(FB 1541991517 Timestamp) NORTH AMERICAN AMERINDIANS GENOCIDED THEIR PREDECESSORS https://scienceblog.com/504280/the-new-face-of-south-american-people/
Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542035518 Timestamp) THE COMPLETE PROGRAM The Cult of Nature (Religion) The Cult of our Folk (Mythology) The Cult of the Militia (Physical) The Cult of Stoicism (Emotional) The Cult of the Law (Intellectual)
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1541991517 Timestamp) NORTH AMERICAN AMERINDIANS GENOCIDED THEIR PREDECESSORS https://scienceblog.com/504280/the-new-face-of-south-american-people/
-
(FB 1542062393 Timestamp) HBDCHICK’S SUMMARY OF BIPARTITE MANORIALISM AND ITS RE
(FB 1542062393 Timestamp) HBDCHICK’S SUMMARY OF BIPARTITE MANORIALISM AND ITS REACH â @hbdchick the main feature of bipartite manorialism in medieval europe was the dual, conjoined arrangement of the central manor farm (the demesne) along with the attached individual farms of the tenants, with the tenants owing labor on the demesne (later rent)… …tenants were independently responsible for the success of their own farms, i.e. w/the production of foodstuffs for themselves (to be self-sufficient iow) as well as for producing a certain amount of foods and products for the manor (agricultural, but also things like cloth)… …another extremely important aspect of bipartite manorialism, tho, was the curious feature of common arable fields in which tenants were allotted certain furrows to farm alongside and inbetween the furrows of the demesne… …these furrows were the tenants’ farms (alongside whatever garden they might have). in the early days of manorialism, the furrows/farms were not passed down within families, but “reassigned” each generation. over time tenancies became inheritable and eventually… …the common field system disappeared and farms were restructured to be more like free-standing units (although still within the manor system), but for a good 500-1000 years, depending on the region, the common field system was in place… …however, in order to avoid any tragedies of commons, tenants came together on village councils to agree upon plans for planting and the grazing of animals in fallow fields, etc. here from Tradition and Transformation in Anglo-Saxon England (https://books.google.com/books?id=_SlMAQAAQBAJ â¦): …the same practices were found in other regions of nw europe which saw bipartite manorialism + open field systems. here on vaine pâture in nw france:hbd chick added, (oh, sorry. forgot. “CPrRs” are “common property regimes.” these collective village institutions that governed open fields and common pastures.) …and, again, here are the regions in nw “core” europe where bipartite manorialism/open field systems were found:hbd chick added, here you go. core europe. the dark regions of communal open fields (i.e. regions that had bipartite manorialism during the middle ages). from Regions, Institutions, and Agrarian Change in European History⦠by the time manorialism got to east germany (east of the elbe) it was a purely rent-based system. individual tenant farmers working their own farms and paying cash rents. (further east in russia it was often extended families.) …and the outcome of all this, i think (theorize)? and selecting for behavioral traits related to reciprocal altruism while selecting out traits related to parochial altruism, since these folks were neither living/working in extended family groups or marrying close family members, but, instead, cooperating w/unrelated fellows. btw, some medieval ridge and furrow field systems are still visible in england. here are three from: gloucestershire (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medieval_Ridge_and_Furrow_above_Wood_Stanway_-geograph.org.uk-_640050.jpg â¦); buckinghamshire (http://www.heritage-explorer.co.uk/web/he/searchdetail.aspx?id=1488&large=1 â¦); and worcestershire (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=654&ei=lNfoW4ynE6LlkgWSqoCIBA&q=common+fields+furrows&oq=common+fields+furrows&gs_l=img.3…1482.5260.0.5427.21.13.0.8.2.0.156.1397.3j9.12.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..1.13.1330…0j0i8i30k1j0i24k1j0i10i24k1.0.8oaGF6jdXv0#imgdii=KJ7ZkoGp3VKs9M:&imgrc=B81gElEVEKUnbM â¦): and there are even a handful of open field systems still in operation in england today. there’s one in laxton, nottinghamshire. you can read about how the farmers all work together on their manor here!: http://www.laxtonnotts.org.uk/Laxton%20manorial_system.htm ⦠oh, yes. forgot to mention: given that WHEAT was pretty much the main crop of medieval manors w/their common property regimes (i.e. collective village institutions), i can’t see how @ThomasTalhelm et al. argue that rice farming leads to holistic thinking patterns because… …of its collective nature wheat plus oats and rye. (^_^) SEE: (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/603 â¦. nw “core” european wheat farming WAS collective for something like 500-1000 years (depending on region). afaics, the diff ofc is who one is collective with: family? or unrelated individuals? http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/603
