The Birthplace Of Ancestors All Modern Whites Is Russia

[North Pole Resident]

I, most definitely, have other sources of information to make the point, but for now I will leave you with this one as an invitation to a discussion.
Please, try to support your posts with INFORMATION when commenting in this thread.

Thanks.


http://www.white-history.com/hwr5_files/flood4.jpg

Many modern day Whites are either direct or part descendants of a great wave of White peoples who swept into Europe from about 5500 BC till around 500 BC. These peoples, Nordic in terms of the White racial sub-groupings, had their original heartland in the region known today as central and southern Russia.

Leaving the Black Sea Basin, the Nordic Indo-European peoples invaded Europe and Asia. Europe was settled by four main groups: the Celts, the Germans, the Balts and the Slavs. In the south they settled pre-dynastic Egypt and the Middle East, penetrating India (the Indo-Aryans); Afghanistan (the Aryans); and China - see chapter six.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5.htm

[Phædrus]

I forgot to mention, he's a white supremacist, and, furthermore, a Rus supremacist.

[North Pole Resident]

I forgot to mention, he's a white supremacist, and, furthermore, a Rus supremacist.

Is it a part of your american culture to insult people and derail threads which you don't like?

In the USSR when a person expressed his opinion which was different from the official party line then he was always ridiculed and attacked from all sides.

And you are doing exactly the same thing, Phædrus. I think you'd make a great carrier in the Soviet Union.

[Phædrus]

Shut up.

Line of reasoning:
1.) You have expressed, both explicitly and implicitly, a desire for the return of the Russian Empire.
2.) You supposedly posted on Stormfront, a white supremacist forum.
3.) No one but a paleo-archaeologist would really care about this nugget of theory unless it supported some kind of agenda--otherwise, this isn't really post worthy.
4.) You therefore have an agenda.
5.) The only agenda that comes to mind that would be supported by this is that you are trying to say that Russia is superior to and gave birth to all other white cultures.
6.) See 1 and 2

[North Pole Resident]

Shut up.2

Are there moderators on this forum?.....

[Phædrus]

Are there moderators on this forum?.....

Yes, and at least one of them agrees with my prognosis. It ain't gonna work here, Gov.

[ciaranxavier]

I, most definitely, have other sources of information to make the point, but for now I will leave you with this one as an invitation to a discussion.
Please, try to support your posts with INFORMATION when commenting in this thread.

Thanks.



Genetic 'Adam never met Eve'
The most recent ancestor of all males living today was a man who lived in Africa around 59,000 years ago, according to an international team of researchers.

The scientists from eight countries have drawn up a genetic family tree of mankind by studying variations in the Y chromosome of more than a thousand men from different communities around the world. The Y chromosome is one of the two sex chromosomes (X and Y) which only men carry (women carry two X chromosomes).

The new research confirms the Out of Africa theory that modern humans originated in Africa before slowly spreading across the world.

But the finding raises new questions, not least because our most recent paternal ancestor would have been about 84,000 years younger than our maternal one.

The team believes there is an explanation. They propose that the human genetic blueprint evolved as a mosaic, with different pieces of modern DNA emerging and spreading throughout the human population at different times.

Origins of man

Evidence from the fossil record suggests that modern man originated in Africa about 150,000 years ago, before moving steadily across the globe.

This Out of Africa hypothesis has been confirmed by studies of mitochondrial DNA, the segment of genetic material that is inherited exclusively from the mother.

Based on these studies, our most recent common ancestor is thought to be a woman who lived in Africa some 143,000 years ago, the so-called Mitochondrial Eve.

To find the common paternal ancestor, the team drew up a genetic family tree of mankind. They mapped small variations in the Y chromosomes of 1,062 men in 22 geographical areas, including Pakistan, India, Cambodia, Laos, Australia, New Guinea, America, Mali, Sudan, Ethiopia and Japan.

The new genetic family tree supports the Out of Africa scenario. But it suggests that our most recent paternal ancestor would have been about 84,000 years younger than our maternal one.

