its gonna end with concentration camps

[Mortimer]

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/its-gonna-end-with-concentration-camps-alt-right-executive-boasts-of-a-future-europe-with-hitler-their-money/

[Egyptian]

I guess it's about time gypsies make their own country there.

[Mortimer]

I guess it's about time gypsies make their own country there.

do you think a gypsy country would be tolerated in europe? wouldnt the white armies crush the gypsies, not even the turks were tolerated in europe and they got kicked out in 1912. why would gypsies be tolerated?

[Egyptian]

do you think a gypsy country would be tolerated in europe? wouldnt the white armies crush the gypsies, not even the turks were tolerated in europe and they got kicked out in 1912. why would gypsies be tolerated?

You have to fight for your own freedom, take Egypt for example we have been in a lot of wars (for both to gain freedom and defend our neighbors), in 1956 we were attacked by 3 armies (England because we took back suez canal) (France because we supported the algerian revolution) (israel because they love us since thousands of years lol) and yet we managed to get what we want.

gypsies are like millions in Europe they can establish their own state if they gathered in one area, they will even get worldwide sympathy.

[Black Panther]

I read an article from a Swedish journal about this guy. He was brave to fake his identity like that and infiltrate the "alt-right" to reveal their true nazi/genocidal identity. This guy will be persecuted by far-right groups, even in his native Sweden.

[Black Panther]

do you think a gypsy country would be tolerated in europe? wouldnt the white armies crush the gypsies, not even the turks were tolerated in europe and they got kicked out in 1912. why would gypsies be tolerated?

Things don't go so easy in the beginning. You need to organize and have a plan first. Wealthier Romas need to buy up land in a specific location and advertise the plans of forming a community for Romas in that place. Considering far-right hate is only likely to increase in both Eastern and Western Europe, you might gain a lot of supporters both among Romas, who would want to move there, and among other people who might want to help financially. Once you have enough numbers you can demand an autonomous state from the country or countries your communities are settled in. If they still wanted to oppress you even in those conditions, you would at least end up gaining a lot more notoriety than you do now in international media which could perhaps even trigger sanctions against the countries oppressing you.

But anyway, you have to start up by buying cheap land somewhere. I would just like to advice you to buy land close to sea port access and preferably bordering or close to two or more countries.

[crazyladybutterfly]

no it wont , but there have already been lynching or romas and pogroms

[Mortimer]

no it wont , but there have already been lynching or romas and pogroms

yes somehow it turned out about roma though, but he said it about all minorities and refugees and foreigners. he didnt said it only about roma, also about muslims and blacks etc.

[Laberia]

I guess it's about time gypsies make their own country there.

You can offer to them land from your country. Many of them are your people.

[Antimage]

A white nationalist has to be really dumb to praise Hitler. He started a war against other white countries where more white people died than ever, he didn't do any good for white race, he only did harm. "European leader" how? German leader maybe. This report is 1)either fake or 2)those alt righters are paid provocators, I have hard time believing they're for real with those statements

[Egyptian]

You can offer to them land from your country. Many of them are your people.

I don't think Gypsies are Egyptians but balkanian Egyptians are Egyptians.

anyway, 90% of my country is desert while Albania is green land and gypsies love green areas.

[Hoxhaism]

I don't think Gypsies are Egyptians but balkanian Egyptians are Egyptians.

anyway, 90% of my country is desert while Albania is green land and gypsies love green areas.

Exactly, egypt has plenty of free space for gypsies while albania doesn't.

[Egyptian]

Exactly, egypt has plenty of free space for gypsies while albania doesn't.

Do you think gypsies will come to live in a desert?

nah, Albania sounds better, I mean you people have kosovo also and part of macedonia.. give them half of albania and it's a fair deal.

[Loki]

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/its-gonna-end-with-concentration-camps-alt-right-executive-boasts-of-a-future-europe-with-hitler-their-money/

I find it more surprising that some people take such talk seriously. I mean.. it's not like it's ever going to happen.

[Hoxhaism]

Do you think gypsies will come to live in a desert?

nah, Albania sounds better, I mean you people have kosovo also and part of macedonia.. give them half of albania and it's a fair deal.

Do they have maps in Egypt, or are you just always this stupid?

http://www.freeworldmaps.net/europe/europe-map-editable.jpg

Clearly, Kosovo and western Macedonia aren't apart of Albania.

[Loki]

I read an article from a Swedish journal about this guy. He was brave to fake his identity like that and infiltrate the "alt-right" to reveal their true nazi/genocidal identity. This guy will be persecuted by far-right groups, even in his native Sweden.

I don't believe all the hype... I mean, consider the media source. The obviously want to blacken his reputation. I like the guy and would even vote for him. I would vote for him earlier than I would vote for a Jewish puppet.

[Loki]

You have to fight for your own freedom,

Very true. Look in history and it's all about that basically.

[Jehan]

do you think a gypsy country would be tolerated in europe? wouldnt the white armies crush the gypsies, not even the turks were tolerated in europe and they got kicked out in 1912. why would gypsies be tolerated?

A good question: why some europeans should give up on part of there territory for gypsy?
You are alien to Europe.
Another question: Considering romas behaviour, do you think a gypsy country can works?

Another question and please answear honesthly: Do you understand why gypsys are hate everywhere?

[Egyptian]

Do they have maps in Egypt, or are you just always this stupid?

[/img]

Clearly, Kosovo and western Macedonia aren't apart of Albania.

I'm far from being stupid, I know very well the situation in Balkan probably better than you.. as I said Gypsies can have half of Albania and it's a fair deal.

[Egyptian]

A good question: why some europeans should give up on part of there territory for gypsy?
You are alien to Europe.
Another question: Considering romas behaviour, do you think a gypsy country can works?

Another question and please answear honesthly: Do you understand why gypsys are hate everywhere?

Because Europeans established white colonies in other parts in the world like South Africa or South America etc.

a country for the gypsies inside Europe is a fair deal

[Hoxhaism]

I'm far from being stupid,

Keep telling yourself that, you're not convincing me.


