PDA

View Full Version : To Loki on Ancestry by DNA



nemo
Monday, August 30th, 2004, 11:36 PM
You posted this on the Northern European forum, and I do not think you know what your talking about.
======================================== ===================
This AncestryByDNA "revelation" that Northern Europeans are unique and separate from Southern Europeans, does not come as a surprise to me at all. It "vindicates" TNP and Nordish preservation (not that it ever needed vindication).
======================================== ====================

The report does not say that at all, what it says is that their is no unique nord race or med race and that Europeans are a mixture between both nord and med.

Some are more nord and others more med, but none are a 100% of either and are a combination of both.

So get your facts straight and stop living in myths.

I cannot post at the northern European forum even though my phenotype is probably more nordish then the whole crew over there or I would have posted this there.

Evolved
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 02:09 AM
I agree. It divides people on the basis of paleolithic and neolithic, not on the basis of hair & eye pigmentation.

Awar
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 03:50 AM
How dare you!

According to the paragraph 14 of the Jawjuh convention and the 2nd Kaapstadt amendment, it is forbidden to question Loki's statements.

:P

Nordhammer
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:12 AM
LG and AWAR following behind Nemo. :D

Nordhammer
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:25 AM
You posted this on the Northern European forum, and I do not think you know what your talking about.
======================================== ===================
This AncestryByDNA "revelation" that Northern Europeans are unique and separate from Southern Europeans, does not come as a surprise to me at all. It "vindicates" TNP and Nordish preservation (not that it ever needed vindication).
======================================== ====================

The report does not say that at all, what it says is that their is no unique nord race or med race and that Europeans are a mixture between both nord and med.

By your reasoning then there is no difference between Europeans and Middle Easterners/South Asians since we're all mixed?

Awar
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:53 AM
Not mixed, but there are transitions. These are all Caucasoid genes.
You can't take it all for granted either, the results must be interpreted.

The Iberians, French, Irish, Brits and Scandinavians all belong then to the predominantly NOR group. Also, it seems that Scandinavians have the highest ammount of Middle-Eastern ancestry, while Spaniards have the highest ammount of South Asian ancestry ( which makes no sense, since there has been no presence of Dravidians in Spain ).

Tore
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 07:01 AM
I agree. It divides people on the basis of paleolithic and neolithic, not on the basis of hair & eye pigmentation.

Although this may account for the relatively high "NOR" frequencies among Iberians and the Irish (as well as the high percentage of "Middle Eastern" markers among Northern Europeans), it does not account for why Northern Europeans are still in possession of higher "NOR" scores when compared to the afforementioned groups, both of which have a greater percentage of Paleolithic derived (sex-linked) markers than Northern Europeans.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 07:21 AM
Not mixed, but there are transitions. These are all Caucasoid genes.
You can't take it all for granted either, the results must be interpreted.

The Iberians, French, Irish, Brits and Scandinavians all belong then to the predominantly NOR group. Also, it seems that Scandinavians have the highest ammount of Middle-Eastern ancestry, while Spaniards have the highest ammount of South Asian ancestry ( which makes no sense, since there has been no presence of Dravidians in Spain ).

Equating the Iberians and French to the Irish, Brits, and Scandinavians in this study is like equating the Turks to the Italians and Greeks. The Iberians have much less NOR than the Irish, Brits, and Scandinavians, being less than 50, and why they are not counted as part of the NOR group.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 08:26 AM
I have a suggestion. Loki, why not create a guest sub-forum at TNP, sort of a temporary membership so that people could gripe there, directly, rather than have to take out their frustrations here. A section could be set up for celebs in the cyber-world like Cosmocreator so that comments could be made directly to him and spare the remainder of us their whining.

nemo
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 03:58 PM
How dare you!

According to the paragraph 14 of the Jawjuh convention and the 2nd Kaapstadt amendment, it is forbidden to question Loki's statements.

:P

I'm an anarchist!
;)

nemo
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:02 PM
LG and AWAR following behind Nemo. :D

Nemo will rule! and will defeat the supreme nordicist LOKI!
:P

Tryggvi
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:16 PM
Nemo will rule! and will defeat the supreme nordicist LOKI!
:P You rather be quick, because his shun will expire in 3 days and 19 hours. ;)

nemo
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:24 PM
By your reasoning then there is no difference between Europeans and Middle Easterners/South Asians since we're all mixed?

their is a difference and the difference is wider from those in the middle East and South Asia compared to the europeans.

But what it really says is that their is no one nord or one med race in Europe, and that all Europeans are a combination of nord/med, these are scientific facts.

So the nordicist ideology is all flawed as their are people of Southern Europe with nord dna and their are people of NE who have med dna.

In conclusion their is no such thing as a unique nordic or med race in Europe that was all created by miss informed men such as Coon, McCulloch and their breed.

When they mention Nord they are referring to people from colder climates of Europe which says if you have more nord in you then med you will be more fairer.

According to the study I would be classfied as more nord because I am lighter in phenotype.

nemo
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:33 PM
I have a suggestion. Loki, why not create a guest sub-forum at TNP, sort of a temporary membership so that people could gripe there, directly, rather than have to take out their frustrations here. A section could be set up for celebs in the cyber-world like Cosmocreator so that comments could be made directly to him and spare the remainder of us their whining.

These are not frustrations or whinnings we speak about, but scientific facts which burst the nordicist fantasys which they lived in all their lives.