Regions of the genome

"You can ultimately trace every female lineage back to a single Mitochondrial Eve who lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago," said Dr Spencer Wells of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford, UK, who was part of the team.

"The Y chromosome we trace again back to Africa but the date is about 80,000 years ago.

He told BBC News Online that the two studies could be reconciled. "There's a different evolutionary history for each region of the genome but they all are consistent in placing the ancestor of all modern humans alive today in Africa."

The research, published in the journal Nature Genetics, gives an intriguing insight into the journey of our ancestors across the planet, from eastern Africa into the Middle East, then to southeast and southern Asia, then New Guinea and Australia, and finally to Europe and Central Asia.

Some modern-day men living in what is now Sudan, Ethiopia and southern Africa are believed to be the closest living descendants of the first humans to set out on that great journey tens of thousands of years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/999030.stm

well this proves that even though our white ancestors may have been from russia we all originated in africa.

[ciaranxavier]

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

ScienceDaily (May 10, 2007) — Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.

Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.

The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.

Until now, one of the main reasons for doubting the “Out Of Africa” theory was the existence of inconsistent evidence in Australia. The skeletal and tool remains that have been found there are strikingly different from those elsewhere on the “coastal expressway” – the route through South Asia taken by the early settlers.

Some scholars argue that these discrepancies exist either because the early colonists interbred with the local Homo erectus population, or because there was a subsequent, secondary migration from Africa. Both explanations would undermine the theory of a single, common origin for modern-day humans.

But in the latest research there was no evidence of a genetic inheritance from Homo erectus, indicating that the settlers did not mix and that these people therefore share the same direct ancestry as the other Eurasian peoples.

Geneticist Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: “Although it has been speculated that the populations of Australia and New Guinea came from the same ancestors, the fossil record differs so significantly it has been difficult to prove. For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”

At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in Indonesia. The land bridge was submerged about 8,000 years ago.

The new study also explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though the genetic record shows no evidence of interbreeding with Homo erectus, and indicates a single Palaeolithic colonisation event.

The DNA patterns of the Australian and Melanesian populations show that the population evolved in relative isolation. The two groups also share certain genetic characteristics that are not found beyond Melanesia. This would suggest that there was very little gene flow into Australia after the original migration.

Dr Toomas Kivisild, from the Cambridge University Department of Biological Anthropology, who co-authored the report, said: “The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.

“There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding.”

The study is reported in the new issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Related Information

Australia's archaeological record provides several apparent inconsistencies with the “Out Of Africa” theory. In particular, the earliest known Australian skeletons, from Lake Mungo, are relatively slender and gracile in form, whereas younger skeletal finds are much more robust. This robustness, which remains, for example, in the brow ridge structure of modern Aborigines, would suggest either interbreeding between homo sapiens and homo erectus or multiple migrations into Australia, followed by interbreeding.

The archaeological data also indicates an intensification of the density and complexity of different stone tools in Australia during the Holocene period (beginning around 10,000 years BP), in particular the emergence of backed-blade stone technology. The first dingos arrived at around the same time, and it is thought both were brought to the continent by new human arrivals – leading to theories of a secondary migration that has resulted in disputes regarding the single point of origin theory.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm

[North Pole Resident]

I say it is FALSE.

If humans came out of Africa and populated other continents than how come there are different races on this planet?
If humans came out of Africa and populated other continents than all people of this planet should be black like Africans, but they are not.
If humans came out of Africa and populated other continents than the texture of hair of all humans should be the same but it is different.

The Chinese, for example, sure don't look African.

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol20no4/china-africa.jpg

Do you agree with me?

[North Pole Resident]

Yes, and at least one of them agrees with my prognosis. It ain't gonna work here, Gov.

Phædrus, are you an American?

[ciaranxavier]

Phædrus, are you an American?

why arent you addressing the person trying to dispute your claims??? are you8 looking for a fight or are you looking to discuss the topic at hand. and phaedrus please dont feed the trolls.

[Dreadfulfaery]

Europe was settled by four main groups: the Celts, the Germans, the Balts and the Slavs.

