1984

>1984
>milo
>norse mythology
These are in the top ten bestselling books on Amazon right now. Are normies waking up?

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764
scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
ancestryforums.custhelp.com/posts/70074d1b37
r1bu106.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/new-study-finds-no-evidence-of-british-celts-as-a-unique-genetic-group/
forumbiodiversity.com/archive/index.php/t-43955.html
forums.civfanatics.com/threads/dna-study-shows-celts-are-not-a-unique-genetic-group.545011/
theapricity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-164554.html
badnewsaboutchristianity.com
r1bu106.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/new-study-finds-no-evidence-of-british-celts-as-a-unique-genetic-group/)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Not until you see mein kampf or creature on Jekyll island.

Neil Gayman's a cuck though, the book's probably his fantasy about Loki being a transgender taking it in the ass from Jörmungandr which while still reaching around the earth is a black cock rather than a serpent.

...

People are reading 1984 because liberals believe Trumps presidency will bring forth that type of government.

Milo's book is up there to support him after the riots

Norse mythology is there because of the show Vikings and mythology is taught this semester in high schools

>Trumps presidency will bring forth that type of government.

A socialist one then they should be happy

>1984
>because some libfag said Trump was Orwellian and these tards are too stupid to see that they're the ones who have been engaging in newspeak for decades

>Gaiman
>this is not the Germanic religion you're looking for

>Milo
>the normies are waking up! a gay Jew who loves black cock is selling well!

ah no where did milo go

#4 Hillbilly Elegy is also an extremely good book that everyone on Sup Forums should read

>dangerous
milo is because MSM giving him a shitton of publicity (also fucking ana thinks he's voldemort now).

>1984
pretty good book, orwell could write a good world\story but the characters are kinda shit.

>mythology
i honestly dont know

also OP why aren't you mentioning
>the handmaid's tale
book about america being controlled by an authoritarian regime after a coup. 10/10 story and characters. this is what 1984 should have been.

>Neil Gaiman
>woke

also handmaid's tale is redpilled as fuck.

1984 is typical lefty nonsense. Blaming everyone but themselves. Huxley had the balls to say that it will be people who will maintain the oppressive system, and this triggered Orwell so he made a shadowy Power that is the REAL oppressor so just accept the chains because its not our fault.

Big Brother has the same formlessness as The Patriarchy. It's people, it has always been people.

Thid 1984 vs. BNW shit has gone too far, they're both fantastic books and shades of our society can be seen in both.

reminder that if you lived in oceania you would be happy, have a sense of purpose and feel secure

also brave new world is legitimately one of the worst, dumbest, wrongest books ever written

Ingsoc =/= socialism (in Orwells head at least)

Can I buy ebooks on amazon and convert them to read on my non-kikedle device?

>1984
>Are normies waking up?

No because the majority of people miss the point of 1984, which was control through language, in simple terms. Instead, most people equate Orwellian with anything mildly authoritarian.

There are ways. Calibre with the right mods works.

>norse mythology

Heh, they're hardly waking up.

Most whites are of Celtic descent. There are many similarities between the Norse and the Celts, which they probably inherit from older civilizations, but then there's also a lot of differences. The only issue with Celts is that we know so little about them, for they had few written texts, and few of those survived, but they're clearly the ancestors of Europeans more than the Norse.

And then, there's Germanic tribes.

Also
>paying for 1984
Kek. Just create an account on Facebook and you'll have access to the free improved virtual reality version.

>still have my high school library's copy

Speaking of Norse beliefs as somehow separate from Germanic makes no sense in this context.

Neil Gaiman is a kike.

Whites are of mixed European descent, Celtic is a culture mind you, not an ethnicity. And even then.

Good bait but I won't bite.

He's right. Celts were a culture.

Celts from Wales are entirely different to Celts from Ireland for example.

As a comrade I can tell you thats how it has happened in real life, they were mostly dictatorships, not socialism

I hope you're fucking kidding.

Wales, Ireland, Scottland and Brittany are different by mere 500 years, but there's a 6,000 year gap between proto-Celtic and proto-Norse groups.

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764

PIE isn't even 6000 years old

Proto-Germanic and Proto-Celtic probably diverged at around ~2000-1500 BC.

Two by Jews, one by a commie. No.

>normies
>reading

This is quite retarded and has been largely criticzed. This only shows two possibilities:
- There's been interbreeding between British Celts and Anglos, and modern British Celts aren't that Celt anymore.
- Anglos are more Celtic than they thought.

No matter what, it doesn't change anything.

>PIE isn't even 6000 years old
Languages evolved at different rates than civilizations. They're a great indicator, but they shouldn't be entirely trusted.

Virtue signalling books to put on their coffee tables so everyone can see how enlightened they are. You can read all that shit online for free.