As the saying goes" The Truth will set you free"
:P

nemo
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:46 PM
You rather be quick, because his shun will expire in 3 days and 19 hours. ;)

I will beat him to a pulp, and will destroy him, his excistance in this world are limited, and will disappear from the face of the earth forever.
:)


Even in jest, please to not threaten members with physical harm. Thanks. ~Dalonord

BTW! loki pm me and told me he could not answer my post because he was shunned here at Skadi :D So I know he is getting himself well prepared for the occasion with his side kick and assistant Nordhammer :D

Awar
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:46 PM
So, Iberians are somewhere at 50% NOR ( or should I say palaeolithic ), and the rest of their ancestry is MED ( Neolithic ) and SA ( south Asian, which I don't understand ), and Scandinavians are around 20-30% Middle Eastern.

My Balkanoids are somewhere around 80% MED and 20% NOR. With no significnat Middle-Eastern or South Asian ancestry. NOR probably being HG3, HG2 and HG1

Turks show an even larger percentage of NOR ancestry than Balkans.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:47 PM
their is a difference and the difference is wider from those in the middle East and South Asia compared to the europeans.

But what it really says is that their is no one nord or one med race in Europe, and that all Europeans are a combination of nord/med, these are scientific facts.

So the nordicist ideology is all flawed as their are people of Southern Europe with nord dna and their are people of NE who have med dna.

In conclusion their is no such thing as a unique nordic or med race in Europe that was all created by miss informed men such as Coon, McCulloch and their breed.

Based on your same reasoning and using the data of this test, then there are no European, Middle Eastern and South Asian races/subraces, they are in the same group, because they all share ancestry as well. Especially in the case of Turks, who are comparable in ancestry to Italians and Greeks, being predominantly MED.

The difference and the meaningfulness with the NOR group is that they are much higher in NOR than admixture of NOR in MED populations. NOR populations also have less MED ancestry than MED populations have NOR ancestry. NOR populations have less nonnative admixture than MED populations.


According to the study I would be classfied as more nord because I am lighter in phenotype.

You won't know that until you take the test.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:52 PM
I will beat him to a pulp, and will destroy him, his excistance in this world are limited, and will disappear from the face of the earth forever.
:)

BTW! loki pm me and told me he could not answer my post because he was shunned here at Skadi :D So I know he is getting himself well prepared for the occasion with his side kick and assistant Nordhammer :D

Big words for a little man. :)

Nordhammer
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:58 PM
So, Iberians are somewhere at 50% NOR ( or should I say palaeolithic ), and the rest of their ancestry is MED ( Neolithic ) and SA ( south Asian, which I don't understand ), and Scandinavians are around 20-30% Middle Eastern.

My Balkanoids are somewhere around 80% MED and 20% NOR. With no significnat Middle-Eastern or South Asian ancestry. NOR probably being HG3, HG2 and HG1

Turks show an even larger percentage of NOR ancestry than Balkans.

Iberians are at 48% NOR, less than half.

Scandinavians are at 11% MIDEAS, only a few points difference from other European groups listed.

We don't know about the other numbers, that's speculation. Hopefully they'll release more information soon.

nemo
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:58 PM
[QUOTE=Nordhammer



You won't know that until you take the test.[/QUOTE]

I don't care about tests, I don't need no tests to tell me I belong to the white race, I know what I and my family look like, how much of this or that you got in you means nothing to me, because what counts is how the total package looks.

Just by looking at yourself you can tell what the majority of your genes are.

When I look at myself I do not see any other race in me but white, and no one ever said other wise

Awar
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:06 PM
Based on your same reasoning and using the data of this test, then there are no European, Middle Eastern and South Asian races/subraces, they are in the same group, because they all share ancestry as well.

Of course they all share the same ancestry, what do you think, that we're all from different species? Do you believe that Nords came from outer space on an ice meteor ( Hitler's favourite bedtime story ).



Especially in the case of Turks, who are comparable in ancestry to Italians and Greeks, being predominantly MED.

It's because the Greeks had large colonies in southern Italy, and once Anatolia ( the teritory of modern day Turkey ) was part of the Greek Byzantine Empire.

Modern day Turks are just Turkified people from the Byzantine empire.


The difference and the meaningfulness with the NOR group is that they are much higher in NOR than admixture of NOR in MED populations. NOR populations also have less MED ancestry than MED populations have NOR ancestry. NOR populations have less nonnative admixture than MED populations.

Not true, the NOR populations have much more Middle-Eastern ancestry than anyone else in Europe. How did that come about? Or do you consider Middle-Easterners to be native in Scandinavia?

Also, the test doesn't seem to recognize the Uralic DNA markers which are in abundance in Scandinavian countries.

Awar
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:11 PM
Iberians are at 48% NOR, less than half.

:lmao I guess it makes you feel much better that it's not "around 50%" as I stated, but at 48% as you "corrected" me. :rotfl

The fact remains: what this test sees as NOR ancestry is nothing but a mixture of varying palaeolithic European ancestries. The R1b which originated in Iberia or the 'I' which originated in the Balkans and spread to central and N. Europe, this test makes no difference.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:18 PM
:lmao I guess it makes you feel much better that it's not "around 50%" as I stated, but at 48% as you "corrected" me. :rotfl

The fact remains: what this test sees as NOR ancestry is nothing but a mixture of varying palaeolithic European ancestries. The R1b which originated in Iberia or the 'I' which originated in the Balkans and spread to central and N. Europe, this test makes no difference.

Your figures were inaccurate or speculation, no doubt an indication of your bias.

