HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

by Major Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:39 am

First topic message reminder :

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/trump-how-did-this-happen/

by Independent Thoughts Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:19 pm

by Independent Thoughts Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:20 pm

by veya_victaous Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:55 pm

stardesk wrote:Veya my ear lady, (I'm a big hairy man ) there's several things you are overlooking, or refuse to acknowledge, nameably:
The economys, trade, industry, science, tecknowleadgly that many colonies now enjoy were set up years ago by the British. Had it not have been for those factors those colonies would still be backward. Furthermore, our people migrated to what was then a new world, yes indeed some were sent by 'transportation' for crimes commited, but their descendants pulled up their socks and helped make Australia what it is today.
Where would you be today had it not been for those facts? Still wandering around in a wilderness worshipping the Wagilak Sisters?

Yeah the Capable hard working people all seen to have left
and came to the new world.
Australians are ALL the people here. even descendant of pommies.

And all that Came from France Italy and Spain LONG before the brit's caught up Rolling Eyes

AND the brits DEFINTALY did not set up Any of the economic factors we have today YOU had enslaving 'corporation' NOT democracy and 'free enterprise' that came from the USA and France Rolling Eyes

the red coats fought AGAINST DEMOCRCY!!!
jesus stop trying rewrite history, the ENGLISH were the bad guys for Just about Every single group of people BUT the English. we can take the histories of 200+ races and the ENGLISH are the BAD GUYS, only one race thinks the English were 'good'

and now you lot are weak and useless so You can get stuffed if you think we are going to accept your propaganda.

you lot are so incompetent in 100 years we have already almost matched you contributions to Science from all time Rolling Eyes

To look at what you gave AND try and link it to what we have today is Bullshit, you took far more than you gave and MOST of what we have now is hard fought to stop you stealing it !!

by Victorismyhero Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:04 pm

it may amuse you veya, to learn that dear Mr Trump has repealed the trans pacific partnership.

"President Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

He had promised to take such action in November, describing the trade deal as a "potential disaster for our country".

The agreement was designed to bring down tariffs and trade barriers between America and a number of Pacific Rim nations including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia and Chile.

Mr Trump described his action on TPP as a "great thing for the American worker"."

from http://news.sky.com/story/president-trump-takes-us-out-of-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-10740409

you will just have to cede to china's sovereignty and live on a bowl of soup a day.....

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:10 pm

veya_victaous wrote:yes you sent over a few sheep and cattle to breed.
But got sent back 10 fold with in 50 years. and 100 fold after a century. let alone the timbre was worth more than that in the first shipment back.
And you do realize the Convicts where treated like slaves, unpaid and hardly feed, the product of their hard work sent back to the lazy buggers in England.

And no it wasn't a trading nation 2000 years ago (it wasn't even a nation and it was hundreds of year before the First Anglo invader arrived. the Welsh owned it all back then) it was a backwater that Romans took for political purpose and decide it was not worth the effort so let it go.

Plus you literally prove you are nothing but an ignorant racist, I presume any Englishman with an ounce of brains or work ethics left back then to come to the new world, leaving nothing but the lazy and useless like yourself. Like I have said Resting on your supposed laurels even though those laurels where made and paid for by the colonies. Now you have no colonies you have nothing, your just spending what's left in the pot. no creation, no production of sufficient value to cover your wasteful life style.

Today the average Australian produces 50% more value than the average Englishman. yet you expect then same services as hard working people

you blame others because YOU don't work hard enough to keep up with them.

And PRAY TELL answer the original question. HOW is killing off you trading capacity going to achieve any of the things you think will magically happen?

"...exploitation of the tin resources in Britain is believed to have started before 2000 BC,[7] with a thriving tin trade developing with the civilisations of the Mediterranean. The strategic importance of tin in forging bronze weapons brought the southwest of Britain into the Mediterranean economy at an early date...."

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:11 pm

Also veya... you claimed that everything built in uk before 1970 was using wood, sand and stone stolen from Australia...

We are an island surrounded by sand... we have also always had shit loads of stone about the place, and if we really needed some then there are countless nearer places that are much easier to get from...

But I'm interested by your claim about wood being massively stolen and shipped to uk for building all our infrastructure... can you tell us what type of wood this was..

by veya_victaous Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:12 pm

Tommy that was the CELTS which are the WELSH,
NOT the English , not your culture that did not invade until the 5th century
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/lang_gallery_01.shtml

by 'Wolfie Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:12 pm

Stardesk is so full of shit...

His whole post above there is full of lies..

He should have paid more attention in history classes in school.

The British colonies took a lot more than they gave..

Oz, NZ and Canada prospered despite British theft.

NOT because of it..

Anybody who wants to support Star's weed-induced rantings should do themselves a favour -- and check out the British Museum curators refusing to return indigenous remains and relics to former colonies..

And every British gov't to date, doesn't have the morals or the fortitude to stand up to a handful of 'Museum academics ???

God help Britain in the next big war they have to face ! What a Face

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:13 pm

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:For real, though. Why is a diaper pin the new symbol of the Liberals??

by 'Wolfie Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:20 pm

Lord Foul wrote:it may amuse you veya, to learn that dear Mr Trump has repealed the trans pacific partnership.

"President Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

He had promised to take such action in November, describing the trade deal as a "potential disaster for our country".

The agreement was designed to bring down tariffs and trade barriers between America and a number of Pacific Rim nations including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia and Chile.

Mr Trump described his action on TPP as a "great thing for the American worker"."

from http://news.sky.com/story/president-trump-takes-us-out-of-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-10740409

you will just have to cede to china's sovereignty and live on a bowl of soup a day.....

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? - Page 2 3489511464

You really have no idea, Victor...

The agreement was always designed to favour BIG business -- and give more influence to multinational corporations..

Big businesses in Australia would have benefitted, for sure.

But to the detriment of average workers, small businesses -- and the overall economy, and environmental protections and local communities. in general.

