The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Turkey Extending Olive Branch to Afrin
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

So it’s clear from /r/SyrianCivilWar and LiveUAMap that Turkey and the TFSA has begun a large offensive to take Afrin, the Kurdish pocket in the northwest of the country.

syria-civil-war-2018-future-map

1. There’s no real question over their capacity to do it – the main question will be to what extent they will need Turkish ground support, in addition to the Turkish armor and air support they are already getting.

I assume that Erdogan wants to get this over with the TSAF doing the majority of the fighting (and incurring most of the casualties) for domestic PR reasons.

2. The other question is whether – or more like when – the TSAF moves on Manbij (the Rojava-controlled territories west of the Euphrates).

3. Turkey has wanted to do this for a long time; there have been intermittent rumors of an Afrin offensive for well more than a year now.

Although the surface explanation is terrorism, namely the YPG’s alleged links with the KPP, it seems there are more germane explanations.

a) Turkey does not want a Kurdish state stretching almost all the way to the Mediterranean.

b) It can create a “safe zone” to repatriate its Syrian refugees there, who constitute a political liability in Turkey as in the EU.

c) Added bonus – as Erdogan has all but admitted – is to tilt the region’s demographics into a Sunni Arab direction.

d) With the SAA/RuAF slicing away at the Idlib pocket, this will provide the rebels with a strategic rear.

4. Afrin has long maintained better relations with Russia than with Rojava, which has pretty much exclusively tied itself up with the United States. This is not something that Russia is happy to see.

Russia seems to have acquiesced, possibly in return for the Turks giving the go-ahead on Syria taking the territories east of the M5 motorway through Idlib.

At least that’s the face they’re putting on it, anyway.

With Turkey reportedly committing 2 brigades and 72 fighters to the operation, there is nothing that Russia with its tiny police contingent in Afrin could do even if it wanted to, anyway.

How the drone assaults on Khmeimim tie in with this, if at all, I leave for others to speculate on.

5. Syria of course isn’t going to be doing anything either, apart from muttering completely formulaic threats to shoot down Turkish jets violating its sovereignty.

Ergo for Iran, which has also expressed its opposition.

6. We can now start to delineate the future outline of Syria, which will be split into the following spheres of influence (see map above):

  • Iran, Russia: Syria proper
  • Turkey: Idlib west of the M5, and the Rojava-claimed territories west of the Euphrates
  • USA: Rojava east of the Euphrates

Having failed to achieve its initial goal of an Islamist government ruling over all of Syria, I suppose the end goal of Turkey now would be to reintegrate its sphere of influence into a future federalized Syria. Consequently, its continued insistence that Assad does not have a future as part of a Syria solution.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Geopolitics, Syrian Civil War 
Show 98 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This is a significant and painful situation to observe

    Significant because the ultimate impression for the world here, is that the USA is a worthless, betraying, faithless ‘friend’ or ‘ally’, who will sell you out and abandon you in a minute, just like they are abandoning the Kurds right now … As Henry Kissinger once said

    It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal

    Not that the USA betraying allies is ‘new’, but allowing the massacre of Kurds is severely updating the theme, and also giving a poisonous aura to President Trump here as Mr Sell-Out

    The ‘logic’ of the US pulls entirely in the other direction … Support the Kurds and protect them, and the USA collectively undermines Syria, the Turks whom the US is arguing with, and also the US’ current boogeyman, Iran, given the Kurdish presence in all 3 countries

    It’s shocking to me too that there is not more respect for Kurdish self-sovereignty amongst all the ‘ethno-nationists’ etc … who tend to fall into the Raevsky-Saker type line of ‘well, killing Kurds is part of supporting Russia and Iran and opposing Israel’, a little too much Machiavelli there for me

    Kurds were promised their own state 100 years ago, got sold out at Versailles & Lausanne, they are clearly an ethnic group of several tens of millions, living in continuous territory, with their own language and ancient culture, distinct from Iran or Arabs, their nationhood continually sabotaged

    It doesn’t matter if Kurds are enmeshed with corruption, Zionist Israel, the drug trade or anything else … they have a right to self-sovereignty per the UN Charter etc … Once they have their own state we can then address any mafia activity that extends outside Kurdistan borders

    The one explanation that fits here, as to why the US is allowing the Kurds to be killed and betrayed yet again, is the one that argues that a plan is being implemented to destroy the US as a respected force in the world, as part of the road to implementing a new globalist regime, which people will be led to think is ‘progressive’ because it will be allegedly ‘multi-polar’ (and of course ‘multi-cultural’)

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    You ask why the Kurds cannot be supported to win their own ethnic state, you kind of answered it right at the end. Multiculturalism (aka diversity, SJW, pluralism) is the core ideology of the USA, how can the USA support ethnic states (for obvious reasons Israel will always be the exception) when itself is preaching how evil it is to have ethnic based states?
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "It’s shocking to me too that there is not more respect for Kurdish self-sovereignty "

    I don't have a problem with it, but Turkey, Syria and Iran seem to, and of these the most stroppy seems to be Turkey. Iraq don't seem too keen either. The trouble is there are too many players who don't want it, and in the meantime Syria is being trashed as Iraq and Libya were.

    Alas, the Kurds will probably be done over yet again. But think about it, if they established a strong Kurdistan with an effective military, they'd become a target just as Syria and Iran are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I’d trust Erdogan so little if he said my mom loved me I’d double check.

    Anyway, I think Putin is smart not letting himself dragged into this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Hopefully Erdogan gets Turkey bogged down in a Iraq-tier insurgency and the army turns on him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. I clicked your link to the drones story – which I had been reading about earlier in other media.

    Despite the claims, there’s nothing (absolutely nothing) at all difficult to make a GPS guided drone. I’m sure I could make one of these by myself in a few afternoons with a few shop-bought materials (and I have no background in this hobby).

    https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Pixhawk-PIX-PX4-2-4-8-Flight-Controller-M8N-GPS-Module-with-Built-in-compass-Micro/32823836734.html?

    That’s where the story seemed quite ridiculous and made me think that there are people with no understanding of basic technology coming up with it. As a teenager, many of us were building things far more difficult than that.

    But the difficult aspect in the story there. are the fact they used explosives with ball-bearings, and so on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @Brabantian
    This is a significant and painful situation to observe

    Significant because the ultimate impression for the world here, is that the USA is a worthless, betraying, faithless 'friend' or 'ally', who will sell you out and abandon you in a minute, just like they are abandoning the Kurds right now ... As Henry Kissinger once said

    It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal
     
    Not that the USA betraying allies is 'new', but allowing the massacre of Kurds is severely updating the theme, and also giving a poisonous aura to President Trump here as Mr Sell-Out

    The 'logic' of the US pulls entirely in the other direction ... Support the Kurds and protect them, and the USA collectively undermines Syria, the Turks whom the US is arguing with, and also the US' current boogeyman, Iran, given the Kurdish presence in all 3 countries

    It's shocking to me too that there is not more respect for Kurdish self-sovereignty amongst all the 'ethno-nationists' etc ... who tend to fall into the Raevsky-Saker type line of 'well, killing Kurds is part of supporting Russia and Iran and opposing Israel', a little too much Machiavelli there for me

    Kurds were promised their own state 100 years ago, got sold out at Versailles & Lausanne, they are clearly an ethnic group of several tens of millions, living in continuous territory, with their own language and ancient culture, distinct from Iran or Arabs, their nationhood continually sabotaged

    It doesn't matter if Kurds are enmeshed with corruption, Zionist Israel, the drug trade or anything else ... they have a right to self-sovereignty per the UN Charter etc ... Once they have their own state we can then address any mafia activity that extends outside Kurdistan borders

    The one explanation that fits here, as to why the US is allowing the Kurds to be killed and betrayed yet again, is the one that argues that a plan is being implemented to destroy the US as a respected force in the world, as part of the road to implementing a new globalist regime, which people will be led to think is 'progressive' because it will be allegedly 'multi-polar' (and of course 'multi-cultural')

    You ask why the Kurds cannot be supported to win their own ethnic state, you kind of answered it right at the end. Multiculturalism (aka diversity, SJW, pluralism) is the core ideology of the USA, how can the USA support ethnic states (for obvious reasons Israel will always be the exception) when itself is preaching how evil it is to have ethnic based states?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Except that these Kurds do not want own ethnic states. They want more.

    This is certainly not the case with the parties of the DFNS [Democratic Federation of Northern Syria ]. They have strong grassroots, with religious and ethnic diversity. They include Arabs, Syriacs, Circassians, Turkmens, Christians, Muslims, Yazidis and others. The DFNS is becoming a strong entity of Syria that presents a new alternative to the problems of the region.
     
    - Cemil Bayik, the co-chairperson of the executive council of the KCK
    https://kurdishissue.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/pkk/

    Look, I am not a fan of the Turks or Turkey, if I could separate from them right now I would. I am a patriotic Kurd and want nothing less than out right independence, but I also understand the policies of the PKK very well. Their initial stance on a nation state has changed and their political ideology has completely changed from just focusing on Kurds to focusing on the entire region. The PKK wants a leftist ideology and structure for the entire Middle East, not just for Kurdistan. The conflict between the PKK and Erdogan were initially ideological and has now evolved to an ethnic conflict simply because an ethnic conflict in Turkey exists. Politicians ride on what ever they can to increase their support base and further their own ends.

    The current movements and governments in the M.E. CANNOT have a long term strategic alliance with the PKK because the vision of the PKK doesn't include ANY of the current governments and movements. If the PKK could over throw the current islamist, tribal and conservative governments of the M.E. they would, and they would replace them all by distributing power to the people. The PKK is opposed to both the ideological beliefs and fixed borders of the region, instead, they envision an E.U like (but much more leftist) structure for the region.

    If you want to understand the PKK you need to read a lot. I don't consider them to be a Kurdish party, but a leftist party with a regional agenda. You should read Ocalans books and see how his views have changed in prison. 90% of PKK supporters don't understand this, they still think their long term goal is an independent Kurdistan. Look at "Rojava" for example, that's not Kurdistan, it simply means "West" nothing more, nothing less. The PKK is busier promoting Mesopotamia than Kurdistan. Their media channels are called Mesopotamia or some other word unrelated to Kurdistan.


    Erdogan is using nationalist Turkish sentiments as the PKK are using Kurdish nationalist sentiments. They are allowed and enabled to do so because the war in it's core IS an ethnic war, even if the end game will not be.
     
    http://themess.net/forum/military-discussion/64757-turkey-kurdish-separatist-conflict?p=149122#post149122
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. It’s shocking to me too that there is not more respect for Kurdish self-sovereignty amongst all the ‘ethno-nationists’ etc … who tend to fall into the Raevsky-Saker type line of ‘well, killing Kurds is part of supporting Russia and Iran and opposing Israel’, a little too much Machiavelli there for me

    Is this trolling? Opposing Israel is the entire point of “ethno nationalism”.

    Any “nationalist” that doesn’t make opposition to Israel their top priority is not a nationalist. Unless they are Chinese/Japanese/Indian because obviously it would be unfair to expect those groups to care about Israel.

    BTW: Our Father Abraham and our mother Rachel were both Kurds, so it isn’t surprising that nationalists would be willing to throw the Kurds to the wolves.

    you guys all want to hear me talk about the government shutdown, right? Is this big news in your countries?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Is this trolling? Opposing Israel is the entire point of “ethno nationalism”.
     
    I know you're trolling, but this is still nonsense...I'd think even a lot of alt-rightish people have no problem with Israel as a Jewish nation state per se...it's some of the dangerous foreign policy stuff and the generally pro-mass immigration/multiculturalism line of Jewish organizations in Western countries that pisses them off (and rightly so, I'd say).

    you guys all want to hear me talk about the government shutdown, right? Is this big news in your countries?
     
    No, German media is focused on the coalition talks (looks like Christian Democrats and Social Democrats will continue their joint criminal enterprise). Sorry, I know it hurts your US narcissism, but Trump's antics aren't that central to most normal people outside the US :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @neutral
    You ask why the Kurds cannot be supported to win their own ethnic state, you kind of answered it right at the end. Multiculturalism (aka diversity, SJW, pluralism) is the core ideology of the USA, how can the USA support ethnic states (for obvious reasons Israel will always be the exception) when itself is preaching how evil it is to have ethnic based states?

    Except that these Kurds do not want own ethnic states. They want more.

    This is certainly not the case with the parties of the DFNS [Democratic Federation of Northern Syria ]. They have strong grassroots, with religious and ethnic diversity. They include Arabs, Syriacs, Circassians, Turkmens, Christians, Muslims, Yazidis and others. The DFNS is becoming a strong entity of Syria that presents a new alternative to the problems of the region.

    - Cemil Bayik, the co-chairperson of the executive council of the KCK

    https://kurdishissue.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/pkk/

    Look, I am not a fan of the Turks or Turkey, if I could separate from them right now I would. I am a patriotic Kurd and want nothing less than out right independence, but I also understand the policies of the PKK very well. Their initial stance on a nation state has changed and their political ideology has completely changed from just focusing on Kurds to focusing on the entire region. The PKK wants a leftist ideology and structure for the entire Middle East, not just for Kurdistan. The conflict between the PKK and Erdogan were initially ideological and has now evolved to an ethnic conflict simply because an ethnic conflict in Turkey exists. Politicians ride on what ever they can to increase their support base and further their own ends.

    The current movements and governments in the M.E. CANNOT have a long term strategic alliance with the PKK because the vision of the PKK doesn’t include ANY of the current governments and movements. If the PKK could over throw the current islamist, tribal and conservative governments of the M.E. they would, and they would replace them all by distributing power to the people. The PKK is opposed to both the ideological beliefs and fixed borders of the region, instead, they envision an E.U like (but much more leftist) structure for the region.

    If you want to understand the PKK you need to read a lot. I don’t consider them to be a Kurdish party, but a leftist party with a regional agenda. You should read Ocalans books and see how his views have changed in prison. 90% of PKK supporters don’t understand this, they still think their long term goal is an independent Kurdistan. Look at “Rojava” for example, that’s not Kurdistan, it simply means “West” nothing more, nothing less. The PKK is busier promoting Mesopotamia than Kurdistan. Their media channels are called Mesopotamia or some other word unrelated to Kurdistan.

    Erdogan is using nationalist Turkish sentiments as the PKK are using Kurdish nationalist sentiments. They are allowed and enabled to do so because the war in it’s core IS an ethnic war, even if the end game will not be.

    http://themess.net/forum/military-discussion/64757-turkey-kurdish-separatist-conflict?p=149122#post149122

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Greasy William

    It’s shocking to me too that there is not more respect for Kurdish self-sovereignty amongst all the ‘ethno-nationists’ etc … who tend to fall into the Raevsky-Saker type line of ‘well, killing Kurds is part of supporting Russia and Iran and opposing Israel’, a little too much Machiavelli there for me
     
    Is this trolling? Opposing Israel is the entire point of "ethno nationalism".

    Any "nationalist" that doesn't make opposition to Israel their top priority is not a nationalist. Unless they are Chinese/Japanese/Indian because obviously it would be unfair to expect those groups to care about Israel.

    BTW: Our Father Abraham and our mother Rachel were both Kurds, so it isn't surprising that nationalists would be willing to throw the Kurds to the wolves.

    ...

    you guys all want to hear me talk about the government shutdown, right? Is this big news in your countries?

    Is this trolling? Opposing Israel is the entire point of “ethno nationalism”.

    I know you’re trolling, but this is still nonsense…I’d think even a lot of alt-rightish people have no problem with Israel as a Jewish nation state per se…it’s some of the dangerous foreign policy stuff and the generally pro-mass immigration/multiculturalism line of Jewish organizations in Western countries that pisses them off (and rightly so, I’d say).

    you guys all want to hear me talk about the government shutdown, right? Is this big news in your countries?

    No, German media is focused on the coalition talks (looks like Christian Democrats and Social Democrats will continue their joint criminal enterprise). Sorry, I know it hurts your US narcissism, but Trump’s antics aren’t that central to most normal people outside the US :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    There is still to much focus on Trump in German news.
    , @neutral

    I’d think even a lot of alt-rightish people have no problem with Israel as a Jewish nation state per se
     
    The type that generally support jews and Israel are not alt-rightish, one call them alt-lite or some other names, but support for Israel means support for Zionism. Support for Zionism is an absolute red line that cannot be crossed if you are altright, to be altright means being pro white and Zionism is an anti white ideology. All regimes that support Zionism (USA, Germany, France, Britain) are hostile to white people.
    , @Greasy William

    I know you’re trolling
     
    Not this time I'm not.

    Golden Dawn's top issue: Israel.

    Jobbik's top issue: Israel.

    The Saker's top issue: Israel.

    US Paleocon's top issue: Israel.

    Stormfront's top issue: Israel.

    Jean Marie Le Pen's top issue: Israel. (That's why his daughter kicked him out of the party).


    Part of the success of the so called Alt-Right has been ditching the Israel stuff for a return to 1930's style anti Semitism.

    Let's say that you are sympathetic with the Palestinians and Iran, hate Jews, don't want US wars in the middle east and don't want mass immigration to your country but at the same time you don't really care about the Israel conflict and are content to sit back and let the Jews and Muslims kill each other without taking sides. Anybody who feels that way is. not. a. nationalist. If you aren't willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?

    Call it what you want, but it isn't nationalism.

    ...

    As for your claim not to care about the US government shutdown, if it continues you will care. I guess it hasn't blown up over there yet but it will if it lasts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @reiner Tor
    I’d trust Erdogan so little if he said my mom loved me I’d double check.

    Anyway, I think Putin is smart not letting himself dragged into this.

    Hopefully Erdogan gets Turkey bogged down in a Iraq-tier insurgency and the army turns on him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    What good would that do? Kurdish independence probably would be unacceptable to any Turkish government anyway. And Erdogan and his kind have the support of about 50% of Turks (probably more if you're just looking at Sunni ethnic Turks).
    , @Daniel Chieh
    A pox on both their houses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @German_reader

    Is this trolling? Opposing Israel is the entire point of “ethno nationalism”.
     
    I know you're trolling, but this is still nonsense...I'd think even a lot of alt-rightish people have no problem with Israel as a Jewish nation state per se...it's some of the dangerous foreign policy stuff and the generally pro-mass immigration/multiculturalism line of Jewish organizations in Western countries that pisses them off (and rightly so, I'd say).

    you guys all want to hear me talk about the government shutdown, right? Is this big news in your countries?
     