Scoob
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:19 PM
Remember, the Ancestry By DNA Euro test is autosomal, so its results do not neccessary correlate with Y Chromosomal markers such as R1b, I, HG's, etc.

I'd like to know more about the "Mideast" group, which seems centered on Iran. This might be steppe people, who might well have been the Metal Age aristocracies in much of Europe, especially Northern Europe (which had lower population density at the time than the Med world).

Also worth noting is that Ancestry by DNA's 2.5 test finds low levels of Subsaharan African, "Native American", and East Asian genes throughout most of Europe, which could account for some phenotypical variation as well. The Euro test looks only for the "Indo-European" components of ancestry.

I agree with AWAR that the "NOR" might correspond to Paleolithic Euro (Atlantic would be a good geographical term); "MED" to Neolithic.

South Asian is a bit of a mystery. But perhaps there were expansions from India some time in the past, before the rise of Med civilization.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:22 PM
I asked them about the MIDEAS in Scandinavians, he volunteered the information about South Asian ancestry in Iberians -

"In the data we show, there is only a subtle difference between Scandinavians and Turks. Looking at figure 4groupbar - a level that is not statistically significant. There is just as much green color for Turks/Greeks as Northern Europeans. Looking at the figure 4GROUPPIEMAP there is slightly more MIDEAS than for Turks. This is presumably strictly due to sampling effect - luck of the draw if you will.

Alternatively, there could be a historical explanation - which is what we believe is the case for the South Asian in Iberians. Most of the blue color came from one individual, who may have had Roma ancestors.

C Castillo"

Awar
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:32 PM
Remember, the Ancestry By DNA Euro test is autosomal, so its results do not neccessary correlate with Y Chromosomal markers such as R1b, I, HG's, etc.

I know that, I just didn't know what else to compare these results to.



I'd like to know more about the "Mideast" group, which seems centered on Iran. This might be steppe people, who might well have been the Metal Age aristocracies in much of Europe, especially Northern Europe (which had lower population density at the time than the Med world).

Hehe... then, the Iranians, who are by far predominantly Mideast, are
in fact the purest of Aryans, contrary to many who consider them to be just 'darkies'. :)

https://www.ancestrybydna.com/EuroDNA_002.gif



Also worth noting is that Ancestry by DNA's 2.5 test finds low levels of Subsaharan African, "Native American", and East Asian genes throughout most of Europe, which could account for some phenotypical variation as well. The Euro test looks only for the "Indo-European" components of ancestry.

That's another weird thing. It might be that the sub-saharan and native-american ancestry the test finds are actually components of
some ancestry that's older than the palaeolithic markers.

Also, there are many differences between the opinions of scientists.
Some 'sub-saharan' markers turned out to be actually Neolithic caucasoid ( IE ) markers left over from an ancient expansion into Africa.



I agree with AWAR that the "NOR" might correspond to Paleolithic Euro (Atlantic would be a good geographical term); "MED" to Neolithic.

I believe that NOR is a mix of Atlantic and Central European markers.
The teritory corresponding to R1a ( Eastern Europe ) doesn't seem to be included here.


South Asian is a bit of a mystery. But perhaps there were expansions from India some time in the past, before the rise of Med civilization.

Or, perhaps the current population of India was previously a part of the pre-historic Mediterranean/Mid-Eastern world. What about the Elamites?

Awar
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 05:36 PM
I asked them about the MIDEAS in Scandinavians, he volunteered the information about South Asian ancestry in Iberians -

"In the data we show, there is only a subtle difference between Scandinavians and Turks. Looking at figure 4groupbar - a level that is not statistically significant. There is just as much green color for Turks/Greeks as Northern Europeans. Looking at the figure 4GROUPPIEMAP there is slightly more MIDEAS than for Turks. This is presumably strictly due to sampling effect - luck of the draw if you will.

Alternatively, there could be a historical explanation - which is what we believe is the case for the South Asian in Iberians. Most of the blue color came from one individual, who may have had Roma ancestors.

C Castillo"


Interesting. So, in the future, it might prove that Spaniards are up to 99% NOR. :D

Scoob
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 06:15 PM
Hehe... then, the Iranians, who are by far predominantly Mideast, are in fact the purest of Aryans, contrary to many who consider them to be just 'darkies'. :) Well, as the website presents things, this test looks only for markers that distinguish the 4 IE components. So a person who is 3/4 Nordic/Scandinavian and 1/4 Ghanian should show up as mostly NOR in the Euro1.0 (subracial) test, despite SSA ancestry. The 2.5 (racial) test, if it works, should show 25% SSA and 75% IE.

So Iranians might be mostly subracially "Aryan" insofar as they have Caucasian ancestry, but still be mixed with other racial elements.


That's another weird thing. It might be that the sub-saharan and native-american ancestry the test finds are actually components of
some ancestry that's older than the palaeolithic markers.It's odd. Apparently Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people regularly score as around 5% Native American and 5% Subsaharan in the 2.5 (racial) test. So you might be right, especially about the Native American.

See the chart I attached, from: https://www.ancestrybydna.com/Ethnicities.asp


Also, there are many differences between the opinions of scientists.
Some 'sub-saharan' markers turned out to be actually Neolithic caucasoid ( IE ) markers left over from an ancient expansion into Africa.Was that for the Ancestry By DNA markers, or some other study? See attached maps for the racial test (2.5)


Or, perhaps the current population of India was previously a part of the pre-historic Mediterranean/Mid-Eastern world. What about the Elamites?Possibly.