Odd - what about Britain - which was populated by different groups before the Celts got here??

Nearly all the evidence supports humans evolving Africa and then divergin as they moved away to different climates. We're all the same bleeding species - just with different environmental adaptations

[ciaranxavier]

Odd - what about Britain - which was populated by different groups before the Celts got here??

Nearly all the evidence supports humans evolving Africa and then divergin as they moved away to different climates. We're all the same bleeding species - just with different environmental adaptations

he doesnt seem to want to discuss his article hed rather have a go with phaedrus.

[ciaranxavier]

I say it is FALSE.

If humans came out of Africa and populated other continents than how come there are different races on this planet?
If humans came out of Africa and populated other continents than all people of this planet should be black like Africans, but they are not.
If humans came out of Africa and populated other continents than the texture of hair of all humans should be the same but it is different.

The Chinese, for example, sure don't look African.

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol20no4/china-africa.jpg

Do you agree with me?

its called evolution.

[Viv]

he doesnt seem to want to discuss his article hed rather have a go with phaedrus.

Definition of a troll.

New Gov, animals adapt to the environment. Human animals do the same. Northern people have fair hair, blue eyes whatever because they are not exposed to sunlight, as creatures living at the bottom of the sea have no pigment because they do not require protection from sunlight. Others develop physical characteristics appropriate to their respective environment. If they change location, in a few generations their physical appearance will begin to adapt again.

A highly developed, supreme aryan intelligence would figure that out.

[North Pole Resident]

why arent you addressing the person trying to dispute your claims??? are you8 looking for a fight or are you looking to discuss the topic at hand. and phaedrus please dont feed the trolls.

I think you are confused, moderator.
You need to pay attention who writes what. I opened a thread and first comment from Phædrus. It was unrelated, and it was personal attack:

I forgot to mention, he's a white supremacist, and, furthermore, a Rus supremacist.

And then he tells me:

Shut up.

http://worldagenda.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1431

I am surprised you didn't notice who is trolling here. I hope you will do better next time, moderator.

[ciaranxavier]

I think you are confused, moderator.
You need to pay attention who writes what. I opened a thread and first comment from Phædrus. It was unrelated, and it was personal attack:



And then he tells me:



http://worldagenda.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1431

I am surprised you didn't notice who is trolling here. I hope you will do better next time, moderator.

I think you are confused, moderator.
You need to pay attention who writes what. I opened a thread and first comment from Phædrus. It was unrelated, and it was personal attack:

im not confused i took what he said up with him in private. but as for you why dont you address the people who are trying to discuss your article instead of feeding into personal attacks???


I am surprised you didn't notice who is trolling here. I hope you will do better next time, moderator.

i like to think im doing a fine job like i said i took it up with him hopefully he wont do it again and now you should discuss the topic at hand please.

[ciaranxavier]

any chance at dealing with the topics youve already posted NPR or are you just going to keep posting articles with one sentence responses??? is it because your wrong?

[North Pole Resident]

any chance at dealing with the topics youve already posted NPR or are you just going to keep posting articles with one sentence responses??? is it because your wrong?

Dealing with what topics? I don't have time to sit here 24/7 and comment on each goofy post.

Ciaranxavier, are you looking for a cheap talk or quality discussion? If it's quality discussion that matter's here than you should know that it takes time to keep moving topics such as this one.

The information that I posted is just an invitation to a discussion, I have plenty more, of course. Should I post everything at once? No.
I see that there is no REAL interest in the subject so far. Some forum members like to comment regardless of their level of knowledge. In most cases their comments have nothing to do with the original subject, so I don't want to help them to trash the thread.

On many historical forums, it takes from 5 days to two weeks for someone to respond. But then, in fews months, when there are four - five pages, the thread fills in wit available information and it is a pleasure to read such discussion.

So if you wish to express your opinion, ciaranxavier, then try to disprove my claim with the facts and sources of your information.
And don't rush. Take your time.