I know very well the situation in Balkan probably better than you..

No, you clearly do not as we can see from the fact you would suggest dividing half of Albania to the gypsies.


as I said Gypsies can have half of Albania and it's a fair deal.

Why is it fair to you? Because we are non- halal muslims, who eat pork and drink and don't dress up like conservative ninja's like they do in Egypt?

A large part of Egyptian land isn't even inhabited, and there are many nomadic tribes that are able to manage living in the Sahara Desert.

Albania has no space for a roma nation.

[Hoxhaism]

Because Europeans established white colonies in other parts in the world like South Africa or South America etc.

a country for the gypsies inside Europe is a fair deal

So did Arabs.
In fact, you are probably descended from arabic colonists, as are most egyptians.

[Loki]

The article in the OP is fake news, by the way. There is no such thing as "Alt Right Corporation". It's media propaganda lies and fake news.

[Jehan]

Because Europeans established white colonies in other parts in the world like South Africa or South America etc.

a country for the gypsies inside Europe is a fair deal


An unfair in the past don't justify n unfair in the present.

But well arabs colonyze also many place and didn't yet give independance to thoses place. So it would be logical to create a gypsy land in Egypt.

[Ujku]

Can you imagine gypsys trying to make a country for themselves?? They will send their 8 year olds kids to fight because they easily replace them.
They already send them in ''battles'' everyday , they have to beg , sell shit and steal.

[RN97]

I read an article from a Swedish journal about this guy. He was brave to fake his identity like that and infiltrate the "alt-right" to reveal their true nazi/genocidal identity. This guy will be persecuted by far-right groups, even in his native Sweden.

U r right. In Sweden there are these far right groups that persecute minorities. I've even heard that there are areas of Sweden where far right groups create "no-go" zones. In those areas even Australian camera crews are beaten and persecuted out and if you don't abide by the religion they adhere to there, you're shunned and made to leave....
At least that's how I remember it, might be mixing up some details. :thumb001:

[Kamal900]

So did Arabs.
In fact, you are probably descended from arabic colonists, as are most egyptians.

No. They are mostly descended from the ancient Egyptians who got Arabized in the early middle ages. I already have provided genetic evidence on that.

[Kamal900]

An unfair in the past don't justify n unfair in the present.

But well arabs colonyze also many place and didn't yet give independance to thoses place. So it would be logical to create a gypsy land in Egypt.

*sigh* Egyptians are descendants of the ancient Egyptians who got Arabized in the early middle ages. In fact, most Arabs outside of the Arab world are descendants of the pre-Islamic peoples of their respective countries including North Africans.

[Rethel]

No. They are mostly descended from the ancient Egyptians who got Arabized in the early middle ages. I already have provided genetic evidence on that.

Less than 46% are real micraimian Kemetians.
Rest are immigrants - whatever epoque you choose.

[Kamal900]

Less than 46% are real Micraimians. Rest are immigrants - whatever epoque you choose.

Do you have any genetic evidence on that?

[Rethel]

A white nationalist has to be really dumb to praise Hitler.

Agree. He 1) destroyed Europe (white reservation) 2) He
destroyed Germany and 3) he himself was non-'Aryan'. But
such people are stupid by ideas and behaviour which they
represent, so, nothing strange, that they do such idiocy too.
Actualy hitler was also an immigrant and relative of them. :laugh:

p.s.
This is good ilustration, how behave some TA's
cryptonazis here, who have wrong provenance... :laugh:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZVeAAUaD0M

[Rethel]

Do you have any genetic evidence on that?

Yes. 46% of Egyptians are E1. Logically, this quota contains also other
Hamites and Hamitoids, like Pelasgians, Pgilistines, Lybians, Natufians,
Canaanites, Bantus aso... So logically, the amount of real Kemetian
aboriginals have to, and must be lower than this 46%.

[Kamal900]

Yes. 46% of Egyptians are E1. Logically, this quota contains also other
Hamites and Hamitoids, like Pelasgians, Pgilistines, Lybians, Natufians,
Canaanites, Bantus aso... So logically, the amount of real Kemetian
aboriginals have to, and must be lower than this 46%.

:picard2:

You really need to read the latest genetic study on the ancient Egyptians:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIySAnW0bZ0

Egyptians and other middle eastern groups belong to other haplogroups as well.

[Rethel]

:picard2:

And how this contradicts my statement?

[Loki]

Because Europeans established white colonies in other parts in the world like South Africa or South America etc.

a country for the gypsies inside Europe is a fair deal

How about the Arab colonies in Egypt? ;) I mean... you're living proof of that! :D

[Loki]

Yes. 46% of Egyptians are E1. Logically, this quota contains also other
Hamites and Hamitoids, like Pelasgians, Pgilistines, Lybians, Natufians,
Canaanites, Bantus aso... So logically, the amount of real Kemetian
aboriginals have to, and must be lower than this 46%.

Do you realise how ancient E1 is? It is far older than R1, for example.

[Kamal900]

How about the Arab colonies in Egypt? ;) I mean... you're living proof of that! :D

What colonies? Egyptians today are descendants of the Ancient Egyptians who got Arabized in the early middle ages.

[Loki]

I read an article from a Swedish journal about this guy. He was brave to fake his identity like that and infiltrate the "alt-right" to reveal their true nazi/genocidal identity. This guy will be persecuted by far-right groups, even in his native Sweden.

His report is full of lies, though. That is why it is so generously pushed by the Jewish-owned media in order to score a point against white people. But in reality, it's fake news. I have already pointed that out.

[Rethel]

Do you realise how ancient E1 is? It is far older than R1, for example.

Doesn;t matter, I wrote about known migrations in past 4000 years.
Pelazgians/Philistines, Canaanites, Lybians, Bantus, aso were carriers
of E1, not native to Egypt when they came, so logicly it would be nice
to take them out from the quota, whatever subclade they were, even,
if some of them were close brothers to Egyptians or even from them as
a people (like Philistines) but not from the very Nile's land.

