Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • All Peoples Can Adopt the Best of The European Civilizational Technologies

    Only europeans could invent sovereignty, rule of law, reason, low context, high precision language, and markets in everything. And as such only europeans dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature in a universe hostile to life. But that said, *Any people willing to adopt the Government of the Universal Militia of Sovereign Men, and constrain the base impulses of the under classes can make use of that european civilizations technology.* Any group willing to do so can adopt it. It’s difficult. But it will work.

  • The Cost of Running Civilizational Tests

    Ancient (primitive) peoples could not afford to perform experiments that tested the theories (promises, testimony) of the priesthoods. And some of those theories were untestable. We have run those tests today. Even though we could not afford them. And the result was the dark ages, and the continental enlightenment/marxist/postmodernist attempt to return to them. Apr 18, 2018 12:26pm

  • The Cost of Running Civilizational Tests

    Ancient (primitive) peoples could not afford to perform experiments that tested the theories (promises, testimony) of the priesthoods. And some of those theories were untestable. We have run those tests today. Even though we could not afford them. And the result was the dark ages, and the continental enlightenment/marxist/postmodernist attempt to return to them. Apr 18, 2018 12:26pm

  • ***So what I’m getting at, is the possibility that the middle east conflict zone

    ***So what I’m getting at, is the possibility that the middle east conflict zone increased tribalism and aggression which it exported, not that we started out more aggressive and have become less so.***

    (Worth Repeating)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 13:44:00 UTC

  • THE COST OF RUNNING CIVILIZATIONAL TESTS Ancient (primitive) peoples could not a

    THE COST OF RUNNING CIVILIZATIONAL TESTS

    Ancient (primitive) peoples could not afford to perform experiments that tested the theories (promises, testimony) of the priesthoods. And some of those theories were untestable. We have run those tests today. Even though we could not afford them. And the result was the dark ages, and the continental enlightenment/marxist/postmodernist attempt to return to them.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 12:26:00 UTC

  • ALL PEOPLES CAN ADOPT THE BEST OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES Only

    ALL PEOPLES CAN ADOPT THE BEST OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

    Only europeans could invent sovereignty, rule of law, reason, low context, high precision language, and markets in everything. And as such only europeans dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature in a universe hostile to life. But that said, *Any people willing to adopt the Government of the Universal Militia of Sovereign Men, and constrain the base impulses of the under classes can make use of that european civilizations technology.* Any group willing to do so can adopt it. It’s difficult. But it will work.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 12:23:00 UTC

  • “CURT CAN YOU DISCUSS ENGLISH VS GERMAN?”— English vs German When we make cont

    —“CURT CAN YOU DISCUSS ENGLISH VS GERMAN?”—

    English vs German

    When we make contrasts between variations of the same language family, we are of necessity making hay of very minor advantages or disadvantages of each.

    English consists of ‘common german’, augmented by ‘political class french terms’, and ‘intellectual class latin terms’.

    We choose words from each ‘class’ and this choice infers a great deal about both the speaker and his audience.

    Many of these terms have very precise meanings and are not open to interpretation because of it.

    So it’s a low context, high precision, terminological language.

    German is a compound language, which is naturally descriptive and often operational. English is a selective and appropriative language.

    Germans have a penchant much like french, to load poetic meaning and double entendres in these descriptions, where in english this is harder, and we usually use more literal or full sentence structures for the same reason. Where germans have certain experiential words, english tend to have descriptive sentences.

    English uses more precision in time, and more precision in blame (action and accountability).

    In other words, english is a legal, financial, and political language, and german is a social and craftsmanly (engineering) language.

    And that is because english is a SLIGHTLY more High Precision, Low Context language, and german is a SLIGHTLY less high precision low context language. And even so, that difference tends to be limited to Scandinavian Contractualism (Anglo Saxonism) versus central german moralism.

    In other words, germans are evolved more from farmers and armies and scandinavians more so from sailor(pirates) and navies.

    Hence Prussia = Sparta, and London = Athens.

    In most cases, if we could fix the german time grammar, a compound language is preferable to a terminological language. And german is superior for social discourse.

    And the ability of germans to retain ‘the oath’ by the very structure of their language and semantics, without having to adopt american (anglo) legalism to enforce it is an asset. And the more I study this problem the more I want to combine the two. (What americans think of constitutionalism is what germans think of morality, but both are just referring to the prehistoric germanic ‘oath’.)

    FWIW: there is a bit of myth that americans considered choosing German as the national language. This is incorrect. It’s that so many of the people spoke german, that they considered issuing the declaration and constitution in german as well as english. But since translation is an iffy thing, and how to do it was undecided, they simply failed to do so – by one vote.

