DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mythical World
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 10, 2021, 3:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.sciencealert.com/real-paleo-diets-may-have-been-far-more-carnivorous-than-anything-we-d-eat-today
[quote]Humans Were Actually Apex Predators For 2 Million Years,
New Study Finds
Paleolithic cuisine was anything but lean and green, according
to a recent study on the diets of our Pleistocene ancestors. For
a good 2 million years, Homo sapiens and their ancestors ditched
the salad and dined heavily on meat, putting them at the top of
the food chain.
It's not quite the balanced diet of berries, grains, and steak
we might picture when we think of 'paleo' food. But according to
anthropologists from Israel's Tel Aviv University and the
University of Minho in Portugal, modern hunter gatherers have
given us the wrong impression of what we once ate.
"This comparison is futile, however, because 2 million years ago
hunter-gatherer societies could hunt and consume elephants and
other large animals – while today's hunter gatherers do not have
access to such bounty," says Miki Ben‐Dor from Israel's
Tel Aviv University.
A look through hundreds of previous studies on everything from
modern human anatomy and physiology to measures of the isotopes
inside ancient human bones and teeth suggests we were primarily
apex predators until roughly 12,000 years ago.
...
Dominated by the last great ice age, most of what is today
Europe and North America was regularly buried under thick
glaciers.
With so much water locked up as ice, ecosystems around the world
were vastly different to what we see today. Large beasts roamed
the landscape, including mammoths, mastodons, and giant sloths –
in far greater numbers than we see today.
Of course it's no secret that Homo sapiens used their ingenuity
and uncanny endurance to hunt down these massive meal-tickets.
But the frequency with which they preyed on these herbivores
hasn't been so easy to figure out.
Rather than rely solely on the fossil record, or make tenuous
comparisons with pre-agricultural cultures, the researchers
turned to the evidence embedded in our own bodies and compared
it with our closest cousins.
"We decided to use other methods to reconstruct the diet of
stone-age humans: to examine the memory preserved in our own
bodies, our metabolism, genetics and physical build," says
Ben‐Dor.
"Human behavior changes rapidly, but evolution is slow. The body
remembers."
For example, compared with other primates, our bodies need more
energy per unit of body mass. Especially when it comes to our
energy-hungry brains. Our social time, such as when it comes to
raising children, also limits the amount of time we can spend
looking for food.
We have higher fat reserves, and can make use of them by rapidly
turning fats into ketones when the need arises. Unlike other
omnivores, where fat cells are few but large, ours are small and
numerous, echoing those of a predator.
Our digestive systems are also suspiciously like that of animals
higher up the food chain. Having unusually strong stomach acid
is just the thing we might need for breaking down proteins and
killing harmful bacteria you'd expect to find on a week-old
mammoth chop.
Even our genomes point to a heavier reliance on a meat-rich diet
than a sugar-rich one.
"For example, geneticists have concluded that areas of the human
genome were closed off to enable a fat-rich diet, while in
chimpanzees, areas of the genome were opened to enable a
sugar-rich diet," says Ben‐Dor.
The team's argument is extensive, touching upon evidence in tool
use, signs of trace elements and nitrogen isotopes in
Paleolithic remains, and dental wear.[/quote]
#Post#: 5468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Turanian diffusion
By: guest5 Date: April 10, 2021, 10:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Some of Europe’s Oldest-Known Modern Humans Are Distantly
Related to Native Americans
[quote]Genome sequencing shows some individuals share family
ties with surprising populations, and all boast plenty of
Neanderthal relatives[/quote]
[quote]Forty-five thousand years ago, some of the first modern
humans to call Europe home lived in and around Bulgaria’s Bacho
Kiro Cave. They created adornments, like beads and pendants of
cave bear teeth. They fashioned stone and bone tools and colored
them with red ochre. They hunted, butchered and feasted on local
animals. Artifacts of this lifestyle were left scattered in the
cave, but these ancient humans left little evidence of
themselves. Just a single tooth and a few tiny bits of bone
survived to the present day. Yet those fragments contained
enough genetic material that scientists have now recreated some
of the humans’ stories, revealing surprising information about
both their ancestors and their descendants.
Two genetic sequencing studies published in different journals
this week have sketched out the family trees of Europe’s
earliest known modern humans, three 45,000-year-old individuals
from Bacho Kiro Cave and one similarly aged skull from a
Czechian hill site known as Zlatý kůň (Golden Horse).
Only the Bacho Kiro individuals have living descendants and
they’re found in surprising places—in East Asia and the
Americas. The ancient humans from both ancient European sites do
share one common ancestral strain—a healthy dose of Neanderthal
DNA. Among the Bacho Kiro humans, evidence seems to show that
when modern humans moved into Europe they commingled with
Neanderthals longer, and later, than is commonly believed.
[/quote]
Entire article:
HTML https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/secrets-europes-oldest-known-modern-humans-revealed-genome-sequencing-180977437/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
#Post#: 6151--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 4, 2021, 11:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Present-day Gentilism:
HTML https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-thirds-british-men-say-24024142
[quote]Two-thirds of British men say they would rather die 10
years early than give up meat, according to a new survey.
More than one in ten said giving up meat would make them feel
less masculine, and a third said they believed humans were meant
to eat meat - compared to one-quarter of the women surveyed.
The survey of 2,000 people, conducted by OnePoll for the charity
campaign No Meat May, found both men and women viewed diets that
excluded meat as more feminine.
