Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: welkynDate: 2020-02-06 15:19:27Reaction Score: 5
Edit: below is a mess, I will try and structure it somehow at a later point
Low down on British history: indigenous were the "black Europeans" of Medieval Depiction (you know, the ones with the googly "white faces" painted over the top); at some point, Hyperboreans and Phoenicians turn up. That is pretty much it. "Celtic" west is Phoenician; overtook "Galatian" ("true Celtic") culture that had arrived post-Troy (destroyed c. 0 AD if we place Rome's collapse c. 1,000 AD). "Anglo-Saxons" there are none; "Germanic" Goths, Suebi and Vandals, all Hunnic forces ("Golden Horde") came in from east to push back Phoenician aggression against natives/Galatians in west. This is "Celtic/Germanic split". Romans responded to "Germanic" "invasion" - already shared trade empire with "Celtic" Gaul (Phoenicians, again), which had satellites in Britain (e.g. London). Romans attack from France - this is at one and the same time the Roman, Norman, and Saxon invasions: the overarching government "in Rome" (wherever Rome was) commanded it, the "Norman" "French" aristocracy led it, the "Saxon" mercenaries/"foederatii" fought it. They fought against the northern groups - Picts, northern "Britons" (who are never called Cymraeg), and Angles. Welsh, Gaels, and other forces fought alongside Rome in many instances - only remnant native groups in e.g. Wales held against Roman/Phoenician attack.
Wilson and Blackett are nutters, they believe the narrative that has been fed to them. Welsh history is retarded specifically because it is the history of
Phoenician invasion of Britain. It's in the texts themselves - "Brutus" of Troy comes from the same Middle Eastern cultural horizon that all Phoenician exodus stems from. Thus: where we read of "Britons" in the older chronologies, we must think of Phoenicians. These are not the "Celts", genetic or otherwise - though they have usurped the title in the redacted Victorian versions of Geoffrey, Gildas and Nennius's accounts. The "Celts proper" are the "Galatoi" from Turkey - the forces that
destroyed Troy and the Mediterranean Slave-Empires. This is very well recorded - depending on how you read the accounts we have left. These peoples had already arrived in the islands of Britain and Ireland by the time the Phoenicians showed up. The Phoenicians have
usurped true "Celtic" history in these islands and implanted themselves in the narrative. The conflict between "Germanic" "Anglo-Saxons" and "Celtic" "Britons and Irish" is a myth - the real conflict, of course, was between
free interrelated tribes of all designations and the
dominating foreign imperium. All tribes have been associated in the histories with the Romans/Phoenicians, in order to discredit them.
Now, I will point out a few things: the history recorded in the earliest chronologies of Britain and Ireland, be they of whatever culture, are utterly fraudulent, on several counts; but the most damning, is that they do not correlate with the architecture that we have. You will notice that Geoffrey of Monmouth places his Britons before the Romans; he places his Saxons after the Romans. But there is, archaeologically speaking, no specific "Saxon habitation" that is distinct from Roman habitation, and, likewise - beyond a certain point, at least - no sign of non-"Roman" iron age habitation. Thus, we have serious discrepancies: even on these minute points, these histories are severely skewed, altered from the original story - the real story - on which they are based. The fact that we do not have contiguous development of architecture over the first millennium AD, neither in Britain nor anywhere else, but only a stuttering re-application of the same 1st-3rd century Roman motifs - three distinct phases, each reflecting the last in utter perfection,
with no sign of any area being built over despite tales of widespread destruction at the end of each of these phases - renders the delineation of "pre-Roman", "Roman", and "post-Roman" utterly null and void - the timeframe within which the Celts, Phoenicians, "Angles" (and/or Vikings - northmen in general) and Romans/Normans arrived in Britain is some 3-400 years. All of them. Within that tiny timeframe. That is what the archaeology points to, if we are to keep these outdated names and tribal designations going - if we strip even these from the picture, then the narrative is as we have established elsewhere. There are three factions vying in this island: the "Phoenician" faction (Romans, Normans, "fake celts", "fake saxons"); the "Hyperborean" faction (Galatoi/"true Celts", Goths/Slavs/Balts, Huns, Tatars - you name it, we had it), and the "indigenous" faction, which might be considered "Atlantean" by some - the counterfoil to the Phoenicians, and, in the balance of things, potentially just as "bad" (depending on how one reads it).
