It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Atlantis Gene

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
hey its me again with yet another atlantis theroy.

but this one might turn some heads.

some us have this theroy that atlantis once had a powerful empire across the solar system, each king of atlantis was power hungry always wanting more. after atlantis was destroyed the people fled to different parts of the world mainly around the atlantic coasts line.

since the huge exodus from atlantis there have been many empires in africa, europe, and in america. more europe than any where else. the Atlantis Gene gives people a personality that drives them for more power. here is a list of people and empires i think had the Atlantis Gene:

The Romans
Adolf Hitler
Napoleon
The Aztecs
The Incas
The British- Queen Victora mainly (tThe British Empire)
the Russian empire
Finland, Sweden, Demark

pretty much all the contries in europe have had an empire.

the Atlantis Gene has spread across the world, now world leaders are fighting as we speak, everyone wants power now.

well thats what i think away, what are u thoughts?




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Queen Victoria did nothing to propagate the British Empire. We were a parliamentary driven country at that time. If anything it was probably Oliver North, Charles James Fox, Pitt the elder and Peel who drove the expansion.

This theory of an atlantis gene is intriguing. How could a common gene be tested for when there is no reference point though? And isnt human willpower the more important point?

Are you suggesting that the people who are "go-getters", ie the successful are more likely to have this atlantis gene pushing them onwards for need of glory?

I suggest its a lot more about national character than anything else. Look at Germany for example... it was an unallied bunch of tribesmen in the middle ages, then became a moderate empire, and only when Hitler came along and polarised opinion did the country attempt to gain more land.


EDIT: Just realised that half your other examples also never had an "empire" or conquesting nature.

You put the scandinavian countries on there- they havent conquested since Viking times 1000 years ago. What happened to their gene- suddenly turned off?

Also, the aztecs, incas olmecs etc were not conquesting, they were explorers. If anything, you should have Spain and Portugal on your list instead.


[edit on 22-3-2008 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
How about China? They exist for a looong time.Unlike Aztecs,or British. Or most of the Europe ,basically. Anyway, aggression is a natural behavior to us as a species. In any nation/culture you find aggressive/power hungry individuals. Their success depends on a lot of factors, so if there is such a thing as Atlantis gene, it is only one of many parameters.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
And should this gene give magical conquering powers or what?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Well if there was a race of people called Atlantians, that did indeed live in Atlantis. I suppose one could speculate that they had their own genetic make-up, just as all different races do.

But I can't help but wonder if you based this theory from watching to many Stargate SG-1/ Stargate Atlantis episodes.

Hence the "Ancient gene"/Atlantian



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
You put the scandinavian countries on there- they havent conquested since Viking times 1000 years ago. What happened to their gene- suddenly turned off?

What? Sweden has been by far one of the most warmongering nations in Europe. An "empire" is a suitable word, since Sweden aspired to own entire Scandinavia, Russia, Poland and most of Germany. There's even been wars with England if I recall. Sweden was basicly at a constant state of war from the beginning of the 16th century to the beginning of the 19th century, with a few years of peace between.

But anyway, the theory sounds VERY Stargate-esque...



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
You put the scandinavian countries on there- they havent conquested since Viking times 1000 years ago. What happened to their gene- suddenly turned off?

What? Sweden has been by far one of the most warmongering nations in Europe. An "empire" is a suitable word, since Sweden aspired to own entire Scandinavia, Russia, Poland and most of Germany. There's even been wars with England if I recall. Sweden was basicly at a constant state of war from the beginning of the 16th century to the beginning of the 19th century, with a few years of peace between.

The last "war" Sweden was enveloped in, was in 1814 against Norway. And the rest were mostly small battles, and wars that lasted 1-2 years. Of course there were some major wars, but these were international. I would'nt call Sweden a warmongering nation at all.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
The last "war" Sweden was enveloped in, was in 1814 against Norway. And the rest were mostly small battles, and wars that lasted 1-2 years. Of course there were some major wars, but these were international. I would'nt call Sweden a warmongering nation at all.

Hence why I said "has been". He made the claim that Scandinavia was inactive after the Viking era. That's simply not true. I'd advise you look into Swedish war history. Most of the long wars (like the 30 year war or Great Nordic war) where "international" yes... But Swedish kings where incredibly greedy.

Besides, its all relative. Your "small battles" may not seem like much today, but compared to the population back then they where big.

Imagine if on a single day, 1 million American soldiers died in Iraq. That's the eqvivalent of your "small battle".

Regardless, I dont buy a word of this "Atlantis gene".



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
The last "war" Sweden was enveloped in, was in 1814 against Norway. And the rest were mostly small battles, and wars that lasted 1-2 years. Of course there were some major wars, but these were international. I would'nt call Sweden a warmongering nation at all.

Hence why I said "has been". He made the claim that Scandinavia was inactive after the Viking era. That's simply not true. I'd advise you look into Swedish war history. Most of the long wars (like the 30 year war or Great Nordic war) where "international" yes... But Swedish kings where incredibly greedy.

Besides, its all relative. Your "small battles" may not seem like much today, but compared to the population back then they where big.

Imagine if on a single day, 1 million American soldiers died in Iraq. That's the eqvivalent of your "small battle".

Regardless, I dont buy a word of this "Atlantis gene".


Isnt there a distinction between border scuffles with the surrounding countries such as norway, denmark etc. and the a long drawn expansionary conquest such as Britain had.

The OPs theory was in regards to long distance expansion, not just fighting with the neighbours.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Isnt there a distinction between border scuffles with the surrounding countries such as norway, denmark etc. and the a long drawn expansionary conquest such as Britain had.

The OPs theory was in regards to long distance expansion, not just fighting with the neighbours.

Of course there is. But if you think all the Swedish wars where "border scuffles", you REALLY need to read up on history. That's like saying Hitler seizing France was a "border scuffle". The disastrous defeat at Poltava took place 1500km from mainland Sweden for example. It has been said that 1 out of 3 Swedish adult males died in battle during your "border scuffles".

If that's not the definition of a warmongering state, I dont know what is.

Sidenote: the OP never said long distance. He just lined up countries. The only one that confuse me is Finland. They never had anything even remotely close to an empire as they where either owned by Sweden or by Russia. And he cant have meant "Sweden, Denmark, Finland" as one either (ie a Scandinavian "empire") since Denmark and Sweden never went well together.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   
thank you for all you comments, and no i don't watch stargate Atlantis, think its rubbish.

but what i am getting at is that if atlantis did exist then people must of lived there, when it sank some people must of at least been evacuated. where did these people go, to form new civilisation across the world, perhaps what we see now is the result of this gene, to rebuild the atlantis empire.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sonicX007
 


I believe some form of this "atlantian" gene does exist in some people, in fact I think it is what the nazis were looking for. Not to mention the sacrifice of so many souls for the cause, maybe for the power to rebuild the empire, it's two birds with one STONE. Science fiction is so dominant in our society it becomes hard to differentriate between influnce and original thought. Though debates over theory with almost no factual evidence can be quite heated they should not be discounted. Sometimes people just figure things out, without explaination. It's not psychic power it's just logic and extreme intuition. Colllective unconsious.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join