[Kamal900]

And how this contradicts my statement?

You claim that the ancient Egyptians belonged to one haplogroup only which is preposterous. We already found ancient Egyptians having J1 and other haplogroups as well.

[Rethel]

What colonies? Egyptians today are descendants of the Ancient Egyptians who got Arabized in the early middle ages.

And non single Arab settled in Egypt? :picard2:

[Loki]

What colonies? Egyptians today are descendants of the Ancient Egyptians who got Arabized in the early middle ages.

Arabs conquered and colonised Egypt. A majority of Egyptians today are mixed Arab-Ancient Egyptian.

[Kamal900]

And non single Arab settled in Egypt? :picard2:

There were some settlements and admixture, but overall, Egyptians today are largely descended from the ancient Egyptians who were neither Arabs or Semites.

[Rethel]

You claim that the ancient Egyptians belonged to one haplogroup

Not ancient, but original.
Canaanites and Semites migrated to Egypt allready 2000 BC.


only which is preposterous. We already found ancient Egyptians having J1 and other haplogroups as well.

The word "ancient" means completly nothing, according to what was as I said above.
And this J1 founded in Egypt is from even much more later period, obviously coming
from Semitic immigrans, which were numerous in ancient Egypt.

[Kamal900]

Arabs conquered and colonised Egypt. A majority of Egyptians today are mixed Arab-Ancient Egyptian.

The same way the Romans, Greeks and other foreigners ruled and colonized Egypt in the past as well. The point is that today's Egyptians are largely native in their homeland with some admixture coming from outside of Egypt.

[Kamal900]

Not ancient, but original.
Canaanites and Semites migrated to Egypt allready 2000 years ago.



The wornd ancient means nothing, as was as I said above.
And this J1 founded in Egypt is from even much more later period,
obviously coming from Semitic immigrans, which were numerous in ancient Egypt.

No, and we already have genetic results of the Egyptians from the new kingdom and the Roman period, and they have very similar genetic results to today's Egyptians rather than to the genetic isolated groups of the Levant. Canaanites are also Semites.

[Loki]

Doesn;t matter, I wrote about known migrations in past 4000 years.
Pelazgians/Philistines, Canaanites, Lybians, Bantus, aso were carriers
of E1, not native to Egypt when they came, so logicly it would be nice
to take them out from the quota, whatever subclade they were, even,
if some of them were close brothers to Egyptians or even from them as
a people (like Philistines) but not from the very Nile's land.

Uhmm... I think E1 has been native to Egypt for many thousands of years.

[Rethel]

There were some settlements and admixture, but overall, Egyptians today are largely descended from the ancient Egyptians who were neither Arabs or Semites.

So read again the statistics which I provided for you.
It is just impossible what you are saying, especially,
that whole tribes after arabic conquest were moving,
and there was enbaugh Arabs to make all people speak
arabic, even this 10% of Kopts.

[Rethel]

Uhmm... I think E1 has been native to Egypt for many thousands of years.

And?

Does a E1 Greek coming there in third century BC was native to Egypt? :coffee:

[Loki]

The same way the Romans, Greeks and other foreigners ruled and colonized Egypt in the past as well. The point is that today's Egyptians are largely native in their homeland with some admixture coming from outside of Egypt.

But interestingly enough, modern Egyptians also call themselves Arabs. Why is that? I actually wanted to ask this question before. Why is Egypt a member of the Arab League, when its population is largely Native Egyptian in ancestry?

[Kamal900]

So read again the statistics which I provided for you.
It is just impossible what you are saying, especially,
that whole tribes after arabic conquest were moving,
and there was enbaugh Arabs to make all people speak
arabic, even this 10% of Kopts.

It's called cultural assimilation, and Copts themselves cluster very closely with Arabs from Arabia and Egyptians. Both Egyptians and Arabians came from the Levant, and the people that cluster the closest to the ancient Egyptians are the modern day Egyptians, Levantine Muslims and Arabians, not to the genetic isolated groups of the Levant or west Asiatics as a whole.

[Kamal900]

But interestingly enough, modern Egyptians also call themselves Arabs. Why is that? I actually wanted to ask this question before. Why is Egypt a member of the Arab League, when its population is largely Native Egyptian in ancestry?

Because of cultural assimilation of the native peoples by the ruling Arabs and other Muslims like the Turkic Mamlukis. Being an Arab is an ethno-linguistic identity, not a racial or genetic one.

[Rethel]

No, and we already have genetic results of the Egyptians from the new kingdom and the Roman period,

Neither of them are the times when Egypt was founded.
IF semites and canaanites settled there in 2000 BC, then
how do you want to have original results from New Kingdom? :picard2:


and they have very similar genetic results to today's Egyptians

You are talking here about autosomal results, which I was
not talking about, so how it is going to abolish my statement? :picard2:

Btw, Canaanites and Arabs were autosomaly quite similar to Egyptians, the
same as Lybians, so, what do you expect? That they will be totaly different? :picard1:


rather than to the genetic isolated groups of the Levant.

Egyptians are Hamites, so why do you expect them to be autosomnaly idolated?
It is like expecting, that Quraishites will be autosomaly different than Kinannahites... :picard1:


Canaanites are also Semites.

No, they were not. They only speak their language (or vice versa).
And since the oldest times, they were mixed with Semites and Hurrites.

[Rethel]

It's called cultural assimilation, and Copts themselves cluster very closely with Arabs from Arabia and Egyptians. Both Egyptians and Arabians came from the Levant, and the people that cluster the closest to the ancient Egyptians are the modern day Egyptians, Levantine Muslims and Arabians, not to the genetic isolated groups of the Levant or west Asiatics as a whole.

Yes, so what's your point?

[Loki]

And?


I don't know. What are we arguing about? :)



Does a E1 Greek coming there in third century BC was native to Egypt? :coffee:

If he intermixed with the local population, after many generations of course his descendants would become native.

