Curt Doolittle

Theme: Civilization

  • Slavery

    Slavery was made uneconomical by the industrial revolution. That’s why the brits were first – because they started the industrial revolution. American abolition was partly christian, partly feminists wanting to use africans as the first step to the female vote, and partly if not mostly, so that the south (that paid the taxes that paid for the government), would not control the rest of the continent leaving the northeast an industrial power ruled by an agrarian south. … So never attribute to moral conviction that which is merely an expression of economic self interest. People never advocate for paying higher cost.

    —“Most people do not know that the south paid 3/4 of all government taxes through excise fees and only received about one quarter back in government benefits.”–Walter Wojton —“Worth mentioning the abolitionists with foresight that argued the slave trade was a demographic time bomb”–Chris Jones —“As I understand it, most working class Americans opposed slavery for the same reasons they oppose immigration today: it undercut American wages and was really only of benefit to and pushed hard by the plantation owning elite who wanted the cheaper labor…just like today.”–Scott Strong —“Our current immigration crisis it’s just another form of slavery through using low-value workers to bolster profits.”—Robert Danis

  • How Did the Uk End up To Be a Multicultural Root-Less Anti White Mess

    How Did the Uk End up To Be a Multicultural Root-Less Anti White Mess https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/how-did-the-uk-end-up-to-be-a-multicultural-root-less-anti-white-mess/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 00:30:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264715469824700416

  • The IE Expansion Getting Settled

    The IE Expansion Getting Settled https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/the-ie-expansion-getting-settled/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 00:12:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264710896942755840

  • The IE Expansion Getting Settled

    Göran Dahl Simon Ström So is the data settled now? 1) The European-aryan branch spread west and down into and across Europe. 2) The Hitite-aryan branch spread south either thru the caucuses or by water on the coastal route (black sea). 3) the iranian-aryan branch spread north above the caucuses, above the aral sea, then back down into present day iran. 4) The Indian peoples were a mix of west eurasians from present day Iran and earlier local (afro-asiatic?) hunter gatherers. The indo-aryan branch spread into the weak(drought) Indus river peoples and either caused or completed their fall. For all intents and purpose they outbred and are now extinct? 5) The (which branch) that spread east to the yellow-river of china is now extinct? 6) Every group appears to spread by male outbreeding? by Goran Dahl 1) If by Aryan you’re referring to Indo-Iranians, they came from the West originally. More specifically, the Eastern border of the Corded Ware culture, from which they are derived, i.e. Russo-Ukraine. 2) The proto-Hittites most likely spread West from the Sredny Stog culture, and then went South via the Balkans. Sredny Stog -> Usatovo -> Ezero into Anatolia, in a crescent-like pattern following the outline of the western coastline of the Black Sea. 3) The Indo-Iranians go from Eastern Europe–their point of origin–to Central Asia, and from there on to Northeast Asia and down to the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex in Afghanistan. From the BMAC, they go down into Iran and India. 4) The Indian peoples are a mix of Indo-Iranians (Steppe_MLBA), IVC people who were closely related to Iranian farmers (Iran_Neolithic) but were nevertheless a separate line, and people who were similar to the Andamanese (hence the dark skin and Australoid features). The Indo-Iranians outbred, as always. 5) Two branches reached the periphery of China: the Tocharian branch derived from the Afanasievo culture, and the Indo-Iranians (Tarim Basin mummies, Yuezhi). The Mongols of Genghis Khan’s period had significant Indo-Iranian or general North European-like admixture, and Tocharian-derived R1b clades were more widespread in their gene pool based on the samples we have available. Nowadays, local East Asian haplogroups dominate the lineages of modern Mongols to a larger extent. So it seems as though Mongols have admixture from both Indo-Iranians and the ever mysterious, elusive Tocharians. Indo-Iranians seem to have occupied all of Central Asia along with certain Chinese regions. 6) Yeah, basically. by Simon Ström Nothing of consequence has changed in this regard during the past couple of years, AFAIK. A boiling point of technological innovations was reached ~6kya causing a deluge of human mobility emanating from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Hittites descend from the first group to split from the coherent PIE language community, that we can trace linguistically. We conjecture that they traveled via the Balkan coast becoming lords of the collapsing Old European sedentary civilization in the process, which was among the richest and most developed parts of the world at the time (imagine them like the Aztecs). The PIEs projected in several directions and waves; proto-Tocharians were likely harbored by the Afanasievo culture in Siberia–essentially a twin culture of Yamnaya–that needs separate mention because they seem to have have expanded into a demographic void in Siberia, branching off just before the next key development. A period of chaos, disease and dramatic shifts on the “western front” of early PIE movements eventually brought a new political and social order upon Europe, also transcending Yamnaya and related prior cultures. A brief period of remarkable cultural homogeneity across Eurosiberia with evidence of large-scale interconnectedness in terms of movement and kinship (Corded Ware culture et al; Late PIE) coincided with an equilibration of formerly distinct “east” and “west” European gene pools (both of which were originally derived from variants of primordial h-gs and Near Eastern farmer-pastoralists having pushed north). This marks the ethnogenesis of modern white people in terms of autosomal DNA and uniparental markers in broad strokes, as the resultant genetic structure is largely intact in northern and central Europe. Then, mobility seems to have decreased again and uniformity necessarily faded. Various lineages began to differentiate into distinct cultures harboring the remaining known Indo-European languages (Nordic Bronze Age/Germanic, bronze age Brits speaking an undocumented language, Celts in central Europe and their Italic cousins and proto-Greek tribes moving south, and a “satem” group splitting into Balto-Slavs and early Indo-Iranians somewhere in eastern Europe ~4.5kya, officially ending what we define as the Proto-Indo-European language period. Göran explained well what happened with the Indo-Iranians as they expanded from south of the Urals. They were essentially very successful but drowned genetically as they inherited the prior Indus valley and Iranian plateau civilizations–however markers of their paternal ancestry are dominant to this day. In central Asia, a lot of mixing and displacement subsequently occurred with the rise of Turco-Mongols beginning in the Iron/Late Bronze Age.

