Oct 22, 2019, 4:43 PM
FOR HINDUSTANIS: NO MORE NONSENSE. “YOU WAS’T KANGS.”
(uncomfortable Truth Warning)
HISTORY OF THE IE CIVILIZATIONS:
The European, Caucasian, Iranic, and Indian Peoples.
Look. The IE expansion occurred in Ukraine and Russian north of the black sea out of what appears to have been a competition between proto-european and proto-iranic peoples (and not proto-turkic peoples). The southern and caucasian branch has largely been lost but mixed armenians and georgians remain. The anatolians are lost entirely. The iranic branch moved east, some continued farther east into india and disappeared into the local dravidian population, and the rest continued south into persia, and spread west again to the caucuses, leaving the iranic (some arab admixture) peoples, the indian (70/30-30/70) iranic-dravidian admixture peoples, the european peoples, and the mixed balkan peopels. That is the foundation of the european-caucasian-iranic-indian peoples.
That group of people had bronze, horse, wheel, maneuver, entrepernurial organization, a religion they’d adapted from anatolia, but inverted from submissive to heoric, and similar but varied religions that rapidly adapted to each environment. The european remained aristocratic egalitarian, most likely because they conquered near relations, completely conquered them, and retained empirical property-law and the aristocratic peerage. the iranics moved into more developed areas of the indus, persian gulf, and finally Mesopotamian, and adopted religiously dominant hierarchical law so that they could govern conquered peoples. The iranics that conquered and entered india used a hierarchical formal class religion to govern the dravidic peoples – we don’t know why but it appears because indus peoples were more advanced and they needed some means of narration.
All of us were ‘stuck’ with that original decision of ‘how to govern ourselves and the people we conquered’. However, we were also stuck with demographics, with India and Mesopotamia having a terrible governance problem because of the ease of survival of the underclasses, but the benefit of trade routes that could be taxes for profit and the financing of wars. But that original decision of how to ‘think about, talk about, argue about how we organize’ is the primary cause of the difference in our achievements.
India seems to have developed very rational law and scholarship at one point, but stagnated and like medieval Europe, never evolved a central state strong enough to resist invaders – all of whom were resisted by the pure scale of India not so much as any other factor. The rather obvious answer is that the loss of the Indus river (hrappans) was catastrophic, the demographics unalterable, that a majority middle class could not evolve (and still is struggling).
Persia is a well understood story and had not the byzantines and Sassanids exhausted each other Persia would have built an Iranic civilization as India has an Indian, and insulated the rest of the world from the curse (cancer) of islam and it’s systemic destruction of every genetic, institutional, cultural, and intellectual form of capital by expansion of its underclasses. Everyone fought over taxation of the trade routes of the middle east until the age of sail circumvented those trade routes making them irrelevant and eliminating the ability fund soldiers, fund technological investment, build technology, because they lacked the demographics to do it (as china is showing India at the moment).
Europe lacked both the warm climate, the flood river valleys, and the trade routes, so while europeans could consume more calories, it had to endure winters, and it was impossible to centralize enough capital to create institutions – until they moved south to conquer the mediterraneans and develop Mediterranean trade. But they were not conquering vast hordes of established peoples. The bronze age collapse had made the Mediterranean vulnerable to european conquest just as the greco-roman collapse and byzantine-Sassanid war made the great civilizations of the ancient world vulnerable to Arab conquest.
The difference is that european civilization was not absorbed into locals as were the Indians and the Caucasians, and somewhat the Persians, so they retained the institutions of the peerage, tripartism, customary law of tort, the jury of peers, and an military-empirical rather than supernatural -moral system of rule, that could more rapidly adopt to the development of a middle class. In otter words, no matter how wealthy, the wealthy were largely middle class (commercial).
It was this legal system that made europeans work with competition, reason, argument, evidence, geometry, and philosophy rather than hierarchy or equality, moralizing, sophism or supernaturalism, and astrology.
So the better question is ‘what did India and china, in their relative isolation do over thousands of years; vs what did Persia do in thousands of years, vs what did Assyria do in their thousands of years, vs what did europeans do in a few hundred years of conquering Europe, a few hundred years in the mediterranean, and a few hundred years after escaping the semitic (jewish, christian, islamic) dark ages?
We all invent, trade, and spread technology. The question is ‘what do we do with it’, and how rapidly and what was the consequence?
Europeans dragged humanity – kicking and screaming all the while – out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, and early death by utilizing every bit of information to competitively adapt as fast as humanly possible in the IE expansion, in the Ancient World, and in the Modern World.
What did the jews, the most literate people in Europe, do? What arts, what architecture, what achievements, what science, or technology, what medicine, what philosophy? None.
What did islam achieve for having destroyed five great civilizations of the ancient world, and institutionalizing superstition, ignorance, illiteracy, obedience, the art of lying by abrahamic means.
What did india achieve other than numbering and damascene (carbon) steel? What did india inherit from the first institutional civilization the Sumerians? I mean, trade is what makes the technology of measurement, recording, contracts and accounting necessary. Why did indians take the abacus and convert it to symbols where others simply retained the abacus and summary numbers? Why did the middle east focus on religion, india culture, west on law, and far east on bureaucracy?
We all tried different things. But indians are desperately trying to blame someone other than the rate of the reproduction of the underclasses for their condition. It is not possible to fix indian demographics, society, or government, without eradication of islam, the conversion from myth to history, and most of all a one child policy for those unable to master the tertiary systems of calculation we call mathematics.
And there is no other cause.
And this ridiculous belief that you weren’t conquered by pretty much every group that came by, as if they are evil and you are culturally and institutionally incompetent, is something you need to get over. You’re almost isolated on a continent, and like the european or Chinese should have competed on the world stage, yet you haven’t built a wall like china, or a navy like europa, and haven’t prosecuted hostiles among you systematically conquering your people and reducing them to barbarism. The only person to blame for your culture’s condition is the man in the mirror. Because if you can’t compete, then you simply can’t compete, and nature does not tolerate those who she suffers but who do not evolve.
The Red Queen Never Rests.
You’re welcome for the education.
I don’t make errors – ever.
Don’t waste the fact that I invested my time in you.
Learn something.
Edit