-
(FB 1542062393 Timestamp) HBDCHICK’S SUMMARY OF BIPARTITE MANORIALISM AND ITS RE
(FB 1542062393 Timestamp) HBDCHICK’S SUMMARY OF BIPARTITE MANORIALISM AND ITS REACH â @hbdchick the main feature of bipartite manorialism in medieval europe was the dual, conjoined arrangement of the central manor farm (the demesne) along with the attached individual farms of the tenants, with the tenants owing labor on the demesne (later rent)… …tenants were independently responsible for the success of their own farms, i.e. w/the production of foodstuffs for themselves (to be self-sufficient iow) as well as for producing a certain amount of foods and products for the manor (agricultural, but also things like cloth)… …another extremely important aspect of bipartite manorialism, tho, was the curious feature of common arable fields in which tenants were allotted certain furrows to farm alongside and inbetween the furrows of the demesne… …these furrows were the tenants’ farms (alongside whatever garden they might have). in the early days of manorialism, the furrows/farms were not passed down within families, but “reassigned” each generation. over time tenancies became inheritable and eventually… …the common field system disappeared and farms were restructured to be more like free-standing units (although still within the manor system), but for a good 500-1000 years, depending on the region, the common field system was in place… …however, in order to avoid any tragedies of commons, tenants came together on village councils to agree upon plans for planting and the grazing of animals in fallow fields, etc. here from Tradition and Transformation in Anglo-Saxon England (https://books.google.com/books?id=_SlMAQAAQBAJ â¦): …the same practices were found in other regions of nw europe which saw bipartite manorialism + open field systems. here on vaine pâture in nw france:hbd chick added, (oh, sorry. forgot. “CPrRs” are “common property regimes.” these collective village institutions that governed open fields and common pastures.) …and, again, here are the regions in nw “core” europe where bipartite manorialism/open field systems were found:hbd chick added, here you go. core europe. the dark regions of communal open fields (i.e. regions that had bipartite manorialism during the middle ages). from Regions, Institutions, and Agrarian Change in European History⦠by the time manorialism got to east germany (east of the elbe) it was a purely rent-based system. individual tenant farmers working their own farms and paying cash rents. (further east in russia it was often extended families.) …and the outcome of all this, i think (theorize)? and selecting for behavioral traits related to reciprocal altruism while selecting out traits related to parochial altruism, since these folks were neither living/working in extended family groups or marrying close family members, but, instead, cooperating w/unrelated fellows. btw, some medieval ridge and furrow field systems are still visible in england. here are three from: gloucestershire (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medieval_Ridge_and_Furrow_above_Wood_Stanway_-geograph.org.uk-_640050.jpg â¦); buckinghamshire (http://www.heritage-explorer.co.uk/web/he/searchdetail.aspx?id=1488&large=1 â¦); and worcestershire (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=654&ei=lNfoW4ynE6LlkgWSqoCIBA&q=common+fields+furrows&oq=common+fields+furrows&gs_l=img.3…1482.5260.0.5427.21.13.0.8.2.0.156.1397.3j9.12.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..1.13.1330…0j0i8i30k1j0i24k1j0i10i24k1.0.8oaGF6jdXv0#imgdii=KJ7ZkoGp3VKs9M:&imgrc=B81gElEVEKUnbM â¦): and there are even a handful of open field systems still in operation in england today. there’s one in laxton, nottinghamshire. you can read about how the farmers all work together on their manor here!: http://www.laxtonnotts.org.uk/Laxton%20manorial_system.htm ⦠oh, yes. forgot to mention: given that WHEAT was pretty much the main crop of medieval manors w/their common property regimes (i.e. collective village institutions), i can’t see how @ThomasTalhelm et al. argue that rice farming leads to holistic thinking patterns because… …of its collective nature wheat plus oats and rye. (^_^) SEE: (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/603 â¦. nw “core” european wheat farming WAS collective for something like 500-1000 years (depending on region). afaics, the diff ofc is who one is collective with: family? or unrelated individuals? http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/603
