EUROPEAN FOLKS & CLAY - Let's draft a future everyone likes

Slovenia sure has a lot of districts

Why is the northern norwegian coast finno-ugric.

Yeah but Cornwall would be more powerful with Devon as well I'd accept Devon as long as it was ruled from Cornwall.

Italy=all the penisnsula below the alps +sicly and sardegna
that's it

>actually wanting any affair with the thiefing Devonians
Lad, you might want to situate yourself on east of of the Tamar.

I'm not in support of this idea, personally. Being that Celticness is chiefly culturo-linguistic and these areas are decidedly no longer part of the Celtic sphere, no. Really, I was just trying to illustrate the fact that Devon isn't really Celtic.

What should North Italy be?
>Muh Sami n shiet
Samis can be under Finnish rule for all i care

Celticness is most importantly genetic imo. Devon is more Celtic than the rest of England anyway.

it's below the alps so Italy

>mapchart.net

Attached: 277f8a6a-495c-41e6-a46e-5ccacf40c43c.png (5884x6794, 3.97M)

get fucked somali

Attached: Slavic_tribes_in_the_7th_to_9th_century.jpg (1520x1442, 566K)

>shill trying to divide North Italy
Hands off my region kike.

>Romania is part of a southern European union
They're Slavic as fuck, why do that?

I have never in my life been convinced that there is a biological basis for Celticness. You actually believe that people as far-a-flung as the Galatians ~300 AD, still unquestionably Celtic, clustered genetically with our Dumnonian ancestors?

we are Vlach?
you arent ethic sweede arent you ?

Attached: dacia.jpg (718x1024, 113K)

you need to do more research pal. We are primarily descended from Brythonic Celts and are still genetically distinct from the Celtic migrations. Culture and language always follow genetics remember.

Attached: Genteic and territorial map of Britain.png (1800x1200, 1.46M)

I literally just asked. You see in my OP map North Italy is Italy

>Karaliaučius
>rightful german clay

Attached: 15_.jpg (228x135, 14K)

They need somewhere to go lmao, you are not Vlach as a whole but you rather have them live in every woods?

You do not ask questions with obvious answers.

Alright

the Scottish are less Celtic than the English

Not all Celts are identical because genes mutate over time. All Celts are related however, though different places have different admixtures with other things as well to different degrees.

>but you rather have them live in every woods?
hell yeah

Attached: 1513856808486.jpg (400x370, 129K)

Alright i'm gonna edit with that consideration

Fixed

Attached: 1534086166593.png (3240x3740, 2.07M)

and why the fuck they call it "Vlachs" since we were here long before slavic assholes?

Attached: 1522553346942.jpg (895x743, 586K)

I'm not sure what that guy means, perhaps he is referring to Istria

>Scotland
>Celtic
Not really.
>Devon
>Celtic
No.

North Italy means all of North Italy to me.

Who is denying any of that? No one has said anything about whether or not the Cornish and other Celtic populations in Britain are genetically distinct from the English.

What is being questioned is whether or not Celticness is quantifiable genetically. The truth of the matter is that it's not. Galatians are a good example of this, but your own map demonstrating that there is no unifying "Celtic" genotype serves as well. These people (the Galatians) still spoke a Celtic language and were regarded as Celtic right up until the 4th century AD. However, their blood had been so diluted by intermarriage with local Anatolians that they became known colloquially as Gallogrecians as early as 300 years prior to the 4th century. Going by the "Celtic is biological theory" you would either need to argue that the Galatians were no longer Celtic, rejecting virtually all scholarly consensus on this matter, or accept that Celticness isn't something rooted in biology but in culture and language.

And since you've rather arrogantly decided that I need to do more research, perhaps I could suggest that you examine the phylogenetic and archeological data pointing to HOW and WHY Celtic languages became widespread in the first place. Namely, during the Bronze Age the adoption of the proto-Celtic language(s) by genetically diverse populations was necessitated by the extensive trade network that existed on the Atlantic facade. Thus, you had various people - Armoricans, Britons, Hibernians, Iberians - all obtaining proto-Celtic languages through acculturation (i.e., not resultant to biological factors) and through the practical necessities of commerce.

BTW, esta ow côwsel hag ow scrifa agan yêth, Kernow? Nyns yw fur desevos me re redyas.

Attached: 1526937807793.png (2988x2187, 542K)

I don't want to be part of Germanistan.

is that brythonic?
how do you say "the fire rises" in brythonic do you know?