[Rethel]

when its population is largely Native Egyptian in ancestry?

No, is not, but about the rest, you are totaly right.

[Kamal900]

Yes, so what's your point?

My point is that the Egyptians today are descendants of the ancient Egyptians. In other words, they're natives in their own homeland regardless on the fact that they speak Arabic and identify themselves as Arabs.

[Loki]

Because of cultural assimilation of the native peoples by the ruling Arabs and other Muslims like the Turkic Mamlukis. Being an Arab is an ethno-linguistic identity, not a racial or genetic one.

Hmm... but why aren't the Turks and Iranians called Arabs then too?

[Rethel]

I don't know. What are we arguing about? :)

Idk, you were the one, who was not in agreement with me.
I said, that E1 is native to the Nile's land, but some people
are not (also with E1) and you as contrargument said, that
E1 is native to the land - so idk what you wanted to say by
this - agree with me or dissargee?


If he intermixed with the local population, after many generations of course his descendants would become native.

No, he will be not (in the terms of originality or aboriginality),
still is from somehwere else, the same as J1, T, J2 or whatever.
He can be native in the same sanse, as Afrikaners are native to
South Africa or WASPs to America. In such case, also Arabs can
be consider as native - but we did not speak about it. We spoke
about how original are modern Egyptians. Originality implies the
time period before ANY immigrant came to the country.

[Dick]

“It’s gonna end with the expulsion of the majority of the migrants, including [Muslim] citizens,”


I don't see anything wrong with this.

[Loki]

My point is that the Egyptians today are descendants of the ancient Egyptians. In other words, they're natives in their own homeland regardless on the fact that they speak Arabic and identify themselves as Arabs.

I think to avoid confusion they should stop calling themselves Arabs.

[Kamal900]

Hmm... but why aren't the Turks and Iranians called Arabs then too?

Because Arabs did not managed to conquer all of Anatolia as their Oghuz Turkic counterparts did in the 11th century AD, and the Persians were very persistent in their cultural identity and so on. The Ummuyad dynasty did not last long, and the Abbasid dynasty were a mixture between Arabic, Persian and even South Asian cultures. In other words, the Abbasid empire was an Islamic empire, not an Arabic one like the Ummuyad dynasty. Arabization of North Africa accelerated very rapidly during the Mamluki dynasty though.

[Kamal900]

I think to avoid confusion they should stop calling themselves Arabs.

No. As I stress, being an Arab is just an ethno-linguistic identity regardless of their race, genetics and so on.

[Rethel]

My point is that the Egyptians today are descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

Some are, some are not.
You cannot make a total generalization, especially, that minority is descendent from the real Kemetians.
Maybe half of all are people who lived there in antiquity, regardless their origin.


In other words, they're natives in their own homeland regardless on the fact the they speak Arabic and identify themselves as Arabs.

In that case, Arabs are also there natives, but it has no sense.
Why migrant from Vth century is native, and migrant from VIIth is not?
In such case, you could also replaced whole population by chinese, and
they also would be native i.e. originals. But it has no sense at all.

[Laberia]

Do you think gypsies will come to live in a desert?

nah, Albania sounds better, I mean you people have kosovo also and part of macedonia.. give them half of albania and it's a fair deal.

If will be explained to them the purpose of this operation with the right methodology, i am sure that they will run in forth.

[Kamal900]

Some are, some are not.
You cannot make a total generalization, especially, that minority is descendent from the real Kemetians.
Maybe half of all are people who lived there in antiquity, regardless their origin.



In that case, Arabs are also there natives, but it has no sense.
Why migrant from Vth century is native, and migrant from VIIth is not?
In such case, you could also replaced whole population by chinese, and
they also would be native i.e. originals. But it have no sense at all.

I told you that they got Arabized. Geez, don't you understand the meaning of cultural assimilation? They are Arabs because of their linguistic affiliation. In other words, it's just an ethno-linguistic identity or an ethnic identity based on linguistics.

[Laberia]

A good question: why some europeans should give up on part of there territory for gypsy?
You are alien to Europe.
Another question: Considering romas behaviour, do you think a gypsy country can works?

Another question and please answear honesthly: Do you understand why gypsys are hate everywhere?

You asked if will works a gypsy country? The first civil war in this new gypsy country will start because the wife of Hasan stole the pants from the home of Mustafa. A bloody war.

[Rethel]

I told you that they got Arabized. Geez, don't you understand the meaning of cultural assimilation? They are Arabs because of their linguistic affiliation. In other words, it's just an ethno-linguistic identity or an ethnic identity based on linguistics.

Doesn't matter, becasue Arabs settled there also, like for example Al-Kinannah tribe, which gave even the name to the land among radicals. Aculturation doesn't make from anyone an ancient aborigen - people have therir won provenance and stories, so, whatever you will make, they will still be from the outside. So, if you want compare 'people from the 2500 BC to 2000 AD, then you will have a big difference, as the 100% of people from 2500 BC will be not 100% in 2000 Ad. If you really think like that, then you are deluded. Wearing some funny local clothes or speaking the language of the country yet not means, that someone if the original inhabitant from 2500 BC, especially, when we know for well, that he and some other people came there in 2000 BC, 500 BC, 700 AD aso... It is just like that, and I can;t understand why do you oppose this, when this is very historical and scientific fact. Lybians, Ethiopians, Hurrians and Canaanites did make even whole ruling dynasties, the same as some unknown IEs, Greeks and Romans, Turks, Mamluks and others. Especially Greeks and Hyxoses spreaded all across the land, and some Semites also - and the most especially Arabs.

