SEA Mujeets need to be studied in a laboratory.

[ChadFucksYourOneitis]

Indian haters on social media, if we omit Porkis and Kanglus, are mostly from the SEA region.

They hate the fact that their past is Dharmic, their ancestors worship Hindu gods.

They abandoned their ancestral gods to worship the god of the desert.

They pray toward the cube of invisib and kiss the carpets.

Bharat should study them along with Kanglus and Porkis POWs in a laboratory on at undisclosed sites.

 

[Shahnameh]

 

[distance decay]

 

[Doesitmatter?]

No such terms as mujeet. Only pajeet

 

[Deleted member 99909]

No such terms as mujeet. Only pajeet

Cope is insane just call it katwa mujeet and move on

 

[SubhumanCurrycel]

New race lore is dropping on .org someone fill me in

 

[Deleted member 99909]

Indian haters on social media, if we omit Porkis and Kanglus, are mostly from the SEA region.

They hate the fact that their past is Dharmic, their ancestors worship Hindu gods.

They abandoned their ancestral gods to worship the god of the desert.

They pray toward the cube of invisib and kiss the carpets.

Bharat should study them along with Kanglus and Porkis POWs in a laboratory on at undisclosed sites.

Porkis and kanglus larp as muh turkish muh euo muh lightskin but they forgot one thing to add despite this they are subhuman trash and don't know who there daddy is

 

[Donquixote]

No such terms as mujeet. Only pajeet

Jeets who are muslims are mujeets

 

[Donquixote]

Who are you never seen you here

 

[Surfsup]

comment removed

 

[Chadeep]

Damn the Terms Out here from Right Wing Indian Twitter

 

[Donquixote]

Nah tbh sea monkeys take care of their old hindu statue/place better than the pajeets here in india

 

[Doesitmatter?]

Jeets who are muslims are mujeets

That sentence is a contradiction in itself. Pajeet is hindu indians doesn't apply to muslims

 

[Gengar]

Porkis and kanglus larp as muh turkish muh euo muh lightskin but they forgot one thing to add despite this they are subhuman trash and don't know who there daddy is

Always pajeets like you and OP claiming this while I never heard a single paxtani make this claim. IVC is your daddy and that's literally Pakistan.

 

[Donquixote]

That sentence is a contradiction in itself. Pajeet is hindu indians doesn't apply to muslims

No mujeet canadians/white created the pajeet word for punjabi sikhs(because their common name like Baljeet,diljeet )now everyone call every indians pajeet
can't believe i had to drop pajeet lore here

 

[awpatheris]

@Gengar
Hey dude, the thing is the more populated IVC site isn't Pakistani genetically. Basically even though it was a mix of the SAHG & IranN people near the Indus Valley, and a few thousand years later there was a flood/climate problem that led to migration southwards & mixed with the native hunter-gatherer people forming modern dravidians, while some other IVC sites migrated northwards.

The 'Indo Iranians/ Steppe people' were mostly unrelated to this but did mix in with the IVC migrants from Pamir Knot to Bengal, but those sintashta stepp people were already mixed with the BMAC civilization near the Amu Darya. This steppe migration happened throughout thousands of years, it wasn't an 'invasion' like many think. The 'aryan' Steppe people & 'dravidian' IVCs had trading ports & exchanges frequently. The 'dasyu' is actually referring to the BMAC, which was primarly IranN civ, not the IVC, and we can see this by a shift in the Vedic language from 's' to the iranic 'h'. Tough to explain but I can in dms if you'd like

I see some other bad comments here all the time about migrations & genetics so I figured I'd help clear it up. People say 'Pakistan is a fake country' despite the rest of south asia also being 'fake' and 'AASI hatred' despite the reason why IVC was the tallest farming society ever was because AASI averaged 6 ft for men & was unnaturally robust.

The people closest to the IVC site are mostly Landowning groups and that too Dravidian/South Indian landowning groups for the most part. Although certain sites are close to Gujjars, Baloch, Sindhi, and certain Pakistani Punjabis, while the Indian counterparts are slightly more 'steppe shifted'. Reconstructions of IVC skulls will also prove me right. I see you've taken a DNA test as well, I can simulate your coords here if you'd like that.

