS and  EXPANDED UNIVERSE and GRUMBLES   FROM THE GRAVE that one should   *earn* one's citizenship.    We are engaged in a cyberwar. Drafting a young Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to help with that mission strikes me as eminently fair. There are many ways in which people can contribute.  Americans are volunteering all over the place.  We don't all know where to put our pro-American energy.  Some people are stepping in to relieve the police of desk duty, and volunteering everywhere they can think of.

 To take it to the individual level, 20 years ago I was perishing of loneliness on California's largest campus. A   fellow student introduced me to some brilliant feminist professors, students   and the college librarian. But there was a price to their friendship: they wanted me to participate in demonstrations and such. I was working on my writing and tried to explain that allowed to pursue this passion I could eventually be of greater value to them. No go. I sadly had to withdraw. I put blinders on, worked on my writing   and when we had a rape in our humongous parking lot, my editorials mobilized the campus.  Suddenly, the feminists desperately wanted to be friends. Too late.

What was true on my individual level is true of the society at large.  If someone has a dedication to computers or medicine or whatever.  Let them pursue it, but require that they help in some way, even a part-time way.    American citizenship is the most valuable in the world. I see nothing wrong with *earning* that citizenship by service in one way or another.  Sandra

From: DXIMGR To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Immigration in the eyes of a Russian immigrant Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:40:38 EST

 Barbara and Nathaniel Branden agree on the following summary (in NB's words) of Ayn Rand's position on immigration: << Like [Barbara], I have no recollection, although I am fairly certain what she would say.  She would say, I think, that in a true laissez-faire society there should be open immigration, but that cannot be justified in a welfare state for obvious reasons.  As with so many issues, there is no "ideal" answer for problems arising in a mixed economy.>>

 It is quite sad that Nathaniel and Barbara see Ayn Rand's view as essentially similar to Greg Johnson's and David Rasmussen's. There certainly is nothing principled in what is being claimed as Rand's view. Did she also think that selfishness would work as an ethical code in a laissez-faire society but that in a mixed economy there was no ideal ethical answer?

 Did Rand think that taxation should be abolished, but only in a laissez-faire society, that you couldn't call for ending taxation in a mixed economy? Rand was herself an immigrant, one who loved the vision of Lady Liberty's outstretched hand. I cannot believe, despite Nathaniel and Barbara's protestations, that Rand--always checking premises--would argue for immigration restrictions because of the welfare state rather than arguing for free immigration and ending the welfare state. Or did she here believe, in this one case, in choosing the lesser of evils? Ross Levatter

 From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Immigration in the eyes of a Russian immigrant Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:21:33 EST Of course she believed in free immigration and ending the welfare state. Her point here -- in a question period -- was that in a welfare state, totally free immigration was not reasonable. She also would have said, for instance, that there should be no Social Security -- but that in a welfare state, it cannot be ended all at once because people have counted on it, with good reason, and have not been able to prepare financially for their old age; Social Security would have to be ended in stages and with plenty of warning given. But this, like the immigration issue, has nothing to do with choosing the lesser of two evils. Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I was just thinking about immigration and thought it would be good to bring this up again.

From “Reason” about Ayn Rand: . . .As a vehement anti-Bolshevist, she knew that she would die waiting in line if she applied for permission to permanently relocate to America, although that's exactly what she intended to do. Temporary tourist visas were easier to land, but only for those who could prove they didn't plan to settle here. So what did Rand do? She committed perjury. She convinced an American visa officer that she had a fiancé waiting for her in Russia whom she intended to marry after a six-month visit with her relatives in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Good afternoon, Mr. Hertle!  My name is Chris Morano, and I am the Chef Concierge at Parker Palm Springs; I am curating the art in our dining room and I have an original oil on canvas of your work "Until Now" and wish to ensure that the work is correctly labeled.  Might you have a chance to proof the below?  I have attached photos of the front of the work and the reverse (signature side) for your perusal, and shall forward a photo of the front with the frame upon request.  Thank you in advance for your kind assistance!  I happily remain at your service and await your response with great anticipation! Warmest wishes, Chris! 


Ralph Hurtle (b. 1937)

Until Now, 1970

30” x 24”, oil on canvas, signed on reverse

ca. $????

Parker permanent collection

Hertle front.JPG

hertle reverse.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now