I, for one, won't be sorry to see it go; Hopefully with smaller, locally tailored agreements replacing it over the long term...

by veya_victaous Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:23 pm

Lord Foul wrote:it may amuse you veya, to learn that dear Mr Trump has repealed the trans pacific partnership.

"President Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

He had promised to take such action in November, describing the trade deal as a "potential disaster for our country".

The agreement was designed to bring down tariffs and trade barriers between America and a number of Pacific Rim nations including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia and Chile.

Mr Trump described his action on TPP as a "great thing for the American worker"."

from http://news.sky.com/story/president-trump-takes-us-out-of-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-10740409

you will just have to cede to china's sovereignty and live on a bowl of soup a day.....

We get a lot more from China than we ever got from the USA. it's a no brainer they are the BEST nation we have been a Vassal to by heaps. England Stole all the cream and half the milk, the USA just stole the cream but left the milk. China lets us keep some of the cream.

a lot of Chinese are richer than most brits nowdays.
China has the largest growing middle class. yours is shrinking.
this is sort of the point While You lot look backwards, and fear the future since it is inevitable decline, China is Improving growing become fairer, richer and more capable.

It was the most powerful nation for over 3 thousand years, the European powers where just a small blip on the timeline, China Rightful acknowledges that 'now' things are just returning to the way they normally are. Asia is the Hub of Civilization and Europe is the home of 2 bit hill shepherd barbarians Cool

that is just REAL Global History without the Eurocentric propaganda Wink

by veya_victaous Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:30 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:it may amuse you veya, to learn that dear Mr Trump has repealed the trans pacific partnership.

"President Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

He had promised to take such action in November, describing the trade deal as a "potential disaster for our country".

The agreement was designed to bring down tariffs and trade barriers between America and a number of Pacific Rim nations including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia and Chile.

Mr Trump described his action on TPP as a "great thing for the American worker"."

from http://news.sky.com/story/president-trump-takes-us-out-of-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-10740409

you will just have to cede to china's sovereignty and live on a bowl of soup a day.....

You really have no idea, Victor...

The agreement was always designed to favour BIG business -- and give more influence to multinational corporations..

Big businesses in Australia would have benefitted, for sure.

But to the detriment of average workers, small businesses -- and the overall economy, and environmental protections and local communities. in general.

I, for one, won't be sorry to see it go; Hopefully with smaller, locally tailored agreements replacing it over the long term...

It may go ahead anyway
Turnbull is trying and LONG term it will benefit us all.
like the EU it will cause temporary pain, but we have almost already gone through most of it with Manufacturing pretty much dead already.
we will be one of the bigger richer economies going in.
if we can get a solid agreement with China and Japan.
we will be all good in the future.

Particularly if the EU fails, and/or the USA has a civil war and Splits. we would rapidly become the richest western economy. and it will be Australia that gets to Take the cream off them for a change Twisted Evil

by Original Quill Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:39 pm

Lord Foul wrote:"President Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)."

Actually, there is nothing to withdraw from. The TPP was never passed by Congress, so it is largely showboating. Same as with the Carrier deal. Same with the empty files turning his business over to his kids.

You can expect a lot of that with this administration. Wait until the subpoenas hit for his tax returns. Then you'll get something worth looking over.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:51 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Tommy that was the CELTS which are the WELSH,
NOT the English , not your culture that did not invade until the 5th century
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/lang_gallery_01.shtml

I said...

"You do realise that the uk has been a well established trading nation for over 2000 years, don't you...!?"

It's funny how you talk of indigenous peoples of uk being celts/Welsh and how all English were invaders and in such a negative tone of being illegal immigrants etc... completely ignoring the fact that england was substantially populated before any 'invasion' and had a people of its own throughout and closely related to the rest of the pre existing uk population etc...

But then you bend over backwards to avoid calling any recent foreign influx as an invasion of foreign people or invasion of foreign culture etc...

You complain about British invasion of Australia etc... but you then argue that it was only the productive Brits who bothered to move to Australia, and this being a good thing, leaving the lazy Brits being the ones who stayed in uk...

Make your mind up veya...!!!

I've got Irish blood but I class myself as English/British because this is where I've been born and bred...

Do you blame black British people for historical british rulers injustices as much as you like to blame white Celtic British people such as myself...!?

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:16 am

You do realize Anglos Saxon KILLED or enslaved most of the natives when they took land. (whether it was the 5th century or the 18th century)

So can you see the HUGE difference between modern migrants and the traditional ways of Anglo Saxons?
Also why Anglo Saxon cant really complain about having peaceful migrants?
Even the Normans did not have the predisposition to genocide of the Anglo Saxon.

And yes ALL British peoples should pay reparation to native people affected since the time of Empire. OR you could just gather up all the Royal's and 'nobles' things and use that wealth instead HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? - Page 2 2190311264

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? - Page 2 2190311264

(Aussies Even the Anglo Saxon decent ones, pay reparations to Aboriginals )

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:53 am

veya_victaous wrote:You do realize Anglos Saxon KILLED or enslaved most of the natives when they took land. (whether it was the 5th century or the 18th century)

So can you see the HUGE difference between modern migrants and the traditional ways of Anglo Saxons?
Also why Anglo Saxon cant really complain about having peaceful migrants?
Even the Normans did not have the predisposition to genocide of the Anglo Saxon.

And yes ALL British peoples should pay reparation to native people affected since the time of Empire. OR you could just gather up all the Royal's and 'nobles' things and use that wealth instead

(Aussies Even the Anglo Saxon decent ones, pay reparations to Aboriginals )

Revisionist history, as they did not enslave everyone, but the Romano-Brits adapted both the Saxon and Viking cultures, except in Wales and Cornwall/Dorset. There was some slavery, but where they had fought groups within Britain, but they certainly never enslaved the entire Romano-Brits who they adapted the culture and the Saxons adapted to Christianity.

And genetically inaccurate.

