DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mythical World
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1187--------------------------------------------------
Uneducable Gentiles
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 16, 2020, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OLD CONTENT
sciencenordic.com/first-stone-age-farmers-norway-gave-after-shor
t-period-time
[quote]the first farmers in Norway appear to have given up
relatively early. They stopped growing crops after a relatively
short period of time and returned to hunter-gatherer-fisher
lifestyle.
...
However, settlements in the coastal areas grew and were strongly
linked to the sea, where food was plentiful.
Characteristic ceramic objects tell the story of a maritime
culture.
Nielsen says the arguments have gone back and forth as to why
people returned to a fishing culture or gave up farming. Some
think its an obvious way to live, given the country's huge
coastal resources. On the other hand, why would the people who
introduced agriculture end it?[/quote]
Because it wasn't us; it was those whom we tried to teach -
without success.
---
www.thevintagenews.com/2019/06/27/neolithic-city-overcrowded/
[quote]Archaeologists recently discovered that the transition
from foraging to a communal farming lifestyle caused problems
for people who lived at a 32-acre site in southern Turkey that
was occupied from 7100 B.C. to 5950 B.C. Çatalhöyük was home to
as many as 8,000 people at its peak.
...
“The scientists found that the number of injuries, evident in
skeletons, increased when the community was at its largest,
suggesting that as Çatalhöyük’s population boomed, violence
became more frequent,” said Live Science. “About 25 percent of
the 95 examined skulls showed healed injuries made by small
spherical projectiles, probably a clay ball flung by a
slingshot. Many of these clay spheres were also preserved around
the site, according to the study.”[/quote]
But were these Aryans? No:
[quote]
HTML https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/800px-catal_huyuk_bull_heads-640x425.jpg
Bull (Auroch) heads from Catalhüyük in Angora Museum. Photo by
Stipich Béla CC BY 2.5
HTML https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/mural_from_catalhoyuk_excavated_by_james_mellaart_showing_neolithic_hunters_attacking_an_aurochs_bos_primigenius-640x423.jpg
Neolithic hunters attacking an auroch, Museum of Anatolian
Civilizations. Photo by Omar Hoftun CC BY-SA 3.0[/quote]
Besides the absence of respect towards cows (a distinguishing
Aryan characteristic) another dead giveaway is their worship of
high sexual dimorphism:
[quote]
HTML https://www.thevintagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/museum_of_anatolian_civilizations_1320259_nevit-480x640.jpg
Mother Goddess from Çatalhöyük flanked by two feline lionesses,
neolithic age (about 5500-6000 BC), today in Museum of Anatolian
Civilizations in Ankara. Photo by Nevit Dilmen CC BY-SA
3.0[/quote]
These were the Gentiles we tried and failed to teach.
---
I told you so:
www.genomeweb.com/genetic-research/anatolian-hunter-gatherers-ad
opted-farming-practices-ancient-dna-study-suggests
[quote]An international team of researchers has generated
genome-wide SNP data on eight prehistoric individuals, including
an Epipaleolithic Anatolian hunter-gatherer, five early
Neolithic Aceramic Anatolian farmers, and two early Neolithic
farmers from the Levant. As they reported in Nature
Communications today, the researchers found that the Neolithic
Anatolians derived a large portion of their ancestry from the
Epipaleolithic Anatolian, indicating genetic continuity in the
region.
...
When they modeled the Neolithic Aceramic Anatolian farmers'
ancestry, they noted the best fit suggested that Anatolian
hunter-gatherers provided the most — about 90 percent — of their
ancestry. This, the researchers added, indicates there was
long-term genetic stability in central Anatolia, even as the
subsistence strategy changed.
The later Neolithic Ceramic Anatolian farmers, though, shared
more alleles with the early Holocene Levantines than the
Neolithic Aceramic Anatolian farmers did. Still, the researchers
noted that the Neolithic Aceramic Anatolian farmers contributed
about three-quarters of the Neolithic Ceramic Anatolian farmers'
ancestry.[/quote]
~75% of ~90% is still at least ~68% Gentile. Hence the atrocious
behaviour as mentioned in the previous post.
---
This has been a growing enemy narrative recently:
www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/our-worst-mistake-part-1/Cont
ent?oid=13669919
www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/our-worst-mistake-part-2/Cont
ent?oid=13801092
Discuss. I will respond later.
---
The exaltation of the Paleolithic lifestyle by those such as
Christopher Ryan (Gentile?) stems primarily from the fact that
those societies were more allowing of sexual promiscuity among
women. This caters to the PC, and hence False Left worldview
that women have the "right" to be as equally promiscuous as men.