Awar
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 06:38 PM
An interesting and revealing read:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/08/euro-dna-test.html

EURO-DNA test

AncestryByDNA has released a EURO-DNA test which reports percentages of "Northern European," "Southeastern European," "Middle-Eastern," and "South Asian" admixture based on a 320 ancestry-informative markers (AIMs).

The ad-hoc choice of the four ancestral groups and the rather confusing commentary and/or anomalous results (Iberians on average ~16% "South Asian"?) may discourage many from taking the test, especially at a price tag of $399. Still, EURO-DNA is a step towards personalized genetic archaeology, even though the theoretical assumptions and methodology leave much to be desired at this stage.

Update:

If you start with the a priori breakdown into 4 groups, then each individual will have 4 numbers that add up to 100%. One could just as easily have used a "Southwestern European", "Northeastern European", "Middle Eastern" and "South Asian" breakdown, and again each individual would have 4 numbers adding up to 100%.

The trick is to start with a collection of individuals, remove identifying tags and cluster them, thus identifying the real genetic components in the population, if any such components can be detected. This was the procedure followed by Rosenberg et al. [1]. In that analysis, wholly different clusterings emerged, with e.g., the specificity of Iberian Basques, who were allocated their own cluster, was discovered.



By contrast, an Iberian Basque taking the EURO-DNA test would perhaps get a score high in NOR/MED which however obfuscates the real genetic structure of the Basque population which is highly specific, as the Basques are an ancient ethnolinguistic isolate of the Iberian peninsula rather than the product of "admixture".

AncestryByDNA must show why its chosen four-group breakdown is used in lieu of other potential choices.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 08:01 PM
Irish and Northern Europeans have the least admixture out of European groups here as well -

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=18616

Tore
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 08:33 PM
My Balkanoids are somewhere around 80% MED and 20% NOR. With no significnat Middle-Eastern or South Asian ancestry. NOR probably being HG3, HG2 and HG1

As Scoob mentioned in his post previously, one cannot equate Y-Chromosome markers with autosomal markers as the patterns of inheritance concerning the two are very much distinct.

Awar
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 08:35 PM
I compared, not equated.

Tore
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 08:42 PM
It might be that the sub-saharan and native-american ancestry the test finds are actually components of
some ancestry that's older than the palaeolithic markers.

The sub-saharan ancestry detected is most likely confused with proto-Asian ancestry (a similar situation exists with the mtDNA marker 'M').

Native Americans share several paternal markers (namely Q) with Central Asians, therefore it could be hypothesized that autosomal markers are also shared between the two groups.

Tore
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 08:44 PM
I compared, not equated.

Regardless, Hg 2 as a whole would not correspond to NOR ancestry (hence low NOR frequencies in the Balkans contrasted with high Hg 2 frequencies).

Scoob
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 08:58 PM
The problem with Y Chromosomes is that their phylogenic history doesn't go back very far relative to mtDNA, for isntance. The reason is simple: through most of recorded history, humans have lived in patriarchal societies (including our own)where male lineages are very important. So Y Chromosomes are subject to a lot of obvious selection.

MtDNA is spread out more evenly, mostly because women have historically been the "silent carriers" of human culture, and their lineages are not as important.

Yet all of this data, including Y Chromosome, mtDNA, and autosomal (including HLA) has yet to be correlated since Cavalli-Sforza's book "The History and Geography of Human Genes" some years ago.

Of course, it's funt to speculate how ABDNA's results correlate with other data.

Tryggvi
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 09:43 PM
BTW! loki pm me and told me he could not answer my post because he was shunned here at Skadi :D So I know he is getting himself well prepared for the occasion with his side kick and assistant Nordhammer :D Well, fair. He has been mentioned and addressed in quite a couple of threads, and as he has served already more than 2/3rds of his shun sentence, he is released without parole.

Loki
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 09:55 PM
Well, fair. He has been mentioned and addressed in quite a couple of threads, and as he has served already more than 2/3rds of his shun sentence, he is released without parole.

Thank you. :)

I have some catching up to do now. My detractors have been busy, eh nemo? ;)

nemo
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 10:04 PM
Posted by Njord!

Well, fair. He has been mentioned and addressed in quite a couple of threads, and as he has served already more than 2/3rds of his shun sentenced, he is released without parole.
======================================== =================

Unleashing the hounddog early eh Njord? well that's find with me, maybe he can explain how he came up with that conclusion about the dna data that I addressed him in my first post.

Loki
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 10:11 PM
Unleashing the hounddog early well that's find with me, maybe he can explain how he came up with that conclusion about the dna data that I addressed him in my first post.

The article clearly confirms the Nordish concept. Nobody ever claimed that Northern and Southern Europeans had nothing in common. Of course they share similar genetic patterns, too, but the fact remains overwhelming that you can see a clear difference. Also, you need to take into consideration that these test results portray averages, rather than extremes. I have no doubt that in many cases, particularly evidenced by phenotypical extremes, one would be able to observe an even more clear North-South difference. You have to bear in mind that non-Nordish admixture is also present in some NE families. That could account for the little (yes little!) similarities between S and N in the results.

What would make most sense to me, is if we can see the phenotypes associated with the different test results.

nemo
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 10:19 PM
Thank you. :)

I have some catching up to do now. My detractors have been busy, eh nemo? ;)

Explain yourself how you came to that ridiculous conclusion


Off-topic snide remark deleted. -- NE

Louky
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 10:51 PM
South Asian is a bit of a mystery. But perhaps there were expansions from India some time in the past...
Gypsies?

nemo
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 10:53 PM
but the fact remains overwhelming that you can see a clear difference.