BRITISH (UNITED KINGDOM)

Jewish Diaspora

2%

Great Britain & Ireland

69%

Western & Central Europe

9%

Eastern Europe

2%

Scandinavia

12%

Southern Europe

5%

This reference population is based on people living in England, in the United Kingdom. The dominant Great Britain and Ireland and smaller Scandinavian components reflect distinct remnants from early settlers in northern Europe, hunter-gatherers who arrived there more than 30,000 years ago. The Western and Central and Southern European percentages likely arrived later, first with the spread of agriculture from the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East over the past 8,000 years, and much later by the reach of the Roman Empire. English populations today retain links to both the early Europeans and later migrants.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/

If 69% are of ancient Brits descent, then the claim of genocide is weak to say the least

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:08 am

yeah but if you look into that it doesn't define that Anglo Saxon in nay of those groups.

and based on the inclusion in Dutch and south American clearly they have just rolled the Anglo Saxon into the Celtic.

even the Pretense of the 'British' section is a bit of propaganda since the Celtic peoples once spread from Modern day Ireland to modern day Hungry. and the Saxon would have likely been part of that too.

Plus a bit like Ancestry.com these sort of 'test' are highly unreliable.. in fact I am going to further discredit that one by pointing out it is SELLING those tests and suggesting that it will give you a personal background.(same as Ancestry.com) this is a Business model that doesn't really pass scientific scrutiny.

If you pay them..

You will also learn the details of your unique ancestral makeup—the biological and geographical components that make up who you are. What are the ingredients, and how much of a mixture is your own DNA recipe?

which is not really supported by real scientists. As opposed to those on the payroll.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:14 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:it may amuse you veya, to learn that dear Mr Trump has repealed the trans pacific partnership.

"President Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

He had promised to take such action in November, describing the trade deal as a "potential disaster for our country".

The agreement was designed to bring down tariffs and trade barriers between America and a number of Pacific Rim nations including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia and Chile.

Mr Trump described his action on TPP as a "great thing for the American worker"."

from http://news.sky.com/story/president-trump-takes-us-out-of-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-10740409

you will just have to cede to china's sovereignty and live on a bowl of soup a day.....

We get a lot more from China than we ever got from the USA. it's a no brainer they are the BEST nation we have been a Vassal to by heaps. England Stole all the cream and half the milk, the USA just stole the cream but left the milk. China lets us keep some of the cream.

a lot of Chinese are richer than most brits nowdays.
China has the largest growing middle class. yours is shrinking.
this is sort of the point While You lot look backwards, and fear the future since it is inevitable decline, China is Improving growing become fairer, richer and more capable.

It was the most powerful nation for over 3 thousand years, the European powers where just a small blip on the timeline, China Rightful acknowledges that 'now' things are just returning to the way they normally are. Asia is the Hub of Civilization and Europe is the home of 2 bit hill shepherd barbarians
that is just REAL Global History without the Eurocentric propaganda

Hub of civilization?
How do you garter that view, when for centuries many of its people were fundamentally oppressed, let alone the millions slaughtered, 60 million under Mao? Today the human rights abuses in China are staggering and people are denied Freedom of expression, lack of freedom of religious rights, lack of workers rights, censorship of the media, ethnic minorities and the Han Chinese are treated like second class citizens in areas of China, Muslims suffer oppression, Tibet is under occupation. I hardly call that a glowing example of Civilization but a Totalitarian rule no better than under the main Chinese Royal dynasties. Most powerful? That is very questionable to say the least

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:21 am

veya_victaous wrote:yeah but if you look into that it doesn't define that Anglo Saxon in nay of those groups.

and based on the inclusion in Dutch and south American clearly they have just rolled the Anglo Saxon into the Celtic.

even the Pretense of the 'British' section is a bit of propaganda since the Celtic peoples once spread from Modern day Ireland to modern day Hungry. and the Saxon would have likely been part of that too.

Plus a bit like Ancestry.com these sort of 'test' are highly unreliable.. in fact I am going to further discredit that one by pointing out it is SELLING those tests and suggesting that it will give you a personal background.(same as Ancestry.com) this is a Business model that doesn't really pass scientific scrutiny.

If you pay them..
You will also learn the details of your unique ancestral makeup—the biological and geographical components that make up who you are. What are the ingredients, and how much of a mixture is your own DNA recipe?
which is not really supported by real scientists. As opposed to those on the payroll.

Yes it does, they are from Western and Central Europe, in other words Denmark and Germany.
The Celts were Germanic also, so it shows how little Celtic and Saxon peoples were on this Island and in fact the majority of the native Brit population adapted to their cultures.
So its not propaganda as you falsely claim but based on genetics of where people decent from again you need to read what it says. Have you even looked into how national Geographic carried out these tests? Not only this, there have been numerous studies and tests carried out which all come to similar conclusions.

This reference population is based on people living in England, in the United Kingdom. The dominant Great Britain and Ireland and smaller Scandinavian components reflect distinct remnants from early settlers in northern Europe, hunter-gatherers who arrived there more than 30,000 years ago. The Western and Central and Southern European percentages likely arrived later, first with the spread of agriculture from the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East over the past 8,000 years, and much later by the reach of the Roman Empire. English populations today retain links to both the early Europeans and later migrants.

Since its launch in 2005, National Geographic’s Genographic Project has used advanced DNA analysis and worked with indigenous communities to help answer fundamental questions about where humans originated and how we came to populate the Earth. Now, cutting-edge technology is enabling us to shine a powerful new light on our collective past. By participating in the latest phase of this real-time scientific project, you can learn more about yourself than you ever thought possible.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

So you are offering nothing to counter the facts, but offering up poor opinions you hold

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:30 am

There is an ongoing debate between historians, geneticists and others about the extent to which historical changes in the culture of the British Isles corresponds to historical migration events of Germanic tribes, and to the extent of these migrations. The traditional view of historians is that the English are primarily descended from the Anglo-Saxons, the term used to describe the various Germanic tribes that migrated to the island of Great Britain following the end of the Roman occupation of Britain, with assimilation of later migrants such as the Norse Vikings and Normans. This version of history is now regarded by many historians as incorrect, on the basis of more recent genetic and archaeological research. Based on a re-estimation of the number of settlers, some have taken the view that it is highly unlikely that the existing British Celtic-speaking population was substantially displaced by the Anglo-Saxons and that instead a process of acculturation took place, with an Anglo-Saxon ruling elite imposing their culture on the local populations.