Moreover, his criticism of Neolithic societies as being
patriarchal is only applicable to Gentiles who adopted the
practice of farming without changing their behavior, and is thus
intellectually dishonest. This is no doubt designed to
facilitate the backlash to patriarchy as manifest in the present
day far-right movements.
---
Yea that "patriarchy started in the Neolithic" bullshit got
brought up in my history class a few weeks ago. As if the
Hunter-Gatherer lifestyle doesn't REQUIRE gender-roles, and as
if farming DOES...
---
www.zmescience.com/science/gender-inequality-neolithic-emergence
-22062019/
[quote]Archaeologists at the University of Seville in Spain have
studied prehistoric societies in the Neolithic Period in the
Iberian Peninsula from the perspective of gender. They looked at
two types of evidence: biological and funerary.
In the first category, the team focused on demographic
proportions between men and women, as well as other clues such
as diet, genetic data, and common diseases. For the funerary
evidence, they analyzed how “important” a burial site was —
whether it was an individual or collective burial, the position
and orientation of the body, as well as any goods placed in the
tomb.
They found that at the start of the Neolithic, there was no
significant difference between men and women in this regards,
suggesting a generally equal society. However, as things
progressed, it started to change. A key indicator is the growing
association of men with violence. Male bodies started exhibiting
more arrow wounds, their tombs featured more weapons or
projectiles, and men were increasingly depicted in fighting
scenes in cave paintings, whereas women were not. Hunting and
warfare were a masculine business. Conversely, women’s’ burial
sites were more likely to contain ceramic pots, indicating a
separation of gender roles.
Interestingly, out of all the aspects considered in this study,
the ones that show the greatest difference between males and
females are related to violence: projectiles, trauma including
impact by arrowheads, and graphic depictions of war and
hunting.[/quote]
The absence of patriarchy at the beginning of the Neolithic
(a.k.a. Golden Age) fits our model of innately anti-sexist
Aryans. The subsequent emergence of patriarchy could be
accounted for, as rp suggests, as merely the behaviour of the
Gentiles who had learned farming from us. This is reinforced by
the cave paintings which clearly indicate that these people were
hunting alongside farming, as we would expect Gentiles to do.
Indeed we have noted in the past that Gentiles who learned
farming usually left their women to do most of the actual farm
work while their men hunted just as they always did. This would
also mean that the selective pressure (for Aryan traits) exerted
by farm work would have been mostly avoided by the Gentile men.
This then ties back into the present-day observation that more
men than women retain certain traits adaptive to hunting but
maladaptive to farming:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/non-aryan-adhd/
(This is on top of the selective pressure (for other Aryan
traits) exerted by diet being avoided by Gentiles of both
genders (since the men would probably share their hunted meat
with the women).)
---
scifare.com/science-news/article/european-inequality-traced-back
-to-the-neolithic-age/
[quote]After analyzing the teeth from more than 300
Neolithic-age skeletons, a team of researchers from across
Europe have found links between access to prime farming lands –
along with their fruits – and hereditary inequality.
...
The team found those people buried with a prestigious Neolithic
tool, known as an adze, had substantially less variation in the
ratio of the element strontium – it incorporates into the enamel
of teeth, like calcium – compared to people buried without one.
...
They also found that those with higher than expected variation
in strontium ratio levels, almost exclusively, were buried
without an adze – of the 41 samples, only one was buried with
the stone tool.
“We think that’s because there’s a particular kind of soil type
those farmers preferred, called loess soils,” Bentley said.
For Neolithic farmers, it was land that drained water well, was
easy to work and because loess soils are found primarily along
the river valleys of central Europe, it was fertile land that
was great for growing crops.
Considering how varied strontium signatures can be, the
incredibly narrow variation seen in skeletons with the Neolithic
tool implies their diets were sourced, almost exclusively, from
a narrow region that’s closely related to the loess soil
regions.
“Individuals who weren’t buried with adzes were probably farming
further afield or obtained their food further away, from
slightly less preferred soils,” Bentley said. “It’s a real hint
at a system of inequality that surely got magnified over the
generations.”[/quote]
If you ask me what is going on here, the people buried with
adzes were Aryans who loved farming, whereas the people buried
without were Gentiles who had learned farming but who were not
sentimentally dedicated to it and thus did not care for being
buried with their adzes.