  • The IE Expansion Getting Settled

    Göran Dahl Simon Ström So is the data settled now? 1) The European-aryan branch spread west and down into and across Europe. 2) The Hitite-aryan branch spread south either thru the caucuses or by water on the coastal route (black sea). 3) the iranian-aryan branch spread north above the caucuses, above the aral sea, then back down into present day iran. 4) The Indian peoples were a mix of west eurasians from present day Iran and earlier local (afro-asiatic?) hunter gatherers. The indo-aryan branch spread into the weak(drought) Indus river peoples and either caused or completed their fall. For all intents and purpose they outbred and are now extinct? 5) The (which branch) that spread east to the yellow-river of china is now extinct? 6) Every group appears to spread by male outbreeding? by Goran Dahl 1) If by Aryan you’re referring to Indo-Iranians, they came from the West originally. More specifically, the Eastern border of the Corded Ware culture, from which they are derived, i.e. Russo-Ukraine. 2) The proto-Hittites most likely spread West from the Sredny Stog culture, and then went South via the Balkans. Sredny Stog -> Usatovo -> Ezero into Anatolia, in a crescent-like pattern following the outline of the western coastline of the Black Sea. 3) The Indo-Iranians go from Eastern Europe–their point of origin–to Central Asia, and from there on to Northeast Asia and down to the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex in Afghanistan. From the BMAC, they go down into Iran and India. 4) The Indian peoples are a mix of Indo-Iranians (Steppe_MLBA), IVC people who were closely related to Iranian farmers (Iran_Neolithic) but were nevertheless a separate line, and people who were similar to the Andamanese (hence the dark skin and Australoid features). The Indo-Iranians outbred, as always. 5) Two branches reached the periphery of China: the Tocharian branch derived from the Afanasievo culture, and the Indo-Iranians (Tarim Basin mummies, Yuezhi). The Mongols of Genghis Khan’s period had significant Indo-Iranian or general North European-like admixture, and Tocharian-derived R1b clades were more widespread in their gene pool based on the samples we have available. Nowadays, local East Asian haplogroups dominate the lineages of modern Mongols to a larger extent. So it seems as though Mongols have admixture from both Indo-Iranians and the ever mysterious, elusive Tocharians. Indo-Iranians seem to have occupied all of Central Asia along with certain Chinese regions. 6) Yeah, basically. by Simon Ström Nothing of consequence has changed in this regard during the past couple of years, AFAIK. A boiling point of technological innovations was reached ~6kya causing a deluge of human mobility emanating from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Hittites descend from the first group to split from the coherent PIE language community, that we can trace linguistically. We conjecture that they traveled via the Balkan coast becoming lords of the collapsing Old European sedentary civilization in the process, which was among the richest and most developed parts of the world at the time (imagine them like the Aztecs). The PIEs projected in several directions and waves; proto-Tocharians were likely harbored by the Afanasievo culture in Siberia–essentially a twin culture of Yamnaya–that needs separate mention because they seem to have have expanded into a demographic void in Siberia, branching off just before the next key development. A period of chaos, disease and dramatic shifts on the “western front” of early PIE movements eventually brought a new political and social order upon Europe, also transcending Yamnaya and related prior cultures. A brief period of remarkable cultural homogeneity across Eurosiberia with evidence of large-scale interconnectedness in terms of movement and kinship (Corded Ware culture et al; Late PIE) coincided with an equilibration of formerly distinct “east” and “west” European gene pools (both of which were originally derived from variants of primordial h-gs and Near Eastern farmer-pastoralists having pushed north). This marks the ethnogenesis of modern white people in terms of autosomal DNA and uniparental markers in broad strokes, as the resultant genetic structure is largely intact in northern and central Europe. Then, mobility seems to have decreased again and uniformity necessarily faded. Various lineages began to differentiate into distinct cultures harboring the remaining known Indo-European languages (Nordic Bronze Age/Germanic, bronze age Brits speaking an undocumented language, Celts in central Europe and their Italic cousins and proto-Greek tribes moving south, and a “satem” group splitting into Balto-Slavs and early Indo-Iranians somewhere in eastern Europe ~4.5kya, officially ending what we define as the Proto-Indo-European language period. Göran explained well what happened with the Indo-Iranians as they expanded from south of the Urals. They were essentially very successful but drowned genetically as they inherited the prior Indus valley and Iranian plateau civilizations–however markers of their paternal ancestry are dominant to this day. In central Asia, a lot of mixing and displacement subsequently occurred with the rise of Turco-Mongols beginning in the Iron/Late Bronze Age.