Attached: map.png (4592x3196, 988K)

Your orignial statement "there is no bilogical basis to Celts" is wrong. We are genetically descended from the orignial Celtic tribes and although some places may have took up Celtic culture without being gentically Celtic, it is widely undersood that Britons and Gaels are descended from the original continental Celts. Therefore we are genetically related and there is a genetic basis to our Celtic identity.

It's Cornish.

Yma an tan ow sevel.

>Coast of Oceanus Sarmaticus given to Kr*t

Attached: 16a3ed7559c676986ee6c55cb1385a6b-brand_collage.png (1126x860, 434K)

>We are genetically
Who is "we"? Brythonic peoples? Of course, but being that Brythonic and Celtic are NOT synonyms, the former being a sub-group of the latter, we're comparing apples to oranges. There is a biological basis in being a Cornishman, or Welsh, or a Breton, but there is not a biological basis in being a Celt. If there were, all Celtic populations, historical and present, would cluster genetically, but we know that's not the case. Galicians do not cluster with Cornishmen who do not cluster with Galatians who do not cluster with Lepontic people. And this isn't because of "mutations" but because of the nature of Celticness and because of acculturation.

(((german)))
typical eu tier thread

Attached: 1532351038399.jpg (1200x758, 179K)

All subhumans will be gassed don't worry

>Transylvania and Lower Slovakia not Hungarian clay
Go fuck yourself ok?

Real baltic name is Tuwangste

> Rightful finno-ugric clay

This is not a concept that exist.

>Culture and language always follow genetics remember.
yes

>Who is denying any of that?
Archeocucks

I don't know, you don't have the same mental strenght as us Italians.

>Cornwall
>Celtic
>Scottish lowlands and islands
>Celtic

>Archeocucks
Archeologists? Sure, but because it's the reality in the case of Celticness. Celtic languages and culture was suffused across a massive geographical area of Europe not because millions of Celts originating on the Atlantic facade migrated eastwards, but because Celticisation was projected eastward chiefly through trade and conquest.

disgusting,thank god we have the alps

i wish we south slavs could help each other out more and not just act like cunts all the time

Attached: 1490128568617.jpg (258x245, 12K)

I think when he says "we are genetically descended from the Celts" he just means the insular Celts who lived on Britain and Ireland before the Germanic tribes and Vikings and Normans came over and set up shop. He's not talking about Celts from Iberia and Anatolia

That's the source of your disagreement

You want more Russians?
I'm pretty damn sure it isn't. It was a name made up by the early German colonists. And this "tuwangste" doesn't exist anymore, everything related to it was destroyed.

Yth esof vy ow scrifa yêth Keltek, fol Amerikan. Hemm yw Kernowek, tavas an ow tasow hag an gooth a tus Kernow.

We got people that want immigrants out of my country voted, you didn't vote yours.

Do you see the areas I have marked with red?

Here's some trivia for you
Less than 50 000 germanics altogether live in these lands
Same could be said about Northern France

Attached: 1534086166593.png (547x567, 150K)

As long people ive credit to the main stream shills that sell the usual D&C propaganda we will go nowhere.
The low IQ's will follow where the leaders tell them to go.

Some countries are still not mature enough.. i guess few more generations have to change before actual change happens.. well that or major outside influence.

Attached: 1532108439159.jpg (640x853, 63K)

nah fuck outside influence the balkans needs to sort istelf alone or things will always be fucked

I think you're right, but if that's the case then he needs to understand that the Insular Celts weren't the only, or even the majority, Celtic population in Europe. I'm not some leftist cuck who believes that biology, race, and ethnicity is irrelevant. What I'm saying is that "Celtic" is a culturo-linguistic identity overlaying a highly varied pool of people who are unequivocally genetically distinct from one another and, in many instances, not immediately genetically related to one another at all.

Again, what lunatic actually believes that a Galatian would have clustered genetically with a Pict ~300 AD?

Slavs are a very recent thing in Karelia, Ingria, Kola and St. Petersburg used to be an old Finnic trading post. Why should they be Slavic clay?

>this isn't because of "mutations"
So what make you decide this? Of course acculturation is a factor but to be black and white and to say all of that is wrong. You're ignoring the fact that we all stem from the Indo Europeans that spread out and you seem to be ignoring the fact that Gaels and Brythonics for example have common ancestors. You do realise that it doesn't take a long time of seperation for two groups to become distinct. When comparing Gaels and Brythonics, we both came out of the same Celtic group stemming from Indo-Europeans and then became distinct over time. The original Indo-Europeans spread out into different subgroups that "genetically mutated" overtime to become distinct. Hence the relation of Gaels and Brythonics stemming from the Celtic branch of the Indo Europeans.