We already know that the Aryans migrated following the rivers,
so it is no surprise that they farmed on the valley land. On the
other hand, the Gentiles on lower-quality land could still have
produced enough food so long as they had been willing to keep
their population down. But they were not: they were outnumbering
the Aryans 41:1! So of course they didn't have enough food to go
round!
Moreover, what the data shows is that Aryans have less variation
in strontium than farming Gentiles, in other words all Aryans
had similarly high strontium whereas some farming Gentiles had
high strontium and other farming Gentiles had low strontium. In
other words Aryans were sharing food fairly, whereas it was the
farming Gentiles who were not sharing food fairly.
Now read carefully:
[quote]The researchers also found a similar difference when they
compared genders. Men, on average had substantially less
variation in strontium ratios than women. They also found that
approximately eight of every ten individuals with higher than
expected ratios of strontium were female.[/quote]
Did you catch it? In the second sentence the author is talking
about variation in strontium ratios. In the third sentence,
however, the author subtly switched to talking about the
strontium ratios themselves! A less careful reader primed by the
claim of a "similar difference" in the first sentence would
easily misread that women had higher variation in strontium (ie.
more women have low strontium), when in fact more women had high
strontium!
#Post#: 1188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Uneducable Gentiles
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 16, 2020, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-first-farmers-arrived-in-europe-inequality-evolved/
[quote]Eight thousand years ago small bands of seminomadic
hunter-gatherers were the only human beings roaming Europe's
lush, green forests. Archaeological digs in caves and elsewhere
have turned up evidence of their Mesolithic technology:
flint-tipped tools with which they fished, hunted deer and
aurochs (a now extinct species of ox), and gathered wild plants.
Many had dark hair and blue eyes, recent genetic studies
suggest, and the few skeletons unearthed so far indicate that
they were quite tall and muscular. Their languages remain
mysterious to this day.
Three millennia later the forests they inhabited had given way
to fields of wheat and lentils. Farmers ruled the
continent.[/quote]
Before we get back to the main topic, here is a sidetrack about
something that is new to me:
[quote]the LBK farmers reached the Rhine within just a few
centuries, around 7,300 years ago.
...
On the southern route, the farmers leapfrogged along the
Mediterranean coast from Italy to France and on to the Iberian
Peninsula. After reaching French shores, 7,800 or so years ago,
they migrated northward toward the Paris Basin, the plain
between the Rhine and the Atlantic Ocean that forms a kind of
continental cul-de-sac. It was there that the two great streams
of farmers met, around seven millennia ago. By then their
cultures had diverged to some extent—they had been separated for
more than 500 years—but they would still have recognized their
own kind. They mingled both biologically and culturally.[/quote]
Aesir-Saturnian reunification! It must have been wonderful! Now
back to the main topic:
[quote]Sooner or later the immigrant farmers must have met the
resident hunter-gatherers—and when it happened, it must have
been a shock. Approximately 40,000 years had elapsed since their
common ancestors split paths on their way out of Africa—long
enough to distinguish them physically, culturally and
linguistically. Comparisons of their genes with those of modern
Europeans indicate that the farmers were shorter than the
Western hunter-gatherers who occupied most of the continent.
They also had dark hair, dark eyes and, probably, lighter skin.
There is no evidence of violence between the two groups in the
earliest encounters—although the archaeological record is
incomplete enough that violence cannot be ruled out. Yet in
large parts of Europe, the hunter-gatherers and their Mesolithic
culture simply vanished from both genetic and archaeological
records the moment the farmers arrived. Where did they go?
For decades archaeologists have wondered whether, in the face of
this massive influx, the hunter-gatherers retreated—into the
hills, perhaps, where the soil was less fertile and hence less
suitable for farming, or deep into the forest, where the farmers
were unlikely to interfere with them. “Maybe there were massive
pockets of hunter-gatherers surviving there, not for a
generation but for 1,000 or 2,000 years after the farmers
arrived,” suggests Ron Pinhasi, an archaeologist and
anthropologist at the University of Vienna in Austria.[/quote]
Yes, there were. Hence the Giant myths.
[quote]The hunter-gatherers must still have been there somewhere
because modern Europeans carry their genes, and Europe-wide
surveys of ancient DNA have highlighted a so-called Mesolithic
resurgence that started 6,500 years ago. Hunter-gatherer genetic
elements accounted for more and more of the farmers' genomes as
time went on—but the resurgence was not just genetic. “Around
the same time, we see the reemergence in the archaeological
record of Mesolithic ways of doing things,” says archaeologist
Thomas Perrin of the Jean Jaurès University of Toulouse in
France. The hunter-gatherers themselves were no longer there,
except for possible pockets of them hiding deep in the
forest—but their genes, and their technology, were.