>6,000 year gap

This is highly unlikely.

On the linguistic side, neither Celtic nor Germanic languages existed 6,000 years ago.

On the genetic side, the dominant paternal (Indo-European) markers for each group (Celtic and Germanic) have a TMRCA of around 5,000 years ago, and their "father" clade formed slightly less than 6,000 years ago.

>This is quite retarded and has been largely criticzed.
Great argument. You really convinced me you know what you are talking about.

>made liberals think people are buying 1984 because 'it's about government I don't like' when people are buying the book because it's about societal and media hypercensorship of dissenting political beliefs.

You viewing only kindle editions?

>This is quite retarded and has been largely criticzed.
Not really. I haven't seen much criticism at all. It mostly confirms what has been taught at university-level Early Medieval British history courses for +20 years.

>There's been interbreeding between British Celts and Anglos, and modern British Celts aren't that Celt anymore.
As you've been told, Celtic is a culturo-linguistic group in Britain. It's not genetic. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, and "Cumbrians" all cluster separately in spite of the fact that they historically shared culturo-linguistic kinship.

>Anglos are more Celtic than they thought.
This is right. In other words, the Germanic migrants were mostly a warrior elite who didn't engage in widespread genocide against the local Britons. Local Britons became Anglicised and were ultimately absorbed into the population. Or rather, Germanics were absorbed into the local population.

>"father" clade
unrelated but you realize their is no father clade for chimps and humans? we are engineered by someone smart enough to fuse chromosomes

>Implying that norse mythology isn't the next step of edginess after listening to heavy metal.
It's just for retards who think "muh honor and toughness" while being fat neckbeards who know nothing of the mythology except for what (((they))) learnt from (((marvel))) films

>a Jew telling goys about Norse Mythology
Wake me up when the Poetic Edda is on there.

Thats really not that far from actuall Norse mythology.
Didn't Loki give birth after multiple beastialty incidents?

I literally know nothing about other primates' Y-DNA. I'll give it a look at some point.

On a similar note:

>It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south.

scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

In other words, Out of Africa is bullshit.

They think Trump will make 1984 reality, not realising he saved us from that fate under Clinton.

>Great argument.
Says the guy thinking posting an article constitutes an argument. Here are my arguments then, next time you stumble onto some information, try to research people opposed to it before calling it an "argument", but I'm not going to do your research for you:
ancestryforums.custhelp.com/posts/70074d1b37
r1bu106.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/new-study-finds-no-evidence-of-british-celts-as-a-unique-genetic-group/
forumbiodiversity.com/archive/index.php/t-43955.html
forums.civfanatics.com/threads/dna-study-shows-celts-are-not-a-unique-genetic-group.545011/
theapricity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-164554.html

There are distinctive Celtic Y haplogroups, mostly R1b-L21 and R1b-U152, along with countless autosomal similarities. Research groups on FTDNA alone are lightyears beyond this study. It's not bad though, it just makes wild speculations that aren't backed by anything.

I mentioned proto-Celtic and proto-Norse groups. Celts and Norse had ancestors too, and those ancestors were already of different groups a long time ago.

What is that? A rune spell?

>LARPaganism
>waking up

>There are distinctive Celtic Y haplogroups, mostly R1b-L21 and R1b-U152, along with countless autosomal similarities. Research groups on FTDNA alone are lightyears beyond this study. It's not bad though, it just makes wild speculations that aren't backed by anything.
That's true but this isn't reflected in the case of Celtic Britain (i.e., the sort of Celts we're speaking about). In terms of autosomal data, Celtic populations in Britain and Ireland are distinct and cluster separately from one another. In the case of the Cornish, for example, they cluster as close to the English as they do to the Welsh.

>Says the guy thinking posting an article constitutes an argument
I posted a reliable source. Something you have still failed to do.

badnewsaboutchristianity.com

It's 2017 sweetie.

>The Handmaid's Tale
>(((Margaret Atwood)))

Hurr durr Trump is going to grab all the pussys and make brave women cover up and be used as chattel!

But we totally are making a generic Muslim woman the face of our resistance! Islam promotes feminism or some shit.

Stop it.

You really think normies read books?

Fuckin lel

> Christianity having any balls or power
> 2017

>I'm so hot to make fun of European religions that I didn't realize the book under discussion is fiction in the first place

loooool

Liberals are too obsessed with 1984 when A Brave New World predicted modern western degeneracy much accurately.

Read "A BRAVE NEW WORLD."

>Kirk Russell
>Amazon bestseller

The man cannot be stopped

>Cucktianity
>anything but the toxin that rots away empires from the inside

not realising Brave New World is the real book they hould be reading

That doesn't say much though. It only highlights exceptions, and then it rests on the "modern" idea of Celts, that is the "Celtic Nations", not the historical Celts. Many Anglos are of Celt descent, of course there are similarities between them, but then that doesn't mean historical Celts aren't a distinct group.