[Kamal900]

Doesn't matter, becasue Arabs settled there also, like for example Al-Kinannah tribe, which gave even the name to the land among radicals. Aculturation doesn't make from anyone an ancient aborigen - people have therir won provenance and stories, so, whatever you will make, they will still be from the outside. So, if you want compare 'people from the 2500 BC to 2000 AD, then you will have a big difference, as the 100% of people from 2500 BC will be not 100% in 2000 Ad. If you really think like that, then you are deluded. Wearing some funny local clothes or speaking the language of the country yet not means, that someone if the original inhabitant from 2500 BC, especially, when we know for well, that he and some other people came there in 2000 BC, 500 BC, 700 AD aso... It is just like that, and I can;t understand why do you oppose this, when this is very historical and scientific fact. Lybians, Ethiopians, Hurrians and Canaanites did make even whole ruling dynasties, the same as some unknown IEs, Greeks and Romans, Turks, Mamluks and others. Especially Greeks and Hyxoses spreaded all across the land, and some Semites also - and the most especially Arabs.

But we don't find such admixtures in the ancient Egyptians. I didn't say that today's Egyptians are 100% pure which is retarded, and they do have some admixture coming outside of Egypt. Again, you need to provide me with hard evidence to back your statements. The thing is that we don't have genetic results on the Egyptians from the old kingdom and beyond, but just on the fact that the Egyptians from the new kingdom are relatively very similar to today's Egyptians cast great doubt that the peoples that had conquered and ruled the country had admixed with the locals. 7abibi, you're the one who is very deluded. I told you that the locals got Arabized in the early middle ages by linguistic assimilation to the Arabic identity and language, but you keep on dodging that every time i bring it up.

[Babak]

Lol at people supporting independent states for each ethnic group. Fucking retarded. Do you guys have any idea how many people will have to die in order for that to happen? Were talking about deaths in the millions and total destruction of infrastructure.

[Kamal900]

Lol at people supporting independent states for each ethnic group. Fucking retarded. Do you guys have any idea how many people will have to die in order for that to happen? Were talking about deaths in the millions and total destruction of infrastructure.

Honestly, this forum is giving me a headache.

[Wadaad]

I support a Roma state some where in the Balkans.

[Wadaad]

Do they have maps in Egypt, or are you just always this stupid?

http://www.freeworldmaps.net/europe/europe-map-editable.jpg

Clearly, Kosovo and western Macedonia aren't apart of Albania.

A gypsy state has more validity than the joke Kosovo,keep things honest please.

[Laberia]

Do you think gypsies will come to live in a desert?

They are hardworking people. In a short time, your desert will be transformed in the gardens of Eden.

[Lucia]

In all honesty, I don't think Roma can survive on their own

[Egyptian]

How about the Arab colonies in Egypt? ;) I mean... you're living proof of that! :D

I don't think it's colonies, they didn't come here with war, plus Egypt and Arabia were linked since thousand of years through sinai and red sea so we have a lot of relation and trade.. while south africa or south america had nothing to do with Europeans, am I right or not?

[Egyptian]

Arabs conquered and colonised Egypt. A majority of Egyptians today are mixed Arab-Ancient Egyptian.

Majority? how come?

[Egyptian]

But interestingly enough, modern Egyptians also call themselves Arabs. Why is that? I actually wanted to ask this question before. Why is Egypt a member of the Arab League, when its population is largely Native Egyptian in ancestry?

Because they view themselves like that, same as north africans they call themselves arabs while majority aren't.

and another thing is because of Egyptian Hager ( wife of prophet Ibrahim) and the mother of Ismael(father of arabs).

[Kamal900]

I support a Roma state some where in the Balkans.

Me too, lol.

[Rethel]

But we don't find such admixtures in the ancient Egyptians.

It doesn;t matter, and the ancient analyses, are not so ancient. You
do not need an autosomal analyses from ancient times, to know that
bunch of Semites, Canaanites, Old and also Indoeuropeans, Urartians,
other Hamites and Negores invaded that country. Btw, can you finally
understand, that I do not care here about autosomal - we aren't here
speaking about race, but about people.... And people are from all over
the ouside, as history says it, and the genetic signatures of the very
descendants support it. There could be one Arab, who grew in number
on the cost of local ancient Micraite, and what? Did his numerous arab
descendats miracously became ancients as this overtaken one original
Egyptian? Come on! If I will live in your neighbourhood, and I will have
ten sons and thousand greatgreatgrandsons, and you will have only a
one descendant, does it will mean, that this my thoudand became the
very McCrees????? Or viceversa - you will live in my village called even
Retheley and you will have 1000 descendants and I only one - that will
mean, that your descendants are mine, not yours? Come on! Be serious.


I didn't say that today's Egyptians are 100% pure which is retarded, and they do have some admixture coming outside of Egypt.

Great, but I was not talking about admixtures (which can came from
concubines bought on the market or taken as captives on war) but
about people, who were original and who came there during whole
history including post-islamic conquest and their real descendants.


Again, you need to provide me with hard evidence to back your statements.

I just did.
Historically, you can check this in wikipedian article about egyptian history,
and by looking at some dynasties which were from all neighboring countries,
as kushitic, lybian, hyxos, canaanitic dynasties, turkic, greek, persian, and
roman or arabic. This is commonly known. So logical is that with them came
more people than only rulers. Especially Greek colonisation was famous, the
same as arabic. Arabic tribes were resettling even to the Algeria, Spain and
far Afghanistan - so how can you deny their infuence on Egypt,. Come on!


The thing is that we don't have genetic results on the Egyptians from the old kingdom and beyond,

So if we do not have, why are you claiming, that are the same as modern? :laugh:
But we know, that ancioent Egyptians were Hamites, so logically, they
were E1, so, this subclade is native to the Kemet. And we also know,
that later some other E1 came to Egypt, so logicly not all E1 will be
very aboriginal. So, obviously less than 46% of people is descendent
from the original hamitic Egyptians who founded the country. Period.


but just on the fact that the Egyptians from the new kingdom are relatively very similar to today's Egyptians

When they allready were mixed with Semites and Urartians, and when we
know, that Lybians, Natufians and Arabs were similar racialy to Egyptians,
so logically in autosomal DNA there will be not big differences. And 100th
time I repeat, that I do not speak about autosomal, because we dont speak
(at least I, but you seem too) about race, but about original Egyptians vs.
immigrants. And even if Arab from Hijaz who settled in Egypt would be 100%
autosomaly Egyptian, and even E1, does it not make him aboriginal, neither
his descendants, so you cannot use it as a proof, that he is native. Can you
understand this, or it is too hard for you?


cast great doubt that the peoples that had conquered and ruled the country had admixed with the locals.