With some Northern Europeans compared to the SE, their are differences in phenotype among people of the same country, not all popualtions are clones of each other, their are NE who have med phenotypes and SE who have the nordic phenotype and tha is what this data proves, that both NE and SE are not of one nordic or med phenotype but they are a combination of both.
======================================== =================


I have no doubt that in many cases, particularly evidenced by phenotypical extremes, one would be able to observe an even more clear North-South difference.

In some cases this is true
======================================== =================


You have to bear in mind that non-Nordish admixture is also present in some NE families. That could account for the little (yes little!) similarities between S and N in the results.

I don't think the similarities are that small but in extreme cases that is true, the test says that all Europeans are a mixture of the nord/med dna, but some have more of the nord, and some have more of the med.
Having more med does not make you any less European or white as some nordicist subscribe to, that is all false racial propaganda that nordicist authors like coon,McCulloch and people like Arthur Kemp who added to the lie.
======================================== =================

Tryggvi
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 11:06 PM
@all: That's not The Lounge, so let's keep arguments highbrow and on-topic, please. The off-topic remarks concerning TNP have been deleted. Use Other Forums or Free Speech.

Loki
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 11:20 PM
Having more med does not make you any less European or white as some nordicist subscribe to, that is all false racial propaganda that nordicist authors like coon,McCulloch and people like Arthur Kemp who added to the lie.


Nobody here said that SE were not white or European (okay, admittedly I do not consider some very swarthy Sicilians and Portuguese to be white). The issue here is not "white", or even "European". We Nordicists are talking about a very special kind of white, the best kind even. ;) We are clearly distinct, and we celebrate our relative uniqueness. We have no desire to share our precious heritage with other races, and we wish to remain separate. Is that too much to ask? (:o

Tribunale Dei Minore
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 12:21 AM
Nobody here said that SE were not white or EuropeanSE ana NE are geographical and political terms. Nowadays you could find mullatos that are officially considered europeans everywhere in Europe. Note how people with subsaharan heritage are very welcome in german and british TV
channels (especially the musical) but absent in south-european high circles. Please explain me the reason.






(okay, admittedly I do not consider some very swarthy Sicilians and Portuguese to be white).Some very swarthy sicilians are very caucasoid unlike some very pale pinkish
(not white; white is the colour of the snow) northeners who have detectable
mongoloid (mostly prehistorical). Because of the reason that "white" is not a racial category but chromatic and northeners are not white but just less pigmented europids (appears pale pinkish) with very often visible mongoloid heritage. The degree of pigmentation is not a racial differential. Morphology is everything colour is just a detail.






The issue here is not "white", or even "European". We Nordicists are talking about a very special kind of white, the best kind even. ;) The very special kind of pale pinkish caucasoids are these who have no their own alphabet, numbers, agriculture, nor religion but borrowed every civilization principle from south.
You're very special indeed! :)






We are clearly distinct, and we celebrate our relative uniqueness.Every race is clearly distinct and reltively unique. Otherwise they wouldn't be considered in different categories :( Indeed, different categories are identified
by thier uniqueness and diffeneces (philosophically speaking)





We have no desire to share our precious heritage with other races, and we wish to remain separate. Is that too much to ask? (:oIf you want your precoius (:eyes (http://forums.skadi.net/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=88#)) heritage for your own you should at first
stop stealing the precious heritage of ancient mediterraneans, Egypt and India. Is that too hard to understand?

Kel`Thuz
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 12:43 AM
The high occurence of MIDEAS among the Scandinavians reminded me one claim that it was the Phoenicians, or rather a mass exodus of Carthaginians during the Punic Wars, which led to their settlement in Scandinavia. You should notice some similarities in Germanic languages with Semitic. Or maybe even this evident Semitic connection: a medieval town of Birka in Sweden - in Arabic, 'birka' means 'gulf', which clearly leads us to say that the town of Birka was founded by Semitic Phoenician settlers. Other evident Semitic-Germanic examples:
in Egyptian 'burg' - castle
Arabic 'ardh' - earth
Arabic 'sherif' - sheriff
Arabic 'haffa' - shore, ~ German 'Hafen' - haven, 'Haff' - pond
Arabic 'gebel' - mountain, ~ German 'Giebel' - peak

It seems that the Germanics are a Ugro-Finnic/Semitic/IE mix (in that order), which also accounts for the high Mediterranean component in the littoral Nordic formation (Czekanowski's matrix).

Ptolemy
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 12:58 AM
How dare you!

According to the paragraph 14 of the Jawjuh convention and the 2nd Kaapstadt amendment, it is forbidden to question Loki's statements.

:P
I do believe that Nords and Meds are separate races.

I know you tried to shed doubt on my Nord/Med differences list at the Phora, AWAR, and it pisses Nemo off that I agree with the Nords on this one, but I really don't think Nords and Meds are cut from the same stone.

The Meds descended out the Middle East and the Nords descended from the *** ***** Mongols.




5. We allow criticism of all Ethnicities, Subraces, and Races if presented in a civil and non-slanderous manner. Your attitude and presentation determines whether you might face disciplinary procedures.

You are under moderation for three days. -- NE

nemo
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 01:12 AM
[QUOTE=Loki]Nobody here said that SE were not white or European (okay, admittedly I do not consider some very swarthy Sicilians and Portuguese to be white).