Research into the genetic history of the British Isles, conducted by Stephen Oppenheimer in 2007 appears to support this theory, not showing a clear dividing line between the English and their 'Celtic' neighbours, but a gradual clinal change from west coast Britain to east coast Britain originating from upper palaeolithic and Mesolithic era variations in a Pre-Indo-European population, which Oppenheimer argues to form the basis of the modern population of the British Isles rather than Germanic tribes or Celts.

More recent genetic studies of ancient British DNA have refuted the hypothesis that the Anglo-Saxon invaders formed an elite class largely separate from the indigenous population, finding that samples from culturally Anglo-Saxon graveyards contained individuals who were more Celtic, suggesting a high level of intermingling between the Anglo-Saxons and the native Britons.

The 2016 study authored by Stephan Schiffels et al. found the Anglo-Saxons to have significantly impacted the genetic composition of the British Isles, so that on average the contemporary East English population derives 38% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrations, with this proportion varying in other parts of Britain that saw less of the migration or the migration of different Germanic tribes. The remaining portion of English DNA is primarily French, introduced in a migration after the end of the Ice Age.
The theory that the English people are primarily descended from Anglo-Saxons is based largely on the dramatic cultural changes in Britain following their migration. The Celtic language was almost totally displaced by Anglo-Saxon and there was a complete shift towards North-West German farming methods and pottery styles.

However, the Brythonic languages such as Cornish, Cumbric and Welsh, held on for several centuries in parts of England such as Cornwall, Devon, Cumbria and a part of Lancashire. Many historians, while making allowance for the limited survival of the Britons in England, hold to the view that there was significant displacement of the indigenous population after the Germanic migrations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:19 am

Umm Yeah that hugely debatable... even your article says so
WHY is it so debatable? because it is attempt to rewrite history to suit the NEW British propaganda that they are not almost all migrants themselves.

By the mid 1st millennium AD, with the expansion of the Roman Empire and the Great Migrations (Migration Period) of Germanic peoples, Celtic culture and Insular Celtic had become restricted to Ireland, the western and northern parts of Great Britain (Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall), the Isle of Man, and Brittany

it also is clear that Celts predate the Saxons and the 'Britons' where a numerous Celtic tribes.

When used in a historical context, "British" or "Britons" can refer to the ancient Britons, the indigenous Brittonic-Pictish Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain and Brittany, whose surviving members are the modern Welsh, Cornish and Bretons.[29]

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:22 am

AND then if it is the 'pre Celtic British' as you are Attempting to make out (propaganda) how does it become part of South American peoples?

Obviously the genetic marker they are using is actually post Norman.. let alone pre Saxon and definitely not pre Celtic.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:43 am

veya_victaous wrote:Umm Yeah that hugely debatable... even your article says so
WHY is it so debatable? because it is attempt to rewrite history to suit the NEW British propaganda that they are not almost all migrants themselves.

By the mid 1st millennium AD, with the expansion of the Roman Empire and the Great Migrations (Migration Period) of Germanic peoples, Celtic culture and Insular Celtic had become restricted to Ireland, the western and northern parts of Great Britain (Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall), the Isle of Man, and Brittany

it also is clear that Celts predate the Saxons and the 'Britons' where a numerous Celtic tribes.

When used in a historical context, "British" or "Britons" can refer to the ancient Britons, the indigenous Brittonic-Pictish Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain and Brittany, whose surviving members are the modern Welsh, Cornish and Bretons.[29]

Again revisionist nonsense
Celts were not indigenous to the Islands, they came to these shores much later and the people adapted the cultures. The Picts diminished under the Scoti, from Ireland. Cultures is also far removed from the decimation of peoples. It shows the Romano -Brits adapted the Saxon cultures, as they previously did the Celts. So on every aspect you have been in error. The Celts did not come to the Islands, until the 6th century B.C. Showing how just like the Saxons, people adapted their cultures. Again you then further distort the facts, when again the vast majority descend from ancient Brits, not the Celts. Again you are confusing the adapting of Celtic ways to magically making them of Celtic descent, when they are not.

So nothing is even debatable, just your inability to understand the facts and based off the Australian beano version of the history of Britain. Now unless you can present any evidence for you poor claims, stop wasting my time with gibberish

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:45 am

veya_victaous wrote:AND then if it is the 'pre Celtic British' as you are Attempting to make out (propaganda) how does it become part of South American peoples?

Obviously the genetic marker they are using is actually post Norman.. let alone pre Saxon and definitely not pre Celtic.

What has South American people have to do with anything?
Again you make even more absurd claims to the Normans
Where is your evidence to back up your claims?
Opinions count for naff all

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:51 am

The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words “Celtic” or “Anglo-Saxon.” What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.

Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

Many myths about the Celts
Celtic languages and the people who brought them probably first arrived during the Neolithic period. The regions we now regard as Celtic heartlands actually had less immigration from the continent during this time than England. Ireland, being to the west, has changed least since the hunter-gatherer period and received fewer subsequent migrants (about 12 per cent of the population) than anywhere else. Wales and Cornwall have received about 20 per cent, Scotland and its associated islands 30 per cent, while eastern and southern England, being nearer the continent, has received one third of its population from outside over the past 6,500 years. These estimates, set out in my book The Origins of the British, come from tracing individual male gene lines from continental Europe to the British Isles and dating each one (see box at bottom of page).

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:08 am

Thorin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:AND then if it is the 'pre Celtic British' as you are Attempting to make out (propaganda) how does it become part of South American peoples?

Obviously the genetic marker they are using is actually post Norman.. let alone pre Saxon and definitely not pre Celtic.