    No, German media is focused on the coalition talks (looks like Christian Democrats and Social Democrats will continue their joint criminal enterprise). Sorry, I know it hurts your US narcissism, but Trump's antics aren't that central to most normal people outside the US :-)

    There is still to much focus on Trump in German news.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @German_reader

    Is this trolling? Opposing Israel is the entire point of “ethno nationalism”.
     
    I know you're trolling, but this is still nonsense...I'd think even a lot of alt-rightish people have no problem with Israel as a Jewish nation state per se...it's some of the dangerous foreign policy stuff and the generally pro-mass immigration/multiculturalism line of Jewish organizations in Western countries that pisses them off (and rightly so, I'd say).

    you guys all want to hear me talk about the government shutdown, right? Is this big news in your countries?
     
    No, German media is focused on the coalition talks (looks like Christian Democrats and Social Democrats will continue their joint criminal enterprise). Sorry, I know it hurts your US narcissism, but Trump's antics aren't that central to most normal people outside the US :-)

    I’d think even a lot of alt-rightish people have no problem with Israel as a Jewish nation state per se

    The type that generally support jews and Israel are not alt-rightish, one call them alt-lite or some other names, but support for Israel means support for Zionism. Support for Zionism is an absolute red line that cannot be crossed if you are altright, to be altright means being pro white and Zionism is an anti white ideology. All regimes that support Zionism (USA, Germany, France, Britain) are hostile to white people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    support for Israel means support for Zionism. Support for Zionism is an absolute red line that cannot be crossed if you are altright, to be altright means being pro white and Zionism is an anti white ideology.
     
    This may be so, but the facts on the ground are different. The alt right or the New Right in Europe is essentially Zionist. The Old Right's antisemitism was replaced with islamophobia. So, the hate is permitted but Jews are off limit and Israel is used as a shining example how too deal with foreigners and be nationalist. New right of Marine Le Pen pushed cut off from the Old Right of her father. This might be a part of the plan. The New Right is encouraged because it is good for Israel. Countries like Hungary and Poland got under the protective umbrella extended by Zionists which gives them some breathing space versus the EU. But if the plan changes the plug to the power source that supplies people like Orban might be easily pulled off. Neither Hungary or Poland have any say about the scope of the plan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Yevardian
    Hopefully Erdogan gets Turkey bogged down in a Iraq-tier insurgency and the army turns on him.

    What good would that do? Kurdish independence probably would be unacceptable to any Turkish government anyway. And Erdogan and his kind have the support of about 50% of Turks (probably more if you’re just looking at Sunni ethnic Turks).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @German_reader

    Is this trolling? Opposing Israel is the entire point of “ethno nationalism”.
     
    I know you're trolling, but this is still nonsense...I'd think even a lot of alt-rightish people have no problem with Israel as a Jewish nation state per se...it's some of the dangerous foreign policy stuff and the generally pro-mass immigration/multiculturalism line of Jewish organizations in Western countries that pisses them off (and rightly so, I'd say).

    you guys all want to hear me talk about the government shutdown, right? Is this big news in your countries?
     
    No, German media is focused on the coalition talks (looks like Christian Democrats and Social Democrats will continue their joint criminal enterprise). Sorry, I know it hurts your US narcissism, but Trump's antics aren't that central to most normal people outside the US :-)

    I know you’re trolling

    Not this time I’m not.

    Golden Dawn’s top issue: Israel.

    Jobbik’s top issue: Israel.

    The Saker’s top issue: Israel.

    US Paleocon’s top issue: Israel.

    Stormfront’s top issue: Israel.

    Jean Marie Le Pen’s top issue: Israel. (That’s why his daughter kicked him out of the party).

    Part of the success of the so called Alt-Right has been ditching the Israel stuff for a return to 1930′s style anti Semitism.

    Let’s say that you are sympathetic with the Palestinians and Iran, hate Jews, don’t want US wars in the middle east and don’t want mass immigration to your country but at the same time you don’t really care about the Israel conflict and are content to sit back and let the Jews and Muslims kill each other without taking sides. Anybody who feels that way is. not. a. nationalist. If you aren’t willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?

    Call it what you want, but it isn’t nationalism.

    As for your claim not to care about the US government shutdown, if it continues you will care. I guess it hasn’t blown up over there yet but it will if it lasts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    1. The Saker is not a nationalist, LOL. His ideology is a peculiar fusion of “anti-imperialist”/”anti-racist” Soviet-Eurasianism and the more obscurantist strains of Orthodoxy.

    2. The US has shutdowns all the time without any significant impacts. Why should this time be different?
    , @German_reader

    If you aren’t willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?
     
    Eh, how about preserving one's own nation? Personally I do believe the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances (even though on the whole they're not very likable, with all their terrorism and militant Islam), and think a violent overthrow of the regimes in Syria and Iran would probably be pretty bad for various reasons...but in the end, those aren't primary concerns for me...stopping non-European mass immigration to Europe is. Solidarity with Palestine is something for the Ummah or leftie internationalists, not for people like me, and I'd suppose that's how most nationalists in Europe feel.
    , @reiner Tor

    Jobbik’s top issue: Israel.
     
    Jobbik was and I think still is a very obscurantist party, so I won’t comment on their issues, but currently they are moving to the left of Fidesz. Inasmuch as there is any nationalism left in Hungary, it’s Fidesz. They like Netanyahu.
    , @Art Deco
    US Paleocon’s top issue: Israel.

    The circle assembled around Jeffrey Polet show scant interest in foreign affairs. The v Mises Institute is primarily concerned with promoting crank monetary policy and neo-Confederate historiography. The League of the South's interests are in its name. Michael Peroutka is a promoter of astringent positive-law oriented conceptions of political economy (and Southern separatism). The Rockford Institute had one associate who took much of an interest in Israel or Jews, and that would be the late Joseph Sorbran. The Howard Center is concerned with social policy. Claes Ryn produces gassy intellectual history. The foreign policy aficionados at The American Conservative have one argument: that the military accomplishes nothing of value; no references to Israel strictly necessary. Pat Buchanan has been known to write about Israel, but Israel is ancillary to his principal interests. Michael Brendan Dougherty is an aesthete; he doesn't much care for the political world because it takes up time which could be devoted to savoring literature or bourbon.
    , @Lemurmaniac
    you should read this

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/the-cause-of-the-peoples/

    a nationalist has only one cause: his own people, and the civilization from which they spring.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Greasy William

    I know you’re trolling
     
    Not this time I'm not.

    Golden Dawn's top issue: Israel.

    Jobbik's top issue: Israel.

    The Saker's top issue: Israel.

    US Paleocon's top issue: Israel.

    Stormfront's top issue: Israel.

    Jean Marie Le Pen's top issue: Israel. (That's why his daughter kicked him out of the party).


    Part of the success of the so called Alt-Right has been ditching the Israel stuff for a return to 1930's style anti Semitism.

    Let's say that you are sympathetic with the Palestinians and Iran, hate Jews, don't want US wars in the middle east and don't want mass immigration to your country but at the same time you don't really care about the Israel conflict and are content to sit back and let the Jews and Muslims kill each other without taking sides. Anybody who feels that way is. not. a. nationalist. If you aren't willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?

    Call it what you want, but it isn't nationalism.

    ...

    As for your claim not to care about the US government shutdown, if it continues you will care. I guess it hasn't blown up over there yet but it will if it lasts.

    1. The Saker is not a nationalist, LOL. His ideology is a peculiar fusion of “anti-imperialist”/”anti-racist” Soviet-Eurasianism and the more obscurantist strains of Orthodoxy.

    2. The US has shutdowns all the time without any significant impacts. Why should this time be different?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "The US has shutdowns all the time without any significant impacts. Why should this time be different?"
     
    Because there is a non-trivial probability that Trump and enough Republicans might stick to their guns on the DACA kiddies and Chain migration issues. In the past there was zero probability of Republicans not folding ... we may as well call them the French Republicans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Greasy William

    I know you’re trolling
     
    Not this time I'm not.

    Golden Dawn's top issue: Israel.

    Jobbik's top issue: Israel.

    The Saker's top issue: Israel.

    US Paleocon's top issue: Israel.

    Stormfront's top issue: Israel.

    Jean Marie Le Pen's top issue: Israel. (That's why his daughter kicked him out of the party).


    Part of the success of the so called Alt-Right has been ditching the Israel stuff for a return to 1930's style anti Semitism.

    Let's say that you are sympathetic with the Palestinians and Iran, hate Jews, don't want US wars in the middle east and don't want mass immigration to your country but at the same time you don't really care about the Israel conflict and are content to sit back and let the Jews and Muslims kill each other without taking sides. Anybody who feels that way is. not. a. nationalist. If you aren't willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?

    Call it what you want, but it isn't nationalism.

    ...

    As for your claim not to care about the US government shutdown, if it continues you will care. I guess it hasn't blown up over there yet but it will if it lasts.

    If you aren’t willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?

    Eh, how about preserving one’s own nation? Personally I do believe the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances (even though on the whole they’re not very likable, with all their terrorism and militant Islam), and think a violent overthrow of the regimes in Syria and Iran would probably be pretty bad for various reasons…but in the end, those aren’t primary concerns for me…stopping non-European mass immigration to Europe is. Solidarity with Palestine is something for the Ummah or leftie internationalists, not for people like me, and I’d suppose that’s how most nationalists in Europe feel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    not for people like me, and I’d suppose that’s how most nationalists in Europe feel.
     
    Words mean things. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with feeling the way you do, I'm saying that it isn't nationalism.

    And since you are more a civic nationalists anyway as opposed to a blood and soil nationalists, you are doubly not a nationalist. You are more of a reactionary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. 1. The Saker is not a nationalist, LOL. His ideology is a peculiar fusion of “anti-imperialist”/”anti-racist” Soviet-Eurasianism and the more obscurantist strains of Orthodoxy.

    I did not know that about The Saker. His columns are so rambling that it is hard to gauge his ideology. He is almost certainly a homosexual, which is fine, but I don’t think his predilections would have been looked upon kindly by the Soviets so I’m surprised that he is a USSR guy.

    2. The US has shutdowns all the time without any significant impacts. Why should this time be different?

    Well I really didn’t want to clutter up this thread with US domestic politics, but since you asked…

    This is the 3rd government shutdown since 96, the ones that happened before 96 might as well have happened on a different planet, but the situation now is actually much different than the last two times.

    In 96 and 13 you had a GOP Congress and a Dem Presidency. In both cases it was clearly the GOP who instigated the shutdown with no realistic plan of how they could possibly win.

    This time it is the Democrats who are instigating the shutdown and they are not being unreasonable to think that the Republicans/Trump will fracture and cave. Trump is unpopular and there are a ton of Republicans who want open borders (which is what the shutdown is about).

    The thing is, the public has never been this fractured and also Trump and the Republicans are in a position where they simply *can’t* cave. If Trump gave in now, not only would it fracture his base but it would be an unequivocal defeat for him. All of his credibility would be gone. His Presidency would essentially be over.

    On the other hand, the Democrats have no incentive to give in either. Their lunatic base is demanding this and this shutdown doesn’t really hurt them too much politically. Furthermore, they are likely expecting that the longer it goes, the worse it gets for Trump.

    Everybody knew how 96 and 13 were going to end: with a complete Republican cave. Nobody, however, knows how this one will end. There is also a possibility that it simply doesn’t end at all, as both sides are dug in and are in a situation where compromise is simply impossible. It’s kinda like how in 1916 Europe the people of Britain, France and Germany all wanted peace, but at the same time weren’t willing to make any compromises to get that peace.

    I’m not predicting the apocalypse and indeed I expect this to be resolved in the next 2 months, but this has the potential to set off a Constitutional crisis and even spark the inevitable 2nd American Civil War. That is how big a deal this is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks for your analysis. I am much less plugged into American politics than I was a year ago - definitely something to watch, then.

    He is almost certainly a homosexual...
     
    I don't want to speculate overly much on the personal life of another columnist on this website, but I would be extremely surprised if that was the case (his identity is semi-open, you can connect the dots if you do a bit of Googling).

    ... upon kindly by the Soviets so I’m surprised that he is a USSR guy.
     
    According to one of his articles a couple of months ago, he is partially descended from the White emigration and hated the USSR in the 70s/80s - his views changed in the 1990s when he got disillusioned with American imperialism.
    , @iffen
    Nobody, however, knows how this one will end.

    It will end fairly quickly if Trump starts deciding what is an essential government function and what is not.
    , @iffen
    even spark the inevitable 2nd American Civil War. That is how big a deal this is.

    Bullshit. Capital B.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @German_reader

    If you aren’t willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?
     
    Eh, how about preserving one's own nation? Personally I do believe the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances (even though on the whole they're not very likable, with all their terrorism and militant Islam), and think a violent overthrow of the regimes in Syria and Iran would probably be pretty bad for various reasons...but in the end, those aren't primary concerns for me...stopping non-European mass immigration to Europe is. Solidarity with Palestine is something for the Ummah or leftie internationalists, not for people like me, and I'd suppose that's how most nationalists in Europe feel.

    not for people like me, and I’d suppose that’s how most nationalists in Europe feel.

    Words mean things. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with feeling the way you do, I’m saying that it isn’t nationalism.

    And since you are more a civic nationalists anyway as opposed to a blood and soil nationalists, you are doubly not a nationalist. You are more of a reactionary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I’m saying that it isn’t nationalism.
     
    It's a truly weird definition of nationalism to claim that it should be primarily about solidarity with Islamic peoples in the Near East...most European nationalists today really, really don't like Muslims, for very good reasons imo, given the almost completely negative effects of Islamic immigration on our societies. It's one thing to acknowledge the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances (certainly true) and to oppose any more Western military interventions in the region (bad idea, not least for reasons of self-interest)...it's quite another to harbour delusions that we're in some common cause with Muslims against the AngloZionist empire or whatever. We aren't, an expansionist universalist ideology like Islam is hostile to our interests by its very nature.

    And since you are more a civic nationalists anyway as opposed to a blood and soil nationalists, you are doubly not a nationalist. You are more of a reactionary.

     

    I'm in the middle, 100% blood and soil isn't workable, but constitutional patriotism and the like is a bad joke. I definitely want to live in a society that is primarily European in character, that's non-negotiable for me.
    Reactionaries are fools who think some return to throne and altar Catholicism and the like might be possible...doesn't appeal to me at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Greasy William

    not for people like me, and I’d suppose that’s how most nationalists in Europe feel.
     
    Words mean things. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with feeling the way you do, I'm saying that it isn't nationalism.

    And since you are more a civic nationalists anyway as opposed to a blood and soil nationalists, you are doubly not a nationalist. You are more of a reactionary.

    I’m saying that it isn’t nationalism.

    It’s a truly weird definition of nationalism to claim that it should be primarily about solidarity with Islamic peoples in the Near East…most European nationalists today really, really don’t like Muslims, for very good reasons imo, given the almost completely negative effects of Islamic immigration on our societies. It’s one thing to acknowledge the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances (certainly true) and to oppose any more Western military interventions in the region (bad idea, not least for reasons of self-interest)…it’s quite another to harbour delusions that we’re in some common cause with Muslims against the AngloZionist empire or whatever. We aren’t, an expansionist universalist ideology like Islam is hostile to our interests by its very nature.

    And since you are more a civic nationalists anyway as opposed to a blood and soil nationalists, you are doubly not a nationalist. You are more of a reactionary.

    I’m in the middle, 100% blood and soil isn’t workable, but constitutional patriotism and the like is a bad joke. I definitely want to live in a society that is primarily European in character, that’s non-negotiable for me.
    Reactionaries are fools who think some return to throne and altar Catholicism and the like might be possible…doesn’t appeal to me at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Greasy William

    I know you’re trolling
     
    Not this time I'm not.

    Golden Dawn's top issue: Israel.

    Jobbik's top issue: Israel.

    The Saker's top issue: Israel.

    US Paleocon's top issue: Israel.

    Stormfront's top issue: Israel.

    Jean Marie Le Pen's top issue: Israel. (That's why his daughter kicked him out of the party).


    Part of the success of the so called Alt-Right has been ditching the Israel stuff for a return to 1930's style anti Semitism.

    Let's say that you are sympathetic with the Palestinians and Iran, hate Jews, don't want US wars in the middle east and don't want mass immigration to your country but at the same time you don't really care about the Israel conflict and are content to sit back and let the Jews and Muslims kill each other without taking sides. Anybody who feels that way is. not. a. nationalist. If you aren't willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?

    Call it what you want, but it isn't nationalism.

    ...

    As for your claim not to care about the US government shutdown, if it continues you will care. I guess it hasn't blown up over there yet but it will if it lasts.

    Jobbik’s top issue: Israel.

    Jobbik was and I think still is a very obscurantist party, so I won’t comment on their issues, but currently they are moving to the left of Fidesz. Inasmuch as there is any nationalism left in Hungary, it’s Fidesz. They like Netanyahu.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Greasy William

    1. The Saker is not a nationalist, LOL. His ideology is a peculiar fusion of “anti-imperialist”/”anti-racist” Soviet-Eurasianism and the more obscurantist strains of Orthodoxy.
     
    I did not know that about The Saker. His columns are so rambling that it is hard to gauge his ideology. He is almost certainly a homosexual, which is fine, but I don't think his predilections would have been looked upon kindly by the Soviets so I'm surprised that he is a USSR guy.

    2. The US has shutdowns all the time without any significant impacts. Why should this time be different?
     
    Well I really didn't want to clutter up this thread with US domestic politics, but since you asked...

    This is the 3rd government shutdown since 96, the ones that happened before 96 might as well have happened on a different planet, but the situation now is actually much different than the last two times.

    In 96 and 13 you had a GOP Congress and a Dem Presidency. In both cases it was clearly the GOP who instigated the shutdown with no realistic plan of how they could possibly win.

    This time it is the Democrats who are instigating the shutdown and they are not being unreasonable to think that the Republicans/Trump will fracture and cave. Trump is unpopular and there are a ton of Republicans who want open borders (which is what the shutdown is about).

    The thing is, the public has never been this fractured and also Trump and the Republicans are in a position where they simply *can't* cave. If Trump gave in now, not only would it fracture his base but it would be an unequivocal defeat for him. All of his credibility would be gone. His Presidency would essentially be over.