I guess the ones I posted are "fake news".

>>because some libfag said Trump was Orwellian and these tards are too stupid to see that they're the ones who have been engaging in newspeak for decades
This. How can they not see Obama had all of Big Brother's bases covered for the last 8 years? And it's not like they're asking Trump to discontinue those policies.

>I guess the ones I posted are "fake news".
All of the links you posted agree with what I said though...

Are you actually retarded or did you not read them?

>Celts aren't a distinct group
They were (and are), but as I said the main source of their distinctness is culture and language, not DNA. Mostly I'm not speaking about Celtic peoples outside of Britain and Brittany, because I don't know much about them. In this case, all of the collected data suggests that the only real source of kinship between British and Irish Celtic peoples is culturo-linguistic in nature.

He should thank the commies for the free publicity.

>Are you actually retarded or did you not read them?
I guess you simply didn't understood that article then. Also don't tell me you had the time to read all of those, I wouldn't believe you.

History tells us some groups remained independent and isolated, which explains the increase in genetic distance between "modern Celts", while some "historical Celts" gave up on their culture, language, and later beliefs when they switched to Christianism.

Again, it's based on the idea of "modern Celts" not being more Celtic than Anglos being considered "non-modern Celts", but they are all "historical Celts", as Celts historically covered all of Britain and Ireland. There's been interbreeding with Germanics later on, but they remain Celt to the core and to their haplogroups most importantly.

>Not realizing the proles of 1984 were pacified the same way as the population of brave new world and 1984 encapsulates it and then some

>they remain Celt to the core and to their haplogroups most importantly

The English are pretty much evenly split between Celtic and Germanic, IIRC.

>I guess you simply didn't understood that article then
Is this bait.

I stated
>Celts from Wales are entirely different to Celts from Ireland for example.
and provided a study to back this up.

Every link you posted is discussing this same study (forums aren't a source by the way, post a scientific stufy or fuck off).

A quote from one of your links. (r1bu106.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/new-study-finds-no-evidence-of-british-celts-as-a-unique-genetic-group/)
>Prof Mark Robinson, an archaeologist who works with Prof Donnelly at Oxford University, said he was “very surprised” that Celtic groups in Cornwall, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland had such different genetic patterns.
>“Although people from Cornwall have a Celtic heritage, genetically they are much, much more similar to the people elsewhere in England than they are to the Welsh for example,” said Prof Donnelly
How the fuck is that not backing up what I said? You stupid French cunt.

Post a fucking study that backs up your shit or stop talking bollocks.

>History tells us some groups remained independent and isolated, which explains the increase in genetic distance between "modern Celts", while some "historical Celts" gave up on their culture, language, and later beliefs when they switched to Christianism.
But it doesn't explain why the Cornish and Welsh, or why the north Welsh and south Welsh cluster separately in the face of the fact that these populations were not isolated from one another. What it suggests is that we need to re-evaluate our understanding of the relatedness of, in this case, Brythonic peoples. That relation, I maintain, rests chiefly on culture and language and evidently not on DNA.

>“Although people from Cornwall have a Celtic heritage, genetically they are much, much more similar to the people elsewhere in England than they are to the Welsh for example,” said Prof Donnelly
I get a bit annoyed at seeing this without a proper explanation because it seems to imply that the Cornish are basically just Englishmen LARPing as Celts. The Nature study concluded that the reason for the relative closeness of Cornish and English people is because the latter must possess a far greater British, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon, heritage than was previously believed.

I'm not taking potshots at you personally, just that quotation in particular.

I'm already laughing at the idea of normies getting frustrated at the needlessly complex writing style of Orwell and never finishing the book

>Handmaids tale

MUH CHRISTIANITY ABLU BLU

Clearly they're not 100% Celt, but they're a lot more Celt than this article claims, which considers them to be "not Celt" at all.

>(forums aren't a source by the way, post a scientific stufy or fuck off).

Looks like this is your first time discussing ancestry and DNA research. The forums I posted above aren't Sup Forums-grade >>>/dna/, they're ultra serious forums where no joke is allowed and even saying "Hi!" requires a source. They don't discuss that stuff lightly. Maybe you'd know if you'd read.

>How the fuck is that not backing up what I said? You stupid French cunt.
Why do they consider the English to be "not Celt"? See parallel discussion above.

Indeed there are surprising findings in here, but it still only attacks the modern idea of Celts. What it tells us is that things happened between 300bce and 2015ce we're not sure about, but that hardly scratch the idea that Celts were an ethnic group.