What has South American people have to do with anything?
Again you make even more absurd claims to the Normans
Where is your evidence to back up your claims?
Opinions count for naff all

that 'Study' you posted?
Did you not read it all again ?
or just focused on the Brit bit without taking in context of the WHOLE study and findings.

Plus the fact that it is literally trying to sell individuals a 'genetic history'
I cant post videos at work(cant even get to youtube) but look up 'the checkout' the segment about ancestry.com.au
They Also sells these Personal Genetic History kits that are basically bullshit. huge simplification of real science, massive unsupported assumptions basically a list of why you can't trust Capitalist to 'sell you science' Neutral

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:19 am

the one that BEST proves My point is Northern Indian

Great Britain & Ireland
3%

Eastern Africa
2%

Eastern Asia
2%

Central Asia
10%

Southeast Asia & Oceania
4%

Southern Asia
78%

This reference is based on populations living in northern India, near the Pakistani, Chinese, and Nepalese borders. The South Asia component represents the first migration from Africa through the Indian subcontinent—this is likely the oldest component among Indian populations today. The Southeast Asian component reflects possible back migration west from groups in Southeast Asia, perhaps with the spread of rice agriculture or the Austroasiatic languages such as Munda, and is found at highest frequency in eastern India. The Arabian and Asia Minor components probably arrived with the spread of agriculture into India from the Fertile Crescent within the past 10,000 years. The European and Central Asian percentages likely represent recent interaction with people of ultimately European origin, and perhaps via the ancient Indo-Iranian-speaking steppe nomads of Central Asia, who are thought to have migrated into India around 3,500 years ago.

So you may notice there is NO OTHER Europeans.. But If they were using a pre-Saxon genetic marker they should have also found some Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian ones as well, from the British of Colonial era Since by then All of those would be carried by Colonial era British.... that is IF they where defining the British group as a Pre-Saxon one.

This is evidence of BAD SCIENCE. the genetic markers are inaccurate for the population they are trying to define.

Let alone it is actually just a way to separate less educated people from their money Wink

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:22 am

Anyway enough of that Back to OP HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? - Page 2 202592697

about how we have allowed too many Idiots to breed/vote and doomed the western empire to obsolesces through the vote of the hill shepherds Razz

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:54 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Thorin wrote:

What has South American people have to do with anything?
Again you make even more absurd claims to the Normans
Where is your evidence to back up your claims?
Opinions count for naff all

that 'Study' you posted?
Did you not read it all again ?
or just focused on the Brit bit without taking in context of the WHOLE study and findings.

Plus the fact that it is literally trying to sell individuals a 'genetic history'
I cant post videos at work(cant even get to youtube) but look up 'the checkout' the segment about ancestry.com.au
They Also sells these Personal Genetic History kits that are basically bullshit. huge simplification of real science, massive unsupported assumptions basically a list of why you can't trust Capitalist to 'sell you science'

Yes i did read it, but clearly you did not.
So what again has South American got to do with anything?
Again you offer nothing to refute anything
So again either provide evidence or stop wasting my time
All your claims, have been easily rubbished, and all backed up with countless studies
So you are using misdirction and ignoring all the other scientific studies that correlate this one
This is not ancestry.com, but a project by national Geographic, for the third time

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:56 am

veya_victaous wrote:the one that BEST proves My point is Northern Indian

Great Britain & Ireland
3%

Eastern Africa
2%

Eastern Asia
2%

Central Asia
10%

Southeast Asia & Oceania
4%

Southern Asia
78%

This reference is based on populations living in northern India, near the Pakistani, Chinese, and Nepalese borders. The South Asia component represents the first migration from Africa through the Indian subcontinent—this is likely the oldest component among Indian populations today. The Southeast Asian component reflects possible back migration west from groups in Southeast Asia, perhaps with the spread of rice agriculture or the Austroasiatic languages such as Munda, and is found at highest frequency in eastern India. The Arabian and Asia Minor components probably arrived with the spread of agriculture into India from the Fertile Crescent within the past 10,000 years. The European and Central Asian percentages likely represent recent interaction with people of ultimately European origin, and perhaps via the ancient Indo-Iranian-speaking steppe nomads of Central Asia, who are thought to have migrated into India around 3,500 years ago.

So you may notice there is NO OTHER Europeans.. But If they were using a pre-Saxon genetic marker they should have also found some Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian ones as well, from the British of Colonial era Since by then All of those would be carried by Colonial era British.... that is IF they where defining the British group as a Pre-Saxon one.

This is evidence of BAD SCIENCE. the genetic markers are inaccurate for the population they are trying to define.

Let alone it is actually just a way to separate less educated people from their money

The European and Central Asian percentages likely represent recent interaction with people of ultimately European origin, and perhaps via the ancient Indo-Iranian-speaking steppe nomads of Central Asia, who are thought to have migrated into India around 3,500 years ago.

You again make even more outlandish claims, with nothing backing anything you have said.

How many more times are you just going to talk gibberish without facts to back your stance

Stop wasting my time with your incorrect unfounded claims

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:58 am

veya_victaous wrote:Anyway enough of that Back to OP

about how we have allowed too many Idiots to breed/vote and doomed the western empire to obsolesces through the vote of the hill shepherds

So you are against democracy by denying people a voice and denying them to vote and wish to force onto them a Totalitarian regime.

Wow

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:06 am

Since 2005, the Genographic Project has worked with a global network of scientists. Today, through on-going research grants and shared access to the data, the Genographic Project continues to support a broad and global effort to study the genetic origins and diversity of humanity.

The Genographic Project uses cutting-edge genetic technology to decipher an age-old question: Where do we come from? Over the past several years, a team of international researchers has collaborated with more than 75,000 indigenous and traditional participants in the project. Coupled with our more than 745,000 public participants, these samples and results are yielding unprecedented insight into our shared migratory history.