AASI & IranN reconstruction

 

[awpatheris]

Sorry for the rant lol

 

[Gengar]

@Gengar
Hey dude, the thing is the more populated IVC site isn't Pakistani genetically. Basically even though it was a mix of the SAHG & IranN people near the Indus Valley, and a few thousand years later there was a flood/climate problem that led to migration southwards & mixed with the native hunter-gatherer people forming modern dravidians, while some other IVC sites migrated northwards.

The 'Indo Iranians/ Steppe people' were mostly unrelated to this but did mix in with the IVC migrants from Pamir Knot to Bengal, but those sintashta stepp people were already mixed with the BMAC civilization near the Amu Darya. This steppe migration happened throughout thousands of years, it wasn't an 'invasion' like many think. The 'aryan' Steppe people & 'dravidian' IVCs had trading ports & exchanges frequently. The 'dasyu' is actually referring to the BMAC, which was primarly IranN civ, not the IVC, and we can see this by a shift in the Vedic language from 's' to the iranic 'h'. Tough to explain but I can in dms if you'd like

I see some other bad comments here all the time about migrations & genetics so I figured I'd help clear it up. People say 'Pakistan is a fake country' despite the rest of south asia also being 'fake' and 'AASI hatred' despite the reason why IVC was the tallest farming society ever was because AASI averaged 6 ft for men & was unnaturally robust.

The people closest to the IVC site are mostly Landowning groups and that too Dravidian/South Indian landowning groups for the most part. Although certain sites are close to Gujjars, Baloch, Sindhi, and certain Pakistani Punjabis, while the Indian counterparts are slightly more 'steppe shifted'. Reconstructions of IVC skulls will also prove me right. I see you've taken a DNA test as well, I can simulate your coords here if you'd like that.

AASI & IranN reconstruction
View attachment 3264644View attachment 3264645

Sorry for the rant lol

The IVC mostly encompassed modern-day Pakistan with some spillover in neighboring countries. And you are speaking as if you know the facts but it’s just a theory you’re going off on. Not to mention you are talking about Vedic languages now when the proto-Vedic civilization started in 1500 BCE, whereas the Indus Valley Civilization started at least 1800 years before that if we accept that they were contemporary with Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. There are certain haplogroups associated with the IVC and the reason why Dravidians have higher frequencies of it is not because they were the inhabitants of the IVC but rather because a group of the Indus Valley people moved eastwards and then finally southwards where they are now. Those reconstructions are just artistic ideas of what they might have looked like, it’s not actually what they looked like. Anyway, no need to apologize for the ranting - but you’re going off of mere theories and ignoring the facts. Yes, I’ve taken a DNA test but I like figuring things out for myself. That’s why I haven’t shared my raw data file with anyone, even though I’m really interest qpAdm results. Have you done that?

 

[awpatheris]

The IVC mostly encompassed modern-day Pakistan with some spillover in neighboring countries. And you are speaking as if you know the facts but it’s just a theory you’re going off on. Not to mention you are talking about Vedic languages now when the proto-Vedic civilization started in 1500 BCE, whereas the Indus Valley Civilization started at least 1800 years before that if we accept that they were contemporary with Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. There are certain haplogroups associated with the IVC and the reason why Dravidians have higher frequencies of it is not because they were the inhabitants of the IVC but rather because a group of the Indus Valley people moved eastwards and then finally southwards where they are now. Those reconstructions are just artistic ideas of what they might have looked like, it’s not actually what they looked like. Anyway, no need to apologize for the ranting - but you’re going off of mere theories and ignoring the facts. Yes, I’ve taken a DNA test but I like figuring things out for myself. That’s why I haven’t shared my raw data file with anyone, even though I’m really interest qpAdm results. Have you done that?