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542115518 Timestamp) THE CIVIL WAR OVER SPECIATION: THE ARGUMENT: Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives. The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind. We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss. The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders. So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic. This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours. Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win. The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent. If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be. -Cheers.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542113650 Timestamp) THE JEWISH CENTURY: MARXISM-SOCIALISM, LIBERTARIANISM, POSTMODERNISM, FEMINISM, NEO-CONSERVATISM, The Counter-Revolution Against Anglo Legal-Empiricism, and German Rational-Science Utopian Promise upon Achieving Monopoly Consensus + Straw Man + Pilpul and Critique: Rousseau (Feminine Subjective) + Schopenhauer, Hegel et al (Conflationists) + Kant (Masculine Analytic) -vs- Marx, Cantor, Freud, Adorno (Working and Underclasses) -vs- Mises, Friedman, Rand, Rothbard, (Middle Classes) -vs- Foucault, Derrida, Rorty (Priestly-Feminine Upper Middle) -vs- Friedan, Firestone, Dworkin (Feminists) -vs- Strauss-Neocons (Political/Military-Masculine – Upper) The gradual attack on Aristocratic Civilization from the bottom up. COMPARE TO JUDAISM > CHRISTIANITY > ISLAM. Same Technique, Same False Promise, Same Catastrophic Consequences
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542115518 Timestamp) THE CIVIL WAR OVER SPECIATION: THE ARGUMENT: Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives. The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind. We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss. The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders. So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic. This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours. Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win. The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent. If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be. -Cheers.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542113650 Timestamp) THE JEWISH CENTURY: MARXISM-SOCIALISM, LIBERTARIANISM, POSTMODERNISM, FEMINISM, NEO-CONSERVATISM, The Counter-Revolution Against Anglo Legal-Empiricism, and German Rational-Science Utopian Promise upon Achieving Monopoly Consensus + Straw Man + Pilpul and Critique: Rousseau (Feminine Subjective) + Schopenhauer, Hegel et al (Conflationists) + Kant (Masculine Analytic) -vs- Marx, Cantor, Freud, Adorno (Working and Underclasses) -vs- Mises, Friedman, Rand, Rothbard, (Middle Classes) -vs- Foucault, Derrida, Rorty (Priestly-Feminine Upper Middle) -vs- Friedan, Firestone, Dworkin (Feminists) -vs- Strauss-Neocons (Political/Military-Masculine – Upper) The gradual attack on Aristocratic Civilization from the bottom up. COMPARE TO JUDAISM > CHRISTIANITY > ISLAM. Same Technique, Same False Promise, Same Catastrophic Consequences
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542210631 Timestamp) THE COMING CIVIL WAR ISN’T JUST ABOUT RACE by Göran Dahl The purest and most basal of all conflicts are those between different genetic clusters – it doesn’t get more fundamental than that. You’re not really disagreeing with Curt’s proposition that it’s a war of reproductive strategies, you’re just left hanging without a proper explanation. It will be a race war, but there will also be race traitors as you may imagine; those who aid and abet outgroups through intimate relationships and deliberate actions that are deemed detrimental to our fitness. So a lot of in-group members will be butchered because of their crimes, and at the same time, there is evidence that suggests that their propensity to commit treason is genetic. So saying that it’s going to be a race war is not enough; it’s also going to be an intra-racial conflict where those with weaker selection for ethnocentrism get weeded out, because they’re more likely to do something considered anti-white. We usually refer to these people as leftists. Since we and leftists pursue (on average) different evolutionary strategies, we can also state that there is going to be a conflict revolving around speciation. Of course, speciation is unlikely to occur because it takes hundreds of thousands of years on average (and that’s for small, isolated groups prone to genetic drift). Likewise, I think people will find it more prudent to extirpate leftists altogether to prevent them from posing a threat ever again, so instead of a speciating divergence, only a single portion of the species will survive to evolve further.