More than one in 20 men surveyed also said they would rather go
to jail than stop eating meat, rising to 11% for those aged
25-34.
However the survey found that many men and women would consider
a plant-based diet in exchange for certain health benefits.
[/quote]
OK.....?
[quote]A total 18% of men surveyed said they would stop eating
meat if it improved their sexual performance[/quote]
#Post#: 6212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: rp Date: May 8, 2021, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Getting back to this post:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/re-sexual-dimorphism-preferences/msg5448/#msg5448
[quote author=90sRetroFan link=topic=80.msg5448#msg5448
date=1618030092]
"Giants are usually less intelligent than their Turanian
counterparts."
I wouldn't make such a claim. They may be less adept at social
manipulation, but there is no reason why they would not have
been selected for high technical intelligence, which is what IQ
test score measures.
[/quote]
Do you believe most Westerners today possess more Giant or
Turanian blood? My theory is that most Westerners have Giant
blood, but those in leadership positions in rightist movments
have Turanian blood.
In any case, I believe Giants are easier to defeat than
Turanians because of the former's lack of cunningness . What do
you think?
#Post#: 6225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 8, 2021, 10:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Do you believe most Westerners today possess more Giant or
Turanian blood?"
It would probably vary by country, with the Turandom countries
(Russia, V4, Israel (duh!), etc.) with more Turanian blood.
"those in leadership positions in rightist movments have
Turanian blood."
I agree.
"I believe Giants are easier to defeat than Turanians because of
the former's lack of cunningness . What do you think?"
There are two types of cunning: 1) outwitting the target; 2)
exploiting the target's trust. Do you understand the difference
between these two? Turanians can be expected to be superior at
2), but Gentiles (Giants or otherwise) can be expected to be
superior at 1), since successful hunting depends on it.
(Bottom line: let's not ever underestimate any of our enemies;
it's just a bad habit.)
#Post#: 6227--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: rp Date: May 8, 2021, 10:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Do you understand the difference between these two?"
I was thinking about it right after I wrote the post! I realized
that even Gentiles, who usually overpower their prey (human and
non-human) with brute physical strength, can use this blood
memory in the psychological realm as well. I was specifically
thinking about how Gentiles purposefully engage in intellectual
sophistry by only attacking strawman arguments, demoralizing
the character of the other side, thereby ensuring they always
"win" the argument by making themselves look smarter to the
observer. This is an example of them using dishonourable tactics
(i.e. cunningness) to unfairly outwit their opponent. I believe
the Gentiles who brag about the superior weaponry of "Whites"
being able to subdue "non-Whites" also fall into this category,
as they are drawing on their blood memory and are merely viewing
"non-Whites" as prey.
"(Bottom line: let's not ever underestimate any of our enemies;
it's just a bad habit.)"
Okay. I was hoping their might be some weaknesses that we could
exploit..
#Post#: 6232--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 8, 2021, 10:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"dishonourable tactics (i.e. cunningness)"
I wouldn't say 1) is dishonourable. For example, in duelling,
feinting would be 1). This is not dishonourable, since it is
something that occurs wholly inside the domain of the mutually
agreed battle. What would be dishonourable would be something
like pretending to surrender and then ambushing, since this is
based on causing confusion about the limits of the domain of
battle. But this would be 2), since it exploits the target's
trust.
#Post#: 6233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: rp Date: May 8, 2021, 11:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, then what would you call Gentiles who use 1) in a debate?
I was thinking of using "cowardly", since the "domain" is always
unfairly tilted in their favor.
#Post#: 6235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 8, 2021, 11:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"use 1) in a debate"
That would just be setting traps, enticing the opponent to
pursue a line of argument that you have prepared to counter.
That is not dishonourable.
But ultimately debating is a messy field to apply the above to,
as it involves appealing to a third party (the audience) rather
than being solely between the adversaries. It would probably
make more sense to consider the sophist to be exploiting the
audience's trust, in your words:
"by making themselves look smarter to the observer."
#Post#: 6245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: Zea_mays Date: May 9, 2021, 1:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]"Do you believe most Westerners today possess more Giant
or Turanian blood?"[/quote]
It seems genetic studies suggest Westerners have much more
Turanian blood than Giant blood. However, a word of caution is
that these studies are measuring the overall amount of
DNA--which is mostly just junk DNA.
In terms of phenotype, physical anthropologists in the pre-DNA
days certainly saw a strong continuity between ancient
Paleolithic skull morphology and present-day Westerners. So,
perhaps there is more Turanian (and Neolithic) junk DNA in
Europe, but it would be difficult to examine only the genes
encoding for personality traits and other characteristics to
make a determination as to whether Turanian or Giant traits have
more prevalence.
[img width=991 height=1280]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/PAWUfnS.png[/img]
HTML https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14317
Another warning is that the proportion of blood probably varies
greatly between individuals--perhaps some individuals today have
almost completely Paleolithic ancestry, but if the graphs are
averaged out over an entire population, this might get drowned
out.
(I would give an additional warning that just because the
Sardinians are the modern group with the most Neolithic ancestry
on the chart, this doesn't necessary mean they are more noble
than the other populations. Apparently herding has been a major
part of their economy there for many generations. So, even if
they inherited most of their junk DNA from Neolithic farming
ancestors 5,000+ years ago, doesn't mean they continued the same
lifestyle and attitudes into the present.)
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page