Is varg right about all ancient civilizations being white?

it's real but was quickly deleted

If only he tweeted "wuz" afterwards

Yes

christians btfo

Obviously needs the views of the /pol/ crowd like Lauren Southern does to rake in those Youtube bux.

Where are you from habibi? Syrian here with looks of a South Italian.

Looks like Abraham Lincoln crossed with Homo heidelbergensis.

No, it is true that modern western euros have DNA similarities to ancient Egyptians but that is because of out of Africa and not because the ancient Egyptians are white. Varg and /pol/ in general cling onto one or two headlines and misrepresent them.

Varg is a heavy metal musician. If you take his word seriously it's your problem not his.

>Literally who?
>Look her up.
>Some Libertarian bint.
Ah yes, the only thing more retarded than a commie: a libertarian.

No, that's fucking stupid. This is just Germanics trying to appropriate the achievements of older civilizations as their own.
The people of the ancient Levant and fertile crescent were an ethnically distinct group, seperate from Western Europeans. You can say the same for the Greeks as well.
If you take Egypt for example, up an down the Nile you'd find a spectrum of people with different shades of skin.
There were Egyptians in the Upper Egypt almost indistinguishable from the Kushites.
There was even a time during the Middle Kingdom period (2025-1630 BCE) where the Pharaohs were dark in complection.
>inb4 we wuz kangs
I'm not kidding, go check for yourself. There was a brief time where the the upper echelons of Egypt were ethnically Nubian.

>>Muh Pan-European culture.
I doubt this considering he thinks southern Europeans are non-White mongrels no different from Arabs BUT perhaps his old videos did have the veneer of pan-Europeanism.

He thinks pale white redheads are mongrels, the result of blond Nordic Europeans mixing with, get ready for it, subsaharan african negroes of all people.

Norway's finest

Wait what?

No

The Nubians conquered Egypt, that's why you see them forming the nobility during that time.

It's the same with all the Germanic migrations. The Lombards didn't create Italy, they conquered it. The Frankish Kingdom was built atop the smoking ruins of Gaul. And it has likely always been this way. The Dorians invaded Mycenaean Greece and burned most cities to the ground. Some Dorians eventually consolidated their power in Sparta, ruling over a massive subjugated population of slaves. Athens and Thebes remained as holdouts, to revive the civilization that had been devastated. In pre-Roman Italy the Etruscans and Latins migrated in from the north, pushing a less developed people into the hills. Only by accident were they influenced by Greek culture long enough to begin building a decent culture of their own. Then came the Celts to raid that culture and carry off valuables. The presence of foreign elites is proof of conquest, not construction.

Yup, and the only reason there are red heads in Britain and Ireland is because -- Egyptian migrants, which of course exclusively were gingers, moved there.

Again he's entirely in his right to have retarded opinions. What amazes me is that he has followers.

Did you miss the part where he thinks ancient Egyptians were white?

Varg unironically thinks that only an extremely minuscule pool of people are white, and French, Celts and Balts are mongrel untermensch. He has become a literal meme by this point.

When someone says they were a white civilization, they mean they were of the Caucasian race.

WTF? I love Trump now.

>but that is because of out of Africa
Do you believe your own bullshit?

Ancient egyptians are closely related to middle eastern and european populations, not sub-saharan africans. Indo-Europeans migrated from Asia into Europe and North Africa, not from Sub-saharan Africa.

They don't have similar DNA.

>and european populations
Not really.

yes?
consider jon jafari. i didn't even know his father is iranian, i only knew his first name and thought he was just some white guy.
similarly coptic people can come to europe and easily assimilate in a generation, because of their Whiteness.
So yeah, almost all civilizations were White, since they were made by people whose genetically indistinguishable descendants only need to change their language and customs to fit in europe.

>Not really.
>Scientists who managed to obtain full genome sequences of Ancient Egyptians for the first time have concluded the people of the pharaohs were more closely related to modern Europeans and inhabitants of the Near East rather than present-day Egyptians.

>Nevertheless, they concluded the mummified people were “distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples”.

>“Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians,” they wrote.

independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/ancient-egyptians-europeans-related-claims-a7763866.html

so they were white then.

Please cite the original study, not idiotic nonsense from a mainstream media outlet.

Caucasian as a race is a big fucking meme. Obviously biracial populations like Somalis and Indians are included in there as well.

