Source: Original Site Post

  • I am not sure if the argument that the east indo-europeans (supernatural-theolog

    I am not sure if the argument that the east indo-europeans (supernatural-theological) were the losers in the conflict with the west indo-european (technological-magical), but it sure makes a lot of sense. Those in control (magic) those under control (supernatural). I think it’s more likely that the Anatolians or proto iranics brought nigh-religion to the competition north of the caucuses.

  • I am not sure if the argument that the east indo-europeans (supernatural-theolog

    I am not sure if the argument that the east indo-europeans (supernatural-theological) were the losers in the conflict with the west indo-european (technological-magical), but it sure makes a lot of sense. Those in control (magic) those under control (supernatural). I think it’s more likely that the Anatolians or proto iranics brought nigh-religion to the competition north of the caucuses.

  • Hittites

    Hittites https://t.co/8LZsymv6gB

  • Hittites

    —“It is generally assumed that the Hittites came into Anatolia sometime before 2000 BC. While their earlier location is disputed, scholars speculate that the Yamnaya culture of the Pontic–Caspian steppe, in present-day Ukraine, around the Sea of Azov, spoke an early Indo-European language during the third and fourth millennia BC. The arrival of the Hittites in Anatolia in the Bronze Age was one of a superstrate (aristocracy) imposing itself on a native culture (in this case over the pre-existing Hattians and Hurrians), either by means of conquest or by gradual assimilation. In archaeological terms, relationships of the Hittites to the Ezero culture of the Balkans and Maykop culture of the Caucasus have been considered within the migration framework. The Indo-European element at least establishes Hittite culture as intrusive to Anatolia in scholarly mainstream. According to Anthony, steppe herders, archaic Proto-Indo-European speakers, spread into the lower Danube valley about 4200–4000 BC, either causing or taking advantage of the collapse of Old Europe. Their languages “probably included archaic Proto-Indo-European dialects of the kind partly preserved later in Anatolian.” Their descendants later moved into Anatolia at an unknown time but maybe as early as 3000 BC.[27] According to J. P. Mallory it is likely that the Anatolians reached the Near East from the north either via the Balkans or the Caucasus in the 3rd millennium BC.[28] According to Parpola, the appearance of Indo-European speakers from Europe into Anatolia, and the appearance of Hittite, is related to later migrations of Proto-Indo-European speakers from the Yamnaya culture into the Danube Valley at c. 2800 BC,[29][30] which is in line with the “customary” assumption that the Anatolian Indo-European language was introduced into Anatolia sometime in the third millennium BC.[31] Their movement into the region may have set off a Near East mass migration sometime around 1900 BC.[citation needed] The dominant indigenous inhabitants in central Anatolia at the time were Hurrians and Hattians who spoke non-Indo-European languages. Some have argued that Hattic was a Northwest Caucasian language, but its affiliation remains uncertain, whilst the Hurrian language was a near-isolate (i.e. it was one of only two or three languages in the Hurro-Urartian family). There were also Assyrian colonies in the region during the Old Assyrian Empire (2025–1750 BC); it was from the Assyrian speakers of Upper Mesopotamia that the Hittites adopted the cuneiform script. It took some time before the Hittites established themselves following the collapse of the Old Assyrian Empire in the mid-18th century BC, as is clear from some of the texts included here. For several centuries there were separate Hittite groups, usually centered on various cities. But then strong rulers with their center in Hattusa (modern Boğazkale) succeeded in bringing these together and conquering large parts of central Anatolia to establish the Hittite kingdom.[32]”—

