If given the choice would they prefer living separately or with ethnic europeans. We know the answer. It’s been discussed for generations.
BTW: How many europeans were enslaved by africans vs how many africans were enslaved by Americans? And how many europeans were enslaved by the middle east vs the opposite? And why did the english end slavery almost worldwide?
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-11 22:46:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1999249543649726895
Of course it’s true.
And no it’s relatively recent scholarship.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-06 14:18:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1997309642565960077
An HOMOGENOUS, cold winters, high trust society
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-18 15:17:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1990801583337328970
No. Groups use different strategies, those strategies reflect their degree of neoteny, degree of development, and their group evolutionary strategy.
Semitic group srategy whether jewish or muslim is hostile to western group strategy. Deal with it.
Jews are integrating out outbreeding rapidly in the USA, despite their fondness for industries that profit from ‘baiting into hazard’ (asymmetric risk). And their group strategy is separatist and hostile.
Muslims show no sign of integation and their group strategy is conquest by demographic and cultural means. Hence the destruction of six civilizations of teh ancient world, and theh lost of their arts, letters, traditions and rates of development.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-11 01:03:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1988049975830548596
Aristotle alone is the greatest contributor to human history. And yes that’s an empirical judgement. Unfortunately the equally influential characters (jesus and mohammed) were producing a counter-revolution against greco-roman-persian aristocratic thought which required a higher level of trust than middle easterners could possibly practice. The persians, despite their advantage, lost it because of Islam. The romans lost it because of christianity and invasion. But Europe pulled out of its dark age. The rest of the world, which islam is hostile to (and perhaps judaism as well), is attempting to either constrain islam from further damage, or in europe’s case, cause it to reform as europeans reformed christianity in to secular natural law.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-06 16:36:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986472768339321302
It’s testimonial truth, reason, empiricism, the sciences, the unification of the world through sail, the agrarian and industrial revolutions, medicine, technology, computation, bayesian computation, cognitive science, behavioral, micro, political, and macro economics, rule of law, human rights …
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-06 13:47:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986430352148373921
THE WORLD the boomers, Jones and gen-x grew up in no longer exists. It has nothing to do with them. It has everything to do with the rest of the world ‘catching up’ to six hundred years of european advantage: rationalism, empiricism, science, technology, republican government, rule of law, education and a vibrant capitalist economy.
The question is, why are Gens Milennial and Z so uneducated, indoctrinated, unfit, and dependent? Well? It’s women in education and the media…. Really.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-03 20:08:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1985438907488731474
China’s strategy is always “delay and deceive”. Nothing will change that. It’s ancient. It’s persistent. It’s inculturated.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-02 02:06:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1984804343678451972
THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE ARE ARCHAIC IN ORIGIN
The people of the Ukrainian forest–steppe are old — deeply archaic in population continuity — but their language and ethnonym (“Slav”) are relatively recent cultural overlays.
Let’s make that causal chain explicit.
I. Population vs. Language: Two Different Clocks
So, when we call early medieval groups “Slavs,” we’re referring to a linguistic and cultural unification of populations that had already been there for thousands of years.
II. Archaic Continuity of the Ukrainian Population
Refugial Descent – The population of the Dnieper basin and surrounding forest-steppe descends directly from Late Paleolithic foragers of the East-Central European refugium (Epigravettian and post-Glacial groups).
→ This makes them among the oldest continuous populations in Europe in a geographic sense.
Cultural Layers Over Time
The same biological stock evolves through a sequence of archaeological cultures:
Epigravettian → Mesolithic (Kukrek) → Neolithic (Dnieper-Donets) → Eneolithic (Trypillia contact zone) → Bronze Age (Corded Ware / Trzciniec) → Iron Age (Zarubintsy) → Proto-Slavic (Korchak, Pen’kovka).
Each represents incremental technological or linguistic accretions, not population replacement.
Minimal Discontinuity Despite Invasions
Steppe nomads (Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Huns) introduced elite layers or limited admixture but never replaced the dense, forest-based agrarian population.
→ The open steppe changes hands; the riverine forest zone remains continuous.
Thus, the “Slavs of Ukraine” in physical anthropology are the direct descendants of archaic local peoples, not migrants from elsewhere.
