Viking DNA

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
interesting article indeed.

i wonder how much of the study is manipulated and slanted by the author (and/or maybe the university scientists themselves) so that the left has scientific "proof" to promote mixed-race diversity today, especially aimed at the whitest of white people: scandinavians.

of course there is the mainstream genetic bottleneck theory (the toba event in 70,000 bpe where the total human population dropped to between 2000 to 20,000 individuals) and the more fringey cataclysm event in 9500 BC which has finally gained some traction. both of those theories basically show that we are all distantly related anyway. the jury remains out in exactly HOW distant.

tsarion, through the book of enoch, goes into detail about the genetic creation of man by an alien race which is equally compelling (q.v. Atlantis, Alien Visitation and Genetic Manipulation by michael tsarion).


mankinds timeline in the related article just below shows the usual conventional archeological nonsense which originally made me question the veracity of the article. i looked at the link to the original study which only showed the abstract, so i couldnt get to the bottom of it.

until mainstream archeology acknowledges all of the abberations and anomalous evidence that theyve ignored for hundreds of years [q.v. michael cremo], i will have a hard time getting excited about any of their latest "discoveries".
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
interesting article indeed.

i wonder how much of the study is manipulated and slanted by the author (and/or maybe the university scientists themselves) so that the left has scientific "proof" to promote mixed-race diversity today, especially aimed at the whitest of white people: scandinavians.

of course there is the mainstream genetic bottleneck theory (the toba event in 70,000 bpe where the total human population dropped to between 2000 to 20,000 individuals) and the more fringey cataclysm event in 9500 BC which has finally gained some traction. both of those theories basically show that we are all distantly related anyway. the jury remains out in exactly HOW distant.

tsarion, through the book of enoch, goes into detail about the genetic creation of man by an alien race which is equally compelling (q.v. Atlantis, Alien Visitation and Genetic Manipulation by michael tsarion).


mankinds timeline in the related article just below shows the usual conventional archeological nonsense which originally made me question the veracity of the article. i looked at the link to the original study which only showed the abstract, so i couldnt get to the bottom of it.

until mainstream archeology acknowledges all of the abberations and anomalous evidence that theyve ignored for hundreds of years [q.v. michael cremo], i will have a hard time getting excited about any of their latest "discoveries".
Yeah, definitely could have been manipulated and I'm sure there are things that were left out but I'm also, sure there's a lot of truth to what they're saying as well.

All in all thought it was an interesting article. Hope you enjoyed it.
 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195
interesting article indeed.

i wonder how much of the study is manipulated and slanted by the author (and/or maybe the university scientists themselves) so that the left has scientific "proof" to promote mixed-race diversity today, especially aimed at the whitest of white people: scandinavians.

of course there is the mainstream genetic bottleneck theory (the toba event in 70,000 bpe where the total human population dropped to between 2000 to 20,000 individuals) and the more fringey cataclysm event in 9500 BC which has finally gained some traction. both of those theories basically show that we are all distantly related anyway. the jury remains out in exactly HOW distant.

tsarion, through the book of enoch, goes into detail about the genetic creation of man by an alien race which is equally compelling (q.v. Atlantis, Alien Visitation and Genetic Manipulation by michael tsarion).


mankinds timeline in the related article just below shows the usual conventional archeological nonsense which originally made me question the veracity of the article. i looked at the link to the original study which only showed the abstract, so i couldnt get to the bottom of it.

until mainstream archeology acknowledges all of the abberations and anomalous evidence that theyve ignored for hundreds of years [q.v. michael cremo], i will have a hard time getting excited about any of their latest "discoveries".
Definitely manipulated for political purposes. I never bought the theory that we all descend from blacks in Africa either.

Like you said the human race was created by different alien species. There is no common ancestor for all races. This planet is a gigantic genetic experiment with different aliens manipulating the race that they created to fight the others. It's a prison planet that is some sort of school for us. Apparently on most planets there is only one race for the entire planet.

I like Michael Cremo's book Forbidden Archeology. We all descend from angels ultimately and he writes about that. It was the first book that totally convinced me that Darwinism is super bunk.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
Definitely manipulated for political purposes. I never bought the theory that we all descend from blacks in Africa either.

Like you said the human race was created by different alien species. There is no common ancestor for all races. This planet is a gigantic genetic experiment with different aliens manipulating the race that they created to fight the others. It's a prison planet that is some sort of school for us. Apparently on most planets there is only one race for the entire planet.

I like Michael Cremo's book Forbidden Archeology. We all descend from angels ultimately and he writes about that. It was the first book that totally convinced me that Darwinism is super bunk.
Sorry but I find it humorous Caucasians would rather believe they're descendants of extra-terrestrials than admit the first humans, and therefore all of us, are actually black/Africoid people.