By the time the farmers started moving out again from that hub
of the Paris Basin, they were no longer the same people who had
set out from Hungary or beached on Europe's prehistoric Riviera.
They carried a little bit of the old Europe within them.[/quote]
They were no longer Aryans.
[quote]There may even have been rare exceptions to the rule that
the two groups did not interbreed early on. The Austrian site of
Brunn 2, in a wooded river valley not far from Vienna, dates
from the earliest arrival of the LBK farmers in central Europe,
around 7,600 years ago. Three burials at the site were roughly
contemporaneous. Two were of individuals of pure farming
ancestry, and the other was the first-generation offspring of a
hunter and a farmer. All three lay curled up on their sides in
the LBK way, but the “hunter” was buried with six
arrowheads.[/quote]
This is what degeneracy looks like.
[quote]On the southern route, however, those interactions seem
to have included interbreeding right from the start. “Within the
first two centuries of the first farmers' arrival, we have
individuals whose genetic makeup is 55 percent hunter-gatherer,”
says paleogeneticist Maïté Rivollat of the University of
Bordeaux, co-author of a genetic analysis of human remains found
at Neolithic burial sites in southern France that was published
in May in Science Advances. Moreover, by looking at the way the
hunter-gatherer component was distributed through farmer
genomes, Rivollat and her colleagues could tell the
interbreeding had gone on for five or six generations
already—perhaps starting as soon as the pioneers landed.[/quote]
Yes, as the myth recounts of Janus ceding the throne to Saturn
on condition that they became in-laws.
[quote]Archaeologists have long regarded Cerny as a last vestige
of LBK, developing just as LBK was embracing other elements. If
that premise is correct, the inhabitants had farming in their
blood—their ancestors were the early farmers of the Carpathian
Basin. Yet in cemeteries dating from 6,700 years ago, men of
high status were buried lying on their backs, not curled up on
their sides, and arranged around them were hunting weapons and
ornaments made from red deer antlers, the tusks of wild boars
and the claws of birds of prey. “Their funerary rites speak to
another world from their day-to-day,” says archaeologist Aline
Thomas of the Museum of Mankind. “They make reference to the
sphere of the wild, things that are more often associated with
Mesolithic populations.”
Those rites have prompted Thomas and Bon to ask: Who were the
Cerny people really? Were they farmers who had adopted
Mesolithic ways and come to venerate them, or were they recently
converted hunter-gatherers who had never let them go?[/quote]
Definitely not pure Aryans.
[quote]Bon and Thomas have been analyzing DNA extracted from the
Cerny cemeteries to try to answer that question. So far they
have analyzed the (maternally inherited) mtDNA and found that it
contains Mesolithic elements.[/quote]
See?
[quote]If so, those societies now contained people with high
levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry who may still have looked
different from their “pure” farmer neighbors and whose existence
was not necessarily happy.
...
Several of those whose bodies appeared to have been dumped had
severed limbs, and one had traces of burns, suggesting that they
had been subjected to rituals. Significantly, the researchers
sequenced mtDNA from the teeth of 22 individuals and found
differences between those laid deliberately into graves and
those thrown in alongside them in “unconventional” positions.
“The individuals in the unconventional position had
mitochondrial profiles inherited from hunter-gatherers, while
those in the conventional position had not,” Rivollat
says.[/quote]
We should do this with rightists today.
And of course the Turanian epilogue:
[quote]Nearly 1,000 years after Kapellenberg was deserted, a new
people arrived there and built two ritual mounds. Called the
Yamnaya, they came from the steppe in chariots, and the fact
that they contributed relatively few X chromosomes to the
European gene pool—as Goldberg reported in 2017—suggests that
their invasion was overwhelmingly masculine. Researchers,
including Kristian Kristiansen, an archaeologist at the
University of Gothenburg in Sweden, have found traces of plague
DNA in the remains of Yamnaya teeth, leading them to propose in
2018 that the Yamnaya pastoralists laid waste to farming
communities by sowing plague among them.
...
Before the newcomers made their appearance, did the last of the
hunter-gatherers emerge from their hiding places to pick over
the farmers' abandoned wealth—their animals, their once vibrant
copper trade—and enjoy a new lease on life as forager-herders?