  • Hittites

    —“It is generally assumed that the Hittites came into Anatolia sometime before 2000 BC. While their earlier location is disputed, scholars speculate that the Yamnaya culture of the Pontic–Caspian steppe, in present-day Ukraine, around the Sea of Azov, spoke an early Indo-European language during the third and fourth millennia BC. The arrival of the Hittites in Anatolia in the Bronze Age was one of a superstrate (aristocracy) imposing itself on a native culture (in this case over the pre-existing Hattians and Hurrians), either by means of conquest or by gradual assimilation. In archaeological terms, relationships of the Hittites to the Ezero culture of the Balkans and Maykop culture of the Caucasus have been considered within the migration framework. The Indo-European element at least establishes Hittite culture as intrusive to Anatolia in scholarly mainstream. According to Anthony, steppe herders, archaic Proto-Indo-European speakers, spread into the lower Danube valley about 4200–4000 BC, either causing or taking advantage of the collapse of Old Europe. Their languages “probably included archaic Proto-Indo-European dialects of the kind partly preserved later in Anatolian.” Their descendants later moved into Anatolia at an unknown time but maybe as early as 3000 BC.[27] According to J. P. Mallory it is likely that the Anatolians reached the Near East from the north either via the Balkans or the Caucasus in the 3rd millennium BC.[28] According to Parpola, the appearance of Indo-European speakers from Europe into Anatolia, and the appearance of Hittite, is related to later migrations of Proto-Indo-European speakers from the Yamnaya culture into the Danube Valley at c. 2800 BC,[29][30] which is in line with the “customary” assumption that the Anatolian Indo-European language was introduced into Anatolia sometime in the third millennium BC.[31] Their movement into the region may have set off a Near East mass migration sometime around 1900 BC.[citation needed] The dominant indigenous inhabitants in central Anatolia at the time were Hurrians and Hattians who spoke non-Indo-European languages. Some have argued that Hattic was a Northwest Caucasian language, but its affiliation remains uncertain, whilst the Hurrian language was a near-isolate (i.e. it was one of only two or three languages in the Hurro-Urartian family). There were also Assyrian colonies in the region during the Old Assyrian Empire (2025–1750 BC); it was from the Assyrian speakers of Upper Mesopotamia that the Hittites adopted the cuneiform script. It took some time before the Hittites established themselves following the collapse of the Old Assyrian Empire in the mid-18th century BC, as is clear from some of the texts included here. For several centuries there were separate Hittite groups, usually centered on various cities. But then strong rulers with their center in Hattusa (modern Boğazkale) succeeded in bringing these together and conquering large parts of central Anatolia to establish the Hittite kingdom.[32]”—

  • There Is No Difference at All

    There Is No Difference at All https://t.co/Efp532C6bt

  • There Is No Difference at All

    Nov 21, 2019, 9:46 AM Europeans brought China heroin, and the jews brought Europe Judaism(Christianity), and the Muslims bring Islam. there is no difference at all. We did the in Americas 400 years ago what we’d done to Europe and Eurasia 4000 years ago. In retrospect, our crime was not doing to the middle east what we had done to the Americas – because that would have ended world conflict. We have no bar to India. We have no bar to china. Our only bar to Russia is she may not have eastern Europe – Russians are still people of the steppe. We have no bar to Africa other than she keeps her people in Africa. The only world problem is Semitia and its civilizational industrialization of lying, dysgenia, and consumption

  • There Is No Difference at All

    Nov 21, 2019, 9:46 AM Europeans brought China heroin, and the jews brought Europe Judaism(Christianity), and the Muslims bring Islam. there is no difference at all. We did the in Americas 400 years ago what we’d done to Europe and Eurasia 4000 years ago. In retrospect, our crime was not doing to the middle east what we had done to the Americas – because that would have ended world conflict. We have no bar to India. We have no bar to china. Our only bar to Russia is she may not have eastern Europe – Russians are still people of the steppe. We have no bar to Africa other than she keeps her people in Africa. The only world problem is Semitia and its civilizational industrialization of lying, dysgenia, and consumption

  • Pinker Has Joined Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno, Harari, Harris in Selling Half Trut

    Pinker Has Joined Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno, Harari, Harris in Selling Half Truths https://t.co/SlVoVqZHAg

  • Pinker Has Joined Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno, Harari, Harris in Selling Half Truths

    Nov 21, 2019, 10:56 AM NO, VIOLENCE (harm) is evolving (progressing) along the spectrum from physical, to financial, economic, to informational. There is more HARM than ever in human history and on far greater scales. It’s just distributed across time across the entirety of human capital. Measure it.

    —“Pinker addresses this in the FAQ on his site. Metaphorically extending the term ‘violence’ to practices you want to stigmatize(financial crime, inequality, etc) with rape, homicide and genocide confuse moralization with understanding. … Certainly, there are new financial, economic and informational practices that are bad and may even be increasing, but Pinker’s work is focused on violence, not “bad things”.”—

    I know law and philosophy are my specializations but I would think that was pretty hard for you to say that with an outside voice. Ergo: why is violence a ‘bad’? And why make the claim in the first place if not to claim harms are declining (they aren’t). In other words, (a) false promise to people by the sophism that harms are declining (they aren’t),(b) false promise of disambiguation of physical from net harms? So what if physical harm declines while net harm increases, for no other reason than physical harm is less profitable? All Steven is saying is what every other economist says: harms are NOT decreasing, it’s just that physical crimes are more costly and less profitable than at any previous time in history. So why not state Whole Truth? Another system of lies like Boas, Freud, Marx, Cantor? See? This is the problem with the left of center “Pseudo -Intellectual’ public intellectuals: They produce what sells but is only half true and that’s because they rely on correlations not as economists or physicists: OPERATIONALISMS. Tell the WHOLE truth not half-truth: lying.