    On the other hand, the Democrats have no incentive to give in either. Their lunatic base is demanding this and this shutdown doesn't really hurt them too much politically. Furthermore, they are likely expecting that the longer it goes, the worse it gets for Trump.

    Everybody knew how 96 and 13 were going to end: with a complete Republican cave. Nobody, however, knows how this one will end. There is also a possibility that it simply doesn't end at all, as both sides are dug in and are in a situation where compromise is simply impossible. It's kinda like how in 1916 Europe the people of Britain, France and Germany all wanted peace, but at the same time weren't willing to make any compromises to get that peace.

    I'm not predicting the apocalypse and indeed I expect this to be resolved in the next 2 months, but this has the potential to set off a Constitutional crisis and even spark the inevitable 2nd American Civil War. That is how big a deal this is.

    Thanks for your analysis. I am much less plugged into American politics than I was a year ago – definitely something to watch, then.

    He is almost certainly a homosexual…

    I don’t want to speculate overly much on the personal life of another columnist on this website, but I would be extremely surprised if that was the case (his identity is semi-open, you can connect the dots if you do a bit of Googling).

    … upon kindly by the Soviets so I’m surprised that he is a USSR guy.

    According to one of his articles a couple of months ago, he is partially descended from the White emigration and hated the USSR in the 70s/80s – his views changed in the 1990s when he got disillusioned with American imperialism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Greasy William

    1. The Saker is not a nationalist, LOL. His ideology is a peculiar fusion of “anti-imperialist”/”anti-racist” Soviet-Eurasianism and the more obscurantist strains of Orthodoxy.
     
    I did not know that about The Saker. His columns are so rambling that it is hard to gauge his ideology. He is almost certainly a homosexual, which is fine, but I don't think his predilections would have been looked upon kindly by the Soviets so I'm surprised that he is a USSR guy.

    2. The US has shutdowns all the time without any significant impacts. Why should this time be different?
     
    Well I really didn't want to clutter up this thread with US domestic politics, but since you asked...

    This is the 3rd government shutdown since 96, the ones that happened before 96 might as well have happened on a different planet, but the situation now is actually much different than the last two times.

    In 96 and 13 you had a GOP Congress and a Dem Presidency. In both cases it was clearly the GOP who instigated the shutdown with no realistic plan of how they could possibly win.

    This time it is the Democrats who are instigating the shutdown and they are not being unreasonable to think that the Republicans/Trump will fracture and cave. Trump is unpopular and there are a ton of Republicans who want open borders (which is what the shutdown is about).

    The thing is, the public has never been this fractured and also Trump and the Republicans are in a position where they simply *can't* cave. If Trump gave in now, not only would it fracture his base but it would be an unequivocal defeat for him. All of his credibility would be gone. His Presidency would essentially be over.

    On the other hand, the Democrats have no incentive to give in either. Their lunatic base is demanding this and this shutdown doesn't really hurt them too much politically. Furthermore, they are likely expecting that the longer it goes, the worse it gets for Trump.

    Everybody knew how 96 and 13 were going to end: with a complete Republican cave. Nobody, however, knows how this one will end. There is also a possibility that it simply doesn't end at all, as both sides are dug in and are in a situation where compromise is simply impossible. It's kinda like how in 1916 Europe the people of Britain, France and Germany all wanted peace, but at the same time weren't willing to make any compromises to get that peace.

    I'm not predicting the apocalypse and indeed I expect this to be resolved in the next 2 months, but this has the potential to set off a Constitutional crisis and even spark the inevitable 2nd American Civil War. That is how big a deal this is.

    Nobody, however, knows how this one will end.

    It will end fairly quickly if Trump starts deciding what is an essential government function and what is not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Really? The Dems are gonna give up on the DREAM Act? Get real.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Greasy William

    1. The Saker is not a nationalist, LOL. His ideology is a peculiar fusion of “anti-imperialist”/”anti-racist” Soviet-Eurasianism and the more obscurantist strains of Orthodoxy.
     
    I did not know that about The Saker. His columns are so rambling that it is hard to gauge his ideology. He is almost certainly a homosexual, which is fine, but I don't think his predilections would have been looked upon kindly by the Soviets so I'm surprised that he is a USSR guy.

    2. The US has shutdowns all the time without any significant impacts. Why should this time be different?
     
    Well I really didn't want to clutter up this thread with US domestic politics, but since you asked...

    This is the 3rd government shutdown since 96, the ones that happened before 96 might as well have happened on a different planet, but the situation now is actually much different than the last two times.

    In 96 and 13 you had a GOP Congress and a Dem Presidency. In both cases it was clearly the GOP who instigated the shutdown with no realistic plan of how they could possibly win.

    This time it is the Democrats who are instigating the shutdown and they are not being unreasonable to think that the Republicans/Trump will fracture and cave. Trump is unpopular and there are a ton of Republicans who want open borders (which is what the shutdown is about).

    The thing is, the public has never been this fractured and also Trump and the Republicans are in a position where they simply *can't* cave. If Trump gave in now, not only would it fracture his base but it would be an unequivocal defeat for him. All of his credibility would be gone. His Presidency would essentially be over.

    On the other hand, the Democrats have no incentive to give in either. Their lunatic base is demanding this and this shutdown doesn't really hurt them too much politically. Furthermore, they are likely expecting that the longer it goes, the worse it gets for Trump.

    Everybody knew how 96 and 13 were going to end: with a complete Republican cave. Nobody, however, knows how this one will end. There is also a possibility that it simply doesn't end at all, as both sides are dug in and are in a situation where compromise is simply impossible. It's kinda like how in 1916 Europe the people of Britain, France and Germany all wanted peace, but at the same time weren't willing to make any compromises to get that peace.

    I'm not predicting the apocalypse and indeed I expect this to be resolved in the next 2 months, but this has the potential to set off a Constitutional crisis and even spark the inevitable 2nd American Civil War. That is how big a deal this is.

    even spark the inevitable 2nd American Civil War. That is how big a deal this is.

    Bullshit. Capital B.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @iffen
    Nobody, however, knows how this one will end.

    It will end fairly quickly if Trump starts deciding what is an essential government function and what is not.

    Really? The Dems are gonna give up on the DREAM Act? Get real.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    No, the Dreamers are in like Flynn, done deal.

    Questions remaining are: will they be able to chain their parents who committed the illegal immigration, how long must they wait before they can apply for citizenship, will “we” get something in return like an end to the lottery, an end to the chain, how much money will Trump get for his wall.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    BTW Greasy, Jason Jorjani - the Iranian nationalist who defected from AltRight.com - on how well Iranian national interests sync with Israel's.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Jf2EKghPw
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. How is the US supplying the Kurds? Through Syria? Turkey? Iraq?

    Look at a map. This is a show for the dum dums.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @Greasy William
    Really? The Dems are gonna give up on the DREAM Act? Get real.

    No, the Dreamers are in like Flynn, done deal.

    Questions remaining are: will they be able to chain their parents who committed the illegal immigration, how long must they wait before they can apply for citizenship, will “we” get something in return like an end to the lottery, an end to the chain, how much money will Trump get for his wall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    If Trump agrees to the DREAM Act, it's over for him. He has 39% approval and can't afford to lose the most committed 1/4 of his base. There would be a civil war in the Republican party that would absolutely doom them for the midterms. There will be no DREAM Act. Take that shit to the bank.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @iffen
    No, the Dreamers are in like Flynn, done deal.

    Questions remaining are: will they be able to chain their parents who committed the illegal immigration, how long must they wait before they can apply for citizenship, will “we” get something in return like an end to the lottery, an end to the chain, how much money will Trump get for his wall.

    If Trump agrees to the DREAM Act, it’s over for him. He has 39% approval and can’t afford to lose the most committed 1/4 of his base. There would be a civil war in the Republican party that would absolutely doom them for the midterms. There will be no DREAM Act. Take that shit to the bank.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    If Trump agrees to the DREAM Act, it’s over for him.

    Trump has already agreed to a Dream fix. The question is whether he can extract anything in return.

    There are 49 open borders Democratic Senators plus 7 or 8 open borders Republican ones, throw in 10-12 squishy ones and you are over well over 60. “Our” only hope is Trump and the House immigrant patriots. I’m still counting on Trump because when he was getting the bum rush for open borders he blew it up with his shitholes comment.

    There will be no DREAM Act. Take that shit to the bank.

    There will be a Dream Act within 2 months if not 1.

    If you lose you have to go to Scranton and bang Melissa.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Greasy William
    Really? The Dems are gonna give up on the DREAM Act? Get real.

    BTW Greasy, Jason Jorjani – the Iranian nationalist who defected from AltRight.com – on how well Iranian national interests sync with Israel’s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Iranians are, without question, the weirdest, most diverse group of people on the planet. A nation of Nazis with a sizeable philo Semitic, gay pride parade wanting, minority.

    The only common interests I see between Jews and Iranians is that both peoples are weird, internally divided and obnoxious. I don't see that as the basis for an alliance.

    But interesting none the less. Thanks for showing this.


    I wonder what he thinks about Iran potentially re aligning with the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Greasy William
    If Trump agrees to the DREAM Act, it's over for him. He has 39% approval and can't afford to lose the most committed 1/4 of his base. There would be a civil war in the Republican party that would absolutely doom them for the midterms. There will be no DREAM Act. Take that shit to the bank.

    If Trump agrees to the DREAM Act, it’s over for him.

    Trump has already agreed to a Dream fix. The question is whether he can extract anything in return.

    There are 49 open borders Democratic Senators plus 7 or 8 open borders Republican ones, throw in 10-12 squishy ones and you are over well over 60. “Our” only hope is Trump and the House immigrant patriots. I’m still counting on Trump because when he was getting the bum rush for open borders he blew it up with his shitholes comment.

    There will be no DREAM Act. Take that shit to the bank.

    There will be a Dream Act within 2 months if not 1.

    If you lose you have to go to Scranton and bang Melissa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    If the Republicans agree to a DREAM Act, it is game over for them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Anatoly Karlin
    BTW Greasy, Jason Jorjani - the Iranian nationalist who defected from AltRight.com - on how well Iranian national interests sync with Israel's.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Jf2EKghPw

    Iranians are, without question, the weirdest, most diverse group of people on the planet. A nation of Nazis with a sizeable philo Semitic, gay pride parade wanting, minority.

    The only common interests I see between Jews and Iranians is that both peoples are weird, internally divided and obnoxious. I don’t see that as the basis for an alliance.

    But interesting none the less. Thanks for showing this.

    I wonder what he thinks about Iran potentially re aligning with the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Does anybody take Jorjani seriously? I would be shocked if anyone outside the expatriate Persian community gave him the time of day. I would be super shocked if any beyond a few thousand had even heard of him in Iran.

    I’m surprised though, he always seemed to me like a bow-tie wearing guy.

    Peace.
    , @Lemurmaniac
    how are they 'Nazis'? And if they were, why should gentiles care?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @neutral

    I’d think even a lot of alt-rightish people have no problem with Israel as a Jewish nation state per se
     
    The type that generally support jews and Israel are not alt-rightish, one call them alt-lite or some other names, but support for Israel means support for Zionism. Support for Zionism is an absolute red line that cannot be crossed if you are altright, to be altright means being pro white and Zionism is an anti white ideology. All regimes that support Zionism (USA, Germany, France, Britain) are hostile to white people.

    support for Israel means support for Zionism. Support for Zionism is an absolute red line that cannot be crossed if you are altright, to be altright means being pro white and Zionism is an anti white ideology.

    This may be so, but the facts on the ground are different. The alt right or the New Right in Europe is essentially Zionist. The Old Right’s antisemitism was replaced with islamophobia. So, the hate is permitted but Jews are off limit and Israel is used as a shining example how too deal with foreigners and be nationalist. New right of Marine Le Pen pushed cut off from the Old Right of her father. This might be a part of the plan. The New Right is encouraged because it is good for Israel. Countries like Hungary and Poland got under the protective umbrella extended by Zionists which gives them some breathing space versus the EU. But if the plan changes the plug to the power source that supplies people like Orban might be easily pulled off. Neither Hungary or Poland have any say about the scope of the plan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Greasy William
    Iranians are, without question, the weirdest, most diverse group of people on the planet. A nation of Nazis with a sizeable philo Semitic, gay pride parade wanting, minority.

    The only common interests I see between Jews and Iranians is that both peoples are weird, internally divided and obnoxious. I don't see that as the basis for an alliance.

    But interesting none the less. Thanks for showing this.


    I wonder what he thinks about Iran potentially re aligning with the US.

    Does anybody take Jorjani seriously? I would be shocked if anyone outside the expatriate Persian community gave him the time of day. I would be super shocked if any beyond a few thousand had even heard of him in Iran.

    I’m surprised though, he always seemed to me like a bow-tie wearing guy.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. The best account of what happened is (as usual) by Elijah J. Magnier:

    “Turkey was upset by the widespread Kurdish presence along its borders and asked the US to withdraw all lethal weapons from the Kurds. Washington promised to do so but Turkey discovered later that the US promise had not been fulfilled and that the Kurds were in possession of laser guided anti-tank missiles and anti-air missiles, representing a direct threat to the Turkish, Syrian and Russian forces.

    Turkey demanded that Russia and Iran, in direct contact with Damascus, allow its troops to help to put an end to the US plans in Syria, further weakening the Kurds. Damascus asked Russia and Iran to give the Kurds the possibility to take distance from Washington by accepting the presence of the Syrian Army in the cities of Manbij and Afrin in the place of the Turkish invasion.

    Turkey, despite the gathering of Turkish forces along the borders and its announcement of the beginning of the military operation, waited for the Russian/Iranian green light. Russian officials met with other Kurds to lay down the serious Turkish intention and a way out of the critical situation by forwarding Damascus’s proposition- that was rejected by Afrin, whose Officer in Charge maintained his belief in US support, apparently unwilling or unable to learn from what happened to the Iraqi Kurds at Erbil).

    An undisclosed understanding was reached where Ankara stops providing support to al-Qaeda and its allies in Idlib, and no longer considers the Syrian Army operation east of Idlib and towards the city itself as a violation of the de-escalation agreement reached in Sochi last year. On the other hand, Russia will pull out its contingent from the city and will not interfere with the Turkish army “Olive Branch” operation.

    The Syrian leadership and its allies asked Russian air support to open a corridor towards the two surrounded cities of Al-Fawa and Kafriya, besieged since the long years of war. However, the Russian leadership rejected the demand and asked them – to the surprise of Damascus and its allies – to be patient, because the goal is not only to liberate Al-Fu’a and Kafriya, but also the entire city of Idlib. The Russian President Vladimir Putin is determined to fight al-Qaeda in Syria to strengthen his country’s position in the world to fight terrorism.”

    https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2018/01/22/russia-is-offering-the-us-a-turkish-olive-branch-in-afrin/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. [With Turkey reportedly committing 2 brigades and 72 fighters to the operation, there is nothing that Russia with its tiny police contingent in Afrin could do even if it wanted to, anyway.]

    Aircraft, warships, what are they?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @Brabantian
    This is a significant and painful situation to observe

    Significant because the ultimate impression for the world here, is that the USA is a worthless, betraying, faithless 'friend' or 'ally', who will sell you out and abandon you in a minute, just like they are abandoning the Kurds right now ... As Henry Kissinger once said

    It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal
     
    Not that the USA betraying allies is 'new', but allowing the massacre of Kurds is severely updating the theme, and also giving a poisonous aura to President Trump here as Mr Sell-Out

    The 'logic' of the US pulls entirely in the other direction ... Support the Kurds and protect them, and the USA collectively undermines Syria, the Turks whom the US is arguing with, and also the US' current boogeyman, Iran, given the Kurdish presence in all 3 countries

    It's shocking to me too that there is not more respect for Kurdish self-sovereignty amongst all the 'ethno-nationists' etc ... who tend to fall into the Raevsky-Saker type line of 'well, killing Kurds is part of supporting Russia and Iran and opposing Israel', a little too much Machiavelli there for me

    Kurds were promised their own state 100 years ago, got sold out at Versailles & Lausanne, they are clearly an ethnic group of several tens of millions, living in continuous territory, with their own language and ancient culture, distinct from Iran or Arabs, their nationhood continually sabotaged

    It doesn't matter if Kurds are enmeshed with corruption, Zionist Israel, the drug trade or anything else ... they have a right to self-sovereignty per the UN Charter etc ... Once they have their own state we can then address any mafia activity that extends outside Kurdistan borders

    The one explanation that fits here, as to why the US is allowing the Kurds to be killed and betrayed yet again, is the one that argues that a plan is being implemented to destroy the US as a respected force in the world, as part of the road to implementing a new globalist regime, which people will be led to think is 'progressive' because it will be allegedly 'multi-polar' (and of course 'multi-cultural')

    “It’s shocking to me too that there is not more respect for Kurdish self-sovereignty “

    I don’t have a problem with it, but Turkey, Syria and Iran seem to, and of these the most stroppy seems to be Turkey. Iraq don’t seem too keen either. The trouble is there are too many players who don’t want it, and in the meantime Syria is being trashed as Iraq and Libya were.

    Alas, the Kurds will probably be done over yet again. But think about it, if they established a strong Kurdistan with an effective military, they’d become a target just as Syria and Iran are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Greasy William

    I know you’re trolling
     
    Not this time I'm not.

    Golden Dawn's top issue: Israel.

    Jobbik's top issue: Israel.

    The Saker's top issue: Israel.

    US Paleocon's top issue: Israel.

    Stormfront's top issue: Israel.

    Jean Marie Le Pen's top issue: Israel. (That's why his daughter kicked him out of the party).


    Part of the success of the so called Alt-Right has been ditching the Israel stuff for a return to 1930's style anti Semitism.

    Let's say that you are sympathetic with the Palestinians and Iran, hate Jews, don't want US wars in the middle east and don't want mass immigration to your country but at the same time you don't really care about the Israel conflict and are content to sit back and let the Jews and Muslims kill each other without taking sides. Anybody who feels that way is. not. a. nationalist. If you aren't willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?

    Call it what you want, but it isn't nationalism.

    ...

    As for your claim not to care about the US government shutdown, if it continues you will care. I guess it hasn't blown up over there yet but it will if it lasts.

    US Paleocon’s top issue: Israel.

