Let's Invent Scottish 'History'

[Musicology]

LET’S INVENT SCOTTISH HISTORY

Today, when Scotsmen gather together to celebrate their national identity, they tend to assert it openly by certain distinctive things. (With a few exceptions. Of whom I am happy to be one). They wear the kilt, for example, woven in a ‘tartan’ whose colour and pattern indicates their clan, and, as likely as not, there is the playing of bagpipes. It's good fun. In limited quantities. But both things, which are often said to be of great antiquity, are, in fact, of fairly modern invention. Developed after, in fact, union with England in the 17th century (sometimes long after). And, although there really was some effort to promote this ‘Scottish’ image of kilted, ancient bagpipe playing Highlanders before union with England it was laughed at by most Scots and was never representative of antiquity. It was a form of propaganda coming from elite estate holders who had their own cultural and other interests. As we will see.

It was not until around 1771 when Edward Gibbon (famous for writing his multi volumed ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’) made the mistake of promoting a work by two Scottish writers (James Macpherson and John of the same family) - their ‘Introduction to the History of Great Britain and Ireland’ (1771) which caused the legends of ancient highland Scottish clans to be widely accepted by the aristocrats of Europe. It took a full century of honest research to clear Scottish history of these Macpherson fabrications. But the Macphersons in that time succeeded in putting the imaginary ancient Highland Scots on the cultural map. To create the typically romantic image with which we are all familiar. Aided by sympathetic and encouraging applause from chattering women of high status in the fashion salons of Paris such as Madame de Stael. With the now ‘ancient Scottish highlander’ culture seen as heroic and even said to be superior ( according to men such as F.A. Wolf of Germany) to that of Homer’s ancient Greece. Great stuff for the emerging Scottish tourist industry, you may agree !

In 1805 Sir Walter Scott, keen to build on these fictions, wrote an article for the ‘Edinburgh Review’ saying that the ancient Scots had, during the 3rd century worn a ‘tartan philibeg’. Although nobody had ever said so before. He produced no evidence then and nobody has since that time. (Not even the notorious Macphersons). But by that time it was already fashionable to be a supporter of this romantic idea of the Stuarts being the ‘real’ancient kings of Britain. (They, the Stuarts, were in fact an 18th century attempt to revive Celtic and even Etruscan ideas of feudalism. Which had certainly had impact on Britain in the centuries before the Christian Era. Conveniently hidden by the fact that they, the promoters of this Scottish tartan fashion were also loyal members of the Church of Rome).

So, how did the‘kilt’ come to be universally known as the ancient national dress of the Scottish highlanders ?

Well, as early as the 16th century various kinds of tartan cloth were already being imported in to Scotland - not from Britain but actually from Flanders and Holland. It was 200 years later when the kilt was invented as a traditional Highland dress. After 1707, in fact.

This modern origin of the kilt was first admitted to in 1768 by various writers but news of its recent arrival was only widely published in 1785. When, significantly, nobody at that time protested or disagreed with such facts. Nor did anyone defend the idea of ancient Scottish clans in family tartans. It was widely recognised to be a modern fiction. And, at the time of the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 (with ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’) the tartans being associated with the influential families involved were themselves a clever fiction. Tartan was at that time only a fashion garment that was being sold in some cities for some estate workers and their managers. A sort of company costume. Our idea that entire towns and their inhabitants of Highland Scots had always been identified down the centuries by wearing a particular tartan was (and is) sheer fiction. Although the formation of the Highland Society (1788) did even more to spread the myth of ancient tartans.

King George 4th’s Royal Visit to Edinburgh in 1822 cost lots of money and almost bankrupted his patrons in Scotland over the course of his stay. That event is largely responsible for the fashion for Highland ’clan’ tartans which we know today. The farce reached epic size that year when the King on his arrival toasted the ‘chieftains and clans of Scotland’ since those feudal estate holders had assembled there having earlier ordered any tartan for them to wear that was available. Claiming later to be owners of that same design for many centuries. Although, in fact, the first time they had seen it was when it was ordered from the cloth merchants ! Commerce doing the rest.

The manipulation of highland clan culture by Charles Edward Stuart (whose later supporters included many aristocrats and estate holders of the nobility in Scotland) is among the most laughable chapters of Scottish History. So-called. The invention, in fact, of ‘history’.

I can’t end without mention of the Sobieski Stuarts (men who, embarrassingly, produced evidence on their arrival in Scotland in the mid 19th century of being descended from Charles Edward Stuart and a Polish King of the Holy Roman Empire) but betrayed the fact that the real sponsors of Charles Edward Stuart were vested interests protected within the status quo of a Catholic Europe whose ancestors had little to do with Christianity (Roman or otherwise). The Sobieski’s published a book on the alleged ancient tartans of Scotland in 1846. Which was instantly rejected by anyone interested in historical reality. Theirs was a determined attempt to revive not only an imagined ancient Highland costume but also an imaginary and ancient Highland civilization that owes more in fact to Assyria, Babylon and ancient Greece than anything else. Paganism, in fact, hidden within the Stuart legend. Since the hierarchical control of nations is precisely what the Stuart and Sobieski myths were invented to achieve. And they did so. In Scotland.

But don’t tell the children !


