Jan 19, 2020, 3:33 PM by Göran Dahl Up until very recently, it was thought that Eastern Europeans (in the form of Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russians and Balts) were the genetically closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and, indeed, to Proto-Indo-Europeans. However, it appears that these ethnic groups had ever so slightly inflated Steppe ancestry percentages due to having higher levels of so-called Narva_HG admixture. Narva_HG belongs to the Mesolithic Narva culture, whose members were a mixture of EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) and WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer). Today, we can say that the people closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto-Indo-Europeans in terms of genetic distance (and Steppe ancestry) are Norwegians, Irishmen and Icelanders; the latter due to being a composite of the two former. Irishmen tend to be the closest fit for typical Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures such as Srubnaya and Sintashta, whereas Norwegians are the closest to Yamnaya_Kalmykia (a subset of Yamnaya) and Potapovka, which is thought to be ancestral to the forementioned Srubnaya.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Well that Fits but It’s a Big Surprise!!!
Jan 19, 2020, 3:33 PM by Göran Dahl Up until very recently, it was thought that Eastern Europeans (in the form of Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russians and Balts) were the genetically closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and, indeed, to Proto-Indo-Europeans. However, it appears that these ethnic groups had ever so slightly inflated Steppe ancestry percentages due to having higher levels of so-called Narva_HG admixture. Narva_HG belongs to the Mesolithic Narva culture, whose members were a mixture of EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) and WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer). Today, we can say that the people closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto-Indo-Europeans in terms of genetic distance (and Steppe ancestry) are Norwegians, Irishmen and Icelanders; the latter due to being a composite of the two former. Irishmen tend to be the closest fit for typical Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures such as Srubnaya and Sintashta, whereas Norwegians are the closest to Yamnaya_Kalmykia (a subset of Yamnaya) and Potapovka, which is thought to be ancestral to the forementioned Srubnaya.
-
Necessary Reading for The Informed
Jan 19, 2020, 3:43 PM NECESSARY READING FOR THE INFORMED by Göran Dahl A great document with lots of information regarding admixture events, ancestry proportions, what modern people are made up of etc. The Modern sections with “Yamnaya” proportions are somewhat misleading, because they don’t use actual Yamnaya people as proxies for Yamnaya ancestry, but rather two of the three components that Yamnaya people are made up of: CHG (Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer) and EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer). There is also a third component that has been left out: EEF (Early European Farmer), which is why Yamnaya proportions in modern Europeans and even ancient post-Yamnaya populations seem lower across the board. West Eurasia index2 docs.google.com https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LPWAEC3dbAEDu8aBAAcxIOa5CQjuflt0f0cvhCpZ_ME/htmlview
-
Necessary Reading for The Informed
Jan 19, 2020, 3:43 PM NECESSARY READING FOR THE INFORMED by Göran Dahl A great document with lots of information regarding admixture events, ancestry proportions, what modern people are made up of etc. The Modern sections with “Yamnaya” proportions are somewhat misleading, because they don’t use actual Yamnaya people as proxies for Yamnaya ancestry, but rather two of the three components that Yamnaya people are made up of: CHG (Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer) and EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer). There is also a third component that has been left out: EEF (Early European Farmer), which is why Yamnaya proportions in modern Europeans and even ancient post-Yamnaya populations seem lower across the board. West Eurasia index2 docs.google.com https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LPWAEC3dbAEDu8aBAAcxIOa5CQjuflt0f0cvhCpZ_ME/htmlview
-
Our Strategy
Jan 21, 2020, 10:49 AM
So, the strategy for the Right is to enumerate a set of ‘rights’ and demonstrate to demand our ‘rights’ including the right to self determination, the preservation of our culture, traditions, institutions, language, religion.
-
Our Strategy
Jan 21, 2020, 10:49 AM
So, the strategy for the Right is to enumerate a set of ‘rights’ and demonstrate to demand our ‘rights’ including the right to self determination, the preservation of our culture, traditions, institutions, language, religion.
