Form: Thread

INDIA VS THE WEST
You are welcome to argue with me. So far I’ve seen confusing genetics with culture when culture and demographic difficulty of the invaders is the issue. Out of india claims are nonsense. Evasion of the migration path of IE culture from west to east is consistent, despite being a given. The genetic origins of the three genrations of europeans is as well understood as the three generations of indians that included african coastal expansion, iranic farmer expansion, and iranic steppe conquest, followed by minor contributions from the muslim invaders and east admixture, plus the institution of the caste system to prevent outbreeding once the risk was established. This resulted in not only a 70/30 north south distribution, but regional castes as near subraces in their insularity.

I work with the data. I can pull up anything. The question is whether we are tallking about the same thing or evading it. What I hear, I think, its an attempt to generate some kind of superiority from genetics when the difference between west yamna into europe and gradual eastern expansion into india is such a dilution that it’s irrelevant as other than culture. The certainty is that europeans and east asians are more neotenically evolved with a better genetic distribution (smaller lower classes) than india was able to achieve given the scale and population and the technology available at the time, before the ability to expand influence was exhausted by the sheer scale and terrain of the continent.

My position is simple: that the migration eastward into india encountered a less fruitful but massive population, while the westward migration into europe encountered a more fruitful but smaller population that thru murder of men and capture of women allowed almost total replacement – or at least sufficient admixture to achieve the same. This allowed europeans to push aristocratic culture all the way to the bottom and create political systems, law, reason, and eventually science where the demographic resistance of india was sufficient to prevent the same evolutionary rapidity.

It’s not complicated.

India has a problem of self confidence that it tries to excuse like a bunch of old women blaming others. We europeans make plenty of mistakes but we try to correct ourselves and move forward. Otherwise we would have just cleared the surface of the earth of competing humans and kept it all for ourselves. Because frankly it would have been trivia. But anglo and chrisitian morality prevailed.

As Mao said, “If india had been a french colony, ghandi would never have been an old man.” Same for the middle east. Why don’t europeans just walk in there take it all and eradicate the people? We could have. Instead we built the infrastructure to make them wealth. Why did so many colonies ask the british for protection and rule to save them from european pirates with the new technology of ships guns and cannon. Why did the english stop the atlantic slave trade? Why did Americans fight a civil war to stop slavery from expanding westward acxross the continent. Why did the british stop russia from retaking constantinople and driving the muslims out of europe. (big mistake). Why did europeans stop Macarthur from doing to China what we did to germany and japan? We didn’t have to. Why did europeans stop Patton from doing the same to russia? It would have been trivial. Why did the americans create the bretton woods system, the united nations, and the charter of human rights, and try to end all agrarian empires, producing nation states, self determination, and governments that focused on building economies and joining the world market rather than aggression against neighbors? Why did Britain give up her colonies (aside from they were a money losing proposition)? (Why didn’t france, the eternal enemy of european people not give up her colonies in africa?) Why did the US conduct the marhsall plan and raise German and Japan out of their ashes? Why did the USA bankrupt the Soviets and prevent the spread of communism to the middle east instead of killing heads of state and destroying their army when we had the chance? Why did Bush Sr stop the first war against iraq after liberating Kuwait rather than reducing iraq to ashes? He didn’t have to. Why did Bush the second, try to bring civil government to iraq and afghanistan rather than simply wipe them off the face of the earth given their reputation for perpetual backwardness, superstition, ignorance, and tribalism. It would have been trivial. It woudl ahve done the world a great favor. Why did we raise china out of destitution poverty and communist authoritarianism despite that it nearly destroyed our middle class. Why are we trying to encourage india to take responsibility for helping us govern the world as a mens of assisting in the contiued development of her people?

The reason is that our core tenet, which originated on the steppe, because cart-chariot-horse raiders equipped with bronze, horse, and wheel, requiring entreprenurial families to invest, developed the corporation and rule of law before the terms themselves had any meaning as the term democracy – which oddly enough, is the only political system possible for pirates and stepp raiders alike: entrepreneurail contract. That core european tenet consistent in our traditional, common, and modern law, from the proto germanics, to the greeks, romans, continentals, and anglos is sovereignty for the purpose of self determination by self determined means, requiring political liberty and individual freedom so that each of us has the opportunity to contribute to self, family, and society as long as he imposes not costs on others, by doing so truthfuly and reciprocally, and because the natural aristocracy is always seeking to increase it’s numbers spread the labor sufficiently to govern the unwashed masses, and organize them for war because the european continent lacking the fertile crescent indus and north indian, and chinese river systems meant that centralization of political authority was nearly impossible until the time of the romans, and even then exhausted them because of the insufficient numbers of the aristocdracy.

The fact that europeans have done “the hard things” first, and done so with plenty of folly, mistakes and failings. But we did, almost entirely by ourselves, drag mankind kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the victimization of tyrants and the hostility of a nature and universe all but totally hostile to us and which has nearly exterinated our ancestors with regular cycles. We dragged ourselvves out of that ignorance over six hundred years,and we dragged most of the world in but one hundred and fifty – admittedly leaving the job incomplete.

Every other civ failed to transition from agrarianism. Europeans were very close by 500ad to the industrial revolution. And if not for plagues our ancestors would have prevented a thousand year dark age.

It doesn’t matter who is first. It matters who is fastest. This is true in war, and this is true in politics, and this is true in economics, and this is true in thinking, and most importantly this is true in evolution whether biological cultural institutional or scientific and technological.

What is the resource that allows humans to adapt faster than other humans? Intelligence (iq) – that’s all intelligencde means – because the intelligence of the people around you is more influential on your life than yours alone. So what is the determiner of IQ? Its natural selection by a cold weather climate prior to and during early agrarianism that culled the bottom on one end and favored neoteny as an accelerate to cooperation in close quarters on the other.

There is a reason why africans, followed by south eurasians (including indians) followed by europeans, followed by east asians, leap by one standard deviation, another standard deviation, and less than half a standard deviation. ANd this is the reason.

Jordan peterson is famous for “Clean your room first before you complain elsewhere”. I’m sort of famous or infamous for “clean your civilization first before you complain elsewhere.”

Religions cdreated anough lies. Ideologies created enough more lies. We’ve lost hundreds of millions to those lies.

Grow up. Truth before face.
The problem is always and everywhere the man in the mirror. Because the mirror nearly always lies.

Make a difference.

Cheers

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation

Reply addressees: @Bitter_Earth_ @skladviip @whatifalthist @Openatic