  • Pre and Postwar Europe – and The World Order that Is Coming Back Into Natural St

    Pre and Postwar Europe – and The World Order that Is Coming Back Into Natural State https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/pre-and-postwar-europe-and-the-world-order-that-is-coming-back-into-natural-state/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 23:49:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264705176033771521

  • Pre and Postwar Europe – and The World Order that Is Coming Back Into Natural State

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:23 AM

    –“Anglos were against germans”–

    I disagree entirely. America prewar was 50% ethnically german and the heartland still is. America was on the german side in both wars until it couldn’t afford to be. Before 1914, Germany (manufacturing) and England (navy, market) had the same economic interdependency as china(manufacturing) and America (navy, market). The British empire wanted, as America until Trump has wanted, to restore the balance of powers – including the Russians and the ottomans. Otherwise they would not have prohibited the Russian reconquest of Istanbul, or the restoration of the german empire post napoleonic conquest. This is the problem with ‘overdoing’ capitalism (middle class government): we seek profits and stability of profits because of the expansion of economic risk under middle class government, when we should always seek the natural self interest of the great powers, and only interfere once the outcome is far enough along that we can choose sides – as we did by going after the communists. I would argue that yes, the British were swayed to jewish extractive financialism instead of Christian profiting from domestication under white mans burden, after ending the prohibition on jews in the state, and the rise of Disraeli’s government. The British problem with Germany was that in response to napoleon’s terrors in Europe, Germany unified, and began to defend her (huge) continental interests. Had we sided with Germany the empires would all still exist and the world would not have experienced communism, the failure to Complete the colonial program of world-modernization, loss of european confidence in the european program post war, jewish undermining of european, British, and american civilization post war, the immigration crisis that has almost achieved jewish cosmopolitan ends, and the coming civil war – and islam could have been transformed, because tribal boundaries would have been possible to install. The mistake was our misunderstanding of the heart of german civilization being in the north and particularly Prussian – but the french post-war wanted to ‘de-Prussify’ Germany by manipulating american morality (we’re wrong), and making it possible for France to conquer and rule the continent (as they are trying to do with the EU). Unfortunately, France chose more socialism and agrarianism than Germany, and Germany chose her traditional excellence in manufacturing, so between the german mark and german industry and german education and german culture, Germany economically rules by demonstrated superiority …. until …. there is a decline in auto sales … and germans revolt at a loss of (everything) and she re-asserts herself in defense, and they are stuck with France having confidence and the will to rule Europe, and Germans needing to restore their will to rule themselves and Europe. Yet it is France that maintains colonies in Africa, and is the origin of Jewish intellectual influence, and Muslim immigration and invasion into Europe. France has always been the enemy of Europe since she was more latinized and retained imperial ambitions and catholic church dominance, including her long standing attempt to relocate the papacy to France. It’s the Germanics that have tried to complete the transition back to SOVEREIGNTY while France continues the jewish christian (catholic) pursuit of monopoly authority. The countryside may be germanic. but France is Paris, and Paris might as well be Constantinople trying to conquer the western empire. Russia is, as I had hoped, taking over her natural position as the leader in the middle eastern sphere of influence. France is, as I had warned, still attempting her conquest of Europe and the destruction of germanic civilization – out of overconfidence and arrogance (both unwarranted). Germany is still indoctrinated by what they call their (special history) except they were in the right and need a generation to unlearn blaming themselves for what was a french, anglo, and Russian attack on their attempt to unify the germanic peoples and the lands which germanic excellence had influenced. If Germany gains independence and restores herself, then the slavic and baltic peoples will strategically, economically, align with them. The Anglosphere has time to unify again, draw ‘the rest’ of Canada into it’s sphere, and prevent the conquest of Australia by Chinese interests, thereby creating enough of a population to not be the victim of a hostile china, a powerful Russia-Islam, an islam, and a hostile french conquest of Europe. The balkans are screwed until the Russians or united eastern european Intermarium can save them by completing the removal of islam from old europe as thoroughly as the spanish have from iberia. These are not simple moral choices. They are choices necessary for western survival. All of this is made possible (a) by Brexit and (b) by american Red-Exit … or re-conquest. The latter I hope we will begin this year.