    The circle assembled around Jeffrey Polet show scant interest in foreign affairs. The v Mises Institute is primarily concerned with promoting crank monetary policy and neo-Confederate historiography. The League of the South’s interests are in its name. Michael Peroutka is a promoter of astringent positive-law oriented conceptions of political economy (and Southern separatism). The Rockford Institute had one associate who took much of an interest in Israel or Jews, and that would be the late Joseph Sorbran. The Howard Center is concerned with social policy. Claes Ryn produces gassy intellectual history. The foreign policy aficionados at The American Conservative have one argument: that the military accomplishes nothing of value; no references to Israel strictly necessary. Pat Buchanan has been known to write about Israel, but Israel is ancillary to his principal interests. Michael Brendan Dougherty is an aesthete; he doesn’t much care for the political world because it takes up time which could be devoted to savoring literature or bourbon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Anatoly Karlin
    1. The Saker is not a nationalist, LOL. His ideology is a peculiar fusion of “anti-imperialist”/”anti-racist” Soviet-Eurasianism and the more obscurantist strains of Orthodoxy.

    2. The US has shutdowns all the time without any significant impacts. Why should this time be different?

    “The US has shutdowns all the time without any significant impacts. Why should this time be different?”

    Because there is a non-trivial probability that Trump and enough Republicans might stick to their guns on the DACA kiddies and Chain migration issues. In the past there was zero probability of Republicans not folding … we may as well call them the French Republicans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @iffen
    If Trump agrees to the DREAM Act, it’s over for him.

    Trump has already agreed to a Dream fix. The question is whether he can extract anything in return.

    There are 49 open borders Democratic Senators plus 7 or 8 open borders Republican ones, throw in 10-12 squishy ones and you are over well over 60. “Our” only hope is Trump and the House immigrant patriots. I’m still counting on Trump because when he was getting the bum rush for open borders he blew it up with his shitholes comment.

    There will be no DREAM Act. Take that shit to the bank.

    There will be a Dream Act within 2 months if not 1.

    If you lose you have to go to Scranton and bang Melissa.

    If the Republicans agree to a DREAM Act, it is game over for them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Rojava is conceptualized as a leftist, egalitarian state and should be crushed for that reason alone. Allowing it to exist will only energize leftist third-worlders and allow it to become a beacon for the western far-left. Note how Antifa fetishizes Rojava, and even fights alongside them.

    Nothing against Kurdish nationalism, but they need to exercise that nationalism under a more legitimate ideology. Westerners may not like Turkey, but this move is a positive one in the global culture wars.

    Read More
    • Agree: Lemurmaniac
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @Yevardian
    Hopefully Erdogan gets Turkey bogged down in a Iraq-tier insurgency and the army turns on him.

    A pox on both their houses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. The humiliation of America is complete.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "The humiliation of America is complete."
     
    Not at all: The problem with the US sticking its nose into the whole world's business in so many aspects of life is that it only makes further defeat and humiliation far more likely. Sad!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Greasy William

    I know you’re trolling
     
    Not this time I'm not.

    Golden Dawn's top issue: Israel.

    Jobbik's top issue: Israel.

    The Saker's top issue: Israel.

    US Paleocon's top issue: Israel.

    Stormfront's top issue: Israel.

    Jean Marie Le Pen's top issue: Israel. (That's why his daughter kicked him out of the party).


    Part of the success of the so called Alt-Right has been ditching the Israel stuff for a return to 1930's style anti Semitism.

    Let's say that you are sympathetic with the Palestinians and Iran, hate Jews, don't want US wars in the middle east and don't want mass immigration to your country but at the same time you don't really care about the Israel conflict and are content to sit back and let the Jews and Muslims kill each other without taking sides. Anybody who feels that way is. not. a. nationalist. If you aren't willing to go to mat to protect the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians, then what is even the point of nationalism?

    Call it what you want, but it isn't nationalism.

    ...

    As for your claim not to care about the US government shutdown, if it continues you will care. I guess it hasn't blown up over there yet but it will if it lasts.

    you should read this

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/the-cause-of-the-peoples/

    a nationalist has only one cause: his own people, and the civilization from which they spring.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Greasy William
    Iranians are, without question, the weirdest, most diverse group of people on the planet. A nation of Nazis with a sizeable philo Semitic, gay pride parade wanting, minority.

    The only common interests I see between Jews and Iranians is that both peoples are weird, internally divided and obnoxious. I don't see that as the basis for an alliance.

    But interesting none the less. Thanks for showing this.


    I wonder what he thinks about Iran potentially re aligning with the US.

    how are they ‘Nazis’? And if they were, why should gentiles care?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    And if they were, why should gentiles care?
     
    They shouldn't.

    If a Jew hates Iranians, that means that he is a righteous man. If a gentile hates Iranians, on the other hand, he is probably mentally ill (although an Iraqi Sunni might get a pass).

    ...

    Modern Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Brits, etc are all descended from the peoples of the near east. Just because Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians are Muslims doesn't make them any less white. True nationalism is about Palestine/Iran, anything else is just standard right wing fare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Zionist comment software not rendering new comments so I’m posting this so I can see them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Lemurmaniac
    how are they 'Nazis'? And if they were, why should gentiles care?

    And if they were, why should gentiles care?

    They shouldn’t.

    If a Jew hates Iranians, that means that he is a righteous man. If a gentile hates Iranians, on the other hand, he is probably mentally ill (although an Iraqi Sunni might get a pass).

    Modern Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Brits, etc are all descended from the peoples of the near east. Just because Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians are Muslims doesn’t make them any less white. True nationalism is about Palestine/Iran, anything else is just standard right wing fare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Sean
    The humiliation of America is complete.

    “The humiliation of America is complete.”

    Not at all: The problem with the US sticking its nose into the whole world’s business in so many aspects of life is that it only makes further defeat and humiliation far more likely. Sad!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Humiliation comes with being cowed and thus conquered without fighting

    Scheler


    War throws out the terrible tensions of hatred, jealousy, anger, revenge, fury and disgust - feelings that in peacetimes are suppressed into the deeper strata of the soul - and thus war reestablishes the precondition for a truer mutual respect and sympathy among nations. In this way, war constitutes a psychotherapy of nations
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Modern Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Brits, etc are all descended from the peoples of the near east.

    ??? Clarify your thoughts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Where do you think European peoples came from? Did they just sprout out of the ground like pumpkins?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @melanf

    Modern Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Brits, etc are all descended from the peoples of the near east.
     
    ??? Clarify your thoughts?

    Where do you think European peoples came from? Did they just sprout out of the ground like pumpkins?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    First farmers (the people who largely pushed away earlier hunter-gatherers and spread to much of Europe before the coming of the Indo-Europeans, and still are the source of much of the ancestry of Southern Europeans) did come from the Near East, but it's by no means clear or even likely that they were closely related to present-day Arabs. They probably were a group that doesn't exist in pure form anymore, with even their language having disappeared (maybe Basque is the only survivor).
    Indo-Europeans came from the steppe.
    If you go back far enough, we all come from Africa...I don't think you believe that means nationalists should work for a Black planet...
    , @melanf

    Where do you think European peoples came from? Did they just sprout out of the ground like pumpkins?
     
    Of course Homo sapiens came to Europe from Africa through the middle East. While the indigenous population of Europe disappeared several times because of the migrants (first cromagnons wiped out the natives of Europe neanderthalensis, then Neolithic migrants from the middle East wiped out the cromagnons). But, as far as I know, the peoples of Northern Europe (Scandinavians, Finns, Balts, Northern Slavs) descendants of more ancient (Paleolithic) population of Europe (its "old" immigrants from Asia), and the rest Europeans - the descendants of "recent" Neolithic migrants from the Middle East.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Greasy William
    Where do you think European peoples came from? Did they just sprout out of the ground like pumpkins?

    First farmers (the people who largely pushed away earlier hunter-gatherers and spread to much of Europe before the coming of the Indo-Europeans, and still are the source of much of the ancestry of Southern Europeans) did come from the Near East, but it’s by no means clear or even likely that they were closely related to present-day Arabs. They probably were a group that doesn’t exist in pure form anymore, with even their language having disappeared (maybe Basque is the only survivor).
    Indo-Europeans came from the steppe.
    If you go back far enough, we all come from Africa…I don’t think you believe that means nationalists should work for a Black planet…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Well I don't believe that human beings originated in Africa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @German_reader
    First farmers (the people who largely pushed away earlier hunter-gatherers and spread to much of Europe before the coming of the Indo-Europeans, and still are the source of much of the ancestry of Southern Europeans) did come from the Near East, but it's by no means clear or even likely that they were closely related to present-day Arabs. They probably were a group that doesn't exist in pure form anymore, with even their language having disappeared (maybe Basque is the only survivor).
    Indo-Europeans came from the steppe.
    If you go back far enough, we all come from Africa...I don't think you believe that means nationalists should work for a Black planet...

    Well I don’t believe that human beings originated in Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Why not?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Greasy William
    Well I don't believe that human beings originated in Africa.

    Why not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    The Torah says that people originated in what is today Iran (yeah I know how ironic that is). My understanding is that the theory that people emerged from Africa is based on the fact that Africa has the most genetic diversity of anywhere in the world. I'm willing to change my opinion but I'm gonna need a lot more than just "Africans are the most genetically diverse, so humans originated of Africa".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @German_reader
    Why not?

    The Torah says that people originated in what is today Iran (yeah I know how ironic that is). My understanding is that the theory that people emerged from Africa is based on the fact that Africa has the most genetic diversity of anywhere in the world. I’m willing to change my opinion but I’m gonna need a lot more than just “Africans are the most genetically diverse, so humans originated of Africa”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Too difficult to pin down, things keep changing as more stuff gets dug up:
    “Skull found in China could re-write 'out of Africa' theory of human evolution”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/evolution-theory-out-of-africa-dali-skull-china-homo-erectus-sapiens-latest-a8064306.html

    One skeleton is literally all it takes to throw things out of whack - if they discover some really old bone fragments in a cave in South America, they will have to revise current theories.

    Watching with popcorn in hand...

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Greasy William
    The Torah says that people originated in what is today Iran (yeah I know how ironic that is). My understanding is that the theory that people emerged from Africa is based on the fact that Africa has the most genetic diversity of anywhere in the world. I'm willing to change my opinion but I'm gonna need a lot more than just "Africans are the most genetically diverse, so humans originated of Africa".

    Too difficult to pin down, things keep changing as more stuff gets dug up:
    “Skull found in China could re-write ‘out of Africa’ theory of human evolution”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/evolution-theory-out-of-africa-dali-skull-china-homo-erectus-sapiens-latest-a8064306.html

    One skeleton is literally all it takes to throw things out of whack – if they discover some really old bone fragments in a cave in South America, they will have to revise current theories.

    Watching with popcorn in hand…

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Greasy William
    Where do you think European peoples came from? Did they just sprout out of the ground like pumpkins?

    Where do you think European peoples came from? Did they just sprout out of the ground like pumpkins?

    Of course Homo sapiens came to Europe from Africa through the middle East. While the indigenous population of Europe disappeared several times because of the migrants (first cromagnons wiped out the natives of Europe neanderthalensis, then Neolithic migrants from the middle East wiped out the cromagnons). But, as far as I know, the peoples of Northern Europe (Scandinavians, Finns, Balts, Northern Slavs) descendants of more ancient (Paleolithic) population of Europe (its “old” immigrants from Asia), and the rest Europeans – the descendants of “recent” Neolithic migrants from the Middle East.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    But, as far as I know, the peoples of Northern Europe (Scandinavians, Finns, Balts, Northern Slavs) descendants of more ancient (Paleolithic) population of Europe (its “old” immigrants from Asia), and the rest Europeans – the descendants of “recent” Neolithic migrants from the Middle East.
     
    If I understand correctly current model is like this:
    - first there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).
    - Then came the first farmers from the Near East who looked very different from the hunter-gatherers (much lighter skin) and who due to their greater numbers (made possible by agriculture) spread over much of the continent, marginalized the hunter-gatherers and coexisted with them for hundreds, even thousands of years. Probably there was a lot of conflict, with remnants of the hunter-gatherers surviving in marginal and somewhat remote locations.
    - Then, 4000 to 5000 years ago, the Indo-Europeans (a mixture of several different lineages, including some with affinity to the European hunter-gatherers) came from the steppe and rolled over the first farmers. Their genetic impact in Northern Europe was quite strong, though even there the first farmers weren't wiped out completely (Indo-European males apparently took wives/concubines from the conquered populations, and at least regarding the Germanic languages/mythology there have long been theories about pre-Indo-European substrate). Their impact was less in Southern Europe, though even there they changed the languages to Indo-European ones, apart from Basque (though ancient Greek has a very significant number of words of apparently pre-Indo-European origin, and non-Indo-European populations seem to have survived even into historic times).

    (obviously this is considerably simplified, I'm an ignorant layman about the details of those issues).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @melanf

    Where do you think European peoples came from? Did they just sprout out of the ground like pumpkins?
     
    Of course Homo sapiens came to Europe from Africa through the middle East. While the indigenous population of Europe disappeared several times because of the migrants (first cromagnons wiped out the natives of Europe neanderthalensis, then Neolithic migrants from the middle East wiped out the cromagnons). But, as far as I know, the peoples of Northern Europe (Scandinavians, Finns, Balts, Northern Slavs) descendants of more ancient (Paleolithic) population of Europe (its "old" immigrants from Asia), and the rest Europeans - the descendants of "recent" Neolithic migrants from the Middle East.

    But, as far as I know, the peoples of Northern Europe (Scandinavians, Finns, Balts, Northern Slavs) descendants of more ancient (Paleolithic) population of Europe (its “old” immigrants from Asia), and the rest Europeans – the descendants of “recent” Neolithic migrants from the Middle East.

    If I understand correctly current model is like this:
    - first there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).
    - Then came the first farmers from the Near East who looked very different from the hunter-gatherers (much lighter skin) and who due to their greater numbers (made possible by agriculture) spread over much of the continent, marginalized the hunter-gatherers and coexisted with them for hundreds, even thousands of years. Probably there was a lot of conflict, with remnants of the hunter-gatherers surviving in marginal and somewhat remote locations.
    - Then, 4000 to 5000 years ago, the Indo-Europeans (a mixture of several different lineages, including some with affinity to the European hunter-gatherers) came from the steppe and rolled over the first farmers. Their genetic impact in Northern Europe was quite strong, though even there the first farmers weren’t wiped out completely (Indo-European males apparently took wives/concubines from the conquered populations, and at least regarding the Germanic languages/mythology there have long been theories about pre-Indo-European substrate). Their impact was less in Southern Europe, though even there they changed the languages to Indo-European ones, apart from Basque (though ancient Greek has a very significant number of words of apparently pre-Indo-European origin, and non-Indo-European populations seem to have survived even into historic times).

    (obviously this is considerably simplified, I’m an ignorant layman about the details of those issues).

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    first there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).

    Blue eyes seems to be more recent: "It appears that a genetic mutation in a single individual in Europe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago led to the development of blue eyes, according to researchers at the University of Copenhagen."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. If I understand correctly current model is like this:
    - first there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).

    The cromagnons (the first modern humans in Europe) were descendants of migrants from the tropics, but for tens of thousands of years of living in the North of Eurasia, their skin no doubt was supposed to be light ( light skin adaptation for life at high latitudes).

    The cromagnons do not belong to any modern race, but have the greatest resemblance to the Northern Europeans (most likely Northern Europeans more than the others inherited the genes of the CRO-magnons)

    Here the cromagnons of Paleolithic settlement of Sungir (skin color and hair of course speculation, but the facial features are quite reliable)

    http://www.proza.ru/pics/2009/05/21/141.jp

    .

    Then came the first farmers from the Near East .. and who due to their greater numbers (made possible by agriculture) spread over much of the continent

    As far as I know, these migrants wiped out the population of the South and the “middle” of Europe. In the North of Europe the descendants of the old hunters survived (successfully learning agriculture)

    Indo-Europeans (a mixture of several different lineages, including some with affinity to the European hunter-gatherers) came from the steppe

    Common Indo-European words (beech, beaver, etc.) have more forest origin?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Actually, the first modern human population in Europe were similar to Asians, but mixed extensively with Neanderthals (they were something like 8% Neanderthal). These people were basically wiped out by later waves of settlers who arrived from the middle east and Asia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @German_reader

    But, as far as I know, the peoples of Northern Europe (Scandinavians, Finns, Balts, Northern Slavs) descendants of more ancient (Paleolithic) population of Europe (its “old” immigrants from Asia), and the rest Europeans – the descendants of “recent” Neolithic migrants from the Middle East.
     
    If I understand correctly current model is like this:
    - first there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).
    - Then came the first farmers from the Near East who looked very different from the hunter-gatherers (much lighter skin) and who due to their greater numbers (made possible by agriculture) spread over much of the continent, marginalized the hunter-gatherers and coexisted with them for hundreds, even thousands of years. Probably there was a lot of conflict, with remnants of the hunter-gatherers surviving in marginal and somewhat remote locations.
    - Then, 4000 to 5000 years ago, the Indo-Europeans (a mixture of several different lineages, including some with affinity to the European hunter-gatherers) came from the steppe and rolled over the first farmers. Their genetic impact in Northern Europe was quite strong, though even there the first farmers weren't wiped out completely (Indo-European males apparently took wives/concubines from the conquered populations, and at least regarding the Germanic languages/mythology there have long been theories about pre-Indo-European substrate). Their impact was less in Southern Europe, though even there they changed the languages to Indo-European ones, apart from Basque (though ancient Greek has a very significant number of words of apparently pre-Indo-European origin, and non-Indo-European populations seem to have survived even into historic times).

    (obviously this is considerably simplified, I'm an ignorant layman about the details of those issues).

    first there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).

    Blue eyes seems to be more recent: “It appears that a genetic mutation in a single individual in Europe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago led to the development of blue eyes, according to researchers at the University of Copenhagen.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    irst there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).
    Blue eyes seems to be more recent: “It appears that a genetic mutation in a single individual in Europe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago led to the development of blue eyes, according to researchers at the University of Copenhagen.”
     
    Neanderthals (at least part) had blue eyes and red hair. Paleolithic Homo sapiens in Europe have had an admixture of Neanderthal genes, so they could have a "Neanderthal" blue eyes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @for-the-record
    first there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).