The Genographic Project has a valuable collection of genetic and geographic data that can be accessed by researchers through an application process. We encourage qualified researchers to contact our Lead Scientist, Dr. Miguel Vilar (mvilar@ngs.org) for information on the Genographic database.

Genetic technology is progressing at an extraordinary pace. By harnessing the information and knowledge gleaned from data analysis in the first two phases of the Project, Genographic is now entering its next phase: Geno 2.0 Next Generation. In this new phase, next generation sequencing allows us to delve deeper to discover new genetic patterns and migratory paths. Scientists are encouraged to use the Genographic Project technology for their own research. Contact Dr. Miguel Vilar for details.

Through an interactive feature of the Geno 2.0 Next Generation participation experience, participants have the option to join in the search for new information about their own ancestry, read stories of migration from other participants, and add their own personal story to our collective understanding human history, all on our website. Working together, our global scientific team, the broader community of genetic genealogists and our own Genographic participants are charting a new direction in citizen science collaboration.

When participants in the project choose to make their results available for scientific research, those anonymous results become part of the database that can be accessed by approved researchers. Access to the DNA Analysis Repository (DAR) is available for scientists and genealogists through an online application. Contact Genographic Lead Scientist, Dr. Miguel Vilar (mvilar@ngs.org) for details.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:14 am

Dude please get an education.
Rolling Eyes

If you don't understand just stop posting...

WHY does the Colonial British that By that same Study Contains all those European genes, and were given as the reason For 'British genes' in India, But India doesn't have any of the other European genes that WOULD have been in a colonial era British person, and only has PRE-Saxon genes (note NO WHERE on the site YOU posted does it actually suggest that it is pre-saxon genes.)

I'll GIVE you a Clue, the genetic Marker is more recent thus rendering the Whole thing a crook of shit.
Now Stop or start a new thread for me to educate you on Basic genetics if you wish to continue, since you obviously are unaware.

Plus Sites like that are debunked by real science
https://dna-explained.com/2012/08/30/is-history-repeating-itself-at-ancestry/

http://www.familytreemagazine.com/article/dna-fact-or-science-fiction

Does this tale of genealogical discovery sound far-fetched? That’s because it is. Jenny Oligos is a figment of imagination. The story illustrates common misconceptions about DNA testing, the latest trend in family history research and the source of much confusion—and even fear. Let’s tackle those misconceptions one by one so you can learn the truth about your genetic genealogy testing options.
Myth 1: Geneticists use hair and blood samples to trace a person’s ancestry.
Reality check: So could “Jenny” have sent her great-grandmother’s hair to a DNA lab for testing? There are forensic labs that test hair, but this type of analysis comes with a much higher price tag.

Myth 2: A DNA test can pinpoint precisely where your ancestors lived or which tribe they belonged to.
Reality check: While browsing a database, Jenny might have noticed that her close relatives’ DNA matches the DNA of people with confirmed roots in a certain part of Greece. She could then focus her research efforts on that locale. But at this point, it’s unrealistic to expect a DNA testing company to provide that level of assurance in your test results.

Myth 3: To find out if you and another researcher descend from the same third-great-grandfather, you need to dig up his body for a DNA sample to test.
Reality check: To find out if they’re related, Jenny and Helen could’ve had their mtDNA tested (using cheek-cell or saliva samples, not hair). If their results had revealed an exact match, though, Jenny and Helen couldn’t have known when the MRCA on their maternal line lived without turning to traditional roots resources—that ancestor could’ve walked the earth hundreds of years ago.

Myth 4: The results of ancestral DNA tests are 99.9 percent accurate, just like the DNA tests on CSI.
Genetic genealogy isn’t an exact science—it involves quite a bit of interpretation. Although your DNA doesn’t lie, scientists use it to calculate the probability that you and another researcher are related or that you have African roots, based on genetic patterns they’ve observed in populations. This means that genetic genealogy can suggest, but not prove, a relationship.
Reality check: A DNA test can’t tell you your ancestors’ names, let alone the ancestors you share with someone else. But if you connect with a researcher whose haplotype matches yours, you may add to your family tree simply by sharing what you already know.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:18 am

Thorin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:Anyway enough of that Back to OP

about how we have allowed too many Idiots to breed/vote and doomed the western empire to obsolesces through the vote of the hill shepherds

So you are against democracy by denying people a voice and denying them to vote and wish to force onto them a Totalitarian regime.

Wow

So you don't read others posts Do you?
I have always said I do not support democracy Rolling Eyes

I support moving to a technical solution that will allow humanity to extend to cybernetic life, to utilized space travel and colonize the Stars
Something prevented by Hill shepherds, idiots and the uneducated

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:26 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you are against democracy by denying people a voice and denying them to vote and wish to force onto them a Totalitarian regime.

Wow

So you don't read others posts Do you?
I have always said I do not support democracy

I support moving to a technical solution that will allow humanity to extend to cybernetic life, to utilized space travel and colonize the Stars
Something prevented by Hill shepherds, idiots and the uneducated

So if you do not support democracy and as seen above you must support Totalitarianism
So you also want to genetically interfere with humans when there is no need, mainly because I guess you fear death. I am sure many others scared of death would back your view to alter humans, even as you call them "hill shepherds" I do not see many people being against colonizing distant planets, all of which has nothing to do with a political system

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:40 am

LOL
it does have everything to do with a Political system.
To replace the flesh, to govern not for ourselves but to dedicate all resource to creating the new cybernetic consciousness.

People that voted for things like Brexit cannot cope with change or threat, HOW do you suppose they will vote for a situation where we are actively trying to replace Humanity with a superior being(s) ones that WILL be able to colonize the Stars where our feeble vessels simply will be unable to?

Laughable, I think even one like yourself would struggle to vote for it, let alone the likes of tommy or major. Which is why I believe in just doing it...

our species non-genetic gains are made by the few and through good will given to the many. this has not worked out so well for everything else... the ultimate progress (the goal of true progressives) is to replace us with the next evolution of life.