:)

[North Pole Resident]

Here's another interesting info. The forefathers of Vikings were Slavic/Russian people -

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5_files/slavpyre.jpeg

Above: This somewhat idealized painting is of a Slav funeral pyre for one of their chieftains around the year 900AD. In common with many Indo-Europeans, the Slavs traditionally cremated their important dead. Where burial was chosen over cremation, it was also common to bury all the chief 's artifacts with the corpse. This painting was made based on a description provided by a visitor to southern Russia at the time, and it is significant that the account had a Viking style boat in the picture - a sure indication that the original Slavs were of virtually identical racial and cultural stock to the Indo-Europeans who settled in Scandinavia and who became Vikings.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5.htm

[Chookie]

The original Rus were Swedish traders who travelled east via the rivers which emptied into the Baltic Sea.

[Viv]

Dealing with what topics? I don't have time to sit here 24/7 and comment on each goofy post.

Ciaranxavier, are you looking for a cheap talk or quality discussion? If it's quality discussion that matter's here than you should know that it takes time to keep moving topics such as this one.

The information that I posted is just an invitation to a discussion, I have plenty more, of course. Should I post everything at once? No.
I see that there is no REAL interest in the subject so far. Some forum members like to comment regardless of their level of knowledge. In most cases their comments have nothing to do with the original subject, so I don't want to help them to trash the thread.

On many historical forums, it takes from 5 days to two weeks for someone to respond. But then, in fews months, when there are four - five pages, the thread fills in wit available information and it is a pleasure to read such discussion.

So if you wish to express your opinion, ciaranxavier, then try to disprove my claim with the facts and sources of your information.
And don't rush. Take your time.

:)

People are interested in quality discussion, New Gov, but based on honest representation of facts. Many of your threads are biased and exposed as academically inaccurate, for example the origins of the human race...
Although I will admit, some of the threads are interesting...:eek:

[North Pole Resident]

The original Rus were Swedish traders who travelled east via the rivers which emptied into the Baltic Sea.

The Rus and Swedish traders were one and the same people.
They were Slavs by blood.

The forefathers of Vikings were Slavic/Russian people -

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5_files/slavpyre.jpeg

Above: This somewhat idealized painting is of a Slav funeral pyre for one of their chieftains around the year 900AD. In common with many Indo-Europeans, the Slavs traditionally cremated their important dead. Where burial was chosen over cremation, it was also common to bury all the chief 's artifacts with the corpse. This painting was made based on a description provided by a visitor to southern Russia at the time, and it is significant that the account had a Viking style boat in the picture - a sure indication that the original Slavs were of virtually identical racial and cultural stock to the Indo-Europeans who settled in Scandinavia and who became Vikings.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5.htm


Another interesting researcher, Edmund Spenser, in his A View of the Present State of Ireland, called the Scots 'Scythians' noting too, "their fierce running upon their enemies, and their manner of fight, resembleth altogether that which is read in all histories to have been used by the Scythians...it may almost infallibly be gathered together with other circumstances that the Irish are very Scots or Scythes originally."

[Phædrus]

Here's another interesting info. The forefathers of Vikings were Slavic/Russian people -

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5_files/slavpyre.jpeg

Above: This somewhat idealized painting is of a Slav funeral pyre for one of their chieftains around the year 900AD. In common with many Indo-Europeans, the Slavs traditionally cremated their important dead. Where burial was chosen over cremation, it was also common to bury all the chief 's artifacts with the corpse. This painting was made based on a description provided by a visitor to southern Russia at the time, and it is significant that the account had a Viking style boat in the picture - a sure indication that the original Slavs were of virtually identical racial and cultural stock to the Indo-Europeans who settled in Scandinavia and who became Vikings.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5.htm

That's because the Vikings created the settlement of Kiev. Duh. You've got it backwards, Gov. Also, love the source. So not racist. :p

[Phædrus]

Dealing with what topics? I don't have time to sit here 24/7 and comment on each goofy post.

Ciaranxavier, are you looking for a cheap talk or quality discussion? If it's quality discussion that matter's here than you should know that it takes time to keep moving topics such as this one.