>number 1 is a shitty feminist dystopia
>espouses a statist ideology
>is about class warfare?anti-capitalist

>the normies aren't waking up, theyre giving up on reading. we read books, so our books make the top 10

Triggered LARPcuckd

>they're ultra serious forums where no joke is allowed
kek, they're still not a fucking source. Do you use them in academic essays?
>Citation: Username - xxbigboi1999xxs forum post #91

Get fucking real and post some evidence to back your claim up, stop avoiding it and post a study that counters the one I posted.

>Looks like this is your first time discussing ancestry
Looks like this is your first time posting on Sup Forums, either post evidence or shut the fuck up. You claim to know otherwise so fucking post it you deflecting cunt.

>that relation, I maintain, rests chiefly on culture and language and evidently not on DNA

The linguistic relation is obvious. Autosomally speaking, Celtic cultures don't really cluster together, but the dominance of R1b-L21 IS a genetic tie.

If I had to spitball an explanation, L21 males have been dominant since Celts came to the Isles, but the populations they assimilated differed to varying degrees, and history went from there. Different rates of Germanic introgression, different levels of exogamy, different exogamous population groups in different measure, etc.

>Indeed there are surprising findings in here, but it still only attacks the modern idea of Celts
Why do you say "attack"? You believe there's some ulterior motive?

>I don't know what larping is and I don't read books, and I'm proud of it!

Triggered illiterate larper, tbqfh.

I agree. Considering them as "not Celtic at all" defies all logic and evidence.

>Handmaiden's Tale
That book is hilarious. It read's like a feminist version of dystopian greentexting.

>Milo
>are normies waking up?
No

Milo is nothing but a basic conservative at this point, he countersignals WN every chance he gets

>milo's book
Hohoho, it looks like those revolts blocking Milo from speaking worked out against their cause.

>implying liberals don't read 1984 as Trump's USA anno 2017.

3/6 books cost around twice as much as the others.

That's weird.

Well then I'm going to explain it to you, pay attention. There's the modern Celtic nations: Scotland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany. And then there's historical Celts, found all over western and central Europe some centuries ago.

This study says "the Cornish think they're Celts but really they're as close to the English as they are to the Welsh". Well, that's great, but aren't the English Celts? According to the modern definition they aren't, but what about the historical one? And that's the issue right there: it takes the modern definition of a "Celt", and applies it to ancestry research. Ergo, Anglos aren't Celts, so if there's a similarity with the Cornish, then they aren't Celts either!".

There wouldn't be any flaw in this reasoning, if only Anglos weren't of Celtic descent- not all of them mind you, but certainly a whole fucking lot, and you can bet that's where the similarity comes from. Is this speculation? Certainly, but that's all there is to DNA ancestry, it's all speculation, and according to the most up to date speculation, Anglos were Celts at some point.

I guess the meaning of that word is stronger in English than in French, didn't mean anything particular though.

>Well then I'm going to explain it to you, pay attention
Don't bother, post a source. That's all I want.

Show me an academic study please. You can keep deflecting from it all you want but at the end of the day I you called bullshit on me and I posted a study to back up my argument. You have failed to do the same multiple times now.

If you claim to know this then you can at least have the common courtesy to show me an academic study to back your claims up.

That's how this works.

I don't really have anything to dispute there. I don't believe there is no genetic relation between Celtic peoples (there is a genetic relation between Europeans generally, so how could that be?), just that this is not the primary relationship. The primary relationship in the case of Britain and Ireland is culture and language, IMO.

My leveraf ma avel Kernow.

Well then here are my sources:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations
bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764

Off you go.

>everyone talks about Brave New World and 1984
>never a single mention of Harrison Bergeron

If anything we're far more in touch with Harrison's world than anything.

>ask for an academic source
>get wikipedia and the same study I posted
Ok, you're just trolling now.

You can't show me a study, can you?

Does even one person in this thread understand that culture/language has nothing to do with genetics?

Celts were people who spoke a Celtic language and had a Celtic culture, not a genetic phylum. There were Celts all over Europe and into Asia.

Did you bother to read the thread?

Normies don't read

That's what I tried to argue but apparently I am wrong despite posting academic research pointing to the contrary.

>You can't show me a study, can you?
And you can neither read nor search for shit, can you? You need to be handheld for fucking everything. Grow up or stay retarded, I said pretty much everything there was to be said about it in this post: The rest is arguing about numbers, founders effect and the usual shit.

>culture/language has nothing to do with genetics

The two are quite often related, actually.

>still deflecting
>still won't post a study
I mean I know why you won't post it.

Because it doesn't fucking exsist, does it?

>posting a source is hand holding
God forbid you ever actually enter an academic institution or real debate, you would get laughed out of fucking town.