-
Richmond reset my brain a bit on strategy
Jan 21, 2020, 12:10 PM Richmond reset my brain a bit on strategy so I’m not talking about it yet. But the drive down and back, plus the pure spirituality of ‘all our men’ gave me needed think time. Mostly on european aesthetics and commons and our ‘group-think’ (formation sensitivity?) And how that’s possibly a cognitive european bias. Second was how evident it is that I love our people but that they just … they just need answers. I need understanding but they just need answers. I used some of it to re-listen to Fukuyama on bureaucracy and that gave me a few ideas too – not the least of which is that he doesn’t understand the correlation between anglo adversarial government and sovereignty. He doesn’t grasp that the inefficiency is a trade off for adaptability. But he’s right that the left has destroyed rule of law. He just doesn’t see that it’s fixable. He comes close but doesn’t get there. Sometimes it’s better to re-read these long works a few times because you get fresh ideas out of every read. Edit
-
Richmond reset my brain a bit on strategy
Jan 21, 2020, 12:10 PM Richmond reset my brain a bit on strategy so I’m not talking about it yet. But the drive down and back, plus the pure spirituality of ‘all our men’ gave me needed think time. Mostly on european aesthetics and commons and our ‘group-think’ (formation sensitivity?) And how that’s possibly a cognitive european bias. Second was how evident it is that I love our people but that they just … they just need answers. I need understanding but they just need answers. I used some of it to re-listen to Fukuyama on bureaucracy and that gave me a few ideas too – not the least of which is that he doesn’t understand the correlation between anglo adversarial government and sovereignty. He doesn’t grasp that the inefficiency is a trade off for adaptability. But he’s right that the left has destroyed rule of law. He just doesn’t see that it’s fixable. He comes close but doesn’t get there. Sometimes it’s better to re-read these long works a few times because you get fresh ideas out of every read. Edit
-
Liber-Tardians … Useful Idiots of The Enemy
Jan 21, 2020, 4:11 PM
—“I’ll bet I used [Propertarianism] before you ever did. It is amusing that you think”–
Well if you’ll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?
—“2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.”—
- Demonstrated interest is existential: “demonstrated” – a truth. It’s not a choice, opinion, or preference. Any OTHER definition is a choice, preference or opinion. In other words any other choice is arbitrary.
You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies – and of course you fell for it.)
Humans can’t know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can’t know scarcity only ignorance.
Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. 😉
Humans can’t avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.
What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated intersets are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one’s demonstrated interests.
Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn’t mean anything to others, it’s just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won’t harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you think – it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like jewish rothbard and jewish-trained Hoppe.
Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other’s states. Rothbard is trying to restore jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They’re both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )I do science. Y’all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it’s effective – weaving internal consistently out of self referentiality – is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it’s just a technique of deception that like any other technique that can be mastered, it’s relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality – which is what it seeks to undermine.
Anyway. I don’t err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don’t err in this case. I can’t. The science says so.
-
Liber-Tardians … Useful Idiots of The Enemy
Jan 21, 2020, 4:11 PM
—“I’ll bet I used [Propertarianism] before you ever did. It is amusing that you think”–
Well if you’ll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?
—“2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.”—
- Demonstrated interest is existential: “demonstrated” – a truth. It’s not a choice, opinion, or preference. Any OTHER definition is a choice, preference or opinion. In other words any other choice is arbitrary.
You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies – and of course you fell for it.)
Humans can’t know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can’t know scarcity only ignorance.
Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. 😉
Humans can’t avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.
What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated intersets are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one’s demonstrated interests.
Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn’t mean anything to others, it’s just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won’t harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you think – it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like jewish rothbard and jewish-trained Hoppe.
Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other’s states. Rothbard is trying to restore jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They’re both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )I do science. Y’all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it’s effective – weaving internal consistently out of self referentiality – is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it’s just a technique of deception that like any other technique that can be mastered, it’s relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality – which is what it seeks to undermine.
Anyway. I don’t err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don’t err in this case. I can’t. The science says so.