  • Pre and Postwar Europe – and The World Order that Is Coming Back Into Natural State

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:23 AM

    –“Anglos were against germans”–

    I disagree entirely. America prewar was 50% ethnically german and the heartland still is. America was on the german side in both wars until it couldn’t afford to be. Before 1914, Germany (manufacturing) and England (navy, market) had the same economic interdependency as china(manufacturing) and America (navy, market). The British empire wanted, as America until Trump has wanted, to restore the balance of powers – including the Russians and the ottomans. Otherwise they would not have prohibited the Russian reconquest of Istanbul, or the restoration of the german empire post napoleonic conquest. This is the problem with ‘overdoing’ capitalism (middle class government): we seek profits and stability of profits because of the expansion of economic risk under middle class government, when we should always seek the natural self interest of the great powers, and only interfere once the outcome is far enough along that we can choose sides – as we did by going after the communists. I would argue that yes, the British were swayed to jewish extractive financialism instead of Christian profiting from domestication under white mans burden, after ending the prohibition on jews in the state, and the rise of Disraeli’s government. The British problem with Germany was that in response to napoleon’s terrors in Europe, Germany unified, and began to defend her (huge) continental interests. Had we sided with Germany the empires would all still exist and the world would not have experienced communism, the failure to Complete the colonial program of world-modernization, loss of european confidence in the european program post war, jewish undermining of european, British, and american civilization post war, the immigration crisis that has almost achieved jewish cosmopolitan ends, and the coming civil war – and islam could have been transformed, because tribal boundaries would have been possible to install. The mistake was our misunderstanding of the heart of german civilization being in the north and particularly Prussian – but the french post-war wanted to ‘de-Prussify’ Germany by manipulating american morality (we’re wrong), and making it possible for France to conquer and rule the continent (as they are trying to do with the EU). Unfortunately, France chose more socialism and agrarianism than Germany, and Germany chose her traditional excellence in manufacturing, so between the german mark and german industry and german education and german culture, Germany economically rules by demonstrated superiority …. until …. there is a decline in auto sales … and germans revolt at a loss of (everything) and she re-asserts herself in defense, and they are stuck with France having confidence and the will to rule Europe, and Germans needing to restore their will to rule themselves and Europe. Yet it is France that maintains colonies in Africa, and is the origin of Jewish intellectual influence, and Muslim immigration and invasion into Europe. France has always been the enemy of Europe since she was more latinized and retained imperial ambitions and catholic church dominance, including her long standing attempt to relocate the papacy to France. It’s the Germanics that have tried to complete the transition back to SOVEREIGNTY while France continues the jewish christian (catholic) pursuit of monopoly authority. The countryside may be germanic. but France is Paris, and Paris might as well be Constantinople trying to conquer the western empire. Russia is, as I had hoped, taking over her natural position as the leader in the middle eastern sphere of influence. France is, as I had warned, still attempting her conquest of Europe and the destruction of germanic civilization – out of overconfidence and arrogance (both unwarranted). Germany is still indoctrinated by what they call their (special history) except they were in the right and need a generation to unlearn blaming themselves for what was a french, anglo, and Russian attack on their attempt to unify the germanic peoples and the lands which germanic excellence had influenced. If Germany gains independence and restores herself, then the slavic and baltic peoples will strategically, economically, align with them. The Anglosphere has time to unify again, draw ‘the rest’ of Canada into it’s sphere, and prevent the conquest of Australia by Chinese interests, thereby creating enough of a population to not be the victim of a hostile china, a powerful Russia-Islam, an islam, and a hostile french conquest of Europe. The balkans are screwed until the Russians or united eastern european Intermarium can save them by completing the removal of islam from old europe as thoroughly as the spanish have from iberia. These are not simple moral choices. They are choices necessary for western survival. All of this is made possible (a) by Brexit and (b) by american Red-Exit … or re-conquest. The latter I hope we will begin this year.

