—“Civilizations are built by the minority willing to get their hands bloody on behalf of the majority who aren’t. …. You’re welcome.”—Jerrick Harald
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 14:52:00 UTC
Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology
-
The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and
The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization.
In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict.
Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups.
And that is what we see
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 08:24:00 UTC
-
WHY WERE WESTERNERS UNSUCCESSFUL AT EXPORTING ARYANISM (MARKETS) by Simon Ström
WHY WERE WESTERNERS UNSUCCESSFUL AT EXPORTING ARYANISM (MARKETS)
by Simon Ström
By merely establishing rule, a small minority of conquerors do not have the resources to alter the basic fabric of social organization in a region that is already populous, wealthy and has a rigid socio-political system that works for them and is adapted to the local natural incentives.
Like the Mongols in China or Iran, the conquerors are rather the ones who are subject to assimilation, although they might retain or even spread their language and symbolism as a function of its prestige.
In order to permeate all society, the imposed, foreign evolutionary strategy must be carried by greater numbers than that, or at least powerful enough mechanisms of overcoming the inertia of “immunological rejection” of non-self cultural impulses.
The lesser the primordial differences in genes, culture and natural incentives between conqueror and conquered, the lesser the need of great numbers in order to assimilate through elite dominance.
1. Small minority conquest: dynastic turnover, insignificant gene flow and socio-cultural regression to the median. Examples: Yuan dynasty, Hittites, Gothic Spain, British Raj.
(Early Indo-Aryans were close to 1, but gravitated somewhat toward 2)
2. Sizable minority conquest: significant gene flow (amalgamation), socio-cultural regression to the mean. Examples: Corded Ware horizon, Roman Gaul, Latin America.
3. Great majority conquest: displacement, insignificant or no gene flow, complete socio-cultural continuation of the conquerors. Examples: North America, Kosovo, West Bank (future).
So the obstacles of exporting our strategy are:
– They don’t want it. They can profit from modernization without Westernization.
– Military dominance won’t cut it. You need to dominate kinship and the social fabric.
– The cost of export is too great because we are too different. Rule might be profitable, but assimilation? Questionable. We have evolved to pursue our strategy for millennia, others have not.
– Simon Ström
From Curt:
The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization. In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict.
Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups.
And that is what we see
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 08:23:00 UTC
-
The Greatest Happiness? To crush your enemies. To scatter and drive them before
The Greatest Happiness?
To crush your enemies.
To scatter and drive them before you.
To burn their cities to ashes.
To take their possessions.
To hear the wails of their women. And,
To rape their wives and daughters.
That is what is best in life.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 20:03:00 UTC
-
As someone pointed out today, Duchesne’s observation, is that Aryanism (markets)
As someone pointed out today, Duchesne’s observation, is that Aryanism (markets) have been impossible to export despite our long standing military superiority. They only work on europeans.
Why?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 19:35:00 UTC
-
A CLAIM OF SUPERIORITY ISN’T NECESSARY FOR ETHNOCENTRISM by Simon Ström A claim
A CLAIM OF SUPERIORITY ISN’T NECESSARY FOR ETHNOCENTRISM
by Simon Ström
A claim of superiority is never necessary for making ethnocentrism a good strategy.
Since members of an ethnic group share vested interest in each other’s genes, their instincts are more aligned toward cooperation by default.
In concert with culture, fixed traits means we are designed to work together in a certain way by nature of our common recent origin, and there are even medical implications of miscegenation.
Within the context of macro-ethnicity (race, subrace, tribe), the formation of nations, tribes and countries should be subject to the market.
That is Aryanism: The formation of nations, tribes and countries should be subject to the market.
And remember Aryanism didn’t evolve beyond that scale.
Ancient Indo-Europeanization-by-conquest really only occurred within Europe, as IE migrations projecting onto densely populated Asian cultures didn’t have a great, or lasting, civilizational impact (Duchesne).
Moreover, the only people you should ‘hate’ are internal enemies (=ostracizing their behavior). The others, you just deal with them reciprocally. That’s the approach of agency.
– Simon Strom
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 17:52:00 UTC
-
“Cavemen attended to the same university you and me are attending today (equilib
—“Cavemen attended to the same university you and me are attending today (equilibrium). Some graduated and some simply repeat the class every year without graduating.”—Mea Culba
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 17:48:00 UTC
-
YOUR HISTORY: SOL INVICTUS : THE UNDEFEATED
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_InvictusKNOW YOUR HISTORY: SOL INVICTUS : THE UNDEFEATED
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 16:30:00 UTC
-
KNOW YOUR HISTORY: UNDER STRESS THE ROMANS REVERTED TO “SOL INVICTUS”
KNOW YOUR HISTORY: UNDER STRESS THE ROMANS REVERTED TO
“SOL INVICTUS”
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 16:28:00 UTC
-
(from elsewhere) Actually, yes German is a guttural and ‘costly’ language to spe
(from elsewhere)
Actually, yes German is a guttural and ‘costly’ language to speak. All languages mature by the same means from the most guttural (semitic/arabic) to the less so (russian, ukrainian), to the less so, (german/polish/french), to the less so (italian, spanish). Each evolutionary step rotates more costly sounds for less costly sounds. So while german may be more advanced than Dutch, it is less advanced than english and far less than Italian. I would agree that German is probably the ‘best’ language on earth at present – un-hobbled as is english by the mixture of old german, old french, and old latin that is today’s English. And I would agree (aside from post-war self-hatred and loss of and appreciation for aristocracy) that german culture was and probably has been for the past millennium, the best culture on earth (because of the remnants of the ‘oath’). And yes, I would agree that there is a great difference between the age and pronunciation of a language and the content of ideas expressed in its vocabulary. And yes, I would agree that we can see the future of german language losing the guttural, and moving forward on the palate, in rapid casual speech. But at present, yes, its guttural, and sounds ‘primitive’ to those cultures that have lost the guttural.
I consider German the ‘best’ language, despite the, …, retention of primitive pronunciation. In part because of its use of compounds rather than adding new terms. In part because of its construction. In part because of its content. But must of all, because it’s METAPHYSICAL content: the patterns of assumptions and values in the vocabulary.
Unfortunately, german retains gendered nouns and grammar, as well as guttural pronunciation (Russian is far worse).
English degrades relatively gracefully, because it requires about 300 words to speak about almost anything, but one increases vocabulary for greater precision, not GRAMMAR. And the vocabulary is currently around 1M words. (the vast majority of which, I admit to knowing.) The spelling retention is partly to signal the reader which root language it’s from: German (farmer), French(ruler), Latin or Greek(intellectual).
I’ve seen most people struggle with the ‘precision’ of english. in particular the propositions. English is a high precision low context language, that is not fault tolerant. it is very good for law, logic, and software programming for that reason. (just as german is better for sentimental prose).
if we taught english with a little role-play, so that the spelling signaled which person (common-farmer, court-ruler, scholar-intellectual) was speaking and in which accent, it would probably help quite a bit.
Besides the enormous vocabulary, english is very sensitive to manners (graces) because of our hierarchical class history. So we have all sorts of polite speech that is required, where in german Bitte’ serves many purposes. One of the things I like about english is the signaling of status cues as a means of conveying one’s degree of culture. I find this frustrating in some other languages because I use those english subtleties and I can’t in other languages.
Anyway.
Between english, german, and italian you pretty much can get the best of all worlds. And despite my ancestry I find very little good to say about french other than it’s what happens when posturing and effeminate signaling develop into a substitute for merit in mind, body, and achievement.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 08:50:00 UTC