    Blue eyes seems to be more recent: "It appears that a genetic mutation in a single individual in Europe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago led to the development of blue eyes, according to researchers at the University of Copenhagen."

    irst there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).
    Blue eyes seems to be more recent: “It appears that a genetic mutation in a single individual in Europe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago led to the development of blue eyes, according to researchers at the University of Copenhagen.”

    Neanderthals (at least part) had blue eyes and red hair. Paleolithic Homo sapiens in Europe have had an admixture of Neanderthal genes, so they could have a “Neanderthal” blue eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    It was likely a different mutation than the Neanderthal one. For example some Africans can drink milk as adults, like Europeans - but the mutation is a different one, they are not related.

    Modern Europeans get their Neanderthal descent from the Middle East when modern humans first encountered Neanderthals soon after leaving Africa, and share this with modern Asians. There is little to none descent from European Neanderthals among modern Europeans, because modern Europeans arrived much later to Europe and wiped out the modern humans who had settled there earlier.
    , @Sean
    Europeans were not white until long after the Cro magnons had vanished


    Neanderthals had brownish coats, they were furry as bears. One of the genes for red hair appears to be from Neanderthals. Obviously Neanderthals were pale skinned under their coat of fur, but most modern Europeans are not as pale as a redhead, the main light skin gene variants are SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 which certainly didn't come from Neanderthals.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @melanf

    If I understand correctly current model is like this:
    - first there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).
     
    The cromagnons (the first modern humans in Europe) were descendants of migrants from the tropics, but for tens of thousands of years of living in the North of Eurasia, their skin no doubt was supposed to be light ( light skin adaptation for life at high latitudes).

    The cromagnons do not belong to any modern race, but have the greatest resemblance to the Northern Europeans (most likely Northern Europeans more than the others inherited the genes of the CRO-magnons)

    Here the cromagnons of Paleolithic settlement of Sungir (skin color and hair of course speculation, but the facial features are quite reliable)

    http://www.proza.ru/pics/2009/05/21/141.jp
    .
    https://ds04.infourok.ru/uploads/ex/0d35/000a6d74-eae95808/img8.jpg


    Then came the first farmers from the Near East .. and who due to their greater numbers (made possible by agriculture) spread over much of the continent

     

    As far as I know, these migrants wiped out the population of the South and the "middle" of Europe. In the North of Europe the descendants of the old hunters survived (successfully learning agriculture)

    Indo-Europeans (a mixture of several different lineages, including some with affinity to the European hunter-gatherers) came from the steppe
     
    Common Indo-European words (beech, beaver, etc.) have more forest origin?

    Actually, the first modern human population in Europe were similar to Asians, but mixed extensively with Neanderthals (they were something like 8% Neanderthal). These people were basically wiped out by later waves of settlers who arrived from the middle east and Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Actually, the first modern human population in Europe were similar to Asians
     
    The above reconstruction of the children from sungir. Here's another: tribal chief (?) from sungir

    https://ksv.ru/Исследуем/Чужое/Интересно/War_of_the_Worlds/PIC/270.jpg

    Here the evil sorcerer (?) from sungir

    http://antropogenez.ru/uploads/pics/6a.jpg

    Here is a hunter of mammoths from Kostenki 1

    http://photofile.ru/photo/t1001/115492821/large/131740419.jpg

    Here is hardcore CRO-magnon man from France

    http://photofile.ru/photo/t1001/115492955/large/131746131.jpg

    It is clearly seen that the greatest similarities these people have with modern Europeans.

    , @AP
    To expand on this:

    https://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_european_dna.shtml

    The earliest modern humans in Europe, who displaced the Neanderthals and bred with them (they were 8% Neanderthal) showed the following Y-chromosomes haplogorups: CT, C1a, C1b, I. While I is found in modern Europe, the others are found primarily in modern northern China, Japan, India, and other areas outside Europe.

    So basically those original modern humans in Europe were dark-skinned mostly proto-Asians, with a lot of Neanderthal ancestry.

    Picture of likely ice age European:

    https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/560B/production/_89472022_c0208178-early_human,_stone_age_culture-spl-1.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @melanf

    irst there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).
    Blue eyes seems to be more recent: “It appears that a genetic mutation in a single individual in Europe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago led to the development of blue eyes, according to researchers at the University of Copenhagen.”
     
    Neanderthals (at least part) had blue eyes and red hair. Paleolithic Homo sapiens in Europe have had an admixture of Neanderthal genes, so they could have a "Neanderthal" blue eyes.

    It was likely a different mutation than the Neanderthal one. For example some Africans can drink milk as adults, like Europeans – but the mutation is a different one, they are not related.

    Modern Europeans get their Neanderthal descent from the Middle East when modern humans first encountered Neanderthals soon after leaving Africa, and share this with modern Asians. There is little to none descent from European Neanderthals among modern Europeans, because modern Europeans arrived much later to Europe and wiped out the modern humans who had settled there earlier.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @melanf

    irst there were hunter-gatherers in Europe, like everywhere else (iirc they were relatively dark-skinned, but supposedly at least some had blue eyes).
    Blue eyes seems to be more recent: “It appears that a genetic mutation in a single individual in Europe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago led to the development of blue eyes, according to researchers at the University of Copenhagen.”
     
    Neanderthals (at least part) had blue eyes and red hair. Paleolithic Homo sapiens in Europe have had an admixture of Neanderthal genes, so they could have a "Neanderthal" blue eyes.

    Europeans were not white until long after the Cro magnons had vanished

    Neanderthals had brownish coats, they were furry as bears. One of the genes for red hair appears to be from Neanderthals. Obviously Neanderthals were pale skinned under their coat of fur, but most modern Europeans are not as pale as a redhead, the main light skin gene variants are SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 which certainly didn’t come from Neanderthals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @AP
    Actually, the first modern human population in Europe were similar to Asians, but mixed extensively with Neanderthals (they were something like 8% Neanderthal). These people were basically wiped out by later waves of settlers who arrived from the middle east and Asia.

    Actually, the first modern human population in Europe were similar to Asians

    The above reconstruction of the children from sungir. Here’s another: tribal chief (?) from sungir

    Here the evil sorcerer (?) from sungir

    Here is a hunter of mammoths from Kostenki 1

    Here is hardcore CRO-magnon man from France

    It is clearly seen that the greatest similarities these people have with modern Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I don't know when your reconstructions were made, but DNA indicates a mostly proto-Asian mix, plus large Neanderthal contribution. Also I was discussing western Europe, not Sungir which is 200 km east of Moscow.

    Speaking of Sungir, this reconstruction doesn't look very European:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungir#/media/File:%D0%AE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B0_%D0%B8%D0%B7_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B5_%D0%A1%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8C..jpg

    Here is a reconstruction of a 35,000 year old skull from Romania:

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01396/The_first_modern_1396404f.jpg

    , @AP
    More modern reconstructions of Sungir indicate mostly Asian appearance:

    http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/fall-2017/article/30-000-year-old-sungir-homo-sapiens-visualized-for-the-first-time-in-3-d-virtual-reality
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @AP
    Actually, the first modern human population in Europe were similar to Asians, but mixed extensively with Neanderthals (they were something like 8% Neanderthal). These people were basically wiped out by later waves of settlers who arrived from the middle east and Asia.

    To expand on this:

    https://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_european_dna.shtml

    The earliest modern humans in Europe, who displaced the Neanderthals and bred with them (they were 8% Neanderthal) showed the following Y-chromosomes haplogorups: CT, C1a, C1b, I. While I is found in modern Europe, the others are found primarily in modern northern China, Japan, India, and other areas outside Europe.

    So basically those original modern humans in Europe were dark-skinned mostly proto-Asians, with a lot of Neanderthal ancestry.

    Picture of likely ice age European:

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    To expand on this:....
     
    Upper Paleolithic hunters of Europe anthropologically (by the shape of the skull) had the greatest similarity with modern Europeans - this is the answer (to my question) of anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky, who is a specialist in this area.
    If you want, here's the review in Russian http://antropogenez.ru/quote/671/

    With regard to the gene "DNA, extracted of the bones of the hunter from Kostenki, was quite "European" and even similar to the Italian"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @melanf

    Actually, the first modern human population in Europe were similar to Asians
     
    The above reconstruction of the children from sungir. Here's another: tribal chief (?) from sungir

    https://ksv.ru/Исследуем/Чужое/Интересно/War_of_the_Worlds/PIC/270.jpg

    Here the evil sorcerer (?) from sungir

    http://antropogenez.ru/uploads/pics/6a.jpg

    Here is a hunter of mammoths from Kostenki 1

    http://photofile.ru/photo/t1001/115492821/large/131740419.jpg

    Here is hardcore CRO-magnon man from France

    http://photofile.ru/photo/t1001/115492955/large/131746131.jpg

    It is clearly seen that the greatest similarities these people have with modern Europeans.

    I don’t know when your reconstructions were made, but DNA indicates a mostly proto-Asian mix, plus large Neanderthal contribution. Also I was discussing western Europe, not Sungir which is 200 km east of Moscow.

    Speaking of Sungir, this reconstruction doesn’t look very European:

    Here is a reconstruction of a 35,000 year old skull from Romania:

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    I don’t know when your reconstructions were made
     
    This is a reconstruction of Mikhail Gerasimov (creator of the method of reconstruction by the skull). These reconstruction is the best in its class.

    original modern humans in Europe were dark-skinned
     
    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists). That is, upper Paleolithic hunters in Europe had light skin.

    Here is a reconstruction of a 35,000 year old skull from Romania:
     
    In my opinion, this "reconstruction" - a degenerative cross between an Orc and an African, a tribute not science, but to political correctness

    Also I was discussing western Europe, not Sungir which is 200 km east of Moscow.
     
    "Western" hunters of mammoths looked similar
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @melanf

    Actually, the first modern human population in Europe were similar to Asians
     
    The above reconstruction of the children from sungir. Here's another: tribal chief (?) from sungir

    https://ksv.ru/Исследуем/Чужое/Интересно/War_of_the_Worlds/PIC/270.jpg

    Here the evil sorcerer (?) from sungir

    http://antropogenez.ru/uploads/pics/6a.jpg

    Here is a hunter of mammoths from Kostenki 1

    http://photofile.ru/photo/t1001/115492821/large/131740419.jpg

    Here is hardcore CRO-magnon man from France

    http://photofile.ru/photo/t1001/115492955/large/131746131.jpg

    It is clearly seen that the greatest similarities these people have with modern Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    More modern reconstructions of Sungir indicate mostly Asian appearance:
    http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/fall-2017/article/30-000-year-old-sungir-homo-sapiens-visualized-for-the-first-time-in-3-d-virtual-reality
     
    Quote from your link:

    "Visual Science and the RAS Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, with support from the All-Russian Science Festival "Nauka 0+", have reconstructed the faces of the Sungir people—Homo sapiens who lived 30,000 years ago in Central Russia and are believed to be ancestors of today's Northern and Eastern Europeans."

    The reconstruction itself:
    https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4482/37301583890_9658d2131b_b.jpg

    the boy is a little bit like an American Indian, but the girl has European facial features.

    However I think, the old reconstruction of these children (by Mikhail Gerasimov) is better

    http://antropogenez.ru/uploads/pics/7b.jpg http://antropogenez.ru/uploads/pics/8c.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @AP
    To expand on this:

    https://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_european_dna.shtml

    The earliest modern humans in Europe, who displaced the Neanderthals and bred with them (they were 8% Neanderthal) showed the following Y-chromosomes haplogorups: CT, C1a, C1b, I. While I is found in modern Europe, the others are found primarily in modern northern China, Japan, India, and other areas outside Europe.

    So basically those original modern humans in Europe were dark-skinned mostly proto-Asians, with a lot of Neanderthal ancestry.

    Picture of likely ice age European:

    https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/560B/production/_89472022_c0208178-early_human,_stone_age_culture-spl-1.jpg

    To expand on this:….

    Upper Paleolithic hunters of Europe anthropologically (by the shape of the skull) had the greatest similarity with modern Europeans – this is the answer (to my question) of anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky, who is a specialist in this area.
    If you want, here’s the review in Russian http://antropogenez.ru/quote/671/

    With regard to the gene “DNA, extracted of the bones of the hunter from Kostenki, was quite “European” and even similar to the Italian

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    Upper Paleolithic hunters of Europe anthropologically (by the shape of the skull) had the greatest similarity with modern Europeans – this is the answer (to my question) of anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky, who is a specialist in this area.
    If you want, here’s the review in Russian http://antropogenez.ru/quote/671/
     
    I don't think the gigantic thick walled original Cromagnon skulls look like any modern Europeans. Starting in the Magdalenian era that coincides with the last glacial maximum, skulls of Europe look more like modern Europeans and that period has the first known impacted wisdom tooth(a product of reduction in size and less masculine looks). The similarity between last glacial maximum people and modern Europeans was due something other than descent-- a parallel selection pressure operating in last Ice age, and much later during replacement of the Neolithic population .

    In the highly patriarchal society in which 60% of Europeans descended from 3 Bronze age men, the selection for hair and eye colour and delicate features was probably on women. The Motala skulls'* DNA from 8000 years ago shows they had the beginnings of modern Swedish colouring . They were definitely not the ancestors of modern European though they sort of* looked like them. Parallel selection pressure is the only explanation that makes sense to me.

    * Apart from being not uniformly and completely white, Motala people had the east Asian EDAR mutation which gives a heavy (masculine looking) jaw http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2332785/Dangerous-double-jaw-surgery-rise-South-Korea-women-encouraged-face-risks-bone-cutting-procedure-beauty.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @AP
    I don't know when your reconstructions were made, but DNA indicates a mostly proto-Asian mix, plus large Neanderthal contribution. Also I was discussing western Europe, not Sungir which is 200 km east of Moscow.

    Speaking of Sungir, this reconstruction doesn't look very European:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungir#/media/File:%D0%AE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B0_%D0%B8%D0%B7_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B5_%D0%A1%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8C..jpg

    Here is a reconstruction of a 35,000 year old skull from Romania:

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01396/The_first_modern_1396404f.jpg

    I don’t know when your reconstructions were made

    This is a reconstruction of Mikhail Gerasimov (creator of the method of reconstruction by the skull). These reconstruction is the best in its class.

    original modern humans in Europe were dark-skinned

    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists). That is, upper Paleolithic hunters in Europe had light skin.

    Here is a reconstruction of a 35,000 year old skull from Romania:

    In my opinion, this “reconstruction” – a degenerative cross between an Orc and an African, a tribute not science, but to political correctness

    Also I was discussing western Europe, not Sungir which is 200 km east of Moscow.

    “Western” hunters of mammoths looked similar

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    There were media reports about European hunter-gatherers probably having been dark-skinned a few years ago, when they analyzed the DNA of the remains of one such hunter-gatherer found in Spain (from about 7000 years ago). I don't have time (or tbh inclination) to do much googling about this now, but look at this post from Razib Khan:
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/european-hunter-gatherers-blue-eyes-and-dark-skin/
    , @AP

    This is a reconstruction of Mikhail Gerasimov (creator of the method of reconstruction by the skull). These reconstruction is the best in its class.
     
    They are from 50 years ago and are obsolete.

    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists).
     
    Correct. But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe - 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future. And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Europeans were not white until long after the Cro magnons had vanished
    Neanderthals had brownish coats, they were furry as bears.

    Where did you get such amazing information? But unfortunately the scientists had different ideas

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @melanf

    I don’t know when your reconstructions were made
     
    This is a reconstruction of Mikhail Gerasimov (creator of the method of reconstruction by the skull). These reconstruction is the best in its class.

    original modern humans in Europe were dark-skinned
     
    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists). That is, upper Paleolithic hunters in Europe had light skin.

    Here is a reconstruction of a 35,000 year old skull from Romania:
     
    In my opinion, this "reconstruction" - a degenerative cross between an Orc and an African, a tribute not science, but to political correctness

    Also I was discussing western Europe, not Sungir which is 200 km east of Moscow.
     
    "Western" hunters of mammoths looked similar

    There were media reports about European hunter-gatherers probably having been dark-skinned a few years ago, when they analyzed the DNA of the remains of one such hunter-gatherer found in Spain (from about 7000 years ago). I don’t have time (or tbh inclination) to do much googling about this now, but look at this post from Razib Khan:

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/european-hunter-gatherers-blue-eyes-and-dark-skin/

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    There were media reports about European hunter-gatherers probably having been dark-skinned a few years ago, when they analyzed the DNA of the remains of one such hunter-gatherer found in Spain (from about 7000 years ago).
     
    For Spain 7,000 years ago (when the climate was warmer than today), it is likely the existence of the dark skin population. But there is a very good reason to believe that the population of Europe during the ice age, had light skin. At high latitudes, dark-skinned hunters just can't survive.

    It should also be remembered that Europe in the late Paleolithic era, was inhabited by tribes very different from each other (in fact, the representatives of different Paleolithic races)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @AP
    More modern reconstructions of Sungir indicate mostly Asian appearance:

    http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/fall-2017/article/30-000-year-old-sungir-homo-sapiens-visualized-for-the-first-time-in-3-d-virtual-reality

    More modern reconstructions of Sungir indicate mostly Asian appearance:

    http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/fall-2017/article/30-000-year-old-sungir-homo-sapiens-visualized-for-the-first-time-in-3-d-virtual-reality

    Quote from your link:

    Visual Science and the RAS Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, with support from the All-Russian Science Festival “Nauka 0+”, have reconstructed the faces of the Sungir people—Homo sapiens who lived 30,000 years ago in Central Russia and are believed to be ancestors of today’s Northern and Eastern Europeans.”

    The reconstruction itself:

    the boy is a little bit like an American Indian, but the girl has European facial features.

    However I think, the old reconstruction of these children (by Mikhail Gerasimov) is better

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @melanf

    To expand on this:....
     
    Upper Paleolithic hunters of Europe anthropologically (by the shape of the skull) had the greatest similarity with modern Europeans - this is the answer (to my question) of anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky, who is a specialist in this area.
    If you want, here's the review in Russian http://antropogenez.ru/quote/671/

    With regard to the gene "DNA, extracted of the bones of the hunter from Kostenki, was quite "European" and even similar to the Italian"

    Upper Paleolithic hunters of Europe anthropologically (by the shape of the skull) had the greatest similarity with modern Europeans – this is the answer (to my question) of anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky, who is a specialist in this area.
    If you want, here’s the review in Russian http://antropogenez.ru/quote/671/

    I don’t think the gigantic thick walled original Cromagnon skulls look like any modern Europeans. Starting in the Magdalenian era that coincides with the last glacial maximum, skulls of Europe look more like modern Europeans and that period has the first known impacted wisdom tooth(a product of reduction in size and less masculine looks). The similarity between last glacial maximum people and modern Europeans was due something other than descent– a parallel selection pressure operating in last Ice age, and much later during replacement of the Neolithic population .