I hope you don't think Indo-Europeans were the very first Europeans/Middle Easterners user, because the aboriginal hunter gatherers of Europe and the early farmers of the Middle East refute that.

They were "Caucasoid", but not white. Even back then when Egyptians had less African DNA (thanks to the one drop rule, your average 7% black ancient Egyptian would be classified as black despite how stupid that is), most Egyptians weren't pale skinned. If they were, they were either a minority or they came from what is now the Levant or Libya (though that's not to say all of those areas are light skinned), or in later times, Greece.

> I look more like a Southern European than Northern European because I'm middle a easterner?

You don't look like an European, Ahcmed

The original study just say that Ancient Egyptians had no negroid admixture unlike modern Egyptians

I don't really give a shit but its funny because the middle eastern and north African populations are literally classified as white in the US...

nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

It was linked in the article, you lazy shit.
>On the nuclear level we merged the SNP data of our three ancient individuals with 2,367 modern individuals34,35 and 294 ancient genomes36 and performed PCA on the joined data set. We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 5). In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36

If the J2 populations of MENA aren't white, then neither are the Greeks and Romans. And if the J2's are white, then so are the other caucasoid swarthy races of the region.

Yes, at most it says that ancient Egyptians are more closely related to Europeans than to Sub-Saharan Africans. Not that Egyptians are closely related to Europeans because it's just not true.

That's mostly because of the model they were using. Because of more recent Sub-Saharan admixture (I think it was like 7%) modern Egyptians are shifted towards Sub-Saharan populations. That doesn't mean they are cosely related to modern day Europeans.

>white

And varg is the ultimate faggot, don't know why people listen to his lies.

>That's mostly because of the model they were using
Nope

>That doesn't mean they are cosely related to modern day Europeans.
Literally states "we found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples "

>That doesn't mean they are cosely related to modern day Europeans.
Love the semantics. Who were they closely related to if not to the people literally living next to them and involved in regular trade with?

>Nope
Yes. It's literally what this study is about.

>Who were they closely related to
>We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b).

And:

>The closest populations on the MDS with respect to our ancient meta population (AEGY) are modern populations from Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and other Near-East populations

More shifted towards them than x samples doesn't mean they were closer to them than to the x samples

That 7% SSA admixture was actually for ancient Egyptians. Modern ones are around 9-16% on average.

Which in turn proven how fucking retarded and arbitrary white is as a concept

>white is arbitrary
>leftists literally can't tell a nigger from a white man

...

>Red is sub-saharan admixture
This kill the afro-centrist

White is a subcategory of caucasoid, but while it is reasonable to exclude racially distinct Dravidians, it makes less sense to exclude many Afro-Asiatic peoples who have very dark skin, such as Nubians and Ethiopians. But just because the edge are blurry doesn't mean it doesn't exist, red and blue exist despite the existence of purple.

>3 individuals
>late periods
They are as delusional as nordicist. Most of them already say that Hyksos murdered all original Egyptians or something.

Are you retarded? Near Easterners are genetically close to Europeans if they don't have Negroid admixture

literally my point, negroid admixture is fairly recent to the middle east.

This does not mean Near Easterners are or were European though.
Europeans just acquired Anatolian and Caucasus DNA during the Neolithic. This is most notable in maternal lines.
No one would claim a pure Mesolithic European man is close to these Egyptians.

>wtf even is white

Roughly people originating here.
Atlantic to Urals, Sahara to North Pole.

Adjust for Arabs and Persians as your personal feelings guide you, its not a scientific term.

>I doubt this considering he thinks southern Europeans are non-White mongrels no different from Arabs

Is he doing that Evola thing where he claims the pure white people were wizards who lived 400 years and lived in an island in the north, but when they mixed with subhuman browns they lost their special powers and became modern germans?

WE

This study was done in only 1 city/settlement.

Why do you people care about an opinion of a metal musician/church arsonist/murderer?

Have similar DNA =/= white

Only an 80 IQ retard would think that has any significance.
The samples from Crocodilopolis cover a period of one and a half thousand years.

>Caucasian race

Caucasian race is an American meme. How you actually seen people from Caucasus? Not white.

Circassians and Chechens do look fairly white in the same way Bulgarians do.

>Only an 80 IQ retard would think that has any significance.

Of course it does, its very obviously a flaw.
Would you take Balkan DNA to prove "european race" shit and then apply it to the Irish?

why do you anti white leftcucks want a safe space?

What do Irish have to do with anything?