It is a theory that Nikitin, for one, favors.[/quote]
#Post#: 6132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Non-Aryan ADHD
By: guest5 Date: May 4, 2021, 12:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This comes up under the google search for neolithic winter
attire:
HTML https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/01/44/2d/01442d7077139f06c91270372ccad10b.jpg
A group of recreated Neolithic men wearing naturally tanned
animal hides.
In fact, an image search of the neolithic period clothing brings
up a lot of pictures of people wearing fur and the like....
Articles speak of it as well apparently:
[quote]Furs and non-cured hides were among the most popular
materials used to make clothing during the Neolithic Age. Furs
required the least amount of processing, as they were pinned
together with bone fasteners, rather than stitched. They were
also the best material to provide protection to the body during
harsh, cold winter months.
With the surplus production in agriculture following the
transition to sedentary life, cultivators began trading their
harvest of flax, cotton, wool and goat hair for specialized
services like weaving, making textiles abundantly available.
Each household began to weave its own clothing. Some weavers
with specialized skills began to manufacture excess clothing for
trade of grains, milk and meat. Specialized weavers produced
clothing with stitched patterns, dyed textiles and scraped
hides.[/quote]
HTML https://www.reference.com/history/kind-clothing-did-neolithic-people-wear-4d216149d355d30f
#Post#: 6433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Uneducable Gentiles
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 16, 2021, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/job-association-to-biological-sex-began-5000-years-ago-study-665338
[quote]The peer-reviewed open-sourced study presented in PLOS
analyzed over 400 stone tools which were buried in graves
throughout Europe from the Early Neolithic period – which began
approximately 5,000 years ago – to understand the use of each
tool was. They then looked at the biological sex of the person
it was buried with.
Through this method, researchers found a consistent correlation;
males were more commonly buried with tools used for hunting,
butchery, woodwork, or generally violent tools, while females
were more often buried with stone tools used on leather or
animal hides.
...
There were, however, certain geographical exceptions and
differences, depending on the community in Europe, suggesting
that farming patterns – and labor sharing by sex – were
different as they spread across the continent.
...
The study noted also that early findings suggest that females
and children were more physically battered than the males, while
the male adults were the ones most often found with
interpersonal violent stone tools or weapons.[/quote]
So, once again, teaching Gentiles to farm does not turn them
into Aryans.
How do I know these were Gentiles who had learned to farm? Let's
go to the research paper:
HTML https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249130#sec018
[quote]In contrast to males, females are not often associated
with bone and stone tools
...
It is certainly striking the fact that different dietary groups
in life received different treatment after death, and that those
dietary groups were tightly related to biological sex. In this
sense, higher δ15N dietary values reflecting a richer
protein intake tended to be related to male individuals. In
turn, the higher those δ15N values were, more were males
likely to be buried with more stone and bone tools[/quote]
#Post#: 6550--------------------------------------------------
Re: Uneducable Gentiles
By: rp Date: May 20, 2021, 9:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Indus Valley diet consisted of pig and cattle meat:
HTML https://youtu.be/M_nT1XWTWvQ
Not surprising.
As the saying goes, you can take a non-Aryan (Vanavasi) to the
water (river Indus)....
#Post#: 13097--------------------------------------------------
Re: Uneducable Gentiles
By: rp Date: April 26, 2022, 10:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://youtu.be/QlwnBy16W0E
More about kimchi:
HTML https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimchi
[Quote]
Kimchi (/ˈkɪmtʃiː/; Korean:
김치, romanized: gimchi, IPA: [kim.tɕʰi]),
is a traditional Korean side dish of salted and fermented
vegetables, such as napa cabbage and Korean radish. A wide
selection of seasonings are used, including gochugaru (Korean
chili powder), spring onions, garlic, ginger, and jeotgal
(salted seafood), etc.[1][2] Kimchi is also used in a variety of
soups and stews. As a staple food in Korean cuisine, it is eaten
as a side dish with almost every Korean meal.[3]
[/Quote]
I suspect it was gentiles that introduced the seafood seasoning,
given what we know about fishing gentiles being the first to
learn Aryan crafts.