Well your entitled to your opinion, but on the other side of the token, I do not consider some nordics white who show mongloid fearures either.
======================================== =================



The issue here is not "white", or even "European". We Nordicists are talking about a very special kind of white, the best kind even. ;)

And who is this special kind of white, need I ask LOL
======================================== ==================


We are clearly distinct,

** *** * *********** :D
======================================== =================


and we celebrate our relative uniqueness.

LOL hey Loki, you should be a ******** :D
======================================== =================


We have no desire to share our precious heritage with other races, and we wish to remain separate. Is that too much to ask?

Not at all! but before you can share something, you have to have it and I think that's where you fall short. :)

You have a good sense of humor Loki, I know your only joking, because you can't really beleive all that **** you just wrote, or do you? :rotfl


3. Personal Offenses to Members of this Board are not welcome, as such you might suffer from disciplinary procedures if you are considered unneccesarily offensive. More lenient rules apply to our Free Speech Forum.

Being a repeated offender, you are under moderation for another 14 days. -- NE

Nordhammer
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 04:22 AM
SE ana NE are geographical and political terms. Nowadays you could find mullatos that are officially considered europeans everywhere in Europe. Note how people with subsaharan heritage are very welcome in german and british TV
channels (especially the musical) but absent in south-european high circles. Please explain me the reason.

Because mulattos/quadroons pass for native Meds.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 04:55 AM
"Showing a correlation with an anthropometric trait is the gold standard benchmark for illustrating anthropological relevance. It is irrelevant whether blue eyes are the minority or majority, only that their presence is distributed as a function of ethnicity, which is certainly the case for iris color (you’re not implying otherwise are you?). THE COMMON OCCURRENCE OF BLUE IRISES IS EXCLUSIVE TO EUROPEANS, particularly Northwestern Europeans. Not only is the association with iris colors not overstated, it is probably understated - such a connection between ethnic markers and traits have never before been shown." ~ Dr. Tony Frudakis of DNAPrint

Telperion
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 05:34 AM
Nords descended from the *** ***** Mongols.
Evidence?

Loki
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 07:34 AM
The Meds descended out the Middle East and the Nords descended from the *** ***** Mongols.

[...]

Consider my contribution to this thread finished.

Removed off-topic rant against Skadi Forum. Use the "Report Bad Post" button. -- NE

Polak
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 07:41 AM
Consider my contribution to this thread finished.


Ok, debate me then....what are you scared of?

Anytime, anywhere...

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 08:46 AM
Because mulattos/quadroons pass for native Meds.
and Nordic/Asiatic offsprings pass for native Nords

Nordhammer
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 09:01 AM
and Nordic/Asiatic offsprings pass for native Nords

Name one. Vin Diesel is accepted as Italian by many. Mixed-race Latinos are often mistaken for Mediterraneans and Italians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19824-2001Jul4?language=printer). The Spanish and Portuguese created huge mixed-race populations that are now the number one threat to white American racial preservation.

Awar
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 02:02 PM
You see mulattoes as meds only because you want to see them like that.
Just like Ptolemy who sees Nords as Mongols.

You see Vin Diesel as a typical Italian, I see this opinion of yours as typical ignorance or bias.

It's no wonder that a mulatto can pass as a med in redneck county, it just displays the typical ignorance of Americans. :P




5. We allow criticism of all Ethnicities, Subraces, and Races if presented in a civil and non-slanderous manner. Your attitude and presentation determines whether you might face disciplinary procedures.

Unacceptable in a Highbrow section. You are under moderation for three days. -- NE

Allenson
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 02:58 PM
What would make most sense to me, is if we can see the phenotypes associated with the different test results.


That would be most interesting indeed.

Allenson
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 03:19 PM
Arabic 'sherif' - sheriff

It seems that the Germanics are a Ugro-Finnic/Semitic/IE mix (in that order), which also accounts for the high Mediterranean component in the littoral Nordic formation (Czekanowski's matrix).


Eh? Off the top of my head, the word "sheriff" is an Anglo-Saxon/Old English word (scirgerefa) (scir [shire] + gerefa [reeve]).

My hunch is that the word 'shire' comes from the Indo-European root "sker"--to cut (as in Shires are divisions of the land).

http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE467.html

Also, a handful of similar words to Semitic is not going to convince anyone that Germanics are more Semitic than IE. That, is quite a stretch really.

Awar
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 03:39 PM
I read somewhere that Phoenicians had those 'Neolithic' DNA markers.
I suppose they'd result as MED in this test.

nemo
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 04:05 PM
Because mulattos/quadroons pass for native Meds.

That's what you say, anybody can tell the difference between a mulatto/quadron and SE.
You just keep using the same old stereotypes of SE that has been going on for centurys in this country by people of Anglo/nordic heritage who are more race mixed then any SE.
If you want I can put up links that show that the Anglo/Dutch population of this country did not consider the Irish white but said they were of a SIMIAN RACE.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 04:13 PM
You see mulattoes as meds only because you want to see them like that.
Just like Ptolemy who sees Nords as Mongols.

You see Vin Diesel as a typical Italian, I see this opinion of yours as typical ignorance or bias.

I didn't say I see them that way, I said they can pass, according to many reports from native Mediterraneans. I suspect it's mainly because of darker pigmentation in Meds and less racist attitudes.

nemo
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 04:28 PM
Name one. Vin Diesel is accepted as Italian by many. Mixed-race Latinos are often mistaken for Mediterraneans and Italians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19824-2001Jul4?language=printer). The Spanish and Portuguese created huge mixed-race populations that are now the number one threat to white American racial preservation.

