Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • How about this: what is the capital value of a high trust society? What about 15

    How about this: what is the capital value of a high trust society? What about 15 points of IQ? What about ethnocentirc harmony? Waht about rule of law? What about the civil society?

    You get what you measure.We don’t measure capital. We measure income. We do that to obscure the destruction (consumption) of genetic, institutional, cultural, informational, behavioral capital.

    How do you price those things? Well, it’s not impossible. And the cost makes almost every other cost pale in comparison.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 13:29:00 UTC

  • Well, since as far as I know, we don’t have any known hittite dna we don’t know

    Well, since as far as I know, we don’t have any known hittite dna we don’t know that. The AFAIK Armenians are iranic peoples (southern to eastern), not europeans (Northern-to-western).

    Everything I know of says that the hittites survivors moved south into the levant and eventually outbred and are lost. It’s more correct to say that the lebanese, georgians, armenians, kurds, iranians, are the closest we can claim to indigenous people of the region and the hitties were a conquering minority of european invaders whose arrival created a dispersal (mass migration) out of anatolia.

    The marsh arabs (semites) probably arrived from the southern route via the arabian peninsula, red sea, and persian gulf rather than eastern route from the indus river back across the iranian plain and into the cuacuses.

    The indo european langauge evolves (as I undersetand it) from these proto-iranic people and the steppe people cooperating-competing with larger herds made possible by the invention of animal-drawn carts (wagons->chariots) – yurts on wheels – that allowed them to take supplies with them onto the steppe. They developed lactose tolerance into adulthood by substituting fresh water consmption for milk consumption, and gaining the 40% more calories from that than traditional food sources by doing so.

    Whatever the relationship, the grops shared a language and culture but still separated and behavied differently as they expanded iranic-east into india (repeating the iranic agrarian invasion in india of 4000 bc, and european-west (repeating the agrarian invasion of europe in 7000 bc.)

    The metal-economy in the ancient world was much like the oil economy in the modern world. Food was the subsistence economy. Metal made states and armies possible. States and armies made professionals possible. Professionals made invention possible, and so on.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 13:23:00 UTC

  • A REPEAT OF HISTORY —“Curt: Who were the “Sea People”?— Ancestral aryans spr

    A REPEAT OF HISTORY

    —“Curt: Who were the “Sea People”?—

    Ancestral aryans spread across europe. The group that spread into anatolia were the Hittites. They rose to power about equal to the egyptians and the mesopotamians. But the hittites overplayed their hand and like today’s Turks) sought westward expansion.

    The various people of the north mediterranean allied and took advantage of it, and destroyed them. And they found it so rewarding they took out everyone in the levant. But subsequently they overplayed their conquest-hand, and like the Romans ‘ran out of other peoples’ civilizatoins to raid and the socialists (ran out of other peoples money to spend).

    This raiding resulted in the bronze age collapse, and the first (recorded) dark age. Every civlization in the east mediterranean disappeard, with a weak mesopotamia and egypt the only surviving civs.

    While mesopotamia eventually recovered, egypt only survived and never regained her previous glory. The hittites were exterminated, as were the Minoans and every other peole along the eastern med coast. The greeks even lost writing. and the story of the trojan war is, like king arthur, a story developed during those dark ages that eventually evolved into the ancient world’s equivalent of the bible.

    The ‘age of transformatino’ or what we see as ‘the great flowering of civiization and the beginning of our religious traditions’ occurs (just like the enlightenment) as they came out of that dark age. Taht’s why so much happens from 800-300bc. Just like so much happens in europe from 1400 to 1900 ad.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 12:42:00 UTC

  • An Insight Worth Repeating —“What I find interesting is that the reproductivel

    An Insight Worth Repeating

    —“What I find interesting is that the reproductively favorable traits: Height, Light Skin, Blue Eyes, Blonde Hair, Sociability, Agency, Milk, and Grain tolerance end up in Europeans thus maintaining SIGNAL neoteny without sexual neoteny as in east Asia. Despite the fact that these traits evolved in different places in different groups, europeans collected them. and it’s because of the range of eurasian genetic experimentation in varying climates and conditions. This is one of the key insights I’ve had. East Asians overplayed neoteny. Africans, Austronesians (impulsivity) and Semites underplayed neoteny (aggression). Europeans collected highly desirable features abandoning primitive rapid maturity, deep morphology, and lack of agency (Africa) without sacrificing reproductive desirability (east Asians), or carrying reproductive undesirability to extremes (Australians). In other words, Europeans selected for symbolic neoteny without significant suppression of sexual maturity. Thus creating a balance between impulsive and rapidly maturing Africans, and calm slowly maturing east Asians. It’s like the three little bears: “this one is just right”.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 12:28:00 UTC