The origins of Kimchi seem to substantiate this:
HTML https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimchi#Early_history
[Quote]
Samguk Sagi, a historical record of the Three Kingdoms of Korea,
also mentions the pickle jar used to ferment vegetables, which
indicates that fermented vegetables were commonly eaten during
this time.[19][20] During the Silla dynasty (57 BC – AD 935),
kimchi became prevalent as Buddhism caught on throughout the
nation and fostered a vegetarian lifestyle.[21]
[/Quote]
#Post#: 25378--------------------------------------------------
Re: Non-Aryan tribalism
By: antihellenistic Date: March 9, 2024, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ancient Root of Endless Competition and Economic Capitalism
[quote]Should we be surprised that Diamond’s assessment of
Europe’s uniqueness in comparison to the Americas is only about
its lethal diseases and weapons? In his remarkably successful
book, Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997), he contends that the
ultimate causes for the faster rate of development of the
Eurasian continent in relation to the other continents were the
greater availability of potentially domesticable species and a
geography conducive to the diffusion of useful species. He
further argues, though in far less detail, that Europe’s
advantage over China within the Eurasian landmass lay in its
geographical fragmentation in contrast to China’s open spaces,
which made centralization early on in its history possible,
whereas Europe’s division resulted in the generation of a highly
competitive inter-state system which promoted technological
innovations and the pursuit of power. I will address this
argument later.
...
Snooks’s work, however, needs to be supplemented by more
empirically-oriented historical accounts. Peter Bogucki’s The
Origins of Human Society (1999) synthesizes recent findings and
interpretive issues in world prehistory, bringing
archeologically-based insights into a book written in the grand
overview tradition of classical evolutionary theory. The
argument he advances, plainly stated, is that among hunting and
gathering societies there were already present ambitious
individuals who wanted to enhance their self-interest. He
borrows this idea from Brian Hayden (1995), whom I cited earlier
in reference to the “self-interested” behavior of big men. He
draws from J. E. Clark and M. Blake (1989) the term
“aggrandizer” to refer to any ambitious and aggressive
individual striving to achieve a higher status by economic
means. Hayden is quite explicit in asserting that individual
self-interest is “the ultimate determining force behind human
behavior” (23). This is an assumption that is at the base of all
evolutionary or sociobiological models. This is not to say that
all humans are uniformly wired to maximize their self-interest.
Rather, being self-interested is a central aspect of our human
nature, which manifests itself in different ways across history,
and to a higher degree among some individuals. These “individual
aggrandizers” were kept in check during much of the hunting and
gathering era. They were given freer rein only when it became
possible to pursue one’s self-interest without threatening the
survival chances of the villagers. Bogucki follows this line of
reasoning to argue, in his case study of Europe, that until
about 12,000 years ago Paleolithic bands kept these individuals
in check insofar as it was in the survival interests of everyone
to enforce strong sharing norms. But with the end of the Ice
Age, new opportunities were created through a prolonged sequence
of ecological changes (127–159). Essentially, these new
environmental conditions came to function as incubators for
individual aggrandizers who were finally afforded with
opportunities to emerge as major agents of social change (209).
Rather than speaking in terms of demographic and ecological
“laws of nature,” Bogucki argues that these new conditions made
it possible for these individuals to make their own choices,
improve their own lives, and accumulate more resources.
He envisions a situation in which individual households
increasingly acted independently of the collective band units,
each making their own decisions regarding the acquisition of
resources, property, favors, and obligations, with differential
degrees of success. Given the natural inequalities between
households operating under competitive conditions (in a world of
scarce resources, random risks and uncertainties) the long-term
outcome of such autonomous choices was the emergence of ranked
tribal organizations. Bogucki avoids a “free market” image (in
which some individual households would have emerged to the top
by racing ahead of the others) by observing that inequality
could have emerged gradually as some households dropped below a
particular material baseline, while a few remained at the
original level. The more successful ones – the ones with the
more enterprising individuals – could thus be envisioned as
consolidating and perpetuating their relative gains. As this
process unfolded, the norms for cooperative sharing were further
eroded, which in turn augmented interhousehold competition.
According to Bogucki, by the late Neolithic Era, over the period
4000–2000 BC, Europe had undergone a “remarkable transformation”
as “transegalitarian” or “ranking” tribal groups came to emerge
throughout the continent, with households competing for status
and prestige, and their differences becoming progressively
greater, leading eventually to the formation of chiefdoms and
rigid hierarchies
Steven Mithen, an archeologist of Europe who specializes in the
“Mesolithic” period (12,000–7,000 BC) – situated between the
Upper Paleolithic and the Neolithic periods – believes that even
prior to the rise of “big men” in Neolithic societies there were
already signs of “intense competition” amongst complex foragers.