The information that I posted is just an invitation to a discussion, I have plenty more, of course. Should I post everything at once? No.
I see that there is no REAL interest in the subject so far. Some forum members like to comment regardless of their level of knowledge. In most cases their comments have nothing to do with the original subject, so I don't want to help them to trash the thread.

On many historical forums, it takes from 5 days to two weeks for someone to respond. But then, in fews months, when there are four - five pages, the thread fills in wit available information and it is a pleasure to read such discussion.

So if you wish to express your opinion, ciaranxavier, then try to disprove my claim with the facts and sources of your information.
And don't rush. Take your time.

:)

In other words, you don't give a hoot, you don't want to debate, you're just here to post articles. Rather than respond to posts, you're just going to keep posting articles in the thread. That explains a lot. Let me tell ya', that's not a debate, Gov, not in these parts.

[Phædrus]

By the way, Gov, what do you mean "whites?" I know no one white. According to you, since I'm Danish and Irish, I must surely be white. Yet, when I look at my hands, I see no white. I see a lightish-tannish-off-white, some light red, a bit of blue where there are veins close to the surface. I see a sort of creamish color on my fingernails. I have some tannish freckles. Maybe a very light yellowish tinge in places as well. The closest color to white I see on my hands is a sort of creamish-off-white on the edges of my guitar calluses. If I'm white, can I call blue yellow? How about calling purple orange? Is that fine too? 'Cause nowhere I can see, even with a mirror, is there any white on my body. The only places I can't check are my back and my ass. Maybe I should mail you pictures of those places; you might be able to find some white there.

[Viv]

The Rus and Swedish traders were one and the same people.
They were Slavs by blood.

The forefathers of Vikings were Slavic/Russian people -

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5_files/slavpyre.jpeg

Above: This somewhat idealized painting is of a Slav funeral pyre for one of their chieftains around the year 900AD. In common with many Indo-Europeans, the Slavs traditionally cremated their important dead. Where burial was chosen over cremation, it was also common to bury all the chief 's artifacts with the corpse. This painting was made based on a description provided by a visitor to southern Russia at the time, and it is significant that the account had a Viking style boat in the picture - a sure indication that the original Slavs were of virtually identical racial and cultural stock to the Indo-Europeans who settled in Scandinavia and who became Vikings.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5.htm


Another interesting researcher, Edmund Spenser, in his A View of the Present State of Ireland, called the Scots 'Scythians' noting too, "their fierce running upon their enemies, and their manner of fight, resembleth altogether that which is read in all histories to have been used by the Scythians...it may almost infallibly be gathered together with other circumstances that the Irish are very Scots or Scythes originally."

We descend from the Greeks. Check out the skirts (kilts) on the guys...and the bagpipes.

You are being so stubborn, I am going to have to actually do the work on this and produce evidence, New Gov. Although I have the feeling you are unreceptive to real facts.

Wiki:

The origin myth of Britain culminated in 'The History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth, which was written in 1138. It claims to have been written from earlier material. According to this, the first inhabitants of Britain were a race of giants under Albion. The next inhabitants were Greeks under Brutus who landed at Totnes and defeated the giants. After the death of Brutus the island was divided into three parts (England, Scotland and Wales) ruled over by his three sons. When the two younger sons died the whole island was ruled by the eldest, Locrinus, and his 98 successors. They continued until the arrival of the Romans. After the latter's departure the crown passed to Vortigern who seeks help from the Saxons in fighting against Constans. At a meeting with the Saxons, most of the British leaders are killed. Arthur afterwards leads the fight against the Saxons but the latter prevail.

This account remained the standard view of the settlement of Britain until Polydore Vergil wrote Anglica Historica, completed in 1513. However, Geoffrey of Monmouth's work has continued to provide inspiration to later writers of fiction.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_settlement_of_Great_Britain_and_Irelan d

Merlin is said to be Scottish in many accounts and the region where Arthur ruled is sometimes set in Scotland also. Who knows...