  • THE THREE LITTLE BEARS AND EUROPEAN GENETIC PORRIDGE I don’t understand the ques

    THE THREE LITTLE BEARS AND EUROPEAN GENETIC PORRIDGE

    I don’t understand the question. Europoids are the result of ice age endurance by hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers, were then nearly replaced by Neolithic farmers. Neolithic farmers by steppe herders. We are a combination of all three, driven by male selection. (Women make nests and stay, young men expand the radius – capturing territory and women).

    Sometime around 43,000 BC, the ancestors of the Early European Farmers (EEF) split from Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHGs), and again appear to have split from Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers (CHGs) around 23,000 BC. Around 20,000 bc the glaciers stop growing.

    This produced a north-south cline we still see today from the very white north of Russia to the caucuses, from the caucuses to the not so white south of the Levant, to the not white people of southern Saudi Arabia.

    Similarly, around 24,000 bc we see the evolution of the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who rapidly expand and disappear westward into the hunter-gatherers, and eastward into what would become the Siberian-Americans.(there are no native americans. And the second wave of Siberians were more asiatic and nearly exterminated the first wave, in a cline north to south.).

    The East Asian data is slowly accumulating, but they are almost as isolated by their mountains deserts, cold, and ocians, as are the africans by the desert and oceans, so they arrive from the south, and they saw less admixture with only three events, the last one being tiny. (we dont know where their features came from – or at least I ‘m not willing to commit to any of the theories). So the agrarian expansion combined with the Han expansion (which is continuing in tibet and mongolia, and threatens Vietnam), continues. Make no mistake that the chinese are the most successful empire in history, producing the most forcible integration in history. And they do it without religion (lies). They do it with burueacratic management and time.

    The chessboard is set by the retreat of the glaciers. all these populations are somewhat distinct. As far as I know proto-populations in europe, levant, iran, and north Eurasia are as different as Europeans and Asians are today.

    By 10,000 bc the ice age is over, and the various floods result. Very shortly thereafter the domestication of animals (pigs and sheep), and very quickly the agrarian revolution begins. ~8000bc.

    Today’s populations are the result of two rapid expansions that demonstrate technology is more influential than natural selection: the agrarian expansions in Eurasia and China, followed by the IE expansion in Eurasia.

    These two expansions homogenized by hybridization (racialized) what had been a far higher number of racially distinct human groups.

    What I find interesting is that the favorable traits: Height, Light Skin, Blue Eyes, Blonde Hair, Sociability, Agency, Milk, and Grain tolerance end up in Europeans thus maintaining medium neoteny without sexual neoteny as in east Asia. Despite the fact that these traits evolved in different places in different groups.

    This is one of the key insights I’ve had.

    East Asians overplayed neoteny. Africans, Austronesians (impulsivity) and Semites underplayed neoteny (aggression). Europeans collected highly desirable features abandoning primitive rapid maturity, deep morphology, and lack of agency (Africa) without sacrificing reproductive desirability (east Asians), or carrying reproductive undesirability to extremes (Australians).

    In other words, Europeans selected for symbolic neoteny without significant suppression of sexual maturity. Thus creating a balance between impulsive and rapidly maturing Africans, and calm slowly maturing east Asians.

    It’s like the three little bears: “this one is just right”.

    But while those factors produce a sexual market value, with the sweet spots in Indian brahmins and northern Europeans along the west to east cline, the quality of life of a people is largely produced NOT by those features, by CLASS selection. In other words: domestication (neoteny). So neoteny can be achieved by any of the races and subraces with time – not much time really. A few centuries at most.

    If the group has the will for it.