Yes, they did - and it doesn;t matter if it was 1000 people or ten millions,
and it doesn;t matter what autosomal they were of. They were from the
outside, they speak arabic, and this is what matters.


7abibi, you're the one who is very deluded. I told you that the locals got Arabized in the early middle ages by linguistic assimilation to the Arabic identity and language, but you keep on dodging that every time i bring it up.

Did I said ever that they were replaced? No.
I just am claiming, according to historical and genetic truth, that some Arabs
settled there and arabized the rest. Neither locals became real immigrants,
neither Arabs became real locals - what is not true about that?

[Loki]

Idk, you were the one, who wqs not in agreement with me.
I said, that E1 is native to the Nile's land, but some people
are not (also with E1) and you as contrargument said, that
E1 is native to the land - so idk what you wanted to say by
this - agree with me or dissargee?



No, he will be not (in the terms of originality or aboriginality),
still is from somehwere else, the same as J1, T, J2 or whatever.
He can be native in the same sanse, as Afrikaners are native to
South Africa or WASPs to America. In such case, also Arabs can
be consider as native - but we did not speak about it. We spoke
about how original are modern Egyptians. Originality implies the
time period before ANY immigrant came to the country.

Sure, we are in agreement then.

[Kamal900]

It doesn;t matter, and the ancient analyses, are not so ancient. You
do not need an autosomal analyses from ancient times, to know that
bunch of Semites, Canaanites, Old and also Indoeuropeans, Urartians,
other Hamites and Negores invaded that country. Btw, can you finally
understand, that I do not care here about autosomal - we aren't here
speaking about race, but about people.... And people are from all over
the ouside, as history says it, and the genetic signatures of the very
descendants support it. There could be one Arab, who grew in number
on the cost of local ancient Micraite, and what? Did his numerous arab
descendats miracously became ancients as this overtaken one original
Egyptian? Come on! If I will live in your neighbourhood, and I will have
ten sons and thousand greatgreatgrandsons, and you will have only a
one descendant, does it will means, that this my thoudand became the
very McCrees??? Over viceversa - you will live in my village called even
Retheley and you will have 1000 descendants and I only one - that will
mean, that your descendants are mine, not yours? Come on! Be serious.



Great, but I was not talking about admixtures (which can came from
concubines bought on the market or taken as captives on war) but
about people, who were original and who came there during whole
history including post-islamic conquest and their real descendants.



I just did.
Histprically, you can check this in wikipedian article about egyptian history,
and looking at some dynasties whioch were from all neighbouring countries,
as kushitic, lybian, hyxos, canaanites dynasties, turkic, greek, persian, and
roman or arabic. This is commonly known. So logically that with them came
more people, than only rulers. Especially Geek colonisation was famous, the
same as arabic.Arabic tribes were resettling even to the Algeria, Spain and
far Afghanistan - so how can you deny their infuence on Egypt,. Come on!



So if we do not have, why are you claiming, that are the same as modern? :laugh:
But we know, that ancioent Egyptians were Hamites, so logically, they
were E1, so, this subclade is native to the Kemet. And we also know,
that later some other E1 came to Egypt, so logicly not all E1 will be
very aboriginal. So, obviously less than 46% of people is descendent
from the original hamitic Egyptians who founded the country. Period.



When they allready were mixed with Semites and Urartians, and when we
know, that Lybians, Ntufians and Arabs were similar racialy to Egyptians,
so logically in autosomal DNA there will be not bog differences. And 100th
time I repeat, that I do not speak about autosomal, because we dont speak
(at least I, but you seem too) about race, but about original Egyptians vs.
immigrants. And even if Arab from Hijaz who settled in Egypt would be 100%
autosomaly Egyptian, and even E1, does it not make him aboriginal, neither
his descendants, so you cannot use it as a proof, that he is native. Can you
understand this, or it is too hard for you?



Yes, they did - and it doesn;t matter if it was 1000 people or ten millions,
and it doesn;t matter what autosomal they were of. They were from the
outside, they speak arabic, and this is what matters.



did I said ever that they were replaced? No.
I just am claiming, according to historical and genetic truth, that some Arabs
settled there and arabized the rest. Neither locals became real immigrants,
neither Arabs became real locals - hwat is not true about that?

I'm not going to bother answering this long ass bullshit assay of yours. I told you that Egyptians today got assimilated by linguistic domination of the ruling Arabs who number only between 2 to 3,000 people in contrast to the locals who were more than 13 million in the 7th century. Yes, some of these migrants settled and mixed with the locals, and the Egyptians today are predominately natives with some admixture in them. That's it. They're natives whether you like it or not.

[Loki]

Because Arabs did not managed to conquer all of Anatolia as their Oghuz Turkic counterparts did in the 11th century AD, and the Persians were very persistent in their cultural identity and so on. The Ummuyad dynasty did not last long, and the Abbasid dynasty were a mixture between Arabic, Persian and even South Asian cultures. In other words, the Abbasid empire was an Islamic empire, not an Arabic one like the Ummuyad dynasty. Arabization of North Africa accelerated very rapidly during the Mamluki dynasty though.

Well, then I think we should decide on one of the following, because you can't have both:

a) Modern Egyptians are Arabs
b) Modern Egyptians are Ancient Egyptians

Which one is it going to be?

[Egyptian]

Why is it fair to you? Because we are non- halal muslims, who eat pork and drink and don't dress up like conservative ninja's like they do in Egypt?