III. Late Emergence of the Slavic Language
Proto-Indo-European Stage (~3500 BC)
The Yamnaya horizon on the Pontic steppe (including modern Ukraine) disseminates the Indo-European linguistic structure.
But the forest-steppe farmers to the northwest (ancestors of the Slavs) are likely bilingual: local substrate + Indo-European superstrate.
Balto-Slavic Differentiation (~2000 BC)
The languages north of the steppe (modern Belarus–Ukraine–Poland zone) form the Balto-Slavic continuum, distinct from Indo-Iranian and Germanic.
Genetic continuity supports a shared northeastern forest origin.
Slavic Divergence (~1500–500 BC)
Gradual phonological and grammatical drift isolates Proto-Slavic from Baltic; this language becomes common across a broad but still small region.
Demographic Expansion (~500–800 AD)
The fall of Rome, depopulation of Central Europe, and collapse of steppe powers allow these long-stable forest populations to expand explosively, spreading the Slavic language and identity.
→ Linguistic expansion over old genetic substrate.
Hence, the Slavic language horizon is young, but its speakers are ancient.
IV. Operational Model: Archaic Body, Modern Tongue
Layer
So: the people of early medieval Ukraine are linguistically recent Slavs but biologically ancient Eurasians — one of the most continuous populations north of the Mediterranean world.
V. Analytic Summary
Yes: The populations of the Ukrainian region are archaic, in that they descend from Paleolithic/Mesolithic survivors of the East-European refugium.
Yes: The Slavic language and cultural identity are comparatively late overlays that expanded across these long-stable populations.
No: There was not a wholesale migration of “Slavic peoples” into Ukraine; rather, the language spread through existing populations already there, producing an illusion of sudden appearance.
In evolutionary terms: the Slavs are old bodies, young words — an ancient gene pool that only later acquired a linguistic and cultural label.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-30 23:29:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1984039869770035607
THE REASON FOR SLAVIC VS GERMANIC BODY TYPES
ADMIXTURE AND FOUNDER EFFECTS
The Slavs descend largely from a relatively homogeneous east-central European refugial population with limited external admixture until the Migration Period (mostly mixing with neighboring Balts and Finno-Ugric peoples, who are also compact and broad-bodied).
→ Hence the characteristic “rectilinear” body plan — low variance, consistent type. (Note: a refugian population means ‘one of the few safe places in europe during the ice age’. The East-Central refugium hosted Epigravettian hunter-gatherers)
VS
The Germanics, conversely, are a hybrid product of northern Funnelbeaker/Battle-Axe (Corded Ware) cultures and later interactions with Celts, Romans, and steppe peoples.
→ Hence much greater regional and cranial variation (dolichocephalic Nordic types, brachycephalic Alpine types, etc.).
SUBSISTENCE
Slavs: primarily agrarian with communal labor (slash-and-burn → plow agriculture).
Cooperative, low individual variance, high population density → stabilizing selection on morphology.
VS
Germanics: mixed pastoral-hunter-warrior ecology; high mobility, raiding, and lower population density → directional and disruptive selection (tall, fast, strong males favored in male–male competition; smaller, more compact forms persisted in protected agrarian niches).
ECOLOGICAL
Slavic Heartland:
Forest-steppe and mixed woodland of the Dnieper–Vistula–Volga basin: continental climate (cold winters, warm summers), dense forests, and heavy soils requiring cooperative agriculture.
→ Selection favored compact, energy-efficient physiques, shorter limbs (better heat conservation, reduced surface area), and broad torsos and shoulders (adapted for repetitive heavy labor — axe work, plowing, hauling).
→ This is a Bergmann’s rule + Allen’s rule expression: colder, forested environments favor stockier
VS
Germanic Heartland:
From Jutland through the North European Plain into Scandinavia — more maritime and varied: moors, coasts, forests, and plains, with milder winters and more protein-rich diets (animal husbandry, fishing).
→ Selection tolerated and perhaps favored more morphological variation: tall, long-limbed northern types (Scandinavian, maritime), and shorter, broader southern types (continental Germanic tribes).
→ Broader range of ecotypes produced more phenotypic diversity.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-30 23:18:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1984037200380752181