If there was a special community of Levantines in Crocilopolis distinct from the "Real Black Egyptians", they had to violently and murderously racist to not mix in 1.5k years.
That's not consistent with our understanding of Ancient Egypt.

>people before cars and urbanization totally got married to women from 500 miles away

Exactly. Egyptians were never "Black" because they never mixed with the distant Blacks in Sudan.

The population was largely descended from the original Natufians and Pre-Pottery Neolithic migrants from Levant and stayed that way until the Arab slave trade which introduced new SSA genetics.

Yes

I don't give a fuck about your rhetoric. The study is shit, it has an obvious flaw. You need data from more points.

WE WUZ WHITE PHARAOHS

Just stop dude

sorry but science is on my side

Oh I have a feeling afrocentrists won't concede no matter how much DNA we have from Ancient Egypt.
Afrocentrism is a mental illness cannot be cured by information alone, especially information that is too complex for them to grasp.

I am not an afro-centrist or any other ideology.
I came into the thread, read the shit in it, noticed a study that has only a small sample spread being hailed as a holy relic, and replied.

Its like those gay frog studies posted on /pol/, where a british scientist took samples from a sewage opening where agricultural and industrial waste meet, and concluded that contraceptives are a sin.

No.

No. Varg is psychotic.

They were actually, well not "white" but a mix of european genes, think inbred mixes of meds and nordics.

Germanics are indo-europeans who migrated/invaded from the ukranian steppe.

Nordics? In Egypt? Literally WE WUZ tier.

>small sample

You have no idea what you're talking about.
The conditions in Egypt are not ideal for the preservation of DNA so they picked three well preserved samples from three temporally distinct periods for autosome sequencing.

They have a much bigger sample of mitochondrial DNA and that also backs up the autosomal results.

.

>post says "small sample spread"
>you strawman it as "small sample"
>put that dot on an empty paragraph as if your uneducated opinion is gospel

4/10, got me to cringe and reply. Closing the tab now.

Only a retard would think it doesnt have significance. Different areas of Egypt could have different ethnicities.

Are you retarded?

Yeah maybe there were Nords in Giza

Maybe there were africans in Ireland

Occam's razor

Elaborate. Both claims are equally lacking in evidence.

So is this Occam's razor would suggest though that the people living north of Crocodilopolis in the Nile delta were either

1. similar to the indigenous Egyptian inhabitants of Crocodilopolis
2. more mixed with circum Mediterranean populations

Both possibilities are very realistic.

Nubians and Ethiopians are literally mixed race population. You don't see people calling African Americans "Caucasoid" despite them being 20-25% Caucasian. The same applies for other people in Sudan and South Sudan, even the blackest people there can often have "Caucasoid" features thanks to rampant mixing. Dravidians can get excluded completely because there is an entire race that looks quite similar to them native to South and Southeast Asia, parts of the Pacific, and Australia.

It doesn't matter if you are white or not.

If you are a Pagan that rejects Christ then you will burn in hell all the same along with the muzzies.

Seeking glory in your race and larping in the modern day era as a viking is poor excuse for lifting yourself up as an example. Repent and find Jesus and stop this autistic larping.

>never
>they had 9-15% SSA DNA on average

It would be more accurate to say almost never. Although there was indeed a point where their earliest ancestors had no African DNA as you said.

>they had 9-15% SSA DNA

No they didn't see

Sorry my mind was wandering. I meant germanics.

You're ignoring the importance of Egypt in the Sapiens settlement of Eurasia.

The paleolithic locals should in theory share more genetic drift with Eurasians than Africans but also share less genetic drift with them than all Eurasians do with each other.
This could result in some kind of pseudo-SSA signal.

1. There are short yellow people in China.
Occam's Razor that there are short yellow people in India too, since its next to China.
Occam's Razor that there are short yellow people in Persia too, since its next to India, which we deduced has them.
Occam's Razor that there are short yellow people in Anatolia, and Europe, and everywhere, because its a retarded pseudo-intellectual tool of rhetoric and not a logical device.

Occam's razor isn't intended to be applied on things we have concrete information of.

If we had no information about the world outside China and little about China, all of those could be constructed as rational pre-eliminary hypotheses.

This is of course entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. Lack of information is not the problem here, ignorance and afrocentric bias are.

Indians and Persians were white

I proved that O'sR gives you bad conclusions.
You exclusively used O'sR to make your claims.

1+1=?