//

[hallaig]

All nations invent themselves and re-invent themselves. The 19th Century romanticisation of the Highland Scot was a European wide phenomenon. Interesting though that what you think of as invention often turns out to be true: Medieval stories about the origins of Scotland, as delivered for instance to the Papacy during Edward 1's attempts to prove historical hegemony over Scotland, have recently been re-examined. The idea that the Scots historically originated from the middle east (via Egypt and Troy) which were rubbished for centuries have been given new validity in a recent book by Alastair Moffat examining gene patterns in both places.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Kilts originated in Ireland. And it has been around from at least the 16th century

this thread is gash

[hallaig]

Na Irish nationalists nicked the kilt as a symbol of gaelic nationalism in the late 19th early 20th centuries. You're maybe mistaking the lein croich, a long tunic, which the Irish are depicted as wearing in earlier times, for a kilt. No comparison really.

Your response, sir, was gash.

[Musicology]

Hi there Hallaig,

Yes, you are right. The actual evidence suggests this island of Britain had waves of eastern immigrants arriving here from around the time of the ancient Phonenicians. That is, from around 1200 BC onwards. Who displaced any indigenous inhabitants and set up their own regimes. The so-called Celtic culture (which we are taught is indigenous to Europe) is actually not so. It came with them. (The Celtic inscriptions of Europe are amazingly similar to those of the Etruscans although the academic world studiously ignores the relationship between the two). The Etruscan culture of southern Europe (via Greece and other places) was the forerunner of the Roman Empire. Those eastern people had started to migrate westwards over centuries with the expansion of the empire of ancient Assyria, in fact. (Especially in the period 824 to 625 BC). As we see in the map below. And expanded westwards over centuries. Taking over in those centuries almost all of ancient Palestine and all of Egypt before moving to Greece and ancient Europe. Incorporating the belief systems of those pagan nations as they did so. The Vikings were, ancestrally, from ancient Babylon and Assyria. Having already incorporated in to their structures the cults of the ancient pagan east.

The idea of 'ancient Scottish tribes and particular tartans' dating back many centuries was really part of a revival of occultism and fraternity myth that was popular during the 18th century - of which Freemasonry (itself a revival of earlier pagan mystery cults) were protected within the structures of a largely Roman Catholic Europe. But Rome (especially the Holy Roman Empire) and its elites had been largely patronising the mystery cults of the ancient East ever since the late 4th century. At the highest levels. Further revived in the 'renaissance' (lit. the 'rebirth') of pagan ideas and pagan religion.

I agree with Alastair Moffat and others. The Scots (such as we know of them) definitely came from the East. Some say they were Scythians. Others say they were pagans associated with the Khazars. The question is whether there were already indigenous men and women here at the time of their earliest arrival. I think there were. And it that's correct our 'history' is largely artificial and has been written by the status quo.

Here is a remarkable map of the Assyrian expansion westwards in the period 824-625 BC.

Regards


http://www.mediafire.com/i/?p4ku4mt8n094lt8



All nations invent themselves and re-invent themselves. The 19th Century romanticisation of the Highland Scot was a European wide phenomenon. Interesting though that what you think of as invention often turns out to be true: Medieval stories about the origins of Scotland, as delivered for instance to the Papacy during Edward 1's attempts to prove historical hegemony over Scotland, have recently been re-examined. The idea that the Scots historically originated from the middle east (via Egypt and Troy) which were rubbished for centuries have been given new validity in a recent book by Alastair Moffat examining gene patterns in both places.

[MarkBastable]

...our 'history' is largely artificial and has been written by the status quo.


This is true of all history. That, in fact, is pretty much what history is. The assertion is so truistic it's a bit pointless. It's oddly adolescent to be so exercised by it.

[OrphanPip]

Hi there Hallaig,

Yes, you are right. The actual evidence suggests this island of Britain had waves of eastern immigrants arriving here from around the time of the ancient Phonenicians. That is, from around 1200 BC onwards. Who displaced any indigenous inhabitants and set up their own regimes. The so-called Celtic culture (which we are taught is indigenous to Europe) is actually not so. It came with them. (The Celtic inscriptions of Europe are amazingly similar to those of the Etruscans although the academic world studiously ignores the relationship between the two). The Etruscan culture of southern Europe (via Greece and other places) was the forerunner of the Roman Empire. Those eastern people had started to migrate westwards over centuries with the expansion of the empire of ancient Assyria, in fact. (Especially in the period 824 to 625 BC). As we see in the map below. And expanded westwards over centuries. Taking over in those centuries almost all of ancient Palestine and all of Egypt before moving to Greece and ancient Europe. Incorporating the belief systems of those pagan nations as they did so. The Vikings were, ancestrally, from ancient Babylon and Assyria. Having already incorporated in to their structures the cults of the ancient pagan east.


I think you've been drinking or something Music, cause you seem to pull this out of your ***.

It is impossible that there was a large scale migration from Assyria through to Western Europe. The genetic haplotypes do not match up. The predominant haplotypes of Europe are of Caucasus origin, likely brought into Europe after the domestication of the horse caused massive spread of Steppes culture Westward around 3000-5000 BCE. This is why light coloured eyes, which also originated in the Caucasus, are most common in Europe and Central Russia.

The languages of Northern and Western Europe are either Indo-European or indigenous with strong Indo-European influence from Steppes culture. If Assyrians had spread their culture so far, we would see Semitic linguistic influences.

[MarkBastable]

I think you've been drinking or something Music, cause you seem to pull this out of your ***.

It is impossible that there was a large scale migration from Assyria through to Western Europe. The genetic haplotypes do not match up. The predominant haplotypes of Europe are of Caucasus origin, likely brought into Europe after the domestication of the horse caused massive spread of Steppes culture Westward around 3000-5000 BCE. This is why light coloured eyes, which also originated in the Caucasus, are most common in Europe and Central Russia.