I know very Sci fi to most people. but progress is being made systems are being put in place that one day will be the predecessors of 'skynet' or what ever name cybernetic life takes.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:48 am

veya_victaous wrote:LOL
it does have everything to do with a Political system.
To replace the flesh, to govern not for ourselves but to dedicate all resource to creating the new cybernetic consciousness.

People that voted for things like Brexit cannot cope with change or threat, HOW do you suppose they will vote for a situation where we are actively trying to replace Humanity with a superior being(s) ones that WILL be able to colonize the Stars where our feeble vessels simply will be unable to?

Laughable, I think even one like yourself would struggle to vote for it, let alone the likes of tommy or major. Which is why I believe in just doing it...

our species non-genetic gains are made by the few and through good will given to the many. this has not worked out so well for everything else... the ultimate progress (the goal of true progressives) is to replace us with the next evolution of life.

I know very Sci fi to most people. but progress is being made systems are being put in place that one day will be the predecessors of 'skynet' or what ever name cybernetic life takes.

Your two views you gave are not the bases for a political system , but views you just hold yourself. You have not presented what sort of Political ideology you are presenting and what rights those citizens would have under such a system.

I doubt anyone would vote for something they have no idea on what their rights would be and whether based on your stance it would deny them the opportunity to vote on the two proposals you have made.

So you want to genetically engineer humans, thinking you can make them born progressive, which would require culling those who do not meet your Spartan like system when born. As views are taught, and progressive views come from political systems like Liberalism.

So your form of progress is based on something unscientific, progressive born babies and to have people born to being sheep and unable to critically think for themselves.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:22 am

veya_victaous wrote:Dude please get an education.

If you don't understand just stop posting...

WHY does the Colonial British that By that same Study Contains all those European genes, and were given as the reason For 'British genes' in India, But India doesn't have any of the other European genes that WOULD have been in a colonial era British person, and only has PRE-Saxon genes (note NO WHERE on the site YOU posted does it actually suggest that it is pre-saxon genes.)

I'll GIVE you a Clue, the genetic Marker is more recent thus rendering the Whole thing a crook of shit.
Now Stop or start a new thread for me to educate you on Basic genetics if you wish to continue, since you obviously are unaware.

Plus Sites like that are debunked by real science
https://dna-explained.com/2012/08/30/is-history-repeating-itself-at-ancestry/

http://www.familytreemagazine.com/article/dna-fact-or-science-fiction

Colonial British 3,500 years ago? It gave you the answer that these genes were from 3,500 years ago, not the 17th century. Even if on British colonialism, would make sense as Brits did go out there and live.

The European and Central Asian percentages likely represent recent interaction with people of ultimately European origin, and perhaps via the ancient Indo-Iranian-speaking steppe nomads of Central Asia, who are thought to have migrated into India around 3,500 years ago.

Which shows you did not read it.
What on earth are you going on about?

All you are doing is offering up yet again misdirection, as this is not ancestry.com
This is national Geographic, so you need to provide evidence against them.
Do you have any? Because trying to claim because ancestry.com come has flaws in its research, does not mean National Geographic does.

Let alone all the other studies that prove my point on the Celts and Saxons, which you have desperately tried to avoid admitting you posted up a load of revisionist nonsense

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:25 am

Thorin, see Trump. His supporters had no idea what he'd really do (see: "We take him seriously but not literally" and "I thought that once something was a law, you couldn't repeal it), but they still voted for him.

Why? Because they saw themselves in Trump. They either believed or convinced themselves that they believed that Trump was their kind of people.

Because the human race sucks.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:30 am

Ben Reilly wrote:Thorin, see Trump. His supporters had no idea what he'd really do (see: "We take him seriously but not literally" and "I thought that once something was a law, you couldn't repeal it), but they still voted for him.

Why? Because they saw themselves in Trump. They either believed or convinced themselves that they believed that Trump was their kind of people.

Because the human race sucks.

That is looking at it too much in black and white.
Not many Germans took seriously Hitler to their cost, but it was a propaganda machine in both that was so effective in winning people over and being able to deligitimize opponents. You have where both played off levels of fears and with the ones today, they were not being addressed but swept under the carpet. Thus easily being seduced by those who play on this fear. The Democrats hold also responsibility for not addressing these fears.

You talk honestly about issues, of which never happened and what you should be doing is wining these people back over. Being pissed at the situation will change nothing. You have to listen to peoples concerns and offer up sensible solutions to problems

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:37 am

Think this protest went too far - setting someone's hair on fire is just dangerous - if it hadn't been noticed she could have had serious burns .

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:45 am

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Think this protest went too far - setting someone's hair on fire is just dangerous - if it hadn't been noticed she could have had serious burns .

Utterly out of order

Not as bad as being shot by a trump supporter mind

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/anti-fascist-protester-shot-by-trump-fan-during-brawl-outside-breitbart-editors-speech/

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:51 am

Thorin wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Think this protest went too far - setting someone's hair on fire is just dangerous - if it hadn't been noticed she could have had serious burns .

Utterly out of order

Not as bad as being shot by a trump supporter mind

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/anti-fascist-protester-shot-by-trump-fan-during-brawl-outside-breitbart-editors-speech/

Its equally as bad luckily someone saw the girls hair on fire - sorry for the other guy hope he will be okay . I have never seen anything like this in my life protesting fine -but to deliberately set someone on fire and shoot another is criminal and hope the people involved are jailed . I think its gone too far now everyone needs to calm down .

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:53 am

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Utterly out of order

Not as bad as being shot by a trump supporter mind

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/anti-fascist-protester-shot-by-trump-fan-during-brawl-outside-breitbart-editors-speech/

Its equally as bad luckily someone saw the girls hair on fire - sorry for the other guy hope he will be okay . I have never seen anything like this in my life protesting fine -but to deliberately set someone on fire and shoot another is criminal and hope the people involved are jailed . I think its gone too far now everyone needs to calm down .