Van Diesel is not accepted as Italian, the jew producer( I don't recall the jews name) made him Italian for the movie
The jew producer could not find an Italian actor who looked like that, he did it to please the nordic population.
The jew has a habit of slandering Italians in the movies, and the Italian organazation, the "sons of Italy" which has over 5000 members have given the jew a warning.

Nordhammer you don't know nothing about Italians but just keep repeating the same old stereotypes and insulting remarks about us.

Off topic challenge removed. -- NE

nemo
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 04:32 PM
Evidence?

My eyeballs give me the evidence.

Awar
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 04:50 PM
I didn't say I see them that way, I said they can pass, according to many reports from native Mediterraneans.

Let's see: "many reports from native Mediterraneans" ???
What are these 'reports'? Could you post these reports, or links to such reports that Mulattoes and Quadroons can pass as meds.


I suspect it's mainly because of darker pigmentation in Meds and less racist attitudes.

This is false.
It's common knowledge that N.European countries and American countries have negroid populations living there. It would be impossible to find such populations in S.Europe.

There is no comparison, USA, Scandinavia and Britain are world's leaders in inter-racial and inter-ethnic marriage.

Tryggvi
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 05:20 PM
This is false.
It's common knowledge that N.European countries and American countries have negroid populations living there. It would be impossible to find such populations in S.Europe. There are at least some hundred-thousands of blacks in Italy, legally and illegally; in addition, there is about a million if not more Northern Africans.

Two million more Africans wait in Lybia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3915301.stm) to be released onto Europe.

Further, not that I would have hard data, but I assume there are fewer blacks relative to the population size in countries such as Germany, Denmark, Norway, Iceland than in Italy or France. So your Northern vs. Southern European comparison might not be completely valid: albeit it's definitely true for the U.K., and probably also The Netherlands -- but they have a colonial burden to carry, of course, as has France. I haven't got data on Portugal. Would be interesting.


There is no comparison, USA, Scandinavia and Britain are world's leaders in inter-racial and inter-ethnic marriage. Relative to the non-Europid population share, to the total population size or in absolute numbers? Do you have a source?

I actually fail to see the significance in this comparison, as it's very much a thing of traditional values and New World Order reeducation. I actually do not believe that either Northern or Eastern or Western or Southern Europeans are by nature less susceptible to miscegenation.

nemo
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 07:25 PM
There are at least some hundred-thousands of blacks in Italy, legally and illegally; in addition, there is about a million if not more Northern Africans.

Two million more Africans wait in Lybia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3915301.stm) to be released onto Europe.

Further, not that I would have hard data, but I assume there are fewer blacks relative to the population size in countries such as Germany, Denmark, Norway, Iceland than in Italy or France. So your Northern vs. Southern European comparison might not be complete

The population of Italy is 59 million Italians, and I don't think they have that many black immigrants as you say, they have more asian then black and the total is below a million.
The Italian Govt is trying to stop the influx of immigrants from landing on it's borders and are sending many of them back.
That is more then any NE country is doing.
Because of it's vast shore line Italy is more vulnerable to these landings

And from what I hear they are not accepted, and do not assimulate into the Italian population as a whole only in rare cases.

Telperion
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 08:33 PM
My eyeballs give me the evidence.
I would suggest you book an appointment with an Opthamalogist.

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 09:03 PM
Name one. Vin Diesel is accepted as Italian by many. Mixed-race Latinos are often mistaken for Mediterraneans and Italians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19824-2001Jul4?language=printer). The Spanish and Portuguese created huge mixed-race populations that are now the number one threat to white American racial preservation.

i have seen some swedish/asiatic and finnish/asiatic couples with their offspring while i was in Scandinavia.
Sorry, but i didn't ask them their names.. next time i will be less polite ;)

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 09:18 PM
I actually fail to see the significance in this comparison, as it's very much a thing of traditional values and New World Order reeducation. I actually do not believe that either Northern or Eastern or Western or Southern Europeans are by nature less susceptible to miscegenation.

I'd have appreciated these words if they were written after what Nordhammer said about miscegenation in South America.

Considering the big difference between the number of Anglo-Saxon (and then other white) colons and SE colons and also the difference between the number of Northern Amerindians and Southern Amerindians i find his comparision totally unacceptable.

I'd like to see data about USA Amerindians to see if the White Anglo-Saxons never touched them...

nemo
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 01:10 AM
I'd have appreciated these words if they were written after what Nordhammer said about miscegenation in South America.

Considering the big difference between the number of Anglo-Saxon (and then other white) colons and SE colons and also the difference between the number of Northern Amerindians and Southern Amerindians i find his comparision totally unacceptable.

I'd like to see data about USA Amerindians to see if the White Anglo-Saxons never touched them...

It is a known fact among us yankees in the north, that their was a lot of race mixing among the Anglos and their black slaves and also with the Indians at that time and it still goes on today with descendents of those slaves.
and many show it in their phenotype.
:negress

Tribunale Dei Minore
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 04:01 PM
Because mulattos/quadroons pass for native Meds.You could pass a ****** even in ancient Scandinavia by saying smth like this. Mulatto/quadroons are simply
absent(or very rare) in SE pop culture. Unlike NE, where they are celebrated in
television, porn productions. Simply NE pop circles are darker (metaphor) than these in SE. The logistic structure of my previous post was clear enough not to expect comments like yours.