Albinism is the only logical explanation for light skin and other traits representing recessive genes.

Check out this family. And no, these aren't adopted children :D:

 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195
Sorry but I find it humorous Caucasians would rather believe they're descendants of extra-terrestrials than admit the first humans, and therefore all of us, are actually black/Africoid people.

Albinism is the only logical explanation for light skin and other traits representing recessive genes.

Check out this family. And no, these aren't adopted children :D:

I really don't care that you find it humorous or not. The theory of evolution and anthropology are Rockefeller funded hideous pseudo-scientific garbage.
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
Vikingism (yeah, I just made up that term) was a pretty big tent. I’m Ukrainian by heritage, but my DNA is Viking, just like most Ukrainians and a lot of Russians and Slavs. We are the Rus’ people.
I think you've pretty clearly summed up here. When we think Vikings we think only of Scandinavia but the research says they had the genetic makeup of various different European people and Asians. Would explain the trade routes and the connections they had with the Russians and the Middle East.
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
Excellent observation. Considering history is being erased and rewritten right before our eyes, we should absolutely question 'new discoveries' such as this.

I really don't care what color people are, but I do care about the truth. If the truth is that people from a particular part of the world naturally share hair/eye/skin color traits, then that's the truth. I hate lies and deception.
History has been erased and re-written for a long time now and I'm saying probably since the beginning of the birth of civilizations.

All the article was saying was that the viking people were more diverse in their genetic makeup than we originally thought. It was not saying they were black and looked like Africans lol.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
I really don't care that you find it humorous or not. The theory of evolution and anthropology are Rockefeller funded hideous pseudo-scientific garbage.
Cool words but the theory of evolution is a construct of white supremacy, the opposite of what I'm explaining. Eugenics is direct offshoot of Darwin's hypotheses. Early anthropology was rife with misleading concepts, based mostly on the Bible. I'd go as far as to speculate the entire purpose of "evolution" was to infer that Europeans "evolved" from aboriginals, when in fact significant mutations of genetic sequences in populations occurred rather recently (<50,000 years ago).

The facts of our African origins shouldn't cause pain and division. It proves we're all homo sapiens-sapiens. When scientists say race doesn't exist, it really is true. We're share like 99.98% of the same DNA. As a French-Scottsman I take pride in being black! :D
 

GhostGirl

Rookie
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
19
I thought this was an interesting article. Apparently the genetic makeup of the "viking" people was more diverse than we once thought. Enjoy folks.

Riiiiiiight. And we all know that certainly no one was given a Viking burial because perhaps he had a 13th warrior type scenario going now don't we? Certainly we KNOW that no one was given a Viking burial not because he WAS a Viking but because he was well respected by the Vikings. Give me a break. In this day and age when these people print whatever they want you to believe instead of truth, I'm not at all surprised to see them telling us that Vikings weren't really Scandinavian - I call bs.
 

Sunshine

Established
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
252
I thought this was an interesting article. Apparently the genetic makeup of the "viking" people was more diverse than we once thought. Enjoy folks.

The results of this study can be mostly explained by one word: slaves. When the Scandinavians went viking (yes, it's a verb), they didn't just loot, r*pe and pillage, and then turn around and leave without leaving serious scars on the lands and the peoples they invaded. They, like every culture back then, took captives, brought them back home along with the rest of their booty, bought and sold them, put them to labor, and bred with them.

Does anyone really think that these tribes only travelled abroad during the limited time span denoted in the article? Resources were scarce before 2400 BC too. Limited arable land, short growing seasons and a warrior culture built on paramilitary hierarchies were always factors that encouraged Norsemen to roam elsewhere and conquer where they could. There is no reason to think they wouldn't venture south to France, Spain, Italy, and east to the Ural Mountains (and beyond) in earlier times, just like we know they did in the times of written records.

Plus, who is to say that they didn't have visitors to their lands from foreigners? We don't know how far back in time the first trade routes were made in that part of the world, for amber, salt, copper and tin (!) and any number of "luxury goods." Trade, tourism, diplomacy, invasion, it all counts. Maybe even room for a couple of Picts (also a bad-ass warrior clan culture) whose background, experiences and values were so similar to that of the Norsemen that they fit right in?