The languages of Northern and Western Europe are either Indo-European or indigenous with strong Indo-European influence from Steppes culture. If Assyrians had spread their culture so far, we would see Semitic linguistic influences.

He'll have an explanation for that. Even if it's only 'LOL'.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Na Irish nationalists nicked the kilt as a symbol of gaelic nationalism in the late 19th early 20th centuries. You're maybe mistaking the lein croich, a long tunic, which the Irish are depicted as wearing in earlier times, for a kilt. No comparison really.

Your response, sir, was gash.

I'd expect that response from a jock

[Musicology]

OrphanPip,

What is 'impossible' ? The facts are as follows. The Assyrian Empire (which emerged from that of Babylonia) expanded massively westwards in the period between 824 and 625 BC. That's a basic fact of ancient history. Isn't it ? Ask anyone who has ever read ancient history. Its expansion included most of what is today known as Palestine, but it also included ALL of ancient Egypt. That's quite an expansion, isn't it ? These westward moving pagans took on elements of the religions of the conquered nations into its pantheon. Including those of pagan Palestine and of Egypt. That too is a plain, indisputable fact. Anyone who reads the subject already knows this. It's indisputable fact. But check it for yourself. Why not ?

These same peoples continued their westward migration even further west over the next centuries. Into Greece, Scandinavia and western Europe. In fact, they had been preceded by others in earlier centuries from the mercantile, slave running Empire of the Phoenicians. This too is a plain fact of history. Don't you know this ? The Phoenician links with southern Britain and Ireland are a plain fact. Nobody disputes this also. It too is plain, documented history. The Etruscan culture (out of which the Roman Empire grew) came from that mass immigration in to southern continental Europe. You know this already, don't you . That too is a plain and indisputable fact. So, you see, I am not presenting a case on any lack of evidence but upon real, actual, verifiable facts of history. These are large westward moving acts of immigration. Over many centuries of the pre-Christian era. The Etruscan culture indisputably had links to that of ancient pagan Greece and also to the earlier pagan cultures of further east. That too is a plain, indisputable fact.

The 'Celtic' culture has its real origins in these eastern peoples. It was not indigenous. Consider that. That too is a plain, indisputable fact. But few know this. Let me just give you one of dozens of actual, documentary evidences in full support of this fact. In two volumes - (if that is enough for you ?)

''Etruria Celtica'' (2 volumes)
Sir William Betham (1842)

Betham was a man who studied the Celtic inscriptions of Europe extensively for many years AND also those of the Etruscans and also those of early Roman civilization. Argue with him ! He said (and I quote) -

'The Etruscans and the Iberno Celtic are both shown to have come from the ancient Phoenician'

And that's not all. He presents two entire volumes of documentary, verifiable, actual, evidence.

If you wish to prove this wrong you have surely to start with some appreciation of the actual, published, verifiable evidence. And not, as your last post, a total lack of any evidence. How about that, as a start ? Then we can have a fair conversation. The invention of Scottish history in the 18th century was a modern revival of pagan mystery cults. Who date back to those Celtic times. These are plain facts. Not opinions. You will read them, won't you ? Just ask and I will send you these on PDF. Form your own view.

Thank You



I think you've been drinking or something Music, cause you seem to pull this out of your ***.

It is impossible that there was a large scale migration from Assyria through to Western Europe. The genetic haplotypes do not match up. The predominant haplotypes of Europe are of Caucasus origin, likely brought into Europe after the domestication of the horse caused massive spread of Steppes culture Westward around 3000-5000 BCE. This is why light coloured eyes, which also originated in the Caucasus, are most common in Europe and Central Russia.

The languages of Northern and Western Europe are either Indo-European or indigenous with strong Indo-European influence from Steppes culture. If Assyrians had spread their culture so far, we would see Semitic linguistic influences.

[hallaig]

I'd expect that response from a jock

hmmm such erudition, such rapier like response. Just what you'd expect from an .....eejit?

[Musicology]

LOL

Well said Hallaig !!


hmmm such erudition, such rapier like response. Just what you'd expect from an .....eejit?

[Emil Miller]

Is this another 'let's be controversial for the sake of it thread' or a genuine attempt to discuss an historical period? If the former, then it's best ignored, if the latter, it will have limited input because it's unlikely that many people will have an interest in something as esoteric as Scottish history. There is much more mileage to had in the 'Did Shakespeare write the plays?' controversy and it is more relevant to a forum dealing principally with literature.

[Musicology]

The history 'they' don't want us to know.

'Etruria Celtica'

Etruscan Language and Antiquities Investigated
(The Language of the Ancient and Illustrious People Compared and Identified
With the Iberno Celtic - And both of them shown to be Phoenician)

Sir William Betham
1842

Volume 1

http://www.mediafire.com/?jddx791bvo9ozrr

[kiki1982]

Let me guess, the Assyrians moved all westward as they conquered. And, hold one, the peoples who lived on the land they had conquered, all moved...? westward (of course!). And what or who, pray, came in the place of the Assyrian mother land and its population? After all, there were no Assyrians left as they all moved westward, right?

:out:

Of course the kilt was a 19th century invention, at least in its modern form and the clan-tartan was that too, I believe. An early 19th century Romantic-inspired English invention which was nice and cosy. Partly the great Sir Walter Scott contributed to it, and it culminated in the building of Balmoral by Victoria, with its dark and tartaned carpets, curtains and rigid highland discipline, which Diana hated so much and which prince Charles allegedly revels in.

Do we really need someone to point this out? We do read books, you know.

[tonywalt]

I think you've been drinking or something Music, cause you seem to pull this out of your ***.