He thinks that this competition “may have been the motor behind
the innovation of new technology that allowed additional
resources to be exploited so that surpluses could be created”
(2002: 133). The use of pottery, sedentism, and ranking were
once believed to have emerged with farming. Mithen, however,
notes that these phenomena were generated during the Mesolithic
era, “one of the most critical periods in European prehistory”
(79). This period saw not only the end of egalitarian relations
and the rise of ambitious households, but also the rise of a
ranked society combined with incipient agriculture. Like
Bogucki, he ties these changes to a whole sequence of
environmental changes, to which I would add the end of the final
cold spell known as the Younger Dryas (which lasted from about
10,800 until 9,600 BC) and with it the resulting dramatic spread
of vegetation, and the migration and availability of animals.
These social changes included an “immense diversification” of
microlith technology, extensive use of organic materials for the
manufacture of tools (93–98), substantial dwellings with
numerous pits and features representing storage, fishing
techniques indicating that marine resources were being
“systematically exploited,” domesticated dogs and techniques
such as burning, weeding, and irrigation suggesting the
beginnings of cultivation and a sedentary lifestyle (100–111).
Mithen portrays Mesolithic foragers as extremely knowledgeable
and flexible individuals, continually making decisions from a
“cost-benefit-risk perspective” (118). The marked variability in
the quantity and quality of grave items suggests that the “first
ranked societies of Europe appeared during the Mesolithic”
(125). In addition to the “natural” distinctions of age, sex,
and personality that were evident in egalitarian societies,
there were new hereditary and property distinctions. These were
not cultures living in a state of equilibrium waiting to be
pushed into stratified relations by population pressures: “the
Mesolithic was not a period of stasis in European history;
rather it was a time of considerable socio-economic change”
(132). Clearly, as Mithen recognizes, the intensification of
economic practices brought increases in population densities and
thus pressures upon land resources. These pressures, in turn,
forced foragers to further diversify and improve their
subsistence base, leading to the establishment of social
boundaries and territoriality, and ranking and competition for
status and power.[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 45,
48, 49, 50
#Post#: 25398--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
By: antihellenistic Date: March 10, 2024, 10:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ancient Autocratic Socialist States solved the inter-group of
human violence that Constantly Happened during the Stone Age era
[quote]Hobbes has been persistently criticized for describing
the state of nature as if it were made up of isolated
individuals, but this is inaccurate. Of course, his account of
the “savage people” is clearly insufficient as it was based on
the scanty anthropological reports of his time. But this should
not impugn the value of Hobbes’s main point, which is that the
question of conflict resolution in early societies was fragilely
dispersed over many competing leaders and kinship groups.
Societies lacking in centralized rule in the form of codified
law, police, and diplomatic treaties, were more likely to
experience continuous and prolonged intergroup feuds and
killings.
During the last decades anthropologists and sociologists have
generally believed that inter-group warfare made its appearance
only after the emergence of “selfish” ruling classes. As Mead
famously entitled one of her essays, “warfare is only an
invention – not a biological necessity” (1940). Some scholars
did acknowledge that warfare existed among a number of hunting
and gathering societies, but they argued nonetheless that it
“increased substantially during the horticultural era” (Lenski
and Nolan 1995: 132). While Harris paid attention to the
“unusual” warlike behavior of Yanamamo men living in simple
horticultural cultures, he accounted for this behavior in terms
of its adaptive function. It was a rather forced explanation:
the Yanamamo engaged in war because this violent behavior
functionally worked to encourage them to concentrate their
scarce resources on the raising of future boy warriors by
practicing girl infanticide, which provided an overall check on
population pressure and, in turn, increased their adaptability
(1974: 75–80).
There is no need to appeal to this type of contrived
explanation. Hunting and gathering societies experienced
conflict over a wide range of issues related to scarce resources
and the self-interested drives of humans over such matters as
territorial rights, marriage arrangements, and restitution for
past grievances. Fierce raids were common. These raids were not
allowed to escalate into full-scale battles, or into wars of
conquest, because hunters and gatherers had no use for more land
and slaves, and because the loss of too many men could easily
threaten the survival of the remaining members in the band
(Snooks 1996: 271). The sociobiological or Darwinian argument is
not that all humans are inevitably driven to act violently, and
that all hunting and gathering societies have always been
similarly warlike. Aggression is in our genes, “but only as a
skill, potential, propensity, or predisposition” (Gat: 39). It
is a “basic and central skill” of the human species which was
selected over many millions of years of evolution as a very
successful option in the struggle for survival.