  • Brachycephalization

    Feb 1, 2020, 3:02 PM Brachycephalization on the western steppe after the Mesolithic Interesting stuff from the ADNABIOARC team at Scientific Reports today: Abstract: The Neolithic transition brought about fundamental social, dietary and behavioural changes in human populations, which, in turn, impacted skeletal morphology. Crania are shaped through diverse genetic, ontogenetic and environmental factors, reflecting various elements of an individual’s life. To determine the transition’s effect on cranial morphology, we investigated its potential impact on the face and vault, two elements potentially responding to different influences. Three datasets from geographically distant regions (Ukraine, Iberia, and the Levant plus Anatolia) were analysed. Craniometric measurements were used to compare the morphology of pre-transition populations with that of agricultural populations. The Neolithic transition corresponds to a statistically significant increase only in cranial breadth of the Ukrainian vaults, while facial morphology shows no consistent transformations, despite expected changes related to the modification of masticatory behaviour. The broadening of Ukrainian vaults may be attributable to dietary and/or social changes. However, the lack of change observed in the other geographical regions and the lack of consistent change in facial morphology are surprising. Although the transition from foraging to farming is a process that took place repeatedly across the globe, different characteristics of transitions seem responsible for idiosyncratic responses in cranial morphology. Cheronet et al., Morphological change in cranial shape following the transition to agriculture across western Eurasia, Scientific Reports, Published online: 13 September 2016, doi:10.1038/srep33316 See also.. Modeling Steppe_EMBA

  • Brachycephalization

    Feb 1, 2020, 3:02 PM Brachycephalization on the western steppe after the Mesolithic Interesting stuff from the ADNABIOARC team at Scientific Reports today: Abstract: The Neolithic transition brought about fundamental social, dietary and behavioural changes in human populations, which, in turn, impacted skeletal morphology. Crania are shaped through diverse genetic, ontogenetic and environmental factors, reflecting various elements of an individual’s life. To determine the transition’s effect on cranial morphology, we investigated its potential impact on the face and vault, two elements potentially responding to different influences. Three datasets from geographically distant regions (Ukraine, Iberia, and the Levant plus Anatolia) were analysed. Craniometric measurements were used to compare the morphology of pre-transition populations with that of agricultural populations. The Neolithic transition corresponds to a statistically significant increase only in cranial breadth of the Ukrainian vaults, while facial morphology shows no consistent transformations, despite expected changes related to the modification of masticatory behaviour. The broadening of Ukrainian vaults may be attributable to dietary and/or social changes. However, the lack of change observed in the other geographical regions and the lack of consistent change in facial morphology are surprising. Although the transition from foraging to farming is a process that took place repeatedly across the globe, different characteristics of transitions seem responsible for idiosyncratic responses in cranial morphology. Cheronet et al., Morphological change in cranial shape following the transition to agriculture across western Eurasia, Scientific Reports, Published online: 13 September 2016, doi:10.1038/srep33316 See also.. Modeling Steppe_EMBA