I can run a qpadm for you if you'd like. Pak punjabis get about 40~% farmer 30~% sahg 25~% steppe usually

And about what you're saying, the thing is, even if the civilization itself encompasses modern day Pakistan and NW India, by looking at genetic distances and admixtures of actual samples, Dravidian & the Indus River periphery landowning groups (mostly the former) share the closest genetic affinity with IVC. The 'theory' is actually reconstructed skulls from Rakhigarh, and we can sequence its genetic admix and find the genetic distances based off this. If a group moves from one place to another, then you can assume that the migrated group has the same admix as the original group but could be mixed slightly. It's common for those Dravidian landowning groups to be about 45% farmer 45% sahg and 10% steppe from my own research

IVC wasn't a kingdom or a state, it was just a bunch of random settlements that didn't really have much to do with each other other than trade, and were along the Indus river, over several thousands of years. The difference between the early IVC to late IVC is more than the difference between the Mahajanapadas to today. The artistic reconstructions you're talking about are actually just a morph of what they'd look like in the modern day based off the original reconstructed skull found.

So, in short, the people/groups closest to IVC would be: Gujarati Patels, certain Sindhis & Punjabi groups, Gujjars, Nairs, Bunts, Toda, Kamma, etc. etc. It's impossible to say exactly which group is closest but here's a general idea.

Uncover your heritage

Number 1 platform to learn about humanity's ancient past

www.ancestralwhispers.org

Craniofacial reconstruction of the Indus Valley Civilization individuals found at 4500-year-old Rakhigarhi cemetery - PubMed

Despite academic efforts to study the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), there have as yet been no successful attempts to unveil the IVC people's craniofacial appearance. We investigated the IVC cemetery area of Rakhigarhi site, which was estimated to be of 2273 ± 38 and 2616 ± 73 years BCE. By...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Gengar]

I can run a qpadm for you if you'd like. Pak punjabis get about 40~% farmer 30~% sahg 25~% steppe usually

And about what you're saying, the thing is, even if the civilization itself encompasses modern day Pakistan and NW India, by looking at genetic distances and admixtures of actual samples, Dravidian & the Indus River periphery landowning groups (mostly the former) share the closest genetic affinity with IVC. The 'theory' is actually reconstructed skulls from Rakhigarh, and we can sequence its genetic admix and find the genetic distances based off this. If a group moves from one place to another, then you can assume that the migrated group has the same admix as the original group but could be mixed slightly. It's common for those Dravidian landowning groups to be about 45% farmer 45% sahg and 10% steppe from my own research

IVC wasn't a kingdom or a state, it was just a bunch of random settlements that didn't really have much to do with each other other than trade, and were along the Indus river, over several thousands of years. The difference between the early IVC to late IVC is more than the difference between the Mahajanapadas to today. The artistic reconstructions you're talking about are actually just a morph of what they'd look like in the modern day based off the original reconstructed skull found.

So, in short, the people/groups closest to IVC would be: Gujarati Patels, certain Sindhis & Punjabi groups, Gujjars, Nairs, Bunts, Toda, Kamma, etc. etc. It's impossible to say exactly which group is closest but here's a general idea.

Uncover your heritage

Number 1 platform to learn about humanity's ancient past

www.ancestralwhispers.org

Craniofacial reconstruction of the Indus Valley Civilization individuals found at 4500-year-old Rakhigarhi cemetery - PubMed