No part of Europe is genetically homogenous, save maybe some enclaves like the Basques or the Rom who purposefully remain distinct from their neighbors. There were so many tribes and sub-tribes that moved in so many directions, so many times during and after the Bronze Age, and likely before it, too. I have studied this stuff for years, and I still don't have a handle on it. Even a cursory look at the Germanic family of tribes, from which the Norse, i.e. Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Finns (and their regional subgroups, lol) descend, is enough to make your head spin. Because there are literally hundreds of them, from Franks to Goths, from Saxon to Suebi, and all points in between. They ebbed and flowed and mingled and warred with Celts and Slavs and Italic tribes and each other. It should surprise no one that these movements and meetings show up in ancient or modern DNA.

Frankly, I think it's exciting. Scientists are using modern technology to push back the limits of what we know, into the more distant past. It's a pretty cool study, it has brought to light new information, but I don't see anyone rewriting any of the main chapters in a history book. It's not exactly Gobleki Tepe. And, sorry to disappoint the ""inclusion" junkies in the audience, but according to the article, they haven't found any DNA from non-European groups in the results. Just a reminder before someone tries to insert some link from Scandinavia to deepest, darkest Africa. Uh, oh, too late, somebody already did.

The mutation to Blond and Blue-eyed was driven from environmental factors, and is NOT a recessive trait like albinism. I am not entirely convinced of the veracity of the "out of Africa" theory either. It doesn't make chronological sense. If humans and their cultures first emerged on that continent, the subsequent cultures would be MORE advanced than in Europe and Asia, not less. It's the same with the Native American cultures, the "early guys" in the north never progressed past neolithic art and technology, but the farther south/later you go, the more advanced the building, the metal working, the arts and crafts, the religions. It's ridiculous.
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
The results of this study can be mostly explained by one word: slaves. When the Scandinavians went viking (yes, it's a verb), they didn't just loot, r*pe and pillage, and then turn around and leave without leaving serious scars on the lands and the peoples they invaded. They, like every culture back then, took captives, brought them back home along with the rest of their booty, bought and sold them, put them to labor, and bred with them.

Does anyone really think that these tribes only travelled abroad during the limited time span denoted in the article? Resources were scarce before 2400 BC too. Limited arable land, short growing seasons and a warrior culture built on paramilitary hierarchies were always factors that encouraged Norsemen to roam elsewhere and conquer where they could. There is no reason to think they wouldn't venture south to France, Spain, Italy, and east to the Ural Mountains (and beyond) in earlier times, just like we know they did in the times of written records.

Plus, who is to say that they didn't have visitors to their lands from foreigners? We don't know how far back in time the first trade routes were made in that part of the world, for amber, salt, copper and tin (!) and any number of "luxury goods." Trade, tourism, diplomacy, invasion, it all counts. Maybe even room for a couple of Picts (also a bad-ass warrior clan culture) whose background, experiences and values were so similar to that of the Norsemen that they fit right in?

No part of Europe is genetically homogenous, save maybe some enclaves like the Basques or the Rom who purposefully remain distinct from their neighbors. There were so many tribes and sub-tribes that moved in so many directions, so many times during and after the Bronze Age, and likely before it, too. I have studied this stuff for years, and I still don't have a handle on it. Even a cursory look at the Germanic family of tribes, from which the Norse, i.e. Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Finns (and their regional subgroups, lol) descend, is enough to make your head spin. Because there are literally hundreds of them, from Franks to Goths, from Saxon to Suebi, and all points in between. They ebbed and flowed and mingled and warred with Celts and Slavs and Italic tribes and each other. It should surprise no one that these movements and meetings show up in ancient or modern DNA.

Frankly, I think it's exciting. Scientists are using modern technology to push back the limits of what we know, into the more distant past. It's a pretty cool study, it has brought to light new information, but I don't see anyone rewriting any of the main chapters in a history book. It's not exactly Gobleki Tepe. And, sorry to disappoint the ""inclusion" junkies in the audience, but according to the article, they haven't found any DNA from non-European groups in the results. Just a reminder before someone tries to insert some link from Scandinavia to deepest, darkest Africa. Uh, oh, too late, somebody already did.

The mutation to Blond and Blue-eyed was driven from environmental factors, and is NOT a recessive trait like albinism. I am not entirely convinced of the veracity of the "out of Africa" theory either. It doesn't make chronological sense. If humans and their cultures first emerged on that continent, the subsequent cultures would be MORE advanced than in Europe and Asia, not less. It's the same with the Native American cultures, the "early guys" in the north never progressed past neolithic art and technology, but the farther south/later you go, the more advanced the building, the metal working, the arts and crafts, the religions. It's ridiculous.
I agree. A lot of the things you say makes sense. From the genetic make up they found European and Asian DNA, which is exactly what the study was saying. But this could be explained through slaves and the trade they had with said places.
 
Last edited:
Top