    “Tech beats genes.” Physical, political-social, and conceptual-informational.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 12:17:00 UTC

  • This has explanatory power but I don’t know what research it’s coming from, and

    This has explanatory power but I don’t know what research it’s coming from, and i’m suspicious.

    —“…there were several migrations from Eurasia into Africa. The Khoi and San populations are descendants of a back-migration from Asia. Additionally, it was found that the Austronesian expansion had also stronger influence on Africa than suggested before. Between 1% to 10% of eastern Africans have East Asian-related ancestry from Austronesians.”—

    ( Göran Dahl? )

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 22:13:00 UTC

  • Conclusion from Yuan et al. 2019: —“We have shown that there are only three ma

    Conclusion from Yuan et al. 2019:

    —“We have shown that there are only three major human groups, Africans (Negroid), East Asians (Mongoloid), and Europeans/Indians (Caucasoid). Aboriginal Australians and the related Papuans, traditionally viewed as the fourth major group, in fact consist of largely European/Indian and African genomes and their unique traits might have come from admixture of incoming Neanderthals with local archaic humans.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 21:41:00 UTC

  • TESTIMONY —“I was so offended when I read “elevated intelligence of East Asian

    TESTIMONY

    —“I was so offended when I read “elevated intelligence of East Asians and Western Europeans” in your response. But I get what you are saying now! I never really understood the after effects of Eugenics. In the social discourse its always framed as a bad idea that never took root. Oh Yes it did! I would like to read more about of your studies.”— (Quora Reader)

    Thanks. We are not very different really. We hybridize too quickly when there is an evolutionary advantage. The primary difference is (a) degree of neoteny, (b) size of the underclass. ( c) the technology of ‘culture’ meaning group strategy, mythology, traditions, norms, and method of persuasion(argument). (d) technology in general spreads more rapidly than cultural technology or genes.

    This means all human groups can (eventually) achieve parity if they limit the reproduction of the underclasses. This is, however, a very difficult thing to do if you need to alter a lare population (india). A very difficult thing for a government to do under democracy (modern europe, south america), and harder to do under a religion that favors the underclass (the middle east).

    This is why only east Asians and Europeans did it in the past: 1) a powerful aristocratic class, 2) homogenous enough polities that it doesn’t pit tribes or clans against one another. 3) The desire to keep the costs of conflict down (economic self interest).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 19:06:00 UTC

  • It’s more correct to say that Europeans (at least the northeast southwest cline)

    It’s more correct to say that Europeans (at least the northeast southwest cline) are a novel admixture (Race) of the most desirable traits of the (n?) founder populations, since light skin, blue eyes, light hair, height, digestibility of grains, and milk, are all preferential traits, that appeared to evolve in different areas.

    Also, while the ‘economics’ of the steppe provide us with insight into the uniquenss of western cuivlizaton, it’s not until the Yamna’s descendants enter europe and start ruling local peoples that we see the civilizational component emerge into a political strategy.

    Hopefully my eplanation of steppe life will make the western model intuitive because that narrative demystifies our origins.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 16:12:00 UTC

  • by Adam Voight I have been reading the Bible of late, and it seems that its core

    by Adam Voight

    I have been reading the Bible of late, and it seems that its core theme is race, by which I mean a group of people with:

    1) common ancestry

    2) who recognize each other

    3) who are natural allies

    4) who have a common moral valuation

    5) who serve the same God(s)

    #4 is shown that for every major plot-turn in the Biblical meta-narrative, the human race divides into on side that makes the proper choice and one or many that choose wrongly or are simply chosen by God as being the “bad guys”. And for each and everyone of these, the latter inherits some form of “sin” and the former inherits a “covenant” with God.

    1) Adam/Eve/Serpent all inherit sin and punishment

    2) Abel/Cain

    3) Noah/ everyone else

    4) Abraham/ everyone else e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah

    5) Jacob/Esau

    6) Israel/Egypt

    etc.

    And finally, Us and the “Pharisees”, with whom we have so much difficulty.

    Jesus to the Pharisees: “Ye are of your father the Devil…”Look it up; the Gospel of John was the last to be written; by then the difficulties with the Jews had become more obvious and violent. Notice how Devil = lies and deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 13:04:00 UTC