Yes, I know, I understand, that because even thousands of years after Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, the Pharaons, Rome and Greece, the Arabian chaliphtes, and the Han dynasty and central american Mayas even, your nordid forefathers were
still living like animals in the forests of Barbaria now you manifest your inferiority complex by trying to offend someone. I understand your problems and I feel pity for you. :)

Please, watch on the insults, this is the highbrow section. Dalonord has already warned you (see below).
~ Johannes de León

Allenson
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 04:58 PM
You could pass a retard even in ancient Scandinavia

Please refrain from ad hominem remarks. Thanks.

This goes for everyone! :-O

Allenson
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 05:04 PM
It is a known fact among us yankees in the north, that their was a lot of race mixing among the Anglos and their black slaves and also with the Indians at that time and it still goes on today with descendents of those slaves.
and many show it in their phenotype.
:negress


Hi Nemo--first of all, if you are indeed an Italian-American (and I've no reason to doubt you), than you are not a Yankee. The term 'yankee' dates back to the days of Dutch and English colonization of what is now New York State and the New England states. It was a term used by the Dutch in reference to the English settlers to their east. Just clarifying that's all--I'm not trying to insult you.

Secondly, the bulk of any gene-flow between Europid and Negroids here in America has historically been from the Europid to the Negroid populations. This has been proven at a genetic level.

nemo
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 06:23 PM
Hi Nemo--first of all, if you are indeed an Italian-American (and I've no reason to doubt you), than you are not a Yankee. The term 'yankee' dates back to the days of Dutch and English colonization of what is now New York State and the New England states. It was a term used by the Dutch in reference to the English settlers to their east. Just clarifying that's all--I'm not trying to insult you.


Yes I know it's origin, I live in New York City and Southerners refer to people from NYC as Yankees, it really does not mean that much to me anyhow and is very seldom used here in NYC any more.

It is like the term Redneck or rebel, they are just labels put on people from the colonial days.

Ptolemy
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 08:21 PM
I actually fail to see the significance in this comparison, as it's very much a thing of traditional values and New World Order reeducation. I actually do not believe that either Northern or Eastern or Western or Southern Europeans are by nature less susceptible to miscegenation.The Changing Face of Britain

"The United Kingdom has one of the fastest growing mixed-race populations in the world, fuelled by the continuing rise of inter-ethnic relationships."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/uk/2002/race/henryfrench210.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/changing_face_of_britain.stm

nemo
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 08:40 PM
Hi Nemo--first of all, if you are indeed an Italian-American (and I've no reason to doubt you), than you are not a Yankee. The term 'yankee' dates back to the days of Dutch and English colonization of what is now New York State and the New England states. It was a term used by the Dutch in reference to the English settlers to their east. Just clarifying that's all--I'm not trying to insult you.


Dalonord!

About the the word Yankee, I have a good electronic dictionary and I paid over $100 for it,and this what it says the meaning of Yankee is!

A native or inhabitant of New England
also a native or inbabitant of the Northern US, so we were both right
:D

Allenson
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 08:57 PM
The Changing Face of Britain

"The United Kingdom has one of the fastest growing mixed-race populations in the world, fuelled by the continuing rise of inter-ethnic relationships."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/uk/2002/race/henryfrench210.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/changing_face_of_britain.stm


Do you think that this phenomena is due to an inherent disposition amongst the Europid British population to miscengenate or perhaps a result of political-social indoctrination?

Allenson
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 08:59 PM
Dalonord!

About the the word Yankee, I have a good electronic dictionary and I paid over $100 for it,and this what it says the meaning of Yankee is!

A native or inhabitant of New England
also a native or inbabitant of the Northern US, so we were both right
:D


Thanks bud! :) I had the enjoyable privlege of approving this post. ;)

Yes, the term has, through time, beocme more inclusive in its meaning and connotation.

We best stay on topic though! ;)

Rocky
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 05:29 PM
With regard to the South Asian component of the test, isn't it likely the result of the Indo-European speakers coming into Europe. They must have shared some genes with other Indo-European speakers in Asia. So nothing to do with Romanies.

Awar
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 05:35 PM
With regard to the South Asian component of the test, isn't it likely the result of the Indo-European speakers coming into Europe. They must have shared some genes with other Indo-European speakers in Asia. So nothing to do with Romanies.

Not likely, because Indo-European languages were introduced to the Indian sub-continent by Europeans.
The term Indo-European refers to the geographic distribution of this linguistic family.

Rocky
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 06:02 PM
I do not wish to digress to linguistics, but is it not Renfrew's belief that the Dravidian, Indo-European and Semitic languages all formed as branches radiating from the fertile crescent. In any case did not all the ancestors of Europeans come from Asia including the famous UPs.

Awar
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 06:20 PM
I do not wish to digress to linguistics, but is it not Renfrew's belief that the Dravidian, Indo-European and Semitic languages all formed as branches radiating from the fertile crescent.

That's just one of the dozens of theories. It's also linguistic only.
India was surely inhabited well before the arrival/spread of Dravidian or IE languages.

There's no other historical migration of South Asians into Europe, other than Gypsies. No other people carried their South-Asian DNA into Europe.



In any case did not all the ancestors of Europeans come from Asia including the famous UPs.

Sure, but they didn't come from south Asia, and they didn't carry South-Asian DNA markers.

Even if they did, 25.000 years later, their DNA would differ significantly from the DNA of south Asians due to mutations. So, again, there'd be nothing else to explain the specific SA markers found in Europe other than a more recent migration of SA populations into Europe.