Despite academic efforts to study the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), there have as yet been no successful attempts to unveil the IVC people's craniofacial appearance. We investigated the IVC cemetery area of Rakhigarhi site, which was estimated to be of 2273 ± 38 and 2616 ± 73 years BCE. By...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you got a guide on how to run qpAdm, then don't hesitate to share, as I already have a VM installed and whatnot. I may score a little bit different than most Punjabis as I have a different migration history. Right now you are putting an emphasis on Rakhigarh but that's the spillover I'm talking about. It still doesn't change the reality that most of it was in Pakistan and therefore it's accurate to say it's Pakistani genetically rather than Bharati which is what you're trying to do. Your idea that a group's admixture cannot change drastically is not convincing. A few centuries ago, Afghan soldiers settled into NW Bharat and they have left a legacy there in the form of the Pathan caste. Yet these people are overwhelmingly genetically and phenotypically Gangetic because they mixed with the locals. Now imagine how much change can be had from a period that's way longer than the example I just gave you, which is just a few hundred years. A skull reconstruction and a phenotype reconstruction are two different things. Not to mention there's only a few samples you're focusing on, they could be and are most definitely outliers as the fact remains that they were in the spillover area rather than found in the area centered around IVC (Pakistan). It is only logical to conclude that the group closest to the site of the ancient civilization would be NW South Asians like Sindhis, Punjabis and Gujjars, the same way how modern-day Egyptians are the closest population to the Ancient Egyptians. The reason the NW South Asians are more genetically distant to their ancestors than they should be is because the NW South Asia was the entry into the rest of South Asia: home to many invasions by different ethnic groups throughout the centuries. Southern South Asians on the other hand have been pretty much secluded and safe from all the invasions, so yours genetic make-up wasn't as impacted as ours were. Now let that sink in; despite all that mixing, those groups are still, according to you anyway, as the others you mentioned. But imagine if there were no invaders there, then imagine how much closer NW South Asians would have been. Anyhoo, at the end of the day, Vahaduo distances and even PCA plots aren't all that telling. If that were the case, I would be claiming a false ethnic label but the fact is my bloodline is more muddied due to the migratory patterns we have had. That's also why I am genetically more distant than other Northern Punjabis. I won't respond now because I'm gonna read a book. Let's continue this in PMs, so answer me there.

 

[awpatheris]

If you got a guide on how to run qpAdm, then don't hesitate to share, as I already have a VM installed and whatnot. I may score a little bit different than most Punjabis as I have a different migration history. Right now you are putting an emphasis on Rakhigarh but that's the spillover I'm talking about. It still doesn't change the reality that most of it was in Pakistan and therefore it's accurate to say it's Pakistani genetically rather than Bharati which is what you're trying to do. Your idea that a group's admixture cannot change drastically is not convincing. A few centuries ago, Afghan soldiers settled into NW Bharat and they have left a legacy there in the form of the Pathan caste. Yet these people are overwhelmingly genetically and phenotypically Gangetic because they mixed with the locals. Now imagine how much change can be had from a period that's way longer than the example I just gave you, which is just a few hundred years. A skull reconstruction and a phenotype reconstruction are two different things. Not to mention there's only a few samples you're focusing on, they could be and are most definitely outliers as the fact remains that they were in the spillover area rather than found in the area centered around IVC (Pakistan). It is only logical to conclude that the group closest to the site of the ancient civilization would be NW South Asians like Sindhis, Punjabis and Gujjars, the same way how modern-day Egyptians are the closest population to the Ancient Egyptians. The reason the NW South Asians are more genetically distant to their ancestors than they should be is because the NW South Asia was the entry into the rest of South Asia: home to many invasions by different ethnic groups throughout the centuries. Southern South Asians on the other hand have been pretty much secluded and safe from all the invasions, so yours genetic make-up wasn't as impacted as ours were. Now let that sink in; despite all that mixing, those groups are still, according to you anyway, as the others you mentioned. But imagine if there were no invaders there, then imagine how much closer NW South Asians would have been. Anyhoo, at the end of the day, Vahaduo distances and even PCA plots aren't all that telling. If that were the case, I would be claiming a false ethnic label but the fact is my bloodline is more muddied due to the migratory patterns we have had. That's also why I am genetically more distant than other Northern Punjabis. I won't respond now because I'm gonna read a book. Let's continue this in PMs, so answer me there.

We have the Tepe merchant among others that still are closer to NW / Dravidian landowning groups. You're going off on modern day Indus periphery peoples' ancestral homeland while I'm talking about genetic distances which are based off actual dug up skulls in IVC sites. I'm not well versed in qpadm but can give a vid in dms or try to do it myself. And sure, we can pm

And also I'm not even close to IVC lol, very far from it