It is impossible that there was a large scale migration from Assyria through to Western Europe. The genetic haplotypes do not match up. The predominant haplotypes of Europe are of Caucasus origin, likely brought into Europe after the domestication of the horse caused massive spread of Steppes culture Westward around 3000-5000 BCE. This is why light coloured eyes, which also originated in the Caucasus, are most common in Europe and Central Russia.

The languages of Northern and Western Europe are either Indo-European or indigenous with strong Indo-European influence from Steppes culture. If Assyrians had spread their culture so far, we would see Semitic linguistic influences.

You absolutely correct. You can just look at both the Y DNA an MTDNA both supporting the fact that the genetic haplotypes do not suport significant mmigration from Assyria. A good website/organisation is Family DNA and also National Geographic has a good study(in progress). I submitted DNA samples to both, and you can see the matches to your own pop up on the website. Surprising how the haplogroups are very concentrated, with the 'odd ones out'.

[Musicology]

No, you need to read again. The Assyrians absorbed the cultures and beliefs of those they conquered and incorporated them into its growing westerward moving civilization. Is this hard to understand ? No, it's simple.

The people they conquered were subservient to that growing civilization. This too is rather simple, isn't it ? They became enslaved by it. With few exceptions. Does it get more simple ?

You ask whether you need to read books. Yes, you obviously do if you don't know the Celtic culture and that of the Etruscans of the west came from these mass movements of the East. Which is what you have here denied. Try reading about it. I will now post volume 2. So glad you appreciate evidence.

Thank You




Let me guess, the Assyrians moved all westward as they conquered. And, hold one, the peoples who lived on the land they had conquered, all moved...? westward (of course!). And what or who, pray, came in the place of the Assyrian mother land and its population? After all, there were no Assyrians left as they all moved westward, right?

:out:

Of course the kilt was a 19th century invention, at least in its modern form and the clan-tartan was that too, I believe. An early 19th century Romantic-inspired English invention which was nice and cosy. Partly the great Sir Walter Scott contributed to it, and it culminated in the building of Balmoral by Victoria, with its dark and tartaned carpets, curtains and rigid highland discipline, which Diana hated so much and which prince Charles allegedly revels in.

Do we really need someone to point this out? We do read books, you know.

'Etruria Celtica'

Etruscan Language and Antiquities Investigated
(The Language of the Ancient and Illustrious People Compared and Identified
With the Iberno Celtic - And both of them shown to be Phoenician)

Sir William Betham
1842

Volume 2

Now you see the importance to the dynasties and elite families of their pagan bloodlines. The argument of DNA not proving anything among the general population is irrelevant. The vast mass of people were ruled by them anyway. Regardless. It’s the elites silly !! Whose bloodlines are these who impose on the west their rule. Stretching back to Babylonia and Assyria.

So glad we sorted that out !

http://www.mediafire.com/?hsjycj951h4no5j

[kiki1982]

And how do you explain the fact that genomes do not add up?

It is totally possible, in theory, that they enslaved the peoples they conquered and that they themselves assimilated, but there need to have been double as many Assyrians to cover the area (possibly more) to do this.

And then you still have the problem of genomes not showing any Assyrian links.

Get out of that one. Get it?

PS: Did you know that from time to time in Mongolia, amongst those tribes in the Steppe, there are children born who are white caucasian and blue-eyed? It is evidently because of the small amount of Western Europeans who moved there at the time of Alexander the Great. If those children are an exception, then how is it that, despite the great move westward of the Assyrians, there are not more Assyrian-looking people running around in Europe than there are caucasians in Mongolia?

And you are surely not going to base your findings on a book from 1842?

[Musicology]

Simple. A handful of ancient ruling elite families who descended from these peoples have ruled Europe from Celtic/Etruscan times. Who intermarried among themselves. Staying within their bloodlines. Thus, the vast mass of peoples were not from them.

Does this ring a bell ? It ought to. It's the history of royalty and unelected dynasties, isn't it ?

(So glad we sorted that out ! )

We all love Babylonian enslavement, don't we ?

Regards



And how do you explain the fact that genomes do not add up?

It is totally possible, in theory, that they enslaved the peoples they conquered and that they themselves assimilated, but there need to have been double as many Assyrians to cover the area (possibly more) to do this.

And then you still have the problem of genomes not showing any Assyrian links.

Get out of that one. Get it?

PS: Did you know that from time to time in Mongolia, amongst those tribes in the Steppe, there are children born who are white caucasian and blue-eyed? It is evidently because of the small amount of Western Europeans who moved there at the time of Alexander the Great. If those children are an exception, then how is it that, despite the great move westward of the Assyrians, there are not more Assyrian-looking people running around in Europe than there are caucasians in Mongolia?

[kiki1982]

Oh, but of course, those few families must have indoctrinated millions of people! So after all, it was not a massive migration, only a small one of a few families. Glad we cleared that up ;).

Still, I presume that those few ruling families could demand of all those people they ruled that they took on the Assyrian culture and left their own to rot? That, my friend, works so well that Nero tried it with the Christian sect and look where that one is now.

Let me also tell you that Egyptian faraos had massive genetic disorders because they continuously married their brothers or sisters and that the Habsburg family also had trouble. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia's son Aleksey had severe haemophilia so that he had to be carried everywhere for fear he would have a bleed. Haemophilia is a disorder on the X-chromosome, I think, and only comes to light in boys, not in girls, though those girls (so also the daughters of Nicholas) are carriers of the disease. You also know, I presume that the Hannover dynasty had porphyria, which Victoria, strangely, did not have and which proves that she was an illegitimate child as porphyria is a dominant gene and causes symptoms in girls and boys. If, my friend, all royalty was descended from the same few ruling families which would have been interbreeding for millenia, then they would all have haemophilia and porphyria and a number of other things. So, in other words, what you are saying is utter rubbish as certain things run in certain families and not in every and each one of them.