In my people's earliest accounts of this island, it was referred to as the "Isle of Dogs", because the Galatoi had come upon it - and we thought of the Galatoi, the Celts, as very much like dogs. Not in any condescending way - we respect dogs very much, they're extremely faithful and useful companions - but because we admired their "doggedness" in both trade and war, a trait marked in many of the chiefly tribal names of true Celtic peoples (anything with "Cun" or "Cyn" in it - Cunobelinus, for example, "The Hound of
Beli", who was a renowned ancestral figure). When these people were set upon by foreign powers, our people - who had already been invited into the Baltic region to fight against these "Sea Peoples" that had turned up - were again invited west, to engage in the wars that transpired there. Thus, the Roman accounts signifying that people of "Germanic stock" (Hyperboreans) existed amongst the northern "Britons", and the recent finds in the arena of York of five warriors' remains, four indigenous, two of these indigenous people bearing explicitly "Germanic" haplotypic lines, albeit originating from
Scotland.
As for
when this should all have transpired - within the last 1,000 years, only. Depending on when we place ourselves, that is! But I would allow only 1,200 years for the bulk of the above to have transpired - the coming of Galatians (unrecorded), Phoenicians (recorded as "Celts" of various kinds), Romans (recorded as Romans, Saxons, Normans etc.), and Hyperboreans (recorded as Angles, Vikings, "Barbarian Conspiracy" of various northern tribes). The indigenous people of these islands - such as remain - have been amalgamated in general, though their lines still bear through. The I paternal lineage is fascinating in that it was one and the same as the J lineage from the Middle East - strongly associated with the Phoenicians - until a point at which the two "split" from each other, the I becoming "indigenous European", the J becoming "indigenous Middle-Easterner". I like to think of "IJ" as being the "Atlantean" male stock - the "northern Atlanteans" are the indigenous Europeans, the "southern Atlanteans" are the "Phoenicians" (if not exclusively, then as we call them - whatever that culture was that has produced this Mediterranid "Tartarian" architecture/tech).
JD made an interesting point about North Welsh vs. South Welsh - and this is born out in genetics, as well. South Walians are markedly distinct from North Walians, moreso than any other two British populations are distinct from one another - Germanic Angles in eastern England are more closely related to Gaelic Scots in the Hebrides. South Welsh, as a language, carries an awful lot more Latin admixture - or so it seems. The language is very much more "Romance" than that spoken in the north. That spoken in the north, being of an even more northern extraction originally - coming not from Wales, but from Cumbria, Northumberland, the Scottish Borders and Dumfries/Galloway - has acclimatised to its southern environment somewhat in recent centuries, but is still noticeably different in vocabulary and structures. I haven't looked too hard into it, but I prefer north Welsh to south Welsh. Now, as for the genetic disparity: the north Walians carry a much higher percentage of "Hyperborean" "Steppe-related" ancestry - that is to say, tall-white genes from Asia - whereas the south Walians carry much more in the way of Middle Eastern and Indigenous ancestry - that is to say, "Atlantean" ancestry, if we want to consider it like that. There are at least two different kinds of South Walian which exhibit these traits in different admixtures; north Walians are much more homogenous. Now, interestingly, North Walians are closer to classic "German" genetics even than the average Englander - they are even more weighted towards the Hyperborean/Steppe pool than the bulk of southern and midland English (who in turn carry a good proportion of Middle Eastern/indigenous ancestry, much like the South Welsh). Given the origin of contemporary North Walians in
Gododdin, that is to say, the
Gothic ("Germanic") Kingdom surrounding Din Eidyn, this stands to reason: what we are witnessing is something totally unrecorded in any "historical" document, that is to say, the arrival in Britain
in a time before the Cymraeg, from the east, of "Germanic" tribespeople - who nonetheless ended up speaking a "Celtic" language. There are mysteries to unravel here. Suffice it to say, the history of Britain is best understood archaeologically and (archaeo-)genetically - the tracts that we have from the past surrounding supposed invasions and wars are bunk but for the
historical trajectories they identify. The patterns of movement are more or less correct: what is wrong is the order, and the association of tribal/cultural horizons.
Edit2: one final note I'd like to make, about the "true Scots": everyone who knows their
mythistory knows that the Scots first claim descent not from "Scota of Egypt" but from the "Scythians" - these being, as we have ascertained elsewhere, branches of
Hyperboreans. It is highly likely that the notion of "Scota" mirrors the NW European tradition of matrilineal King-reckoning - (military?) leaders were the offspring of a
female royal line, not male patrilineality - and the association with Egypt recalls the time when Ireland and Egypt were tied at the hip, which I'm sure people are looking into elsewhere on this forum. Note Scythian presence in Egypt c. Akhenaton time as "Hyksos", variant/descendant from "Saka" of Middle East. Coincidentally, this is where the "Saxon" confusion comes in - "Saxon" is, as used, most faithfully translated as "of the stones" (ref. to habitation of "giant's houses", the stone-built edifices of pre-cataclysmic wherever), whereas in other contexts it could easily mean "Scythian".
