Jump to content

mike bayko

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

mike bayko's Achievements

7

Reputation

  1. Honestly life expectancy is kind of a scam imo. The main reason life expectancy was so low is probably because of all of the babies that died and children that died at a very young age from diseases. I can't fathom how mass amounts of people actually believe that people literally died at the "ripe old age of 28" a couple hundred years ago lmao. Maybe that was the case in England and other over populated areas, but from my research into my own family, throughout the 1700s, of the family members of mine that did not die in infancy, many of them lived to be at least 80, however it was fairly common for my relatives throughout the 1700s, 1600s, and before to live into their 90s, and several lived to be over 100. Those who died prematurely before 70 usually died from an accident or tragedy. Many men in my family had children into their 60s and 70s, two of my relatives that I know of even had children in to their early 80s, and the women in my family could have children into their late 50s and sometimes even early 60s. It is not fair and is rather preposterous to impose the "data" (data is in quotes because I agree with Oxide's skepticism as to whether or not the said official data is even legitimate) from overpopulated areas in England onto everyone that lived during the time (If the data from England can even be trusted of course). The countrysides of eastern Europe was nothing like England or other western European city areas.
  2. Honestly you are over complicating this way too much. Natural trees in our earth do not represent human family trees. The primary purpose for a family tree is simply to denote an individual or several individuals' ancestors. Other practicalities arose too throughout the ages so as to track all living members of a particular noble family (typically through patriarchal family trees) so as to know how to distribute family wealth and property. There are three main types of family trees, one is the typical ancestral pedigree family tree in which one individual and all of their known ancestors are displayed, almost resembling a tree as seen in nature. The other two are patriarchal and matriarchal family trees, which are basically designed to show all of the members of one particular family, and their direct ancestors in that singular family line, which are useful for easily viewing how two or more individuals from the same family line are related. Simply loving someone and/or a friendship can not create a family tree, because there are no ancestral lineages to trace with two or more friends that are not related. Furthermore at this point in time on earth, it is not really possible to create a totally brand new family tree because that would require you to create a new lineage, and all of the lineages on earth have more or less already been long established through the many timelines that this earth has had. It sounds like you are confusing earthly ancestral families with soul families. Members of your family are not necessarily members of your soul family, and through your life you may find friends that are indeed members of your soul family who you can connect to. Since a family tree is an abstracted concept, sure you can start your family tree with you, change your surname, and be the patriarch of your own new family and descendants, however that still doesn't change the fact that there were ancestors that came before you in the lineage that you were born in during this lifetime, and you never know if your descendants would get pissed off at you 100 or more years down the road for not denoting your own origins. At the same time, this is a free will universe.
  3. I watched the first 3 hours of the first video and I couldn't bring myself to watch anymore. The only interesting parts to me were when they mentioned that the venethi, illeryans, dracians, goths etc were all generally the same ethnically. Other than that, it really just barely touches any history of eastern Europe (my primary interest), and seems to just be regurgitating a general history of the world (mainly Rome, Judea, and western Europe) except with added demonizing of knightly orders, noble families, and Pannonia. On a personal note I descend from eastern European nobility myself, and it is kind of annoying to see people that try to claim that every noble and royal family goes back to the 12 tribes of Israel. That is not necessarily true, there are plenty of royal and noble families with Jewish roots (some which I descend from), but there are also plenty of noble families without Jewish roots. For example, I honestly don't think it makes sense to say that the old tyrant dynasty of Scandinavia and all of the tall light skinned blue eyed warlord vikings came from one of the twelve tribes of Israel, that would require some drastic genetic mutations to have happened. Nor do I agree with the idea that all humanity goes back to these twelve tribes, or any specific ethnic group for that matter. I do not think it is fair to try to say that all human ethnic groups go back to one single group, nor do I think it is fair to say that the world is all ran by the same person or group of people. There are many eyes at the top of the pyramid and there have always been many eyes at the top trying to get what they want all at the same time.
  4. The "official" history of Eastern Europe that is regurgitated to us by the system is essentially an incomprehensible amount of loosely correlating lies, most of which were rewritten during the latter half of the 17th century and throughout the early 18th century. I want to be very clear this post is not intended to talk badly of the house of Rurik in any way, I myself descend from the house of Rurik from various lines of my family. I only wish to help find the truth of the history of Eastern Europe. Why do millions of people in the region all speak the same "slav-ic" (sleif-ic/slaff-ic) language, in spite of DNA evidence clearly showing distinct differences among the various populations of the region suggesting separate origins. It only takes two generations to impose a new language upon mass groups of people. In truth the only thing that links slavic people together is the universal language they all speak, which has evolved into various different dialects over the decades as a result of a potential collapse of whatever old system provided the language as a universal standard of communication among the various people of the region, hence causing many ethnic groups across eastern Europe to be incorrectly labeled as "Slavic". The house of Rurik goes back to the house of Uppsala-Munsö the old dynasty of the coat of arms with the eagle mid flight, who were princes of Novgorod (Garðaríki) many many centuries before Rurik, and ruled basically all of Scandinavia from antiquity to the middle ages. The term Russian is a rather new term brought about