    In the highly patriarchal society in which 60% of Europeans descended from 3 Bronze age men, the selection for hair and eye colour and delicate features was probably on women. The Motala skulls’* DNA from 8000 years ago shows they had the beginnings of modern Swedish colouring . They were definitely not the ancestors of modern European though they sort of* looked like them. Parallel selection pressure is the only explanation that makes sense to me.

    * Apart from being not uniformly and completely white, Motala people had the east Asian EDAR mutation which gives a heavy (masculine looking) jaw http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2332785/Dangerous-double-jaw-surgery-rise-South-Korea-women-encouraged-face-risks-bone-cutting-procedure-beauty.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @German_reader
    There were media reports about European hunter-gatherers probably having been dark-skinned a few years ago, when they analyzed the DNA of the remains of one such hunter-gatherer found in Spain (from about 7000 years ago). I don't have time (or tbh inclination) to do much googling about this now, but look at this post from Razib Khan:
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/european-hunter-gatherers-blue-eyes-and-dark-skin/

    There were media reports about European hunter-gatherers probably having been dark-skinned a few years ago, when they analyzed the DNA of the remains of one such hunter-gatherer found in Spain (from about 7000 years ago).

    For Spain 7,000 years ago (when the climate was warmer than today), it is likely the existence of the dark skin population. But there is a very good reason to believe that the population of Europe during the ice age, had light skin. At high latitudes, dark-skinned hunters just can’t survive.

    It should also be remembered that Europe in the late Paleolithic era, was inhabited by tribes very different from each other (in fact, the representatives of different Paleolithic races)

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    No one lived at high latitudes during the ice age - that land was covered by ice. Tundra hunters of the time lived much further south. Yes, the climate down south was colder then; but these areas were getting the same exact amount of sunshine they do now. This point is often forgotten.

    This doesn't mean that those people were dark like Africans. (African-level black skin was apparently a relatively recent development, too.) Most likely they were some shade of brown.
    , @AP

    But there is a very good reason to believe that the population of Europe during the ice age, had light skin. At high latitudes, dark-skinned hunters just can’t survive.
     
    Light skin is not needed by hunter-gatherers in northern regions, because they get plenty of Vitamin D from their prey. Agricultural people in northern climates need light skin more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @melanf

    There were media reports about European hunter-gatherers probably having been dark-skinned a few years ago, when they analyzed the DNA of the remains of one such hunter-gatherer found in Spain (from about 7000 years ago).
     
    For Spain 7,000 years ago (when the climate was warmer than today), it is likely the existence of the dark skin population. But there is a very good reason to believe that the population of Europe during the ice age, had light skin. At high latitudes, dark-skinned hunters just can't survive.

    It should also be remembered that Europe in the late Paleolithic era, was inhabited by tribes very different from each other (in fact, the representatives of different Paleolithic races)

    No one lived at high latitudes during the ice age – that land was covered by ice. Tundra hunters of the time lived much further south. Yes, the climate down south was colder then; but these areas were getting the same exact amount of sunshine they do now. This point is often forgotten.

    This doesn’t mean that those people were dark like Africans. (African-level black skin was apparently a relatively recent development, too.) Most likely they were some shade of brown.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    No one lived at high latitudes during the ice age – that land was covered by ice. Tundra hunters of the time lived much further south. Yes, the climate down south was colder then; but these areas were getting the same exact amount of sunshine they do now. This point is often forgotten.
    This doesn’t mean that those people were dark like Africans. (African-level black skin was apparently a relatively recent development, too.) Most likely they were some shade of brown.
     
    Sungir - Paleolithic settlement in the city of Vladimir (not far from Moscow). This is a fairly high latitude. Mammoth hunters of Sungir wore clothes similar to the clothes of the natives of Siberia (is known by the burials) because the climate was very cold (i.e. most of the year the Sungir hunters were sheltered from the sun by thick clothes). In these circumstances it was necessary for them to have light skin like Europeans or aboriginal peoples of Siberia (who live on the same latitude as sungir or even further South).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @The Alarmist

    "The humiliation of America is complete."
     
    Not at all: The problem with the US sticking its nose into the whole world's business in so many aspects of life is that it only makes further defeat and humiliation far more likely. Sad!

    Humiliation comes with being cowed and thus conquered without fighting

    Scheler

    War throws out the terrible tensions of hatred, jealousy, anger, revenge, fury and disgust – feelings that in peacetimes are suppressed into the deeper strata of the soul – and thus war reestablishes the precondition for a truer mutual respect and sympathy among nations. In this way, war constitutes a psychotherapy of nations

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    War throws out the terrible tensions of hatred, jealousy, anger, revenge, fury and disgust – feelings that in peacetimes are suppressed into the deeper strata of the soul – and thus war reestablishes the precondition for a truer mutual respect and sympathy among nations. In this way, war constitutes a psychotherapy of nations
     
    Interesting idea.

    Looks like, then, that more psychologically unbalanced a nation is more likely is it will get into wars.
    Or....a good way to see the level of psychological unbalance a nation has just take a look at its war history.
    Or....take a look at how a nation leadership and elites behave and you'll be able to see a war coming or not.

    Makes you think......or, better, makes you realize what's going to happen sooner than later a?

    I think it's not that simple though. Important part is also how that nation wages a war.
    Level of destruction, level of atrocities, especially against non-combatants, level of oppression of own populace not for war etc.

    In any case, an interesting thought.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @inertial
    No one lived at high latitudes during the ice age - that land was covered by ice. Tundra hunters of the time lived much further south. Yes, the climate down south was colder then; but these areas were getting the same exact amount of sunshine they do now. This point is often forgotten.

    This doesn't mean that those people were dark like Africans. (African-level black skin was apparently a relatively recent development, too.) Most likely they were some shade of brown.

    No one lived at high latitudes during the ice age – that land was covered by ice. Tundra hunters of the time lived much further south. Yes, the climate down south was colder then; but these areas were getting the same exact amount of sunshine they do now. This point is often forgotten.
    This doesn’t mean that those people were dark like Africans. (African-level black skin was apparently a relatively recent development, too.) Most likely they were some shade of brown.

    Sungir – Paleolithic settlement in the city of Vladimir (not far from Moscow). This is a fairly high latitude. Mammoth hunters of Sungir wore clothes similar to the clothes of the natives of Siberia (is known by the burials) because the climate was very cold (i.e. most of the year the Sungir hunters were sheltered from the sun by thick clothes). In these circumstances it was necessary for them to have light skin like Europeans or aboriginal peoples of Siberia (who live on the same latitude as sungir or even further South).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. In continuation of the discussion, there are intravital portraits of the cromagnons

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. @Sean
    Humiliation comes with being cowed and thus conquered without fighting

    Scheler


    War throws out the terrible tensions of hatred, jealousy, anger, revenge, fury and disgust - feelings that in peacetimes are suppressed into the deeper strata of the soul - and thus war reestablishes the precondition for a truer mutual respect and sympathy among nations. In this way, war constitutes a psychotherapy of nations
     

    War throws out the terrible tensions of hatred, jealousy, anger, revenge, fury and disgust – feelings that in peacetimes are suppressed into the deeper strata of the soul – and thus war reestablishes the precondition for a truer mutual respect and sympathy among nations. In this way, war constitutes a psychotherapy of nations

    Interesting idea.

    Looks like, then, that more psychologically unbalanced a nation is more likely is it will get into wars.
    Or….a good way to see the level of psychological unbalance a nation has just take a look at its war history.
    Or….take a look at how a nation leadership and elites behave and you’ll be able to see a war coming or not.

    Makes you think……or, better, makes you realize what’s going to happen sooner than later a?

    I think it’s not that simple though. Important part is also how that nation wages a war.
    Level of destruction, level of atrocities, especially against non-combatants, level of oppression of own populace not for war etc.

    In any case, an interesting thought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    I think it is more that sexual intercourse is the origin of our life and its dynamic principle in the same way that war is the basis of every nation state. There is a correlation between not having hetro sexual intercourse and suicide. For the nation that is committing suicide, to go to war is to touch base and thus war is restorative.
    , @The Alarmist

    "Looks like, then, that more psychologically unbalanced a nation is more likely is it will get into wars."
     
    Given the current Ops Tempo, that is a depressing piece of introspection.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @melanf

    I don’t know when your reconstructions were made
     
    This is a reconstruction of Mikhail Gerasimov (creator of the method of reconstruction by the skull). These reconstruction is the best in its class.

    original modern humans in Europe were dark-skinned
     
    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists). That is, upper Paleolithic hunters in Europe had light skin.

    Here is a reconstruction of a 35,000 year old skull from Romania:
     
    In my opinion, this "reconstruction" - a degenerative cross between an Orc and an African, a tribute not science, but to political correctness

    Also I was discussing western Europe, not Sungir which is 200 km east of Moscow.
     
    "Western" hunters of mammoths looked similar

    This is a reconstruction of Mikhail Gerasimov (creator of the method of reconstruction by the skull). These reconstruction is the best in its class.

    They are from 50 years ago and are obsolete.

    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists).

    Correct. But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe – 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future. And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    They are from 50 years ago and are obsolete.
     
    From your link:
    "The VR animation is based on contemporary research as well as earlier sculptural reconstructions of Sungir people made by Mikhail Gerasimov's method.
    "In the mid-20th century, Soviet archaeologist and anthropologist Mikhail Gerasimov created the first scientifically accurate method for anthropological facial reconstruction based on a person's skull. Previously, scientists noted that there is a dependency between the shape of the skull and the elements of appearance. The anatomical and radiographic research methods used by Gerasimov allowed scientists to not only determine standards for the thickness of soft tissues along the face profile line, but also to reveal patterns in the distribution of the soft tissues' thickness, depending on skull surface morphology development. The structure of particular facial elements was determined by individual morphological features of the skull. ...The methodology was tested mainly on forensic material. The Gerasimov method is still in use in Russia, Europe and the United States.
    ."

    But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe – 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future.
     
    It is assumed that the first Homo sapiens came to Europe through Siberia, from the shores of the Pacific ocean (Stephen Oppenheimer, Out of Eden). Their way from Africa took about 20,000 years. That is, in Europe they came with already light skin.


    And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.
     
    It's definitely not true. Here are the results of the analysis of the genome of the mammoth hunter from Kostenki (age of 36.2–38.7 thousand years) http://antropogenez.ru/article/809/ .

    "On set of the alleles of the man from Kostenki closer to Mesolithic Europeans (Ajvide in Sweden, La Braña in Spain, Ashbur in Luxembourg), as well as upper Paleolithic child from Malta in the Irkutsk region. Among 167 modern populations closest to the man from Kostenki were Northern Europeans. The mitochondrial DNA of men, as we've established earlier, belongs to haplogroup U2.
    Thus, people from Kostenki detects a specific genetic proximity to (modern) Europeans, which indicates an early divergence of Europeids and Mongoloids
    ."
    , @Sean


    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists).
     
    Correct. But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe - 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future. And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.
     
    North Europeans were brown skinned for 20,000 years at least, so how did they survive without that "vital" adaptation, eh? Maybe that adaptation isn't for what you think it is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @AP

    This is a reconstruction of Mikhail Gerasimov (creator of the method of reconstruction by the skull). These reconstruction is the best in its class.
     
    They are from 50 years ago and are obsolete.

    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists).
     
    Correct. But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe - 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future. And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.

    They are from 50 years ago and are obsolete.

    From your link:
    The VR animation is based on contemporary research as well as earlier sculptural reconstructions of Sungir people made by Mikhail Gerasimov’s method.
    “In the mid-20th century, Soviet archaeologist and anthropologist Mikhail Gerasimov created the first scientifically accurate method for anthropological facial reconstruction based on a person’s skull. Previously, scientists noted that there is a dependency between the shape of the skull and the elements of appearance. The anatomical and radiographic research methods used by Gerasimov allowed scientists to not only determine standards for the thickness of soft tissues along the face profile line, but also to reveal patterns in the distribution of the soft tissues’ thickness, depending on skull surface morphology development. The structure of particular facial elements was determined by individual morphological features of the skull. …The methodology was tested mainly on forensic material. The Gerasimov method is still in use in Russia, Europe and the United States.
    .”

    But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe – 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future.

    It is assumed that the first Homo sapiens came to Europe through Siberia, from the shores of the Pacific ocean (Stephen Oppenheimer, Out of Eden). Their way from Africa took about 20,000 years. That is, in Europe they came with already light skin.

    And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.

    It’s definitely not true. Here are the results of the analysis of the genome of the mammoth hunter from Kostenki (age of 36.2–38.7 thousand years) http://antropogenez.ru/article/809/ .

    On set of the alleles of the man from Kostenki closer to Mesolithic Europeans (Ajvide in Sweden, La Braña in Spain, Ashbur in Luxembourg), as well as upper Paleolithic child from Malta in the Irkutsk region. Among 167 modern populations closest to the man from Kostenki were Northern Europeans. The mitochondrial DNA of men, as we’ve established earlier, belongs to haplogroup U2.
    Thus, people from Kostenki detects a specific genetic proximity to (modern) Europeans, which indicates an early divergence of Europeids and Mongoloids
    .”

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The VR animation is based on contemporary research as well as earlier sculptural reconstructions of Sungir people made by Mikhail Gerasimov’s method.
     
    You forgot the first part, which I bolded for you.

    And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.

    It’s definitely not true.
     

    It's definitely true.

    The oldest male Cro-Magnon remains for which Y-DNA haplogroups are known, dating from circa 45,000 to 35,000 years before present, belong to either haplogroup K2a* (K-M2308) or subclades of C1 (Haplogroup C-F3393). These include the remains known as Ust'-Ishim man (modern west Siberia) K2a*, Oase 1 (Romania) K2a*, Kostenki 14 (south west Russia) C1b, and Goyet Q116-1 (Belgium) C1a.[61][62]

    K2A:

    As of 2016, two living males had been found to carry K2a1*-M2313(xNO-M214) – a Telugu man of Indian origin sampled in the United Kingdom and an ethnic Malay sampled in Singapore

    Haplogroup C-F3393:

    Subclades of C1 (C-F3393) are the predominant Y-DNA haplogroups among peoples indigenous to Australia, some of the Pacific Islands, and a few of the Lesser Sunda Islands of Indonesia. Other subclades are found, at very low frequencies, in isolated locations throughout the Eurasian landmass and adjoining islands.

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    While trace amounts of these haplogroups are found among modern Europeans, they are primarily found in and are common in Asia and Australia. This means that that the original modern human population of Europe consisted of proto-Asians (heavily mixed with Neanderthals) who were then swamped and wiped out by invaders from the middle east and Asia - descendants of modern Europeans. Some rare mixing did occur, which is why there are still rare % among modern Europeans of these Asian and Australian haplogroups.

    And indeed, modern reconstructions do resemble Asians or Native Americans more than they do Europeans.

    This article suggests that some of the early humans found in Russia expanded into Europe and left descendants, while those found in Europe itself had no descendants:

    https://www.nature.com/news/europe-s-first-humans-what-scientists-do-and-don-t-know-1.17815

    The latest paper1 — which analyses DNA gleaned from a 40,000 year old jawbone — makes clear that humans and Neanderthals also interbred in Europe, and much more recently than they did in the Middle East. The jawbone belonged to a man who had a Neanderthal ancestor in the last 4–6 generations, perhaps a Neanderthal great-great-grandparent, concludes a team led by population geneticist David Reich at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

    Although Oase man was discovered in central Europe, Reich's team found that the Oase population left no distinctive genetic trace in contemporary Europeans. “It paints another level of complexity on this, that there are some modern human groups that didn’t contribute to later human populations,” says Higham.

    This could also explain why present-day Europeans have no more Neanderthal DNA than any other humans whose recent ancestors come from outside Africa, says Jean-Jacques Hublin, a palaeoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

    But later waves of humans followed in their footsteps

    Oase man’s population may have gone extinct, but others quickly came to Europe after him. For instance, the genome of a man identified from 37,000-year-old remains in a cave in Western Russia [Kostenki - AP] , reported4 last November, is clearly more related to present-day Europeans than to Asians, suggesting that his population’s genetic legacy lives on in Europeans today.

    [Oase man in central Europe, 3,000 years older than Kostenki man out in Russia, left no descendants in modern Europe but has distant relatives from Malaysia and India]

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @AP

    This is a reconstruction of Mikhail Gerasimov (creator of the method of reconstruction by the skull). These reconstruction is the best in its class.
     
    They are from 50 years ago and are obsolete.

    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists).
     
    Correct. But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe - 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future. And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.

    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists).

    Correct. But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe – 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future. And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.

    North Europeans were brown skinned for 20,000 years at least, so how did they survive without that “vital” adaptation, eh? Maybe that adaptation isn’t for what you think it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    You are right (I was responding to melanf's post who claimed that light skin was vital in the north).

    Light skin wasn't vital for hunter-gatherers who get a lot of Vitamin D from a very meat-heavy diet. It is vital for agricultural people in the north. The light skin mutation spread all over Europe with the spread of agriculture about 7,000-8,000 years ago. Before that, the mutation was present in some European populations, but others were as dark as Africans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @melanf

    They are from 50 years ago and are obsolete.
     
    From your link:
    "The VR animation is based on contemporary research as well as earlier sculptural reconstructions of Sungir people made by Mikhail Gerasimov's method.
    "In the mid-20th century, Soviet archaeologist and anthropologist Mikhail Gerasimov created the first scientifically accurate method for anthropological facial reconstruction based on a person's skull. Previously, scientists noted that there is a dependency between the shape of the skull and the elements of appearance. The anatomical and radiographic research methods used by Gerasimov allowed scientists to not only determine standards for the thickness of soft tissues along the face profile line, but also to reveal patterns in the distribution of the soft tissues' thickness, depending on skull surface morphology development. The structure of particular facial elements was determined by individual morphological features of the skull. ...The methodology was tested mainly on forensic material. The Gerasimov method is still in use in Russia, Europe and the United States.
    ."

    But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe – 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future.
     