    However, again, I want to stick with the point that the english adopted french(class) and jewish(financialism) sentiments after 1830, and that america outside of new england, remained german in culture while speaking west germanic english. And this is what separates the rather ‘peasant’ culture of white english lower classes, and the rather ‘french’upper classes, from the american’s who are, at present, still decidedly PRUSSIAN.

    And if I have my way we will study frederick rather than jefferson.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 12:14:00 UTC

  • Simon Ström: so wait. wait. Why does it look like the shared dna between late ic

    Simon Ström: so wait. wait. Why does it look like the shared dna between late ice european neolithic hunter gatherers moves from the balkans/greece into the eastern med rather than the other way around?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 09:37:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/30712005_10156295657537264_82616683

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/30712005_10156295657537264_8261668321716338688_o_10156295657527264.jpg THIS IS WHYCurt DoolittleI usually emphasize the north sea as a proxy for North plus Oest (Baltic) Seas, because of the later achievements. But I should emphasize the opposite.Apr 18, 2018 8:14amGreg Hamiltonthanks, I neve knew about that lake. Very cool history lesson this morning.Apr 18, 2018 12:53pmCurt DoolittleI’ve been working on this problem a while, which is converting from thking about land masses to thinking about freshwater regions, and it appears that our different ethnic groups evolve on fresh water regions. And those that stay near the salt water and warm temperatures and disease gradients, or cannot find fresh water lakes. DEVOLVE.

    I want to test that theoryApr 18, 2018 12:55pmTHIS IS WHY


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 08:09:00 UTC

  • Semitic Urheimat Is North Africa

    SEMITIC URHEIMAT IS NORTH AFRICA Africa-to-Levant hypothesis Map of Semitic languages and statistically inferred dispersals. One hyptothesized location of the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic between the African coast of the Red Sea and the Near East is also indicated. Christopher Ehret has hypothesized that genetic analyses (specifically those of Y chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes) shows populations of proto-Semitic speakers may have moved from the Horn of Africa or southeastern Sahara northwards to the Nile Valley, Northwest Africa, the Levant, and Aegean.[4] Edward Lipiński supports a Northwest African origin due to the relationship between a Pre-Semitic Afroasiatic language and the Niger–Congo languages, whose urheimat probably lies in Nigeria–Cameroon.[5] In support of this hypothesis, Lipiński points out that Proto-Semitic: – did not originate in Arabia, as previously hypothesized, since the region could not have supported massive waves of emigration before the domestication of camels in the second millennium BC.[3] – did not originate in Mesopotamia (and adjoining areas of modern Syria), since there is evidence the original inhabitants were a non-Semitic population. – shares more isoglosses and lexicostatistical convergences with the Berber languages than any other family, thereby; – showing signs of a link with Berber long after other Afro-Asiatic language families, such as Egyptic and Chadic, and; – was still spoken during the mid-Neolithic Subpluvial (i.e. 5th millennium BCE, when the Sahara was more humid). A Neolithic culture in the Sahara possibly related to Proto-Semitic collapsed due to desertification and climate change around 3500 BC, according to Lipiński – a fact attested by evidence such as rock art. This may have forced Proto-Semitic speakers to emigrate en masse through the Nile Delta to Western Asia. They were probably responsible for the collapse of the Ghassulian culture in Palestine around 3300 BC.[6] Another indication of the arrival of the proto-Semitic culture is the appearance of tumuli in 4th and 3rd millennium BC Palestine, which were typical characteristic of Neolithic North Africa.[6] It is possible that at this point, the ancestors of the speakers of Elamite moved towards Iran, although the inclusion of Elamite in Afroasiatic is only contemplated by a tiny minority.[7] The earliest wave of Semitic speakers entered the Fertile Crescent via Palestine and Syria and eventually founded the Akkadian Empire. Their relatives, the Amorites, followed them and settled Syria before 2500 BC.[6] The collapse of the Bronze Age in Palestine led the southern Semites southwards, where they reached the highlands of Yemen after 20th century BC. Those crossed back to the Horn of Africa between 1500–500 BC.[6] Recent Bayesian analysis suggests an origin for all known Semitic languages in the Levant around 3750 BCE, with a later single introduction from South Arabia into the Horn of Africa around 800 BCE. This statistical analysis could not, however, estimate when or where the ancestor of all Semitic languages diverged from Afroasiatic.[1] It thus neither conflicts nor confirms the hypothesis that the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic occurred in Africa.