Gat thinks that competition for resources and reproduction is
the primary cause of aggression. Humans tend to propagate
rapidly when resources are abundant, and so population pressure
and competition tend to be the norm in nature. But this does not
mean that human competition per se is a creation of the
environment. Scarce resources may intensify the competition but
humans, according to Gat, are still predisposed to maximize
their reproductive chances and increase their competitive
advantages. Territorial disputes and raiding expeditions against
other bands or tribes were actually common even in low
population density areas with rich ecological niches. Gat
observes that “across the whole range of hunter-gatherer
societies, from the simplest to the most complex,” lethal
raiding, abduction of women, and blood feuds were widespread
(11–35). He calculates that, on average, “human violent
mortality rates among adults in the state of nature may have
been in the order of 15 percent (25 percent for the men)” – a
percentage higher than for advanced civilizations even during
such devastating periods of warfare as the Second Punic War
(218–202 bc), the Thirty Years War (1618–48), the First World
War, and the Second World War (Gat: 131–2)!
What humanitarian materialists have ignored – in their emotional
attachment to the “sharing and generosity” of primitive peoples
– is that the rise of chiefly authority and the monopolization
of force by states “promoted happiness,” to use the words of
Jared Diamond, “by maintaining public order and curbing
violence”(1999: 277). Diamond, a geographical determinist with
strong sympathies for primitive lifestyles, correctly recognizes
that the maintenance of order and the settling of disputes is “a
big underappreciated advantage of centralized societies over
noncentralized ones” (277). One could go further and argue that
the energies that had hitherto been expended in prolonged bloody
feuds could now be redirected – after the consolidation of
authority at the top – against other peoples in the pursuit of
conquest and glory. The worldly success, the empire-making, the
grandeur we associate with Egypt, Babylonia, and Persia, would
have been a historical impossibility in the state of nature. The
expansion, refinement, and enrichment of man’s distinctive
intellectual capacities, the realization of the potentialities
of brain power developed by biological evolution, would have
remained hidden without the rise of stratification, elites, and
the invention of writing.[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 42,
43, 44
#Post#: 31491--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gentilism
By: PotatoChip Date: November 28, 2025, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Europe's Astonishing Hunter-Gatherer Resurgence
[quote]Genetic research has that thousands of years after the
first farmers spread across Europe from Anatolia, traces of
Europe’s Mesolithic hunter-gatherers re-emerged in the DNA of
the Neolithic farmers. And many of the Neolithic farmer male
lineages were replaced with hunter-gatherer ones. This
unexpected genetic signal has been called “the Late Neolithic
Hunter-Gatherer Resurgence.” What happened here, and why? And
how did this resurgence transform Europe?[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaNPFCV8Vic
#Post#: 31492--------------------------------------------------
Re: Uneducable Gentiles
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 28, 2025, 6:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From the comments:
[quote]the women just fancied these hunky WHG farmers
more[/quote]
[quote]Most likely the high protein diet of the hunter gatherer
men made them bigger and stronger and thus more physically
attractive to women than the farmer men[/quote]
[quote]Bored village farm girls wanted dem hunter chad genes.
Nothing surprising there...[/quote]
[quote]chad always wins[/quote]
But why? Answer: because these women were themselves of Gentile
matrilineal bloodlines (due to the earlier generations of Aryan
men stupidly reproducing with Gentile women during initial
contact), hence preferred Gentile men. Women of Aryan
matrilineal bloodlines also existed, who would have preferred
Aryan men, but they were lower in sexual dimorphism and thus
reproduced less than the Gentile women, thus became increasingly
rare.
[quote]They say that agriculture produces a more reliable food
source, so you can have more children that survive, but the food
is inferior with a reliance on wheat producing more people but
weaker and less robust than the Hunter Gatherers. Who ate a high
protein diet. They also say you can tell the bones of Steppe
Herders, large and well muscled. Meat and dairy. R1b.[/quote]
The food is not inferior! Food which produces robustness is
inferior! Food which produces gracility is superior! Failure to
recognize gracility as superior to robustness is inferior! This
commenter is inferior! (Also, if this commenter is female, it
would prove my point above.)
[quote]were the hunter-gatherers the MAGA of their time, briefly
reasserting themselves over the Woke neolithic farmers?[/quote]
YES!
[quote]Bread lovers BTFO.[/quote]
[quote]Barbarians vs Civilised people. the story as old as the
civilization itself.[/quote]
[quote]I'm always reminded of the saying "Those who turned their
weapons into ploughs, will be made to work for those who
didn't"[/quote]
Unless they first eliminate the bloodlines (patrilineal and
matrilineal) of all those who didn't. This is National
Socialism.
*****************************************************