    It is assumed that the first Homo sapiens came to Europe through Siberia, from the shores of the Pacific ocean (Stephen Oppenheimer, Out of Eden). Their way from Africa took about 20,000 years. That is, in Europe they came with already light skin.


    And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.
     
    It's definitely not true. Here are the results of the analysis of the genome of the mammoth hunter from Kostenki (age of 36.2–38.7 thousand years) http://antropogenez.ru/article/809/ .

    "On set of the alleles of the man from Kostenki closer to Mesolithic Europeans (Ajvide in Sweden, La Braña in Spain, Ashbur in Luxembourg), as well as upper Paleolithic child from Malta in the Irkutsk region. Among 167 modern populations closest to the man from Kostenki were Northern Europeans. The mitochondrial DNA of men, as we've established earlier, belongs to haplogroup U2.
    Thus, people from Kostenki detects a specific genetic proximity to (modern) Europeans, which indicates an early divergence of Europeids and Mongoloids
    ."

    The VR animation is based on contemporary research as well as earlier sculptural reconstructions of Sungir people made by Mikhail Gerasimov’s method.

    You forgot the first part, which I bolded for you.

    And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.

    It’s definitely not true.

    It’s definitely true.

    The oldest male Cro-Magnon remains for which Y-DNA haplogroups are known, dating from circa 45,000 to 35,000 years before present, belong to either haplogroup K2a* (K-M2308) or subclades of C1 (Haplogroup C-F3393). These include the remains known as Ust’-Ishim man (modern west Siberia) K2a*, Oase 1 (Romania) K2a*, Kostenki 14 (south west Russia) C1b, and Goyet Q116-1 (Belgium) C1a.[61][62]

    K2A:

    As of 2016, two living males had been found to carry K2a1*-M2313(xNO-M214) – a Telugu man of Indian origin sampled in the United Kingdom and an ethnic Malay sampled in Singapore

    Haplogroup C-F3393:

    Subclades of C1 (C-F3393) are the predominant Y-DNA haplogroups among peoples indigenous to Australia, some of the Pacific Islands, and a few of the Lesser Sunda Islands of Indonesia. Other subclades are found, at very low frequencies, in isolated locations throughout the Eurasian landmass and adjoining islands.

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    While trace amounts of these haplogroups are found among modern Europeans, they are primarily found in and are common in Asia and Australia. This means that that the original modern human population of Europe consisted of proto-Asians (heavily mixed with Neanderthals) who were then swamped and wiped out by invaders from the middle east and Asia – descendants of modern Europeans. Some rare mixing did occur, which is why there are still rare % among modern Europeans of these Asian and Australian haplogroups.

    And indeed, modern reconstructions do resemble Asians or Native Americans more than they do Europeans.

    This article suggests that some of the early humans found in Russia expanded into Europe and left descendants, while those found in Europe itself had no descendants:

    https://www.nature.com/news/europe-s-first-humans-what-scientists-do-and-don-t-know-1.17815

    The latest paper1 — which analyses DNA gleaned from a 40,000 year old jawbone — makes clear that humans and Neanderthals also interbred in Europe, and much more recently than they did in the Middle East. The jawbone belonged to a man who had a Neanderthal ancestor in the last 4–6 generations, perhaps a Neanderthal great-great-grandparent, concludes a team led by population geneticist David Reich at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

    Although Oase man was discovered in central Europe, Reich’s team found that the Oase population left no distinctive genetic trace in contemporary Europeans. “It paints another level of complexity on this, that there are some modern human groups that didn’t contribute to later human populations,” says Higham.

    This could also explain why present-day Europeans have no more Neanderthal DNA than any other humans whose recent ancestors come from outside Africa, says Jean-Jacques Hublin, a palaeoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

    But later waves of humans followed in their footsteps

    Oase man’s population may have gone extinct, but others quickly came to Europe after him. For instance, the genome of a man identified from 37,000-year-old remains in a cave in Western Russia [Kostenki - AP] , reported4 last November, is clearly more related to present-day Europeans than to Asians, suggesting that his population’s genetic legacy lives on in Europeans today.

    [Oase man in central Europe, 3,000 years older than Kostenki man out in Russia, left no descendants in modern Europe but has distant relatives from Malaysia and India]

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    It’s definitely true.
    The oldest male Cro-Magnon remains for which...
     
    Above results of the analysis of the genome of the mammoth hunter from Kostenki (age of 36.2–38.7 thousand years). Its quite clear result - closest relative of this hunter are modern Europeids, not Mongoloids. Classical anthropology show same result - European mammoth hunters have the greatest resemblance to the Europeids (link in comment 64). May be in Europe in paleolit in one time live protomongoloids and protoeuropeids?
    But I guess, real reason (for article from your link) another - SJW multi-culty religion, and passionate wish for dark skinned non-europids native European population
    , @melanf

    You forgot the first part, which I bolded for you.
     
    Kids in both reconstructions of Sungir people have very, very similar facial features (its clearly visible). But in Gerasimov sculpture this live people, and in VR animation its alien Mannequins. For this Gerasimov sculpture better.

    And from your link

    "reconstructed the faces of the Sungir people—Homo sapiens who lived 30,000 years ago in Central Russia and are believed to be ancestors of today’s Northern and Eastern Europeans"

    Why your use information from article partialy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @melanf

    There were media reports about European hunter-gatherers probably having been dark-skinned a few years ago, when they analyzed the DNA of the remains of one such hunter-gatherer found in Spain (from about 7000 years ago).
     
    For Spain 7,000 years ago (when the climate was warmer than today), it is likely the existence of the dark skin population. But there is a very good reason to believe that the population of Europe during the ice age, had light skin. At high latitudes, dark-skinned hunters just can't survive.

    It should also be remembered that Europe in the late Paleolithic era, was inhabited by tribes very different from each other (in fact, the representatives of different Paleolithic races)

    But there is a very good reason to believe that the population of Europe during the ice age, had light skin. At high latitudes, dark-skinned hunters just can’t survive.

    Light skin is not needed by hunter-gatherers in northern regions, because they get plenty of Vitamin D from their prey. Agricultural people in northern climates need light skin more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Not true,

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417586/

    In Manitoba, 32% of rural Amerindian women and 30.4% of urban Amerindian women have serum 25(OH)D levels of less than 37.5 nmol/L (9). Such levels are well below the current recommended minimum of 75 nmol/L. Thus, among northern peoples, the purported association between rickets and low vitamin D levels may be more apparent than real. ...a meta analysis concluded that serum 25(OH)D levels are significantly lower in people of non-European origin than in people of European origin. In the first group, the levels are consistently low regardless of latitude (34) Northern Native peoples may likewise respond negatively to vitamin D supplementation, just as Inuit children respond negatively to calcium supplementation despite an apparently calcium-deficient diet.
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @AP

    But there is a very good reason to believe that the population of Europe during the ice age, had light skin. At high latitudes, dark-skinned hunters just can’t survive.
     
    Light skin is not needed by hunter-gatherers in northern regions, because they get plenty of Vitamin D from their prey. Agricultural people in northern climates need light skin more.

    Not true,

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417586/

    In Manitoba, 32% of rural Amerindian women and 30.4% of urban Amerindian women have serum 25(OH)D levels of less than 37.5 nmol/L (9). Such levels are well below the current recommended minimum of 75 nmol/L. Thus, among northern peoples, the purported association between rickets and low vitamin D levels may be more apparent than real. …a meta analysis concluded that serum 25(OH)D levels are significantly lower in people of non-European origin than in people of European origin. In the first group, the levels are consistently low regardless of latitude (34) Northern Native peoples may likewise respond negatively to vitamin D supplementation, just as Inuit children respond negatively to calcium supplementation despite an apparently calcium-deficient diet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Interesting. Maybe these natives weren't eating enough steak?

    I was going with this stuff:

    https://www.sciencealert.com/ancient-dna-suggests-agriculture-triggered-changes-linked-to-height-digestion-and-skin-colour

    "After they began farming, ancient Europeans also evolved to have lighter skin pigmentation, which is better able to capture vitamin D from the sun. Reich hypothesizes that earlier prehistoric hunter-gatherers didn’t need lighter skin, as the meat they caught provided enough Vitamin D"

    Interestingly, the European hunter-gatherers had dark skin like Africans but blue eyes:

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/white-skin-developed-europe-only-recently-8000-years-020287
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Sean
    Not true,

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417586/

    In Manitoba, 32% of rural Amerindian women and 30.4% of urban Amerindian women have serum 25(OH)D levels of less than 37.5 nmol/L (9). Such levels are well below the current recommended minimum of 75 nmol/L. Thus, among northern peoples, the purported association between rickets and low vitamin D levels may be more apparent than real. ...a meta analysis concluded that serum 25(OH)D levels are significantly lower in people of non-European origin than in people of European origin. In the first group, the levels are consistently low regardless of latitude (34) Northern Native peoples may likewise respond negatively to vitamin D supplementation, just as Inuit children respond negatively to calcium supplementation despite an apparently calcium-deficient diet.
     

    Interesting. Maybe these natives weren’t eating enough steak?

    I was going with this stuff:

    https://www.sciencealert.com/ancient-dna-suggests-agriculture-triggered-changes-linked-to-height-digestion-and-skin-colour

    “After they began farming, ancient Europeans also evolved to have lighter skin pigmentation, which is better able to capture vitamin D from the sun. Reich hypothesizes that earlier prehistoric hunter-gatherers didn’t need lighter skin, as the meat they caught provided enough Vitamin D”

    Interestingly, the European hunter-gatherers had dark skin like Africans but blue eyes:

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/white-skin-developed-europe-only-recently-8000-years-020287

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Sean


    No, definitely nо. Light skin is a vital adaptation for living at high latitudes. For the evolutionary transformation of black skin to white should be about 8 000 years (calculations of geneticists).
     
    Correct. But we are discussing the original modern humans in Europe - 30,000-40,000 years ago. Those were dark-skinned, mutations for light skin were thousands of years in the future. And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.
     
    North Europeans were brown skinned for 20,000 years at least, so how did they survive without that "vital" adaptation, eh? Maybe that adaptation isn't for what you think it is.

    You are right (I was responding to melanf’s post who claimed that light skin was vital in the north).

    Light skin wasn’t vital for hunter-gatherers who get a lot of Vitamin D from a very meat-heavy diet. It is vital for agricultural people in the north. The light skin mutation spread all over Europe with the spread of agriculture about 7,000-8,000 years ago. Before that, the mutation was present in some European populations, but others were as dark as Africans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Light skin wasn’t vital for hunter-gatherers who get a lot of Vitamin D from a very meat-heavy diet. It is vital for agricultural people in the north.
     
    Siberian hunter-gatherers have light skin. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/crimecrime/18014147/599286/599286_1000.jpg
    Australian hunter-gatherers have more "light" skin than New Guinea people. Native hunter-gatherers of South Africa have more "light" skin than tropical Africans. Etc, etc. For this hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin. And remember - Ötzi have ideal light skin

    P.S.
    hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin because SCL45A2 and HERC2, (alleys, which determine the light skin), they got from Neanderthals http://antropogenez.ru/article/892/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Consequently, its (Turkeys) continued insistence that Assad does not have a future as part of a Syria solution.

    I assume that Erdogan wants to get this over with the TSAF doing the majority of the fighting (and incurring most of the casualties) for domestic PR reasons.

    This is not welcome news for the Americans and their Kurds, but there’s also a longer term face of between Turkey and Syria. The TSAF are Syrian rebels, and along with the Turks, they’re invading Syrian territory and plan to stay, and they’re both trying to topple Assad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. Greasy William: The Master of the Thread Derail

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The White House will endorse allowing as many as 1.8 million young immigrants to seek U.S. citizenship in an immigration plan that will be released next week, senior administration officials said Thursday.

    Get ready to go to Scranton and bang Melissa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Greasy William
    Greasy William: The Master of the Thread Derail

    The White House will endorse allowing as many as 1.8 million young immigrants to seek U.S. citizenship in an immigration plan that will be released next week, senior administration officials said Thursday.

    Get ready to go to Scranton and bang Melissa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Did you read the rest of the bill? It cuts legal immigration in half. The libshits are furious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @iffen
    The White House will endorse allowing as many as 1.8 million young immigrants to seek U.S. citizenship in an immigration plan that will be released next week, senior administration officials said Thursday.

    Get ready to go to Scranton and bang Melissa.

    Did you read the rest of the bill? It cuts legal immigration in half. The libshits are furious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @AP

    The VR animation is based on contemporary research as well as earlier sculptural reconstructions of Sungir people made by Mikhail Gerasimov’s method.
     
    You forgot the first part, which I bolded for you.

    And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.

    It’s definitely not true.
     

    It's definitely true.

    The oldest male Cro-Magnon remains for which Y-DNA haplogroups are known, dating from circa 45,000 to 35,000 years before present, belong to either haplogroup K2a* (K-M2308) or subclades of C1 (Haplogroup C-F3393). These include the remains known as Ust'-Ishim man (modern west Siberia) K2a*, Oase 1 (Romania) K2a*, Kostenki 14 (south west Russia) C1b, and Goyet Q116-1 (Belgium) C1a.[61][62]

    K2A:

    As of 2016, two living males had been found to carry K2a1*-M2313(xNO-M214) – a Telugu man of Indian origin sampled in the United Kingdom and an ethnic Malay sampled in Singapore

    Haplogroup C-F3393:

    Subclades of C1 (C-F3393) are the predominant Y-DNA haplogroups among peoples indigenous to Australia, some of the Pacific Islands, and a few of the Lesser Sunda Islands of Indonesia. Other subclades are found, at very low frequencies, in isolated locations throughout the Eurasian landmass and adjoining islands.

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    While trace amounts of these haplogroups are found among modern Europeans, they are primarily found in and are common in Asia and Australia. This means that that the original modern human population of Europe consisted of proto-Asians (heavily mixed with Neanderthals) who were then swamped and wiped out by invaders from the middle east and Asia - descendants of modern Europeans. Some rare mixing did occur, which is why there are still rare % among modern Europeans of these Asian and Australian haplogroups.

    And indeed, modern reconstructions do resemble Asians or Native Americans more than they do Europeans.

    This article suggests that some of the early humans found in Russia expanded into Europe and left descendants, while those found in Europe itself had no descendants:

    https://www.nature.com/news/europe-s-first-humans-what-scientists-do-and-don-t-know-1.17815

    The latest paper1 — which analyses DNA gleaned from a 40,000 year old jawbone — makes clear that humans and Neanderthals also interbred in Europe, and much more recently than they did in the Middle East. The jawbone belonged to a man who had a Neanderthal ancestor in the last 4–6 generations, perhaps a Neanderthal great-great-grandparent, concludes a team led by population geneticist David Reich at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

    Although Oase man was discovered in central Europe, Reich's team found that the Oase population left no distinctive genetic trace in contemporary Europeans. “It paints another level of complexity on this, that there are some modern human groups that didn’t contribute to later human populations,” says Higham.

    This could also explain why present-day Europeans have no more Neanderthal DNA than any other humans whose recent ancestors come from outside Africa, says Jean-Jacques Hublin, a palaeoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

    But later waves of humans followed in their footsteps

    Oase man’s population may have gone extinct, but others quickly came to Europe after him. For instance, the genome of a man identified from 37,000-year-old remains in a cave in Western Russia [Kostenki - AP] , reported4 last November, is clearly more related to present-day Europeans than to Asians, suggesting that his population’s genetic legacy lives on in Europeans today.

    [Oase man in central Europe, 3,000 years older than Kostenki man out in Russia, left no descendants in modern Europe but has distant relatives from Malaysia and India]

    It’s definitely true.
    The oldest male Cro-Magnon remains for which…

    Above results of the analysis of the genome of the mammoth hunter from Kostenki (age of 36.2–38.7 thousand years). Its quite clear result – closest relative of this hunter are modern Europeids, not Mongoloids. Classical anthropology show same result – European mammoth hunters have the greatest resemblance to the Europeids (link in comment 64). May be in Europe in paleolit in one time live protomongoloids and protoeuropeids?
    But I guess, real reason (for article from your link) another – SJW multi-culty religion, and passionate wish for dark skinned non-europids native European population

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    No, it's just pure genetics.

    Skull from 40,000 in western Romania had DNA that was non-European, modern relatives were in India and Malaysia. No genes for white skin.

    Kostenki remains were 3,000 years younger and in Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @AP

    The VR animation is based on contemporary research as well as earlier sculptural reconstructions of Sungir people made by Mikhail Gerasimov’s method.
     
    You forgot the first part, which I bolded for you.

    And genetically they were mostly related to modern northern Chinese, Japanese, Asians.

    It’s definitely not true.
     

    It's definitely true.

    The oldest male Cro-Magnon remains for which Y-DNA haplogroups are known, dating from circa 45,000 to 35,000 years before present, belong to either haplogroup K2a* (K-M2308) or subclades of C1 (Haplogroup C-F3393). These include the remains known as Ust'-Ishim man (modern west Siberia) K2a*, Oase 1 (Romania) K2a*, Kostenki 14 (south west Russia) C1b, and Goyet Q116-1 (Belgium) C1a.[61][62]

    K2A:

    As of 2016, two living males had been found to carry K2a1*-M2313(xNO-M214) – a Telugu man of Indian origin sampled in the United Kingdom and an ethnic Malay sampled in Singapore

    Haplogroup C-F3393:

    Subclades of C1 (C-F3393) are the predominant Y-DNA haplogroups among peoples indigenous to Australia, some of the Pacific Islands, and a few of the Lesser Sunda Islands of Indonesia. Other subclades are found, at very low frequencies, in isolated locations throughout the Eurasian landmass and adjoining islands.

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    While trace amounts of these haplogroups are found among modern Europeans, they are primarily found in and are common in Asia and Australia. This means that that the original modern human population of Europe consisted of proto-Asians (heavily mixed with Neanderthals) who were then swamped and wiped out by invaders from the middle east and Asia - descendants of modern Europeans. Some rare mixing did occur, which is why there are still rare % among modern Europeans of these Asian and Australian haplogroups.

    And indeed, modern reconstructions do resemble Asians or Native Americans more than they do Europeans.