It would be ridiculous for Cornishmen to cluster with Galatians... like I said, genes mutate over time and there are lot's of other genetic influences. And I'm not saying acculturation isn't a thing. You're just ignoring the fact that genetic relation stemming from the Indo Europeans and the original Celts is a thing.

Attached: proto_indo_tree.jpg (750x471, 97K)

maybe because slavs developed and now rule these lands?

You didn't do shit in St. Petersburg
Many Russians have died to build that city

They conquered the area and held it for the longest time, by this (germanophiliac) logic it is theirs.

>balto-slavic
I f'ing love pseudoscience

... FOLKS
Meaning belonging to various peoples in that group
*Germanic
Dunno if you read the OP explanation but sure, i do recognize the fact that today it isn't so. Did edit it but not upload

what said

Regarding trivia, St. Petersburg was founded on a Swedish fort-city

What does Greece have to do with Italy?!?!?!!

Genetics follow conquest, so there is a genetic element always there. The raging celt did a good video on this about how it's not that easy to impose your language and culture on other people without a serious invasion that involves a large degree of genetic replacement but I can't find the video.

Add corsica and Malta

Poland held Western Prussia for 600 years
Germany for 300
My point stands still

Nothing, except some connection from the roman times. I wrote Latin + Greek as a med-group. This doesn't mean they would be the same

Best map desu

Well then.. start by creating alternative parties that have some resemblance of normal compared to the present ones.. the only alternative is pure violence and that never ends well.

>youtube.com/watch?v=Fn2K5N9cJVM

You read that i said i edited it but didn't upload right?

Me neither.
Italy , spain , portugal , belgium , netherland and luxembourg why not.

Attached: Gallia belgica.jpg (650x642, 130K)

And Berlin was founded on a western slavic / Polish settlement
(Berlin in old slavic means "swamp" )
does that mean Berlin belongs to us?
No

Doesn't matter, it was the Germans who purged it of it's original inhabitants and built it from the ground up.

It was pretty hard to communicate with people who don't speak your languages in the ancient times

Didn't say St Petersburg belongs to Sweden tho

youtube.com/watch?v=GpQB289uzVM

This is a good example of why it's not that easy for a culture to just "suffuse" over other cultures without serious conquest.

obviously,i would even add half istria like the romands did
but for now let's stick with what we have or these autists will cry out

>So what make you decide this?
The rather ample evidence that serves to demonstrate its falsity. Why don't Galicians, being the descendents of the Gallaeci, cluster with the Welsh? Is it because they "mutated" (whatever that means)? No. It's because: (1) There is ~5,000 years of divergent ethnogenesis and intermarriage with local, unrelated populations serving as a gaping crevasse between the two; and (2) One needs to assume that the two were ever genotypically similar in the first place, and there is no evidence for this at all.

>You're ignoring the fact that we all stem from the Indo Europeans that spread out and you seem to be ignoring the fact that Gaels and Brythonics for example have common ancestors.
Again, Goidelics and Brythonics were and are not the only Celtic people on the planet.

>You do realise that it doesn't take a long time of seperation for two groups to become distinct.
Linguistically or genetically? Linguistically, sure. Genetically, I think that depends on external factors. If the populations are not mixing with foreign groups and these "mutations" you're referring to are the product of natural, biological evolution - then yes, it does take a long time.

The rest of your post is frankly frustrating to go through. I would just like to pick up on this:
>You're just ignoring the fact that genetic relation stemming from the Indo Europeans and the original Celts is a thing
Are you able to prove that the Celtic population, historically, was ever at one point in time a genotypically homogeneous population?

>Genetics follow conquest, so there is a genetic element always there
Except they don't necessarily. A conquest does not imply population replacement. If it did, then most of England would be Norman.

Gdańsk reached its peak during the Polish golden age..
.. where it was ruled by
well
Poland

Exactly...

people take it for granted, but language and customs is something that doesn't survive after people get conquered since natives will not accept foreign myths and customs that easily.

As I said before: doesn't matter. German established, German populated and operated. It is German.

NEVER!

Or you will have history repeating.

Attached: up yours.jpg (230x200, 6K)

Isle of Man is a mix of Norse and Celtic. We are a mix of both. This can be seen through our native manx language which is gaelic however borrows many phrases over from medieval Norse.

Attached: 1695r.jpg (1280x960, 255K)

Where can i learn more about Isle of Man?