.
Lol no, not because of that.. you probably don't know that my best friend was Albanian, I'm not against Albania itself I don't like how arrogant some of Albanians can be especially atheists, they brag about false things for example (Muhamed Ali) who wasn't even an Albanian.

and yet my suggestion for a roma state in Albania or Balkan isn't an attack towards any country, I just think they should have their own country.. I mean why European gave israel a land in MENA? gypsies also should get their own freedom and establish a state in europe.

[Loki]

I'm not going to bother answering this long ass bullshit assay of yours. I told you that Egyptians today got assimilated by linguistic domination of the ruling Arabs who number only between 2 to 3,000 people in contrast to the locals who were more than 13 million in the 7th century. Yes, some of these migrants settled and mixed with the locals, and the Egyptians today are predominately natives with some admixture in them. That's it. They're natives whether you like it or not.

They can't call themselves Arabs then. They are not Arabs.

[Loki]

I told you that they got Arabized. Geez, don't you understand the meaning of cultural assimilation? They are Arabs because of their linguistic affiliation. In other words, it's just an ethno-linguistic identity or an ethnic identity based on linguistics.

They lost their identity as ethnic Egyptians then.

[Kamal900]

They can't call themselves Arabs then. They are not Arabs.

If that's the case then Persians today shouldn't be calling themselves Iranians or Iranics since they're genetically predominately natives of Iran, or that Hispanic peoples of the new world shouldn't be called Hispanics simply because a lot of them are not predominately Iberian genetically. Ethnicity =/= race or genetics, and people had been identifying their respective ethnic identities for thousands of years.

[Egyptian]

They are hardworking people. In a short time, your desert will be transformed in the gardens of Eden.

Yeah if there is any water in the desert lol.

while Albania full of green areas and water.. gypsies can flourish there.

[Loki]

I support a Roma state some where in the Balkans.

Doesn't Romania already exist?

[Kamal900]

Well, then I think we should decide on one of the following, because you can't have both:

a) Modern Egyptians are Arabs
b) Modern Egyptians are Ancient Egyptians

Which one is it going to be?

They're Arabs, yes, but they are descendants from the pre-Islamic peoples of Egypt.

[Babak]

I know some egyptians who hate to be called arab. They rather prefer to be called coptics.

[Loki]

I don't think it's colonies, they didn't come here with war, plus Egypt and Arabia were linked since thousand of years through sinai and red sea so we have a lot of relation and trade.. while south africa or south america had nothing to do with Europeans, am I right or not?

No. The Arabs came to conquer. They conquered Egypt and forced the native people to convert to their religion.


Majority? how come?

If they are not a majority, it is confusing that they would call themselves Arabs. Perhaps they shouldn't, just for clarity.

[Kamal900]

I know some egyptians who hate to be called arab. They rather prefer to be called coptics.

Which I don't actually mind or anything since Copts are culturally very different from Arabs as a whole, and even Egyptian culture is very distinct from other cultures in the Arab world.

[Babak]

Which I don't actually mind or anything since Copts are culturally very different from Arabs as a whole, and even Egyptian culture is very distinct from other cultures in the Arab world.

Egyptian culture is beautiful imo A mix of native and arab culture :)

[Kamal900]

Egyptian culture is beautiful imo A mix of native and arab culture :)

Yes, and you can say that about Palestinian culture as well which is also mixed with Iranian and Turkish cultures as well.

[Egyptian]

No. The Arabs came to conquer. They conquered Egypt and forced the native people to convert to their religion.



If they are not a majority, it is confusing that they would call themselves Arabs. Perhaps they shouldn't, just for clarity.

The arabs didn't come to fight Egyptians, It was a war between them (with the lead of Amr Ibn-elaas) and Romans and Romans lost, what do Egyptians have to do with that?

we were weak during this period, if we were strong we would kick romans since ages but arabs did that for us and if the Arabs forced us to be muslims then there

wouldn't be 1 single christian here today, but there are over 15 million christian today and you know that.

[Babak]

Assimilation usually comes with having good relations with the elites, which will eventually lead to intermarriges and cultural mixing. Its how its always been for centuries.

[Loki]

and another thing is because of Egyptian Hager ( wife of prophet Ibrahim) and the mother of Ismael(father of arabs).

It's religious mythology. Abraham/Ibrahim never existed.

[Seya]

Doesn't Romania already exist?

what do gypsies have to do with us?

[Loki]

If that's the case then Persians today shouldn't be calling themselves Iranians or Iranics since they're genetically predominately natives of Iran,

But... Persians are Iranic people and they have been in Iran for many thousands of years; they are natives there. :confused:

[Loki]

but there are over 15 million christian today and you know that.

15 Million Christians in Egypt? Wow, I didn't know. :)

[Kamal900]

But... Persians are Iranic people and they have been in Iran for many thousands of years; they are natives there. :confused:

I was just illustrating my point. Persians today as well as other Iranic peoples of the middle east like Kurds are genetically predominately native middle easterners regardless on the fact that the Iranic tribes arrived from central Asia 3,000 years ago who were genetically different from the native west Asians. The same is true to the modern day Egyptians who are also natives regardless on the fact that most identify themselves as Arabs due to their linguistic affiliation.

[Loki]

what do gypsies have to do with us?

I'm just saying, Roma sounds a bit like Romania...

Arabs live in Arabia
Mongols live in Mongolia
Romas live in ... ?

There are many Roma living in Romania. Where did Romania get its name from?

[Seya]

I'm just saying, Roma sounds a bit like Romania...

Arabs live in Arabia
Mongols live in Mongolia
Romas live in ... ?

There are many Roma living in Romania. Where did Romania get its name from?
gypsies live everywhere..they have no country. Romania got its name from the Roman Empire, obviously and not from gypsies lol.

[Loki]

gypsies live everywhere..they have no country. Romania got it's name from the Roman Empire, obviously and not from gypsies lol.

I know.. I'm just joking with you. ;)

[Drawing-slim]

Wheres the video??