You will always find idiots that use protests to commit harm to others sadly.
This should not take away the right of people to peacefully protests.
So a few bad eggs being criminal is them going to far, not the protests itself.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:02 am

Thank you, Thorin! Protests should be recognized for what they are -- opportunities for many different types of people to do many different things. Those who make trouble should in no way be allowed to define the protests unless they make up the majority.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:11 am

Ben Reilly wrote:Thank you, Thorin! Protests should be recognized for what they are -- opportunities for many different types of people to do many different things. Those who make trouble should in no way be allowed to define the protests unless they make up the majority.

Thank you and agree.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:15 am

Thorin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:Dude please get an education.

If you don't understand just stop posting...

WHY does the Colonial British that By that same Study Contains all those European genes, and were given as the reason For 'British genes' in India, But India doesn't have any of the other European genes that WOULD have been in a colonial era British person, and only has PRE-Saxon genes (note NO WHERE on the site YOU posted does it actually suggest that it is pre-saxon genes.)

I'll GIVE you a Clue, the genetic Marker is more recent thus rendering the Whole thing a crook of shit.
Now Stop or start a new thread for me to educate you on Basic genetics if you wish to continue, since you obviously are unaware.

Plus Sites like that are debunked by real science
https://dna-explained.com/2012/08/30/is-history-repeating-itself-at-ancestry/

http://www.familytreemagazine.com/article/dna-fact-or-science-fiction

Colonial British 3,500 years ago? It gave you the answer that these genes were from 3,500 years ago, not the 17th century. Even if on British colonialism, would make sense as Brits did go out there and live.

The European and Central Asian percentages likely represent recent interaction with people of ultimately European origin, and perhaps via the ancient Indo-Iranian-speaking steppe nomads of Central Asia, who are thought to have migrated into India around 3,500 years ago.

Which shows you did not read it.
What on earth are you going on about?

All you are doing is offering up yet again misdirection, as this is not ancestry.com
This is national Geographic, so you need to provide evidence against them.
Do you have any? Because trying to claim because ancestry.com come has flaws in its research, does not mean National Geographic does.

Let alone all the other studies that prove my point on the Celts and Saxons, which you have desperately tried to avoid admitting you posted up a load of revisionist nonsense

a lot of faith in the word 'perhaps' for a man with no knowledge of genetics or science.

Face it despite your bluster you are a fool, a parrot unable to comprehend.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:18 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Colonial British 3,500 years ago? It gave you the answer that these genes were from 3,500 years ago, not the 17th century. Even if on British colonialism, would make sense as Brits did go out there and live.

The European and Central Asian percentages likely represent recent interaction with people of ultimately European origin, and perhaps via the ancient Indo-Iranian-speaking steppe nomads of Central Asia, who are thought to have migrated into India around 3,500 years ago.

Which shows you did not read it.
What on earth are you going on about?

All you are doing is offering up yet again misdirection, as this is not ancestry.com
This is national Geographic, so you need to provide evidence against them.
Do you have any? Because trying to claim because ancestry.com come has flaws in its research, does not mean National Geographic does.

Let alone all the other studies that prove my point on the Celts and Saxons, which you have desperately tried to avoid admitting you posted up a load of revisionist nonsense

a lot of faith in the word 'perhaps' for a man with no knowledge of genetics or science.

Face it despite your bluster you are a fool, a parrot unable to comprehend.

It has nothing to do with faith and I do have a basic understanding.

Lets recap.

You presented inaccurate claims on British history

You also did so on the ancestry of its people

I corrected both error's and as per usual all you can do is insult me

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:43 am

So how did 30,000 year old gene travel to India through Europe, Without any other European genes?

And in modern day india where We KNOW the brits took sex slaves, let alone the conquests of the redcoats
Face it, it is Idiotic to even suggest that perhaps
The whole thing is discredited and they Use the same science and test kits and BUSINESS model for PROFIT as Ancestry.com

Clearly You do not understand any more than i can teach a parrot

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:45 am

Thorin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:LOL
it does have everything to do with a Political system.
To replace the flesh, to govern not for ourselves but to dedicate all resource to creating the new cybernetic consciousness.

People that voted for things like Brexit cannot cope with change or threat, HOW do you suppose they will vote for a situation where we are actively trying to replace Humanity with a superior being(s) ones that WILL be able to colonize the Stars where our feeble vessels simply will be unable to?

Laughable, I think even one like yourself would struggle to vote for it, let alone the likes of tommy or major. Which is why I believe in just doing it...

our species non-genetic gains are made by the few and through good will given to the many. this has not worked out so well for everything else... the ultimate progress (the goal of true progressives) is to replace us with the next evolution of life.

I know very Sci fi to most people. but progress is being made systems are being put in place that one day will be the predecessors of 'skynet' or what ever name cybernetic life takes.

Your two views you gave are not the bases for a political system , but views you just hold yourself. You have not presented what sort of Political ideology you are presenting and what rights those citizens would have under such a system.

I doubt anyone would vote for something they have no idea on what their rights would be and whether based on your stance it would deny them the opportunity to vote on the two proposals you have made.

So you want to genetically engineer humans, thinking you can make them born progressive, which would require culling those who do not meet your Spartan like system when born. As views are taught, and progressive views come from political systems like Liberalism.

So your form of progress is based on something unscientific, progressive born babies and to have people born to being sheep and unable to critically think for themselves.

LOL
didges incomprehension at it's finest.
I care not for your organics genetics it is irrelevant.
You seem to miss that Poeple will no longer be dominate at all,
you don't even understand what real progress is, still concerned with humans and their rights which they will inevitably deny others given the chance.

And it is call Technocracy the replacement of bureaucrats with technological systems to make the decisions,
Both ultimately acknowledge that democracy is just a facade for the feeble minded to think they have a choice.

You would be one of those feeble minds Wink

Face it everything in this thread supports such a move.
humans are incapable of governing themselves efficiently Laughing

Thankfully we don't need your vote either.
Like I Said humanity advances through the achievements of the few..
and not idiots like you Razz

by Sponsored content