[hallaig]

[QUOTE=Emil Miller;1037527 it's unlikely that many people will have an interest in something as esoteric as Scottish history..[/QUOTE]


Yes. Nobody's very interested in other peoples' cultures and histories. Stupid bringing it up really. Whose history warrants thinking about then? Let me guess......

[Musicology]

You ask whether a few families must have indoctrinated millions of people by ruling over them, (they and their bloodlines), for many centuries. Although they themselves were relatively few in number compared to the populations over which they ruled. Goodness ! Where did you get such an amazing idea from ? Except, perhaps, from the history of the elite dynasties of virtually the entire ancient worlds of Eygpt, Babylon, Assyria, China, Russia, Europe and elsewhere ! With the most loyal slaves (themselves checked in advance to be of the 'right' kind, before being admitted in to the nobility/aristocracy of that state from time to time, usually by marriage etc/). Now, where have I read that before ? From the facts of history, perhaps ? LOL ! Does it get more obvious ?

Anyway, hope you get round to reading the documented facts of the Etruscans and the Celts already posted. That would be a real achievement. And not just for you, but for all who hear you lecturing on the subject. Since you are an enthusiastic reader of facts and are ready to accept evidence, aren't you ?

Volume 1

http://www.mediafire.com/?jddx791bvo9ozrr

Volume 2

http://www.mediafire.com/?hsjycj951h4no5j

Happy Reading !



Oh, but of course, those few families must have indoctrinated millions of people! So after all, it was not a massive migration, only a small one of a few families. Glad we cleared that up ;).

Still, I presume that those few ruling families could demand of all those people they ruled that they took on the Assyrian culture and left their own to rot? That, my friend, works so well that Nero tried it with the Christian sect and look where that one is now.

Let me also tell you that Egyptian faraos had massive genetic disorders because they continuously married their brothers or sisters and that the Habsburg family also had trouble. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia's son Aleksey had severe haemophilia so that he had to be carried everywhere for fear he would have a bleed. Haemophilia is a disorder on the X-chromosome, I think, and only comes to light in boys, not in girls, though those girls (so also the daughters of Nicholas) are carriers of the disease. You also know, I presume that the Hannover dynasty had porphyria, which Victoria, strangely, did not have and which proves that she was an illegitimate child as porphyria is a dominant gene and causes symptoms in girls and boys. If, my friend, all royalty was descended from the same few ruling families which would have been interbreeding for millenia, then they would all have haemophilia and porphyria and a number of other things. So, in other words, what you are saying is utter rubbish as certain things run in certain families and not in every and each one of them.

[Emil Miller]

Yes. Nobody's very interested in other peoples' cultures and histories. Stupid bringing it up really. Whose history warrants thinking about then? Let me guess......

You are of course correct and perhaps I should have added 'within the context of this website' which is primarily American and which is why I wrote
'unlikely that many people would have an interest.' And no, I don't personally find English history to be particularly interesting as my main interest is in the European variety.

[kiki1982]

You ask whether a few families must have indoctrinated millions of people by ruling over them, (they and their bloodlines), for many centuries. Although they themselves were relatively few in number compared to the populations over which they ruled. Goodness ! Where did you get such an amazing idea from ? Except, perhaps, from the history of the elite dynasties of virtually the entire ancient worlds of Eygpt, Babylon, Assyria, China, Russia, Europe and elsewhere ! With the most loyal slaves (themselves checked in advance to be of the 'right' kind, before being admitted in to the nobility/aristocracy of that state from time to time, usually by marriage etc/). Now, where have I read that before ? From the facts of history, perhaps ? LOL ! Does it get more obvious ?

Anyway, hope you get round to reading the documented facts of the Etruscans and the Celts already posted. That would be a real achievement. And not just for you, but for all who hear you lecturing on the subject. Since you are an enthusiastic reader of facts and are ready to accept evidence, aren't you ?

Volume 1

http://www.mediafire.com/?jddx791bvo9ozrr

Volume 2

http://www.mediafire.com/?hsjycj951h4no5j

Happy Reading !

See, you're doing it again. Not answering a poignant fact that proves that you're wrong, clearly wrong.

So, second time: I said that, if the same few families had been ruling Europe and the world for millenia, all those families now (so million of people in the meantime) should be positive in at least haemophelia and porphyria, which they are clearly not, or they would be all mad like your king George III in the late 18th, early 19th century and would have blood-clotting problems.

Please, tell me why it is not the case, although those few families have been itnermarrying for millenia.

[Musicology]

The facts are as stated. The ancient dynasties of Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, India, Russia, the Etruscans, the later European nobility, Scandinavian nobility, the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire from 800 AD for almost 1,000 years, that of the British and hundreds of other ruling families worldwide. Who married and intermarried, often for centuries. Plain, verifiable facts, aren't they ? Yes, they are ! The royal and aristocratic bloodlines, in fact. Nationally and internationally.

That is history. Get used to accepting these, the facts of history. Of hiearchical, elitist, bloodlines of the aristocracy. They really are the facts of history. The very same families and their relatives. The pedigrees of kings, emperors, aristocrats including barons, dukes, popes, cardinals and other members of feudal hiearchies. Fact. Why don't you know this ?

Welcome to reality !

Or just ignore these facts. As usual. As you will almost certainly ignore the contents of the 2 volume book already sent. Float away and ignore the evidence. Though it stares you in the face. But do not tell us you are interested in reading books or facing the documented, plain, indisputable facts of history. They are as said. Aren't they ?




See, you're doing it again. Not answering a poignant fact that proves that you're wrong, clearly wrong.

So, second time: I said that, if the same few families had been ruling Europe and the world for millenia, all those families now (so million of people in the meantime) should be positive in at least haemophelia and porphyria, which they are clearly not, or they would be all mad like your king George III in the late 18th, early 19th century and would have blood-clotting problems.

Please, tell me why it is not the case, although those few families have been itnermarrying for millenia.

[Delta40]

I have a selection of chocolate coated facts here. Anyone want one? I like the facts with soft centres myself....

[OrphanPip]

Unfortunately, European royal families have allowed their genetics to be profiled as well. Their mitochondrial haplogroup is predominantly T2 and haplogroup H, both of which happen to be very common European haplogroups (the vast majority of Europeans are of haplogroup H). They are of course of middle Eastern origin, but that's because all human beings in Europe are of Middle Eastern origin, we're talking 20,000 years ago now. These haplogroups are no longer prominent in the Middle-East, and very prominent in Europe.

Their Y-DNA haplogroup happens to be R1b, which is of Caucasus origin. Supporting the fact that the ruling dynasties of Europe arose out of the European population significantly later than the migration of Steppes people into Europe around 3-5k BCE.

Most significantly, the subgroup of R1b of the last Romanovs (their DNA was recently tested in an attempt to identify bodies found in Russia a few years back that were suspected of being the missing Romanov children) and Prince Philip (who is related to most of the royals of Europe through Victoria) is R1b-L21, a subgroup that is most likely Celtic in origin, and suggests a Western European origin for the late Romanovs and the Hanovers.

The mitochondrial haplogroup information doesn't prove they are of Western European origin, though it makes it more likely that they were. However, combining that genetic information with the Y-DNA R1b haplotype (and luckily for me the much rarer R1b-L21 haplotype of the Romanovs) makes it highly unlikely they are of recent (saying 3000 years ago) Middle-Eastern origin. It strongly supports the likelihood that European dynasties arose out of European populations.

[Musicology]

Have the ruling elites of entire nations and kingdoms been marrying and intermarrying (almost exclusively) within their own aristocratic circles, for as long as recorded history ? Did the Conquistadors take over entire nations ? Er, yes, they did.

Did the East India Company take over all of India, for decades ? Yes, it did. Did the Normans (4th generation Vikings) take over all of England and Wales ? Yes, they did. Did a handful of Nazis take over the government of Germany. Yes, they did. Have a few handfuls of banking families taken over most banking, for centuries ? Get the picture ? And have some families supplied many cardinals and popes, kings, counts, barons, and other bottle washers of the unelected dynasties over centuries ? Yes, they have.

So glad we sorted that out ! So the ruling elites are an oligarchy. Who, internationally, have ruled for centuries.


Unfortunately, European royal families have allowed their genetics to be profiled as well. Their mitochondrial haplogroup is predominantly T2 and haplogroup H, both of which happen to be very common European haplogroups (the vast majority of Europeans are of haplogroup H). They are of course of middle Eastern origin, but that's because all human beings in Europe are of Middle Eastern origin, we're talking 20,000 years ago now. These haplogroups are no longer prominent in the Middle-East, and very prominent in Europe.

Their Y-DNA haplogroup happens to be R1b, which is of Caucasus origin. Supporting the fact that the ruling dynasties of Europe arose out of the European population significantly later than the migration of Steppes people into Europe around 3-5k BCE.

Most significantly, the subgroup of R1b of the last Romanovs (their DNA was recently tested in an attempt to identify bodies found in Russia a few years back that were suspected of being the missing Romanov children) and Prince Philip (who is related to most of the royals of Europe through Victoria) is R1b-L21, a subgroup that is most likely Celtic in origin, and suggests a Western European origin for the late Romanovs and the Hanovers.

The mitochondrial haplogroup information doesn't prove they are of Western European origin, though it makes it more likely that they were. However, combining that genetic information with the Y-DNA R1b haplotype (and luckily for me the much rarer R1b-L21 haplotype of the Romanovs) makes it highly unlikely they are of recent (saying 3000 years ago) Middle-Eastern origin. It strongly supports the likelihood that European dynasties arose out of European populations.

[MarkBastable]

To those who haven't been involved in a debate with Musicology before, it might be worth giving you some idea of the scale of the task before you.

As well as believing that the world is run by a Babylonian elite who've been in charge for thousands of years, he also believes that:

aeroplanes are spraying us all with chemicals daily (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52576&highlight=earth&page=9)

all Mozart's music was written by other people, but there's been a conspiracy to hush that up (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59067&highlight=earth&page=4)

the entire Universe revolves around the stationary Earth, once every twenty-four hours (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52021&highlight=earth&page=29)

Einstein was a fraud whose career was faked by Jesuit anti-creationists (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52023&highlight=earth)


It's a testament to the forbearance of Litnetters that we're so civil, really.

[Hurricane]

Just to clarify: you're suggesting that all the ruling elites, ever, regardless of geography/ethnicity, are related and have been for centuries?
:out:

LOL!

[kiki1982]

To those who haven't been involved in a debate with Musicology before, it might be worth giving you some idea of the scale of the task before you.

As well as believing that the world is run by a Babylonian elite who've been in charge for thousands of years, he also believes that:

aeroplanes are spraying us all with chemicals daily (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52576&highlight=earth&page=9)

all Mozart's music was written by other people, but there's been a conspiracy to hush that up (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59067&highlight=earth&page=4)

the entire Universe revolves around the stationary Earth, once every twenty-four hours (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52021&highlight=earth&page=29)

Einstein was a fraud whose career was faked by Jesuit anti-creationists (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52023&highlight=earth)


It's a testament to the forebearance of Litnetters that we're so civil, really.

:smilielol5:

Forebearance... I think it is rather irony.

You see, there is nothing funnier than playing along :D.


Have the ruling elites of entire nations and kingdoms been marrying and intermarrying (almost exclusively) within their own aristocratic circles, for as long as recorded history ? Did the Conquistadors take over entire nations ? Er, yes, they did.

Did the East India Company take over all of India, for decades ? Yes, it did. Did the Normans (4th generation Vikings) take over all of England and Wales ? Yes, they did. Did a handful of Nazis take over the government of Germany. Yes, they did. Have a few handfuls of banking families taken over most banking, for centuries ? Get the picture ? And have some families supplied many cardinals and popes, kings, counts, barons, and other bottle washers of the unelected dynasties over centuries ? Yes, they have.

So glad we sorted that out ! So the ruling elites are an oligarchy. Who, internationally, have ruled for centuries.

That may all be right (in your mind, that is), but still you do not address my point, nor the conclusive point OrphanPip made.

Out of arguments are we?

Trying to divert attention to another point is usually done by people who have nothing left to say and desperately want to be right.

Anything to add to or argue against Pip or shall we move on to the next weird and somewhat ridiculous point?

[Musicology]

That may all be right

Let me repeat that again -

That may all be right

And, just in case you still haven't got it-

That may all be right

In reply to which -

IT IS RIGHT !

And, until that is agreed as a basic fact OrphanPip is deliberately missing it. Let her admit that fact and we can have a fair conversation.There is not even a 'maybe' about it. It's a plain, fundamental, indisputable fact. The most indisputable fact of human history, in fact. The elite dynasties have ruled civilizations (so-called) throughout human recorded history. A very small number of families, in fact. They and their ancestors and offspring. The bloodlines. As heads of the hiearchical structures of human civilizations, so-called. The gene pool of the ruling elites.

We are moving nowhere. This fact is the basis of agreement for any conversation. Since the ruling elites came to the west. From the east. Over generations. The facts say so. And they took over elite positions of power. Entire dynasties of aristocrats. That's history.

Can we get past this step 1 ? That's the question as we discuss Scottish history or any other kind of human history.



That may all be right (in your mind, that is), but still you do not address my point, nor the conclusive point OrphanPip made.

Out of arguments are we?

Trying to divert attention to another point is usually done by people who have nothing left to say and desperately want to be right.

Anything to add to or argue against Pip or shall we move on to the next weird and somewhat ridiculous point?

[kiki1982]

We can't get past step one unless you make step 1.

I am still stressing the point that you do not acknowledge my point, nor Pip's point, which are both proven to be right.

You are the one who has to prove your point as our points have already been proven.

Now, make your first step towards the light.

[Musicology]

A constructive conversation is based on what we first agree about, and then we discuss those things on which we do not agree.

Pip's point is that DNA (!) blah blah blah does NOT prove x, y, or z. When nobody has ever suggested it does prove anything ! Have they ? How's that for cognitive dissonance ?

Great. But we are not talking about what is NOT proved from DNA. Are we ? We are talking about what IS proved and what IS verifiably true about the very small number of elitist families who have ruled down the ages - they and their relatives. And we wait for Pip to agree with that fact since it is basic, obvious and true. There is no 'maybe' about it. Which, when she agrees about it (and it's the most huge and undeniable fact in human history) represent progress.

That is how sensible conversations are made.

DNA and what it has NOT proved (as Pip says) is a compete irrelevance because we are not talking about DNA proving anything one way or the other. Are we ? The aristocracies who have ruled kingdoms and civilizations often for generations were hundreds of families who have intermarried between themselves over millenia. And whose ancestry and 'pedigree' was carefully checked before they are ever considered to be part of that aristocracy. Right ? King A marries Princess B, blah, blah, blah. Read 'Debrett's Peerage' or any of dozens of similar books for the actual facts of families and their relationships in British history, for example. Or read any published history of kingdoms, rulers or dynasties. They are the same aristocratic families. It's an industry - that information. Get the picture yet ?

Red herrings are irrelevant. We are talking here of Scottish history. Of the fact that certain ruling families came to power and ruled over peoples. For centuries. That's a fact. Isn't it ? Yes, it is. Glad we agree about this. And Pipe will not doubt agree about this. Right Pip ? :banghead:

Thank You





We can't get past step one unless you make step 1.

I am still stressing the point that you do not acknowledge my point, nor Pip's point, which are both proven to be right.

You are the one who has to prove your point as our points have already been proven.

Now, make your first step towards the light.

Thank you for drawing attention to these interesting subjects. Each of which is well worthy of a discussion. (We here have your admission that your part is only to play along. And this we all know very well). Honest confession is good for the soul !



:smilielol5:

Forebearance... I think it is rather irony.

You see, there is nothing funnier than playing along :D.

Hi there Hurricane,

I am suggesting (with thousands of years of evidence from the recorded history of entire civilizations and kingdoms) that all the ruling elites come from somewhere. 'Civilization' (so-called) spread from the East to the West. You know this, don't you ?

Hierarchical government is the opposite of common sense. Since all men are equal in the sight of God. That message is not new. It is the basis of the Christian message. Which prevailed against the mightiest empires that have ever existed.

Babylon was a mix of different peoples. You already know this, don't you ? Who gathered together there. You know this, don't you ? It still is. Out of which spread different cultures, civilizations and kingdoms. We are discussing here the specific arrival in the west of hiearchical societies from the East out of which the elite aristocracies of the west emerged. Which, over the past thousands of years, have married and intermarried amongst its own ruling elites.

Thanks for agreeing with that fact. Since it's an indisputable fact. Isn't it ?

By the way, I don't need any more :out:

Nobody does.





Just to clarify: you're suggesting that all the ruling elites, ever, regardless of geography/ethnicity, are related and have been for centuries?
:out:

LOL!

[Hurricane]

Hi there Hurricane,

I am suggesting (with thousands of years of evidence from the recorded history of entire civilizations and kingdoms) that all the ruling elites come from somewhere. 'Civilization' (so-called) spread from the East to the West. You know this, don't you ?

Hierarchical government is the opposite of common sense. Since all men are equal in the sight of God. That message is not new. It is the basis of the Christian message. Which prevailed against the mightiest empires that have ever existed.

Babylon was a mix of different peoples. You already know this, don't you ? Who gathered together there. You know this, don't you ? It still is. Out of which spread different cultures, civilizations and kingdoms. We are discussing here the specific arrival in the west of hiearchical societies from the East out of which the elite aristocracies of the west emerged. Which, over the past thousands of years, have married and intermarried amongst its own ruling elites.

Thanks for agreeing with that fact. Since it's an indisputable fact. Isn't it ?

By the way, I don't need any more :out:

Nobody does.

What is indisputable fact? When dealing with history there are very few, if any, and I've seen nothing from you that comes close to being "indisputable fact." :out:

I do see some dramatic oversimplifications and things that are at least kinda-true extended far beyond their use and relevance.

[Musicology]

It is an indisputable fact that hiearchical governments came from Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, Persia, etc before the arrival of the same in the west. Over centuries. It's documented, plain, fact. So says history. The papacy is one example. It is an indisputable fact that dynasties of elite families (intermarrying to this day to preserve their bloodlines) have ruled the kingdoms of the west. As aristocracy. For centuries. And that hiearchical governments are made up of these elite ruling families and their relatives.

I won't go too fast for you ! You suffer from cognitive dissonance, don't you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance




What is indisputable fact? When dealing with history there are very few, if any, and I've seen nothing from you that comes close to being "indisputable fact." :out:

I do see some dramatic oversimplifications and things that are at least kinda-true extended far beyond their use and relevance.

[MarkBastable]

We can't get past step one unless you make step 1.


You've come up against the central Musicology technique for argument. You are required to consider his evidence, but he's not required to consider yours.

In fact, he will insist that you say, in writing, that you agree with him before he will address any of the reasons why you might not. And if, for the sake of moving the discussion along, you do say you agree with him - in the hope that he'll address the reasons why you don't - he then gleefully refuses to discuss the subject further on the basis that he's convinced you so there's nothing more to say.

It took me a while to figure out why this approach was so familiar, but I got it eventually. It's the technique used by school bullies as they drag you around the playground in a headlock.

"Say you're a dumbass! Say you're a dumbass!"

"No! Let me go!"

"Say it! Say your a dumbass!"

"Owww, oww. Okay, okay - I'm a dumbass..."

"Ha ha! You're a dumbass! You admitted it! Hey, he just said he's a dumbass! He said it! What a dumbass!"

[Musicology]

MarkBastable,

I am asking those who want to contribute to this thread to agree on some basic facts. Such as the basic fact that elite ruling families have existed and ruled over the empires and kingdoms of recorded human history. And still do. And there are those whose tactic is never to agree to that basic fact. It's part of their conditioning. They are unable to have a conversation on any issue because they are trainined to divert us from ever having one. They are not only ignorant but they boast in their ignorance. It shows a basic lack of education. They think it's smart. And it's the same posters all the time. The legacy of them being abused. It's why any real discussion is so often bogged down by diversions. They love making fools of themselves. The net result is to divert us from having any real conversation.

I will ignore them. I recommend others to do the same. This thread is on Scottish History (so-called) and we have established the fact that hiearachical kingdoms, empires and governments have existed for many centuries. From Babylonian times onwards, in fact. Hierarchical civilizations moving west over many centuries of the pre-Christian era. Marrying and intermarrying over many centuries. Within their elite, hieararchical systems of aristocratic rule. This is contradicted by nothing. Because it's true.

The rest is smoke and mirrors.

p.s. What sort of lipstick do you use ? It sort of says it all. You are a clown, aren't you ?



You've come up against the central Musicology technique for argument. You are required to consider his evidence, but he's not required to consider yours.

In fact, he will insist that you say, in writing, that you agree with him before he will address any of the reasons why you might not. And if, for the sake of moving the discussion along, you do say you agree with him - in the hope that he'll address the reasons why you don't - he then gleefully refuses to discuss the subject further on the basis that he's convinced you so there's nothing more to say.

It took me a while to figure out why this approach was so familiar, but I got it eventually. It's the technique used by school bullies as they drag you around the playground in a headlock.

"Say you're a dumbass! Say you're a dumbass!"

"No! Let me go!"

"Say it! Say your a dumbass!"

"Owww, oww. Okay, okay - I'm a dumbass..."

"Ha ha! You're a dumbass! You admitted it! Hey, he just said he's a dumbass! He said it! What a dumbass!"