[Loki]

I was just illustrating my point. Persians today as well as other Iranic peoples of the middle east like Kurds are genetically predominately native middle easterners regardless on the fact that the Iranic tribes arrived from central Asia 3,000 years ago who were genetically different from the native west Asians. The same is true to the modern day Egyptians who are also natives regardless on the fact that most identify themselves as Arabs due to their linguistic affiliation.

Yeah, I guess when they lost their language, they lost their identity as Egyptians mostly.. and began to see themselves as Arabs instead.

[JMack]

They're Arabs, yes, but they are descendants from the pre-Islamic peoples of Egypt.

People here have a strong difficulty to understand the concept of 'cultural identity'.

The axiom race = culture = language only become predominant in the last 200 years through the ideas of modern nationalism.

Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians are largely members of the same ''race''. But they aren't the same ''ethnicity''.

[Loki]

Wheres the video??

I don't think there is one. It's fake news.

[Loki]

Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians are largely members of the same ''race''. But they aren't the same ''ethnicity''.

They are actually the same ethnicity... but modified through the many years.

[JMack]

They are actually the same ethnicity... but modified through the many years.

If they have a different language and cultural identity they can't be the same ethnicity. They have even a totally different religion...
Modern Egyptians are culturally more similar to Saudis than to Ancient Egyptians.

For that same reason modern Guatemalans are Guatemalans, not Mayans. Or modern Italians are Italians, not Romans.

[Jehan]

Let's talk about it there https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?222243-Antic-egyptian-modern-egyptiian-Copte

[Kamal900]

Yeah, I guess when they lost their language, they lost their identity as Egyptians mostly.. and began to see themselves as Arabs instead.

Basically this, yes.

[Rethel]

It's religious mythology. Abraham/Ibrahim never existed.

And here you are, they are still infuencial - much more, than any
living figure today... so maybe it is a time to rethink your position.

[Rethel]

I'm not going to bother answering this long ass bullshit assay of yours.

If you can;t stick to the topic...


I told you that Egyptians today got assimilated by linguistic domination of the ruling Arabs who number only between 2 to 3,000 people in contrast to the locals who were more than 13 million in the 7th century.

3000 assimilated 13,000,000 :picard1:

And still in 18th century it was bearly one-two millions...


Yes, some of these migrants settled and mixed with the locals,

So, here you are.
Genetics proofs, that they are more than 54%.


and the Egyptians today are predominately natives with some admixture in them.

Hoe they can be native, if more than 54% of people is descendent from outsiders? HOOOOWWW???? http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/036.gif


That's it. They're natives whether you like it or not.

They are so native, as refugees are in Europe... :picard2:


I support a Roma state some where in the Balkans.

Why not somewhere in British Somali?


Ismael(father of arabs).

Some Arabs... even some northern Arabs... not all.

[Rethel]

Well, then I think we should decide on one of the following, because you can't have both:

a) Modern Egyptians are Arabs
b) Modern Egyptians are Ancient Egyptians

Which one is it going to be?

Like this:

Less than 46% are ancient/original Egyptians.
x% are Arabs and arabized invaders from VIIth century and later.
>54%-x% are foreign immigrants during the whole history of Egypt.
Together = 100% of modern inhabitants of Arabic Republic of Egypt.

[Loki]

If they have a different language and cultural identity they can't be the same ethnicity. They have even a totally different religion...
Modern Egyptians are culturally more similar to Saudis than to Ancient Egyptians.

For that same reason modern Guatemalans are Guatemalans, not Mayans. Or modern Italians are Italians, not Romans.

Actually, good points.

[Mortimer]

A good question: why some europeans should give up on part of there territory for gypsy?
You are alien to Europe.
Another question: Considering romas behaviour, do you think a gypsy country can works?

Another question and please answear honesthly: Do you understand why gypsys are hate everywhere?

wrong. gypsies are 50-30% non-southasian (with significant european) on average with some individuals and groups reaching 90% European, their culture is european with distant southasian and some middle eastern elements, but other cultures in europe have middle eastern elements too like balkan or spain or southitaly. gypsies belong to europe. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/10/roma-multitudes/#.WchqpsgjGM8

So there we have it. The Romani derive from lower castes populations from the northwest Indian subcontinent who seem to have left ~1,000 years ago. Over time they admixed with local populations, and are now 50-70% non-South Asian, with some groups being ~90% European (e.g., Welsh Romani). And, they have a long history as an endogamous group, judging by their inbreeding. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/12/the-origins-of-the-romani-determined-definitively/#.WchsWcgjGM8

Also they left india 1.500 years ago http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245032/Gypsies-settled-Europe-1-500-years-ago-didnt-arrive-UK-centuries-ago.html

People need to change perception of roma as "alien to europe". Roma are not alien to europe, most europeans have non-european admixture finns can be up to 20% east asian.

[Chev Chelios]

Lol at people supporting independent states for each ethnic group. Fucking retarded. Do you guys have any idea how many people will have to die in order for that to happen? Were talking about deaths in the millions and total destruction of infrastructure.

In a perfect world, all ethnic groups could have their own states. But it does not work in this world. Build a nation require many things and not all ethnicities have those things to become independent.

[Black Panther]

U r right. In Sweden there are these far right groups that persecute minorities. I've even heard that there are areas of Sweden where far right groups create "no-go" zones. In those areas even Australian camera crews are beaten and persecuted out and if you don't abide by the religion they adhere to there, you're shunned and made to leave....
At least that's how I remember it, might be mixing up some details. :thumb001:

I am just saying, in this one case, he will be persecuted by far right groups because of what he did. Far rightists are not as dangerous as certain Muslim/immigrant gangs in Sweden/W. Europe, but they aren't these poor little peaceful protesters either. They can and do act violently at times.

[Rethel]

In a perfect world,

In perfect world, every group would be of one forefather - actually it
allready was until people started to conquering each other. So actually
nothing chaged, becasue original froups are basicaly know, and it is know
exactly, who is from which tribe today. Territory does not make a nation.