during the 18th century, along with the term Ruthenus allegedly coined by Michał Rogala Lewicki. Almost every noble family of the empire of Russia was ennobled during the 18th and 19th centuries, before that there were very few, and almost all either descended from foreign knights or the house of Rurik. Has nobody realized that the common "ov" ending in many Russian surnames is simply a different way of pronouncing the Germanic/Scandinavian "off"/"aff". The only sources I can find that put a name on the people of Novgorod, St. Petersburg, and Moscow label them as the Muscovites, what Bohdan Chmelnicki and many other Szlachta (warrior) families described as a nation of slaves in which everyone was bound to slavery to the ruling house. Why is the coat of arms of Ukraine the coat of arms of the house of Rurik? In noble court records the Hungarian nobility and the Polish Szlachta recognized the differences between western Ukraine (Lemberg-Munkacs-Tarnopil) and eastern Ukraine (Kiev and eastward), so as to suggest that the western half was not ruled by the houses of Rurik and Romanoff, and yet according to the official narrative of the history of the region, western Ukraine was apparently always ruled by the house of Rurik. I don't think that is a valid claim as the main source of this claim, Nestor's chronicle, has very questionable origins, as it has been remorselessly edited and rewritten over the years which could easily have resulted in translation errors. Furthermore the original copies are lost, and the rewrites could easily have been rewritten to favor specific politics at the time. Poland and the Szlachta are a separate predicament. Do not forget that the house of Jagiełło goes back to Gedminas, who was a member of the house of Rurik. Many Szlachta families also go back to the house of Rurik, which could theoretically allow one to view the kingdom of Poland as an extension of the lands of the crown of Rurik. It does not help that we do not know the true origins of the Piast family, although it is interesting to me that both the Piast and Premysl families have legendary origins back to Piast the wheelwright and Premysl the ploughman, two peasants, and yet there are two stories, one in the Wielkopolska chronicle mentioning three brothers Lech, Czech, and Rus, and a story in Estonian folklore mentioning three brothers that were peasants, Rahurikkuja, Sinius, and Truvaar. According to the folklore the three brothers went off to become kings of three different lands. Could this story be the same retelling of Lech, Czech, and Rus? It is not a coincidence that the coat of arms of the house of Piast was literally the white eagle upon the red sky described in the story of Lech. Perhaps Sineus and Truvor were kin of Rurik (they could have lived in slightly different eras), and ventured out to conquer Poland with the emergence of the Piasts, and Bohemia with the emergence of the Premyslids. According to Nestor's chronicle Sineus and Truvor died shortly after obtaining Belozersk and Izborsk, but Belozersk and Izborsk were already lands held by the house of Uppsala-Munsö for centuries before. Who is to say they did not go on to conquer Poland and Bohemia. In my opinion, the idea of "slavic" unification is very ignorant, and has caused so much unnecessary confusion and debating regarding the history of eastern Europe. The mere idea of "slavic" tribes being riddled across the region has given others a false sense of nationalism in a way which has hindered many peoples' abilities to look at the history of eastern Europe objectively, and intuitively. Poland has been a victim of many wars causing many of their historical documents to be burnt down and lost, and it is difficult to believe that it is merely a huge coincidence. If you look at a typical Pole or Muscovite (what people would consider to be a "slav"), and compare it to a typical Scandinavian, they are quite similar genetically. Usually they are tall, with pale skin, lighter hair, and blue/gray eyes. This is true today and was true during the 10th century as the travelling moor Ibrahim Ibn Yaqub stated there was little to no differences between a Slav (Sleif/Slaff), and a Scandinavian. He even went as far as to call Scandinavia the Peninsula of the Slavs. Many people will deny this and the objective evidence behind it however, out of their incapability to challenge their own beliefs and their inflated senses of nationalism. Compare the typical western Ukrainian to the typical Slav and they are indeed quite different genetically, whereas the Slav is generally tall, pale, light haired, and possessing blue or gray eyes, the western Ukrainian is typically short, darker complexion, dark haired, and possessing brown eyes. It is no coincidence that the frequent "-slav" (-sleifr/-slaff) suffix to Bohemian, Polish, and Muscovite given names was practically never used among the western Ukrainians before 1850. Only after 1850 when propaganda of false nationalism, and wars were being orchestrated so as to destroy the cultural identity of the west Ukrainians, did they very infrequently begin to use names such as Wladyslaw. Throughout the noble court records of the Hungarian nobles of Zemplén county, and to lesser extent Sáros, Szepes, Liptó, Árva, and even Trencsén counties, can be found instances that speak of west Ukrainian noble families, separate from the Polish Szlachta, and separate from the Muscovite Rurikid-Romanoff empire. As well as testimonies and records of west Ukrainian noble families which were later ennobled in the kingdom of Hungary throughout the early 17th century. The house of Rurik has always forced their millions of slaves (Slavs) to fight in their wars as knights, hence where the Szlachta began to emerge in the middle ages basically as glorified warrior families (the word Szlacht/Schlacht literally meant battle/fight), this was how they buffed their military numbers into the millions while having almost no other noble families other than the house of Rurik and its cadet branches. To conclude I have always been disgusted with the amount of ambiguity and contradictions in the official narratives of the history of eastern Europe, and I am trying to add some potential insight to help discover the true history of the region. I never see anyone like David Icke really talk about this, nor any historian such as Graham Hancock mention this part of history. The history of eastern Europe might be the most propaganda and lie filled history that we have been given, and nobody seems to care at all about pointing out the bullshit, they would rather stay caught up in their bubbles of nationalism or slavic identity or whatever, and I am tired of nobody ever calling it out. The history of eastern Europe is the one elephant in the living room that I have never heard David Icke or anyone address. I welcome all opinions and research to be added to this post, so we can try to find the truth of the history of the region.
×
×
  • Create New...