    This article suggests that some of the early humans found in Russia expanded into Europe and left descendants, while those found in Europe itself had no descendants:

    https://www.nature.com/news/europe-s-first-humans-what-scientists-do-and-don-t-know-1.17815

    The latest paper1 — which analyses DNA gleaned from a 40,000 year old jawbone — makes clear that humans and Neanderthals also interbred in Europe, and much more recently than they did in the Middle East. The jawbone belonged to a man who had a Neanderthal ancestor in the last 4–6 generations, perhaps a Neanderthal great-great-grandparent, concludes a team led by population geneticist David Reich at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

    Although Oase man was discovered in central Europe, Reich's team found that the Oase population left no distinctive genetic trace in contemporary Europeans. “It paints another level of complexity on this, that there are some modern human groups that didn’t contribute to later human populations,” says Higham.

    This could also explain why present-day Europeans have no more Neanderthal DNA than any other humans whose recent ancestors come from outside Africa, says Jean-Jacques Hublin, a palaeoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

    But later waves of humans followed in their footsteps

    Oase man’s population may have gone extinct, but others quickly came to Europe after him. For instance, the genome of a man identified from 37,000-year-old remains in a cave in Western Russia [Kostenki - AP] , reported4 last November, is clearly more related to present-day Europeans than to Asians, suggesting that his population’s genetic legacy lives on in Europeans today.

    [Oase man in central Europe, 3,000 years older than Kostenki man out in Russia, left no descendants in modern Europe but has distant relatives from Malaysia and India]

    You forgot the first part, which I bolded for you.

    Kids in both reconstructions of Sungir people have very, very similar facial features (its clearly visible). But in Gerasimov sculpture this live people, and in VR animation its alien Mannequins. For this Gerasimov sculpture better.

    And from your link

    “reconstructed the faces of the Sungir people—Homo sapiens who lived 30,000 years ago in Central Russia and are believed to be ancestors of today’s Northern and Eastern Europeans”

    Why your use information from article partialy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @AP
    You are right (I was responding to melanf's post who claimed that light skin was vital in the north).

    Light skin wasn't vital for hunter-gatherers who get a lot of Vitamin D from a very meat-heavy diet. It is vital for agricultural people in the north. The light skin mutation spread all over Europe with the spread of agriculture about 7,000-8,000 years ago. Before that, the mutation was present in some European populations, but others were as dark as Africans.

    Light skin wasn’t vital for hunter-gatherers who get a lot of Vitamin D from a very meat-heavy diet. It is vital for agricultural people in the north.

    Siberian hunter-gatherers have light skin.
    Australian hunter-gatherers have more “light” skin than New Guinea people. Native hunter-gatherers of South Africa have more “light” skin than tropical Africans. Etc, etc. For this hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin. And remember – Ötzi have ideal light skin

    P.S.
    hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin because SCL45A2 and HERC2, (alleys, which determine the light skin), they got from Neanderthals http://antropogenez.ru/article/892/

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Not that light:

    http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattoo_museum/images/Atanarjuat.jpg
    , @Sean
    Neanderthals were vegetarians?
    , @AP

    P.S.
    hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin because SCL45A2 and HERC2, (alleys, which determine the light skin), they got from Neanderthals http://antropogenez.ru/article/892/
     
    Your posts suggest that conclusions of Russian academics about genetics are questionable (remember the paper by the Russian geneticists that claimed something different form the data in that very paper, that clearly showed Finnic origins?) and should be taken with a grain of salt unless they appear in some peer-reviewed journal, preferably outside Russia.

    SCL45A2 is not limited to Neanderthals, it results in white color in tigers, and fish, also. It could very well have been "turned on" in humans several times, Neanderthal mixture wasn't necessary for it.

    Indeed, this source says that white skin appeared in Europeans independently of Neanderthals:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=3NRf_8gwmO8C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=SCL45A2+neanderthal&source=bl&ots=BYPcfweNJT&sig=8KqmDxi0gtaHCQbDrT72dbYJDRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiByPz-lvfYAhWC21MKHY0mAOoQ6AEIUDAG#v=onepage&q=SCL45A2%20neanderthal&f=false

    This study doesn't rule out possible influence of some kind, but is skeptical and doesn't posit the idea that SCL45A2 gave Europeans white skin due to Neanderthal mixture:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502412/

    Essentially, white skin appeared in Europeans after Neanderthals disappeared, although it is possible (though not proven) that some genetic traces from Neanderthals that were not immediately associated with white skin were turned on by further mutations or environmental factors thousands of years after the mixing took place.

    Modern humans mixed with Neanderthals soon after leaving Africa; if white skin was from them then all non-Africans would have white skin.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @melanf

    It’s definitely true.
    The oldest male Cro-Magnon remains for which...
     
    Above results of the analysis of the genome of the mammoth hunter from Kostenki (age of 36.2–38.7 thousand years). Its quite clear result - closest relative of this hunter are modern Europeids, not Mongoloids. Classical anthropology show same result - European mammoth hunters have the greatest resemblance to the Europeids (link in comment 64). May be in Europe in paleolit in one time live protomongoloids and protoeuropeids?
    But I guess, real reason (for article from your link) another - SJW multi-culty religion, and passionate wish for dark skinned non-europids native European population

    No, it’s just pure genetics.

    Skull from 40,000 in western Romania had DNA that was non-European, modern relatives were in India and Malaysia. No genes for white skin.

    Kostenki remains were 3,000 years younger and in Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @melanf

    Light skin wasn’t vital for hunter-gatherers who get a lot of Vitamin D from a very meat-heavy diet. It is vital for agricultural people in the north.
     
    Siberian hunter-gatherers have light skin. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/crimecrime/18014147/599286/599286_1000.jpg
    Australian hunter-gatherers have more "light" skin than New Guinea people. Native hunter-gatherers of South Africa have more "light" skin than tropical Africans. Etc, etc. For this hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin. And remember - Ötzi have ideal light skin

    P.S.
    hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin because SCL45A2 and HERC2, (alleys, which determine the light skin), they got from Neanderthals http://antropogenez.ru/article/892/

    Not that light:

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Not that light:
     
    It is also light skin. Light skin has different shades (for example Italians are darker than Finns). But in the mass the natives of Siberia even lighter (than in your pics)

    https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D1%8D%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B8

    https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D1%87%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%87%D0%B8

    https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @peterAUS

    War throws out the terrible tensions of hatred, jealousy, anger, revenge, fury and disgust – feelings that in peacetimes are suppressed into the deeper strata of the soul – and thus war reestablishes the precondition for a truer mutual respect and sympathy among nations. In this way, war constitutes a psychotherapy of nations
     
    Interesting idea.

    Looks like, then, that more psychologically unbalanced a nation is more likely is it will get into wars.
    Or....a good way to see the level of psychological unbalance a nation has just take a look at its war history.
    Or....take a look at how a nation leadership and elites behave and you'll be able to see a war coming or not.

    Makes you think......or, better, makes you realize what's going to happen sooner than later a?

    I think it's not that simple though. Important part is also how that nation wages a war.
    Level of destruction, level of atrocities, especially against non-combatants, level of oppression of own populace not for war etc.

    In any case, an interesting thought.

    I think it is more that sexual intercourse is the origin of our life and its dynamic principle in the same way that war is the basis of every nation state. There is a correlation between not having hetro sexual intercourse and suicide. For the nation that is committing suicide, to go to war is to touch base and thus war is restorative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @melanf

    Light skin wasn’t vital for hunter-gatherers who get a lot of Vitamin D from a very meat-heavy diet. It is vital for agricultural people in the north.
     
    Siberian hunter-gatherers have light skin. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/crimecrime/18014147/599286/599286_1000.jpg
    Australian hunter-gatherers have more "light" skin than New Guinea people. Native hunter-gatherers of South Africa have more "light" skin than tropical Africans. Etc, etc. For this hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin. And remember - Ötzi have ideal light skin

    P.S.
    hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin because SCL45A2 and HERC2, (alleys, which determine the light skin), they got from Neanderthals http://antropogenez.ru/article/892/

    Neanderthals were vegetarians?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @melanf

    Light skin wasn’t vital for hunter-gatherers who get a lot of Vitamin D from a very meat-heavy diet. It is vital for agricultural people in the north.
     
    Siberian hunter-gatherers have light skin. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/crimecrime/18014147/599286/599286_1000.jpg
    Australian hunter-gatherers have more "light" skin than New Guinea people. Native hunter-gatherers of South Africa have more "light" skin than tropical Africans. Etc, etc. For this hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin. And remember - Ötzi have ideal light skin

    P.S.
    hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin because SCL45A2 and HERC2, (alleys, which determine the light skin), they got from Neanderthals http://antropogenez.ru/article/892/

    P.S.
    hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin because SCL45A2 and HERC2, (alleys, which determine the light skin), they got from Neanderthals http://antropogenez.ru/article/892/

    Your posts suggest that conclusions of Russian academics about genetics are questionable (remember the paper by the Russian geneticists that claimed something different form the data in that very paper, that clearly showed Finnic origins?) and should be taken with a grain of salt unless they appear in some peer-reviewed journal, preferably outside Russia.

    SCL45A2 is not limited to Neanderthals, it results in white color in tigers, and fish, also. It could very well have been “turned on” in humans several times, Neanderthal mixture wasn’t necessary for it.

    Indeed, this source says that white skin appeared in Europeans independently of Neanderthals:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=3NRf_8gwmO8C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=SCL45A2+neanderthal&source=bl&ots=BYPcfweNJT&sig=8KqmDxi0gtaHCQbDrT72dbYJDRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiByPz-lvfYAhWC21MKHY0mAOoQ6AEIUDAG#v=onepage&q=SCL45A2%20neanderthal&f=false

    This study doesn’t rule out possible influence of some kind, but is skeptical and doesn’t posit the idea that SCL45A2 gave Europeans white skin due to Neanderthal mixture:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502412/

    Essentially, white skin appeared in Europeans after Neanderthals disappeared, although it is possible (though not proven) that some genetic traces from Neanderthals that were not immediately associated with white skin were turned on by further mutations or environmental factors thousands of years after the mixing took place.

    Modern humans mixed with Neanderthals soon after leaving Africa; if white skin was from them then all non-Africans would have white skin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Modern humans mixed with Neanderthals soon after leaving Africa;
     
    Modern humanity several times interbred with Neanderthals, including interbred with Neanderthals in Europe

    Essentially, white skin appeared in Europeans after Neanderthals disappeared
     
    Asked this question to a specialist involved in genetic analysis. Аnswer

    "действительно, современный белый цвет кожи европейцев и светлые волосы - результат довольно новых мутаций, действительно, возникших после 8000 л.н. Это так.
    Однако распространение, например, этих самых двух, указанных в статье мутаций (гены SLC24A5 и SLC45A2), ассоциированных со светлой кожей европейцев, одного - уже, другого - куда шире Европы. То есть полностью со светлокожестью не совпадает.
    SLC45A2 (желтенькие ассоциированы с блондинистостью):
    https://anthropology.net/2008/10/09/slc … ousel-1548
    SLC24A5 (синенькие ассоциированы со светлой кожей):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC45A2#/ … ution0.png
    А белые при этом, реально белые европейцы (европеоиды), только там, в Европе (в Америке и русские в Азии, конечно, не в счет). Но кроманьонцы именно этих мутаций не имели. То есть, белыми как европейцы не были. Но белыми, и даже иногда белее европейцев, как видим из этих самых карт, можно быть и без конкретно этих мутаций. Так японцы их не имеют, но светлокожи. А марокканцы имеют, но куда темнее. Потому что цвет кожи определяется куда большим числом генов.
    Так неандертальцы имели совершенно иные мутации, ведущие к светлой коже.
    Также светлокожие люди бывают не только европейцами:
    http://antropogenez.ru/zveno-single/428/
    Опять же, черный цвет кожи негров и австралоидов кодируется разными мутациями, значит, они приобрели его независимо. А их общий предок черным не был никак.
    http://antropogenez.ru/zveno-single/422/ .....
    И да, некоторые из них (кроманьонцев) вообще нам не предки - вымерли без следа. Кто сказал, что не встречаемые ныне, в том числе неандертальские варианты "светлокожих" мутаций у них отсутствовали? Были, "румын" 36 т.-летний тому свидетель. Или были свои, которые ведут к светлой коже, но ныне не встречаются, потому нам как влияющие на цвет кожи не известные? Никто. Все это могло быть.
    Потому если спросить меня, я бы сказал, что выходцы из Африки, уже не черные, но, вероятно, смуглые, побелели, придя в высокие широты, за 1-3 тысяч лет. И за пример надо брать по срокам - именно нынешних европеоидов (они, вон, блондинами за этот срок в Европе стали), а по возможному цвету - нынешних северных азиатов. Они вполне себе тут в плане окраса предковый геном имеют, без новых мутаций. И они белые.
    "

    Since there is no black Arctic peoples (as there is no white-skinned tropical people), we can surely assume that the CRO-magnons had light skin (due to living conditions).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @peterAUS

    War throws out the terrible tensions of hatred, jealousy, anger, revenge, fury and disgust – feelings that in peacetimes are suppressed into the deeper strata of the soul – and thus war reestablishes the precondition for a truer mutual respect and sympathy among nations. In this way, war constitutes a psychotherapy of nations
     
    Interesting idea.

    Looks like, then, that more psychologically unbalanced a nation is more likely is it will get into wars.
    Or....a good way to see the level of psychological unbalance a nation has just take a look at its war history.
    Or....take a look at how a nation leadership and elites behave and you'll be able to see a war coming or not.

    Makes you think......or, better, makes you realize what's going to happen sooner than later a?

    I think it's not that simple though. Important part is also how that nation wages a war.
    Level of destruction, level of atrocities, especially against non-combatants, level of oppression of own populace not for war etc.

    In any case, an interesting thought.

    “Looks like, then, that more psychologically unbalanced a nation is more likely is it will get into wars.”

    Given the current Ops Tempo, that is a depressing piece of introspection.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @AP
    Not that light:

    http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattoo_museum/images/Atanarjuat.jpg

    Not that light:

    It is also light skin. Light skin has different shades (for example Italians are darker than Finns). But in the mass the natives of Siberia even lighter (than in your pics)

    https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D1%8D%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B8

    https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D1%87%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%87%D0%B8

    https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @AP

    P.S.
    hunters of ice-age Europe definitely have light skin because SCL45A2 and HERC2, (alleys, which determine the light skin), they got from Neanderthals http://antropogenez.ru/article/892/
     
    Your posts suggest that conclusions of Russian academics about genetics are questionable (remember the paper by the Russian geneticists that claimed something different form the data in that very paper, that clearly showed Finnic origins?) and should be taken with a grain of salt unless they appear in some peer-reviewed journal, preferably outside Russia.

    SCL45A2 is not limited to Neanderthals, it results in white color in tigers, and fish, also. It could very well have been "turned on" in humans several times, Neanderthal mixture wasn't necessary for it.

    Indeed, this source says that white skin appeared in Europeans independently of Neanderthals:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=3NRf_8gwmO8C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=SCL45A2+neanderthal&source=bl&ots=BYPcfweNJT&sig=8KqmDxi0gtaHCQbDrT72dbYJDRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiByPz-lvfYAhWC21MKHY0mAOoQ6AEIUDAG#v=onepage&q=SCL45A2%20neanderthal&f=false

    This study doesn't rule out possible influence of some kind, but is skeptical and doesn't posit the idea that SCL45A2 gave Europeans white skin due to Neanderthal mixture:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502412/

    Essentially, white skin appeared in Europeans after Neanderthals disappeared, although it is possible (though not proven) that some genetic traces from Neanderthals that were not immediately associated with white skin were turned on by further mutations or environmental factors thousands of years after the mixing took place.

    Modern humans mixed with Neanderthals soon after leaving Africa; if white skin was from them then all non-Africans would have white skin.

    Modern humans mixed with Neanderthals soon after leaving Africa;

    Modern humanity several times interbred with Neanderthals, including interbred with Neanderthals in Europe

    Essentially, white skin appeared in Europeans after Neanderthals disappeared

    Asked this question to a specialist involved in genetic analysis. Аnswer

    действительно, современный белый цвет кожи европейцев и светлые волосы – результат довольно новых мутаций, действительно, возникших после 8000 л.н. Это так.
    Однако распространение, например, этих самых двух, указанных в статье мутаций (гены SLC24A5 и SLC45A2), ассоциированных со светлой кожей европейцев, одного – уже, другого – куда шире Европы. То есть полностью со светлокожестью не совпадает.
    SLC45A2 (желтенькие ассоциированы с блондинистостью):
    https://anthropology.net/2008/10/09/slc … ousel-1548
    SLC24A5 (синенькие ассоциированы со светлой кожей):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC45A2#/ … ution0.png
    А белые при этом, реально белые европейцы (европеоиды), только там, в Европе (в Америке и русские в Азии, конечно, не в счет). Но кроманьонцы именно этих мутаций не имели. То есть, белыми как европейцы не были. Но белыми, и даже иногда белее европейцев, как видим из этих самых карт, можно быть и без конкретно этих мутаций. Так японцы их не имеют, но светлокожи. А марокканцы имеют, но куда темнее. Потому что цвет кожи определяется куда большим числом генов.
    Так неандертальцы имели совершенно иные мутации, ведущие к светлой коже.
    Также светлокожие люди бывают не только европейцами:

    http://antropogenez.ru/zveno-single/428/

    Опять же, черный цвет кожи негров и австралоидов кодируется разными мутациями, значит, они приобрели его независимо. А их общий предок черным не был никак.
    http://antropogenez.ru/zveno-single/422/ …..
    И да, некоторые из них (кроманьонцев) вообще нам не предки – вымерли без следа. Кто сказал, что не встречаемые ныне, в том числе неандертальские варианты “светлокожих” мутаций у них отсутствовали? Были, “румын” 36 т.-летний тому свидетель. Или были свои, которые ведут к светлой коже, но ныне не встречаются, потому нам как влияющие на цвет кожи не известные? Никто. Все это могло быть.
    Потому если спросить меня, я бы сказал, что выходцы из Африки, уже не черные, но, вероятно, смуглые, побелели, придя в высокие широты, за 1-3 тысяч лет. И за пример надо брать по срокам – именно нынешних европеоидов (они, вон, блондинами за этот срок в Европе стали), а по возможному цвету – нынешних северных азиатов. Они вполне себе тут в плане окраса предковый геном имеют, без новых мутаций. И они белые.”

    Since there is no black Arctic peoples (as there is no white-skinned tropical people), we can surely assume that the CRO-magnons had light skin (due to living conditions).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS