The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Skulls for the Skull Throne!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

vereshchagin-apotheosis-of-war

Vasily Vereshchagin. Apotheosis of War (1871).

There have recently been discussions on Mesoamerican civilizations prior to the Spanish incursions on this blog, in light of the recently unearthed racks of thousands of skulls sacrificed in honor of the blood gods.

Interesting fact about Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec Empire: With a population of 250,000 in 1519, the only demographically comparable European city at the time was Paris.

What made this especially impressive, though, was that Mesoamerica was, strictly speaking, still in the Stone Age. Nor was Tenochtitlan some freak occurrence: In 500 AD, Teotihuacán – which the Aztecs claimed descent from – had a population of 125,000, just one millennium after the appearance of cities in that region. The first Eurasian cities to reach that size were either Nineveh (~700 BC) or Babylon (~500 BC). And if we are to take the Eurasian technological period most analogous to the late Aztec Empire – the cusp of the Bronze Age around 3500 BC – then the largest city then was Uruk, which had a mere 20,000 or so c.3500 BC. Tenochtitlan was almost an order of magnitude more populous than the largest Eurasian city at its equivalent point of technological development.

Although crop cultivation in the Americas began almost coterminously with East Asia, if a couple of millennia behind the Near East, the staple crops took a great deal longer to get domesticated.

Jared Diamond might have been wrong on zebras, but I assume this from Guns, Germs, and Steel is correct:

Contrast this quick evolution of wheat and barley with the story of corn, the leading cereal crop of the New World. Corn’s probable ancestor, a wild plant known as teosinte, looks so different from corn in its seed and flower structures that even its role as ancestor has been hotly debated by botanists for a long time. Teosinte’s value as food would not have impressed hunter-gatherers: it was less productive in the wild than wild wheat, it produced much less seed than did the corn eventually developed from it, and it enclosed its seeds in inedible hard coverings. For teosinte to become a useful crop, it had to undergo drastic changes in its reproductive biology, to increase greatly its investment in seeds, and to lose those rock-like coverings of its seeds. Archaeologists are still vigorously debating how many centuries or millennia of crop development in the Americas were required for ancient corn cobs to progress from a tiny size up to the size of a human thumb, but it seems clear that several thousand more years were then required for them to reach modern sizes. That contrast between the immediate virtues of wheat and barley and the difficulties posed by teosinte may have been a significant factor in the differing developments of New World and Eurasian human societies.

However, once corn was domesticated, it seems that not only urban life but technological progress in general happened faster in the Americas. For instance, while there was a 4,000 year gap between crop domestication in the Near East and the appearance of cities, the process took just a bit more than 2,000 years in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Writing first appeared 3,000 years ago in Mesoamerica, and the Mayans had a well-developed script and relatively advanced astronomy; the Incas were probably on the cusp of literacy (e.g. they had quipu, a sophisticated counting and information storage system). In contrast, Black Africa didn’t have a single written language before colonization.

The Americans were hampered by a poorer natural resources endowment (e.g. much fewer animals that could be domesticated), and a lack of east-west “tilted axes”, which precluded information and technological exchange across a wide swathe of different civilizations. However, this factor might not have been that important, especially early on, when crossing long distances even along similar latitudes was far from trivial – especially considering that the land in between was mostly steppe inhabited by aggressive nomads, and oceanic transport was not yet well developed. Mesoamerica and the Andes civilizations would have eventually developed oceanic transport, and cut out the impassable tropical areas in between. Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians; the economic and innovation center of gravity would have kept going north, just as in the Old World it crept north and west with each passing millennium.

Meanwhile, what is mentioned far less is that the Americas also had some major advantages. First, no horses might mean much less horsepower, but it also means no nomad raiders harrying civilization whenever there’s a failed harvest, dynastic dispute, or steppe drying event. Second, corn and potatoes are much more calorie dense crops than their Old World equivalents (wheat, barley, various roots and tubers). Finally, no horses or other powerful draft animals also meant no land set aside for grazing, resulting in higher total caloric output (at equivalent tech levels), much higher population densities, and hence much larger cities. Finally, no tilted axis also means much less parasite load, even adjusting for general development, since vast areas would not trade exotic diseases with each other. Diseases overwhelmingly strike the cities, and are dysgenic, since they don’t differentiate between rich and poor (though the really rich could escape to their country retreats, like the heroes of the Decameron). Since cities have always been the main rotors of scientific and technological progress, this means that the early American civilizations simply had far more potential “innovators” as a share of their population relative to their tech-equalized Eurasian counterparts. I suspect that these factors may have more than compensated for the Americas’ lack of tilted axis and a poorer natural resources endowment.

Commenter reiner Tor suggests that these ecological factors also explained the superlative scale of human sacrifice in the Aztec Empire:

Human sacrifice was probably also a function of primitive savages suddenly achieving relatively high levels of organization and population density. Primitive savages everywhere were, well, primitive savages, cannibalism was widespread in Europe, for example. But they only had small-scale organizations, so even though Europeans a few tens of millennia ago were all cannibals, they didn’t have the organization to capture and kill so many slaves.

There is the explanation that a lack of domesticated animals meant that human meat was an important part of elite diets (while the rest of the population suffered from a dearth of vital amino acids). I just checked Wikipedia, and didn’t find the counter-arguments terribly convincing. Yes, people could eat salamanders, but it’s difficult to extract a lot of meat from them, while human meat is much easier to consume.

However, the fast rate of technological growth might have meant that sacrifice was not due to survive much longer in that region of the world. Eurasia may have reached an all-time peak in organized, psychopathic cruelty with the Assyrian Empire in 1000 BC. But less a millennium later, the continent was dominated by much more humane empires dominated by Axial Age “universalist” religions. By extension, large-scale human sacrifice may only have had a millennium left in Mesoamerica c.1519 even if Eurasia was wiped out by a gamma ray burst before Cortes set sail.

Then again, the mega-empires of the Axial Age were enabled by… cavalry armies. These armies were created to defend those empires from the nomads, as Peter Turchin argues in Ultrasociety. But no horses in the Americas. And reiner Tor makes the grisly observation that the elites would have still needed their literal pound of flesh. Maybe the Aztec Chaos cults would have been self-sustaining for much longer?

chaos-cult

 
• Category: History • Tags: Amerindians, Demographics, History of Science, Mexico 
Hide 482 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians

    Amerindians in North America had higher IQs than those in South America? Is that securely known? I would have thought that it wouldn’t be easy to get IQ data for North American Amerindians (especially ones without any European admixture).

    Eurasia may have reached an all-time peak in organized, psychopathic cruelty with the Assyrian Empire in 1000 BC.

    The Assyrians didn’t do human sacrifice anymore though, unless I’m mistaken. They just had very brutal punishments and consolidated their rule with harsh methods like forced relocation of entire peoples…but so have many other empires throughout history.
    I think the Aztecs are so horrifying (and fascinating) to modern Westerners not just because of the scale of their violence, but because of the irrational nature of it…ripping people’s hearts out to keep the sun from fading is a very alien way of thinking.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    While the Assyrians were somewhat more brutal than the Romans, the latter were also quite capable of genocidal violence, and even their entertainment was... well, watching people getting slaughtered or something.

    Anyway, the mass human sacrifice and the accompanying mass cannibalism was from a different planet.
    , @anonymous coward

    ...ripping people’s hearts out to keep the sun from fading is a very alien way of thinking
     
    No, it's just garden-variety basic demon worship. Europe never saw wide-scale demon worship because Europe is an older culture and thus closer to the original protohuman monotheism.

    Wait a bit and you'll see the same mass human sacrifice in Paris, as Europe continues to slide into post-Christian demon worship.
    , @Logan
    What probably sets the Assyrians apart is not their actual cruelty, which while spectacular was not much if any greater than that of the Greeks or Romans.

    It was the pride they took in displaying their cruelty for all to see. The crucifixion of 6000 rebels by Crassus was an unusual event, and the object lesson worked. There were no more slave revolts in Rome. But Crassus wasn't granted a triumph for doing this.

    Crucifying or impaling hundreds or thousands of people was routine, normal and something to take pride in for the Assyrians. They bragged about it.

    As, much more recently, did ISIS. Which, oddly enough, was centered in old Assyria.

    The Romans, OTOH, did not seem to take pride in their cruelty, they seemed to view it more as a necessary task.
    , @Guy Lombardo
    >Amerindians in North America had higher IQs than those in South America? Is that securely known? I would have thought that it wouldn’t be easy to get IQ data for North American Amerindians (especially ones without any European admixture).

    The average IQ for Sioux Amerindians today is ~100; although their performance IQ is equal to that of the Chinese (110-113). The same is true of the Northern Cheyenne.

    Keep in mind, that's higher than most Southern European countries, some by a full standard deviation. And of course higher than Mexicans, too.

    The verbal portion of IQ tests seems to be what brings them down; with strict education in concentration camps I have no doubt their average IQ would exceed that of Northern Europeans. The problem is they don't want to go to school and don't want to learn.

    If anything, admixture with the lowest rung of European society (which explored the American frontier) would have lowered their IQ scores somewhat.

  2. A few further observations based on the West Hunter comments.

    – eating human flesh might be more dangerous than most meats (a likely source of diseases dangerous to humans)
    – it’s highly destabilizing, both your neighbors and your oppressed populations will be disloyal and outright hostile, because they know they are a source (or at least potential source) of protein for you
    – Mesoamerica seems to have been way more violent than Eurasia relative to its development level: complex societies never had large scale cannibalism, even human sacrifice was rare (Phoenicians, anyone else?)
    – Mesoamerica didn’t seem to be moving in the “right” direction; the Aztecs were probably formerly hunter-gatherers, or at least less civilized just a few centuries before, and they were possibly more bloodthirsty than their predecessors (though probably the Toltecs and others before them practiced mass human sacrifice either)

    These were fascinating civilizations, but they were as horrible as it gets.

    Can anyone recommend a good and honest (non-SJW) book on Mesoamerican civilizations?

  3. @German_reader

    Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians
     
    Amerindians in North America had higher IQs than those in South America? Is that securely known? I would have thought that it wouldn't be easy to get IQ data for North American Amerindians (especially ones without any European admixture).

    Eurasia may have reached an all-time peak in organized, psychopathic cruelty with the Assyrian Empire in 1000 BC.
     
    The Assyrians didn't do human sacrifice anymore though, unless I'm mistaken. They just had very brutal punishments and consolidated their rule with harsh methods like forced relocation of entire peoples...but so have many other empires throughout history.
    I think the Aztecs are so horrifying (and fascinating) to modern Westerners not just because of the scale of their violence, but because of the irrational nature of it...ripping people's hearts out to keep the sun from fading is a very alien way of thinking.

    While the Assyrians were somewhat more brutal than the Romans, the latter were also quite capable of genocidal violence, and even their entertainment was… well, watching people getting slaughtered or something.

    Anyway, the mass human sacrifice and the accompanying mass cannibalism was from a different planet.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Incidentally, the chick (problem glasses and all) who wrote up the findings favors the hardcore PoMoist interpretation of Aztec human sacrifice.

    https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244

    Apart from the obvious point that the subjugated peoples very much didn't like being sacrificed and eaten, it doesn't seem that the god-kings were popular amongst the people in general. For instance, here is a fragment from Turchin's Ultrasociety:

    Human beings, including those who live in despotic states, still value fairness and equity. We can gain a glimpse of what common people thought of their despotic rulers from listening to their songs and proverbs, some very ancient. Their views were not complimentary. A Hawaiian chant dating from before the European contact describes the king as the devourer of common people: A shark going inland is my chief, A very strong shark able to devour all on land; A shark of very red gills is the chief, He has a throat to swallow the island without choking.
     
    And Hawaii was a relatively humane society, by god-king standards; they only sacrificed 10 people when their chief died.

    Come to think of it, isn't assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do... racist?
    , @Dmitry

    While the Assyrians were somewhat more brutal than the Romans, the latter were also quite capable of genocidal violence, and even their entertainment was… well, watching people getting slaughtered or something.
     
    I visited the British Museum of London two months ago - and it's very interesting to see the Assyrian art (sculptural/stone relief).

    There is room in the museum, which is entirely just showing them killing lions in many kinds of different ways - if you are a lion this is a very fucking evil culture.

  4. @reiner Tor
    While the Assyrians were somewhat more brutal than the Romans, the latter were also quite capable of genocidal violence, and even their entertainment was... well, watching people getting slaughtered or something.

    Anyway, the mass human sacrifice and the accompanying mass cannibalism was from a different planet.

    Incidentally, the chick (problem glasses and all) who wrote up the findings favors the hardcore PoMoist interpretation of Aztec human sacrifice.

    https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244

    Apart from the obvious point that the subjugated peoples very much didn’t like being sacrificed and eaten, it doesn’t seem that the god-kings were popular amongst the people in general. For instance, here is a fragment from Turchin’s Ultrasociety:

    Human beings, including those who live in despotic states, still value fairness and equity. We can gain a glimpse of what common people thought of their despotic rulers from listening to their songs and proverbs, some very ancient. Their views were not complimentary. A Hawaiian chant dating from before the European contact describes the king as the devourer of common people: A shark going inland is my chief, A very strong shark able to devour all on land; A shark of very red gills is the chief, He has a throat to swallow the island without choking.

    And Hawaii was a relatively humane society, by god-king standards; they only sacrificed 10 people when their chief died.

    Come to think of it, isn’t assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do… racist?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Come to think of it, isn’t assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do… racist?


    I don't believe that is what they do, AK. RT and GR are coming close to that description. LW seems to be saying that we shouldn't judge these people by our norms. The corollory is that all cultures are valid and of equal value.
    , @Beckow

    obvious point that people didn’t like being eaten
     
    It takes a lot of effort to avoid the obvious. That's why it takes so many years to educate intellectuals like Lizzy. But she has mastered the art: commoners liked it, they looked forward to being slaughtered and eaten.

    A bit of a slippery slope, though, who knows what will be labeled as desirable 'sacrifice' going forward.
    , @Singh
    By contrast, Vedic Aryans literally Worship their Kings despite the entire world trying to stop them.

    Also organized Islamic mass slavery with regular forced infanticide sounds bad too.

    Can atleast understand the Aztecs as being motivated by courage & bravery, certainly higher virtues than the carnal lust pervading judaic ideology.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Lizzie is less relativist when it comes to #MeToo.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1011382371801862144
    , @Guillaume Durocher
    Very interesting posts and comments.

    As further evidence, the popular Greek peasants' poet, Hesiod, complains that the local lords awarded his property to his brother: "you kept grabbing and taking much more, paying great tribute to the lords, those bribe-swallowers who see fit to make this their judgment."

    Hesiod elsewhere does speak of the heaven-blessed kings: "out of his mouth the words flow honeyed."

    And Homer, presumably singing to an aristocratic audience, has the rabble-rouser Thersites be appropriately ugly and then soundly beaten up by Odysseus.
    , @notanon
    PC requires moral relativism cos

    any behavior x defined as bad when white people do it is required to be not bad when non-white people do it.

    #

    i read somewhere (may not be true) that the Spartans had a thing once a year where they hunted and killed their Helots to keep the numbers down

    so i wonder, given the high population densities in mesoamerica, if that was the driving force there - the dominant power culling their subject tribes?
  5. @Anatoly Karlin
    Incidentally, the chick (problem glasses and all) who wrote up the findings favors the hardcore PoMoist interpretation of Aztec human sacrifice.

    https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244

    Apart from the obvious point that the subjugated peoples very much didn't like being sacrificed and eaten, it doesn't seem that the god-kings were popular amongst the people in general. For instance, here is a fragment from Turchin's Ultrasociety:

    Human beings, including those who live in despotic states, still value fairness and equity. We can gain a glimpse of what common people thought of their despotic rulers from listening to their songs and proverbs, some very ancient. Their views were not complimentary. A Hawaiian chant dating from before the European contact describes the king as the devourer of common people: A shark going inland is my chief, A very strong shark able to devour all on land; A shark of very red gills is the chief, He has a throat to swallow the island without choking.
     
    And Hawaii was a relatively humane society, by god-king standards; they only sacrificed 10 people when their chief died.

    Come to think of it, isn't assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do... racist?

    Come to think of it, isn’t assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do… racist?

    I don’t believe that is what they do, AK. RT and GR are coming close to that description. LW seems to be saying that we shouldn’t judge these people by our norms. The corollory is that all cultures are valid and of equal value.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The corollory is that all cultures are valid and of equal value.


    Maybe I should make it clear that this is not my opinion, but rather my thinking on "their" thinking.
  6. @reiner Tor
    While the Assyrians were somewhat more brutal than the Romans, the latter were also quite capable of genocidal violence, and even their entertainment was... well, watching people getting slaughtered or something.

    Anyway, the mass human sacrifice and the accompanying mass cannibalism was from a different planet.

    While the Assyrians were somewhat more brutal than the Romans, the latter were also quite capable of genocidal violence, and even their entertainment was… well, watching people getting slaughtered or something.

    I visited the British Museum of London two months ago – and it’s very interesting to see the Assyrian art (sculptural/stone relief).

    There is room in the museum, which is entirely just showing them killing lions in many kinds of different ways – if you are a lion this is a very fucking evil culture.

  7. With a population of 250,000 in 1519, the only demographically comparable European city at the time was Paris.

    But there were many large cities in Europe at the time, even if a bit smaller than Paris. Same for ancient Mesopotamia. Whereas Tenochtitlan was one and only.

    Incidentally, Constantinople/Istanbul was, at the time, at least twice as large as Paris.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    There were other large cities as well, e.g. the Aztecs's main rival Tlaxcala.
    Interestingly enough its political system seems to have been rather different from that of the Aztecs:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/it-wasnt-just-greece-archaeologists-find-early-democratic-societies-americas

    ("democratic" is probably exaggeration, I guess it was more of an oligarchy, but still pretty different from the Aztec empire).

    EDIT: LOL, I see now that this article is from this crazy Lizzy Wade. Still interesting though, even if one has probably to read between the lines somewhat.

  8. @inertial

    With a population of 250,000 in 1519, the only demographically comparable European city at the time was Paris.
     
    But there were many large cities in Europe at the time, even if a bit smaller than Paris. Same for ancient Mesopotamia. Whereas Tenochtitlan was one and only.

    Incidentally, Constantinople/Istanbul was, at the time, at least twice as large as Paris.

    There were other large cities as well, e.g. the Aztecs’s main rival Tlaxcala.
    Interestingly enough its political system seems to have been rather different from that of the Aztecs:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/it-wasnt-just-greece-archaeologists-find-early-democratic-societies-americas

    (“democratic” is probably exaggeration, I guess it was more of an oligarchy, but still pretty different from the Aztec empire).

    EDIT: LOL, I see now that this article is from this crazy Lizzy Wade. Still interesting though, even if one has probably to read between the lines somewhat.

  9. BTW, if this Aztec stuff interests you, you definitely need to watch Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto.
    It is a very good movie.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    iirc it was criticized because the Maya language the actors were speaking wasn't accurate.
    But yes, very good movie.
    , @AP
    It may have been his best movie.
    , @Dan Hayes
    iffen:

    Gibson's best movie: The Passion Of The Christ.

    Followed by: Apocalypto.
    , @Dr. Krieger
    Watching 'Apocolypto' (legally) is no easy task these days. Its been memory-holed. Not available to stream anywhere. DVD copy (NTSC) on Amazon costs a bit. Its not as hard to get as 'The Flim Flam Man', but not easy.
    , @Clyde

    BTW, if this Aztec stuff interests you, you definitely need to watch Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto.
    It is a very good movie.
     
    This movie is a hash of Aztec and Mayan. The Mayans did not do nearly as much human sacrifice as Azteca. Apocalypto takes place more in a Mayan environment. Just look where it was shot. Still a great movie. Mel Gibson was a driven genius to pull this off with all the filming done down there in steamy jungles and finding good, native enough actors. What a production!
  10. @iffen
    BTW, if this Aztec stuff interests you, you definitely need to watch Mel Gibson's Apocalypto.
    It is a very good movie.

    iirc it was criticized because the Maya language the actors were speaking wasn’t accurate.
    But yes, very good movie.

  11. AP says:

    A few points:

    1. It should be kept in mind that sacrifice was a central, pervasive factor in the entire Meso-American worldview and religion. The sun would stop if hearts weren’t taken out and offered to it; it wouldn’t rain if kids weren’t tortured and killed. Sacrificing people permeated all aspects of life and therefore was probably taken for granted (not necessarily loved, as people do not love paying taxes). Barring the intervention of some sort of Christ-like figure who would completely subvert and turn that culture inside-out, sacrifice probably wouldn’t disappear. It might have even become more large-scale. If the Aztecs, not Europeans, had become technologically dominant and learned to sail the world there might have massive human-sacrifice raids, with such humans being valued commodities or delicacies, that would make the African Atlantic slave trade look like beautiful humanitarianism.

    2. The conservative estimate for number of victims is 20,000 a year. That’s 2 million in a century, 20 million sacrificed at this rate in 1,000 years. Of course estimates go into 100,000 or even more per year.

    3. Intellectual advancement isn’t so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).

    4. I am not sure, however, that the Aztecs would have, on their own, eventually achieved a high level of technology. Technological achievement is largely driven by culture, it isn’t genetic directly (genetics gives us maximum capability and limits us, and it may indirectly drive culture, however). There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India. If Aztecs were isolated until 4000 AD they might have simply achieved much more sophisticated astronomical calculations and mathematics focused on astronomy or astrology, perhaps more advanced building techniques, and elaborate literatures but still not have been dramatically more high tech. AFAIK, highly intelligent Jews, prior to assimilation with the West, were mostly using their talents on developing Kabbalah or finding numerical patterns in the Bible or whatever. Technological achievement requires the cognitive capacity to achieve it, but also a worldview that motivates it.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    The sun would stop if hearts weren’t taken out and offered to it; it wouldn’t rain if kids weren’t tortured and killed
     
    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?

    It strikes me as qualitatively the same.

    If the Aztecs erred, it was perhaps - perhaps - in their metaphysics. I say perhaps because if we can practice intellectual distance - "meta-cognition" - I do not know if the American idea that we must destroy millions of Vietnamese and use napalm and Agent Orange to propitiate our own "Sun God" is any less silly.

    It seems we all have our Sun God to which we must offer our hecatombs.

    The two World Wars may be seen as massive human sacrifice to our Sun God.

    Violence seems embedded in human nature. The Aztecs seemed merely more honest about - they literally thought it was necessary to keep Chaos at bay and the world from ending. Do we not think the same thing?
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    1. It should be kept in mind that sacrifice was a central, pervasive factor in the entire Meso-American worldview and religion... It might have even become more large-scale. If the Aztecs, not Europeans, had become technologically dominant and learned to sail the world there might have massive human-sacrifice raids, with such humans being valued commodities or delicacies, that would make the African Atlantic slave trade look like beautiful humanitarianism.
     
    An interesting alt history, and yes, I agree that it's plausible.

    3. Intellectual advancement isn’t so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).
     
    I have read about this from Unz's essays, but wasn't Jensen making these arguments in the 1970s?

    As Jason Richwine showed, benefitting from two more decades of accumulated data, third- and even fourth-generation Mexican-Americans in the US don't converge to White norms.

    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2009-richwine.pdf (e.g. see pg. 44)

    This also extends to socio-economic success: "Some scholars have extended the generational analysis even farther. Samuel Huntington (2004, 230-243) has summarized how specifically Mexican economic and social integration has lagged even into the fourth generation. Huntington cites a 1990 study showing that the percentage of Mexican households with incomes greater than $50,000 rises from 7% in the first generation to 11% in the second. But the statistic in the third and fourth generations stays right at 11%, at a time when the national rate (excluding Mexicans) was 25%. 41% of fourth generation Mexican-Americans also lacked a high school degree in 1989 and 1990, compared to 24% of all other Americans."

    4. I am not sure, however, that the Aztecs would have, on their own, eventually achieved a high level of technology. Technological achievement is largely driven by culture, it isn’t genetic directly (genetics gives us maximum capability and limits us, and it may indirectly drive culture, however). There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India.
     
    My own opinion on this (though veering off-topic) is that (1) North Europeans are more intelligent than Indians (some Brahmin smart fractions aside) and than Middle Easterners, and (2) they are less rigidly conformist than East Asians, and weren't hampered by a character based writing system (which suppresses the real literacy rate). [Jaychick would also mention the Hajnal Line, which surely helped too, but I think it was the least important of these reasons].

    North European success had more to do IMO with the innovations that allowed the intensification of agriculture in Europe's northern regions, and the associated greater urbanization and literacy. The Church helped by promoting literacy - this was supercharged by the appearance of Protestantism, with its emphasis on a personal connection of God, which required you to read and understand the Bible - but Christianity was hardly unique as a religion that promoted learning.
    , @Mr. Hack

    Barring the intervention of some sort of Christ-like figure who would completely subvert and turn that culture inside-out, sacrifice probably wouldn’t disappear. It might have even become more large-scale.
     
    But Christ, however, was not a part of some sort of interchangeable set of god figures. His being and one time atonement for all of humankind's sinful nature was a unique, one time event in the course of history. Having delved into the raw and graphic nature of human sacrifice and putting your imagination to work in seeing how things may have evolved for these Amero-Indian cultures, you must be quite pleased in retrospect as to how things worked out?

    And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
     
    Romans 8:28
    , @melanf

    . There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India.
     
    Very, very questionable statement. "something specific.... that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world " was already with the ancient Greeks. Рrior triumph of Christianity, northern Europeans-pagan colonized Iceland and Greenland and reached America.
    Rather, we can assume that Christianity has slowed the intellectual development of Europe.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I think your suggestion of the contribution of Christianity to the explosive way the (North) West leapt ahead of the rest needs qualification. After all the rate of progress was no greater in Europe before 1500 than in China or India.

    So I suggest your best Christian candidates are literate Protestant individualist readers of the Scriptures for themselves who had also imbibed ideas revolutionary vis a vis existing secular authority as well. But maybe that wouldn't have been nearly enough without
    1. Increasing wealth of classes below the landed nobility. Some of that was Inca gold trickling through via the Netherlands to British wool producers...
    2. Ideas from the sea travels starting in the 15th century
    3. The renaissance of classical ideas and learning bit by bit from about 1400.
    4. Competitiveness between European polities which was not replicated in China or Japan - though quaere India.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Human sacrifice existed in the region what if now S Russia in the fifth century.
    It existed in Africa even in the 19th century.
    The catholic church practised burning to death even in 1600, how long these practices were continued in Spain, would have to check.
    Even Calvin practised burning to death, with Servetius on green wood, it took longer to die.
    One may object that punishing is not sacrifice, for the victim there was little difference.
  12. @iffen
    BTW, if this Aztec stuff interests you, you definitely need to watch Mel Gibson's Apocalypto.
    It is a very good movie.

    It may have been his best movie.

    • Replies: @iffen
    It may have been his best movie.


    That would be Braveheart.
  13. But no horses in the Americas. And reiner Tor makes the grisly observation that the elites would have still needed their literal pound of flesh. Maybe the Aztec Chaos cults would have been self-sustaining for much longer?

    The Meso-Americans had already domesticated the Muscovy duck when the Spaniards arrived.

    As civilization spread north into what is now the United States, the noble American bison would be encountered, tamed, and ultimately domesticated. That solves the meat problem, and domesticated bison would be useful beasts of burden just as oxen are.

    Bighorn sheep would also be found, tamed, and domesticated. More meat and dairy, and wool for textiles.

    The “Great Bison Belt”, North America’s equivalent of the steppe, would also facilitate long-range overland north-south and east-west trade. America’s great rivers would become arteries of commerce as well.

    You would even end up with a North American equivalent of Eurasian steppe nomads. Mobile tribes with herds of bison (and perhaps sheep), but no horses. Armies would only be able to move at human marching speed, but they would still have excellent strategic mobility since these bison nomadic tribes would not have any supply chains.

    The Caribbean Sea and likely the Great Lakes as well would develop into areas similar to the Mediterranean. Atlantic Canada might develop Amerindian vikings.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @iffen
    Maybe the Aztec Chaos cults would have been self-sustaining for much longer?


    I don't buy in to the idea that it was a protein problem. It was a religious problem.


    As you stated they had domesticated the Muscovy duck, domesticated the turkey and Hugh Thomas says that they utilized over 40 species of wild ducks, iguana, quail and partidges, rabbits (how long before domestication)? How long before domestication of doves?
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Kim Stanley Robinson wrote an alternative history in which 99% of Europe was wiped out by Black Death (Amazon link below). In it, North American Indians, after a technological/political spark from the Japanese, become a continental power.


    https://www.amazon.com/Years-Rice-Salt-Novel/dp/0553580078/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531633594&sr=8-1&keywords=the+years+of+rice+and+salt&dpID=51ejCDhmLdL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch
  14. @Anatoly Karlin
    Incidentally, the chick (problem glasses and all) who wrote up the findings favors the hardcore PoMoist interpretation of Aztec human sacrifice.

    https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244

    Apart from the obvious point that the subjugated peoples very much didn't like being sacrificed and eaten, it doesn't seem that the god-kings were popular amongst the people in general. For instance, here is a fragment from Turchin's Ultrasociety:

    Human beings, including those who live in despotic states, still value fairness and equity. We can gain a glimpse of what common people thought of their despotic rulers from listening to their songs and proverbs, some very ancient. Their views were not complimentary. A Hawaiian chant dating from before the European contact describes the king as the devourer of common people: A shark going inland is my chief, A very strong shark able to devour all on land; A shark of very red gills is the chief, He has a throat to swallow the island without choking.
     
    And Hawaii was a relatively humane society, by god-king standards; they only sacrificed 10 people when their chief died.

    Come to think of it, isn't assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do... racist?

    obvious point that people didn’t like being eaten

    It takes a lot of effort to avoid the obvious. That’s why it takes so many years to educate intellectuals like Lizzy. But she has mastered the art: commoners liked it, they looked forward to being slaughtered and eaten.

    A bit of a slippery slope, though, who knows what will be labeled as desirable ‘sacrifice’ going forward.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    A bit of a slippery slope, though, who knows what will be labeled as desirable ‘sacrifice’ going forward.
     
    Wait, I know! Hideously white kids:

    http://library.flawlesslogic.com/biehl.htm
  15. @AP
    It may have been his best movie.

    It may have been his best movie.

    That would be Braveheart.

    • Replies: @DFH
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEVJ_48YgTg
    , @AP
    I like Braveheart but it seemed kind of teenage-boyish. There is a place for that, of course, and it's great for that.
  16. @iffen
    Come to think of it, isn’t assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do… racist?


    I don't believe that is what they do, AK. RT and GR are coming close to that description. LW seems to be saying that we shouldn't judge these people by our norms. The corollory is that all cultures are valid and of equal value.

    The corollory is that all cultures are valid and of equal value.

    Maybe I should make it clear that this is not my opinion, but rather my thinking on “their” thinking.

  17. @iffen
    It may have been his best movie.


    That would be Braveheart.

    • Replies: @iffen
    What are you? Some kind of fag?
    , @Bruno
    Thank you. That’s hilarious
  18. @iffen
    It may have been his best movie.


    That would be Braveheart.

    I like Braveheart but it seemed kind of teenage-boyish. There is a place for that, of course, and it’s great for that.

    • Replies: @iffen
    it seemed kind of teenage-boyish.


    Yes, to a certain extent, but most of us were teenage-boyish in the past, and we think we are a different person now, but we are actually the one and same being.

    , @iffen
    I think you should stick to the defense of Ukrainian Nationalism. You convinced me by your arguments. When you leave this area you seem to be besotted with many mistaken and incorrect ideas. That raises the question as to whether you can be wrong about everything else and be right about the Ukraine.
  19. @Thorfinnsson

    But no horses in the Americas. And reiner Tor makes the grisly observation that the elites would have still needed their literal pound of flesh. Maybe the Aztec Chaos cults would have been self-sustaining for much longer?
     

    The Meso-Americans had already domesticated the Muscovy duck when the Spaniards arrived.

    As civilization spread north into what is now the United States, the noble American bison would be encountered, tamed, and ultimately domesticated. That solves the meat problem, and domesticated bison would be useful beasts of burden just as oxen are.

    Bighorn sheep would also be found, tamed, and domesticated. More meat and dairy, and wool for textiles.

    The "Great Bison Belt", North America's equivalent of the steppe, would also facilitate long-range overland north-south and east-west trade. America's great rivers would become arteries of commerce as well.

    You would even end up with a North American equivalent of Eurasian steppe nomads. Mobile tribes with herds of bison (and perhaps sheep), but no horses. Armies would only be able to move at human marching speed, but they would still have excellent strategic mobility since these bison nomadic tribes would not have any supply chains.

    The Caribbean Sea and likely the Great Lakes as well would develop into areas similar to the Mediterranean. Atlantic Canada might develop Amerindian vikings.

    Maybe the Aztec Chaos cults would have been self-sustaining for much longer?

    I don’t buy in to the idea that it was a protein problem. It was a religious problem.

    As you stated they had domesticated the Muscovy duck, domesticated the turkey and Hugh Thomas says that they utilized over 40 species of wild ducks, iguana, quail and partidges, rabbits (how long before domestication)? How long before domestication of doves?

  20. @AP
    I like Braveheart but it seemed kind of teenage-boyish. There is a place for that, of course, and it's great for that.

    it seemed kind of teenage-boyish.

    Yes, to a certain extent, but most of us were teenage-boyish in the past, and we think we are a different person now, but we are actually the one and same being.

  21. @DFH
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEVJ_48YgTg

    What are you? Some kind of fag?

    • Replies: @German_reader
    I think he was offended that you like Braveheart, because it's so anti-English (and probably also quite historically inaccurate). That other movie by Mel Gibson about the American revolutionary war was also pretty bad in this regard.
    Apocalypto is great though.
    , @g2k
    The first bit is taking the piss out of the BBC intros which, at the time, had changed from animated numbers to various world cultures dancing. The guys that made this took exception to that and made their own to use between sketches. There was the one you saw, a stoning in Afghanistan and a punishment beating in Northern Ireland.
  22. @iffen
    What are you? Some kind of fag?

    I think he was offended that you like Braveheart, because it’s so anti-English (and probably also quite historically inaccurate). That other movie by Mel Gibson about the American revolutionary war was also pretty bad in this regard.
    Apocalypto is great though.

    • Replies: @iffen
    That other movie by Mel Gibson about the American revolutionary war was also pretty bad in this regard.

    This was a great movie as well.

    Thanks for the comment. I can't quite grasp the idea that movies are suppossed to be history and the fact that some people go sideways on the subject. It's similiar to the cliche that the movie didn't follow the book. They are two different things.
    , @iffen
    because it’s so anti-English


    I don't understand how you can make this statement. I didn't get any anti-English impression at all.
    , @Anonymous
    Of course, over the past several centuries the English have given many peoples throughout the world more than ample reason to be "anti English", having committed outrages as savage as any in human history. In my opinion the most egregious "historical inaccuracies" are those portraying them as paragons of civility, fairness and enlightenment.
  23. @AP
    I like Braveheart but it seemed kind of teenage-boyish. There is a place for that, of course, and it's great for that.

    I think you should stick to the defense of Ukrainian Nationalism. You convinced me by your arguments. When you leave this area you seem to be besotted with many mistaken and incorrect ideas. That raises the question as to whether you can be wrong about everything else and be right about the Ukraine.

    • Replies: @AP
    Was my comment wrong?
    , @Hyperborean
    We already have enough Ukraine poasting by all parties, it is no longer interesting after having had conversation after conversation with 90% old material. AP should talk more about other topics as well, it makes him more interesting.
  24. @iffen
    BTW, if this Aztec stuff interests you, you definitely need to watch Mel Gibson's Apocalypto.
    It is a very good movie.

    iffen:

    Gibson’s best movie: The Passion Of The Christ.

    Followed by: Apocalypto.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Gibson’s best movie: The Passion Of The Christ.


    It is on my list.


    The man has talent, even if he says stupid shit when he's intoxicated.
  25. @German_reader
    I think he was offended that you like Braveheart, because it's so anti-English (and probably also quite historically inaccurate). That other movie by Mel Gibson about the American revolutionary war was also pretty bad in this regard.
    Apocalypto is great though.

    That other movie by Mel Gibson about the American revolutionary war was also pretty bad in this regard.

    This was a great movie as well.

    Thanks for the comment. I can’t quite grasp the idea that movies are suppossed to be history and the fact that some people go sideways on the subject. It’s similiar to the cliche that the movie didn’t follow the book. They are two different things.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  26. @Dan Hayes
    iffen:

    Gibson's best movie: The Passion Of The Christ.

    Followed by: Apocalypto.

    Gibson’s best movie: The Passion Of The Christ.

    It is on my list.

    The man has talent, even if he says stupid shit when he’s intoxicated.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "The man has talent, even if he says stupid shit when he’s intoxicated.

    What "stupid shit" did he say?

    And why was it "stupid"?

    www.codoh.com
  27. @AP
    A few points:

    1. It should be kept in mind that sacrifice was a central, pervasive factor in the entire Meso-American worldview and religion. The sun would stop if hearts weren't taken out and offered to it; it wouldn't rain if kids weren't tortured and killed. Sacrificing people permeated all aspects of life and therefore was probably taken for granted (not necessarily loved, as people do not love paying taxes). Barring the intervention of some sort of Christ-like figure who would completely subvert and turn that culture inside-out, sacrifice probably wouldn't disappear. It might have even become more large-scale. If the Aztecs, not Europeans, had become technologically dominant and learned to sail the world there might have massive human-sacrifice raids, with such humans being valued commodities or delicacies, that would make the African Atlantic slave trade look like beautiful humanitarianism.

    2. The conservative estimate for number of victims is 20,000 a year. That's 2 million in a century, 20 million sacrificed at this rate in 1,000 years. Of course estimates go into 100,000 or even more per year.

    3. Intellectual advancement isn't so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).

    4. I am not sure, however, that the Aztecs would have, on their own, eventually achieved a high level of technology. Technological achievement is largely driven by culture, it isn't genetic directly (genetics gives us maximum capability and limits us, and it may indirectly drive culture, however). There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India. If Aztecs were isolated until 4000 AD they might have simply achieved much more sophisticated astronomical calculations and mathematics focused on astronomy or astrology, perhaps more advanced building techniques, and elaborate literatures but still not have been dramatically more high tech. AFAIK, highly intelligent Jews, prior to assimilation with the West, were mostly using their talents on developing Kabbalah or finding numerical patterns in the Bible or whatever. Technological achievement requires the cognitive capacity to achieve it, but also a worldview that motivates it.

    The sun would stop if hearts weren’t taken out and offered to it; it wouldn’t rain if kids weren’t tortured and killed

    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?

    It strikes me as qualitatively the same.

    If the Aztecs erred, it was perhaps – perhaps – in their metaphysics. I say perhaps because if we can practice intellectual distance – “meta-cognition” – I do not know if the American idea that we must destroy millions of Vietnamese and use napalm and Agent Orange to propitiate our own “Sun God” is any less silly.

    It seems we all have our Sun God to which we must offer our hecatombs.

    The two World Wars may be seen as massive human sacrifice to our Sun God.

    Violence seems embedded in human nature. The Aztecs seemed merely more honest about – they literally thought it was necessary to keep Chaos at bay and the world from ending. Do we not think the same thing?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?


    Yes, it is.


    We "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow, or, if you prefer, the earth will rotate. We did not "know" that the world would not be safe for democracy if we didn't kill a lot of Vietnamese.

    Never mind.
    , @AP

    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?
     
    Sorry, but this argument feels a little like the one claiming that Yeltsin was as murderous as Stalin because a comparable population loss occurred.

    But I'll indulge your argument anyways.

    For Aztecs, sacrifice was the point. There was no choice. There was nothing the victims could do. Gods wanted hearts, or children's tears, or whatever. Vietnamese and Iraqis could have, of course, surrendered. Americans didn't just capture them so they could meet a quota of X killed. Had Vietnam been subdued, Americans wouldn't have kept killing Vietnamese every year. Vietnam might have become like South Korea. Had Aztecs conquered Vietnam (or any other place) they would have sacrifices over and over again.

    In other words, you are conflating war deaths and "social" deaths. Aztecs also killed people in war.
    A better analogy might have been Nazis sacrificing millions of Jews and Slavs for their "god" of Aryan purity and supremacy, or Soviets sacrificing millions of people for their "god" of Communism or Marxism-Leninism. Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings. Getting gassed or shot near a mass grave beats getting one's beating heart ripped out. And while Communism and Nazism were exceptional in time and place within European society, sacrifice was universal in Meso-American society (Mayans also practiced it).
    , @Svigor
    I don't understand the need to paper over the matter of degree in the quest for cultural equivalency.

    Maybe it's the anti-American thing? I mean if you're looking for villains, communist regimes murdered like 100 million civilians in the 20th century. America's got nothin' on that.

    Bah, I guess I don't have much insight into someone who can say "the Aztecs were just more honest about it." They made mountains of skulls and ripped out children's beating hearts on a mass scale. Is "they were just more honest about it" really the first thing that pops into a sane person's mind?

  28. @AaronB

    The sun would stop if hearts weren’t taken out and offered to it; it wouldn’t rain if kids weren’t tortured and killed
     
    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?

    It strikes me as qualitatively the same.

    If the Aztecs erred, it was perhaps - perhaps - in their metaphysics. I say perhaps because if we can practice intellectual distance - "meta-cognition" - I do not know if the American idea that we must destroy millions of Vietnamese and use napalm and Agent Orange to propitiate our own "Sun God" is any less silly.

    It seems we all have our Sun God to which we must offer our hecatombs.

    The two World Wars may be seen as massive human sacrifice to our Sun God.

    Violence seems embedded in human nature. The Aztecs seemed merely more honest about - they literally thought it was necessary to keep Chaos at bay and the world from ending. Do we not think the same thing?

    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?

    Yes, it is.

    We “know” that the sun will rise tomorrow, or, if you prefer, the earth will rotate. We did not “know” that the world would not be safe for democracy if we didn’t kill a lot of Vietnamese.

    Never mind.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    So the Aztecs were wrong about the sun not rising unless they sacrificed people, and we couldn't be sure that democracy would survive unless we sacrificed people for it.

    Fair point.

    But in both cases each civilization was trying to keep what it understood as Chaos at bay.

    My point is, were we "right" that democracy was needed to keep Chaos at bay? Aren't we now seeing democracy devolve into oligarchic corruption and taboos and speech codes and anti-intellectualism returning?

    Did the hecatombs we sacrificed for democracy succeed any better than the Aztecs at keeping Chaos at bay?
  29. The Aztecs are indeed represented in the now defunct Warhammer Fantasy universe(Age of Sigmar is a farce) by the Lizardman. They were a favorite of mine, and hilariously, given the current knowledge of the Aztecs, are one of the few exceptional cases where Games Workshop versions were less grusome and grimdark than their real-life equivalents since the writers most likely thought that no culture could be that self-destructive. They were mysterious, savage and terrifying, but also fierce warriors against Chaos; wayward biological weapons of the Old Ones who still vaguely followed their original purpose.

    I’ve always loved their colorful palate and generally alien depiction, which stood out even in an universe of orcs and elves. As a concept, I’ve always thought that they haven’t been played with enough, and I join the ranks of most other lizardmen fans who repudiated GW after they basically ruined the side in their rework(now they are “people made from stardust.”)

    Priest & Warriors.

    Cold One Rider.

    The small, cunning skinks.

    Their crumbling temple cities, where they yet survive.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Lizardmen were my Warhammer: Fantasy army as well when I played in HS. Though only because they were what the starter pack consisted of. :)
  30. @iffen
    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?


    Yes, it is.


    We "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow, or, if you prefer, the earth will rotate. We did not "know" that the world would not be safe for democracy if we didn't kill a lot of Vietnamese.

    Never mind.

    So the Aztecs were wrong about the sun not rising unless they sacrificed people, and we couldn’t be sure that democracy would survive unless we sacrificed people for it.

    Fair point.

    But in both cases each civilization was trying to keep what it understood as Chaos at bay.

    My point is, were we “right” that democracy was needed to keep Chaos at bay? Aren’t we now seeing democracy devolve into oligarchic corruption and taboos and speech codes and anti-intellectualism returning?

    Did the hecatombs we sacrificed for democracy succeed any better than the Aztecs at keeping Chaos at bay?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Did the hecatombs we sacrificed for democracy succeed any better than the Aztecs at keeping Chaos at bay?


    Well, I can't help you here AB, this is something that each person had to decide for themselves.
    , @dfordoom

    Did the hecatombs we sacrificed for democracy succeed any better than the Aztecs at keeping Chaos at bay?
     
    The Aztec method was more successful. They kept offering human sacrifices and the sun kept rising so clearly the Aztec priests knew what they were doing.

    We sacrifice millions of millions of lives for the sake of freedom and democracy and at the end of the day we don't get freedom and we don't get democracy.

    Our civilisation would appear to be slightly more primitive than that of the Aztecs.
  31. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    First, no horses might mean much less horsepower, but it also means no nomad raiders harrying civilization whenever there’s a failed harvest, dynastic dispute, or steppe drying event. Second, corn and potatoes are much more calorie dense crops than their Old World equivalents (wheat, barley, various roots and tubers). Finally, no horses or other powerful draft animals also meant no land set aside for grazing, resulting in higher total caloric output (at equivalent tech levels), much higher population densities, and hence much larger cities. Finally, no tilted axis also means much less parasite load, even adjusting for general development, since vast areas would not trade exotic diseases with each other.

    Could the human sacrifice have been a population control measure?

    The calorie dense crops produced very high population densities that weren’t preyed upon by horse riding raiders or hit by diseases. In the Old World high populations would get hit by raiders and disease which would curb population.

  32. Interesting fact about Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec Empire: With a population of 250,000 in 1519, the only demographically comparable European city at the time was Paris.

    Modern Bombay has 5 times the population of Paris.

    Population estimates of Tenochtitlan vary.

    [MORE]

    HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVED IN TENOCHTITLAN?

    a population estimate of 500,000 people
    living in 5.4 square miles would have a density of
    close to 96,000 persons per square mile. Modern
    Manhattan has fewer than 67,000 … San
    Francisco has just over 14,000 persons per square
    mile; Los Angeles has roughly 7,000 people per
    square mile
    … Applying these values to Tenochtitlan, we might
    be looking at a population of between 35,000 and
    75,000
    … For now, a population of 50,000 for the city proper seems reasonable, if perhaps a bit inflated. There might have been 100,000 people if nearby cities and towns on the mainland are included.

    • Replies: @Esn
    I think that those people were used to less housing space than modern Westerners, so the population density could well have been much higher than it is today in US cities which are mainly characterized by separated large family houses, lawns, cars... Look at pueblo peoples and how tightly-packed they lived...
  33. @AaronB
    So the Aztecs were wrong about the sun not rising unless they sacrificed people, and we couldn't be sure that democracy would survive unless we sacrificed people for it.

    Fair point.

    But in both cases each civilization was trying to keep what it understood as Chaos at bay.

    My point is, were we "right" that democracy was needed to keep Chaos at bay? Aren't we now seeing democracy devolve into oligarchic corruption and taboos and speech codes and anti-intellectualism returning?

    Did the hecatombs we sacrificed for democracy succeed any better than the Aztecs at keeping Chaos at bay?

    Did the hecatombs we sacrificed for democracy succeed any better than the Aztecs at keeping Chaos at bay?

    Well, I can’t help you here AB, this is something that each person had to decide for themselves.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I've decided it - and my answer is no :)
  34. @iffen
    Did the hecatombs we sacrificed for democracy succeed any better than the Aztecs at keeping Chaos at bay?


    Well, I can't help you here AB, this is something that each person had to decide for themselves.

    I’ve decided it – and my answer is no 🙂

  35. @iffen
    I think you should stick to the defense of Ukrainian Nationalism. You convinced me by your arguments. When you leave this area you seem to be besotted with many mistaken and incorrect ideas. That raises the question as to whether you can be wrong about everything else and be right about the Ukraine.

    Was my comment wrong?

    • Replies: @Singh
    Yes.

    Northern Europe had an advanced Bronze Age Civ. until climate change hit them.

    Being a Ukranian & facing 1000 years of Turkic raids along with India & Persia, I wonder how you think this doesn't affect technology.

    A Half Jew Half Italian creates computers, makes more sense though.

    I'm continuously disappointed by Ukrainians.
    I refuse to accept that we share Sarmation & Scythian blood when all you is find different ways of bending over for Germans. *spits*
    , @iffen
    Was my comment wrong?

    I’m not sure that one can get to being right or wrong when giving an opinion on a movie, or other creative works for that matter.

    The selfless hero has a long history and has been retro-fitted and recycled thousands of times and continues to this day. To the extent that the hero appeals to our boyish teenage years then I give partial credit for you being “right.” Some people don’t “believe” in "heroes" and consider the belief in others as a sign of naivety.

  36. Esn says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome


    Interesting fact about Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec Empire: With a population of 250,000 in 1519, the only demographically comparable European city at the time was Paris.

     

    Modern Bombay has 5 times the population of Paris.

    Population estimates of Tenochtitlan vary.



    HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVED IN TENOCHTITLAN?
    ...
    a population estimate of 500,000 people
    living in 5.4 square miles would have a density of
    close to 96,000 persons per square mile. Modern
    Manhattan has fewer than 67,000 ... San
    Francisco has just over 14,000 persons per square
    mile; Los Angeles has roughly 7,000 people per
    square mile
    ... Applying these values to Tenochtitlan, we might
    be looking at a population of between 35,000 and
    75,000
    ... For now, a population of 50,000 for the city proper seems reasonable, if perhaps a bit inflated. There might have been 100,000 people if nearby cities and towns on the mainland are included.

     

    I think that those people were used to less housing space than modern Westerners, so the population density could well have been much higher than it is today in US cities which are mainly characterized by separated large family houses, lawns, cars… Look at pueblo peoples and how tightly-packed they lived…

  37. Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).

    Unfortunately for your BS:

    [MORE]

    These ~3500 years old gigantic head statues are from the Olmec Civilization which was the mother civilization of the Americas, located on the southwest coast of Mexico a relatively short ocean voyage away from West Africa.

    Btw, Amerindian mix students from South and Central America regularly beat students from Europe in the Math Olympiads.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    we wuz asstegz

    https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/TB11dmt1IBgjdQA5u7D0CyDSBfI=/1280x828/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/aztek_cover-56a100775f9b58eba4b664a7.jpg
    , @AP
    Well, let me remind you again of the great African Emperor of Japan:

    https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/v1492196419/cheats/2014/09/09/emperor-warned-against-u-s-wwii-attack/140909-emperor-hirohito-cheat_dfsehs.jpg
  38. @Bliss

    Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).
     
    Unfortunately for your BS:



    https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/bNaz4Sj8WXk-HIbVJj0CjPxZ8z8=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/WP_001012-56a58ab93df78cf77288ba95.jpg

    https://www.ancient-code.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/olmecas-cabeza-31.jpg

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/T9qfGPLnW4U/maxresdefault.jpg

    https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0e/3b/8f/59/this-is-one-of-several.jpg

    https://www.ancient.eu/img/r/p/500x600/2408.jpg?v=1485680626

    https://hiddenincatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/olmechead5-1.jpg


    These ~3500 years old gigantic head statues are from the Olmec Civilization which was the mother civilization of the Americas, located on the southwest coast of Mexico a relatively short ocean voyage away from West Africa.

    Btw, Amerindian mix students from South and Central America regularly beat students from Europe in the Math Olympiads.

    we wuz asstegz

  39. The aztecs were particularly brutal, it was religious and pretty psycho, and social organization, that people are meat, no different than animals, even within their civilization, the upper people killed, ate, and wore the lower people and the gods all ate people. It was a food chain religious world view.

    We could try to compare it to european, I have never seen any evidence or even serious rumors about cannibalism on a societal level in any period of known history. If you push back far enough, I’m sure you’ll find it, not just isolated incidents but common, but you may be talking about extinct hominids or maybe neaderthals during the ice age. The proto-groups that went into making europeans are usually called hunter-gatherers, farmers, and herders but not cannibals. Never heard ancient egyptians accused of much cannibalism.

    They certainly killed people in horrific torturous ways all the time, but it was for murder and stuff, not food.

    But to test a lot of these theories and control for some of this like the corn, let’s try to look at the Americas. I am curious so I’m searching around to see, start north of the aztecs, was there pueblo cannibalism?

    Apparently the ancestors of the pueblo were called the anasazi and yes, there was anasazi cannibalism but, apparently it only occurred in one area in one period and it’s very controversial and debated. And there are 2 counter-theories of sorts, 1 is that it was about witchcraft panic causing them to desecrate the corpses of witches. The other is that basically the aztec made them do it. There are lots of claims of invaders from the south that occupy them (and eat them) and push their religious cult on them during that time.

    http://www.jeffposey.net/2015/08/18/were-the-anasazi-cannibals/

    https://dnaconsultants.com/native-american-cannibalism-revisited/

    Also (from the second site and others) there are claims that the anasazi, to the hopi, navajo and pueblo were ‘enemy ancestors’, which could be, and that the witches were called ‘skin walkers’ which could have nothing to do with xipe totec or then again maybe.

    So that’s controversial, maybe a bit of cannibalism, let’s go further north, how about plains indians? The most cited and undisputed cannibals I found looking for that seem to be these people called Tonkawa, and we’re barely north, we’re still in south Texas. They do at least ritual cannibalism. Here is a forum post I found.

    http://historum.com/american-history/24484-tonkawa-cannibalism.html

    The post is interesting because it claims that not only the european settlers but also the surrounding indian groups, like comanche, were disgusted and offended by their ritual cannibalism, which caused the comanche to aggressively annihilate them.

    So how about the comanche, they’re full blown plains indians all over the midwest and interior west which is the next culture north of the pueblos. I cannot find any scrap of evidence or even frequent rumors that the comanche practiced cannibalism. Doesn’t mean they didn’t but I can’t find any. I can find accusations that they carved captives up, skinned them alive, and burned them (alive or dead) on the campfire, but none claim they ate them. Not even the people making claims from the ‘we need to genocide these savage comanche’ history perspective claim cannibalism as a reason.

    Not everybody does this stuff.

    • Replies: @AP
    The Inca, AFAIK, weren't quite like that either, although they did mass sacrifice. It looks like they drugged their child victims before sacrificing them:

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130729-inca-mummy-maiden-sacrifice-coca-alcohol-drug-mountain-andes-children/

    Meso-Americans were unique in terms of sheer cruelty and mass scale.

  40. @Bliss

    Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).
     
    Unfortunately for your BS:



    https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/bNaz4Sj8WXk-HIbVJj0CjPxZ8z8=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/WP_001012-56a58ab93df78cf77288ba95.jpg

    https://www.ancient-code.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/olmecas-cabeza-31.jpg

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/T9qfGPLnW4U/maxresdefault.jpg

    https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0e/3b/8f/59/this-is-one-of-several.jpg

    https://www.ancient.eu/img/r/p/500x600/2408.jpg?v=1485680626

    https://hiddenincatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/olmechead5-1.jpg


    These ~3500 years old gigantic head statues are from the Olmec Civilization which was the mother civilization of the Americas, located on the southwest coast of Mexico a relatively short ocean voyage away from West Africa.

    Btw, Amerindian mix students from South and Central America regularly beat students from Europe in the Math Olympiads.

    Well, let me remind you again of the great African Emperor of Japan:

    • Replies: @Bliss
    Emperor Hirohito looked Filipino/Malay, like a lot of Japanese. Here is his grandfather the Emperor Meiji during whose reign Japan successfully modernized:



    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Meiji_tenno3.jpg/220px-Meiji_tenno3.jpg

    http://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/7cce25f1f4.jpg

    The Japanese are a mix of at least 3 races:

    Northeast Asian mainlanders
    Malayo-Polynesian islanders
    Aboriginal/Ainu islanders

    Hybrid Vigor?
  41. @Lars Porsena
    The aztecs were particularly brutal, it was religious and pretty psycho, and social organization, that people are meat, no different than animals, even within their civilization, the upper people killed, ate, and wore the lower people and the gods all ate people. It was a food chain religious world view.

    We could try to compare it to european, I have never seen any evidence or even serious rumors about cannibalism on a societal level in any period of known history. If you push back far enough, I'm sure you'll find it, not just isolated incidents but common, but you may be talking about extinct hominids or maybe neaderthals during the ice age. The proto-groups that went into making europeans are usually called hunter-gatherers, farmers, and herders but not cannibals. Never heard ancient egyptians accused of much cannibalism.

    They certainly killed people in horrific torturous ways all the time, but it was for murder and stuff, not food.

    But to test a lot of these theories and control for some of this like the corn, let's try to look at the Americas. I am curious so I'm searching around to see, start north of the aztecs, was there pueblo cannibalism?

    Apparently the ancestors of the pueblo were called the anasazi and yes, there was anasazi cannibalism but, apparently it only occurred in one area in one period and it's very controversial and debated. And there are 2 counter-theories of sorts, 1 is that it was about witchcraft panic causing them to desecrate the corpses of witches. The other is that basically the aztec made them do it. There are lots of claims of invaders from the south that occupy them (and eat them) and push their religious cult on them during that time.

    http://www.jeffposey.net/2015/08/18/were-the-anasazi-cannibals/

    https://dnaconsultants.com/native-american-cannibalism-revisited/

    Also (from the second site and others) there are claims that the anasazi, to the hopi, navajo and pueblo were 'enemy ancestors', which could be, and that the witches were called 'skin walkers' which could have nothing to do with xipe totec or then again maybe.

    http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/xipe.gif

    So that's controversial, maybe a bit of cannibalism, let's go further north, how about plains indians? The most cited and undisputed cannibals I found looking for that seem to be these people called Tonkawa, and we're barely north, we're still in south Texas. They do at least ritual cannibalism. Here is a forum post I found.

    http://historum.com/american-history/24484-tonkawa-cannibalism.html

    The post is interesting because it claims that not only the european settlers but also the surrounding indian groups, like comanche, were disgusted and offended by their ritual cannibalism, which caused the comanche to aggressively annihilate them.

    So how about the comanche, they're full blown plains indians all over the midwest and interior west which is the next culture north of the pueblos. I cannot find any scrap of evidence or even frequent rumors that the comanche practiced cannibalism. Doesn't mean they didn't but I can't find any. I can find accusations that they carved captives up, skinned them alive, and burned them (alive or dead) on the campfire, but none claim they ate them. Not even the people making claims from the 'we need to genocide these savage comanche' history perspective claim cannibalism as a reason.

    Not everybody does this stuff.

    The Inca, AFAIK, weren’t quite like that either, although they did mass sacrifice. It looks like they drugged their child victims before sacrificing them:

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130729-inca-mummy-maiden-sacrifice-coca-alcohol-drug-mountain-andes-children/

    Meso-Americans were unique in terms of sheer cruelty and mass scale.

  42. AP says:
    @AaronB

    The sun would stop if hearts weren’t taken out and offered to it; it wouldn’t rain if kids weren’t tortured and killed
     
    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?

    It strikes me as qualitatively the same.

    If the Aztecs erred, it was perhaps - perhaps - in their metaphysics. I say perhaps because if we can practice intellectual distance - "meta-cognition" - I do not know if the American idea that we must destroy millions of Vietnamese and use napalm and Agent Orange to propitiate our own "Sun God" is any less silly.

    It seems we all have our Sun God to which we must offer our hecatombs.

    The two World Wars may be seen as massive human sacrifice to our Sun God.

    Violence seems embedded in human nature. The Aztecs seemed merely more honest about - they literally thought it was necessary to keep Chaos at bay and the world from ending. Do we not think the same thing?

    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?

    Sorry, but this argument feels a little like the one claiming that Yeltsin was as murderous as Stalin because a comparable population loss occurred.

    But I’ll indulge your argument anyways.

    For Aztecs, sacrifice was the point. There was no choice. There was nothing the victims could do. Gods wanted hearts, or children’s tears, or whatever. Vietnamese and Iraqis could have, of course, surrendered. Americans didn’t just capture them so they could meet a quota of X killed. Had Vietnam been subdued, Americans wouldn’t have kept killing Vietnamese every year. Vietnam might have become like South Korea. Had Aztecs conquered Vietnam (or any other place) they would have sacrifices over and over again.

    In other words, you are conflating war deaths and “social” deaths. Aztecs also killed people in war.
    A better analogy might have been Nazis sacrificing millions of Jews and Slavs for their “god” of Aryan purity and supremacy, or Soviets sacrificing millions of people for their “god” of Communism or Marxism-Leninism. Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings. Getting gassed or shot near a mass grave beats getting one’s beating heart ripped out. And while Communism and Nazism were exceptional in time and place within European society, sacrifice was universal in Meso-American society (Mayans also practiced it).

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Well, I would say sacrifice was not the point for the Aztecs. Keeping Chaos at bay was the point.

    If the Sun God did not require sacrifice, and the Aztecs still sacrificed, then we might say it was the point. But that wasn't the case.

    According to what they believed, the Aztecs were doing what needed to be done in order to keep the world from destruction. The Sun God would destroy the world if he did not receive sacrifices.

    In the case of Vietnam, of course if they submitted no one needed to be sacrificed. But so too with the Sun God - if he submitted to let the world survive without sacrifices, there would be none.

    In both cases, the forces in control of Chaos did not submit, and so we had to sacrifice humans.

    I would also say that whatever ideology one adopts it's a pretty certain bet that at least some fraction of mankind will not accept it and will actively oppose it. So if you understand the world in such a way that unless everyone lives by a certain ideology the world is headed for destruction, you are setting yourself up for certain war.

    In which case you are willing to sacrifice humans to keep Chaos at bay, as you understand the situation.

    The Aztecs were trying to save the world within the limits of what they understood about it, just like we.

    Qualitatively they are not unique, what is unusual about them from our perspective is their understanding of what was needed to save the world, which are so different from our ideas that we find them impossibly exotic.

    However, from the perspective of an alien, our Western belief that the salvation of the world depends on everyone living by a certain ideology called democracy, of rather recent development, and that we must sacrifice untold millions of people to achieve this, may seem as exotic as the Aztecs do to us.

    Of course I am not arguing in support of human sacrifice, but I am not sure an inhabitant of Vietnam or Iraq would rather be randomly bombed by an American plane or burn to death in a napalm attack than live in a system which sacrificed a certain percentage of its people to the Sun God.
    , @Singh
    Democracy is a Calvinist sect.

    The idea that Men cannot live in their own lands, by their own laws & customs but instead there must be 6 year old trannies strutting in high heels across the pavement of every capital; is far more Extreme than some Aztecs eating hearts.

    The Scythians you Ukranians love to LARP as did the same thing.



    You're being made into a Protestant you faggot & tbh, the nigger-muslim migrants + abortion clinics any American vassal who *surrenders* gets subjected to, is far worse & produces more casualties than Aztecas.

    Eh, w/e just a Ukranian you won't understand any of this anyway.

    Hopefully your Kings sitting in Warsaw & Moskva understand these terms I've mentioned.
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/01/crypto-imperialism-an-anglo-american-adaption-to-empire/

    What can I say? You tried to sink Perun to the depths of the sea, and today it's you who sinks.

    I fully expect Karlin & others (Chieh?) to respond with memes when they can't counter my arguments.

    This post was fairly balanced till the end,

    Any race that's come en masse to the Americas has turned rotten & been destroyed is all we can conclude.

    Karlin has changed, more of a Continental Catholic-Orthodox frame to posts now.
    , @Wally
    said:
    "A better analogy might have been Nazis sacrificing millions of Jews and Slavs for their “god” of Aryan purity and supremacy"

    Get serious. There is no proof of that impossible, laughable claim. None. Post it if you have it.


    The "Holocau$t Industry" in court:
    'Please your honor, there really are remains of millions buried in huge mass graves, we know where the mass graves are to this day, ... but, but, well, umm, we can't show the court the human remains. You must trust us, we're Zionists.'
     
    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    Chemistry of Auschwitz / Birkenau
    https://youtu.be/SUc6Y_E5zb0

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    , @Stan d Mute

    Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings.
     
    Hey now, what are you, some kinda Nazi? The Holocaust was the worst thing in human history and nothing, nothing, nothing, even comes close. And if you disagree, outside the US, you will go to prison for your ignorance.
  43. @AP
    Well, let me remind you again of the great African Emperor of Japan:

    https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/v1492196419/cheats/2014/09/09/emperor-warned-against-u-s-wwii-attack/140909-emperor-hirohito-cheat_dfsehs.jpg

    Emperor Hirohito looked Filipino/Malay, like a lot of Japanese. Here is his grandfather the Emperor Meiji during whose reign Japan successfully modernized:

    The Japanese are a mix of at least 3 races:

    Northeast Asian mainlanders
    Malayo-Polynesian islanders
    Aboriginal/Ainu islanders

    Hybrid Vigor?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    In Japan, they also have a divide between the North and South of the country:

    Japanese north–south gradient in IQ predicts differences in stature, skin color, income, and homicide rate

    Regional differences in IQ are estimated for 47 prefectures of Japan. IQ scores obtained from official achievement tests show a gradient from north to south. Latitudes correlate with height, IQ, and skin color at r = 0.70, 0.44, 0.47, respectively. IQ also correlates with height (0.52), skin color (0.42), income (0.51) after correction, less homicide rate (− 0.60), and less divorce (− 0.69) but not with fertility infant mortality. The lower IQ in southern Japanese islands could be attributable to warmer climates with less cognitive demand for more than fifteen hundred years.
     

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949

    Paper claims the Akita region of Northern Honshu island records the highest average "IQ test" scores at 108, while Okinawa Islands in the oceans furthest South of Japan, records the lowest in these test scores at only 97.

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0160289613000949-gr1.jpg

    The explanation, for the author, though, is not based on originating races of the Japanese nationality though, but a result of more recent selective pressures.


    ...there exists a simple intelligence gradient from south to north. This may be due to an almost perfect admixture within the last 1500 year (about more than 60 generations) as far as genes for taller stature and higher intelligence are concerned, as well as the selective pressures of the last 1500 years of civilization, which have been strong enough to reshape the original east–west IQ gradient into the current north–south cline. This conclusion would be in line with the Hawks, Wang, Cochran, Harpending, and Moyzis (2007) idea of ever-accelerating human evolution. They insist that more and more beneficial mutations swept populations, after the advent of agricultural civilizations with metallurgy, letters and complex hierarchical organizations. The Japanese north–south gradient in height and intelligence can be evidence that modern humans have evolved to higher intelligence within the last two millennia.

     

    , @AP
    But he looks African in that picture. Clearly the Japanese people were searching for a worthy Emperor who wasn't really related to the previous ones, and looked to the place with the most intelligent, capable civilization-makers - Africa.

    Here is another picture of Hirohito:



    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KNzahp5KstY/Uuewev7fe-I/AAAAAAAAcTo/WBL4G_v_yDs/s1600/Hirohito+2.jpg

    And here is Sudan's president:

    https://i.imgur.com/oOR4gx8.jpg

    Obviously Hirohito was chosen in Sudan, the birthplace of Egyptian civilization and thus all world civilization. Who but an African was worthy of leading the Japanese people?
  44. @Bliss
    Emperor Hirohito looked Filipino/Malay, like a lot of Japanese. Here is his grandfather the Emperor Meiji during whose reign Japan successfully modernized:



    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Meiji_tenno3.jpg/220px-Meiji_tenno3.jpg

    http://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/7cce25f1f4.jpg

    The Japanese are a mix of at least 3 races:

    Northeast Asian mainlanders
    Malayo-Polynesian islanders
    Aboriginal/Ainu islanders

    Hybrid Vigor?

    In Japan, they also have a divide between the North and South of the country:

    Japanese north–south gradient in IQ predicts differences in stature, skin color, income, and homicide rate

    Regional differences in IQ are estimated for 47 prefectures of Japan. IQ scores obtained from official achievement tests show a gradient from north to south. Latitudes correlate with height, IQ, and skin color at r = 0.70, 0.44, 0.47, respectively. IQ also correlates with height (0.52), skin color (0.42), income (0.51) after correction, less homicide rate (− 0.60), and less divorce (− 0.69) but not with fertility infant mortality. The lower IQ in southern Japanese islands could be attributable to warmer climates with less cognitive demand for more than fifteen hundred years.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949

    Paper claims the Akita region of Northern Honshu island records the highest average “IQ test” scores at 108, while Okinawa Islands in the oceans furthest South of Japan, records the lowest in these test scores at only 97.

    The explanation, for the author, though, is not based on originating races of the Japanese nationality though, but a result of more recent selective pressures.

    …there exists a simple intelligence gradient from south to north. This may be due to an almost perfect admixture within the last 1500 year (about more than 60 generations) as far as genes for taller stature and higher intelligence are concerned, as well as the selective pressures of the last 1500 years of civilization, which have been strong enough to reshape the original east–west IQ gradient into the current north–south cline. This conclusion would be in line with the Hawks, Wang, Cochran, Harpending, and Moyzis (2007) idea of ever-accelerating human evolution. They insist that more and more beneficial mutations swept populations, after the advent of agricultural civilizations with metallurgy, letters and complex hierarchical organizations. The Japanese north–south gradient in height and intelligence can be evidence that modern humans have evolved to higher intelligence within the last two millennia.

  45. AP says:
    @Bliss
    Emperor Hirohito looked Filipino/Malay, like a lot of Japanese. Here is his grandfather the Emperor Meiji during whose reign Japan successfully modernized:



    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Meiji_tenno3.jpg/220px-Meiji_tenno3.jpg

    http://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/7cce25f1f4.jpg

    The Japanese are a mix of at least 3 races:

    Northeast Asian mainlanders
    Malayo-Polynesian islanders
    Aboriginal/Ainu islanders

    Hybrid Vigor?

    But he looks African in that picture. Clearly the Japanese people were searching for a worthy Emperor who wasn’t really related to the previous ones, and looked to the place with the most intelligent, capable civilization-makers – Africa.

    Here is another picture of Hirohito:

    [MORE]

    And here is Sudan’s president:

    Obviously Hirohito was chosen in Sudan, the birthplace of Egyptian civilization and thus all world civilization. Who but an African was worthy of leading the Japanese people?

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Obviously Hirohito was chosen in Sudan, the birthplace of Egyptian civilization and thus all world civilization.
     
    It is true that Egyptian civilization originated in what is now northern Sudan and southern Egypt. It is also true that Egypt is the grandmother of western civilization (Greece being the mother), but not of all civilizations. Though it has indirectly impacted all of them.

    Your straw man attempt at humor reflects your low grade sense of it. Here is something based on fact that is actually amusing: the rabid nordicists Hitler and Himmler anointing the Japanese, led by Hirohito and Tōjō, as “honorary aryans”. Here’s Tōjō:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b4/65/be/b465be344bc7a963e49fd62508fa8961.jpg
    , @Guillaume Tell
    Why waste your time responding to that Bliss troll?

    He’s either an intelligent (relative to their 70-80 baseline) black guy who likes to waste his time trolling — or, more likely, a white nationalist troll who likes to stir up anger against blacks. In either case not a particularly interesting interlocutor. Just block him.
  46. @AP

    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?
     
    Sorry, but this argument feels a little like the one claiming that Yeltsin was as murderous as Stalin because a comparable population loss occurred.

    But I'll indulge your argument anyways.

    For Aztecs, sacrifice was the point. There was no choice. There was nothing the victims could do. Gods wanted hearts, or children's tears, or whatever. Vietnamese and Iraqis could have, of course, surrendered. Americans didn't just capture them so they could meet a quota of X killed. Had Vietnam been subdued, Americans wouldn't have kept killing Vietnamese every year. Vietnam might have become like South Korea. Had Aztecs conquered Vietnam (or any other place) they would have sacrifices over and over again.

    In other words, you are conflating war deaths and "social" deaths. Aztecs also killed people in war.
    A better analogy might have been Nazis sacrificing millions of Jews and Slavs for their "god" of Aryan purity and supremacy, or Soviets sacrificing millions of people for their "god" of Communism or Marxism-Leninism. Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings. Getting gassed or shot near a mass grave beats getting one's beating heart ripped out. And while Communism and Nazism were exceptional in time and place within European society, sacrifice was universal in Meso-American society (Mayans also practiced it).

    Well, I would say sacrifice was not the point for the Aztecs. Keeping Chaos at bay was the point.

    If the Sun God did not require sacrifice, and the Aztecs still sacrificed, then we might say it was the point. But that wasn’t the case.

    According to what they believed, the Aztecs were doing what needed to be done in order to keep the world from destruction. The Sun God would destroy the world if he did not receive sacrifices.

    In the case of Vietnam, of course if they submitted no one needed to be sacrificed. But so too with the Sun God – if he submitted to let the world survive without sacrifices, there would be none.

    In both cases, the forces in control of Chaos did not submit, and so we had to sacrifice humans.

    I would also say that whatever ideology one adopts it’s a pretty certain bet that at least some fraction of mankind will not accept it and will actively oppose it. So if you understand the world in such a way that unless everyone lives by a certain ideology the world is headed for destruction, you are setting yourself up for certain war.

    In which case you are willing to sacrifice humans to keep Chaos at bay, as you understand the situation.

    The Aztecs were trying to save the world within the limits of what they understood about it, just like we.

    Qualitatively they are not unique, what is unusual about them from our perspective is their understanding of what was needed to save the world, which are so different from our ideas that we find them impossibly exotic.

    However, from the perspective of an alien, our Western belief that the salvation of the world depends on everyone living by a certain ideology called democracy, of rather recent development, and that we must sacrifice untold millions of people to achieve this, may seem as exotic as the Aztecs do to us.

    Of course I am not arguing in support of human sacrifice, but I am not sure an inhabitant of Vietnam or Iraq would rather be randomly bombed by an American plane or burn to death in a napalm attack than live in a system which sacrificed a certain percentage of its people to the Sun God.

    • Replies: @AP

    Well, I would say sacrifice was not the point for the Aztecs. Keeping Chaos at bay was the point.
     
    But for the Aztecs, sacrifice was the only way to keep Chaos at bay. Keeping Chaos at bay = sacrifice. People were sacrificed over and over again. America did not keep invading South Korea, or Germany just to keep killings going.

    In the case of Vietnam, of course if they submitted no one needed to be sacrificed. But so too with the Sun God – if he submitted to let the world survive without sacrifices, there would be none.
     
    Sun God never submitted and could not submit. OTOH people did surrender (Japan; Germany; cease fire was established in South Korea), and when Vietnamese didn't surrender Americans eventually just left. They didn't randomly bomb the place year after year for eternity for the sake of "sacrifice."
    , @Svigor

    Well, I would say sacrifice was not the point for the Aztecs. Keeping Chaos at bay was the point.
     
    I think you probably have that backwards. The chaos crap sounds like the abstract rationalization for the rather more concrete reality of mass murder.
  47. @Anatoly Karlin
    Incidentally, the chick (problem glasses and all) who wrote up the findings favors the hardcore PoMoist interpretation of Aztec human sacrifice.

    https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244

    Apart from the obvious point that the subjugated peoples very much didn't like being sacrificed and eaten, it doesn't seem that the god-kings were popular amongst the people in general. For instance, here is a fragment from Turchin's Ultrasociety:

    Human beings, including those who live in despotic states, still value fairness and equity. We can gain a glimpse of what common people thought of their despotic rulers from listening to their songs and proverbs, some very ancient. Their views were not complimentary. A Hawaiian chant dating from before the European contact describes the king as the devourer of common people: A shark going inland is my chief, A very strong shark able to devour all on land; A shark of very red gills is the chief, He has a throat to swallow the island without choking.
     
    And Hawaii was a relatively humane society, by god-king standards; they only sacrificed 10 people when their chief died.

    Come to think of it, isn't assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do... racist?

    By contrast, Vedic Aryans literally Worship their Kings despite the entire world trying to stop them.

    Also organized Islamic mass slavery with regular forced infanticide sounds bad too.

    Can atleast understand the Aztecs as being motivated by courage & bravery, certainly higher virtues than the carnal lust pervading judaic ideology.

  48. Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians; the economic and innovation center of gravity would have kept going north, just as in the Old World it crept north and west with each passing millennium.

    Firstly, where is your evidence that northern amerindians have a higher IQ than the Central Americans? This is just another example of your irrational northern bias. Which, btw, is kind of amusing considering that some of your fellow russians see you as an alien “kebab” from the South.

    Secondly, the Persian civilization reached north into the Caucasus and Central Asia yet the center of gravity stayed in the South. And the Chinese civilization never really took hold among the northern barbarians of north asia.

    In contrast, Black Africa didn’t have a single written language before colonization.

    A lie repeated a million times does not turn into the truth. Africans were writing, building, inventing, calculating etc many centuries before Europeans:

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    that some of your fellow russians
     
    Ok Bliss has to win some kind of awards for trolling skills.
    , @Hyperborean

    A lie repeated a million times does not turn into the truth.
     
    You are right, but not in the way you think you are.
    , @Logan
    Jeez, dude.

    Egypt isn't Black Africa.
    , @Anonymous Jew
    There have now been several genetic studies done on Egyptian mummies from various periods. They were predominantly Semitic and came across the Sinai from the Fertile Crescent. Their Black admixture was in fact lower than modern day Egyptians. Around 5-10% IIRC. I'll let you Google the rest since you obviously need to get started on that anyways.

    As I once heard someone say "even the smart ones usually have light skin"
    , @Wally
    Laughable.
    You've seen too many Earth, Wind, & Fire albums.

    https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Features6/v4/53/d9/78/53d97823-d898-3c1a-22a4-250f19e7714a/dj.lbmiirfg.jpg/268x0w.jpg

    http://images.45cat.com/earth-wind-and-fire-cant-let-go-cbs-2.jpg

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFEPm0uIE9q6rRC-xKCGU03VSAm2V_Pe0z9196e7LHb5QeS4KePg

  49. @AP
    Was my comment wrong?

    Yes.

    Northern Europe had an advanced Bronze Age Civ. until climate change hit them.

    Being a Ukranian & facing 1000 years of Turkic raids along with India & Persia, I wonder how you think this doesn’t affect technology.

    A Half Jew Half Italian creates computers, makes more sense though.

    I’m continuously disappointed by Ukrainians.
    I refuse to accept that we share Sarmation & Scythian blood when all you is find different ways of bending over for Germans. *spits*

    • LOL: Mr. Hack
  50. AP says:
    @AaronB
    Well, I would say sacrifice was not the point for the Aztecs. Keeping Chaos at bay was the point.

    If the Sun God did not require sacrifice, and the Aztecs still sacrificed, then we might say it was the point. But that wasn't the case.

    According to what they believed, the Aztecs were doing what needed to be done in order to keep the world from destruction. The Sun God would destroy the world if he did not receive sacrifices.

    In the case of Vietnam, of course if they submitted no one needed to be sacrificed. But so too with the Sun God - if he submitted to let the world survive without sacrifices, there would be none.

    In both cases, the forces in control of Chaos did not submit, and so we had to sacrifice humans.

    I would also say that whatever ideology one adopts it's a pretty certain bet that at least some fraction of mankind will not accept it and will actively oppose it. So if you understand the world in such a way that unless everyone lives by a certain ideology the world is headed for destruction, you are setting yourself up for certain war.

    In which case you are willing to sacrifice humans to keep Chaos at bay, as you understand the situation.

    The Aztecs were trying to save the world within the limits of what they understood about it, just like we.

    Qualitatively they are not unique, what is unusual about them from our perspective is their understanding of what was needed to save the world, which are so different from our ideas that we find them impossibly exotic.

    However, from the perspective of an alien, our Western belief that the salvation of the world depends on everyone living by a certain ideology called democracy, of rather recent development, and that we must sacrifice untold millions of people to achieve this, may seem as exotic as the Aztecs do to us.

    Of course I am not arguing in support of human sacrifice, but I am not sure an inhabitant of Vietnam or Iraq would rather be randomly bombed by an American plane or burn to death in a napalm attack than live in a system which sacrificed a certain percentage of its people to the Sun God.

    Well, I would say sacrifice was not the point for the Aztecs. Keeping Chaos at bay was the point.

    But for the Aztecs, sacrifice was the only way to keep Chaos at bay. Keeping Chaos at bay = sacrifice. People were sacrificed over and over again. America did not keep invading South Korea, or Germany just to keep killings going.

    In the case of Vietnam, of course if they submitted no one needed to be sacrificed. But so too with the Sun God – if he submitted to let the world survive without sacrifices, there would be none.

    Sun God never submitted and could not submit. OTOH people did surrender (Japan; Germany; cease fire was established in South Korea), and when Vietnamese didn’t surrender Americans eventually just left. They didn’t randomly bomb the place year after year for eternity for the sake of “sacrifice.”

    • Replies: @AaronB
    America has rotating wars - in our 300 years or so of existing we were pretty much always at war. Now Vietnam, now Iraq. Europe has also pretty much always been at war.

    The particular ideology we are fighting for changes and the tribe we fight against changes - but we are always fighting.

    The Aztecs took their sacrifices from various tribes defeated in battle, more or less like we do.

    The Aztecs had a more consistent ideology and the system of sacrifice was more streamlined, but I still don't see how its qualitatively different.

    I also think that our total body count including the world wars probably exceeds the Aztecs.

    At the very least, would you accept that the Aztecs were acting as morally as we do based on their understanding of the universe and how it operates, and that if there is something horrific to be found in their system it is in their flawed understanding of what is needed to keep Chaos at bay?
    , @Singh
    American bio leninism is worse than formal human sacrifice & is established + kept going by war.

    Reminds himself, no point arguing with a Ukranian.

    Yes, few decent ones but Russia is confused & Poles are a hybrid race, wtf would be in between?



    Fkn Americuck

    Fk U & Fk America


    Your DUMBASS CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA MEANS YOU END UP ON THE SAME SIDE AS THOSE TRYING TO DESTROY LITERALLY HUMANITY
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/06/global-population-growth-is-african.html

    Yoruba & others have 40%+ archaic non homo sapien, so EurAsian = Human.

    Nigga, you have farmland. It's not worth destroying the world over.
    You want to fight & die, do it that's the best path but the only reason you need to come up with all this gay shit when your bloodline just loves to fight, is christianity.

  51. @AP

    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?
     
    Sorry, but this argument feels a little like the one claiming that Yeltsin was as murderous as Stalin because a comparable population loss occurred.

    But I'll indulge your argument anyways.

    For Aztecs, sacrifice was the point. There was no choice. There was nothing the victims could do. Gods wanted hearts, or children's tears, or whatever. Vietnamese and Iraqis could have, of course, surrendered. Americans didn't just capture them so they could meet a quota of X killed. Had Vietnam been subdued, Americans wouldn't have kept killing Vietnamese every year. Vietnam might have become like South Korea. Had Aztecs conquered Vietnam (or any other place) they would have sacrifices over and over again.

    In other words, you are conflating war deaths and "social" deaths. Aztecs also killed people in war.
    A better analogy might have been Nazis sacrificing millions of Jews and Slavs for their "god" of Aryan purity and supremacy, or Soviets sacrificing millions of people for their "god" of Communism or Marxism-Leninism. Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings. Getting gassed or shot near a mass grave beats getting one's beating heart ripped out. And while Communism and Nazism were exceptional in time and place within European society, sacrifice was universal in Meso-American society (Mayans also practiced it).

    Democracy is a Calvinist sect.

    The idea that Men cannot live in their own lands, by their own laws & customs but instead there must be 6 year old trannies strutting in high heels across the pavement of every capital; is far more Extreme than some Aztecs eating hearts.

    The Scythians you Ukranians love to LARP as did the same thing.

    [MORE]

    You’re being made into a Protestant you faggot & tbh, the nigger-muslim migrants + abortion clinics any American vassal who *surrenders* gets subjected to, is far worse & produces more casualties than Aztecas.

    Eh, w/e just a Ukranian you won’t understand any of this anyway.

    Hopefully your Kings sitting in Warsaw & Moskva understand these terms I’ve mentioned.
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/01/crypto-imperialism-an-anglo-american-adaption-to-empire/

    What can I say? You tried to sink Perun to the depths of the sea, and today it’s you who sinks.

    I fully expect Karlin & others (Chieh?) to respond with memes when they can’t counter my arguments.

    This post was fairly balanced till the end,

    Any race that’s come en masse to the Americas has turned rotten & been destroyed is all we can conclude.

    Karlin has changed, more of a Continental Catholic-Orthodox frame to posts now.

    • Replies: @AP
    A regular low dosage of Risperdal would do you wonders :-)
  52. @AP

    Well, I would say sacrifice was not the point for the Aztecs. Keeping Chaos at bay was the point.
     
    But for the Aztecs, sacrifice was the only way to keep Chaos at bay. Keeping Chaos at bay = sacrifice. People were sacrificed over and over again. America did not keep invading South Korea, or Germany just to keep killings going.

    In the case of Vietnam, of course if they submitted no one needed to be sacrificed. But so too with the Sun God – if he submitted to let the world survive without sacrifices, there would be none.
     
    Sun God never submitted and could not submit. OTOH people did surrender (Japan; Germany; cease fire was established in South Korea), and when Vietnamese didn't surrender Americans eventually just left. They didn't randomly bomb the place year after year for eternity for the sake of "sacrifice."

    America has rotating wars – in our 300 years or so of existing we were pretty much always at war. Now Vietnam, now Iraq. Europe has also pretty much always been at war.

    The particular ideology we are fighting for changes and the tribe we fight against changes – but we are always fighting.

    The Aztecs took their sacrifices from various tribes defeated in battle, more or less like we do.

    The Aztecs had a more consistent ideology and the system of sacrifice was more streamlined, but I still don’t see how its qualitatively different.

    I also think that our total body count including the world wars probably exceeds the Aztecs.

    At the very least, would you accept that the Aztecs were acting as morally as we do based on their understanding of the universe and how it operates, and that if there is something horrific to be found in their system it is in their flawed understanding of what is needed to keep Chaos at bay?

    • Replies: @Singh
    https://i.imgur.com/Xn1O6K8.jpg
    I can show you a Million Men, including me, who would gladly tear their hearts out for the Aztec America।।

    I don't think anyone can come up with a handful, given a million years, for their Son to march down Main Street as a Tranny in the United States of America।।

    I'll end my commenting on Karlin's blog on this note।।


    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।
    , @AP

    America has rotating wars – in our 300 years or so of existing we were pretty much always at war
     
    Not really. Korea ended in the 1950s. Vietnam ended in 1975. No real deadly wars (Granada, Panama operations don't count) until Iraq , 15 years later. Another gap of 10 years (Yugo war wasn't deadly), then Afghanistan and Iraq II. Nothing since that time.

    Also, Korea and Vietnam and Iraq I involved invasions of US allies. Only Iraq II was an unambiguous attack. So America is not "always fighting." But Aztecs were "always sacrificing."

    The Aztecs had a more consistent ideology and the system of sacrifice was more streamlined, but I still don’t see how its qualitatively different
     
    You don't see a qualitative difference between harvesting people for sacrifice, keeping them in cages and fattening them up, then using deliberately painful methods to kill them, in peacetime or in war, and a wartime bomb aimed at some soldiers' base accidentally destroying an apartment building, killing most of the people instantly?

    I also think that our total body count including the world wars probably exceeds the Aztecs
     
    Not when taking into account population size and spreading out time. Mesoamerica had about 11-16 million people before 1492 (6 million in Aztec Empire, about 5-10 million outside it among Mayan peoples, who also sacrificed). At the low estimated rate of 20,000 sacrifices per year among Aztecs and a similar number among the others, you get 4 million sacrificed over 100 years from a population of 11-16 million. This does not include the number killed in wars. But sacrifices alone over 100 years were about 25% of the of the high population estimate and 36% of the low estimate.

    At the end of the 20th century Europe had 726 million people, with another 282 million in the USA, and 30 million in Canada. So over a billion Europeans.

    For Europeans to have killed each other at the Aztec rate in the 20th century the death toll for both world wars plus Bolshevism plus Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan would have had to be 250 million (assuming high Mesoamerican population) or 360 million people (low Meso-American population estimate).

    So not even close.

    And these are mostly war deaths. Not deliberate harvesting and torturing to death of people.
  53. @Bliss

    Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians; the economic and innovation center of gravity would have kept going north, just as in the Old World it crept north and west with each passing millennium.
     
    Firstly, where is your evidence that northern amerindians have a higher IQ than the Central Americans? This is just another example of your irrational northern bias. Which, btw, is kind of amusing considering that some of your fellow russians see you as an alien “kebab” from the South.

    Secondly, the Persian civilization reached north into the Caucasus and Central Asia yet the center of gravity stayed in the South. And the Chinese civilization never really took hold among the northern barbarians of north asia.

    In contrast, Black Africa didn’t have a single written language before colonization.
     
    A lie repeated a million times does not turn into the truth. Africans were writing, building, inventing, calculating etc many centuries before Europeans:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG/1200px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG



    https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/700_f.jpg

    that some of your fellow russians

    Ok Bliss has to win some kind of awards for trolling skills.

    • Replies: @Dmitry


    that some of your fellow russians
     
    Ok Bliss has to win some kind of awards for trolling skills.
     
    Oops I thought Bliss was writing this comment to AP.

    Lol Bliss how did you miss this opportunity.

  54. But stealing other people’s national heritage for your arguments is not cool.

    Do I have to post the official posters of FIFA 2018 World Cup?

    • LOL: German_reader
  55. @AP

    Well, I would say sacrifice was not the point for the Aztecs. Keeping Chaos at bay was the point.
     
    But for the Aztecs, sacrifice was the only way to keep Chaos at bay. Keeping Chaos at bay = sacrifice. People were sacrificed over and over again. America did not keep invading South Korea, or Germany just to keep killings going.

    In the case of Vietnam, of course if they submitted no one needed to be sacrificed. But so too with the Sun God – if he submitted to let the world survive without sacrifices, there would be none.
     
    Sun God never submitted and could not submit. OTOH people did surrender (Japan; Germany; cease fire was established in South Korea), and when Vietnamese didn't surrender Americans eventually just left. They didn't randomly bomb the place year after year for eternity for the sake of "sacrifice."

    American bio leninism is worse than formal human sacrifice & is established + kept going by war.

    Reminds himself, no point arguing with a Ukranian.

    Yes, few decent ones but Russia is confused & Poles are a hybrid race, wtf would be in between?

    [MORE]

    Fkn Americuck

    Fk U & Fk America

    Your DUMBASS CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA MEANS YOU END UP ON THE SAME SIDE AS THOSE TRYING TO DESTROY LITERALLY HUMANITY
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/06/global-population-growth-is-african.html

    Yoruba & others have 40%+ archaic non homo sapien, so EurAsian = Human.

    Nigga, you have farmland. It’s not worth destroying the world over.
    You want to fight & die, do it that’s the best path but the only reason you need to come up with all this gay shit when your bloodline just loves to fight, is christianity.

  56. @AP
    But he looks African in that picture. Clearly the Japanese people were searching for a worthy Emperor who wasn't really related to the previous ones, and looked to the place with the most intelligent, capable civilization-makers - Africa.

    Here is another picture of Hirohito:



    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KNzahp5KstY/Uuewev7fe-I/AAAAAAAAcTo/WBL4G_v_yDs/s1600/Hirohito+2.jpg

    And here is Sudan's president:

    https://i.imgur.com/oOR4gx8.jpg

    Obviously Hirohito was chosen in Sudan, the birthplace of Egyptian civilization and thus all world civilization. Who but an African was worthy of leading the Japanese people?

    [MORE]

    Obviously Hirohito was chosen in Sudan, the birthplace of Egyptian civilization and thus all world civilization.

    It is true that Egyptian civilization originated in what is now northern Sudan and southern Egypt. It is also true that Egypt is the grandmother of western civilization (Greece being the mother), but not of all civilizations. Though it has indirectly impacted all of them.

    Your straw man attempt at humor reflects your low grade sense of it. Here is something based on fact that is actually amusing: the rabid nordicists Hitler and Himmler anointing the Japanese, led by Hirohito and Tōjō, as “honorary aryans”. Here’s Tōjō:

  57. @AaronB
    America has rotating wars - in our 300 years or so of existing we were pretty much always at war. Now Vietnam, now Iraq. Europe has also pretty much always been at war.

    The particular ideology we are fighting for changes and the tribe we fight against changes - but we are always fighting.

    The Aztecs took their sacrifices from various tribes defeated in battle, more or less like we do.

    The Aztecs had a more consistent ideology and the system of sacrifice was more streamlined, but I still don't see how its qualitatively different.

    I also think that our total body count including the world wars probably exceeds the Aztecs.

    At the very least, would you accept that the Aztecs were acting as morally as we do based on their understanding of the universe and how it operates, and that if there is something horrific to be found in their system it is in their flawed understanding of what is needed to keep Chaos at bay?


    I can show you a Million Men, including me, who would gladly tear their hearts out for the Aztec America।।

    I don’t think anyone can come up with a handful, given a million years, for their Son to march down Main Street as a Tranny in the United States of America।।

    I’ll end my commenting on Karlin’s blog on this note।।

    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।

    • Replies: @ussr andy

    I’ll end my commenting on Karlin’s blog on this note।।
     
    I liked your stuff though most was way too cryptic for me.
  58. @Dmitry

    that some of your fellow russians
     
    Ok Bliss has to win some kind of awards for trolling skills.

    that some of your fellow russians

    Ok Bliss has to win some kind of awards for trolling skills.

    Oops I thought Bliss was writing this comment to AP.

    Lol Bliss how did you miss this opportunity.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    This is where I found that Karlin’s Russianness is suspect in some quarters:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/portugal/#comment-2348596
  59. @iffen
    I think you should stick to the defense of Ukrainian Nationalism. You convinced me by your arguments. When you leave this area you seem to be besotted with many mistaken and incorrect ideas. That raises the question as to whether you can be wrong about everything else and be right about the Ukraine.

    We already have enough Ukraine poasting by all parties, it is no longer interesting after having had conversation after conversation with 90% old material. AP should talk more about other topics as well, it makes him more interesting.

  60. @Bliss

    Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians; the economic and innovation center of gravity would have kept going north, just as in the Old World it crept north and west with each passing millennium.
     
    Firstly, where is your evidence that northern amerindians have a higher IQ than the Central Americans? This is just another example of your irrational northern bias. Which, btw, is kind of amusing considering that some of your fellow russians see you as an alien “kebab” from the South.

    Secondly, the Persian civilization reached north into the Caucasus and Central Asia yet the center of gravity stayed in the South. And the Chinese civilization never really took hold among the northern barbarians of north asia.

    In contrast, Black Africa didn’t have a single written language before colonization.
     
    A lie repeated a million times does not turn into the truth. Africans were writing, building, inventing, calculating etc many centuries before Europeans:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG/1200px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG



    https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/700_f.jpg

    A lie repeated a million times does not turn into the truth.

    You are right, but not in the way you think you are.

  61. Commenter reiner Tor suggests that these ecological factors also explained the superlative scale of human sacrifice in the Aztec Empire:

    The Inca Empire had exactly the same technological/agricultural base. But without the human sacrifice.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    They had llamas and potatoes. They didn’t have turkeys. So not exactly the same.

    But anyway, the point is not really so simplistic that they definitely needed the protein (they could obtain it elsewhere), but ease of consumption, quality of meat, etc. all meant that they just liked their human flesh and so that made it easier to spread human sacrifice and more difficult to discontinue it, relative to Europe.

  62. This post makes excellent points. It is notable that large scale urban civilization in Peru started before that in Europe:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral

    I don’t think human sacrifice was a result of the elites not having enough protein; it’s not like Shang China, Early Bronze Ur, or First Dynasty Egypt didn’t have protein.

    “And the Chinese civilization never really took hold among the northern barbarians of north asia.”

    Iowa is not Yakutia; it is more like northern Germany.

    It is worth pointing out the populations of China, Russia, and especially Ireland skyrocketed when New World crops were introduced into their countries.

    Yes; in regards to pre-Columbian population size, it makes much more sense to compare Mexico with Asia (especially upland India) than with Europe.

    Oh; and professionally done human sacrifice was being practiced well into the 15th century AD in Peru:
    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/04/mass-child-human-animal-sacrifice-peru-chimu-science/

    So it seems human sacrifice does have something to do with lack of technological development. I suspect poor weapons technology. Not much point in human sacrifice when you can kill your enemies on the battlefield.

    • Replies: @AP
    Peruvian/Inca mass sacrifice was still on a smaller scale, was limited to children (often in times of famine - so it had a "practical" purpose) and involved efforts to sedate the victims to avoid suffering. It was very different from the Aztec mass torture which was unique.
  63. @melanf

    Commenter reiner Tor suggests that these ecological factors also explained the superlative scale of human sacrifice in the Aztec Empire:
     
    The Inca Empire had exactly the same technological/agricultural base. But without the human sacrifice.

    They had llamas and potatoes. They didn’t have turkeys. So not exactly the same.

    But anyway, the point is not really so simplistic that they definitely needed the protein (they could obtain it elsewhere), but ease of consumption, quality of meat, etc. all meant that they just liked their human flesh and so that made it easier to spread human sacrifice and more difficult to discontinue it, relative to Europe.

  64. @Dmitry


    that some of your fellow russians
     
    Ok Bliss has to win some kind of awards for trolling skills.
     
    Oops I thought Bliss was writing this comment to AP.

    Lol Bliss how did you miss this opportunity.

    This is where I found that Karlin’s Russianness is suspect in some quarters:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/portugal/#comment-2348596

  65. @E. Harding
    This post makes excellent points. It is notable that large scale urban civilization in Peru started before that in Europe:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral

    I don't think human sacrifice was a result of the elites not having enough protein; it's not like Shang China, Early Bronze Ur, or First Dynasty Egypt didn't have protein.

    "And the Chinese civilization never really took hold among the northern barbarians of north asia."

    Iowa is not Yakutia; it is more like northern Germany.

    It is worth pointing out the populations of China, Russia, and especially Ireland skyrocketed when New World crops were introduced into their countries.

    Yes; in regards to pre-Columbian population size, it makes much more sense to compare Mexico with Asia (especially upland India) than with Europe.

    Oh; and professionally done human sacrifice was being practiced well into the 15th century AD in Peru:
    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/04/mass-child-human-animal-sacrifice-peru-chimu-science/

    So it seems human sacrifice does have something to do with lack of technological development. I suspect poor weapons technology. Not much point in human sacrifice when you can kill your enemies on the battlefield.

    Peruvian/Inca mass sacrifice was still on a smaller scale, was limited to children (often in times of famine – so it had a “practical” purpose) and involved efforts to sedate the victims to avoid suffering. It was very different from the Aztec mass torture which was unique.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The Phoenician practice of child sacrifice was pretty disturbing, though.
  66. @AP
    Peruvian/Inca mass sacrifice was still on a smaller scale, was limited to children (often in times of famine - so it had a "practical" purpose) and involved efforts to sedate the victims to avoid suffering. It was very different from the Aztec mass torture which was unique.

    The Phoenician practice of child sacrifice was pretty disturbing, though.

  67. AP says:
    @AaronB
    America has rotating wars - in our 300 years or so of existing we were pretty much always at war. Now Vietnam, now Iraq. Europe has also pretty much always been at war.

    The particular ideology we are fighting for changes and the tribe we fight against changes - but we are always fighting.

    The Aztecs took their sacrifices from various tribes defeated in battle, more or less like we do.

    The Aztecs had a more consistent ideology and the system of sacrifice was more streamlined, but I still don't see how its qualitatively different.

    I also think that our total body count including the world wars probably exceeds the Aztecs.

    At the very least, would you accept that the Aztecs were acting as morally as we do based on their understanding of the universe and how it operates, and that if there is something horrific to be found in their system it is in their flawed understanding of what is needed to keep Chaos at bay?

    America has rotating wars – in our 300 years or so of existing we were pretty much always at war

    Not really. Korea ended in the 1950s. Vietnam ended in 1975. No real deadly wars (Granada, Panama operations don’t count) until Iraq , 15 years later. Another gap of 10 years (Yugo war wasn’t deadly), then Afghanistan and Iraq II. Nothing since that time.

    Also, Korea and Vietnam and Iraq I involved invasions of US allies. Only Iraq II was an unambiguous attack. So America is not “always fighting.” But Aztecs were “always sacrificing.”

    The Aztecs had a more consistent ideology and the system of sacrifice was more streamlined, but I still don’t see how its qualitatively different

    You don’t see a qualitative difference between harvesting people for sacrifice, keeping them in cages and fattening them up, then using deliberately painful methods to kill them, in peacetime or in war, and a wartime bomb aimed at some soldiers’ base accidentally destroying an apartment building, killing most of the people instantly?

    I also think that our total body count including the world wars probably exceeds the Aztecs

    Not when taking into account population size and spreading out time. Mesoamerica had about 11-16 million people before 1492 (6 million in Aztec Empire, about 5-10 million outside it among Mayan peoples, who also sacrificed). At the low estimated rate of 20,000 sacrifices per year among Aztecs and a similar number among the others, you get 4 million sacrificed over 100 years from a population of 11-16 million. This does not include the number killed in wars. But sacrifices alone over 100 years were about 25% of the of the high population estimate and 36% of the low estimate.

    At the end of the 20th century Europe had 726 million people, with another 282 million in the USA, and 30 million in Canada. So over a billion Europeans.

    For Europeans to have killed each other at the Aztec rate in the 20th century the death toll for both world wars plus Bolshevism plus Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan would have had to be 250 million (assuming high Mesoamerican population) or 360 million people (low Meso-American population estimate).

    So not even close.

    And these are mostly war deaths. Not deliberate harvesting and torturing to death of people.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    You don’t see a qualitative difference between harvesting people for sacrifice, keeping them in cages and fattening them up, then using deliberately painful methods to kill them, in peacetime or in war, and a wartime bomb aimed at some soldiers’ base accidentally destroying an apartment building, killing most of the people instantly?
     
    The main difference I see is in what is needed to keep Chaos at bay. From their respective understanding of the universe, each is doing the exact same thing.

    The only alternative would be true pacifism of the kind preached by Jesus or Buddha - but there is little qualitative difference between what our civilization has done and the Aztecs, just a very large cognitive difference about what is needed to keep Chaos at bay.

    So - not a moral difference, but a cognitive difference so vast as to appear a moral difference to one steeped in the cognitive assumptions (not moral assumptions) of his own culture and not used to practicing meta-cognition.

    Either killing humans to keep Chaos at bay is wrong - as Jesus and Buddha has said - or it is right, and then each culture will proceed to do so based on its understanding if how the universe operates.

    What we are seeing here is not a moral difference - but a cognitive one. And while it may be hard for us to see it, our own cognitive assumptions about how the universe operates may seem just as exotic and bizarre as that of the Aztecs.

    I think a Ming Dynasty Chinese might find our notion of killing vast numbers of people over "beliefs" quite as bizarre.
  68. g2k says:
    @iffen
    What are you? Some kind of fag?

    The first bit is taking the piss out of the BBC intros which, at the time, had changed from animated numbers to various world cultures dancing. The guys that made this took exception to that and made their own to use between sketches. There was the one you saw, a stoning in Afghanistan and a punishment beating in Northern Ireland.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The first bit is taking the piss out of the BBC intros


    I didn't go past the intro.
  69. A somewhat revisionist view on the Carthagian sacrifices was that sacrifces were done, of sons of the nobility, whenever the nobility started a war and lost it.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    In one of the Arthur C. Clarke/Gentry Lee Rama books, an alien civilization has a rule that if they go to war, anyone involved in the decision to go to war or the prosecuting of the war gets terminated afterwards, regardless of the outcome. The point was to make sure war was a last resort.
    , @notanon
    the story of Abraham implies sacrifice of the first child was common practice in the Levant before it was abandoned and replaced with circumcision - the old pre-PC story on Carthage was the city was founded by dissenters who didn't agree with the practice being abandoned.
  70. @Anatoly Karlin
    Incidentally, the chick (problem glasses and all) who wrote up the findings favors the hardcore PoMoist interpretation of Aztec human sacrifice.

    https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244

    Apart from the obvious point that the subjugated peoples very much didn't like being sacrificed and eaten, it doesn't seem that the god-kings were popular amongst the people in general. For instance, here is a fragment from Turchin's Ultrasociety:

    Human beings, including those who live in despotic states, still value fairness and equity. We can gain a glimpse of what common people thought of their despotic rulers from listening to their songs and proverbs, some very ancient. Their views were not complimentary. A Hawaiian chant dating from before the European contact describes the king as the devourer of common people: A shark going inland is my chief, A very strong shark able to devour all on land; A shark of very red gills is the chief, He has a throat to swallow the island without choking.
     
    And Hawaii was a relatively humane society, by god-king standards; they only sacrificed 10 people when their chief died.

    Come to think of it, isn't assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do... racist?

    Lizzie is less relativist when it comes to #MeToo.

    • LOL: reiner Tor, Escher
  71. @Singh
    https://i.imgur.com/Xn1O6K8.jpg
    I can show you a Million Men, including me, who would gladly tear their hearts out for the Aztec America।।

    I don't think anyone can come up with a handful, given a million years, for their Son to march down Main Street as a Tranny in the United States of America।।

    I'll end my commenting on Karlin's blog on this note।।


    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।

    I’ll end my commenting on Karlin’s blog on this note।।

    I liked your stuff though most was way too cryptic for me.

    • Replies: @Singh
    Buy Guns, Lift Weights & Do so While Remembering your Ancestor Sri Peruna & the Great Death MahaKala।।

    Ye I'll make one more for my cousins. :)

    Best Beginner
    https://www.powerliftingtowin.com/greyskull-lp/

    Resource
    https://stronglifts.com/

    Aryan Philosophy in One Line
    ਯਾਂਤੇਸਰਬਖਾਲਸਾਸੁਨੀਅਹਿ।।ਆਯੁਧਧਰਿਬੇਉਤੱਮਗੁਨੀਅਹਿ।।
    The Guru then said to his Sikhs, "All of the Khalsa should listen, carrying weapons is the highest action।।



    AK47 is Best
    https://youtu.be/S9p2suTKSK8

    Knife
    http://everydaycarry.com/posts/21773/the-beginners-guide-to-edc-knife-blade-steels

    Guru Sahib said to carry Carbon steel

    Pesh Kabz, Khanzar, Bichua or Kukri are Good

    The Thorfinson Stainless steel folder is insult to Manhood

    Just carry Kabar on belt loop everyday for Western Style।।

    ਸਿੰਘਰੂਪਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰਨਜੁਤਿਹੇਰੈਂ।।ਹੋਤਿਗੁਰੂਕੀਖੁਸ਼ੀਬਡੇਰੈ।।
    The appearance of a Singh [is complete] with weapons, when the Guru see's this He becomes extremely happy.

    ਕਮਰਕਸੇਬਿਨਜੋਸਿਖਜਾਇ।।ਤਿਸਪਰਰੁਖਨਹਿਕਰੈਂਕਦਾਇ।।੧੦।।
    Those Sikhs who went towards the Guru without wearing a Kamarkasa [waist band which holds weapons], the Guru would never look towards them.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170404132933/http://www.manglacharan.com/manglacharan/2016/1/11/the-merit-of-being-of-warrior-from-dasam-and-sarbloh-granth

    https://i.imgur.com/jZdXL0M.jpg

    A Dreadful War Ensued from Both Sides for the Attainment of Svarag (Heaven)

    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।
  72. @Mightypeon
    A somewhat revisionist view on the Carthagian sacrifices was that sacrifces were done, of sons of the nobility, whenever the nobility started a war and lost it.

    In one of the Arthur C. Clarke/Gentry Lee Rama books, an alien civilization has a rule that if they go to war, anyone involved in the decision to go to war or the prosecuting of the war gets terminated afterwards, regardless of the outcome. The point was to make sure war was a last resort.

  73. In Bernal Diaz’s account of the conquest of Mexico, he includes a couple of details that conflict with the stone age description. One is that the Aztecs apparently had copper axes and competent metalworkers. Why they used copper in axes but not in their weapons, he doesn’t say.

    Another detail is that Diaz says men in the expedition who’d seen the great cities of old world were blown away by what they saw in Tenochtitlan.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think pyramids are among the most impressive structures (and certainly require a great deal of organization and labor to build), but they are ultimately low tech. Essentially anything labor intensive was possible for the Aztecs, because they could have much higher population densities than Europeans, due to the lack of domesticated animals (lower quality but higher quantity nutrition), much lower parasite load (for this they would pay dearly after contact...) and the very high yields of maize.

    So basically they could build huge pyramids, which looked very impressive, and would've been impossible in Europe, but ultimately didn't require the level of development European cathedrals or renaissance palaces required.

    After Eurasian parasites were introduced to the Americas, their population densities dropped despite the introduced new technologies and domestic animals, and so Latin America became a poorer, less developed and perhaps less creative version of (then already poor and stagnant) Southern Europe. This is why it looks like as if the Spaniards destroyed something worthy and built nothing in its place, when in reality most of the destruction was inevitable, and they introduced modern architecture and other technologies, so basically lifted the place.
  74. @AP
    A few points:

    1. It should be kept in mind that sacrifice was a central, pervasive factor in the entire Meso-American worldview and religion. The sun would stop if hearts weren't taken out and offered to it; it wouldn't rain if kids weren't tortured and killed. Sacrificing people permeated all aspects of life and therefore was probably taken for granted (not necessarily loved, as people do not love paying taxes). Barring the intervention of some sort of Christ-like figure who would completely subvert and turn that culture inside-out, sacrifice probably wouldn't disappear. It might have even become more large-scale. If the Aztecs, not Europeans, had become technologically dominant and learned to sail the world there might have massive human-sacrifice raids, with such humans being valued commodities or delicacies, that would make the African Atlantic slave trade look like beautiful humanitarianism.

    2. The conservative estimate for number of victims is 20,000 a year. That's 2 million in a century, 20 million sacrificed at this rate in 1,000 years. Of course estimates go into 100,000 or even more per year.

    3. Intellectual advancement isn't so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).

    4. I am not sure, however, that the Aztecs would have, on their own, eventually achieved a high level of technology. Technological achievement is largely driven by culture, it isn't genetic directly (genetics gives us maximum capability and limits us, and it may indirectly drive culture, however). There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India. If Aztecs were isolated until 4000 AD they might have simply achieved much more sophisticated astronomical calculations and mathematics focused on astronomy or astrology, perhaps more advanced building techniques, and elaborate literatures but still not have been dramatically more high tech. AFAIK, highly intelligent Jews, prior to assimilation with the West, were mostly using their talents on developing Kabbalah or finding numerical patterns in the Bible or whatever. Technological achievement requires the cognitive capacity to achieve it, but also a worldview that motivates it.

    1. It should be kept in mind that sacrifice was a central, pervasive factor in the entire Meso-American worldview and religion… It might have even become more large-scale. If the Aztecs, not Europeans, had become technologically dominant and learned to sail the world there might have massive human-sacrifice raids, with such humans being valued commodities or delicacies, that would make the African Atlantic slave trade look like beautiful humanitarianism.

    An interesting alt history, and yes, I agree that it’s plausible.

    3. Intellectual advancement isn’t so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).

    I have read about this from Unz’s essays, but wasn’t Jensen making these arguments in the 1970s?

    As Jason Richwine showed, benefitting from two more decades of accumulated data, third- and even fourth-generation Mexican-Americans in the US don’t converge to White norms.

    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2009-richwine.pdf (e.g. see pg. 44)

    This also extends to socio-economic success: “Some scholars have extended the generational analysis even farther. Samuel Huntington (2004, 230-243) has summarized how specifically Mexican economic and social integration has lagged even into the fourth generation. Huntington cites a 1990 study showing that the percentage of Mexican households with incomes greater than $50,000 rises from 7% in the first generation to 11% in the second. But the statistic in the third and fourth generations stays right at 11%, at a time when the national rate (excluding Mexicans) was 25%. 41% of fourth generation Mexican-Americans also lacked a high school degree in 1989 and 1990, compared to 24% of all other Americans.

    4. I am not sure, however, that the Aztecs would have, on their own, eventually achieved a high level of technology. Technological achievement is largely driven by culture, it isn’t genetic directly (genetics gives us maximum capability and limits us, and it may indirectly drive culture, however). There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India.

    My own opinion on this (though veering off-topic) is that (1) North Europeans are more intelligent than Indians (some Brahmin smart fractions aside) and than Middle Easterners, and (2) they are less rigidly conformist than East Asians, and weren’t hampered by a character based writing system (which suppresses the real literacy rate). [Jaychick would also mention the Hajnal Line, which surely helped too, but I think it was the least important of these reasons].

    North European success had more to do IMO with the innovations that allowed the intensification of agriculture in Europe’s northern regions, and the associated greater urbanization and literacy. The Church helped by promoting literacy – this was supercharged by the appearance of Protestantism, with its emphasis on a personal connection of God, which required you to read and understand the Bible – but Christianity was hardly unique as a religion that promoted learning.

    • Replies: @AP

    3. "Intellectual advancement isn’t so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans)."

    I have read about this from Unz’s essays, but wasn’t Jensen making these arguments in the 1970s?
     
    Correct. But I don't think he revised it, nor AFAIK had his 1970s observations debunked. So if indeed the nature of their low IQs resembles that of 19th century Irish rather than Africans, the explanation for ongoing lags being probably environmental is still compelling. Perhaps the flood of new immigrants keeps later generations down. Does the pattern for poor performance in later generations hold in places with few Mexicans (how do Mexicans do there after several generation?). America stopped all immigration in the 1920s. What if Italian ghettos or Irish had continued being Italian or Irish ghettos due to the flood never ending. Would there have been improvement in later generations?

    but Christianity was hardly unique as a religion that promoted learning.
     
    Correct. But promoting learning was only part of it. Teaching that the world was Man's dominion, that people were made in God's image and thus "above" nature, that the world was a rational place that could be studied and therefore manipulated, that it was pleasing to God to study and manipulate nature because learning about His world was to learn about Him, all fostered technological advancement. You see this even in Dark Ages monasteries were monks were working on alchemy or trying to create perpetual motion machines. Compare this to the more fatalistic Eastern worldview - Buddhism with its idea that the world was only an illusion. This might promote learning but not technology. Technological advancement would still occur but it would be very slow, by happenstance, and often rejected due to not being valued or never fully applied.

    Of course one cannot exclude genetic temperamental factors. Christianity may have "taken" among Europeans very well because it may have matched their temperaments, which are genetic (although society also shapes genetic temperaments - it is a complex 2-way process). But without Christianity, Europeans had been savages for millennia and would probably have continued being so.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    The barbarian invasions are correctly considered as a net negative for development, but perhaps they helped speed up the development of Germany (the part never ruled by Rome) and Scandinavia.

    The most important development was the moldboard plough. I'm not an expert on agriculture (though I did just learn a lot about silage--very interesting), but to my knowledge prior to the invention of the moldboard plough intensive cropping was only economic in relatively soft soil such as loess, loam, and volcanic soils.

    I don't think Northern Europe has any loess at all, and while loam exists on the North European plain (and England) it doesn't in the Nordic area.

    The "Black Earth" of the Ukraine, the Mississippi River Valley, and the Loess Plateau (directly connected to the North China Plain) are incidentally the world's greatest concentrated centers of loess. Which really explains a lot.

    Also important were rye and oats. These grains were known to the Greeks and Romans, but either despised or considered only fit for forage. They probably had a point for their climactic conditions. Rye is vulnerable to fungus and oats must be dried before storage.

    The harsh winters surely served as a serious problem. Even in modern times Northern climes must invest consider resources in snow removal and deicing.

    Northern Europeans would've suffered from lower agricultural productivity for the following reasons:

    • Shorter growing seasons
    • Increased hay production requirements for draft animals
    • Increased caloric requirements for both people and draft animals in winter
    • More timberland required for fuel (hence the itechniques like coppicing)

    This all requires more physical capital as well relative to the Mediterraneans, at a time when physical capital was extremely expensive. More and larger barns and silos. More and larger hearths and fireplaces. Denser textiles containing more fiber and requiring more labor to weave and knit. A lot of work you could do with primitive tools in the Mediterranean would require iron tools in Northern Europe, at least for much of the year.

    Some agricultural technologies very helpful in Northern climes also took a very long time to invent. Winter wheat (apparently an Anatolian grain adapted for Russian conditions by Volga Germans) and silage for instance date only to the 19th century. The late invention of silage is somewhat shocking given the long history of fermented foods globally.

    Really the rapid convergence (in macrohistorical terms) of Northern Europe with the Mediterranean after Late Antiquity was quite remarkable. Northern Europe also weathered the Little Ice Age without skipping a beat, whereas similar events have frequently led to civilizational collapse at other times and in better climes.

  75. @German_reader

    Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians
     
    Amerindians in North America had higher IQs than those in South America? Is that securely known? I would have thought that it wouldn't be easy to get IQ data for North American Amerindians (especially ones without any European admixture).

    Eurasia may have reached an all-time peak in organized, psychopathic cruelty with the Assyrian Empire in 1000 BC.
     
    The Assyrians didn't do human sacrifice anymore though, unless I'm mistaken. They just had very brutal punishments and consolidated their rule with harsh methods like forced relocation of entire peoples...but so have many other empires throughout history.
    I think the Aztecs are so horrifying (and fascinating) to modern Westerners not just because of the scale of their violence, but because of the irrational nature of it...ripping people's hearts out to keep the sun from fading is a very alien way of thinking.

    …ripping people’s hearts out to keep the sun from fading is a very alien way of thinking

    No, it’s just garden-variety basic demon worship. Europe never saw wide-scale demon worship because Europe is an older culture and thus closer to the original protohuman monotheism.

    Wait a bit and you’ll see the same mass human sacrifice in Paris, as Europe continues to slide into post-Christian demon worship.

    • Replies: @AP
    I actually agree with your first paragraph. But you slip back to your usual self in the second.
  76. @Daniel Chieh
    The Aztecs are indeed represented in the now defunct Warhammer Fantasy universe(Age of Sigmar is a farce) by the Lizardman. They were a favorite of mine, and hilariously, given the current knowledge of the Aztecs, are one of the few exceptional cases where Games Workshop versions were less grusome and grimdark than their real-life equivalents since the writers most likely thought that no culture could be that self-destructive. They were mysterious, savage and terrifying, but also fierce warriors against Chaos; wayward biological weapons of the Old Ones who still vaguely followed their original purpose.

    I've always loved their colorful palate and generally alien depiction, which stood out even in an universe of orcs and elves. As a concept, I've always thought that they haven't been played with enough, and I join the ranks of most other lizardmen fans who repudiated GW after they basically ruined the side in their rework(now they are "people made from stardust.")

    https://lustriaclog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/lizardmen.jpg

    Priest & Warriors.

    https://explainingtheoldworld.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/lizardman-art.png

    Cold One Rider.

    https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammerfb/images/5/50/Warhammer_Lizardmen_Skinks.jpg

    The small, cunning skinks.

    https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammerfb/images/c/cd/Warhammer_Temple-City.png

    Their crumbling temple cities, where they yet survive.

    Lizardmen were my Warhammer: Fantasy army as well when I played in HS. Though only because they were what the starter pack consisted of. 🙂

  77. @Dave Pinsen
    In Bernal Diaz's account of the conquest of Mexico, he includes a couple of details that conflict with the stone age description. One is that the Aztecs apparently had copper axes and competent metalworkers. Why they used copper in axes but not in their weapons, he doesn't say.

    Another detail is that Diaz says men in the expedition who'd seen the great cities of old world were blown away by what they saw in Tenochtitlan.

    I think pyramids are among the most impressive structures (and certainly require a great deal of organization and labor to build), but they are ultimately low tech. Essentially anything labor intensive was possible for the Aztecs, because they could have much higher population densities than Europeans, due to the lack of domesticated animals (lower quality but higher quantity nutrition), much lower parasite load (for this they would pay dearly after contact…) and the very high yields of maize.

    So basically they could build huge pyramids, which looked very impressive, and would’ve been impossible in Europe, but ultimately didn’t require the level of development European cathedrals or renaissance palaces required.

    After Eurasian parasites were introduced to the Americas, their population densities dropped despite the introduced new technologies and domestic animals, and so Latin America became a poorer, less developed and perhaps less creative version of (then already poor and stagnant) Southern Europe. This is why it looks like as if the Spaniards destroyed something worthy and built nothing in its place, when in reality most of the destruction was inevitable, and they introduced modern architecture and other technologies, so basically lifted the place.

  78. @Anatoly Karlin
    Incidentally, the chick (problem glasses and all) who wrote up the findings favors the hardcore PoMoist interpretation of Aztec human sacrifice.

    https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244

    Apart from the obvious point that the subjugated peoples very much didn't like being sacrificed and eaten, it doesn't seem that the god-kings were popular amongst the people in general. For instance, here is a fragment from Turchin's Ultrasociety:

    Human beings, including those who live in despotic states, still value fairness and equity. We can gain a glimpse of what common people thought of their despotic rulers from listening to their songs and proverbs, some very ancient. Their views were not complimentary. A Hawaiian chant dating from before the European contact describes the king as the devourer of common people: A shark going inland is my chief, A very strong shark able to devour all on land; A shark of very red gills is the chief, He has a throat to swallow the island without choking.
     
    And Hawaii was a relatively humane society, by god-king standards; they only sacrificed 10 people when their chief died.

    Come to think of it, isn't assigning such radically alien, psychopathic motives and feelings to other humans, as these postmodernists like to do... racist?

    Very interesting posts and comments.

    As further evidence, the popular Greek peasants’ poet, Hesiod, complains that the local lords awarded his property to his brother: “you kept grabbing and taking much more, paying great tribute to the lords, those bribe-swallowers who see fit to make this their judgment.”

    Hesiod elsewhere does speak of the heaven-blessed kings: “out of his mouth the words flow honeyed.”

    And Homer, presumably singing to an aristocratic audience, has the rabble-rouser Thersites be appropriately ugly and then soundly beaten up by Odysseus.

  79. @ussr andy

    I’ll end my commenting on Karlin’s blog on this note।।
     
    I liked your stuff though most was way too cryptic for me.

    Buy Guns, Lift Weights & Do so While Remembering your Ancestor Sri Peruna & the Great Death MahaKala।।

    Ye I’ll make one more for my cousins. 🙂

    Best Beginner
    https://www.powerliftingtowin.com/greyskull-lp/

    Resource
    https://stronglifts.com/

    Aryan Philosophy in One Line
    ਯਾਂਤੇਸਰਬਖਾਲਸਾਸੁਨੀਅਹਿ।।ਆਯੁਧਧਰਿਬੇਉਤੱਮਗੁਨੀਅਹਿ।।
    The Guru then said to his Sikhs, “All of the Khalsa should listen, carrying weapons is the highest action।।

    [MORE]

    AK47 is Best

    Knife
    http://everydaycarry.com/posts/21773/the-beginners-guide-to-edc-knife-blade-steels

    Guru Sahib said to carry Carbon steel

    Pesh Kabz, Khanzar, Bichua or Kukri are Good

    The Thorfinson Stainless steel folder is insult to Manhood

    Just carry Kabar on belt loop everyday for Western Style।।

    ਸਿੰਘਰੂਪਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰਨਜੁਤਿਹੇਰੈਂ।।ਹੋਤਿਗੁਰੂਕੀਖੁਸ਼ੀਬਡੇਰੈ।।
    The appearance of a Singh [is complete] with weapons, when the Guru see’s this He becomes extremely happy.

    ਕਮਰਕਸੇਬਿਨਜੋਸਿਖਜਾਇ।।ਤਿਸਪਰਰੁਖਨਹਿਕਰੈਂਕਦਾਇ।।੧੦।।
    Those Sikhs who went towards the Guru without wearing a Kamarkasa [waist band which holds weapons], the Guru would never look towards them.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170404132933/http://www.manglacharan.com/manglacharan/2016/1/11/the-merit-of-being-of-warrior-from-dasam-and-sarbloh-granth

    A Dreadful War Ensued from Both Sides for the Attainment of Svarag (Heaven)

    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।

  80. @AP
    Was my comment wrong?

    Was my comment wrong?

    I’m not sure that one can get to being right or wrong when giving an opinion on a movie, or other creative works for that matter.

    The selfless hero has a long history and has been retro-fitted and recycled thousands of times and continues to this day. To the extent that the hero appeals to our boyish teenage years then I give partial credit for you being “right.” Some people don’t “believe” in “heroes” and consider the belief in others as a sign of naivety.

  81. @g2k
    The first bit is taking the piss out of the BBC intros which, at the time, had changed from animated numbers to various world cultures dancing. The guys that made this took exception to that and made their own to use between sketches. There was the one you saw, a stoning in Afghanistan and a punishment beating in Northern Ireland.

    The first bit is taking the piss out of the BBC intros

    I didn’t go past the intro.

  82. @German_reader
    I think he was offended that you like Braveheart, because it's so anti-English (and probably also quite historically inaccurate). That other movie by Mel Gibson about the American revolutionary war was also pretty bad in this regard.
    Apocalypto is great though.

    because it’s so anti-English

    I don’t understand how you can make this statement. I didn’t get any anti-English impression at all.

  83. @AP
    A few points:

    1. It should be kept in mind that sacrifice was a central, pervasive factor in the entire Meso-American worldview and religion. The sun would stop if hearts weren't taken out and offered to it; it wouldn't rain if kids weren't tortured and killed. Sacrificing people permeated all aspects of life and therefore was probably taken for granted (not necessarily loved, as people do not love paying taxes). Barring the intervention of some sort of Christ-like figure who would completely subvert and turn that culture inside-out, sacrifice probably wouldn't disappear. It might have even become more large-scale. If the Aztecs, not Europeans, had become technologically dominant and learned to sail the world there might have massive human-sacrifice raids, with such humans being valued commodities or delicacies, that would make the African Atlantic slave trade look like beautiful humanitarianism.

    2. The conservative estimate for number of victims is 20,000 a year. That's 2 million in a century, 20 million sacrificed at this rate in 1,000 years. Of course estimates go into 100,000 or even more per year.

    3. Intellectual advancement isn't so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).

    4. I am not sure, however, that the Aztecs would have, on their own, eventually achieved a high level of technology. Technological achievement is largely driven by culture, it isn't genetic directly (genetics gives us maximum capability and limits us, and it may indirectly drive culture, however). There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India. If Aztecs were isolated until 4000 AD they might have simply achieved much more sophisticated astronomical calculations and mathematics focused on astronomy or astrology, perhaps more advanced building techniques, and elaborate literatures but still not have been dramatically more high tech. AFAIK, highly intelligent Jews, prior to assimilation with the West, were mostly using their talents on developing Kabbalah or finding numerical patterns in the Bible or whatever. Technological achievement requires the cognitive capacity to achieve it, but also a worldview that motivates it.

    Barring the intervention of some sort of Christ-like figure who would completely subvert and turn that culture inside-out, sacrifice probably wouldn’t disappear. It might have even become more large-scale.

    But Christ, however, was not a part of some sort of interchangeable set of god figures. His being and one time atonement for all of humankind’s sinful nature was a unique, one time event in the course of history. Having delved into the raw and graphic nature of human sacrifice and putting your imagination to work in seeing how things may have evolved for these Amero-Indian cultures, you must be quite pleased in retrospect as to how things worked out?

    And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

    Romans 8:28

    • Replies: @AP

    But Christ, however, was not a part of some sort of interchangeable set of god figures. His being and one time atonement for all of humankind’s sinful nature was a unique, one time event in the course of history. Having delved into the raw and graphic nature of human sacrifice and putting your imagination to work in seeing how things may have evolved for these Amero-Indian cultures, you must be quite pleased in retrospect as to how things worked out?
     
    I am. The extinction and complete subversion of the evil Aztec demon-worshiping empire was one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. Kudos to the relative small number of Spaniards, flawed as they were and as even normal humans tend to be (greedy, cruel on a smaller, European scale) for pulling this off.

    Sure, the Aztecs were fascinating, as aliens, and in a horror-movie type of way, and it would have been nice to have more stuff preserved with which to understand them better, but that's small change compared to the monumental task the Spaniards had succeeded in accomplishing.
  84. @Singh
    Democracy is a Calvinist sect.

    The idea that Men cannot live in their own lands, by their own laws & customs but instead there must be 6 year old trannies strutting in high heels across the pavement of every capital; is far more Extreme than some Aztecs eating hearts.

    The Scythians you Ukranians love to LARP as did the same thing.



    You're being made into a Protestant you faggot & tbh, the nigger-muslim migrants + abortion clinics any American vassal who *surrenders* gets subjected to, is far worse & produces more casualties than Aztecas.

    Eh, w/e just a Ukranian you won't understand any of this anyway.

    Hopefully your Kings sitting in Warsaw & Moskva understand these terms I've mentioned.
    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/01/crypto-imperialism-an-anglo-american-adaption-to-empire/

    What can I say? You tried to sink Perun to the depths of the sea, and today it's you who sinks.

    I fully expect Karlin & others (Chieh?) to respond with memes when they can't counter my arguments.

    This post was fairly balanced till the end,

    Any race that's come en masse to the Americas has turned rotten & been destroyed is all we can conclude.

    Karlin has changed, more of a Continental Catholic-Orthodox frame to posts now.

    A regular low dosage of Risperdal would do you wonders 🙂

  85. @anonymous coward

    ...ripping people’s hearts out to keep the sun from fading is a very alien way of thinking
     
    No, it's just garden-variety basic demon worship. Europe never saw wide-scale demon worship because Europe is an older culture and thus closer to the original protohuman monotheism.

    Wait a bit and you'll see the same mass human sacrifice in Paris, as Europe continues to slide into post-Christian demon worship.

    I actually agree with your first paragraph. But you slip back to your usual self in the second.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    What, you doubt that modern Europe is a demon-worshiping state? Sexual perversion, greed, envy, infanticide -- where you you think all this comes from?

    Human cultures come in a bewildering variety of forms, but demons don't. They're immortal and they don't innovate, which is why all demon-influenced cultures converge towards the same stable state, no matter the historical era or racial substrate.

    Europe is heading there too, unless some catastrophic event happens to stop it.
  86. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    1. It should be kept in mind that sacrifice was a central, pervasive factor in the entire Meso-American worldview and religion... It might have even become more large-scale. If the Aztecs, not Europeans, had become technologically dominant and learned to sail the world there might have massive human-sacrifice raids, with such humans being valued commodities or delicacies, that would make the African Atlantic slave trade look like beautiful humanitarianism.
     
    An interesting alt history, and yes, I agree that it's plausible.

    3. Intellectual advancement isn’t so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).
     
    I have read about this from Unz's essays, but wasn't Jensen making these arguments in the 1970s?

    As Jason Richwine showed, benefitting from two more decades of accumulated data, third- and even fourth-generation Mexican-Americans in the US don't converge to White norms.

    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2009-richwine.pdf (e.g. see pg. 44)

    This also extends to socio-economic success: "Some scholars have extended the generational analysis even farther. Samuel Huntington (2004, 230-243) has summarized how specifically Mexican economic and social integration has lagged even into the fourth generation. Huntington cites a 1990 study showing that the percentage of Mexican households with incomes greater than $50,000 rises from 7% in the first generation to 11% in the second. But the statistic in the third and fourth generations stays right at 11%, at a time when the national rate (excluding Mexicans) was 25%. 41% of fourth generation Mexican-Americans also lacked a high school degree in 1989 and 1990, compared to 24% of all other Americans."

    4. I am not sure, however, that the Aztecs would have, on their own, eventually achieved a high level of technology. Technological achievement is largely driven by culture, it isn’t genetic directly (genetics gives us maximum capability and limits us, and it may indirectly drive culture, however). There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India.
     
    My own opinion on this (though veering off-topic) is that (1) North Europeans are more intelligent than Indians (some Brahmin smart fractions aside) and than Middle Easterners, and (2) they are less rigidly conformist than East Asians, and weren't hampered by a character based writing system (which suppresses the real literacy rate). [Jaychick would also mention the Hajnal Line, which surely helped too, but I think it was the least important of these reasons].

    North European success had more to do IMO with the innovations that allowed the intensification of agriculture in Europe's northern regions, and the associated greater urbanization and literacy. The Church helped by promoting literacy - this was supercharged by the appearance of Protestantism, with its emphasis on a personal connection of God, which required you to read and understand the Bible - but Christianity was hardly unique as a religion that promoted learning.

    3. “Intellectual advancement isn’t so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).”

    I have read about this from Unz’s essays, but wasn’t Jensen making these arguments in the 1970s?

    Correct. But I don’t think he revised it, nor AFAIK had his 1970s observations debunked. So if indeed the nature of their low IQs resembles that of 19th century Irish rather than Africans, the explanation for ongoing lags being probably environmental is still compelling. Perhaps the flood of new immigrants keeps later generations down. Does the pattern for poor performance in later generations hold in places with few Mexicans (how do Mexicans do there after several generation?). America stopped all immigration in the 1920s. What if Italian ghettos or Irish had continued being Italian or Irish ghettos due to the flood never ending. Would there have been improvement in later generations?

    but Christianity was hardly unique as a religion that promoted learning.

    Correct. But promoting learning was only part of it. Teaching that the world was Man’s dominion, that people were made in God’s image and thus “above” nature, that the world was a rational place that could be studied and therefore manipulated, that it was pleasing to God to study and manipulate nature because learning about His world was to learn about Him, all fostered technological advancement. You see this even in Dark Ages monasteries were monks were working on alchemy or trying to create perpetual motion machines. Compare this to the more fatalistic Eastern worldview – Buddhism with its idea that the world was only an illusion. This might promote learning but not technology. Technological advancement would still occur but it would be very slow, by happenstance, and often rejected due to not being valued or never fully applied.

    Of course one cannot exclude genetic temperamental factors. Christianity may have “taken” among Europeans very well because it may have matched their temperaments, which are genetic (although society also shapes genetic temperaments – it is a complex 2-way process). But without Christianity, Europeans had been savages for millennia and would probably have continued being so.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @AP
    Minor correction: alchemy came later than the Dark Ages, of course.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I suspect that pre modern Asian science and technology is not one of your specialties. I understand that a reading of Joseph Needham's voluminous works would leave you in no doubt about Chinese STEM achievements (particularly) STE during what we call the Middle Ages. Also I doubt that Buddhism was the dominant philosophical influence on intellectual activity in a country where the Mandarinate would have been Confucian.
    I was interested to see AK making a point I have long made in supplementation of Greg Clark's ideas, namely that the East Asians would have been held back by the time it takes to learn their ideographic forms of writing.
  87. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Barring the intervention of some sort of Christ-like figure who would completely subvert and turn that culture inside-out, sacrifice probably wouldn’t disappear. It might have even become more large-scale.
     
    But Christ, however, was not a part of some sort of interchangeable set of god figures. His being and one time atonement for all of humankind's sinful nature was a unique, one time event in the course of history. Having delved into the raw and graphic nature of human sacrifice and putting your imagination to work in seeing how things may have evolved for these Amero-Indian cultures, you must be quite pleased in retrospect as to how things worked out?

    And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
     
    Romans 8:28

    But Christ, however, was not a part of some sort of interchangeable set of god figures. His being and one time atonement for all of humankind’s sinful nature was a unique, one time event in the course of history. Having delved into the raw and graphic nature of human sacrifice and putting your imagination to work in seeing how things may have evolved for these Amero-Indian cultures, you must be quite pleased in retrospect as to how things worked out?

    I am. The extinction and complete subversion of the evil Aztec demon-worshiping empire was one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments. Kudos to the relative small number of Spaniards, flawed as they were and as even normal humans tend to be (greedy, cruel on a smaller, European scale) for pulling this off.

    Sure, the Aztecs were fascinating, as aliens, and in a horror-movie type of way, and it would have been nice to have more stuff preserved with which to understand them better, but that’s small change compared to the monumental task the Spaniards had succeeded in accomplishing.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I don't have time to tell you of the wonders that I've seen at the Museum Anthropolgia in Mexico city. It's truly a world class museum filled with many wonders. It's located in a nice part of town with many other museums and a zoo too (which I did not see). I spent one day there and could easily have spent three days there. Go, you must see it for yourself!

    http://www.mna.inah.gob.mx/


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_Anthropology_(Mexico)

    , @jilles dykstra
    " I am. The extinction and complete subversion of the evil Aztec demon-worshiping empire was one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments "

    For a somewhat different view
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997
    Charles C. Mann, Ancient Americans, Rewriting the History of the New World', 2005, London, ( 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus, 2005, New York)
    Henry Kamen, ‘The Spanish Inquisition, A Historical Revision’, London 1997
  88. @Anatoly Karlin

    1. It should be kept in mind that sacrifice was a central, pervasive factor in the entire Meso-American worldview and religion... It might have even become more large-scale. If the Aztecs, not Europeans, had become technologically dominant and learned to sail the world there might have massive human-sacrifice raids, with such humans being valued commodities or delicacies, that would make the African Atlantic slave trade look like beautiful humanitarianism.
     
    An interesting alt history, and yes, I agree that it's plausible.

    3. Intellectual advancement isn’t so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).
     
    I have read about this from Unz's essays, but wasn't Jensen making these arguments in the 1970s?

    As Jason Richwine showed, benefitting from two more decades of accumulated data, third- and even fourth-generation Mexican-Americans in the US don't converge to White norms.

    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2009-richwine.pdf (e.g. see pg. 44)

    This also extends to socio-economic success: "Some scholars have extended the generational analysis even farther. Samuel Huntington (2004, 230-243) has summarized how specifically Mexican economic and social integration has lagged even into the fourth generation. Huntington cites a 1990 study showing that the percentage of Mexican households with incomes greater than $50,000 rises from 7% in the first generation to 11% in the second. But the statistic in the third and fourth generations stays right at 11%, at a time when the national rate (excluding Mexicans) was 25%. 41% of fourth generation Mexican-Americans also lacked a high school degree in 1989 and 1990, compared to 24% of all other Americans."

    4. I am not sure, however, that the Aztecs would have, on their own, eventually achieved a high level of technology. Technological achievement is largely driven by culture, it isn’t genetic directly (genetics gives us maximum capability and limits us, and it may indirectly drive culture, however). There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India.
     
    My own opinion on this (though veering off-topic) is that (1) North Europeans are more intelligent than Indians (some Brahmin smart fractions aside) and than Middle Easterners, and (2) they are less rigidly conformist than East Asians, and weren't hampered by a character based writing system (which suppresses the real literacy rate). [Jaychick would also mention the Hajnal Line, which surely helped too, but I think it was the least important of these reasons].

    North European success had more to do IMO with the innovations that allowed the intensification of agriculture in Europe's northern regions, and the associated greater urbanization and literacy. The Church helped by promoting literacy - this was supercharged by the appearance of Protestantism, with its emphasis on a personal connection of God, which required you to read and understand the Bible - but Christianity was hardly unique as a religion that promoted learning.

    The barbarian invasions are correctly considered as a net negative for development, but perhaps they helped speed up the development of Germany (the part never ruled by Rome) and Scandinavia.

    The most important development was the moldboard plough. I’m not an expert on agriculture (though I did just learn a lot about silage–very interesting), but to my knowledge prior to the invention of the moldboard plough intensive cropping was only economic in relatively soft soil such as loess, loam, and volcanic soils.

    I don’t think Northern Europe has any loess at all, and while loam exists on the North European plain (and England) it doesn’t in the Nordic area.

    The “Black Earth” of the Ukraine, the Mississippi River Valley, and the Loess Plateau (directly connected to the North China Plain) are incidentally the world’s greatest concentrated centers of loess. Which really explains a lot.

    Also important were rye and oats. These grains were known to the Greeks and Romans, but either despised or considered only fit for forage. They probably had a point for their climactic conditions. Rye is vulnerable to fungus and oats must be dried before storage.

    The harsh winters surely served as a serious problem. Even in modern times Northern climes must invest consider resources in snow removal and deicing.

    Northern Europeans would’ve suffered from lower agricultural productivity for the following reasons:

    • Shorter growing seasons
    • Increased hay production requirements for draft animals
    • Increased caloric requirements for both people and draft animals in winter
    • More timberland required for fuel (hence the itechniques like coppicing)

    This all requires more physical capital as well relative to the Mediterraneans, at a time when physical capital was extremely expensive. More and larger barns and silos. More and larger hearths and fireplaces. Denser textiles containing more fiber and requiring more labor to weave and knit. A lot of work you could do with primitive tools in the Mediterranean would require iron tools in Northern Europe, at least for much of the year.

    Some agricultural technologies very helpful in Northern climes also took a very long time to invent. Winter wheat (apparently an Anatolian grain adapted for Russian conditions by Volga Germans) and silage for instance date only to the 19th century. The late invention of silage is somewhat shocking given the long history of fermented foods globally.

    Really the rapid convergence (in macrohistorical terms) of Northern Europe with the Mediterranean after Late Antiquity was quite remarkable. Northern Europe also weathered the Little Ice Age without skipping a beat, whereas similar events have frequently led to civilizational collapse at other times and in better climes.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    What really sped up the development of Germany was its Christianization, in other words its reintegration into the civilized world after the barbarian disruption of the 5th century.
  89. @AP

    3. "Intellectual advancement isn’t so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans)."

    I have read about this from Unz’s essays, but wasn’t Jensen making these arguments in the 1970s?
     
    Correct. But I don't think he revised it, nor AFAIK had his 1970s observations debunked. So if indeed the nature of their low IQs resembles that of 19th century Irish rather than Africans, the explanation for ongoing lags being probably environmental is still compelling. Perhaps the flood of new immigrants keeps later generations down. Does the pattern for poor performance in later generations hold in places with few Mexicans (how do Mexicans do there after several generation?). America stopped all immigration in the 1920s. What if Italian ghettos or Irish had continued being Italian or Irish ghettos due to the flood never ending. Would there have been improvement in later generations?

    but Christianity was hardly unique as a religion that promoted learning.
     
    Correct. But promoting learning was only part of it. Teaching that the world was Man's dominion, that people were made in God's image and thus "above" nature, that the world was a rational place that could be studied and therefore manipulated, that it was pleasing to God to study and manipulate nature because learning about His world was to learn about Him, all fostered technological advancement. You see this even in Dark Ages monasteries were monks were working on alchemy or trying to create perpetual motion machines. Compare this to the more fatalistic Eastern worldview - Buddhism with its idea that the world was only an illusion. This might promote learning but not technology. Technological advancement would still occur but it would be very slow, by happenstance, and often rejected due to not being valued or never fully applied.

    Of course one cannot exclude genetic temperamental factors. Christianity may have "taken" among Europeans very well because it may have matched their temperaments, which are genetic (although society also shapes genetic temperaments - it is a complex 2-way process). But without Christianity, Europeans had been savages for millennia and would probably have continued being so.

    Minor correction: alchemy came later than the Dark Ages, of course.

  90. @AP

    But Christ, however, was not a part of some sort of interchangeable set of god figures. His being and one time atonement for all of humankind’s sinful nature was a unique, one time event in the course of history. Having delved into the raw and graphic nature of human sacrifice and putting your imagination to work in seeing how things may have evolved for these Amero-Indian cultures, you must be quite pleased in retrospect as to how things worked out?
     
    I am. The extinction and complete subversion of the evil Aztec demon-worshiping empire was one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. Kudos to the relative small number of Spaniards, flawed as they were and as even normal humans tend to be (greedy, cruel on a smaller, European scale) for pulling this off.

    Sure, the Aztecs were fascinating, as aliens, and in a horror-movie type of way, and it would have been nice to have more stuff preserved with which to understand them better, but that's small change compared to the monumental task the Spaniards had succeeded in accomplishing.

    I don’t have time to tell you of the wonders that I’ve seen at the Museum Anthropolgia in Mexico city. It’s truly a world class museum filled with many wonders. It’s located in a nice part of town with many other museums and a zoo too (which I did not see). I spent one day there and could easily have spent three days there. Go, you must see it for yourself!

    http://www.mna.inah.gob.mx/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_Anthropology_(Mexico)

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Sure, the Aztecs were fascinating, as aliens, and in a horror-movie type of way, and it would have been nice to have more stuff preserved with which to understand them better, but that’s small change compared to the monumental task the Spaniards had succeeded in accomplishing.
     
    I had this in mind in my response to your lament for more 'stuff preserved'. You'll see it all, and plenty of it at the museum: Olmec, Aztec, Mayan, Conquistador etc; etc; etc;
    , @AP
    Thanks! Some day...
  91. @Mr. Hack
    I don't have time to tell you of the wonders that I've seen at the Museum Anthropolgia in Mexico city. It's truly a world class museum filled with many wonders. It's located in a nice part of town with many other museums and a zoo too (which I did not see). I spent one day there and could easily have spent three days there. Go, you must see it for yourself!

    http://www.mna.inah.gob.mx/


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_Anthropology_(Mexico)

    Sure, the Aztecs were fascinating, as aliens, and in a horror-movie type of way, and it would have been nice to have more stuff preserved with which to understand them better, but that’s small change compared to the monumental task the Spaniards had succeeded in accomplishing.

    I had this in mind in my response to your lament for more ‘stuff preserved’. You’ll see it all, and plenty of it at the museum: Olmec, Aztec, Mayan, Conquistador etc; etc; etc;

  92. @Mr. Hack
    I don't have time to tell you of the wonders that I've seen at the Museum Anthropolgia in Mexico city. It's truly a world class museum filled with many wonders. It's located in a nice part of town with many other museums and a zoo too (which I did not see). I spent one day there and could easily have spent three days there. Go, you must see it for yourself!

    http://www.mna.inah.gob.mx/


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_Anthropology_(Mexico)

    Thanks! Some day…

  93. I find it astonishing how the murderous rabble invading mesoamerica is feted with the excuse that the civilisations they destroyed were not pleasant either.

    Reminds me of the R2P freaks who never skip a beat if told that their efforts in bringing democracy to places that did not ask for it each and every time cost more victims in the first year of liberation alone than the displaced dictator (usually quite grisly a figure) had murdered in the several dozen years before R2P struck.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    R2P is quite a bit different--generally it's complete bullshit. The only instance where acting on it might have improved things was Rwanda itself (which is what triggered Samantha Power into making it up). Certainly not many in the Balkans, Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. benefited from these "humanitarian" interventions.

    R2P is even invoked for the ridiculous ongoing occupation of Afghanistan because otherwise girls might not go to school. The horror...

    Meanwhile the Mesoamerican civilizations really were exceptionally gruesome and murderous.

    I agree in a way though. Who cares if the Aztec human sacrifices of squatemalans stopped? To conquer is glorious, as is to enrich yourself and strengthen the kingdom.

    They're called Conquistadors and not Libertadors for a reason.

  94. @byrresheim
    I find it astonishing how the murderous rabble invading mesoamerica is feted with the excuse that the civilisations they destroyed were not pleasant either.

    Reminds me of the R2P freaks who never skip a beat if told that their efforts in bringing democracy to places that did not ask for it each and every time cost more victims in the first year of liberation alone than the displaced dictator (usually quite grisly a figure) had murdered in the several dozen years before R2P struck.

    R2P is quite a bit different–generally it’s complete bullshit. The only instance where acting on it might have improved things was Rwanda itself (which is what triggered Samantha Power into making it up). Certainly not many in the Balkans, Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. benefited from these “humanitarian” interventions.

    R2P is even invoked for the ridiculous ongoing occupation of Afghanistan because otherwise girls might not go to school. The horror…

    Meanwhile the Mesoamerican civilizations really were exceptionally gruesome and murderous.

    I agree in a way though. Who cares if the Aztec human sacrifices of squatemalans stopped? To conquer is glorious, as is to enrich yourself and strengthen the kingdom.

    They’re called Conquistadors and not Libertadors for a reason.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Who cares if the Aztec human sacrifices of squatemalans stopped? To conquer is glorious, as is to enrich yourself and strengthen the kingdom.
     
    Small potatoes though, in comparison to conquering your own soul, wouldn't you say?

    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
     
    Mark 8:36
  95. @AP
    But he looks African in that picture. Clearly the Japanese people were searching for a worthy Emperor who wasn't really related to the previous ones, and looked to the place with the most intelligent, capable civilization-makers - Africa.

    Here is another picture of Hirohito:



    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KNzahp5KstY/Uuewev7fe-I/AAAAAAAAcTo/WBL4G_v_yDs/s1600/Hirohito+2.jpg

    And here is Sudan's president:

    https://i.imgur.com/oOR4gx8.jpg

    Obviously Hirohito was chosen in Sudan, the birthplace of Egyptian civilization and thus all world civilization. Who but an African was worthy of leading the Japanese people?

    Why waste your time responding to that Bliss troll?

    He’s either an intelligent (relative to their 70-80 baseline) black guy who likes to waste his time trolling — or, more likely, a white nationalist troll who likes to stir up anger against blacks. In either case not a particularly interesting interlocutor. Just block him.

  96. @AP

    America has rotating wars – in our 300 years or so of existing we were pretty much always at war
     
    Not really. Korea ended in the 1950s. Vietnam ended in 1975. No real deadly wars (Granada, Panama operations don't count) until Iraq , 15 years later. Another gap of 10 years (Yugo war wasn't deadly), then Afghanistan and Iraq II. Nothing since that time.

    Also, Korea and Vietnam and Iraq I involved invasions of US allies. Only Iraq II was an unambiguous attack. So America is not "always fighting." But Aztecs were "always sacrificing."

    The Aztecs had a more consistent ideology and the system of sacrifice was more streamlined, but I still don’t see how its qualitatively different
     
    You don't see a qualitative difference between harvesting people for sacrifice, keeping them in cages and fattening them up, then using deliberately painful methods to kill them, in peacetime or in war, and a wartime bomb aimed at some soldiers' base accidentally destroying an apartment building, killing most of the people instantly?

    I also think that our total body count including the world wars probably exceeds the Aztecs
     
    Not when taking into account population size and spreading out time. Mesoamerica had about 11-16 million people before 1492 (6 million in Aztec Empire, about 5-10 million outside it among Mayan peoples, who also sacrificed). At the low estimated rate of 20,000 sacrifices per year among Aztecs and a similar number among the others, you get 4 million sacrificed over 100 years from a population of 11-16 million. This does not include the number killed in wars. But sacrifices alone over 100 years were about 25% of the of the high population estimate and 36% of the low estimate.

    At the end of the 20th century Europe had 726 million people, with another 282 million in the USA, and 30 million in Canada. So over a billion Europeans.

    For Europeans to have killed each other at the Aztec rate in the 20th century the death toll for both world wars plus Bolshevism plus Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan would have had to be 250 million (assuming high Mesoamerican population) or 360 million people (low Meso-American population estimate).

    So not even close.

    And these are mostly war deaths. Not deliberate harvesting and torturing to death of people.

    You don’t see a qualitative difference between harvesting people for sacrifice, keeping them in cages and fattening them up, then using deliberately painful methods to kill them, in peacetime or in war, and a wartime bomb aimed at some soldiers’ base accidentally destroying an apartment building, killing most of the people instantly?

    The main difference I see is in what is needed to keep Chaos at bay. From their respective understanding of the universe, each is doing the exact same thing.

    The only alternative would be true pacifism of the kind preached by Jesus or Buddha – but there is little qualitative difference between what our civilization has done and the Aztecs, just a very large cognitive difference about what is needed to keep Chaos at bay.

    So – not a moral difference, but a cognitive difference so vast as to appear a moral difference to one steeped in the cognitive assumptions (not moral assumptions) of his own culture and not used to practicing meta-cognition.

    Either killing humans to keep Chaos at bay is wrong – as Jesus and Buddha has said – or it is right, and then each culture will proceed to do so based on its understanding if how the universe operates.

    What we are seeing here is not a moral difference – but a cognitive one. And while it may be hard for us to see it, our own cognitive assumptions about how the universe operates may seem just as exotic and bizarre as that of the Aztecs.

    I think a Ming Dynasty Chinese might find our notion of killing vast numbers of people over “beliefs” quite as bizarre.

  97. @Thorfinnsson
    R2P is quite a bit different--generally it's complete bullshit. The only instance where acting on it might have improved things was Rwanda itself (which is what triggered Samantha Power into making it up). Certainly not many in the Balkans, Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. benefited from these "humanitarian" interventions.

    R2P is even invoked for the ridiculous ongoing occupation of Afghanistan because otherwise girls might not go to school. The horror...

    Meanwhile the Mesoamerican civilizations really were exceptionally gruesome and murderous.

    I agree in a way though. Who cares if the Aztec human sacrifices of squatemalans stopped? To conquer is glorious, as is to enrich yourself and strengthen the kingdom.

    They're called Conquistadors and not Libertadors for a reason.

    Who cares if the Aztec human sacrifices of squatemalans stopped? To conquer is glorious, as is to enrich yourself and strengthen the kingdom.

    Small potatoes though, in comparison to conquering your own soul, wouldn’t you say?

    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

    Mark 8:36

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Yes, I do agree.

    That said to conquer one must (typically) first achieve self-mastery and then mastery over other men (retainers, followers, conscripts, whatever).

    This isn't what you meant, but it's none the less a difficult personal achievement that most never achieve.
  98. @AP
    I actually agree with your first paragraph. But you slip back to your usual self in the second.

    What, you doubt that modern Europe is a demon-worshiping state? Sexual perversion, greed, envy, infanticide — where you you think all this comes from?

    Human cultures come in a bewildering variety of forms, but demons don’t. They’re immortal and they don’t innovate, which is why all demon-influenced cultures converge towards the same stable state, no matter the historical era or racial substrate.

    Europe is heading there too, unless some catastrophic event happens to stop it.

  99. @Mr. Hack

    Who cares if the Aztec human sacrifices of squatemalans stopped? To conquer is glorious, as is to enrich yourself and strengthen the kingdom.
     
    Small potatoes though, in comparison to conquering your own soul, wouldn't you say?

    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
     
    Mark 8:36

    Yes, I do agree.

    That said to conquer one must (typically) first achieve self-mastery and then mastery over other men (retainers, followers, conscripts, whatever).

    This isn’t what you meant, but it’s none the less a difficult personal achievement that most never achieve.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Good answer. BTW, I hope that you don't feel that I'm too critical of you, but that's what might happen when somebody becomes interesting to me, and exhibits some knowledge and foresight in their comments. Unfortunately, that's not something that I can say about a lot of the commentators I encounter. So, I do generally stop and read most of your comments, even though I may not subscribe to all of your points of view. So, Mr. Thorfinnsson, this is as close to a compliment as I'm possibly able to make. :-)

    (You have quite the interest in historical topics - this is good).

    , @DFH

    That said to conquer one must (typically) first achieve self-mastery and then mastery over other men (retainers, followers, conscripts, whatever).

     

    Most conquerors don't seem very self-mastered to me. Alexander the Great was infamously degenerate, Napoleon had a terrible temper and a nervous breakdown and Hitler was very unstable.
  100. @German_reader

    Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians
     
    Amerindians in North America had higher IQs than those in South America? Is that securely known? I would have thought that it wouldn't be easy to get IQ data for North American Amerindians (especially ones without any European admixture).

    Eurasia may have reached an all-time peak in organized, psychopathic cruelty with the Assyrian Empire in 1000 BC.
     
    The Assyrians didn't do human sacrifice anymore though, unless I'm mistaken. They just had very brutal punishments and consolidated their rule with harsh methods like forced relocation of entire peoples...but so have many other empires throughout history.
    I think the Aztecs are so horrifying (and fascinating) to modern Westerners not just because of the scale of their violence, but because of the irrational nature of it...ripping people's hearts out to keep the sun from fading is a very alien way of thinking.

    What probably sets the Assyrians apart is not their actual cruelty, which while spectacular was not much if any greater than that of the Greeks or Romans.

    It was the pride they took in displaying their cruelty for all to see. The crucifixion of 6000 rebels by Crassus was an unusual event, and the object lesson worked. There were no more slave revolts in Rome. But Crassus wasn’t granted a triumph for doing this.

    Crucifying or impaling hundreds or thousands of people was routine, normal and something to take pride in for the Assyrians. They bragged about it.

    As, much more recently, did ISIS. Which, oddly enough, was centered in old Assyria.

    The Romans, OTOH, did not seem to take pride in their cruelty, they seemed to view it more as a necessary task.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell

    Crucifying or impaling hundreds or thousands of people was routine,
     
    I have always wondered how they managed to achieve such feats, in an era where the machine gun was not invented yet and therefore the relative strengths of opposing groups was somewhat proportional to their respective sizes.

    Half a dozen kebabs with AK47s can slaughter many dozens of unarmed people in a concert hall, with the latter group not even being able to take down a single assaillant.

    However how can an army of a few thousand men equipped only with blades and spears force as many (or more) individuals to let themselves be crucified or impaled alive I don’t understand. At least the 6000 of so vanquished rebels could have charged their victors and be killed in the battle (while in this process killing many Romans), rather than being crucified. I really can’t fathom why many 1000s of able bodied men would have surrendered en masse to this most horrible mode of execution.
  101. @Bliss

    Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians; the economic and innovation center of gravity would have kept going north, just as in the Old World it crept north and west with each passing millennium.
     
    Firstly, where is your evidence that northern amerindians have a higher IQ than the Central Americans? This is just another example of your irrational northern bias. Which, btw, is kind of amusing considering that some of your fellow russians see you as an alien “kebab” from the South.

    Secondly, the Persian civilization reached north into the Caucasus and Central Asia yet the center of gravity stayed in the South. And the Chinese civilization never really took hold among the northern barbarians of north asia.

    In contrast, Black Africa didn’t have a single written language before colonization.
     
    A lie repeated a million times does not turn into the truth. Africans were writing, building, inventing, calculating etc many centuries before Europeans:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG/1200px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG



    https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/700_f.jpg

    Jeez, dude.

    Egypt isn’t Black Africa.

  102. For the record I think the commenter Talha raises good points. People of our persuasion spend too much energy describing the problem (that is to say, whining) than proposing the solution. I don’t think I’ve ever seen German_reader propose much in the way of solutions, though in fairness he admits he isn’t cut out to be a leader.

    I can see taking objection to Talha’s points since he’s an invader and at times it comes off as “concern trolling”. That said, he seems sincere to me and not engaged in the dreaded taqqiya. It’s a useful skill and thought exercise to place yourself in someone else’s shoes, and all the better if that person is an enemy.

    The solution varies by country and continent, but there are plenty of solutions. For Germany itself:

    • Immediate mass deportations of all people without lawful immigration status

    • Denaturalization of settled invaders, they will be subjects with residency and civil rights but no political rights outside of their own communties

    • Adoption of millet system for invader communities

    • Comprehensive nationwide segregation

    • Criminalization of miscegenation and interfaith marriage

    • Targeted stripping of residence rights of troublemakers and subsequent deportation (or incarceration)

    • Harsh policing and criminal justice

    • Target countries which resist taking their kin back get strangled by EU sanctions and subjected to gunboat diplomacy if necessary

    • Mosques (and others) placed under official state surveillance, and imams must be approved by the state

    • Implementation of a population policy with specific targets, naturally this will require reforms of the Germans as well

    • EU-wide border controls and border patrol. If the EU refuses start a separate service with Italy, Austria, Denmark, and the Visegrad group
    • Invader boats will be towed back to the African coast and destroyed

    • North African states induced through carrot and stick to BUILD THE WALL north of the Sahel

    • Not that it really matters what Africans or Mohammedans do in their own rubbish countries, but any foreign aid to them that doesn’t have some quid pro quo purpose should be designed to limit their fertility (which, to be fair, the Mohammedans are already doing)

    As for the commenter who brought up sanctions–we’ve seen what succumbing to sanctions means in Rhodesia and South Africa.

    Unrelated to the migrant problem per se, but the left as a force needs to be eliminated. Forever. Any argument based on “equality”, “human rights”, etc. must be considered felony sedition with a mandatory prison sentence and loss of political rights as well as some civil (e.g. right to serve as a professor, teacher, civil servant, journalist, lawyer, etc.).

    • Agree: DFH
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen German_reader propose much in the way of solutions
     
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/

    See comment 187 in that thread. Identical to some of your proposals (those which aren't as fantastical as "criminalization of miscegenation and interfaith marriage").
    , @Talha

    since he’s an invader
     
    Nah - my father stood in line and filled out a bunch of forms and did things legally. I was six years old and along for the ride.

    If you want to see invaders, it's these guys:
    https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/649019.jpg

    I'm just what the classical jurists called a Muslim bi-dhimmat il-kaafir (a Muslim dhimmi).


    dreaded taqqiya
     
    Trust me bro, that has been waaaay oversold to you guys by Zionists. Traditional Sunni people like me don't do taqiyyah (unless maybe you stick a gun to my head - and even then the more laudable option is to accept becoming a martyr - read our books). The Zionists want to make sure you guys never take whatever we say seriously. Which is fine - you decide who you want to believe.

    The one thing that really pisses me off is that these guys have the gall to charge you for their snake oil...er books. The decent thing would be to subsidize giving them out for free - niggardly bastards.

    The issue I find most disturbing is the growing trend among a lot of social-activist SJW Muslims to support the poz. The worst part is that they aren't doing it as some taqiyyah strategy, they actually believe in it. If you have ever engaged with them about it like myself and some brothers I know - it scares the hell out of me how sincere these people are - the saving grace is that these people are hardly associated with or taking cues from traditional scholars - that would be a massive disaster and a huge crisis. And of course poz-support is a gateway to kufr (mostly atheism) - always has been.


    Adoption of millet system for invader communities
     
    Sweet.

    Comprehensive nationwide segregation
     
    Sweet.

    Criminalization of miscegenation and interfaith marriage
     
    Half sweet.

    Targeted stripping of residence rights of troublemakers and subsequent deportation (or incarceration) Harsh policing and criminal justice
     
    Sweet.

    Man - you are on a roll there! Pretty sick and tired of having to hear about idiot Muslims doing stupid things in the West and getting coddled - let's make it happen folks!

    Two questions; 1) proselytizing (allowed or not? not that it matters much due to the internet, but just curious) and 2) what happens to your apostates? To Islam, I mean, I assume apostates to atheism are cool as beans.

    Peace.

  103. @Thorfinnsson
    For the record I think the commenter Talha raises good points. People of our persuasion spend too much energy describing the problem (that is to say, whining) than proposing the solution. I don't think I've ever seen German_reader propose much in the way of solutions, though in fairness he admits he isn't cut out to be a leader.

    I can see taking objection to Talha's points since he's an invader and at times it comes off as "concern trolling". That said, he seems sincere to me and not engaged in the dreaded taqqiya. It's a useful skill and thought exercise to place yourself in someone else's shoes, and all the better if that person is an enemy.

    The solution varies by country and continent, but there are plenty of solutions. For Germany itself:

    • Immediate mass deportations of all people without lawful immigration status

    • Denaturalization of settled invaders, they will be subjects with residency and civil rights but no political rights outside of their own communties

    • Adoption of millet system for invader communities

    • Comprehensive nationwide segregation

    • Criminalization of miscegenation and interfaith marriage

    • Targeted stripping of residence rights of troublemakers and subsequent deportation (or incarceration)

    • Harsh policing and criminal justice

    • Target countries which resist taking their kin back get strangled by EU sanctions and subjected to gunboat diplomacy if necessary

    • Mosques (and others) placed under official state surveillance, and imams must be approved by the state

    • Implementation of a population policy with specific targets, naturally this will require reforms of the Germans as well

    • EU-wide border controls and border patrol. If the EU refuses start a separate service with Italy, Austria, Denmark, and the Visegrad group
    • Invader boats will be towed back to the African coast and destroyed

    • North African states induced through carrot and stick to BUILD THE WALL north of the Sahel

    • Not that it really matters what Africans or Mohammedans do in their own rubbish countries, but any foreign aid to them that doesn't have some quid pro quo purpose should be designed to limit their fertility (which, to be fair, the Mohammedans are already doing)

    As for the commenter who brought up sanctions--we've seen what succumbing to sanctions means in Rhodesia and South Africa.

    Unrelated to the migrant problem per se, but the left as a force needs to be eliminated. Forever. Any argument based on "equality", "human rights", etc. must be considered felony sedition with a mandatory prison sentence and loss of political rights as well as some civil (e.g. right to serve as a professor, teacher, civil servant, journalist, lawyer, etc.).

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen German_reader propose much in the way of solutions

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/

    See comment 187 in that thread. Identical to some of your proposals (those which aren’t as fantastical as “criminalization of miscegenation and interfaith marriage”).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    For the record you can link directly to comments by right clicking on the date stamp beneath the poster's handle.

    e.g. https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/#comment-2355150

    There's nothing fantastical about prohibiting miscegenation or interfaith marriage.

    Miscegenation was once illegal in forty-four American states (and many within living memory) and, I might add, Germany itself.

    Marriage was once a church matter and interfaith marriages (which in those quaint times meant Catholic and Protestant) would generally not be granted.

    Good start on your part.
  104. German Reader just seems as generally educated and a sceptical writer here.

    It’s not likely most people in this demographic is going to join AaronB’s cult, or to believe in proposing miraculous solutions for the international deterioration.

    Something funny about our forum is that, Talha (who is from Pakistan – although does not live there) and AP (from Ukraine), are very optimistic and positive about their countries.

    And yet the dude in almost the world’s most successful and powerful countries (Germany) that most people everywhere dream of living in, is the most pessimistic.

    Personal idiosyncrasies and small sample-size aside (e.g. Ukrainian I know has opposite views to AP) – maybe there is an inverse correlation between how negatively people talk about their countries, and the actual situation and living standards in their countries.

    Or people are more sensitive to changes, than to absolute levels. So people in the most successful countries, are the most sensitive to a reduction in living standards or quality, e.g. quality of human resources from immigration. As someone who does a great painting, will want to varnish it, and become very sensitive about any scratches.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    It’s not likely most people in this demographic is going to join AaronB’s cult, or to believe in proposing miraculous solutions for the international deterioration.
     
    Give it time, Dmitry.

    And yet the dude in almost the world’s most successful and powerful countries (Germany) that most people everywhere dream of living in, is the most pessimistic.
     
    ,

    What is ironic is that you don't see the significance if this and it doesn't make you question your materialism.

    How long do you think if is till your favorite secular and prosperous Azerbaijan begins producing people like GR en masse?
  105. @AP
    A few points:

    1. It should be kept in mind that sacrifice was a central, pervasive factor in the entire Meso-American worldview and religion. The sun would stop if hearts weren't taken out and offered to it; it wouldn't rain if kids weren't tortured and killed. Sacrificing people permeated all aspects of life and therefore was probably taken for granted (not necessarily loved, as people do not love paying taxes). Barring the intervention of some sort of Christ-like figure who would completely subvert and turn that culture inside-out, sacrifice probably wouldn't disappear. It might have even become more large-scale. If the Aztecs, not Europeans, had become technologically dominant and learned to sail the world there might have massive human-sacrifice raids, with such humans being valued commodities or delicacies, that would make the African Atlantic slave trade look like beautiful humanitarianism.

    2. The conservative estimate for number of victims is 20,000 a year. That's 2 million in a century, 20 million sacrificed at this rate in 1,000 years. Of course estimates go into 100,000 or even more per year.

    3. Intellectual advancement isn't so surprising. Jensen insisted that although Mexicans and Indians had lower IQs than those of whites, their pattern of lower scores matched those of Irish immigrants and were thus environmental rather than genetic (unlike in the case of Africans).

    4. I am not sure, however, that the Aztecs would have, on their own, eventually achieved a high level of technology. Technological achievement is largely driven by culture, it isn't genetic directly (genetics gives us maximum capability and limits us, and it may indirectly drive culture, however). There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India. If Aztecs were isolated until 4000 AD they might have simply achieved much more sophisticated astronomical calculations and mathematics focused on astronomy or astrology, perhaps more advanced building techniques, and elaborate literatures but still not have been dramatically more high tech. AFAIK, highly intelligent Jews, prior to assimilation with the West, were mostly using their talents on developing Kabbalah or finding numerical patterns in the Bible or whatever. Technological achievement requires the cognitive capacity to achieve it, but also a worldview that motivates it.

    . There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India.

    Very, very questionable statement. “something specific…. that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world ” was already with the ancient Greeks. Рrior triumph of Christianity, northern Europeans-pagan colonized Iceland and Greenland and reached America.
    Rather, we can assume that Christianity has slowed the intellectual development of Europe.

    • Agree: Biff
    • Replies: @German_reader

    was already with the ancient Greeks
     
    I agree that AP's insistence on the importance of Christianity is rather reductive, there was advanced civilization in Mediterranean Europe well before Christianity, and it seems absurd to me that all that civilizational legacy should be attributed to Christianity. That's just one of those feel-good stories Christians like to tell themselves.
    Roman empire is often seen as somewhat stagnant though, with relatively little innovation during many centuries (due to the prevalence of slave labor which hindered innovation?)...maybe that's a stereotype (one would have to ask an ancient historian), but in some ways the middle ages were probably more dynamical and saw the development of many new technologies (e.g. wind mills).
    I don't think that can be solely or primarily attributed to Christianity though, there were probably many other factors as well (e.g. competition between different centres of power due to Europe's political fragmentation after the fall of the Roman empire). Generalizations about the positive or negative impact of Christianity always seem somewhat speculative to me.
    , @DFH

    Rather, we can assume that Christianity has slowed the intellectual development of Europe.
     
    That doesn't follow from what you said
    , @AP

    Very, very questionable statement. “something specific…. that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world ” was already with the ancient Greeks
     
    They didn't apply it nearly as much, preferring to study and contemplate. Compare Europe 500 BC to 500 AD little difference. 500 AD to 1500 AD enormous difference.

    Рrior triumph of Christianity, northern Europeans-pagan colonized Iceland and Greenland and reached America.
     
    And Polynesian savages traveled even further around the Pacific.
  106. @German_reader

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen German_reader propose much in the way of solutions
     
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/

    See comment 187 in that thread. Identical to some of your proposals (those which aren't as fantastical as "criminalization of miscegenation and interfaith marriage").

    For the record you can link directly to comments by right clicking on the date stamp beneath the poster’s handle.

    e.g. https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/#comment-2355150

    There’s nothing fantastical about prohibiting miscegenation or interfaith marriage.

    Miscegenation was once illegal in forty-four American states (and many within living memory) and, I might add, Germany itself.

    Marriage was once a church matter and interfaith marriages (which in those quaint times meant Catholic and Protestant) would generally not be granted.

    Good start on your part.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Miscegenation was once illegal in forty-four American states (and many within living memory) and, I might add, Germany itself.
     
    Such laws have historically been quite rare in Western societies, I can only think of Nazi Germany, South Africa and some US states.
    And imo there's not much chance you'd get even a majority of those opposed to the ongoing invasion to support such laws. Even many right-wingers would reject that, either for personal reasons or on principle.
    It's also rather pointless imo to draw up wishlists of all the harsh measures one would like to enact. I can understand the motivation and indulge similar fantasies myself at times. But in the end that's just political masturbation and a sign of one's own impotence. Unless one has a convincing answer to the question "How do we get people around to our way of thinking? What programme could appeal to a majority in our country?" that's all just fantasy.
  107. @melanf

    . There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India.
     
    Very, very questionable statement. "something specific.... that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world " was already with the ancient Greeks. Рrior triumph of Christianity, northern Europeans-pagan colonized Iceland and Greenland and reached America.
    Rather, we can assume that Christianity has slowed the intellectual development of Europe.

    was already with the ancient Greeks

    I agree that AP’s insistence on the importance of Christianity is rather reductive, there was advanced civilization in Mediterranean Europe well before Christianity, and it seems absurd to me that all that civilizational legacy should be attributed to Christianity. That’s just one of those feel-good stories Christians like to tell themselves.
    Roman empire is often seen as somewhat stagnant though, with relatively little innovation during many centuries (due to the prevalence of slave labor which hindered innovation?)…maybe that’s a stereotype (one would have to ask an ancient historian), but in some ways the middle ages were probably more dynamical and saw the development of many new technologies (e.g. wind mills).
    I don’t think that can be solely or primarily attributed to Christianity though, there were probably many other factors as well (e.g. competition between different centres of power due to Europe’s political fragmentation after the fall of the Roman empire). Generalizations about the positive or negative impact of Christianity always seem somewhat speculative to me.

    • Replies: @melanf
    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee:
    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art). Then the Greek miracle ended (due to the collapse of the city states) because of pessimism and apathy. However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
    That is, Christianity is perceived as an optional (or even harmful) zigzag of history.
  108. @Thorfinnsson
    For the record you can link directly to comments by right clicking on the date stamp beneath the poster's handle.

    e.g. https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/#comment-2355150

    There's nothing fantastical about prohibiting miscegenation or interfaith marriage.

    Miscegenation was once illegal in forty-four American states (and many within living memory) and, I might add, Germany itself.

    Marriage was once a church matter and interfaith marriages (which in those quaint times meant Catholic and Protestant) would generally not be granted.

    Good start on your part.

    Miscegenation was once illegal in forty-four American states (and many within living memory) and, I might add, Germany itself.

    Such laws have historically been quite rare in Western societies, I can only think of Nazi Germany, South Africa and some US states.
    And imo there’s not much chance you’d get even a majority of those opposed to the ongoing invasion to support such laws. Even many right-wingers would reject that, either for personal reasons or on principle.
    It’s also rather pointless imo to draw up wishlists of all the harsh measures one would like to enact. I can understand the motivation and indulge similar fantasies myself at times. But in the end that’s just political masturbation and a sign of one’s own impotence. Unless one has a convincing answer to the question “How do we get people around to our way of thinking? What programme could appeal to a majority in our country?” that’s all just fantasy.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    They were rare in Europe for obvious reasons.

    They were not rare in New World settler societies, and you can guess why.

    Now that Europe has the same problem such laws are required.

    I agree that criminal prohibitions on miscegenation should not be pushed as part of a public party program. As you know I'm in favor of a Straussian organization model.
    , @AaronB

    Unless one has a convincing answer to the question “How do we get people around to our way of thinking?
     
    As your spiritual advisor, I must point out that you know the answer - you cannot get people around to YOUR timid and gloomy way of thinking GR. The Right has been trying to do that for the past century and the world's highest quality people have voted by flocking to the Left en masse.

    But if the Right offers an idealism to match that of the Left, then high quality people will be attracted.
    , @Anonymous

    But in the end that’s just political masturbation and a sign of one’s own impotence.
     
    Exactly.
  109. @German_reader

    Miscegenation was once illegal in forty-four American states (and many within living memory) and, I might add, Germany itself.
     
    Such laws have historically been quite rare in Western societies, I can only think of Nazi Germany, South Africa and some US states.
    And imo there's not much chance you'd get even a majority of those opposed to the ongoing invasion to support such laws. Even many right-wingers would reject that, either for personal reasons or on principle.
    It's also rather pointless imo to draw up wishlists of all the harsh measures one would like to enact. I can understand the motivation and indulge similar fantasies myself at times. But in the end that's just political masturbation and a sign of one's own impotence. Unless one has a convincing answer to the question "How do we get people around to our way of thinking? What programme could appeal to a majority in our country?" that's all just fantasy.

    They were rare in Europe for obvious reasons.

    They were not rare in New World settler societies, and you can guess why.

    Now that Europe has the same problem such laws are required.

    I agree that criminal prohibitions on miscegenation should not be pushed as part of a public party program. As you know I’m in favor of a Straussian organization model.

    • Agree: Yevardian
  110. @Thorfinnsson
    Yes, I do agree.

    That said to conquer one must (typically) first achieve self-mastery and then mastery over other men (retainers, followers, conscripts, whatever).

    This isn't what you meant, but it's none the less a difficult personal achievement that most never achieve.

    Good answer. BTW, I hope that you don’t feel that I’m too critical of you, but that’s what might happen when somebody becomes interesting to me, and exhibits some knowledge and foresight in their comments. Unfortunately, that’s not something that I can say about a lot of the commentators I encounter. So, I do generally stop and read most of your comments, even though I may not subscribe to all of your points of view. So, Mr. Thorfinnsson, this is as close to a compliment as I’m possibly able to make. 🙂

    (You have quite the interest in historical topics – this is good).

  111. @melanf

    . There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India.
     
    Very, very questionable statement. "something specific.... that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world " was already with the ancient Greeks. Рrior triumph of Christianity, northern Europeans-pagan colonized Iceland and Greenland and reached America.
    Rather, we can assume that Christianity has slowed the intellectual development of Europe.

    Rather, we can assume that Christianity has slowed the intellectual development of Europe.

    That doesn’t follow from what you said

    • Replies: @melanf
    Very briefly: if we assume that the success of Europe is explained by the foundations laid down in the pagan ancient era, in this case, hostile to ancient paganism Christianity, was rather an inhibiting factor.
  112. @Thorfinnsson
    Yes, I do agree.

    That said to conquer one must (typically) first achieve self-mastery and then mastery over other men (retainers, followers, conscripts, whatever).

    This isn't what you meant, but it's none the less a difficult personal achievement that most never achieve.

    That said to conquer one must (typically) first achieve self-mastery and then mastery over other men (retainers, followers, conscripts, whatever).

    Most conquerors don’t seem very self-mastered to me. Alexander the Great was infamously degenerate, Napoleon had a terrible temper and a nervous breakdown and Hitler was very unstable.

  113. @Dmitry
    German Reader just seems as generally educated and a sceptical writer here.

    It's not likely most people in this demographic is going to join AaronB's cult, or to believe in proposing miraculous solutions for the international deterioration.

    Something funny about our forum is that, Talha (who is from Pakistan - although does not live there) and AP (from Ukraine), are very optimistic and positive about their countries.

    And yet the dude in almost the world's most successful and powerful countries (Germany) that most people everywhere dream of living in, is the most pessimistic.

    Personal idiosyncrasies and small sample-size aside (e.g. Ukrainian I know has opposite views to AP) - maybe there is an inverse correlation between how negatively people talk about their countries, and the actual situation and living standards in their countries.

    Or people are more sensitive to changes, than to absolute levels. So people in the most successful countries, are the most sensitive to a reduction in living standards or quality, e.g. quality of human resources from immigration. As someone who does a great painting, will want to varnish it, and become very sensitive about any scratches.

    It’s not likely most people in this demographic is going to join AaronB’s cult, or to believe in proposing miraculous solutions for the international deterioration.

    Give it time, Dmitry.

    And yet the dude in almost the world’s most successful and powerful countries (Germany) that most people everywhere dream of living in, is the most pessimistic.

    ,

    What is ironic is that you don’t see the significance if this and it doesn’t make you question your materialism.

    How long do you think if is till your favorite secular and prosperous Azerbaijan begins producing people like GR en masse?

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    What is ironic is that you don’t see the significance if this and it doesn’t make you question your materialism.

    How long do you think if is till your favorite secular and prosperous Azerbaijan begins producing people like GR en masse?
     

    Unfortunately, I don't think it is likely Azerbaijan will en masse produce Germanic intellectuals of the type, who, although usually calm and resistant to insults, may erupt to brawls across the streets of Baku when disputing important questions such as which is the greatest of Beethoven's late string quartets, or the correct interpretation of the final paragraph of Rilke's 10th Duino Elegy.

    But from the nationalities of this region, - after secularization and assimilation, can come civilized people of different political temperaments.

    E.g. Sergey Guriyev is from this area by nationality. And our own spiritual leader, Karlin - has written yesterday he is a descendant of noble rulers of Lakia.

  114. @Thorfinnsson
    For the record I think the commenter Talha raises good points. People of our persuasion spend too much energy describing the problem (that is to say, whining) than proposing the solution. I don't think I've ever seen German_reader propose much in the way of solutions, though in fairness he admits he isn't cut out to be a leader.

    I can see taking objection to Talha's points since he's an invader and at times it comes off as "concern trolling". That said, he seems sincere to me and not engaged in the dreaded taqqiya. It's a useful skill and thought exercise to place yourself in someone else's shoes, and all the better if that person is an enemy.

    The solution varies by country and continent, but there are plenty of solutions. For Germany itself:

    • Immediate mass deportations of all people without lawful immigration status

    • Denaturalization of settled invaders, they will be subjects with residency and civil rights but no political rights outside of their own communties

    • Adoption of millet system for invader communities

    • Comprehensive nationwide segregation

    • Criminalization of miscegenation and interfaith marriage

    • Targeted stripping of residence rights of troublemakers and subsequent deportation (or incarceration)

    • Harsh policing and criminal justice

    • Target countries which resist taking their kin back get strangled by EU sanctions and subjected to gunboat diplomacy if necessary

    • Mosques (and others) placed under official state surveillance, and imams must be approved by the state

    • Implementation of a population policy with specific targets, naturally this will require reforms of the Germans as well

    • EU-wide border controls and border patrol. If the EU refuses start a separate service with Italy, Austria, Denmark, and the Visegrad group
    • Invader boats will be towed back to the African coast and destroyed

    • North African states induced through carrot and stick to BUILD THE WALL north of the Sahel

    • Not that it really matters what Africans or Mohammedans do in their own rubbish countries, but any foreign aid to them that doesn't have some quid pro quo purpose should be designed to limit their fertility (which, to be fair, the Mohammedans are already doing)

    As for the commenter who brought up sanctions--we've seen what succumbing to sanctions means in Rhodesia and South Africa.

    Unrelated to the migrant problem per se, but the left as a force needs to be eliminated. Forever. Any argument based on "equality", "human rights", etc. must be considered felony sedition with a mandatory prison sentence and loss of political rights as well as some civil (e.g. right to serve as a professor, teacher, civil servant, journalist, lawyer, etc.).

    since he’s an invader

    Nah – my father stood in line and filled out a bunch of forms and did things legally. I was six years old and along for the ride.

    If you want to see invaders, it’s these guys:
    I’m just what the classical jurists called a Muslim bi-dhimmat il-kaafir (a Muslim dhimmi).

    dreaded taqqiya

    Trust me bro, that has been waaaay oversold to you guys by Zionists. Traditional Sunni people like me don’t do taqiyyah (unless maybe you stick a gun to my head – and even then the more laudable option is to accept becoming a martyr – read our books). The Zionists want to make sure you guys never take whatever we say seriously. Which is fine – you decide who you want to believe.

    The one thing that really pisses me off is that these guys have the gall to charge you for their snake oil…er books. The decent thing would be to subsidize giving them out for free – niggardly bastards.

    The issue I find most disturbing is the growing trend among a lot of social-activist SJW Muslims to support the poz. The worst part is that they aren’t doing it as some taqiyyah strategy, they actually believe in it. If you have ever engaged with them about it like myself and some brothers I know – it scares the hell out of me how sincere these people are – the saving grace is that these people are hardly associated with or taking cues from traditional scholars – that would be a massive disaster and a huge crisis. And of course poz-support is a gateway to kufr (mostly atheism) – always has been.

    Adoption of millet system for invader communities

    Sweet.

    Comprehensive nationwide segregation

    Sweet.

    Criminalization of miscegenation and interfaith marriage

    Half sweet.

    Targeted stripping of residence rights of troublemakers and subsequent deportation (or incarceration) Harsh policing and criminal justice

    Sweet.

    Man – you are on a roll there! Pretty sick and tired of having to hear about idiot Muslims doing stupid things in the West and getting coddled – let’s make it happen folks!

    Two questions; 1) proselytizing (allowed or not? not that it matters much due to the internet, but just curious) and 2) what happens to your apostates? To Islam, I mean, I assume apostates to atheism are cool as beans.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I'm not particularly concerned about "taqqiya" for the record and find it amusing when I spot it. Crown Prince MbS's rationalization of the Islamic conquests when being interview by The Atlantic's Jeff (((Goldberg))) was highly amusing. Any "taqqiya" you encounter from a Mohammedan more than likely comes from a crooked merchant and has nothing to do with religion.

    Compare this to the Jews gaslighting Americans that the true meaning of America is open borders.

    Proselytizing not permitted, which as I understand makes it haram to live in a non-Islamic state.

    White converts to Islam become legally considered Mohammedans and treated as such by the state.

    Not a fan of atheism (or as Vox Day calls it, Dawkins Syndrome) but seems ditching Enlightenment era "Freedom of Religion" (quotes b/c no Mohammedans then and Jews still ghettoized and without political or civil rights) is terribly wise. Certainly don't want to revisit the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.

    I suppose there are always salami tactics. Early America had religious tests for officeholders which seems like a reasonable start. During the Civil War there was a popular proposal to pass a Constitutional amendment to declare America a Christian nation.
  115. @German_reader

    Miscegenation was once illegal in forty-four American states (and many within living memory) and, I might add, Germany itself.
     
    Such laws have historically been quite rare in Western societies, I can only think of Nazi Germany, South Africa and some US states.
    And imo there's not much chance you'd get even a majority of those opposed to the ongoing invasion to support such laws. Even many right-wingers would reject that, either for personal reasons or on principle.
    It's also rather pointless imo to draw up wishlists of all the harsh measures one would like to enact. I can understand the motivation and indulge similar fantasies myself at times. But in the end that's just political masturbation and a sign of one's own impotence. Unless one has a convincing answer to the question "How do we get people around to our way of thinking? What programme could appeal to a majority in our country?" that's all just fantasy.

    Unless one has a convincing answer to the question “How do we get people around to our way of thinking?

    As your spiritual advisor, I must point out that you know the answer – you cannot get people around to YOUR timid and gloomy way of thinking GR. The Right has been trying to do that for the past century and the world’s highest quality people have voted by flocking to the Left en masse.

    But if the Right offers an idealism to match that of the Left, then high quality people will be attracted.

    • Replies: @iffen
    the world’s highest quality people have voted by flocking to the Left en masse.


    I'm not exactly sure what you mean by high quality people, but I don't believe that this is accurate.
    , @notanon

    and the world’s highest quality people have voted by flocking to the Left en masse.
     
    the banking mafia's Pearl Harbor conquest of the media is how the current political hegemony was achieved
  116. @German_reader

    was already with the ancient Greeks
     
    I agree that AP's insistence on the importance of Christianity is rather reductive, there was advanced civilization in Mediterranean Europe well before Christianity, and it seems absurd to me that all that civilizational legacy should be attributed to Christianity. That's just one of those feel-good stories Christians like to tell themselves.
    Roman empire is often seen as somewhat stagnant though, with relatively little innovation during many centuries (due to the prevalence of slave labor which hindered innovation?)...maybe that's a stereotype (one would have to ask an ancient historian), but in some ways the middle ages were probably more dynamical and saw the development of many new technologies (e.g. wind mills).
    I don't think that can be solely or primarily attributed to Christianity though, there were probably many other factors as well (e.g. competition between different centres of power due to Europe's political fragmentation after the fall of the Roman empire). Generalizations about the positive or negative impact of Christianity always seem somewhat speculative to me.

    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee:
    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art). Then the Greek miracle ended (due to the collapse of the city states) because of pessimism and apathy. However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
    That is, Christianity is perceived as an optional (or even harmful) zigzag of history.

    • Agree: Dmitry
    • Replies: @DFH

    However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
     
    Medieval (Christian) technology had already surpassed that of the Classical world before the Renaissance (which didn't have much to do with science). Similarly the developments in art predated the Renaissance; Art in Antwerp, for instance, was very advanced without significant influence from the rediscovery of the Classical world. I think if everything from the ancient world had been destroyed during the Middle Ages, it would have made little difference to European technological advancement, and the art would be, although different, equally sophisticated
    , @German_reader

    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition
     
    I'm not sure that explains much...perpetual competition between aristocrats was a feature of many societies, but typically that led to nobles trying to win martial glory (often getting themselves and their men killed in the process), not to a flowering of philosophy and the arts.
    And classical Athens of course to some extent transcended those aristocratic values.

    and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece
     
    I'm not exactly an expert on Renaissance thought, but that seems very doubtful to me, as far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn't anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.
    I agree that there have always been significant anti-rational strains in Christianity that denigrated (secular) education, yet Christendom still proved to be more capable of intellectual development than most other civilizations.
    , @Dmitry

    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art).
     
    This is the theory which was believed by early writing of Nietzsche.

    And the end point of the Golden Age of Greece - can then be attributed to Alexander's destruction of Thebes, which has ended the original configuration of agon between cities.

    , @AP

    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee
     
    Does this represent Sovok atheistic propaganda, or anti-Westernism?
    , @AP
    Berdyaev was correct in essence:

    "I am convinced that Christianity alone- made possible both positive science and technique. As long as man had found himself in communion with nature and had based his life upon mythology, he could not raise himself above nature through an act of apprehension by means of the natural sciences or technique. It is impossible to build railways, invent the telegraph or telephone, while living in fear of the demons. Thus, for man to be able to treat nature like a mechanism, it is necessary for the daemonic inspiration of nature and man’s communion with it to have died out in the human consciousness. The mechanical conception of the world was to lead to a revolt against Christianity, but it was itself the spiritual result of the Christian act of liberating man from elemental nature and its demons. When immersed in nature and communing with its inner life, man could neither apprehend it scientifically nor master it technically. This fact throws light on the whole of man’s further destiny. Christianity had freed him from subjection to nature and had set him up spiritually in the centre of the created world. This anthropocentric feeling had been foreign to the man of'classical antiquity, who had felt himself to be an inalienable part of nature. Christianity alone inspired man with this anthropocentric feeling which became the fundamental motivating power of modem times. It made modern history with all its contradictions possible,because it exalted man above nature. The recent adversaries of Christianity do not take sufficiently into account their own dependence upon this Christian principle. "

  117. @DFH

    Rather, we can assume that Christianity has slowed the intellectual development of Europe.
     
    That doesn't follow from what you said

    Very briefly: if we assume that the success of Europe is explained by the foundations laid down in the pagan ancient era, in this case, hostile to ancient paganism Christianity, was rather an inhibiting factor.

  118. DFH says:
    @melanf
    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee:
    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art). Then the Greek miracle ended (due to the collapse of the city states) because of pessimism and apathy. However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
    That is, Christianity is perceived as an optional (or even harmful) zigzag of history.

    However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).

    Medieval (Christian) technology had already surpassed that of the Classical world before the Renaissance (which didn’t have much to do with science). Similarly the developments in art predated the Renaissance; Art in Antwerp, for instance, was very advanced without significant influence from the rediscovery of the Classical world. I think if everything from the ancient world had been destroyed during the Middle Ages, it would have made little difference to European technological advancement, and the art would be, although different, equally sophisticated

    • Replies: @melanf

    Medieval (Christian) technology had already surpassed that of the Classical world
     
    about the attitude to the achievements of antiquity "Bernard Chartres of the Cathedral school of Chartres, (one of the major centers of the Renaissance of the XII century.), claimed : "we are dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants"

    Renaissance (which didn’t have much to do with science)
     
    It's just wrong

    Art in Antwerp, for instance, was very advanced without significant influence from the rediscovery of the Classical world
     
    In Russian science, this is called the "Northern Renaissance". It is assumed that the driving forces were the same as the Italian Renaissance (or Greek miracle) - only the forms were different .


    I think if everything from the ancient world had been destroyed during the Middle Ages, it would have made little difference to European technological advancement,
     
    This is obviously wrong. Without Greek mathematics, astronomy and mechanics ( block, screw, water mill...) the development of Europe would be delayed for a thousand years.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Renaissance, a fairy tale
    Bertrand Gille, 'Ingenieure der Renaissance', Wien, 1968 (Les ingenieurs de la Renaissance, Paris, 1964)
    J.Huiznga, 'The waning of the Middle Ages, 1924, 1990, Londen (Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen)
  119. @melanf
    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee:
    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art). Then the Greek miracle ended (due to the collapse of the city states) because of pessimism and apathy. However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
    That is, Christianity is perceived as an optional (or even harmful) zigzag of history.

    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition

    I’m not sure that explains much…perpetual competition between aristocrats was a feature of many societies, but typically that led to nobles trying to win martial glory (often getting themselves and their men killed in the process), not to a flowering of philosophy and the arts.
    And classical Athens of course to some extent transcended those aristocratic values.

    and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece

    I’m not exactly an expert on Renaissance thought, but that seems very doubtful to me, as far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn’t anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.
    I agree that there have always been significant anti-rational strains in Christianity that denigrated (secular) education, yet Christendom still proved to be more capable of intellectual development than most other civilizations.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    I’m not exactly an expert on Renaissance thought, but that seems very doubtful to me, as far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn’t anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.

     

    IIRC a great deal of Renaissance thinkers did indeed pursue Greek and Roman thought, enough that it has set a culture of "great lost civilization" into fiction. Newton's fondness of mysticism is well known, including idealization of Hermes Trismegistus who is given various Greek and Egyptian roots. But probably the most significant thing I remember which indicated their admiration for pre-Christian thought was that I read that some Renaissance mathematicians believed that Euclid and Pythagoras had not only solved all of their mathematical challenges but that the ancients intentionally were hiding the answers in cryptic puzzles.
    , @melanf

    perpetual competition between aristocrats was a feature of many societies, but typically that led to nobles trying to win martial glory
     
    Of course, but the Greek society was absolutely unique in the scale of AGON, and unique in its direction. This is well-founded by historians. Read if you have free time:

    Alexander Zaicev. Das griechische Wunder: Die Entstehung der griechischen Zivilisation

    In this book, your objection is analyzed in detail.


    far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn’t anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.
     
    undoubtedly, but the psychological motivation for the achievements of the Renaissance, was little related to Christianity (but very similar to the motivation of Greek philosophers or artists). Sandro Botticeli was a good Christian - but he paint Venus for reasons not related to Christianity
  120. @AaronB

    It’s not likely most people in this demographic is going to join AaronB’s cult, or to believe in proposing miraculous solutions for the international deterioration.
     
    Give it time, Dmitry.

    And yet the dude in almost the world’s most successful and powerful countries (Germany) that most people everywhere dream of living in, is the most pessimistic.
     
    ,

    What is ironic is that you don't see the significance if this and it doesn't make you question your materialism.

    How long do you think if is till your favorite secular and prosperous Azerbaijan begins producing people like GR en masse?

    What is ironic is that you don’t see the significance if this and it doesn’t make you question your materialism.

    How long do you think if is till your favorite secular and prosperous Azerbaijan begins producing people like GR en masse?

    Unfortunately, I don’t think it is likely Azerbaijan will en masse produce Germanic intellectuals of the type, who, although usually calm and resistant to insults, may erupt to brawls across the streets of Baku when disputing important questions such as which is the greatest of Beethoven’s late string quartets, or the correct interpretation of the final paragraph of Rilke’s 10th Duino Elegy.

    But from the nationalities of this region, – after secularization and assimilation, can come civilized people of different political temperaments.

    E.g. Sergey Guriyev is from this area by nationality. And our own spiritual leader, Karlin – has written yesterday he is a descendant of noble rulers of Lakia.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    Germanic intellectuals of the type, who, although usually calm and resistant to insults, may erupt to brawls across the streets of Baku when disputing important questions such as which is the greatest of Beethoven’s late string quartets, or the correct interpretation of the final paragraph of Rilke’s 10th Duino Elegy
     
    .

    Umm, I think you have a rather romantic image of our GR here.

    It is s good vision, tho - you clearly yearn for a passionate cause worth fighting for, but can only imagine it being over some 'civilized' cultural pursuit that men in pajamas reclining in comfortable armchairs might engage in mildly animated debate over without spilling their wine.

    But from the nationalities of this region, – after secularization and assimilation, can come civilized people of different political temperaments
     
    Civilized meaning inoffensive, innocuous, lukewarm, rather boring people - not the passion of great art or great religion.

    I am sure these Last Men or Last Mice are just the sort of human ideal we should all be striving for.
  121. @German_reader

    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition
     
    I'm not sure that explains much...perpetual competition between aristocrats was a feature of many societies, but typically that led to nobles trying to win martial glory (often getting themselves and their men killed in the process), not to a flowering of philosophy and the arts.
    And classical Athens of course to some extent transcended those aristocratic values.

    and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece
     
    I'm not exactly an expert on Renaissance thought, but that seems very doubtful to me, as far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn't anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.
    I agree that there have always been significant anti-rational strains in Christianity that denigrated (secular) education, yet Christendom still proved to be more capable of intellectual development than most other civilizations.

    I’m not exactly an expert on Renaissance thought, but that seems very doubtful to me, as far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn’t anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.

    IIRC a great deal of Renaissance thinkers did indeed pursue Greek and Roman thought, enough that it has set a culture of “great lost civilization” into fiction. Newton’s fondness of mysticism is well known, including idealization of Hermes Trismegistus who is given various Greek and Egyptian roots. But probably the most significant thing I remember which indicated their admiration for pre-Christian thought was that I read that some Renaissance mathematicians believed that Euclid and Pythagoras had not only solved all of their mathematical challenges but that the ancients intentionally were hiding the answers in cryptic puzzles.

    • Replies: @Logan
    I don't think many will consider Newton to be a Renaissance thinker. He came along after it and is generally considered one of the classic examples of an Enlightenment man.

    Of course, the distinctions between these eras are somewhat arbitrary. There is no general agreement on when "the Renaissance" begins or ends.
  122. @DFH

    However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
     
    Medieval (Christian) technology had already surpassed that of the Classical world before the Renaissance (which didn't have much to do with science). Similarly the developments in art predated the Renaissance; Art in Antwerp, for instance, was very advanced without significant influence from the rediscovery of the Classical world. I think if everything from the ancient world had been destroyed during the Middle Ages, it would have made little difference to European technological advancement, and the art would be, although different, equally sophisticated

    Medieval (Christian) technology had already surpassed that of the Classical world

    about the attitude to the achievements of antiquity “Bernard Chartres of the Cathedral school of Chartres, (one of the major centers of the Renaissance of the XII century.), claimed : “we are dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants

    Renaissance (which didn’t have much to do with science)

    It’s just wrong

    Art in Antwerp, for instance, was very advanced without significant influence from the rediscovery of the Classical world

    In Russian science, this is called the “Northern Renaissance”. It is assumed that the driving forces were the same as the Italian Renaissance (or Greek miracle) – only the forms were different .

    I think if everything from the ancient world had been destroyed during the Middle Ages, it would have made little difference to European technological advancement,

    This is obviously wrong. Without Greek mathematics, astronomy and mechanics ( block, screw, water mill…) the development of Europe would be delayed for a thousand years.

    • Replies: @DFH

    about the attitude to the achievements of antiquity “Bernard Chartres of the Cathedral school of Chartres, (one of the major centers of the Renaissance of the XII century.), claimed : “we are dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants”
     
    Architectural techniques were essentially reinvented after their drop to a primitive level in the Dark Ages though.

    It’s just wrong

     

    But it's not. Which scientific or technological discoveries came from the Renaissance?

    In Russian science, this is called the “Northern Renaissance”. It is assumed that the driving forces were the same as the Italian Renaissance (or Greek miracle) – only the forms were different .
     
    But it wasn't, it did not come from the rediscovery of Antiquity. The art was an organic development of Gothic art. It was also obviously very Christian.

    This is obviously wrong. Without Greek mathematics, astronomy and mechanics ( block, screw, water mill…) the development of Europe would be delayed for a thousand years.
     
    Simple machines like the water mill were not even invented by the Greeks, but already existed in the Middle East. Medieval people showed themselves capable of independently developing agricultural, metallurgical and shipbuilding technology which surpassed that of the Romans or Greeks.
  123. @melanf
    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee:
    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art). Then the Greek miracle ended (due to the collapse of the city states) because of pessimism and apathy. However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
    That is, Christianity is perceived as an optional (or even harmful) zigzag of history.

    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art).

    This is the theory which was believed by early writing of Nietzsche.

    And the end point of the Golden Age of Greece – can then be attributed to Alexander’s destruction of Thebes, which has ended the original configuration of agon between cities.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Actually, Dmitry, Nietzsche thought the golden age of Greece ended because of the rationalism introduced by Socrates :)

    Kind of reminds you of someone on this board, doesn't it. Its in his Birth of Tragedy.

    And you are correct, the theory of the Agon was written up in one of his early essays but is also found in that book.
  124. @German_reader

    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition
     
    I'm not sure that explains much...perpetual competition between aristocrats was a feature of many societies, but typically that led to nobles trying to win martial glory (often getting themselves and their men killed in the process), not to a flowering of philosophy and the arts.
    And classical Athens of course to some extent transcended those aristocratic values.

    and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece
     
    I'm not exactly an expert on Renaissance thought, but that seems very doubtful to me, as far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn't anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.
    I agree that there have always been significant anti-rational strains in Christianity that denigrated (secular) education, yet Christendom still proved to be more capable of intellectual development than most other civilizations.

    perpetual competition between aristocrats was a feature of many societies, but typically that led to nobles trying to win martial glory

    Of course, but the Greek society was absolutely unique in the scale of AGON, and unique in its direction. This is well-founded by historians. Read if you have free time:

    Alexander Zaicev. Das griechische Wunder: Die Entstehung der griechischen Zivilisation

    In this book, your objection is analyzed in detail.

    far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn’t anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.

    undoubtedly, but the psychological motivation for the achievements of the Renaissance, was little related to Christianity (but very similar to the motivation of Greek philosophers or artists). Sandro Botticeli was a good Christian – but he paint Venus for reasons not related to Christianity

    • Replies: @German_reader
    Thanks for the book recommendation! It's nice to know that people in Russia are still interested in the classics.
    , @AP

    the psychological motivation for the achievements of the Renaissance, was little related to Christianity (but very similar to the motivation of Greek philosophers or artists).
     
    You believe that devout Christians compartmentalized the faith that drove much of their lives and that their scientific pursuits could be separated from their faith?

    For example, Kepler:

    (article apparently written for high school students and the style matches)

    https://www.space.com/35772-copernicus-vs-catholic-church-real-story.html


    Going Bananas: The Real Story of Kepler, Copernicus and the Church

    Paul Sutter is an astrophysicist at The Ohio State University and the chief scientist at COSI Science Center


    All mixed up

    In modern times we neatly separate science, philosophy and religion into their nice tidy little boxes, and get annoyed when members of one box start talking about the contents of another domain. And we view the history of science as proto-scientists fighting against the Church to leave them in peace and let them do their science-y thing

    However, there are two important things to remember when looking at the early history of science around the time of Copernicus and Kepler:

    ...What we now call science, philosophy and theology were all mixed up together.

    ...Kepler penned a work in defense of the Copernican model, but not on physical or mathematical grounds — Kepler's argument was religious. He said that since the son of God was at the center of the Christian faith, the sun ought to be at the center of the universe. Ergo, heliocentrism.

    Kepler's day job was as the court astrologer for the Holy Roman Emperor. Yes: astrologer. Horoscopes and stuff. And he was way more obsessed with numerology than he should have been.

    Or maybe not, since that obsession led him to develop his now-famous three laws. Convinced for quasi-spiritual reasons that the sun was at the center of the universe, he labored for years, poring over tables and tables of handwritten charts detailing the precise locations of the planets.

    Kepler wasn’t just looking for a handy fitting formula; he was searching for signs of the divine. He was convinced that the heavens, being naturally closer to God, contained a sort of perfection not seen on Earth since the Garden of Eden. What's more, if he could deduce the divine geometry of the heavens, he could look for similarities here on Earth to help predict the future.

    Here's an example. After years of continual frustration from trying ever-more Byzantine (and ever-more unsatisfactory) equations to fit the motions of the planets, Kepler gave the simple ellipse a shot. Besides working really, really well, Kepler was convinced he got it right because of the relationship between the motions of the planets and music.

    Kepler found that the planets move in ellipses, not circles, around the sun. He also found that when the planets are closer to the sun, they move faster than when they're farther away.

    When it comes to the Earth, the ratio between its fastest speed and slowest speed reduces to 16/15, which is the same ratio between the notes fa and mi. Needless to say, Kepler thought this was fantastically important:

    “The Earth sings Mi, Fa, Mi: you may infer even from the syllables that in this our home misery and famine hold sway.”

    To Kepler, this was the clincher. Why were the heavens so perfect but the Earth so full of wretchedness? The music of the spheres tells us - it fit so perfectly! His new system wasn't just a mathematical convenience, but a window into the mind of God and the hidden order of the universe.

    Kepler was so convinced that there was some sort of hidden order in the heavens that he dug even deeper. Surely there was something that could unlock those juicy divine mysteries. After more years of laborious study, he found it: the square of a planet's orbital period (the time it takes to get around the sun) is directly proportional to the cube of its semimajor axis (the planet's farthest distance from the sun), and that proportion is the same for all the planets.

    Why the square of the orbital period? Why not the semimajor axis to the fourth power? Kepler didn't know and (probably) didn't care. He found a universal constant, a single number that tied together the motions of all the planets — and the Earth.

    Here, at least, was the divine music — and numerology — Kepler sought after years of labor. His model of the universe united the earthly and celestial realms in (literal) harmony, it found beautiful and simple geometric elegance in the motions of the planets, and his simple formulas for predicting planetary positions made for excellent horoscopes.

    ::::::::::

    So scientist/theologian/astrologer was motivated by his faith and his work was the product of that faith.
  125. @Bliss

    Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians; the economic and innovation center of gravity would have kept going north, just as in the Old World it crept north and west with each passing millennium.
     
    Firstly, where is your evidence that northern amerindians have a higher IQ than the Central Americans? This is just another example of your irrational northern bias. Which, btw, is kind of amusing considering that some of your fellow russians see you as an alien “kebab” from the South.

    Secondly, the Persian civilization reached north into the Caucasus and Central Asia yet the center of gravity stayed in the South. And the Chinese civilization never really took hold among the northern barbarians of north asia.

    In contrast, Black Africa didn’t have a single written language before colonization.
     
    A lie repeated a million times does not turn into the truth. Africans were writing, building, inventing, calculating etc many centuries before Europeans:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG/1200px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG



    https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/700_f.jpg

    There have now been several genetic studies done on Egyptian mummies from various periods. They were predominantly Semitic and came across the Sinai from the Fertile Crescent. Their Black admixture was in fact lower than modern day Egyptians. Around 5-10% IIRC. I’ll let you Google the rest since you obviously need to get started on that anyways.

    As I once heard someone say “even the smart ones usually have light skin”

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    That’s useless. Bliss has one genetic study with an African Y chromosome haplogroup of one pharaoh, which proves he was fully black, while your studies will be shown to be mostly from later periods and of small sample sizes. Sub-Saharan Africans wuz kangz ‘n’ sheet!
    , @Bliss

    There have now been several genetic studies done on Egyptian mummies from various periods.
     
    The one undisputed genetic study of a known Egyptian Pharoah (and thus of all Pharoahs of that Dynasty) reveals a paternal Haplogroup that is African.

    They were predominantly Semitic and came across the Sinai from the Fertile Crescent.
     
    Stupid nonsense. Egyptian civilization is older than the semites, Arab or Jew. Your Hebrew ancestors may have originated in the Fertile Crescent (in what is now southern Iraq) but they ended up as slaves in African Egypt for a few centuries. Slaves speak the language of their masters. Which is why the language of the Hebrews is related to the ancient Egyptian language, which is an african language, not to the ancient languages of the Fertile Crescent. Centuries of being enslaved by the Egyptians also explains why the Hebrews practiced circumcision, which only Egyptians and Ethiopians practiced in ancient times

    So the fact that the Torah/Old Testament and the Quran are both written in languages that belong to the Afro-asiatic language family, which originated in Africa, is an example of the extensive civilizational impact of Egypt.
  126. @Talha

    since he’s an invader
     
    Nah - my father stood in line and filled out a bunch of forms and did things legally. I was six years old and along for the ride.

    If you want to see invaders, it's these guys:
    https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/649019.jpg

    I'm just what the classical jurists called a Muslim bi-dhimmat il-kaafir (a Muslim dhimmi).


    dreaded taqqiya
     
    Trust me bro, that has been waaaay oversold to you guys by Zionists. Traditional Sunni people like me don't do taqiyyah (unless maybe you stick a gun to my head - and even then the more laudable option is to accept becoming a martyr - read our books). The Zionists want to make sure you guys never take whatever we say seriously. Which is fine - you decide who you want to believe.

    The one thing that really pisses me off is that these guys have the gall to charge you for their snake oil...er books. The decent thing would be to subsidize giving them out for free - niggardly bastards.

    The issue I find most disturbing is the growing trend among a lot of social-activist SJW Muslims to support the poz. The worst part is that they aren't doing it as some taqiyyah strategy, they actually believe in it. If you have ever engaged with them about it like myself and some brothers I know - it scares the hell out of me how sincere these people are - the saving grace is that these people are hardly associated with or taking cues from traditional scholars - that would be a massive disaster and a huge crisis. And of course poz-support is a gateway to kufr (mostly atheism) - always has been.


    Adoption of millet system for invader communities
     
    Sweet.

    Comprehensive nationwide segregation
     
    Sweet.

    Criminalization of miscegenation and interfaith marriage
     
    Half sweet.

    Targeted stripping of residence rights of troublemakers and subsequent deportation (or incarceration) Harsh policing and criminal justice
     
    Sweet.

    Man - you are on a roll there! Pretty sick and tired of having to hear about idiot Muslims doing stupid things in the West and getting coddled - let's make it happen folks!

    Two questions; 1) proselytizing (allowed or not? not that it matters much due to the internet, but just curious) and 2) what happens to your apostates? To Islam, I mean, I assume apostates to atheism are cool as beans.

    Peace.

    I’m not particularly concerned about “taqqiya” for the record and find it amusing when I spot it. Crown Prince MbS’s rationalization of the Islamic conquests when being interview by The Atlantic’s Jeff (((Goldberg))) was highly amusing. Any “taqqiya” you encounter from a Mohammedan more than likely comes from a crooked merchant and has nothing to do with religion.

    Compare this to the Jews gaslighting Americans that the true meaning of America is open borders.

    Proselytizing not permitted, which as I understand makes it haram to live in a non-Islamic state.

    White converts to Islam become legally considered Mohammedans and treated as such by the state.

    Not a fan of atheism (or as Vox Day calls it, Dawkins Syndrome) but seems ditching Enlightenment era “Freedom of Religion” (quotes b/c no Mohammedans then and Jews still ghettoized and without political or civil rights) is terribly wise. Certainly don’t want to revisit the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.

    I suppose there are always salami tactics. Early America had religious tests for officeholders which seems like a reasonable start. During the Civil War there was a popular proposal to pass a Constitutional amendment to declare America a Christian nation.

    • Replies: @Talha

    more than likely comes from a crooked merchant and has nothing to do with religion.
     
    I agree here. In this day of the internet, it is pretty easy to bypass middlemen and go right to the source. Muslims ask our scholars for fatwas on various subjects all the time. If you want to know what the Islamic position is on something, simply find a reliable source and search their answers - that is unless you think our scholars do taqiyyah in answering fatwas (LOL!).

    This is a great one for Hanafi rulings:
    http://www.daruliftaa.com/biography (one of the scholars I have attended class under)

    This is a great one for Shafi'i ones:
    http://shafiifiqh.com/

    Proselytizing not permitted, which as I understand makes it haram to live in a non-Islamic state.
     
    No, it is fine to live there if it is part of the dhimmah contract. It would obviously be highly discouraging, and many might go to Muslim countries because of that change in rules, but it is not asking us to commit a haram act - it is simply asking us to halt a meritorious one. But like I said, a huge chunk of the people coming into Islam are doing so through independent research on the internet (of course a good chunk leaving Islam* are also due to the internet).

    White converts to Islam become legally considered Mohammedans and treated as such by the state.
     
    Nice!

    Certainly don’t want to revisit the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.
     
    Yeah - that's the big issue you guys have to balance out. I agree this must be approached with wisdom.

    Constitutional amendment to declare America a Christian nation.
     
    Interesting - I wonder if there's a chance that would ever happen again...

    But that would simply mean joining a fairly big club of countries where there is an official (or preferred) state religion (go blue team!!!):
    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/10/03090603/PF_10.04.17_statereligions-00.png

    Anyway, did you know it is officially against the Greek constitution to proselytize? No joke:
    "The Constitution establishes the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ (Greek Orthodox Church) as the prevailing religion, but also provides for the right of all citizens to practice the religion of their choice. While the government generally respected this right, non-Orthodox groups sometimes faced administrative obstacles or encountered legal restrictions on religious practice. The Constitution and law prohibit proselytizing and stipulate that no rite of worship may disturb public order or offend moral principles."
    https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2007/90178.htm

    Dag yo! Though I think they have not been super into enforcing it much these days since neo-pagans have started to take root there.

    You're an interesting guy with very interesting ideas. We need more people thinking out of the box. And a Swede, so I'm kind of biased towards you guys anyway.

    Peace.

    *So, what's the deal on our apostates? Can we, you know...deal with them? We can make it a sport using Hanafi rules - if you make it across the border of the millet you win!
  127. @melanf
    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee:
    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art). Then the Greek miracle ended (due to the collapse of the city states) because of pessimism and apathy. However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
    That is, Christianity is perceived as an optional (or even harmful) zigzag of history.

    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee

    Does this represent Sovok atheistic propaganda, or anti-Westernism?

    • Replies: @melanf


    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee
     
    Does this represent Sovok atheistic propaganda, or anti-Westernism?
     
    I had no doubt that you will appear with such a comment. I would like to inform you that the scientific views that I retold are best justified in the works of Alexander Zaitsev. Zaitsev was a believing Catholic (he was of Polish origin) and an anti-Communist. In the future, it would be better if you argue in fact, and not to denounce the enemies of the party line
  128. @melanf

    Medieval (Christian) technology had already surpassed that of the Classical world
     
    about the attitude to the achievements of antiquity "Bernard Chartres of the Cathedral school of Chartres, (one of the major centers of the Renaissance of the XII century.), claimed : "we are dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants"

    Renaissance (which didn’t have much to do with science)
     
    It's just wrong

    Art in Antwerp, for instance, was very advanced without significant influence from the rediscovery of the Classical world
     
    In Russian science, this is called the "Northern Renaissance". It is assumed that the driving forces were the same as the Italian Renaissance (or Greek miracle) - only the forms were different .


    I think if everything from the ancient world had been destroyed during the Middle Ages, it would have made little difference to European technological advancement,
     
    This is obviously wrong. Without Greek mathematics, astronomy and mechanics ( block, screw, water mill...) the development of Europe would be delayed for a thousand years.

    about the attitude to the achievements of antiquity “Bernard Chartres of the Cathedral school of Chartres, (one of the major centers of the Renaissance of the XII century.), claimed : “we are dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants”

    Architectural techniques were essentially reinvented after their drop to a primitive level in the Dark Ages though.

    It’s just wrong

    But it’s not. Which scientific or technological discoveries came from the Renaissance?

    In Russian science, this is called the “Northern Renaissance”. It is assumed that the driving forces were the same as the Italian Renaissance (or Greek miracle) – only the forms were different .

    But it wasn’t, it did not come from the rediscovery of Antiquity. The art was an organic development of Gothic art. It was also obviously very Christian.

    This is obviously wrong. Without Greek mathematics, astronomy and mechanics ( block, screw, water mill…) the development of Europe would be delayed for a thousand years.

    Simple machines like the water mill were not even invented by the Greeks, but already existed in the Middle East. Medieval people showed themselves capable of independently developing agricultural, metallurgical and shipbuilding technology which surpassed that of the Romans or Greeks.

    • Replies: @melanf

    But it’s not. Which scientific or technological discoveries came from the Renaissance?
     
    The era of rapid progress in shipbuilding, firearms and printing


    (The Northern Renaissance) was an organic development of Gothic art
     
    Any phenomenon is the development of something previous. But realism and the turn to glorify the beauty of people - meant the retreat of medieval Christianity

    This is not Christian art
    http://www.arteveryday.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/211.jpg

    water mill were not even invented by the Greeks, but already existed in the Middle East.
     
    The first written mention (as well as the first archaeological finds) belong to the to the "classical" ancient world.

    Medieval people showed themselves capable of independently developing agricultural, metallurgical and shipbuilding technology which surpassed that of the Romans or Greeks.
     
    These technologies have developed based on the achievements of the ancient world (not independently). Christianity for this development was not necessary. If Europe did not become Christian, Europe would still develop technologically. Perhaps at a faster pace.
  129. @melanf

    perpetual competition between aristocrats was a feature of many societies, but typically that led to nobles trying to win martial glory
     
    Of course, but the Greek society was absolutely unique in the scale of AGON, and unique in its direction. This is well-founded by historians. Read if you have free time:

    Alexander Zaicev. Das griechische Wunder: Die Entstehung der griechischen Zivilisation

    In this book, your objection is analyzed in detail.


    far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn’t anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.
     
    undoubtedly, but the psychological motivation for the achievements of the Renaissance, was little related to Christianity (but very similar to the motivation of Greek philosophers or artists). Sandro Botticeli was a good Christian - but he paint Venus for reasons not related to Christianity

    Thanks for the book recommendation! It’s nice to know that people in Russia are still interested in the classics.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I think this view of Ancient Greece was already earlier popular in the 19th century - in the German language with men such as the young Nietzsche.

    I believe it is from Nietzsche's early essays (he has written an essay about this perhaps while he was still a professor in Switzerland), but I do not have access to the book now.

  130. AP says:
    @melanf

    . There was something specific to Christianity that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world. I do not think it is a coincidence that prior to Christianity northern Europeans had been rather backward for millenia, but after adopting it they surged past long-established civilizations in China or India.
     
    Very, very questionable statement. "something specific.... that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world " was already with the ancient Greeks. Рrior triumph of Christianity, northern Europeans-pagan colonized Iceland and Greenland and reached America.
    Rather, we can assume that Christianity has slowed the intellectual development of Europe.

    Very, very questionable statement. “something specific…. that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world ” was already with the ancient Greeks

    They didn’t apply it nearly as much, preferring to study and contemplate. Compare Europe 500 BC to 500 AD little difference. 500 AD to 1500 AD enormous difference.

    Рrior triumph of Christianity, northern Europeans-pagan colonized Iceland and Greenland and reached America.

    And Polynesian savages traveled even further around the Pacific.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Savages ?
    Highly civilised people, excellent navigators
    ⦁ Guy Murchie, ‘Het lied van de lucht’, (Song of the sky, an exploration of the ocean of air, Boston), Bilthoven 1956
  131. AP says:
    @melanf
    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee:
    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art). Then the Greek miracle ended (due to the collapse of the city states) because of pessimism and apathy. However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
    That is, Christianity is perceived as an optional (or even harmful) zigzag of history.

    Berdyaev was correct in essence:

    “I am convinced that Christianity alone- made possible both positive science and technique. As long as man had found himself in communion with nature and had based his life upon mythology, he could not raise himself above nature through an act of apprehension by means of the natural sciences or technique. It is impossible to build railways, invent the telegraph or telephone, while living in fear of the demons. Thus, for man to be able to treat nature like a mechanism, it is necessary for the daemonic inspiration of nature and man’s communion with it to have died out in the human consciousness. The mechanical conception of the world was to lead to a revolt against Christianity, but it was itself the spiritual result of the Christian act of liberating man from elemental nature and its demons. When immersed in nature and communing with its inner life, man could neither apprehend it scientifically nor master it technically. This fact throws light on the whole of man’s further destiny. Christianity had freed him from subjection to nature and had set him up spiritually in the centre of the created world. This anthropocentric feeling had been foreign to the man of’classical antiquity, who had felt himself to be an inalienable part of nature. Christianity alone inspired man with this anthropocentric feeling which became the fundamental motivating power of modem times. It made modern history with all its contradictions possible,because it exalted man above nature. The recent adversaries of Christianity do not take sufficiently into account their own dependence upon this Christian principle. “

    • Replies: @German_reader

    It is impossible to build railways, invent the telegraph or telephone, while living in fear of the demons.
     
    ? The Christians in late antiquity and the middle ages believed just as much in demons as the pagans had...and unlike the pagans they regarded them not just as spirits that could be good, bad or neutral, but as malevolent soldiers in Satan's host.
    These over-generalized discussions about Christianity's merits and flaws are kind of dumb imo, unlikely to be very illuminating.
  132. @German_reader
    Thanks for the book recommendation! It's nice to know that people in Russia are still interested in the classics.

    I think this view of Ancient Greece was already earlier popular in the 19th century – in the German language with men such as the young Nietzsche.

    I believe it is from Nietzsche’s early essays (he has written an essay about this perhaps while he was still a professor in Switzerland), but I do not have access to the book now.

    • Replies: @melanf

    I think this view of Ancient Greece was already earlier popular in the 19th century – in the German language with men such as the young Nietzsche.
     
    Rather Jacob Burckhardt
  133. @Thorfinnsson
    I'm not particularly concerned about "taqqiya" for the record and find it amusing when I spot it. Crown Prince MbS's rationalization of the Islamic conquests when being interview by The Atlantic's Jeff (((Goldberg))) was highly amusing. Any "taqqiya" you encounter from a Mohammedan more than likely comes from a crooked merchant and has nothing to do with religion.

    Compare this to the Jews gaslighting Americans that the true meaning of America is open borders.

    Proselytizing not permitted, which as I understand makes it haram to live in a non-Islamic state.

    White converts to Islam become legally considered Mohammedans and treated as such by the state.

    Not a fan of atheism (or as Vox Day calls it, Dawkins Syndrome) but seems ditching Enlightenment era "Freedom of Religion" (quotes b/c no Mohammedans then and Jews still ghettoized and without political or civil rights) is terribly wise. Certainly don't want to revisit the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.

    I suppose there are always salami tactics. Early America had religious tests for officeholders which seems like a reasonable start. During the Civil War there was a popular proposal to pass a Constitutional amendment to declare America a Christian nation.

    more than likely comes from a crooked merchant and has nothing to do with religion.

    I agree here. In this day of the internet, it is pretty easy to bypass middlemen and go right to the source. Muslims ask our scholars for fatwas on various subjects all the time. If you want to know what the Islamic position is on something, simply find a reliable source and search their answers – that is unless you think our scholars do taqiyyah in answering fatwas (LOL!).

    This is a great one for Hanafi rulings:
    http://www.daruliftaa.com/biography (one of the scholars I have attended class under)

    This is a great one for Shafi’i ones:
    http://shafiifiqh.com/

    Proselytizing not permitted, which as I understand makes it haram to live in a non-Islamic state.

    No, it is fine to live there if it is part of the dhimmah contract. It would obviously be highly discouraging, and many might go to Muslim countries because of that change in rules, but it is not asking us to commit a haram act – it is simply asking us to halt a meritorious one. But like I said, a huge chunk of the people coming into Islam are doing so through independent research on the internet (of course a good chunk leaving Islam* are also due to the internet).

    White converts to Islam become legally considered Mohammedans and treated as such by the state.

    Nice!

    Certainly don’t want to revisit the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.

    Yeah – that’s the big issue you guys have to balance out. I agree this must be approached with wisdom.

    Constitutional amendment to declare America a Christian nation.

    Interesting – I wonder if there’s a chance that would ever happen again…

    But that would simply mean joining a fairly big club of countries where there is an official (or preferred) state religion (go blue team!!!):

    Anyway, did you know it is officially against the Greek constitution to proselytize? No joke:
    “The Constitution establishes the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ (Greek Orthodox Church) as the prevailing religion, but also provides for the right of all citizens to practice the religion of their choice. While the government generally respected this right, non-Orthodox groups sometimes faced administrative obstacles or encountered legal restrictions on religious practice. The Constitution and law prohibit proselytizing and stipulate that no rite of worship may disturb public order or offend moral principles.”
    https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2007/90178.htm

    Dag yo! Though I think they have not been super into enforcing it much these days since neo-pagans have started to take root there.

    You’re an interesting guy with very interesting ideas. We need more people thinking out of the box. And a Swede, so I’m kind of biased towards you guys anyway.

    Peace.

    *So, what’s the deal on our apostates? Can we, you know…deal with them? We can make it a sport using Hanafi rules – if you make it across the border of the millet you win!

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Mohammedans executing apostates in Christian states is a bad look and would not be permitted.

    That said I would have no problem with lesser penalties, conducted of course under the framework of law including a fair trial with the right to defense counsel and the right of appeal.
    , @Anon
    Iceland FTW!

    Also: Kazakhstan is hostile to religion?
  134. @AP
    Berdyaev was correct in essence:

    "I am convinced that Christianity alone- made possible both positive science and technique. As long as man had found himself in communion with nature and had based his life upon mythology, he could not raise himself above nature through an act of apprehension by means of the natural sciences or technique. It is impossible to build railways, invent the telegraph or telephone, while living in fear of the demons. Thus, for man to be able to treat nature like a mechanism, it is necessary for the daemonic inspiration of nature and man’s communion with it to have died out in the human consciousness. The mechanical conception of the world was to lead to a revolt against Christianity, but it was itself the spiritual result of the Christian act of liberating man from elemental nature and its demons. When immersed in nature and communing with its inner life, man could neither apprehend it scientifically nor master it technically. This fact throws light on the whole of man’s further destiny. Christianity had freed him from subjection to nature and had set him up spiritually in the centre of the created world. This anthropocentric feeling had been foreign to the man of'classical antiquity, who had felt himself to be an inalienable part of nature. Christianity alone inspired man with this anthropocentric feeling which became the fundamental motivating power of modem times. It made modern history with all its contradictions possible,because it exalted man above nature. The recent adversaries of Christianity do not take sufficiently into account their own dependence upon this Christian principle. "

    It is impossible to build railways, invent the telegraph or telephone, while living in fear of the demons.

    ? The Christians in late antiquity and the middle ages believed just as much in demons as the pagans had…and unlike the pagans they regarded them not just as spirits that could be good, bad or neutral, but as malevolent soldiers in Satan’s host.
    These over-generalized discussions about Christianity’s merits and flaws are kind of dumb imo, unlikely to be very illuminating.

    • Replies: @iffen

    These over-generalized discussions about Christianity’s merits and flaws are kind of dumb imo, unlikely to be very illuminating.
     
    6 stars in a 5 star system
    , @AP

    The Christians in late antiquity and the middle ages believed just as much in demons as the pagans had…and unlike the pagans they regarded them not just as spirits that could be good, bad or neutral, but as malevolent soldiers in Satan’s host.
     
    Ones that ought to be defeated, not served or placated. And could be defeated. Thus giving people control.
  135. @German_reader

    It is impossible to build railways, invent the telegraph or telephone, while living in fear of the demons.
     
    ? The Christians in late antiquity and the middle ages believed just as much in demons as the pagans had...and unlike the pagans they regarded them not just as spirits that could be good, bad or neutral, but as malevolent soldiers in Satan's host.
    These over-generalized discussions about Christianity's merits and flaws are kind of dumb imo, unlikely to be very illuminating.

    These over-generalized discussions about Christianity’s merits and flaws are kind of dumb imo, unlikely to be very illuminating.

    6 stars in a 5 star system

  136. AP says:
    @melanf

    perpetual competition between aristocrats was a feature of many societies, but typically that led to nobles trying to win martial glory
     
    Of course, but the Greek society was absolutely unique in the scale of AGON, and unique in its direction. This is well-founded by historians. Read if you have free time:

    Alexander Zaicev. Das griechische Wunder: Die Entstehung der griechischen Zivilisation

    In this book, your objection is analyzed in detail.


    far as I know most of the Renaissance wasn’t anti-Christian, or even really non-Christian.
     
    undoubtedly, but the psychological motivation for the achievements of the Renaissance, was little related to Christianity (but very similar to the motivation of Greek philosophers or artists). Sandro Botticeli was a good Christian - but he paint Venus for reasons not related to Christianity

    the psychological motivation for the achievements of the Renaissance, was little related to Christianity (but very similar to the motivation of Greek philosophers or artists).

    You believe that devout Christians compartmentalized the faith that drove much of their lives and that their scientific pursuits could be separated from their faith?

    For example, Kepler:

    (article apparently written for high school students and the style matches)

    https://www.space.com/35772-copernicus-vs-catholic-church-real-story.html

    Going Bananas: The Real Story of Kepler, Copernicus and the Church

    Paul Sutter is an astrophysicist at The Ohio State University and the chief scientist at COSI Science Center

    All mixed up

    In modern times we neatly separate science, philosophy and religion into their nice tidy little boxes, and get annoyed when members of one box start talking about the contents of another domain. And we view the history of science as proto-scientists fighting against the Church to leave them in peace and let them do their science-y thing

    However, there are two important things to remember when looking at the early history of science around the time of Copernicus and Kepler:

    …What we now call science, philosophy and theology were all mixed up together.

    …Kepler penned a work in defense of the Copernican model, but not on physical or mathematical grounds — Kepler’s argument was religious. He said that since the son of God was at the center of the Christian faith, the sun ought to be at the center of the universe. Ergo, heliocentrism.

    Kepler’s day job was as the court astrologer for the Holy Roman Emperor. Yes: astrologer. Horoscopes and stuff. And he was way more obsessed with numerology than he should have been.

    Or maybe not, since that obsession led him to develop his now-famous three laws. Convinced for quasi-spiritual reasons that the sun was at the center of the universe, he labored for years, poring over tables and tables of handwritten charts detailing the precise locations of the planets.

    Kepler wasn’t just looking for a handy fitting formula; he was searching for signs of the divine. He was convinced that the heavens, being naturally closer to God, contained a sort of perfection not seen on Earth since the Garden of Eden. What’s more, if he could deduce the divine geometry of the heavens, he could look for similarities here on Earth to help predict the future.

    Here’s an example. After years of continual frustration from trying ever-more Byzantine (and ever-more unsatisfactory) equations to fit the motions of the planets, Kepler gave the simple ellipse a shot. Besides working really, really well, Kepler was convinced he got it right because of the relationship between the motions of the planets and music.

    Kepler found that the planets move in ellipses, not circles, around the sun. He also found that when the planets are closer to the sun, they move faster than when they’re farther away.

    When it comes to the Earth, the ratio between its fastest speed and slowest speed reduces to 16/15, which is the same ratio between the notes fa and mi. Needless to say, Kepler thought this was fantastically important:

    “The Earth sings Mi, Fa, Mi: you may infer even from the syllables that in this our home misery and famine hold sway.”

    To Kepler, this was the clincher. Why were the heavens so perfect but the Earth so full of wretchedness? The music of the spheres tells us – it fit so perfectly! His new system wasn’t just a mathematical convenience, but a window into the mind of God and the hidden order of the universe.

    Kepler was so convinced that there was some sort of hidden order in the heavens that he dug even deeper. Surely there was something that could unlock those juicy divine mysteries. After more years of laborious study, he found it: the square of a planet’s orbital period (the time it takes to get around the sun) is directly proportional to the cube of its semimajor axis (the planet’s farthest distance from the sun), and that proportion is the same for all the planets.

    Why the square of the orbital period? Why not the semimajor axis to the fourth power? Kepler didn’t know and (probably) didn’t care. He found a universal constant, a single number that tied together the motions of all the planets — and the Earth.

    Here, at least, was the divine music — and numerology — Kepler sought after years of labor. His model of the universe united the earthly and celestial realms in (literal) harmony, it found beautiful and simple geometric elegance in the motions of the planets, and his simple formulas for predicting planetary positions made for excellent horoscopes.

    ::::::::::

    So scientist/theologian/astrologer was motivated by his faith and his work was the product of that faith.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Lucien Febre, ´Le problème de l’incroyance au 16e siècle’, Paris, 1942, 1968
    Translation 'The problem of unbelief in the 16th century'.
    I found the title somewhere, and was surprised, atheism in the 16th century ?
    Well, the book is the opposite, atheism was unthinkable at the time.
    So, to state that Keppler was motivated by his faith, at the time, one might say, anything was motivated by faith.
    One sees this best in art of the time, biblical motives.
    A present day comparison, maybe, anything is motivated by climate change.
    The interesting thing about Keppler is that he did not know how heretical his planetary laws were.
    Standard church teaching was Plato.
    , @melanf

    For example, Kepler:
    ….…What we now call science, philosophy and theology were all mixed up together.
    …Kepler penned a work in defense of the Copernican model, but not on physical or mathematical grounds — Kepler’s argument was religious.
     
    "From writers of late antiquity, especially Caesarina and Boethius, the idea of harmony of the spheres was inherited by the medieval West and for centuries remained one of the few representations associated with the name of Pythagoras. Later, the picture of the universe, which is full of divine harmony, attracted many Renaissance poets and thinkers. Kepler was more interested in the idea of celestial harmony than any other astronomers of the New time . However, this idea appears in his highly modified form. Kepler didn't believe in the real music of the spheres and looking for the harmonic ratio, not in the distances of the planets to the Sun, and between their lowest and highest angular velocity. But most of all, Kepler was distinguished from the former adepts of this idea by the fact that he was not satisfied with the approximate results. During his search for Kepler, based on the exact observations of Tycho Brahe, tried and discarded many options until finally formulated in his "Harmony of the world" the famous law: the squares of the periods of rotation of any two planets are proportional to the cubes of their average distances to the Sun. It is this law that has become, perhaps, the most valuable result of the centuries-old development of the Pythagorean idea."


    Л.Я. Жмудь. Наука, философия и религия в раннем пифагореизме
  137. Interesting, on this topic, to summarize the spirit of the most important moral and political philosopher of the Italian Renaissance, Machiavelli: belief in importance of rediscovery of Ancient Roman and Greek moral virtues; an carefully disguised and hinted understanding that religion is man-made; belief that religion can weaken men’s vitality; belief that religion can also be politically useful and to maintain order of society.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    I enjoyed Machiavelli's Principe and Discorsi a lot, an inspiring thinker. And yes, given some of the things he wrote (religion judged by its social utility, iirc also statements like "If every Christian was like St Francis, the whole world would be exposed to the wicked") it's hard to regard him as genuinely Christian, even though he certainly went through the motions. But he was quite exceptional and heavily criticized, not typical for Renaissance thought. And he wasn't just in conflict with Christian morality, but also with parts of the classical heritage (I have forgotten the details, but iirc some parts of the Principe are intended as direct counter-points to Cicero's De officiis which had claimed the useful and the honorable could always be reconciled).
    , @DFH
    He was unusual in this regard though. His ideas were obviously very unpopular, even at the time. Erasmus, Thomas More and d'Etaples, along with most other humanists, were unusually pious. European intellectual life for the 100 years following his death was dominated by religion.
  138. AP says:
    @German_reader

    It is impossible to build railways, invent the telegraph or telephone, while living in fear of the demons.
     
    ? The Christians in late antiquity and the middle ages believed just as much in demons as the pagans had...and unlike the pagans they regarded them not just as spirits that could be good, bad or neutral, but as malevolent soldiers in Satan's host.
    These over-generalized discussions about Christianity's merits and flaws are kind of dumb imo, unlikely to be very illuminating.

    The Christians in late antiquity and the middle ages believed just as much in demons as the pagans had…and unlike the pagans they regarded them not just as spirits that could be good, bad or neutral, but as malevolent soldiers in Satan’s host.

    Ones that ought to be defeated, not served or placated. And could be defeated. Thus giving people control.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Ones that ought to be defeated, not served or placated. And could be defeated. Thus giving people control.

     

    So being able to call one's local exorcist was a prerequisite for industrialization???
    One could just as well write "It is impossible to build aqueducts while living in fear of the demons". But the pagan Romans did build aqueducts.
  139. @AaronB

    Unless one has a convincing answer to the question “How do we get people around to our way of thinking?
     
    As your spiritual advisor, I must point out that you know the answer - you cannot get people around to YOUR timid and gloomy way of thinking GR. The Right has been trying to do that for the past century and the world's highest quality people have voted by flocking to the Left en masse.

    But if the Right offers an idealism to match that of the Left, then high quality people will be attracted.

    the world’s highest quality people have voted by flocking to the Left en masse.

    I’m not exactly sure what you mean by high quality people, but I don’t believe that this is accurate.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Anatoly wrote s post recently about the Rights human capital problem.

    It's true. And its easy to see why.
  140. @AP

    The Christians in late antiquity and the middle ages believed just as much in demons as the pagans had…and unlike the pagans they regarded them not just as spirits that could be good, bad or neutral, but as malevolent soldiers in Satan’s host.
     
    Ones that ought to be defeated, not served or placated. And could be defeated. Thus giving people control.

    Ones that ought to be defeated, not served or placated. And could be defeated. Thus giving people control.

    So being able to call one’s local exorcist was a prerequisite for industrialization???
    One could just as well write “It is impossible to build aqueducts while living in fear of the demons”. But the pagan Romans did build aqueducts.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It seems an atheistic view.

    It's sounds like a continuum in this view, where progress is achieved when you think demons can be defeated. But then the next step surely (as in the 19th century for Europe at least), will be when you start to leave behind childish superstition about demons altogether.

    There seems inherent flaws or dangers for a religious person in this narrative that Abrahamic religions are somehow more developed or advanced, because they replace many gods and spirities, with a single god. Because in such a train, it seems inevitable that the next - more advanced station - is no god.

  141. @German_reader

    Ones that ought to be defeated, not served or placated. And could be defeated. Thus giving people control.

     

    So being able to call one's local exorcist was a prerequisite for industrialization???
    One could just as well write "It is impossible to build aqueducts while living in fear of the demons". But the pagan Romans did build aqueducts.

    It seems an atheistic view.

    It’s sounds like a continuum in this view, where progress is achieved when you think demons can be defeated. But then the next step surely (as in the 19th century for Europe at least), will be when you start to leave behind childish superstition about demons altogether.

    There seems inherent flaws or dangers for a religious person in this narrative that Abrahamic religions are somehow more developed or advanced, because they replace many gods and spirities, with a single god. Because in such a train, it seems inevitable that the next – more advanced station – is no god.

    • Replies: @AP

    But then the next step surely (as in the 19th century for Europe at least), will be when you start to leave behind childish superstition about demons altogether.
     
    That was the next step taken. It had not worked out well, as we see by Europe's sad post-Christian history.
  142. @Dmitry
    Interesting, on this topic, to summarize the spirit of the most important moral and political philosopher of the Italian Renaissance, Machiavelli: belief in importance of rediscovery of Ancient Roman and Greek moral virtues; an carefully disguised and hinted understanding that religion is man-made; belief that religion can weaken men's vitality; belief that religion can also be politically useful and to maintain order of society.

    I enjoyed Machiavelli’s Principe and Discorsi a lot, an inspiring thinker. And yes, given some of the things he wrote (religion judged by its social utility, iirc also statements like “If every Christian was like St Francis, the whole world would be exposed to the wicked”) it’s hard to regard him as genuinely Christian, even though he certainly went through the motions. But he was quite exceptional and heavily criticized, not typical for Renaissance thought. And he wasn’t just in conflict with Christian morality, but also with parts of the classical heritage (I have forgotten the details, but iirc some parts of the Principe are intended as direct counter-points to Cicero’s De officiis which had claimed the useful and the honorable could always be reconciled).

  143. @Dmitry
    Interesting, on this topic, to summarize the spirit of the most important moral and political philosopher of the Italian Renaissance, Machiavelli: belief in importance of rediscovery of Ancient Roman and Greek moral virtues; an carefully disguised and hinted understanding that religion is man-made; belief that religion can weaken men's vitality; belief that religion can also be politically useful and to maintain order of society.

    He was unusual in this regard though. His ideas were obviously very unpopular, even at the time. Erasmus, Thomas More and d’Etaples, along with most other humanists, were unusually pious. European intellectual life for the 100 years following his death was dominated by religion.

  144. @Dmitry

    The fantastic success of Greece was caused by the hypertrophied spirit of AGON-the Greeks perceived life as a Grand competition, and sought to achieve fame in any way (this was the driving force of the grandiose rise of science and art).
     
    This is the theory which was believed by early writing of Nietzsche.

    And the end point of the Golden Age of Greece - can then be attributed to Alexander's destruction of Thebes, which has ended the original configuration of agon between cities.

    Actually, Dmitry, Nietzsche thought the golden age of Greece ended because of the rationalism introduced by Socrates 🙂

    Kind of reminds you of someone on this board, doesn’t it. Its in his Birth of Tragedy.

    And you are correct, the theory of the Agon was written up in one of his early essays but is also found in that book.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Actually, Dmitry, Nietzsche thought the golden age of Greece ended because of the rationalism introduced by Socrates
     
    Nietzsche was an idiot who was enthusiastic about mutilating women's genitalia and India's horrible caste system. It was hilariously fitting that he got himself infected with syphilis and died a madman.
    Apart from a few exceptions like our esteemed Dmitry, the only ones still interested in him today are lefties (deranged degenerates themselves), god-mongers ("an atheist who was perceptive enough to see where atheism would lead to!") and obscurantists like yourself.
  145. @AaronB
    Actually, Dmitry, Nietzsche thought the golden age of Greece ended because of the rationalism introduced by Socrates :)

    Kind of reminds you of someone on this board, doesn't it. Its in his Birth of Tragedy.

    And you are correct, the theory of the Agon was written up in one of his early essays but is also found in that book.

    Actually, Dmitry, Nietzsche thought the golden age of Greece ended because of the rationalism introduced by Socrates

    Nietzsche was an idiot who was enthusiastic about mutilating women’s genitalia and India’s horrible caste system. It was hilariously fitting that he got himself infected with syphilis and died a madman.
    Apart from a few exceptions like our esteemed Dmitry, the only ones still interested in him today are lefties (deranged degenerates themselves), god-mongers (“an atheist who was perceptive enough to see where atheism would lead to!”) and obscurantists like yourself.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    What is his writing style like in German?

    I have only some translations of him. (I studied German language for a summer, but have forgotten everything.) I was recently dreaming about learning German one day - not to live in Germany (Austria/Switzerland), but simply to read some of these famous German writers.

    , @AaronB
    Don't worry, I am no fan of Nietzsche - but he was an excellent diagnostician of our modern condition, while his theory of the superman was ludicrous.

    And he was not a fan of the Indian caste system - he actually used it as an example of how brutal "pure Aryans" could be.

    At heart he was a deeply religious person, and he probably would not have went insane had he simply accepted this and not tried to create a secular religion out of thin air. The syphilis theory is unproven.

    A tragic, pathetic figure. Still, with some good insights.

    Not to be read by teenagers though.

  146. @German_reader

    Actually, Dmitry, Nietzsche thought the golden age of Greece ended because of the rationalism introduced by Socrates
     
    Nietzsche was an idiot who was enthusiastic about mutilating women's genitalia and India's horrible caste system. It was hilariously fitting that he got himself infected with syphilis and died a madman.
    Apart from a few exceptions like our esteemed Dmitry, the only ones still interested in him today are lefties (deranged degenerates themselves), god-mongers ("an atheist who was perceptive enough to see where atheism would lead to!") and obscurantists like yourself.

    What is his writing style like in German?

    I have only some translations of him. (I studied German language for a summer, but have forgotten everything.) I was recently dreaming about learning German one day – not to live in Germany (Austria/Switzerland), but simply to read some of these famous German writers.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    What is his writing style like in German?
     
    Reasonably clear, not that hard to understand (though I'm not sure that means he's worth reading).
  147. @German_reader

    Actually, Dmitry, Nietzsche thought the golden age of Greece ended because of the rationalism introduced by Socrates
     
    Nietzsche was an idiot who was enthusiastic about mutilating women's genitalia and India's horrible caste system. It was hilariously fitting that he got himself infected with syphilis and died a madman.
    Apart from a few exceptions like our esteemed Dmitry, the only ones still interested in him today are lefties (deranged degenerates themselves), god-mongers ("an atheist who was perceptive enough to see where atheism would lead to!") and obscurantists like yourself.

    Don’t worry, I am no fan of Nietzsche – but he was an excellent diagnostician of our modern condition, while his theory of the superman was ludicrous.

    And he was not a fan of the Indian caste system – he actually used it as an example of how brutal “pure Aryans” could be.

    At heart he was a deeply religious person, and he probably would not have went insane had he simply accepted this and not tried to create a secular religion out of thin air. The syphilis theory is unproven.

    A tragic, pathetic figure. Still, with some good insights.

    Not to be read by teenagers though.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Nietzsche wrote nothing after he became insane.
  148. @iffen
    the world’s highest quality people have voted by flocking to the Left en masse.


    I'm not exactly sure what you mean by high quality people, but I don't believe that this is accurate.

    Anatoly wrote s post recently about the Rights human capital problem.

    It’s true. And its easy to see why.

    • Replies: @notanon
    The banking mafia use the Left to undermine social cohesion as a self-protective tactic - the official Left's human capital is vile but the media - also owned by the banking mafia - hide it.

    Pretty much the only people more vile than the upper echelons of the official Left are the media themselves and of course the banking mafia.

    Admittedly a lot of the official Right are vile too but then most of them are owned by the banking mafia as well.

    When it comes to the activist base i'd say the alt-right has almost all the talent and creativity - as shown by how much their opponents are dominated by alt-right's language and memes.
  149. @AaronB
    Don't worry, I am no fan of Nietzsche - but he was an excellent diagnostician of our modern condition, while his theory of the superman was ludicrous.

    And he was not a fan of the Indian caste system - he actually used it as an example of how brutal "pure Aryans" could be.

    At heart he was a deeply religious person, and he probably would not have went insane had he simply accepted this and not tried to create a secular religion out of thin air. The syphilis theory is unproven.

    A tragic, pathetic figure. Still, with some good insights.

    Not to be read by teenagers though.

    Nietzsche wrote nothing after he became insane.

  150. @Logan
    What probably sets the Assyrians apart is not their actual cruelty, which while spectacular was not much if any greater than that of the Greeks or Romans.

    It was the pride they took in displaying their cruelty for all to see. The crucifixion of 6000 rebels by Crassus was an unusual event, and the object lesson worked. There were no more slave revolts in Rome. But Crassus wasn't granted a triumph for doing this.

    Crucifying or impaling hundreds or thousands of people was routine, normal and something to take pride in for the Assyrians. They bragged about it.

    As, much more recently, did ISIS. Which, oddly enough, was centered in old Assyria.

    The Romans, OTOH, did not seem to take pride in their cruelty, they seemed to view it more as a necessary task.

    Crucifying or impaling hundreds or thousands of people was routine,

    I have always wondered how they managed to achieve such feats, in an era where the machine gun was not invented yet and therefore the relative strengths of opposing groups was somewhat proportional to their respective sizes.

    Half a dozen kebabs with AK47s can slaughter many dozens of unarmed people in a concert hall, with the latter group not even being able to take down a single assaillant.

    However how can an army of a few thousand men equipped only with blades and spears force as many (or more) individuals to let themselves be crucified or impaled alive I don’t understand. At least the 6000 of so vanquished rebels could have charged their victors and be killed in the battle (while in this process killing many Romans), rather than being crucified. I really can’t fathom why many 1000s of able bodied men would have surrendered en masse to this most horrible mode of execution.

    • Replies: @BB753
    A Roman Legion was a near unstoppable war machine. Perhaps the men who surrendered didn't expect to be crucified. It wasn't the way Rome usually treated defeated populations.
    , @jilles dykstra
    One should remove one or two zeros at the end of all very old numbers.
    The concept of objective truth is relatively new
    Felipe Fernández-Armesto, ‘Truth, A History and a Guide for the Perplexed’, New York 1997
    , @Logan
    Capture people, tie them up and then do with them as you will.

    Despite modern technology, the Mongols probably still hold the world record for most people killed in the shortest amount of time.

    In multiple cases they captured a city, bound the inhabitants, distributed them among their soldiers and then at the signal everybody chopped heads.

    This is well documented, with the only real issue being how many people were in the city so treated. Records of the time talk about 1M+, but this is probably not true, as cities of such size were really, really scarce back then.

    But they probably did this to a good many cities of 100,000+ and quite possibly one or more of 250,000. So that's 100k to 250k people dead in a few minutes. Multiple times.

    Hiroshima, Hamburg and Tokyo weren't that efficient. Hiroshima was about 150,000 total, but only about half died on the first day. Hamburg was around 50,000. Tokyo was perhaps 100,000. Auschwitz supposedly reached peak "production" of about 20,000 in 24 hours.

    There is a commonly believed myth that you need "industrial methods" to kill a lot of people quickly. You don't. All you need is sharp blades and a lot of willing killers..

  151. @Dmitry
    What is his writing style like in German?

    I have only some translations of him. (I studied German language for a summer, but have forgotten everything.) I was recently dreaming about learning German one day - not to live in Germany (Austria/Switzerland), but simply to read some of these famous German writers.

    What is his writing style like in German?

    Reasonably clear, not that hard to understand (though I’m not sure that means he’s worth reading).

  152. @Talha

    more than likely comes from a crooked merchant and has nothing to do with religion.
     
    I agree here. In this day of the internet, it is pretty easy to bypass middlemen and go right to the source. Muslims ask our scholars for fatwas on various subjects all the time. If you want to know what the Islamic position is on something, simply find a reliable source and search their answers - that is unless you think our scholars do taqiyyah in answering fatwas (LOL!).

    This is a great one for Hanafi rulings:
    http://www.daruliftaa.com/biography (one of the scholars I have attended class under)

    This is a great one for Shafi'i ones:
    http://shafiifiqh.com/

    Proselytizing not permitted, which as I understand makes it haram to live in a non-Islamic state.
     
    No, it is fine to live there if it is part of the dhimmah contract. It would obviously be highly discouraging, and many might go to Muslim countries because of that change in rules, but it is not asking us to commit a haram act - it is simply asking us to halt a meritorious one. But like I said, a huge chunk of the people coming into Islam are doing so through independent research on the internet (of course a good chunk leaving Islam* are also due to the internet).

    White converts to Islam become legally considered Mohammedans and treated as such by the state.
     
    Nice!

    Certainly don’t want to revisit the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.
     
    Yeah - that's the big issue you guys have to balance out. I agree this must be approached with wisdom.

    Constitutional amendment to declare America a Christian nation.
     
    Interesting - I wonder if there's a chance that would ever happen again...

    But that would simply mean joining a fairly big club of countries where there is an official (or preferred) state religion (go blue team!!!):
    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/10/03090603/PF_10.04.17_statereligions-00.png

    Anyway, did you know it is officially against the Greek constitution to proselytize? No joke:
    "The Constitution establishes the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ (Greek Orthodox Church) as the prevailing religion, but also provides for the right of all citizens to practice the religion of their choice. While the government generally respected this right, non-Orthodox groups sometimes faced administrative obstacles or encountered legal restrictions on religious practice. The Constitution and law prohibit proselytizing and stipulate that no rite of worship may disturb public order or offend moral principles."
    https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2007/90178.htm

    Dag yo! Though I think they have not been super into enforcing it much these days since neo-pagans have started to take root there.

    You're an interesting guy with very interesting ideas. We need more people thinking out of the box. And a Swede, so I'm kind of biased towards you guys anyway.

    Peace.

    *So, what's the deal on our apostates? Can we, you know...deal with them? We can make it a sport using Hanafi rules - if you make it across the border of the millet you win!

    Mohammedans executing apostates in Christian states is a bad look and would not be permitted.

    That said I would have no problem with lesser penalties, conducted of course under the framework of law including a fair trial with the right to defense counsel and the right of appeal.

    • Replies: @Talha
    We’ll settle for automatic annulment of marriage and loss of inheritance rights.

    Man, you are making it very hard for me not to support backing your imperial ascension with a Varangian-Guard-style set of loyal elite Muslim fedayeen...

    Peace.

  153. @Guillaume Tell

    Crucifying or impaling hundreds or thousands of people was routine,
     
    I have always wondered how they managed to achieve such feats, in an era where the machine gun was not invented yet and therefore the relative strengths of opposing groups was somewhat proportional to their respective sizes.

    Half a dozen kebabs with AK47s can slaughter many dozens of unarmed people in a concert hall, with the latter group not even being able to take down a single assaillant.

    However how can an army of a few thousand men equipped only with blades and spears force as many (or more) individuals to let themselves be crucified or impaled alive I don’t understand. At least the 6000 of so vanquished rebels could have charged their victors and be killed in the battle (while in this process killing many Romans), rather than being crucified. I really can’t fathom why many 1000s of able bodied men would have surrendered en masse to this most horrible mode of execution.

    A Roman Legion was a near unstoppable war machine. Perhaps the men who surrendered didn’t expect to be crucified. It wasn’t the way Rome usually treated defeated populations.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell
    Ignorance of one’s ultimate fate is indeed a possible explanation;l: say you let yourself be disarmed and subsequently put in chains, it is then going to be impossible to avoid being crucified (or otherwise barbarously murdered).

    However I find this explanation unconvincing in the case of the Spartacus rebellion, for one simple reason: crucificion was the normal modus operandi to execute slaves. In fact even more than that, St Paul himself escaped crucifixion owing to his Roman citizenship (and was beheaded instead).

    In the case of Assyrians it is even more puzzling as their way of dealing with the vanquished was widely known; they were even propagandizing about it.

    One can observe that extreme stress (due to fear, hunger/thirst, pain) can lead to a post-shock stunning response. In that state the victim is extremely compliant. That physiological and psychological response can explain out a lot of submissive behavior after a siege, a battle, a long flight, etc.
    , @jilles dykstra
    An illusion, see the books I mention.
  154. @Thorfinnsson
    Mohammedans executing apostates in Christian states is a bad look and would not be permitted.

    That said I would have no problem with lesser penalties, conducted of course under the framework of law including a fair trial with the right to defense counsel and the right of appeal.

    We’ll settle for automatic annulment of marriage and loss of inheritance rights.

    Man, you are making it very hard for me not to support backing your imperial ascension with a Varangian-Guard-style set of loyal elite Muslim fedayeen…

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    There is hope yet for the younger generation of whites :)
    , @Thorfinnsson
    This is intriguing actually.

    Trad whites garnering support from Mohammedans?

    I suspect this isn't electorally viable beyond this blog, but something to think about.
  155. @Talha
    We’ll settle for automatic annulment of marriage and loss of inheritance rights.

    Man, you are making it very hard for me not to support backing your imperial ascension with a Varangian-Guard-style set of loyal elite Muslim fedayeen...

    Peace.

    There is hope yet for the younger generation of whites 🙂

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yes but there are caveats; no - absolutely no - gay stuff on the imperial house seal/coat-of-arms like unicorns, rainbows or flowers!!!

    Fedayeen ain’t going to take a bullet for House Lisa Frank.

    Peace.
  156. @AaronB
    There is hope yet for the younger generation of whites :)

    Yes but there are caveats; no – absolutely no – gay stuff on the imperial house seal/coat-of-arms like unicorns, rainbows or flowers!!!

    Fedayeen ain’t going to take a bullet for House Lisa Frank.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    And yes, I know the later Ottoman coat of arms had flowers in it - that’s what led to the downfall...

    No flowers!!!
    , @AaronB
    I suggest some kind of crocodile theme on the imperial standard somewhere...
  157. @AP

    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee
     
    Does this represent Sovok atheistic propaganda, or anti-Westernism?

    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee

    Does this represent Sovok atheistic propaganda, or anti-Westernism?

    I had no doubt that you will appear with such a comment. I would like to inform you that the scientific views that I retold are best justified in the works of Alexander Zaitsev. Zaitsev was a believing Catholic (he was of Polish origin) and an anti-Communist. In the future, it would be better if you argue in fact, and not to denounce the enemies of the party line

    • Replies: @AP

    I had no doubt that you will appear with such a comment. I would like to inform you that the scientific views that I retold are best justified in the works of Alexander Zaitsev.
     
    Who cares about Zaitsev. So Sovok propaganda did not claim something like:

    However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
    That is, Christianity is perceived as an optional (or even harmful) zigzag of history.
     
  158. @Talha
    Yes but there are caveats; no - absolutely no - gay stuff on the imperial house seal/coat-of-arms like unicorns, rainbows or flowers!!!

    Fedayeen ain’t going to take a bullet for House Lisa Frank.

    Peace.

    And yes, I know the later Ottoman coat of arms had flowers in it – that’s what led to the downfall…

    No flowers!!!

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I propose the Double-Headed Eagle, given its imperial and autocratic undertones it should be very suitable for Thorfinnson's national restoration.
  159. @Talha
    And yes, I know the later Ottoman coat of arms had flowers in it - that’s what led to the downfall...

    No flowers!!!

    I propose the Double-Headed Eagle, given its imperial and autocratic undertones it should be very suitable for Thorfinnson’s national restoration.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Seconded. I’ve personally always liked wolves...
    https://i.imgflip.com/2d0zs9.jpg
    ...but that’s just me.

    Peace.
  160. @Talha
    Yes but there are caveats; no - absolutely no - gay stuff on the imperial house seal/coat-of-arms like unicorns, rainbows or flowers!!!

    Fedayeen ain’t going to take a bullet for House Lisa Frank.

    Peace.

    I suggest some kind of crocodile theme on the imperial standard somewhere…

  161. @Hyperborean
    I propose the Double-Headed Eagle, given its imperial and autocratic undertones it should be very suitable for Thorfinnson's national restoration.

    Seconded. I’ve personally always liked wolves…

    …but that’s just me.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Biff
    Wolves have been domesticated for a long time my friend. I have a couple sitting right next to me(with me being the ring leader).
  162. @Dmitry

    What is ironic is that you don’t see the significance if this and it doesn’t make you question your materialism.

    How long do you think if is till your favorite secular and prosperous Azerbaijan begins producing people like GR en masse?
     

    Unfortunately, I don't think it is likely Azerbaijan will en masse produce Germanic intellectuals of the type, who, although usually calm and resistant to insults, may erupt to brawls across the streets of Baku when disputing important questions such as which is the greatest of Beethoven's late string quartets, or the correct interpretation of the final paragraph of Rilke's 10th Duino Elegy.

    But from the nationalities of this region, - after secularization and assimilation, can come civilized people of different political temperaments.

    E.g. Sergey Guriyev is from this area by nationality. And our own spiritual leader, Karlin - has written yesterday he is a descendant of noble rulers of Lakia.

    Germanic intellectuals of the type, who, although usually calm and resistant to insults, may erupt to brawls across the streets of Baku when disputing important questions such as which is the greatest of Beethoven’s late string quartets, or the correct interpretation of the final paragraph of Rilke’s 10th Duino Elegy

    .

    Umm, I think you have a rather romantic image of our GR here.

    It is s good vision, tho – you clearly yearn for a passionate cause worth fighting for, but can only imagine it being over some ‘civilized’ cultural pursuit that men in pajamas reclining in comfortable armchairs might engage in mildly animated debate over without spilling their wine.

    But from the nationalities of this region, – after secularization and assimilation, can come civilized people of different political temperaments

    Civilized meaning inoffensive, innocuous, lukewarm, rather boring people – not the passion of great art or great religion.

    I am sure these Last Men or Last Mice are just the sort of human ideal we should all be striving for.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Just on a related note, religion is on the rise in Azerbaijan (partially due to demographics since seculars tend not to have kids, but it is also generational) The only question is, which way will it go? There are two different tensions going on there; Salafi vs traditional and Sunni vs Shiah. I’d say (from the stats I’ve seen) they are 15-20 years behind Turkey in religious sentiment and practice, inshaAllah. The one thing that could sabotage it is violence that grows out of the Sunni/Shiah divide. Also if Salafi extremists start doing stupid stuff and people associate it with religion in general.

    Peace.
    , @Dmitry

    Umm, I think you have a rather romantic image of our GR here.

    It is s good vision, tho – you clearly yearn for a passionate cause worth fighting for, but can only imagine it being over some ‘civilized’ cultural pursuit that men in pajamas reclining in comfortable armchairs might engage in mildly animated debate over without spilling their wine
     

    What's wrong with civilized (parts of) Germany? - it's how life should be.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0wkBuUezq8

  163. AP says:
    @melanf


    Russian science, is dominated by such views on the history of Europee
     
    Does this represent Sovok atheistic propaganda, or anti-Westernism?
     
    I had no doubt that you will appear with such a comment. I would like to inform you that the scientific views that I retold are best justified in the works of Alexander Zaitsev. Zaitsev was a believing Catholic (he was of Polish origin) and an anti-Communist. In the future, it would be better if you argue in fact, and not to denounce the enemies of the party line

    I had no doubt that you will appear with such a comment. I would like to inform you that the scientific views that I retold are best justified in the works of Alexander Zaitsev.

    Who cares about Zaitsev. So Sovok propaganda did not claim something like:

    However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
    That is, Christianity is perceived as an optional (or even harmful) zigzag of history.

  164. @Dmitry
    It seems an atheistic view.

    It's sounds like a continuum in this view, where progress is achieved when you think demons can be defeated. But then the next step surely (as in the 19th century for Europe at least), will be when you start to leave behind childish superstition about demons altogether.

    There seems inherent flaws or dangers for a religious person in this narrative that Abrahamic religions are somehow more developed or advanced, because they replace many gods and spirities, with a single god. Because in such a train, it seems inevitable that the next - more advanced station - is no god.

    But then the next step surely (as in the 19th century for Europe at least), will be when you start to leave behind childish superstition about demons altogether.

    That was the next step taken. It had not worked out well, as we see by Europe’s sad post-Christian history.

  165. @AaronB

    Germanic intellectuals of the type, who, although usually calm and resistant to insults, may erupt to brawls across the streets of Baku when disputing important questions such as which is the greatest of Beethoven’s late string quartets, or the correct interpretation of the final paragraph of Rilke’s 10th Duino Elegy
     
    .

    Umm, I think you have a rather romantic image of our GR here.

    It is s good vision, tho - you clearly yearn for a passionate cause worth fighting for, but can only imagine it being over some 'civilized' cultural pursuit that men in pajamas reclining in comfortable armchairs might engage in mildly animated debate over without spilling their wine.

    But from the nationalities of this region, – after secularization and assimilation, can come civilized people of different political temperaments
     
    Civilized meaning inoffensive, innocuous, lukewarm, rather boring people - not the passion of great art or great religion.

    I am sure these Last Men or Last Mice are just the sort of human ideal we should all be striving for.

    Just on a related note, religion is on the rise in Azerbaijan (partially due to demographics since seculars tend not to have kids, but it is also generational) The only question is, which way will it go? There are two different tensions going on there; Salafi vs traditional and Sunni vs Shiah. I’d say (from the stats I’ve seen) they are 15-20 years behind Turkey in religious sentiment and practice, inshaAllah. The one thing that could sabotage it is violence that grows out of the Sunni/Shiah divide. Also if Salafi extremists start doing stupid stuff and people associate it with religion in general.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Talha, what purpose do the different Islamic schools of thought have (in terms of doctrines etc.) and what are the differences between the main ones? Is there crossover between Sunni and Shia in terms of schools or are they very distinct from each other?
    , @Dmitry
    Azerbaijan is considered the most disbelieving and secularized Muslim nation of all in the world. Modernization was achieved within the Russian Empire and Soviet Union.

    How Baku looks.

    Fortunately religious people, believing Muslims and Islamists are few in number and the secular population is the dominant and vast majority - as a result of this, it is this civilized place with a friendly atmosphere.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFlK-JErebE

  166. @Talha
    Just on a related note, religion is on the rise in Azerbaijan (partially due to demographics since seculars tend not to have kids, but it is also generational) The only question is, which way will it go? There are two different tensions going on there; Salafi vs traditional and Sunni vs Shiah. I’d say (from the stats I’ve seen) they are 15-20 years behind Turkey in religious sentiment and practice, inshaAllah. The one thing that could sabotage it is violence that grows out of the Sunni/Shiah divide. Also if Salafi extremists start doing stupid stuff and people associate it with religion in general.

    Peace.

    Talha, what purpose do the different Islamic schools of thought have (in terms of doctrines etc.) and what are the differences between the main ones? Is there crossover between Sunni and Shia in terms of schools or are they very distinct from each other?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Well there are a couple of distinctions to be made...

    The Sunni schools are four and they differ in jurisprudence - which are rules and legalities. They agree in about 75% of things, but differ on certain things which can be considered slight (how you hold your hands in the prayer) to big (can a Muslim be killed for murdering a polytheist dhimmi or only have to pay 1/3 the blood money) and everything in between. There used to be many more schools, but they died out due to lack of attention or got absorbed into the existing schools. Sunnis consider each school to be completely valid and basically hold the opinion that a rival school got the ruling wrong, but they could possibly be correct and we are right, but could possibly be wrong. Jurisprudence is what deals with the worship of the body.

    The schools of Sunni creed are considered three; Athari, Ash’ari and Maturidi. The Atharis are fairly basic and generally tend to avoid speculation into theological minutiae. The Ash’aris And Maturidis tackle those issues head on and differ mostly in the semantics in how the explain an issue. Again, everyone agrees the differences are totally valid. Creed is what deals with the worship of the intellect.

    The Sunnis share the same sources of Qur’an, hadith and other sources of deriving legal rules, but they differ in what they emphasize and how they interpret the texts - thus leading to the differences.

    The Shiah are different in that they differ in both beliefs (enough to make them and Sunnis consider each other heterodox but not unbelievers) and sources of jurisprudence (they have their own books of hadith). Thus the foundation is quite different. Different enough that we usually attend separate mosques, but not separate enough that we differ radically; we both still pray (very similarly), fast, etc.

    Sunnis and Shias don’t generally take from each other’s books, though there is some overlap. For instance, there are a few Shiah transmitters in our chains of hadith and they still utilize some Sunni books, like most Shiah seminaries use the works of Imam Taftazani (ra) - a famous Sunni theologian - when studying logic.

    Hope this helps.

    Peace.
    , @Dagon Shield
    Hey Talha, looks like you have a convert in the making albeit slowly. You are definitely not wasting your time on the site. Congrats!
  167. @Anonymous Jew
    There have now been several genetic studies done on Egyptian mummies from various periods. They were predominantly Semitic and came across the Sinai from the Fertile Crescent. Their Black admixture was in fact lower than modern day Egyptians. Around 5-10% IIRC. I'll let you Google the rest since you obviously need to get started on that anyways.

    As I once heard someone say "even the smart ones usually have light skin"

    That’s useless. Bliss has one genetic study with an African Y chromosome haplogroup of one pharaoh, which proves he was fully black, while your studies will be shown to be mostly from later periods and of small sample sizes. Sub-Saharan Africans wuz kangz ‘n’ sheet!

  168. @iffen
    Gibson’s best movie: The Passion Of The Christ.


    It is on my list.


    The man has talent, even if he says stupid shit when he's intoxicated.

    said:
    “The man has talent, even if he says stupid shit when he’s intoxicated.

    What “stupid shit” did he say?

    And why was it “stupid”?

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @iffen
    Hey Wally, do neo-Nazis get a quantity discount on de-bunking oil?
  169. @AP

    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?
     
    Sorry, but this argument feels a little like the one claiming that Yeltsin was as murderous as Stalin because a comparable population loss occurred.

    But I'll indulge your argument anyways.

    For Aztecs, sacrifice was the point. There was no choice. There was nothing the victims could do. Gods wanted hearts, or children's tears, or whatever. Vietnamese and Iraqis could have, of course, surrendered. Americans didn't just capture them so they could meet a quota of X killed. Had Vietnam been subdued, Americans wouldn't have kept killing Vietnamese every year. Vietnam might have become like South Korea. Had Aztecs conquered Vietnam (or any other place) they would have sacrifices over and over again.

    In other words, you are conflating war deaths and "social" deaths. Aztecs also killed people in war.
    A better analogy might have been Nazis sacrificing millions of Jews and Slavs for their "god" of Aryan purity and supremacy, or Soviets sacrificing millions of people for their "god" of Communism or Marxism-Leninism. Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings. Getting gassed or shot near a mass grave beats getting one's beating heart ripped out. And while Communism and Nazism were exceptional in time and place within European society, sacrifice was universal in Meso-American society (Mayans also practiced it).

    said:
    “A better analogy might have been Nazis sacrificing millions of Jews and Slavs for their “god” of Aryan purity and supremacy”

    Get serious. There is no proof of that impossible, laughable claim. None. Post it if you have it.

    The “Holocau$t Industry” in court:
    ‘Please your honor, there really are remains of millions buried in huge mass graves, we know where the mass graves are to this day, … but, but, well, umm, we can’t show the court the human remains. You must trust us, we’re Zionists.’

    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    Chemistry of Auschwitz / Birkenau

    The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    • Troll: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Wally


    Zionist / hasbarist Rob Reiner Tor doesn't want free speech on his absurdly impossible 'holocaust' fantasies. Notice he doesn't even try to refute what I post .... because he cannot. Yet he calls me a troll. LOL

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Only liars demand censorship.

    Tax exempt cash taken in by USHMM, aka: ‘Holocau$t’ Theme Park, for fiscal year 2016 which supports huge salaries for Jews only, which most of the remaining money goes to Jews & Zionist organizations:
    $151,826,695.00
    $151,826,695.00
    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/042717-IRS-Form-990-FY16.pdf
    US taxpayers money to the USHMM in the 2017 budget:
    56,999,500.00
    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20160209-fy17-pres-budget-request.pdf
     
    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
  170. @Bliss

    Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians; the economic and innovation center of gravity would have kept going north, just as in the Old World it crept north and west with each passing millennium.
     
    Firstly, where is your evidence that northern amerindians have a higher IQ than the Central Americans? This is just another example of your irrational northern bias. Which, btw, is kind of amusing considering that some of your fellow russians see you as an alien “kebab” from the South.

    Secondly, the Persian civilization reached north into the Caucasus and Central Asia yet the center of gravity stayed in the South. And the Chinese civilization never really took hold among the northern barbarians of north asia.

    In contrast, Black Africa didn’t have a single written language before colonization.
     
    A lie repeated a million times does not turn into the truth. Africans were writing, building, inventing, calculating etc many centuries before Europeans:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG/1200px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_May_2015.JPG



    https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/700_f.jpg
  171. @AaronB

    Germanic intellectuals of the type, who, although usually calm and resistant to insults, may erupt to brawls across the streets of Baku when disputing important questions such as which is the greatest of Beethoven’s late string quartets, or the correct interpretation of the final paragraph of Rilke’s 10th Duino Elegy
     
    .

    Umm, I think you have a rather romantic image of our GR here.

    It is s good vision, tho - you clearly yearn for a passionate cause worth fighting for, but can only imagine it being over some 'civilized' cultural pursuit that men in pajamas reclining in comfortable armchairs might engage in mildly animated debate over without spilling their wine.

    But from the nationalities of this region, – after secularization and assimilation, can come civilized people of different political temperaments
     
    Civilized meaning inoffensive, innocuous, lukewarm, rather boring people - not the passion of great art or great religion.

    I am sure these Last Men or Last Mice are just the sort of human ideal we should all be striving for.

    Umm, I think you have a rather romantic image of our GR here.

    It is s good vision, tho – you clearly yearn for a passionate cause worth fighting for, but can only imagine it being over some ‘civilized’ cultural pursuit that men in pajamas reclining in comfortable armchairs might engage in mildly animated debate over without spilling their wine

    What’s wrong with civilized (parts of) Germany? – it’s how life should be.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Depends what you mean by civilized.

    If you mean rising above the physical to the spiritual through great art, architecture, music, and literature, then yes. This means not being a materialist.

    If you merely mean the technique of making physical life more comfortable and easy, then that is boring.

    The Germans themselves seem to find your version of civilization as mere pleasant living as not worth defending - so the ideal life is one that people who live it are unwilling to defend and become gloomy and pessimistic?

    The best bits of that civilized life are the old architecture and old art - so the best life is one in which we appreciate things created by people with the exact opposite mentality to us and we can no longer create?

    You have interesting ideas my friend...
  172. @Talha
    Just on a related note, religion is on the rise in Azerbaijan (partially due to demographics since seculars tend not to have kids, but it is also generational) The only question is, which way will it go? There are two different tensions going on there; Salafi vs traditional and Sunni vs Shiah. I’d say (from the stats I’ve seen) they are 15-20 years behind Turkey in religious sentiment and practice, inshaAllah. The one thing that could sabotage it is violence that grows out of the Sunni/Shiah divide. Also if Salafi extremists start doing stupid stuff and people associate it with religion in general.

    Peace.

    Azerbaijan is considered the most disbelieving and secularized Muslim nation of all in the world. Modernization was achieved within the Russian Empire and Soviet Union.

    How Baku looks.

    Fortunately religious people, believing Muslims and Islamists are few in number and the secular population is the dominant and vast majority – as a result of this, it is this civilized place with a friendly atmosphere.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    There is (or was) an Islamic Party of Azerbaijan. They tried to fight against the ban of the hijab in the schools in December 2010.

    The government arrested the leaders of the Islamic Party for hooliganism less than one month later - and "discovered" they were planning take over the country. As a result, they have been sent to jail for up to 12 years.

    (Protesting against state secularism in Azerbaijan, is not a good idea).

    https://www.trend.az/azerbaijan/society/1941923.html

    , @Talha
    It is one of the most secular, but that’s not the way it is trending. Look it up for yourself; use simple search terms like Azerbaijan Islamic Revival. That’ give you plenty to start with.

    The parallels with Turkey in the 1990s is amazing. Well, they are also Turkic people so there’s that.

    Peace.
    , @notanon
    Saudi Arabia has been using their oil money to fund jihadist mosques all over the world for 30 years - unless they're stopped it's just a matter of time.
  173. @Hyperborean
    Talha, what purpose do the different Islamic schools of thought have (in terms of doctrines etc.) and what are the differences between the main ones? Is there crossover between Sunni and Shia in terms of schools or are they very distinct from each other?

    Well there are a couple of distinctions to be made…

    The Sunni schools are four and they differ in jurisprudence – which are rules and legalities. They agree in about 75% of things, but differ on certain things which can be considered slight (how you hold your hands in the prayer) to big (can a Muslim be killed for murdering a polytheist dhimmi or only have to pay 1/3 the blood money) and everything in between. There used to be many more schools, but they died out due to lack of attention or got absorbed into the existing schools. Sunnis consider each school to be completely valid and basically hold the opinion that a rival school got the ruling wrong, but they could possibly be correct and we are right, but could possibly be wrong. Jurisprudence is what deals with the worship of the body.

    The schools of Sunni creed are considered three; Athari, Ash’ari and Maturidi. The Atharis are fairly basic and generally tend to avoid speculation into theological minutiae. The Ash’aris And Maturidis tackle those issues head on and differ mostly in the semantics in how the explain an issue. Again, everyone agrees the differences are totally valid. Creed is what deals with the worship of the intellect.

    The Sunnis share the same sources of Qur’an, hadith and other sources of deriving legal rules, but they differ in what they emphasize and how they interpret the texts – thus leading to the differences.

    The Shiah are different in that they differ in both beliefs (enough to make them and Sunnis consider each other heterodox but not unbelievers) and sources of jurisprudence (they have their own books of hadith). Thus the foundation is quite different. Different enough that we usually attend separate mosques, but not separate enough that we differ radically; we both still pray (very similarly), fast, etc.

    Sunnis and Shias don’t generally take from each other’s books, though there is some overlap. For instance, there are a few Shiah transmitters in our chains of hadith and they still utilize some Sunni books, like most Shiah seminaries use the works of Imam Taftazani (ra) – a famous Sunni theologian – when studying logic.

    Hope this helps.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    can a Muslim be killed for murdering a polytheist dhimmi or only have to pay 1/3 the blood money
     
    What happens if someone is too poor to pay blood money, their family members pay or they take a loan or what?

    How do these kind of things interact with the legal system? In states with Shariah law who and how is it decided which interpretation should take precedence?

    Do theological institutions like Al-Azhar University have a main branch they adhere to or does it depend on the specific scholar one asks?

    Do certain schools of thought predominate in certain countries or is it fairly mixed?

    I've heard that a lot of Balkan and Turkish Muslims used to adhere to something called Bektashi Islam, is that one of the schools that died out?

    And does Deobandism in the Subcontinent still exist or did it merge into another group?

    Also, how do these kind of things relate to Sufism?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Is there any standard answer- or any answer at all to the question why God/Allah allows the errors to persist uncorrected by him, given that he cares for mankind and cares about the details of faith and morals?
  174. @Dmitry
    Azerbaijan is considered the most disbelieving and secularized Muslim nation of all in the world. Modernization was achieved within the Russian Empire and Soviet Union.

    How Baku looks.

    Fortunately religious people, believing Muslims and Islamists are few in number and the secular population is the dominant and vast majority - as a result of this, it is this civilized place with a friendly atmosphere.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFlK-JErebE

    There is (or was) an Islamic Party of Azerbaijan. They tried to fight against the ban of the hijab in the schools in December 2010.

    The government arrested the leaders of the Islamic Party for hooliganism less than one month later – and “discovered” they were planning take over the country. As a result, they have been sent to jail for up to 12 years.

    (Protesting against state secularism in Azerbaijan, is not a good idea).

    https://www.trend.az/azerbaijan/society/1941923.html

  175. @Dmitry
    Azerbaijan is considered the most disbelieving and secularized Muslim nation of all in the world. Modernization was achieved within the Russian Empire and Soviet Union.

    How Baku looks.

    Fortunately religious people, believing Muslims and Islamists are few in number and the secular population is the dominant and vast majority - as a result of this, it is this civilized place with a friendly atmosphere.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFlK-JErebE

    It is one of the most secular, but that’s not the way it is trending. Look it up for yourself; use simple search terms like Azerbaijan Islamic Revival. That’ give you plenty to start with.

    The parallels with Turkey in the 1990s is amazing. Well, they are also Turkic people so there’s that.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Could be like when New York Times claims Russia is being taken over by religion, or Islam, etc.

    -

    Some things Azerbaijani people are saying on the English website Quora:


    https://www.quora.com/Are-Azerbaijanis-becoming-more-or-less-religious/answer/Sevinc-Abdullayeva

    https://www.quora.com/How-common-is-atheism-in-Azerbaijan/answer/Rashad-Mamedli

    https://www.quora.com/How-common-is-atheism-in-Azerbaijan/answer/Mammad-Hajili


    -

    It's funny reading about the topic online, there are stories about how a Norwegian NGO is now attacking the Azerbaijani government for arresting people who distribute Islamic literature, and also for fining Jehovah Witnesses. But why is a Norwegian NGO in Azerbaijan - surely they have things to worry about closer in their country?

  176. @Talha
    It is one of the most secular, but that’s not the way it is trending. Look it up for yourself; use simple search terms like Azerbaijan Islamic Revival. That’ give you plenty to start with.

    The parallels with Turkey in the 1990s is amazing. Well, they are also Turkic people so there’s that.

    Peace.

    Could be like when New York Times claims Russia is being taken over by religion, or Islam, etc.

    Some things Azerbaijani people are saying on the English website Quora:

    https://www.quora.com/Are-Azerbaijanis-becoming-more-or-less-religious/answer/Sevinc-Abdullayeva

    https://www.quora.com/How-common-is-atheism-in-Azerbaijan/answer/Rashad-Mamedli

    https://www.quora.com/How-common-is-atheism-in-Azerbaijan/answer/Mammad-Hajili

    It’s funny reading about the topic online, there are stories about how a Norwegian NGO is now attacking the Azerbaijani government for arresting people who distribute Islamic literature, and also for fining Jehovah Witnesses. But why is a Norwegian NGO in Azerbaijan – surely they have things to worry about closer in their country?

  177. Brutality, and human sacrifice, was not restricted to S America:
    Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, ‘ The world of the Huns’, 1973 Berkeley
    E. A. Freeman, ‘Western Europe, In the fifth century, An Aftermath’, London 1904
    Herwich Wolfram, ‘History of the Goths’, Berkeley 1988, München 1979

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Brutality, and human sacrifice, was not restricted to S America:
    Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, ‘ The world of the Huns’, 1973 Berkeley
    E. A. Freeman, ‘Western Europe, In the fifth century, An Aftermath’, London 1904
    Herwich Wolfram, ‘History of the Goths’, Berkeley 1988, München 1979'


    Yes, but.

    Students of the subject reluctantly admit that human sacrifice was far more widespread, massive, and long-lasting than elsewhere -- at least outside of black Africa.

    I think one has to avoid thinking 'human sacrifice bad,' then either pointing to it or denying it depending on whether one is attempting to denigrate or defend American Indians.

    Human sacrifice was very widespread in the New World. One just has to accept it and move on with whatever the discussion was about.
  178. j2 says:

    I think it was the corn god who needed the sacrifices. Therefore there should be some connection with sacrifices and the evolution of corn, like a sacrifice is putting a seed into ground. There is an old theory that human sacrifices are associated with agriculture in areas where water depends on rain, but then the god to whom to sacrifice should be the storm god.

    Atztecs also had the theory of times: sacrifices were needed so that the times would not end and the sky not fall. There is still missing a satisfactory theory of this all. Your suggestion that the civilization would have dispensed with human sacrifices in a millennia is interesting. Maybe there is some dynamics, but it is in general odd that civilization arises in many places in so short time spell.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I often compare the sacrifices against climate changes with those of the Maya's, they sacrificed what was most dear to them, their children, we sacrifice oil, gas and coal.
    The Maya sacrifices accomplished nothing, the drought continued, ours, is my opinion, also accomplish nothing, climate change will continue, as it always did.
    In Europe glaciers melt, what nobody tells us is that where ice was there are ruins of buildings.
    Ruins of houses also were found on high Himalaya passes, probably both date from the time the Vikings were on Greenland, green, also called Vinland, vin is wine, made from grapes.
  179. @AP

    the psychological motivation for the achievements of the Renaissance, was little related to Christianity (but very similar to the motivation of Greek philosophers or artists).
     
    You believe that devout Christians compartmentalized the faith that drove much of their lives and that their scientific pursuits could be separated from their faith?

    For example, Kepler:

    (article apparently written for high school students and the style matches)

    https://www.space.com/35772-copernicus-vs-catholic-church-real-story.html


    Going Bananas: The Real Story of Kepler, Copernicus and the Church

    Paul Sutter is an astrophysicist at The Ohio State University and the chief scientist at COSI Science Center


    All mixed up

    In modern times we neatly separate science, philosophy and religion into their nice tidy little boxes, and get annoyed when members of one box start talking about the contents of another domain. And we view the history of science as proto-scientists fighting against the Church to leave them in peace and let them do their science-y thing

    However, there are two important things to remember when looking at the early history of science around the time of Copernicus and Kepler:

    ...What we now call science, philosophy and theology were all mixed up together.

    ...Kepler penned a work in defense of the Copernican model, but not on physical or mathematical grounds — Kepler's argument was religious. He said that since the son of God was at the center of the Christian faith, the sun ought to be at the center of the universe. Ergo, heliocentrism.

    Kepler's day job was as the court astrologer for the Holy Roman Emperor. Yes: astrologer. Horoscopes and stuff. And he was way more obsessed with numerology than he should have been.

    Or maybe not, since that obsession led him to develop his now-famous three laws. Convinced for quasi-spiritual reasons that the sun was at the center of the universe, he labored for years, poring over tables and tables of handwritten charts detailing the precise locations of the planets.

    Kepler wasn’t just looking for a handy fitting formula; he was searching for signs of the divine. He was convinced that the heavens, being naturally closer to God, contained a sort of perfection not seen on Earth since the Garden of Eden. What's more, if he could deduce the divine geometry of the heavens, he could look for similarities here on Earth to help predict the future.

    Here's an example. After years of continual frustration from trying ever-more Byzantine (and ever-more unsatisfactory) equations to fit the motions of the planets, Kepler gave the simple ellipse a shot. Besides working really, really well, Kepler was convinced he got it right because of the relationship between the motions of the planets and music.

    Kepler found that the planets move in ellipses, not circles, around the sun. He also found that when the planets are closer to the sun, they move faster than when they're farther away.

    When it comes to the Earth, the ratio between its fastest speed and slowest speed reduces to 16/15, which is the same ratio between the notes fa and mi. Needless to say, Kepler thought this was fantastically important:

    “The Earth sings Mi, Fa, Mi: you may infer even from the syllables that in this our home misery and famine hold sway.”

    To Kepler, this was the clincher. Why were the heavens so perfect but the Earth so full of wretchedness? The music of the spheres tells us - it fit so perfectly! His new system wasn't just a mathematical convenience, but a window into the mind of God and the hidden order of the universe.

    Kepler was so convinced that there was some sort of hidden order in the heavens that he dug even deeper. Surely there was something that could unlock those juicy divine mysteries. After more years of laborious study, he found it: the square of a planet's orbital period (the time it takes to get around the sun) is directly proportional to the cube of its semimajor axis (the planet's farthest distance from the sun), and that proportion is the same for all the planets.

    Why the square of the orbital period? Why not the semimajor axis to the fourth power? Kepler didn't know and (probably) didn't care. He found a universal constant, a single number that tied together the motions of all the planets — and the Earth.

    Here, at least, was the divine music — and numerology — Kepler sought after years of labor. His model of the universe united the earthly and celestial realms in (literal) harmony, it found beautiful and simple geometric elegance in the motions of the planets, and his simple formulas for predicting planetary positions made for excellent horoscopes.

    ::::::::::

    So scientist/theologian/astrologer was motivated by his faith and his work was the product of that faith.

    Lucien Febre, ´Le problème de l’incroyance au 16e siècle’, Paris, 1942, 1968
    Translation ‘The problem of unbelief in the 16th century’.
    I found the title somewhere, and was surprised, atheism in the 16th century ?
    Well, the book is the opposite, atheism was unthinkable at the time.
    So, to state that Keppler was motivated by his faith, at the time, one might say, anything was motivated by faith.
    One sees this best in art of the time, biblical motives.
    A present day comparison, maybe, anything is motivated by climate change.
    The interesting thing about Keppler is that he did not know how heretical his planetary laws were.
    Standard church teaching was Plato.

    • Replies: @AP

    ...atheism was unthinkable at the time. So, to state that Keppler was motivated by his faith, at the time, one might say, anything was motivated by faith.
     
    Correct. And it as this society in Europe, so strongly imbued with Christian faith, that produced humanity's scientific miracle.

    It is not a coincidence.
  180. @Guillaume Tell

    Crucifying or impaling hundreds or thousands of people was routine,
     
    I have always wondered how they managed to achieve such feats, in an era where the machine gun was not invented yet and therefore the relative strengths of opposing groups was somewhat proportional to their respective sizes.

    Half a dozen kebabs with AK47s can slaughter many dozens of unarmed people in a concert hall, with the latter group not even being able to take down a single assaillant.

    However how can an army of a few thousand men equipped only with blades and spears force as many (or more) individuals to let themselves be crucified or impaled alive I don’t understand. At least the 6000 of so vanquished rebels could have charged their victors and be killed in the battle (while in this process killing many Romans), rather than being crucified. I really can’t fathom why many 1000s of able bodied men would have surrendered en masse to this most horrible mode of execution.

    One should remove one or two zeros at the end of all very old numbers.
    The concept of objective truth is relatively new
    Felipe Fernández-Armesto, ‘Truth, A History and a Guide for the Perplexed’, New York 1997

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell
    So there were only 60 to 600 legionaries in the Roman Legions? And only 1 to 10 within a centuria?

    I am sorry but that argument is entirely unconvincing.
  181. @AP

    Very, very questionable statement. “something specific…. that really drove people in Europe to study and manipulate the world ” was already with the ancient Greeks
     
    They didn't apply it nearly as much, preferring to study and contemplate. Compare Europe 500 BC to 500 AD little difference. 500 AD to 1500 AD enormous difference.

    Рrior triumph of Christianity, northern Europeans-pagan colonized Iceland and Greenland and reached America.
     
    And Polynesian savages traveled even further around the Pacific.

    Savages ?
    Highly civilised people, excellent navigators
    ⦁ Guy Murchie, ‘Het lied van de lucht’, (Song of the sky, an exploration of the ocean of air, Boston), Bilthoven 1956

  182. @DFH

    However, it was a temporary regression-in the middle ages the seeds of the ancient world (rather contrary to Christianity) germinate again, and the Renaissance means a return to the spirit of Ancient Greece (which means a new grandiose flowering of science, technology and art).
     
    Medieval (Christian) technology had already surpassed that of the Classical world before the Renaissance (which didn't have much to do with science). Similarly the developments in art predated the Renaissance; Art in Antwerp, for instance, was very advanced without significant influence from the rediscovery of the Classical world. I think if everything from the ancient world had been destroyed during the Middle Ages, it would have made little difference to European technological advancement, and the art would be, although different, equally sophisticated

    Renaissance, a fairy tale
    Bertrand Gille, ‘Ingenieure der Renaissance’, Wien, 1968 (Les ingenieurs de la Renaissance, Paris, 1964)
    J.Huiznga, ‘The waning of the Middle Ages, 1924, 1990, Londen (Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen)

  183. @Talha
    Well there are a couple of distinctions to be made...

    The Sunni schools are four and they differ in jurisprudence - which are rules and legalities. They agree in about 75% of things, but differ on certain things which can be considered slight (how you hold your hands in the prayer) to big (can a Muslim be killed for murdering a polytheist dhimmi or only have to pay 1/3 the blood money) and everything in between. There used to be many more schools, but they died out due to lack of attention or got absorbed into the existing schools. Sunnis consider each school to be completely valid and basically hold the opinion that a rival school got the ruling wrong, but they could possibly be correct and we are right, but could possibly be wrong. Jurisprudence is what deals with the worship of the body.

    The schools of Sunni creed are considered three; Athari, Ash’ari and Maturidi. The Atharis are fairly basic and generally tend to avoid speculation into theological minutiae. The Ash’aris And Maturidis tackle those issues head on and differ mostly in the semantics in how the explain an issue. Again, everyone agrees the differences are totally valid. Creed is what deals with the worship of the intellect.

    The Sunnis share the same sources of Qur’an, hadith and other sources of deriving legal rules, but they differ in what they emphasize and how they interpret the texts - thus leading to the differences.

    The Shiah are different in that they differ in both beliefs (enough to make them and Sunnis consider each other heterodox but not unbelievers) and sources of jurisprudence (they have their own books of hadith). Thus the foundation is quite different. Different enough that we usually attend separate mosques, but not separate enough that we differ radically; we both still pray (very similarly), fast, etc.

    Sunnis and Shias don’t generally take from each other’s books, though there is some overlap. For instance, there are a few Shiah transmitters in our chains of hadith and they still utilize some Sunni books, like most Shiah seminaries use the works of Imam Taftazani (ra) - a famous Sunni theologian - when studying logic.

    Hope this helps.

    Peace.

    can a Muslim be killed for murdering a polytheist dhimmi or only have to pay 1/3 the blood money

    What happens if someone is too poor to pay blood money, their family members pay or they take a loan or what?

    How do these kind of things interact with the legal system? In states with Shariah law who and how is it decided which interpretation should take precedence?

    Do theological institutions like Al-Azhar University have a main branch they adhere to or does it depend on the specific scholar one asks?

    Do certain schools of thought predominate in certain countries or is it fairly mixed?

    I’ve heard that a lot of Balkan and Turkish Muslims used to adhere to something called Bektashi Islam, is that one of the schools that died out?

    And does Deobandism in the Subcontinent still exist or did it merge into another group?

    Also, how do these kind of things relate to Sufism?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Man, you are putting me to work!

    What happens if someone is too poor to pay blood money, their family members pay
     
    Correct, or tribe. This is one of the wisdoms behind why inheritance laws are fixed. Those relatives that are financially likely to benefit from your success are on the hook to be liable for your failures. It incentivizes the extended family to raise their children well.

    If your family is too destitute as a whole, then ultimately the public treasury takes care of it or charitable organizations.

    In states with Shariah law who and how is it decided which interpretation should take precedence?
     
    The qualified groups of scholars decide what rules to follow. Usually you have the official institute of a Grand Mufti and him and his support staff (also scholars) decide on the big stuff while local scholars in more local jurisdictions decide on the more local stuff. There are appeals processes similar to what is in the West.

    There are also unofficial muftis that are even more qualified than the Grand Mufti, but the sovereign has the prerogative to decide the scholars they want to follow to guide the ship of state. For instance, the Abbasid Caliphate chose to follow the Hanafi school in most matters. The Shafi'i scholars were doing their job and issuing rulings left and right, and they were simply ignored...until the Ayyubids and Mamlukes came along.

    And it's not a perfect system - people screw up:
    http://seekershub.org/blog/2012/08/what-is-a-fatwa-who-can-give-one-by-sheikh-musa-furber-washington-post/

    Do theological institutions like Al-Azhar University have a main branch they adhere to or does it depend on the specific scholar one asks?
     
    Both actually. An institution like al-Azhar has scholars specializing in all the schools and they have bodies that can decide what might be the best rulings out of the various schools given a certain circumstance or - importanatly - deal with a new matter that is unprecedented (in vitro fertilization or stem cell research, etc.). Al-Azhar has a weird balance they have to do. Egyptians follow the Shafi'i school as well as the Hanafi school due to historical mixture, but much of the legal corpus is inherited from when the Ottomans were in charge (following the Hanafi school) and you can't just overwrite everything. So generally, what I have observed is that Egyptians tend to be Shafi'i in private matters, but follow the Hanafi school in public legal issues (marriage, tort, etc.).

    Even a country like Jordan where practically everyone follows the Shafi'i school, can't escape from Ottoman (Hanafi) legal heritage.

    And of course, the vast majority of the rules have zero to do with Shariah - parking violations, elevator safety codes, water purification standards, medical board certifications, etc. Muslim scholars don't get involved with that stuff nor should they.

    Do certain schools of thought predominate in certain countries or is it fairly mixed?
     
    Depends on where you are - this map is fairly accurate:
    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SzLR81tgEnw/WQSRZnLhj8I/AAAAAAAABVw/VAihzcJo30oFg9ng95FlPutDRc0wPT7lQCLcB/s1600/islamic%2Bschools%2Bmap.jpg

    Bektashi Islam, is that one of the schools that died out?
     
    No, it was a Sufi order (a heterodox one) often associated with some of the military elite (groups like the Janissaries). It died out just because orthodoxy became more and more prominent.

    And does Deobandism in the Subcontinent
     
    Big time. Deoband is simply just a school like Al-Azhar, Nadwat ul-Ulema, etc. - they tend to be a little bit more cautious about curbing anything that looks to be heterodox doctrine or behavior (for which they get mistaken as being Salafi), but they are totally within the Sunni spectrum of views. Sunnis have always had differences of opinion and approach.

    Also, how do these kind of things relate to Sufism?
     
    So Sufism is basically the inner dimension of Islamic worship - basically it was defined well by the Sufi-scholar Shaykh Ahmad Zarruq (ra) as; developing sincere inner direction towards God.

    So, a man could be performing the daily prayers and thinking about the subway sandwich he will order afterwards or about the shoes he plans to buy, etc. The goal of Sufism is very simple actually as defined in a hadith:
    "To worship Allah as if you see Him, for even though you do not see Him, He sees you." - reported in practically all of the books of hadith

    The Sufi-scholars used to say; any moment spent being forgetful of Allah is a moment spent in unbelief.

    But the term Sufis can cover a bunch of people; anyone from the very orthodox and pious Muslims to those involved in heterodox practices and beliefs and even non-Muslims. All claim to be Sufis - so when you ask about Sufism, you have to be specific about it to derive any benefit.

    For instance, the Sufi order I belong to is very orthodox and many of its initiates are Muslim scholars themselves. We don't have any strange practices, we basically do a lot of silent reflection/meditation and remembrance of God. We are so low key, we could be doing our stuff in the middle of a Salafi-Wahhabi mosque and nobody would pay us any mind.

    This is a fairly good and concise article on the phenomenon:
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2260

    Again, hope this helps.

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    Also, if you want a good source for a very concise (within 200 pages) and authoritative view of the subject, I would highly recommend this book (which is fairly inexpensive):
    https://turath.co.uk/shop/islam-and-politics/

    Here is a sample of the table of contents:
    https://turath.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Islam-and-Politics-sample-pages-.pdf

    It covers a high-level understanding of the basic outlines of how Islam influences government. It is written from a classical/traditional viewpoint as well as the practical/pragmatic one that takes our current environment (nation-state, post-WW2, etc.) into consideration.

    The author is one of the top scholars in the Muslim world and served as Grand Mufti of Pakistan and was involved in negotiating the integration of Shariah codes into governance. So he has firsthand practical knowledge about how these things work.

    Peace.
  184. @DFH
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEVJ_48YgTg

    Thank you. That’s hilarious

  185. @Anonymous Jew
    There have now been several genetic studies done on Egyptian mummies from various periods. They were predominantly Semitic and came across the Sinai from the Fertile Crescent. Their Black admixture was in fact lower than modern day Egyptians. Around 5-10% IIRC. I'll let you Google the rest since you obviously need to get started on that anyways.

    As I once heard someone say "even the smart ones usually have light skin"

    There have now been several genetic studies done on Egyptian mummies from various periods.

    The one undisputed genetic study of a known Egyptian Pharoah (and thus of all Pharoahs of that Dynasty) reveals a paternal Haplogroup that is African.

    They were predominantly Semitic and came across the Sinai from the Fertile Crescent.

    Stupid nonsense. Egyptian civilization is older than the semites, Arab or Jew. Your Hebrew ancestors may have originated in the Fertile Crescent (in what is now southern Iraq) but they ended up as slaves in African Egypt for a few centuries. Slaves speak the language of their masters. Which is why the language of the Hebrews is related to the ancient Egyptian language, which is an african language, not to the ancient languages of the Fertile Crescent. Centuries of being enslaved by the Egyptians also explains why the Hebrews practiced circumcision, which only Egyptians and Ethiopians practiced in ancient times

    So the fact that the Torah/Old Testament and the Quran are both written in languages that belong to the Afro-asiatic language family, which originated in Africa, is an example of the extensive civilizational impact of Egypt.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    OK. Ergo, Ashkenazi Jews are Semites because our paternal Haplogroups are Semitic (60-70%, including me per 23andMe). But if you look at everything else (autosomal dna, mitochondria) Ashkenazis are 55-65% European... Heck, don't half of all Black Americans have NW Euro Y chromosomes. Are Blacks really English/Irish? Are dark brown Mestizos European Spaniards?

    Egyptians are not older than Sumer. Civilization started at the other end of the Fertile Crescent. Whether civilization spread to Egypt or arose there independently I don't know. Yes, I assume there would be African influence. Regardless, the main "racial" stock of Egyptians (at least the well-preserved rulers) was not African. This isn't history or cultural influence, it's just genetic, scientific evidence.

    I'm not sure what studies you're looking at. Maybe Mossad has hacked my Google so all I see are the studies showing Ancient Egyptians were closest to Bronze Age populations of the Eastern Med.

    I'm sorry Bantus didn't build the pyramids (or really much of anything, for that matter). But hey, there's Jazz.

    , @Logan
    The Semitic languages, all of them, come from the Arabian peninsula. Various waves of out-migration brought the languages that developed into Akkadian, Assyrian, Aramean, Hebrew, etc.

    There is no consensus as to where the Afro-Asiatic family of languages originated. It may have been in Africa or the Levant.
  186. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    Miscegenation was once illegal in forty-four American states (and many within living memory) and, I might add, Germany itself.
     
    Such laws have historically been quite rare in Western societies, I can only think of Nazi Germany, South Africa and some US states.
    And imo there's not much chance you'd get even a majority of those opposed to the ongoing invasion to support such laws. Even many right-wingers would reject that, either for personal reasons or on principle.
    It's also rather pointless imo to draw up wishlists of all the harsh measures one would like to enact. I can understand the motivation and indulge similar fantasies myself at times. But in the end that's just political masturbation and a sign of one's own impotence. Unless one has a convincing answer to the question "How do we get people around to our way of thinking? What programme could appeal to a majority in our country?" that's all just fantasy.

    But in the end that’s just political masturbation and a sign of one’s own impotence.

    Exactly.

  187. @Talha
    Seconded. I’ve personally always liked wolves...
    https://i.imgflip.com/2d0zs9.jpg
    ...but that’s just me.

    Peace.

    Wolves have been domesticated for a long time my friend. I have a couple sitting right next to me(with me being the ring leader).

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yeah, I get what you are saying, but those aren’t wolves anymore - nobody calls them that.

    Peace.
  188. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/south-america-s-inca-civilization-was-better-skull-surgery-civil-war-doc

    “South America’s Inca civilization was better at skull surgery than Civil War doctors”

  189. @BB753
    A Roman Legion was a near unstoppable war machine. Perhaps the men who surrendered didn't expect to be crucified. It wasn't the way Rome usually treated defeated populations.

    Ignorance of one’s ultimate fate is indeed a possible explanation;l: say you let yourself be disarmed and subsequently put in chains, it is then going to be impossible to avoid being crucified (or otherwise barbarously murdered).

    However I find this explanation unconvincing in the case of the Spartacus rebellion, for one simple reason: crucificion was the normal modus operandi to execute slaves. In fact even more than that, St Paul himself escaped crucifixion owing to his Roman citizenship (and was beheaded instead).

    In the case of Assyrians it is even more puzzling as their way of dealing with the vanquished was widely known; they were even propagandizing about it.

    One can observe that extreme stress (due to fear, hunger/thirst, pain) can lead to a post-shock stunning response. In that state the victim is extremely compliant. That physiological and psychological response can explain out a lot of submissive behavior after a siege, a battle, a long flight, etc.

  190. @jilles dykstra
    One should remove one or two zeros at the end of all very old numbers.
    The concept of objective truth is relatively new
    Felipe Fernández-Armesto, ‘Truth, A History and a Guide for the Perplexed’, New York 1997

    So there were only 60 to 600 legionaries in the Roman Legions? And only 1 to 10 within a centuria?

    I am sorry but that argument is entirely unconvincing.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I explained that the idea of objective truth is relatively new.
    Old writers just wanted to impress readers, or honour rulers.
    So one should be very cautious with old numbers.
    If in the fifth century a Gothic fleet of 2000 ships is mentioned, one zero less seems probable.
    Wonder if you ever visited ancient cities such as Knidos in present Turkey.
    The harbours still are as they were.
    Tiny.
    Ephesos, one of the big ancient cities.
    No bigger, I think, than present day Emmetsburgh in Iowa.
    Carcassonne in southern France still has the original walls, in ten minutes one crosses the whole town from one end to another.
    Walls are still to be seen, and tracable in Amersfoort Netherlands, sixteenth century.
    In an hour one walks around the medieval town.
    The Roman problem was defending the long frontiers, where there were no natural borders, such a mountains, seas, lakes, marshes and rivers.
    Not enough manpower.
    The Chinese built a wall, China did have manpower.
  191. @German_reader

    Civilization would also have spread north to the (higher IQ) American Indians
     
    Amerindians in North America had higher IQs than those in South America? Is that securely known? I would have thought that it wouldn't be easy to get IQ data for North American Amerindians (especially ones without any European admixture).

    Eurasia may have reached an all-time peak in organized, psychopathic cruelty with the Assyrian Empire in 1000 BC.
     
    The Assyrians didn't do human sacrifice anymore though, unless I'm mistaken. They just had very brutal punishments and consolidated their rule with harsh methods like forced relocation of entire peoples...but so have many other empires throughout history.
    I think the Aztecs are so horrifying (and fascinating) to modern Westerners not just because of the scale of their violence, but because of the irrational nature of it...ripping people's hearts out to keep the sun from fading is a very alien way of thinking.

    >Amerindians in North America had higher IQs than those in South America? Is that securely known? I would have thought that it wouldn’t be easy to get IQ data for North American Amerindians (especially ones without any European admixture).

    The average IQ for Sioux Amerindians today is ~100; although their performance IQ is equal to that of the Chinese (110-113). The same is true of the Northern Cheyenne.

    Keep in mind, that’s higher than most Southern European countries, some by a full standard deviation. And of course higher than Mexicans, too.

    The verbal portion of IQ tests seems to be what brings them down; with strict education in concentration camps I have no doubt their average IQ would exceed that of Northern Europeans. The problem is they don’t want to go to school and don’t want to learn.

    If anything, admixture with the lowest rung of European society (which explored the American frontier) would have lowered their IQ scores somewhat.

    • Replies: @DFH
    No study Lynn lists has a result even approaching that. Their SAT scores don't suggest that either.
    , @DFH
    Are you talking about this? (unfortunately I can't get it on sci-hub)

    https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/dissertations/AAI9925492/

    It says that the Cheyenne's performance IQ is higher than average but that the Full-scale IQ is (contrary to your comment) significantly lower.
  192. Oh, but the poor widdle children! The Aztecs were something all right, but the Mayans loved killing kiddies:

    https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-americas/horrifying-history-midnight-terror-cave-belize-005783

    http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/anthro/midnight-terror-cave

    Mesoamerican child trafficking is NOT a new phenomenon.

  193. A stack of empty skulls is a very prescient motif for the Skull Continent which, unknown for aeons, should have remained so.

  194. @Beckow

    obvious point that people didn’t like being eaten
     
    It takes a lot of effort to avoid the obvious. That's why it takes so many years to educate intellectuals like Lizzy. But she has mastered the art: commoners liked it, they looked forward to being slaughtered and eaten.

    A bit of a slippery slope, though, who knows what will be labeled as desirable 'sacrifice' going forward.

    A bit of a slippery slope, though, who knows what will be labeled as desirable ‘sacrifice’ going forward.

    Wait, I know! Hideously white kids:

    http://library.flawlesslogic.com/biehl.htm

  195. @iffen
    BTW, if this Aztec stuff interests you, you definitely need to watch Mel Gibson's Apocalypto.
    It is a very good movie.

    Watching ‘Apocolypto’ (legally) is no easy task these days. Its been memory-holed. Not available to stream anywhere. DVD copy (NTSC) on Amazon costs a bit. Its not as hard to get as ‘The Flim Flam Man’, but not easy.

    • Replies: @utu

    Its [Apocalypto] been memory-holed.
     
    They are still after Mel? Or they do not like the Christian message?
  196. @Talha
    Well there are a couple of distinctions to be made...

    The Sunni schools are four and they differ in jurisprudence - which are rules and legalities. They agree in about 75% of things, but differ on certain things which can be considered slight (how you hold your hands in the prayer) to big (can a Muslim be killed for murdering a polytheist dhimmi or only have to pay 1/3 the blood money) and everything in between. There used to be many more schools, but they died out due to lack of attention or got absorbed into the existing schools. Sunnis consider each school to be completely valid and basically hold the opinion that a rival school got the ruling wrong, but they could possibly be correct and we are right, but could possibly be wrong. Jurisprudence is what deals with the worship of the body.

    The schools of Sunni creed are considered three; Athari, Ash’ari and Maturidi. The Atharis are fairly basic and generally tend to avoid speculation into theological minutiae. The Ash’aris And Maturidis tackle those issues head on and differ mostly in the semantics in how the explain an issue. Again, everyone agrees the differences are totally valid. Creed is what deals with the worship of the intellect.

    The Sunnis share the same sources of Qur’an, hadith and other sources of deriving legal rules, but they differ in what they emphasize and how they interpret the texts - thus leading to the differences.

    The Shiah are different in that they differ in both beliefs (enough to make them and Sunnis consider each other heterodox but not unbelievers) and sources of jurisprudence (they have their own books of hadith). Thus the foundation is quite different. Different enough that we usually attend separate mosques, but not separate enough that we differ radically; we both still pray (very similarly), fast, etc.

    Sunnis and Shias don’t generally take from each other’s books, though there is some overlap. For instance, there are a few Shiah transmitters in our chains of hadith and they still utilize some Sunni books, like most Shiah seminaries use the works of Imam Taftazani (ra) - a famous Sunni theologian - when studying logic.

    Hope this helps.

    Peace.

    Is there any standard answer- or any answer at all to the question why God/Allah allows the errors to persist uncorrected by him, given that he cares for mankind and cares about the details of faith and morals?

    • Replies: @Talha

    or any answer at all to the question why God/Allah allows the errors to persist uncorrected by him
     
    Well, there certainly is no exact answer because only He knows the wisdom behind why He does what He does. We can certainly glean some insights though by bearing certain principles in mind:
    1) He does whatever He wills and no one is entitled to question Him.
    2) Creation (the universe) is other than Him, the manifestation of imperfection is to be assumed.
    3) The choice to believe or disbelieve is a package deal, it's up to everyone to decide and reap the consequences of their choice. That some people will make the wrong choice is a given:
    "And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them, entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?" (10:99)
    4) This world is a test. Being such, some will fail and some will succeed.
    5) God does not regard all of mankind equally; some He has declared His beloved and His friends and others He has declared as rebellious and His enemies. He provides for both and often even provides for His enemies far more than He provides for His friends, but that should not delude us into assessing the situation incorrectly. The reality of where everyone stands vis-a-vis the choices they made, will be manifest in the afterlife.
    6) People make mistakes and sins - not all mistakes and sins are on the same level; He has declared that some He will forgive and some He will not.

    I hope that helps.

    Peace.

    , @iffen
    why God/Allah allows the errors to persist uncorrected by him


    Perhaps no one has taken the time to point out his errors.

    If you decide to give it a try and succeed in getting his attention, see if he will do something about all the waste involved when preparing a fresh pineapple for the table.

  197. @Biff
    Wolves have been domesticated for a long time my friend. I have a couple sitting right next to me(with me being the ring leader).

    Yeah, I get what you are saying, but those aren’t wolves anymore – nobody calls them that.

    Peace.

  198. @AP

    Is this really worse than the American belief that we must kill millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis to advance democracy?
     
    Sorry, but this argument feels a little like the one claiming that Yeltsin was as murderous as Stalin because a comparable population loss occurred.

    But I'll indulge your argument anyways.

    For Aztecs, sacrifice was the point. There was no choice. There was nothing the victims could do. Gods wanted hearts, or children's tears, or whatever. Vietnamese and Iraqis could have, of course, surrendered. Americans didn't just capture them so they could meet a quota of X killed. Had Vietnam been subdued, Americans wouldn't have kept killing Vietnamese every year. Vietnam might have become like South Korea. Had Aztecs conquered Vietnam (or any other place) they would have sacrifices over and over again.

    In other words, you are conflating war deaths and "social" deaths. Aztecs also killed people in war.
    A better analogy might have been Nazis sacrificing millions of Jews and Slavs for their "god" of Aryan purity and supremacy, or Soviets sacrificing millions of people for their "god" of Communism or Marxism-Leninism. Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings. Getting gassed or shot near a mass grave beats getting one's beating heart ripped out. And while Communism and Nazism were exceptional in time and place within European society, sacrifice was universal in Meso-American society (Mayans also practiced it).

    Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings.

    Hey now, what are you, some kinda Nazi? The Holocaust was the worst thing in human history and nothing, nothing, nothing, even comes close. And if you disagree, outside the US, you will go to prison for your ignorance.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I think that you exaggerate, it is only most western European countries and Canada, Oz, NZ, USA.

    Was going to raise those big edible rodents (if ever in Peru, want to try them), the potato (even bigger influence on history than maize), and lamas but noticing the topic was 'Mezoamerica', so off-topic.

    On three serious points, though, it is noteworthy that all of the city and monument-building civilisations from what is now Mexico and what is now Peru were short-lived, in terms of history, and not just from Spanish conquest, it was an old pattern.

    IIRC, Macchu Picchu had been abandoned or wiped out long before the Spanish incursion.

    From reading and pictures (photographs), I think that some tribes in what is now the S-W U.S.A. had a more lasting model, small-scale towns, no human sacrifice or enslavement of neighbours, and a high aesthetic level.

    Forgetting the third, tired.
    , @Nosenberg
    That's right! Anyone who questions 6-gorillion killed should go to jail. Case closed.
  199. @Hyperborean
    Talha, what purpose do the different Islamic schools of thought have (in terms of doctrines etc.) and what are the differences between the main ones? Is there crossover between Sunni and Shia in terms of schools or are they very distinct from each other?

    Hey Talha, looks like you have a convert in the making albeit slowly. You are definitely not wasting your time on the site. Congrats!

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Lol, don't worry, I eat too much probably-pork meat to qualify. The main reason I am asking all these questions is that Talha is accessible, friendly and some kind of religious instructor and I would have no idea where to find someone to ask this in real life.

    If there was an Orthodox or Buddhist version of Talha commenting here frequently I would also be asking them questions about their religion.

    , @Talha
    LOL! People ask questions and I simply answer to the best of my ability.

    God is the One who guides.

    Peace.
  200. @Dmitry

    Umm, I think you have a rather romantic image of our GR here.

    It is s good vision, tho – you clearly yearn for a passionate cause worth fighting for, but can only imagine it being over some ‘civilized’ cultural pursuit that men in pajamas reclining in comfortable armchairs might engage in mildly animated debate over without spilling their wine
     

    What's wrong with civilized (parts of) Germany? - it's how life should be.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0wkBuUezq8

    Depends what you mean by civilized.

    If you mean rising above the physical to the spiritual through great art, architecture, music, and literature, then yes. This means not being a materialist.

    If you merely mean the technique of making physical life more comfortable and easy, then that is boring.

    The Germans themselves seem to find your version of civilization as mere pleasant living as not worth defending – so the ideal life is one that people who live it are unwilling to defend and become gloomy and pessimistic?

    The best bits of that civilized life are the old architecture and old art – so the best life is one in which we appreciate things created by people with the exact opposite mentality to us and we can no longer create?

    You have interesting ideas my friend…

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Somewhere like Heidelberg - it's far from my ideal or most favourite place in the world.

    But it has in many ways, ingredients of human flourishing, which are absent from many parts of the world for primarily cultural reasons.

    And this in quite a simple, objective (or rather, intersubjective) way - it's why Africans and Arabs are flooding to live in Germany, whereas Germans are not flooding to live in African or Arab countries (beyond some workers in Dubai or Kuwait), for all the potential Africa and Arabia should have to be the nicest countries in the world (great landscapes and climatic conditions).

  201. @Dagon Shield
    Hey Talha, looks like you have a convert in the making albeit slowly. You are definitely not wasting your time on the site. Congrats!

    Lol, don’t worry, I eat too much probably-pork meat to qualify. The main reason I am asking all these questions is that Talha is accessible, friendly and some kind of religious instructor and I would have no idea where to find someone to ask this in real life.

    If there was an Orthodox or Buddhist version of Talha commenting here frequently I would also be asking them questions about their religion.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I eat too much probably-pork meat to qualify
     
    And there are Muslims who drink alcohol. They're still Muslim, but have a weakness in that regard. One is not expected to be perfect - everyone has their pet sins. One is simply expected to recognize Who sets the rules and to try.

    and some kind of religious instructor
     
    No way - I am a student. I have been learning under scholars (part time) for years and for a particular school (Hanafi). The only ones my teachers have given me permission to teach are young boys in the basics of the religion.

    My wife is very close to getting her alimiyyah degree though in the Hanafi school, so she will be qualified to teach for your average adult what they need to navigate through most of their life. Not give fatwas or anything (you need extra years of specialization for that), just basic guidance.

    Peace.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    Bacon is the most convincing evidence for the superiority of American civilization.
  202. @Dagon Shield
    Hey Talha, looks like you have a convert in the making albeit slowly. You are definitely not wasting your time on the site. Congrats!

    LOL! People ask questions and I simply answer to the best of my ability.

    God is the One who guides.

    Peace.

  203. @j2
    I think it was the corn god who needed the sacrifices. Therefore there should be some connection with sacrifices and the evolution of corn, like a sacrifice is putting a seed into ground. There is an old theory that human sacrifices are associated with agriculture in areas where water depends on rain, but then the god to whom to sacrifice should be the storm god.

    Atztecs also had the theory of times: sacrifices were needed so that the times would not end and the sky not fall. There is still missing a satisfactory theory of this all. Your suggestion that the civilization would have dispensed with human sacrifices in a millennia is interesting. Maybe there is some dynamics, but it is in general odd that civilization arises in many places in so short time spell.

    I often compare the sacrifices against climate changes with those of the Maya’s, they sacrificed what was most dear to them, their children, we sacrifice oil, gas and coal.
    The Maya sacrifices accomplished nothing, the drought continued, ours, is my opinion, also accomplish nothing, climate change will continue, as it always did.
    In Europe glaciers melt, what nobody tells us is that where ice was there are ruins of buildings.
    Ruins of houses also were found on high Himalaya passes, probably both date from the time the Vikings were on Greenland, green, also called Vinland, vin is wine, made from grapes.

    • Replies: @j2
    I think the idea of a sacrifice gave us the crops.

    That is, how did early humans selectively breed wild plants to better crops? They did not know of genes and before they started breeding plants, they probably did not know that plants can be bred by selection. Europeans had tamed a wolf to a dog, but it may be that wolves tamed themselves and there was no conscious selection by humans.

    The key to plant breeding was the sacrifice: sacrifice the best plants by not eating them but by offering them to the mother deity by burying them to the ground. This process, if continued long enough, creates cultivated crops out of wild species. Always sacrifice the best and eat only the worse. Thus, we find sacrifice among agriculturalists. As children are the most valuable, this idea leads to sacrifice of children. That does not work, but is a consequence of a working idea of plant breeding.

    This idea worked with plants, but it does not work with animals. With animal breeding, there is another idea: separate the best, the chosen must not mix with the non-chosen. This is also a religious idea, included in Judaism and some other religions that arguable come from herders. This idea works well with humans (apart of occasional persecutions), separation creates a tightly knit group.

    Mayas sacrificed their children to get rain. This is a fairly reasonable development from sacrifice to the earth deity: if the main deity changes to the sky deity (a change associated with a shift form matriarchal to patriarchal society), then sacrifices go to the sky deity and ask for rain. It did not work, of course.

    Levantine sacrifice of the eldest son is understandable as a way to avoid a population collapse in a polygamous society: without removing the eldest son, he inherits all women and the effective male population size drops too low causing mutational overload and population collapse. The sacrifice creates competition between males and the best male wins, not the oldest.

    These four I understand in these ways, but the present article raised the problem of Aztecs and other American Indians. Aztecs sacrificed humans in order that the times would not end and before them human sacrifices were given to the corn god. I do not think meat eating was a major factor (it was a major factor in New Guinea, but there all large animals were hunted to extinction). This here is something different, and it may be connected with the special difficulties of breeding corn out of the wild plant. It could also have an association with the sacred ball game, also connected with human sacrifice. But I cannot see this connection in the way of the four that I mentioned. Somewhere there is the solution to this puzzle.

  204. @Guillaume Tell
    So there were only 60 to 600 legionaries in the Roman Legions? And only 1 to 10 within a centuria?

    I am sorry but that argument is entirely unconvincing.

    I explained that the idea of objective truth is relatively new.
    Old writers just wanted to impress readers, or honour rulers.
    So one should be very cautious with old numbers.
    If in the fifth century a Gothic fleet of 2000 ships is mentioned, one zero less seems probable.
    Wonder if you ever visited ancient cities such as Knidos in present Turkey.
    The harbours still are as they were.
    Tiny.
    Ephesos, one of the big ancient cities.
    No bigger, I think, than present day Emmetsburgh in Iowa.
    Carcassonne in southern France still has the original walls, in ten minutes one crosses the whole town from one end to another.
    Walls are still to be seen, and tracable in Amersfoort Netherlands, sixteenth century.
    In an hour one walks around the medieval town.
    The Roman problem was defending the long frontiers, where there were no natural borders, such a mountains, seas, lakes, marshes and rivers.
    Not enough manpower.
    The Chinese built a wall, China did have manpower.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell
    I get that. This is a laundry list of self-evident facts that I in no way intend to object to.

    By the way I know Carcassonne very well, please remember that what is important about it in the fact that it's the largest remaining fully enclosed medieval city -- is the "remaining" part. It was not especially large as compared to other medieval cities in France, in fact it was rather small. It's just that the walls had not been destroyed yet when Mérimée decided to prevent the locals from tearing them down, and effectively singlehandedly initiated the preservationist role of the government. For other, much larger medieval cities, the damage had already been done long before, as they were expanding. Paris is a prime example of that.

    My point in either way is that if we want to make the claim that the size of the rebels' armies were inflated by their contemporaries, then we must apply the same logic to, say, the Roman legions themselves. And, as a result, the relative sizes of opposing forces remain unchanged. And so remains unchanged as well the difficulty for one man to force another one to let himself be crucified, impaled, or whatever.
  205. @BB753
    A Roman Legion was a near unstoppable war machine. Perhaps the men who surrendered didn't expect to be crucified. It wasn't the way Rome usually treated defeated populations.

    An illusion, see the books I mention.

  206. @AP

    But Christ, however, was not a part of some sort of interchangeable set of god figures. His being and one time atonement for all of humankind’s sinful nature was a unique, one time event in the course of history. Having delved into the raw and graphic nature of human sacrifice and putting your imagination to work in seeing how things may have evolved for these Amero-Indian cultures, you must be quite pleased in retrospect as to how things worked out?
     
    I am. The extinction and complete subversion of the evil Aztec demon-worshiping empire was one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. Kudos to the relative small number of Spaniards, flawed as they were and as even normal humans tend to be (greedy, cruel on a smaller, European scale) for pulling this off.

    Sure, the Aztecs were fascinating, as aliens, and in a horror-movie type of way, and it would have been nice to have more stuff preserved with which to understand them better, but that's small change compared to the monumental task the Spaniards had succeeded in accomplishing.

    ” I am. The extinction and complete subversion of the evil Aztec demon-worshiping empire was one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments ”

    For a somewhat different view
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Ward Churchill, ‘A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present’, San Francisco 1997
    Charles C. Mann, Ancient Americans, Rewriting the History of the New World’, 2005, London, ( 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus, 2005, New York)
    Henry Kamen, ‘The Spanish Inquisition, A Historical Revision’, London 1997

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Charles C. Mann, Ancient Americans, Rewriting the History of the New World’, 2005, London, ( 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus, 2005, New York)
     
    I've read '1491', and it's a surprisingly balanced book, certainly without the Black Legend bullshit you're perpetuating. It makes the case that Old World diseases conquered the Indians, not evil Spanish trickery.
  207. j2 says:
    @jilles dykstra
    I often compare the sacrifices against climate changes with those of the Maya's, they sacrificed what was most dear to them, their children, we sacrifice oil, gas and coal.
    The Maya sacrifices accomplished nothing, the drought continued, ours, is my opinion, also accomplish nothing, climate change will continue, as it always did.
    In Europe glaciers melt, what nobody tells us is that where ice was there are ruins of buildings.
    Ruins of houses also were found on high Himalaya passes, probably both date from the time the Vikings were on Greenland, green, also called Vinland, vin is wine, made from grapes.

    I think the idea of a sacrifice gave us the crops.

    That is, how did early humans selectively breed wild plants to better crops? They did not know of genes and before they started breeding plants, they probably did not know that plants can be bred by selection. Europeans had tamed a wolf to a dog, but it may be that wolves tamed themselves and there was no conscious selection by humans.

    The key to plant breeding was the sacrifice: sacrifice the best plants by not eating them but by offering them to the mother deity by burying them to the ground. This process, if continued long enough, creates cultivated crops out of wild species. Always sacrifice the best and eat only the worse. Thus, we find sacrifice among agriculturalists. As children are the most valuable, this idea leads to sacrifice of children. That does not work, but is a consequence of a working idea of plant breeding.

    This idea worked with plants, but it does not work with animals. With animal breeding, there is another idea: separate the best, the chosen must not mix with the non-chosen. This is also a religious idea, included in Judaism and some other religions that arguable come from herders. This idea works well with humans (apart of occasional persecutions), separation creates a tightly knit group.

    Mayas sacrificed their children to get rain. This is a fairly reasonable development from sacrifice to the earth deity: if the main deity changes to the sky deity (a change associated with a shift form matriarchal to patriarchal society), then sacrifices go to the sky deity and ask for rain. It did not work, of course.

    Levantine sacrifice of the eldest son is understandable as a way to avoid a population collapse in a polygamous society: without removing the eldest son, he inherits all women and the effective male population size drops too low causing mutational overload and population collapse. The sacrifice creates competition between males and the best male wins, not the oldest.

    These four I understand in these ways, but the present article raised the problem of Aztecs and other American Indians. Aztecs sacrificed humans in order that the times would not end and before them human sacrifices were given to the corn god. I do not think meat eating was a major factor (it was a major factor in New Guinea, but there all large animals were hunted to extinction). This here is something different, and it may be connected with the special difficulties of breeding corn out of the wild plant. It could also have an association with the sacred ball game, also connected with human sacrifice. But I cannot see this connection in the way of the four that I mentioned. Somewhere there is the solution to this puzzle.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    Some quibbles.

    First off the "corn deity" who/what ever that was if it was a thing, was not some aberration. ALL Aztec deities and all Mayan deities required human sacrifice in one form or another. Human sacrifice was holistic in meso-american religions.

    Secondly, not sure about Maya and Aztec but what I was reading about the Pueblo and ancestral Pueblo, the Uto-Aztecan language group cultures among the Pueblo who were associated most heavily with the cannibalism were matrilineal, not patrilineal (the Tanoan groups of Pueblo were supposedly patrilineal). The source I read claiming this also claimed, if it makes any difference, the Tanoan were endogamous while the Uto-Aztecans were exogamous, endogamy was typical of patrilineal types in the old world.

    Finally, plant breeding. The idea of sacrificing the best would only even possibly be relevant with crops where you ate the part you propagate from. I will grant you corn for sure and possibly potatoes (I know they can be propagated from tubers but I assume they also have seed) are like this. However examples from the Americans (Amazon) that would be contrary are bananas, pitaya, and pineapple.

    Lithic hunter-gathering types from the Amazon jungle have been selectively breeding those plants for millennia, and the practice was simply to propagate from the best, biggest, and most delicious fruits. They may not have known about genes or selective pressures but I bet they knew about heredity, that traits ran in family lines and apples don't fall far from trees so to speak. Bananas and pineapple are actually most readily propagated clonally, since both plants produce new growth clones offshooting from the plant after fruiting which only occurs once per growth point. Pitaya is ridiculously easy to clone from cuttings, and is also known to be propagated by seed in the stool (the seeds come out the other end with plenty of fertilizer nearby).

    So I would think selective breeding was known to them even if they did not know what the mechanisms were.
    , @jilles dykstra
    No historian has been able to explain agriculture.
    Hunter gatherers had a lot of spare time.
    How present corn emerged from the ancient predecessor, nobody has any idea.
    , @jilles dykstra
    sacred ball game:
    Johan Huizinga, 'Homo Ludens', Basel, 1938
  208. AP says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Lucien Febre, ´Le problème de l’incroyance au 16e siècle’, Paris, 1942, 1968
    Translation 'The problem of unbelief in the 16th century'.
    I found the title somewhere, and was surprised, atheism in the 16th century ?
    Well, the book is the opposite, atheism was unthinkable at the time.
    So, to state that Keppler was motivated by his faith, at the time, one might say, anything was motivated by faith.
    One sees this best in art of the time, biblical motives.
    A present day comparison, maybe, anything is motivated by climate change.
    The interesting thing about Keppler is that he did not know how heretical his planetary laws were.
    Standard church teaching was Plato.

    …atheism was unthinkable at the time. So, to state that Keppler was motivated by his faith, at the time, one might say, anything was motivated by faith.

    Correct. And it as this society in Europe, so strongly imbued with Christian faith, that produced humanity’s scientific miracle.

    It is not a coincidence.

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'It is not a coincidence.'

    The potential logical flaw in citing one instance and asserting that it wasn't coincidence seems obvious. Mind, I'm all for the inherent dynamism of post-classical European civilization -- I'm just not convinced it's necessarily a function of Christianity alone. After all, Ethiopia has been Christian for over a thousand years. It hasn't noticeably been a powerhouse of technological innovation.
    , @Bliss
    Reality check:

    1. Christianity did not originate in Europe. The nations that have been Christian the longest, Armenia and Ethiopia, had no scientific miracle.

    2. There is no STEM in the Bible. Not even a hint of it.

    3. Correlation is not causation. Besides there is far more correlation to the contrary. For example: the peak of Christianity in Europe, the Dark Ages, was it’s most backward period in science and technology, while the greatest scientific and technological progress has occurred in the post-Christian Enlightenment Age. And in Asia the most Christian nation, the Philippines, is among the most backward in STEM while the least Christian nation, Japan, is the most advanced.

    4. You won’t find many Christians in Silicon Valley or any other collection of cutting-edge scientists and technologists.
    , @Anon

    atheism was unthinkable at the time
     
    It was hardly unthinkable (it certainly wasn't to, say, Anselm), it just wasn't intellectually respectable.
    , @jilles dykstra
    A Dutch telescope made Galileo see the moons of Jupiter, and their movement.
    After some 1600 year of no science at all, thanks to christianity, it was technical progress that made some minds doubt what the church said.
    The experiment became the arbiter of truth.
    If they doubted god, I do not think so.
    Spinoza was most offended when accused of atheism.
    He made a living making lenses, also his death, glass dust.
  209. @Stan d Mute

    Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings.
     
    Hey now, what are you, some kinda Nazi? The Holocaust was the worst thing in human history and nothing, nothing, nothing, even comes close. And if you disagree, outside the US, you will go to prison for your ignorance.

    I think that you exaggerate, it is only most western European countries and Canada, Oz, NZ, USA.

    Was going to raise those big edible rodents (if ever in Peru, want to try them), the potato (even bigger influence on history than maize), and lamas but noticing the topic was ‘Mezoamerica’, so off-topic.

    On three serious points, though, it is noteworthy that all of the city and monument-building civilisations from what is now Mexico and what is now Peru were short-lived, in terms of history, and not just from Spanish conquest, it was an old pattern.

    IIRC, Macchu Picchu had been abandoned or wiped out long before the Spanish incursion.

    From reading and pictures (photographs), I think that some tribes in what is now the S-W U.S.A. had a more lasting model, small-scale towns, no human sacrifice or enslavement of neighbours, and a high aesthetic level.

    Forgetting the third, tired.

    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "Macchu Picchu had been abandoned or wiped out long before the Spanish incursion."

    Absolutely correct. And the reason it was built in the first place was for an Elitist Only save haven.

    And what the unhinged left rarely tells anyone is that number of Spaniards in Peru at any given time were no more than 200. Because the brutal, human sacrificing, slave keeping Incas were hated by the other subjugated, enslaved tribes. Hence the Spaniards found willing allies everywhere.

    Notice that the left always tries the 'European disease' canard, while ignoring the indigenous diseases.

  210. Anonymous[300] • Disclaimer says:

    Just a plug for Graham Hancock’s trilogy “War God” about Cortez encountering and defeating the Aztecs. Based on historical source documents with some fictional elements. It’s a great read.

    https://grahamhancock.com/wargod/

  211. @Wally
    said:
    "A better analogy might have been Nazis sacrificing millions of Jews and Slavs for their “god” of Aryan purity and supremacy"

    Get serious. There is no proof of that impossible, laughable claim. None. Post it if you have it.


    The "Holocau$t Industry" in court:
    'Please your honor, there really are remains of millions buried in huge mass graves, we know where the mass graves are to this day, ... but, but, well, umm, we can't show the court the human remains. You must trust us, we're Zionists.'
     
    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    Chemistry of Auschwitz / Birkenau
    https://youtu.be/SUc6Y_E5zb0

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    [MORE]

    Zionist / hasbarist Rob Reiner Tor doesn’t want free speech on his absurdly impossible ‘holocaust’ fantasies. Notice he doesn’t even try to refute what I post …. because he cannot. Yet he calls me a troll. LOL

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Only liars demand censorship.

    Tax exempt cash taken in by USHMM, aka: ‘Holocau$t’ Theme Park, for fiscal year 2016 which supports huge salaries for Jews only, which most of the remaining money goes to Jews & Zionist organizations:
    $151,826,695.00
    $151,826,695.00
    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/042717-IRS-Form-990-FY16.pdf
    US taxpayers money to the USHMM in the 2017 budget:
    56,999,500.00
    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20160209-fy17-pres-budget-request.pdf

    The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

  212. @Guy Lombardo
    >Amerindians in North America had higher IQs than those in South America? Is that securely known? I would have thought that it wouldn’t be easy to get IQ data for North American Amerindians (especially ones without any European admixture).

    The average IQ for Sioux Amerindians today is ~100; although their performance IQ is equal to that of the Chinese (110-113). The same is true of the Northern Cheyenne.

    Keep in mind, that's higher than most Southern European countries, some by a full standard deviation. And of course higher than Mexicans, too.

    The verbal portion of IQ tests seems to be what brings them down; with strict education in concentration camps I have no doubt their average IQ would exceed that of Northern Europeans. The problem is they don't want to go to school and don't want to learn.

    If anything, admixture with the lowest rung of European society (which explored the American frontier) would have lowered their IQ scores somewhat.

    No study Lynn lists has a result even approaching that. Their SAT scores don’t suggest that either.

    • Replies: @guy lombardo
    That's correct because Lynn never listed any studies on Cheyenne or Sioux Amerindians which I am referring to.
  213. This is an interesting piece. Some comments rather than criticisms.

    1. Jared Diamond is an utterly worthless source. Don’t get me started on Jared Diamond. Read McNeill’s much earlier, much more perceptive, and much more accurate Plagues and Peoples.

    2. Susceptibility to disease is often a function of malnutrition. The Black Death struck medieval Europe at a point when burgeoning populations but a lack of burgeoning agricultural production meant that malnutrition was widespread. Conversely, not one crowned head of state died of the Bubonic Plague. It was a disease that cut a swathe through the malnourished peasantry of the time; and while the plague continued to recur — right up until the beginning of the twentieth century — it never exacted the toll it did in the fourteenth century. The same is true for other diseases: typhus ravaged concentration camp populations, for example.

    However, I find the notion that there may have been a connection between the relatively large size of Mesoamerican cities and an absence of epidemic diseases intriguing.

    3. The notion that the civilizations of Mesoamerica would have abandoned cannibalism strikes me as optimistic. Why should they have? It was far more widespread in the Americas than it was elsewhere, and per se, it’s not like there’s some reason it ‘should’ have ended. Perhaps this idea owes more to the preferences of the writer than the probabilities of the situation. Many of us commonly cut of bits of our children’s genitalia — and until recently, didn’t think it odd. There’s no inherent reason the American Indians couldn’t have kept capturing and eating one another.

  214. Off-topic

    Trump and Putin have agreed to a summit in Helsinki on July 16th.

    A transcript of the G7 meeting was allegedly released to Axios: https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-foreign-policy-europe-nato-allies-worried-bd1e143a-e73a-415b-b688-d18ab2d902e7.html

    Noteworthy:

    Trump made the comment after telling the G7 leaders that Crimea probably should belong to Russia because everyone there speaks Russian, the source added.

    That said I’m not that optimistic about the summit for the simple reason that almost everyone in DC other than Trump is now hysterically opposed to Russia, and Russophobia is codified in law which Trump can’t overturn.

    And lol at Eurocucks:

    Trump reinforced some of the Europeans’ worst fears that he’ll take a purely transactional approach to next month’s summit.

    As opposed to…?

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell
    Thorfinnsson, while we are off-topic, and because you are posting under the name of the first known white man born in America, I want to ask you what you think of this theory according to which the white europeans would currently be going through an evolutionary bottleneck.

    Essentially, this theory goes as follows: the astounding success encountered by europeans over the past half millenium has allowed to survive individuals not especially fit for survival as a result of their pathological altruism. We are seeing the effects of this negative selective pressure in the form of inability to defend one’s country — something which is especially apparent in the case of white countries. However, this ill-fit will be naturally filtered out by darwinian selection, as can be already observed with the near-sterility of liberal, « educated » (indoctrinated really) young white wymyn.

    Any strong opinions about that?
  215. @Che Guava
    I think that you exaggerate, it is only most western European countries and Canada, Oz, NZ, USA.

    Was going to raise those big edible rodents (if ever in Peru, want to try them), the potato (even bigger influence on history than maize), and lamas but noticing the topic was 'Mezoamerica', so off-topic.

    On three serious points, though, it is noteworthy that all of the city and monument-building civilisations from what is now Mexico and what is now Peru were short-lived, in terms of history, and not just from Spanish conquest, it was an old pattern.

    IIRC, Macchu Picchu had been abandoned or wiped out long before the Spanish incursion.

    From reading and pictures (photographs), I think that some tribes in what is now the S-W U.S.A. had a more lasting model, small-scale towns, no human sacrifice or enslavement of neighbours, and a high aesthetic level.

    Forgetting the third, tired.

    said:
    “Macchu Picchu had been abandoned or wiped out long before the Spanish incursion.”

    Absolutely correct. And the reason it was built in the first place was for an Elitist Only save haven.

    And what the unhinged left rarely tells anyone is that number of Spaniards in Peru at any given time were no more than 200. Because the brutal, human sacrificing, slave keeping Incas were hated by the other subjugated, enslaved tribes. Hence the Spaniards found willing allies everywhere.

    Notice that the left always tries the ‘European disease’ canard, while ignoring the indigenous diseases.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    Because the brutal, human sacrificing, slave keeping Incas were hated by the other subjugated, enslaved tribes.
     
    Wow.
  216. @Hyperborean
    Lol, don't worry, I eat too much probably-pork meat to qualify. The main reason I am asking all these questions is that Talha is accessible, friendly and some kind of religious instructor and I would have no idea where to find someone to ask this in real life.

    If there was an Orthodox or Buddhist version of Talha commenting here frequently I would also be asking them questions about their religion.

    I eat too much probably-pork meat to qualify

    And there are Muslims who drink alcohol. They’re still Muslim, but have a weakness in that regard. One is not expected to be perfect – everyone has their pet sins. One is simply expected to recognize Who sets the rules and to try.

    and some kind of religious instructor

    No way – I am a student. I have been learning under scholars (part time) for years and for a particular school (Hanafi). The only ones my teachers have given me permission to teach are young boys in the basics of the religion.

    My wife is very close to getting her alimiyyah degree though in the Hanafi school, so she will be qualified to teach for your average adult what they need to navigate through most of their life. Not give fatwas or anything (you need extra years of specialization for that), just basic guidance.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    One is not expected to be perfect – everyone has their pet sins. One is simply expected to recognize Who sets the rules and to try.
     
    Some of them do mind. I got lectured once for eating pork once by a Muslim, a somewhat presumptuous one in fact - despite the fact that aside from my ambiguous appearance, I had never given any indication that we shared the same faith, which he should have really guessed from knowing my name.
  217. @Stan d Mute

    Of course, Nazi and Communist deaths were generally not nearly as gruesome and cruel as Aztec killings.
     
    Hey now, what are you, some kinda Nazi? The Holocaust was the worst thing in human history and nothing, nothing, nothing, even comes close. And if you disagree, outside the US, you will go to prison for your ignorance.

    That’s right! Anyone who questions 6-gorillion killed should go to jail. Case closed.

  218. @j2
    I think the idea of a sacrifice gave us the crops.

    That is, how did early humans selectively breed wild plants to better crops? They did not know of genes and before they started breeding plants, they probably did not know that plants can be bred by selection. Europeans had tamed a wolf to a dog, but it may be that wolves tamed themselves and there was no conscious selection by humans.

    The key to plant breeding was the sacrifice: sacrifice the best plants by not eating them but by offering them to the mother deity by burying them to the ground. This process, if continued long enough, creates cultivated crops out of wild species. Always sacrifice the best and eat only the worse. Thus, we find sacrifice among agriculturalists. As children are the most valuable, this idea leads to sacrifice of children. That does not work, but is a consequence of a working idea of plant breeding.

    This idea worked with plants, but it does not work with animals. With animal breeding, there is another idea: separate the best, the chosen must not mix with the non-chosen. This is also a religious idea, included in Judaism and some other religions that arguable come from herders. This idea works well with humans (apart of occasional persecutions), separation creates a tightly knit group.

    Mayas sacrificed their children to get rain. This is a fairly reasonable development from sacrifice to the earth deity: if the main deity changes to the sky deity (a change associated with a shift form matriarchal to patriarchal society), then sacrifices go to the sky deity and ask for rain. It did not work, of course.

    Levantine sacrifice of the eldest son is understandable as a way to avoid a population collapse in a polygamous society: without removing the eldest son, he inherits all women and the effective male population size drops too low causing mutational overload and population collapse. The sacrifice creates competition between males and the best male wins, not the oldest.

    These four I understand in these ways, but the present article raised the problem of Aztecs and other American Indians. Aztecs sacrificed humans in order that the times would not end and before them human sacrifices were given to the corn god. I do not think meat eating was a major factor (it was a major factor in New Guinea, but there all large animals were hunted to extinction). This here is something different, and it may be connected with the special difficulties of breeding corn out of the wild plant. It could also have an association with the sacred ball game, also connected with human sacrifice. But I cannot see this connection in the way of the four that I mentioned. Somewhere there is the solution to this puzzle.

    Some quibbles.

    First off the “corn deity” who/what ever that was if it was a thing, was not some aberration. ALL Aztec deities and all Mayan deities required human sacrifice in one form or another. Human sacrifice was holistic in meso-american religions.

    Secondly, not sure about Maya and Aztec but what I was reading about the Pueblo and ancestral Pueblo, the Uto-Aztecan language group cultures among the Pueblo who were associated most heavily with the cannibalism were matrilineal, not patrilineal (the Tanoan groups of Pueblo were supposedly patrilineal). The source I read claiming this also claimed, if it makes any difference, the Tanoan were endogamous while the Uto-Aztecans were exogamous, endogamy was typical of patrilineal types in the old world.

    Finally, plant breeding. The idea of sacrificing the best would only even possibly be relevant with crops where you ate the part you propagate from. I will grant you corn for sure and possibly potatoes (I know they can be propagated from tubers but I assume they also have seed) are like this. However examples from the Americans (Amazon) that would be contrary are bananas, pitaya, and pineapple.

    Lithic hunter-gathering types from the Amazon jungle have been selectively breeding those plants for millennia, and the practice was simply to propagate from the best, biggest, and most delicious fruits. They may not have known about genes or selective pressures but I bet they knew about heredity, that traits ran in family lines and apples don’t fall far from trees so to speak. Bananas and pineapple are actually most readily propagated clonally, since both plants produce new growth clones offshooting from the plant after fruiting which only occurs once per growth point. Pitaya is ridiculously easy to clone from cuttings, and is also known to be propagated by seed in the stool (the seeds come out the other end with plenty of fertilizer nearby).

    So I would think selective breeding was known to them even if they did not know what the mechanisms were.

    • Replies: @utu

    from the Americans (Amazon) that would be contrary are bananas
     
    Portuguese colonists introduced banas to America in the 15th and 16th centuries.
    , @j2
    Selective breeding has been known long as is the idea of agriculture and animal breeding, but how did sacrifice start and why is it associated with agriculture?

    Sacrifice (plant, animal or human) is rare in hunter-gatherer societies. It is common in agricultural societies. Human sacrifice is most common in societies where rain water was needed, not irrigation by rivers. It has been suggested that it is because of the uncertainty of rain. Agricultural societies also gazed stars and have the world tree myth, which should be the Polar Star myth. That myth naturally leads to the concept of times: the Polar star changes over time. The concept of times includes the end of the times and a catastrophe at the end of the times, which often includes a sacrifice.

    "ALL Aztec deities and all Mayan deities required human sacrifice in one form or another. Human sacrifice was holistic in meso-american religions." This is true. Most of the humans were sacrificed to the sun god (tribal god) Huitzilopochtli, but humans were sacrificed to most gods. The Aztec corn god was Centeotl, but seems that Aztecs did not sacrifice humans to this god. In Palenque, there were the Maya gods the Feathered Serpent and the Maize God as the main gods depicted in the buildings and there I think the sacrifices were for the Maize God, but I am not sure. However, let facts not destroy a fine theory in so hazy area as the origin of religion. Sacrifice started from something and has a connection to agriculture, so the god of agriculture must have originally been there.

    It is interesting that endogamous groups should be less cannibalistic than exogamous, it does not fit to Kevin MacDonald's phobia of endogamous groups. (Matrilinear more cannibalistic? Bonobos do not count matrilinearly or patrilinearly but females are higher in hierarchy and they are peaceful apes.) The New World is obviously very different, no wonder we worry about the New World Order.

    I know I wrote a bit rubbish, but sometimes it is nice to do so.
    , @notanon
    blood sacrifice and corn

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barleycorn
  219. @AP

    ...atheism was unthinkable at the time. So, to state that Keppler was motivated by his faith, at the time, one might say, anything was motivated by faith.
     
    Correct. And it as this society in Europe, so strongly imbued with Christian faith, that produced humanity's scientific miracle.

    It is not a coincidence.

    ‘It is not a coincidence.’

    The potential logical flaw in citing one instance and asserting that it wasn’t coincidence seems obvious. Mind, I’m all for the inherent dynamism of post-classical European civilization — I’m just not convinced it’s necessarily a function of Christianity alone. After all, Ethiopia has been Christian for over a thousand years. It hasn’t noticeably been a powerhouse of technological innovation.

    • Replies: @AP

    After all, Ethiopia has been Christian for over a thousand years. It hasn’t noticeably been a powerhouse of technological innovation.
     
    But it has been more advanced than the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.

    It was a combination of Christianity and people with a certain general temperament and intellectual abilities. Both factors were necessary but neither was sufficient on its own.
  220. @DFH
    No study Lynn lists has a result even approaching that. Their SAT scores don't suggest that either.

    That’s correct because Lynn never listed any studies on Cheyenne or Sioux Amerindians which I am referring to.

  221. AP says:
    @Colin Wright
    'It is not a coincidence.'

    The potential logical flaw in citing one instance and asserting that it wasn't coincidence seems obvious. Mind, I'm all for the inherent dynamism of post-classical European civilization -- I'm just not convinced it's necessarily a function of Christianity alone. After all, Ethiopia has been Christian for over a thousand years. It hasn't noticeably been a powerhouse of technological innovation.

    After all, Ethiopia has been Christian for over a thousand years. It hasn’t noticeably been a powerhouse of technological innovation.

    But it has been more advanced than the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.

    It was a combination of Christianity and people with a certain general temperament and intellectual abilities. Both factors were necessary but neither was sufficient on its own.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Well, it seems easy enough to calculate which of the two parts of your formula for a successful civilization was lacking for the Ethiopians, for I don't think that their Christian religious zeal has ever been in question. So, it seems that the 'out of Africa' paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased? I wonder why?...
  222. @Lars Porsena
    Some quibbles.

    First off the "corn deity" who/what ever that was if it was a thing, was not some aberration. ALL Aztec deities and all Mayan deities required human sacrifice in one form or another. Human sacrifice was holistic in meso-american religions.

    Secondly, not sure about Maya and Aztec but what I was reading about the Pueblo and ancestral Pueblo, the Uto-Aztecan language group cultures among the Pueblo who were associated most heavily with the cannibalism were matrilineal, not patrilineal (the Tanoan groups of Pueblo were supposedly patrilineal). The source I read claiming this also claimed, if it makes any difference, the Tanoan were endogamous while the Uto-Aztecans were exogamous, endogamy was typical of patrilineal types in the old world.

    Finally, plant breeding. The idea of sacrificing the best would only even possibly be relevant with crops where you ate the part you propagate from. I will grant you corn for sure and possibly potatoes (I know they can be propagated from tubers but I assume they also have seed) are like this. However examples from the Americans (Amazon) that would be contrary are bananas, pitaya, and pineapple.

    Lithic hunter-gathering types from the Amazon jungle have been selectively breeding those plants for millennia, and the practice was simply to propagate from the best, biggest, and most delicious fruits. They may not have known about genes or selective pressures but I bet they knew about heredity, that traits ran in family lines and apples don't fall far from trees so to speak. Bananas and pineapple are actually most readily propagated clonally, since both plants produce new growth clones offshooting from the plant after fruiting which only occurs once per growth point. Pitaya is ridiculously easy to clone from cuttings, and is also known to be propagated by seed in the stool (the seeds come out the other end with plenty of fertilizer nearby).

    So I would think selective breeding was known to them even if they did not know what the mechanisms were.

    from the Americans (Amazon) that would be contrary are bananas

    Portuguese colonists introduced banas to America in the 15th and 16th centuries.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    Huh, I did not know that I thought it was American and plantains were old world. But apparently not, and there is no clear distinction between bananas and plantains.

    The scientific name for pineapple, which definitely comes from the amazon, is Ananas, which comes from the Amazonian (tupi) ananas, nanas, and mananas meaning variations on "good fruit" or "delicious". I thought bananas was also a derivative, but apparently etymologically it may come from some asian or african term.

    I know the dragonfruit (pitaya or pitahaya) and papaya are south/central american and spread to asian and africa.
  223. Andrei,
    I recall my third point.

    ossuaries.

    If you have not read it, read the parts where Edward Gibbon mentions ancient temples replaced with temples to the bones of martyrs. It twas real.

    Gibbon is far too sympathetic to musselmen, but none of the jerks claiming that hhs work is worthless have ever read it, and academics claiimg greeater insight are liars.

  224. @Guy Lombardo
    >Amerindians in North America had higher IQs than those in South America? Is that securely known? I would have thought that it wouldn’t be easy to get IQ data for North American Amerindians (especially ones without any European admixture).

    The average IQ for Sioux Amerindians today is ~100; although their performance IQ is equal to that of the Chinese (110-113). The same is true of the Northern Cheyenne.

    Keep in mind, that's higher than most Southern European countries, some by a full standard deviation. And of course higher than Mexicans, too.

    The verbal portion of IQ tests seems to be what brings them down; with strict education in concentration camps I have no doubt their average IQ would exceed that of Northern Europeans. The problem is they don't want to go to school and don't want to learn.

    If anything, admixture with the lowest rung of European society (which explored the American frontier) would have lowered their IQ scores somewhat.

    Are you talking about this? (unfortunately I can’t get it on sci-hub)

    https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/dissertations/AAI9925492/

    It says that the Cheyenne’s performance IQ is higher than average but that the Full-scale IQ is (contrary to your comment) significantly lower.

    • Replies: @Guy Lombardo
    No, that is not what I was talking about.
  225. @Hyperborean

    can a Muslim be killed for murdering a polytheist dhimmi or only have to pay 1/3 the blood money
     
    What happens if someone is too poor to pay blood money, their family members pay or they take a loan or what?

    How do these kind of things interact with the legal system? In states with Shariah law who and how is it decided which interpretation should take precedence?

    Do theological institutions like Al-Azhar University have a main branch they adhere to or does it depend on the specific scholar one asks?

    Do certain schools of thought predominate in certain countries or is it fairly mixed?

    I've heard that a lot of Balkan and Turkish Muslims used to adhere to something called Bektashi Islam, is that one of the schools that died out?

    And does Deobandism in the Subcontinent still exist or did it merge into another group?

    Also, how do these kind of things relate to Sufism?

    Man, you are putting me to work!

    What happens if someone is too poor to pay blood money, their family members pay

    Correct, or tribe. This is one of the wisdoms behind why inheritance laws are fixed. Those relatives that are financially likely to benefit from your success are on the hook to be liable for your failures. It incentivizes the extended family to raise their children well.

    If your family is too destitute as a whole, then ultimately the public treasury takes care of it or charitable organizations.

    In states with Shariah law who and how is it decided which interpretation should take precedence?

    The qualified groups of scholars decide what rules to follow. Usually you have the official institute of a Grand Mufti and him and his support staff (also scholars) decide on the big stuff while local scholars in more local jurisdictions decide on the more local stuff. There are appeals processes similar to what is in the West.

    There are also unofficial muftis that are even more qualified than the Grand Mufti, but the sovereign has the prerogative to decide the scholars they want to follow to guide the ship of state. For instance, the Abbasid Caliphate chose to follow the Hanafi school in most matters. The Shafi’i scholars were doing their job and issuing rulings left and right, and they were simply ignored…until the Ayyubids and Mamlukes came along.

    And it’s not a perfect system – people screw up:
    http://seekershub.org/blog/2012/08/what-is-a-fatwa-who-can-give-one-by-sheikh-musa-furber-washington-post/

    Do theological institutions like Al-Azhar University have a main branch they adhere to or does it depend on the specific scholar one asks?

    Both actually. An institution like al-Azhar has scholars specializing in all the schools and they have bodies that can decide what might be the best rulings out of the various schools given a certain circumstance or – importanatly – deal with a new matter that is unprecedented (in vitro fertilization or stem cell research, etc.). Al-Azhar has a weird balance they have to do. Egyptians follow the Shafi’i school as well as the Hanafi school due to historical mixture, but much of the legal corpus is inherited from when the Ottomans were in charge (following the Hanafi school) and you can’t just overwrite everything. So generally, what I have observed is that Egyptians tend to be Shafi’i in private matters, but follow the Hanafi school in public legal issues (marriage, tort, etc.).

    Even a country like Jordan where practically everyone follows the Shafi’i school, can’t escape from Ottoman (Hanafi) legal heritage.

    And of course, the vast majority of the rules have zero to do with Shariah – parking violations, elevator safety codes, water purification standards, medical board certifications, etc. Muslim scholars don’t get involved with that stuff nor should they.

    Do certain schools of thought predominate in certain countries or is it fairly mixed?

    Depends on where you are – this map is fairly accurate:

    Bektashi Islam, is that one of the schools that died out?

    No, it was a Sufi order (a heterodox one) often associated with some of the military elite (groups like the Janissaries). It died out just because orthodoxy became more and more prominent.

    And does Deobandism in the Subcontinent

    Big time. Deoband is simply just a school like Al-Azhar, Nadwat ul-Ulema, etc. – they tend to be a little bit more cautious about curbing anything that looks to be heterodox doctrine or behavior (for which they get mistaken as being Salafi), but they are totally within the Sunni spectrum of views. Sunnis have always had differences of opinion and approach.

    Also, how do these kind of things relate to Sufism?

    So Sufism is basically the inner dimension of Islamic worship – basically it was defined well by the Sufi-scholar Shaykh Ahmad Zarruq (ra) as; developing sincere inner direction towards God.

    So, a man could be performing the daily prayers and thinking about the subway sandwich he will order afterwards or about the shoes he plans to buy, etc. The goal of Sufism is very simple actually as defined in a hadith:
    “To worship Allah as if you see Him, for even though you do not see Him, He sees you.” – reported in practically all of the books of hadith

    The Sufi-scholars used to say; any moment spent being forgetful of Allah is a moment spent in unbelief.

    But the term Sufis can cover a bunch of people; anyone from the very orthodox and pious Muslims to those involved in heterodox practices and beliefs and even non-Muslims. All claim to be Sufis – so when you ask about Sufism, you have to be specific about it to derive any benefit.

    For instance, the Sufi order I belong to is very orthodox and many of its initiates are Muslim scholars themselves. We don’t have any strange practices, we basically do a lot of silent reflection/meditation and remembrance of God. We are so low key, we could be doing our stuff in the middle of a Salafi-Wahhabi mosque and nobody would pay us any mind.

    This is a fairly good and concise article on the phenomenon:
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2260

    Again, hope this helps.

    Peace.

  226. @jilles dykstra
    " I am. The extinction and complete subversion of the evil Aztec demon-worshiping empire was one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments "

    For a somewhat different view
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997
    Charles C. Mann, Ancient Americans, Rewriting the History of the New World', 2005, London, ( 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus, 2005, New York)
    Henry Kamen, ‘The Spanish Inquisition, A Historical Revision’, London 1997

    Charles C. Mann, Ancient Americans, Rewriting the History of the New World’, 2005, London, ( 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus, 2005, New York)

    I’ve read ‘1491’, and it’s a surprisingly balanced book, certainly without the Black Legend bullshit you’re perpetuating. It makes the case that Old World diseases conquered the Indians, not evil Spanish trickery.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Diseases certainly had a devastating effect.
    Certainly when inflicted deliberately.
    However:
    Stan Hoig, "The Sand Creek Massacre', Oklahoma, 1961, 1982
    John R. Cook, 'The Border and the Buffalo, An untold story of the south western plains', 1907, 1989, Austin, Texas
  227. @Dr. Krieger
    Watching 'Apocolypto' (legally) is no easy task these days. Its been memory-holed. Not available to stream anywhere. DVD copy (NTSC) on Amazon costs a bit. Its not as hard to get as 'The Flim Flam Man', but not easy.

    Its [Apocalypto] been memory-holed.

    They are still after Mel? Or they do not like the Christian message?

  228. @Hyperborean
    Lol, don't worry, I eat too much probably-pork meat to qualify. The main reason I am asking all these questions is that Talha is accessible, friendly and some kind of religious instructor and I would have no idea where to find someone to ask this in real life.

    If there was an Orthodox or Buddhist version of Talha commenting here frequently I would also be asking them questions about their religion.

    Bacon is the most convincing evidence for the superiority of American civilization.

  229. @Wizard of Oz
    Is there any standard answer- or any answer at all to the question why God/Allah allows the errors to persist uncorrected by him, given that he cares for mankind and cares about the details of faith and morals?

    or any answer at all to the question why God/Allah allows the errors to persist uncorrected by him

    Well, there certainly is no exact answer because only He knows the wisdom behind why He does what He does. We can certainly glean some insights though by bearing certain principles in mind:
    1) He does whatever He wills and no one is entitled to question Him.
    2) Creation (the universe) is other than Him, the manifestation of imperfection is to be assumed.
    3) The choice to believe or disbelieve is a package deal, it’s up to everyone to decide and reap the consequences of their choice. That some people will make the wrong choice is a given:
    “And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them, entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?” (10:99)
    4) This world is a test. Being such, some will fail and some will succeed.
    5) God does not regard all of mankind equally; some He has declared His beloved and His friends and others He has declared as rebellious and His enemies. He provides for both and often even provides for His enemies far more than He provides for His friends, but that should not delude us into assessing the situation incorrectly. The reality of where everyone stands vis-a-vis the choices they made, will be manifest in the afterlife.
    6) People make mistakes and sins – not all mistakes and sins are on the same level; He has declared that some He will forgive and some He will not.

    I hope that helps.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. It doesn't seem to be any basis for
    1. believing that He is merciful or actually likes most of us, even at birth, at all
    2. believing that any such being as the Abrahamic God exists or even could exist
    3. believing anyone is right to attempt to insist on the rightness of either their religion based metaphysics or ethics.
  230. @Hyperborean

    can a Muslim be killed for murdering a polytheist dhimmi or only have to pay 1/3 the blood money
     
    What happens if someone is too poor to pay blood money, their family members pay or they take a loan or what?

    How do these kind of things interact with the legal system? In states with Shariah law who and how is it decided which interpretation should take precedence?

    Do theological institutions like Al-Azhar University have a main branch they adhere to or does it depend on the specific scholar one asks?

    Do certain schools of thought predominate in certain countries or is it fairly mixed?

    I've heard that a lot of Balkan and Turkish Muslims used to adhere to something called Bektashi Islam, is that one of the schools that died out?

    And does Deobandism in the Subcontinent still exist or did it merge into another group?

    Also, how do these kind of things relate to Sufism?

    Also, if you want a good source for a very concise (within 200 pages) and authoritative view of the subject, I would highly recommend this book (which is fairly inexpensive):
    https://turath.co.uk/shop/islam-and-politics/

    Here is a sample of the table of contents:
    https://turath.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Islam-and-Politics-sample-pages-.pdf

    It covers a high-level understanding of the basic outlines of how Islam influences government. It is written from a classical/traditional viewpoint as well as the practical/pragmatic one that takes our current environment (nation-state, post-WW2, etc.) into consideration.

    The author is one of the top scholars in the Muslim world and served as Grand Mufti of Pakistan and was involved in negotiating the integration of Shariah codes into governance. So he has firsthand practical knowledge about how these things work.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Talha, thank you for the recommendation.

    Conciseness is good (I have a tendency to read long books halfway and only finish them much later on).

    I will have to cut our conversation short on the other thread, I am going on vacation (well, I was already on vacation in the sense that I was away from school but I wasn't doing much before) to visit relatives for a few weeks; so I won't be here at UR much (if at all) and unable to give comprehensive answers.

  231. j2 says:
    @Lars Porsena
    Some quibbles.

    First off the "corn deity" who/what ever that was if it was a thing, was not some aberration. ALL Aztec deities and all Mayan deities required human sacrifice in one form or another. Human sacrifice was holistic in meso-american religions.

    Secondly, not sure about Maya and Aztec but what I was reading about the Pueblo and ancestral Pueblo, the Uto-Aztecan language group cultures among the Pueblo who were associated most heavily with the cannibalism were matrilineal, not patrilineal (the Tanoan groups of Pueblo were supposedly patrilineal). The source I read claiming this also claimed, if it makes any difference, the Tanoan were endogamous while the Uto-Aztecans were exogamous, endogamy was typical of patrilineal types in the old world.

    Finally, plant breeding. The idea of sacrificing the best would only even possibly be relevant with crops where you ate the part you propagate from. I will grant you corn for sure and possibly potatoes (I know they can be propagated from tubers but I assume they also have seed) are like this. However examples from the Americans (Amazon) that would be contrary are bananas, pitaya, and pineapple.

    Lithic hunter-gathering types from the Amazon jungle have been selectively breeding those plants for millennia, and the practice was simply to propagate from the best, biggest, and most delicious fruits. They may not have known about genes or selective pressures but I bet they knew about heredity, that traits ran in family lines and apples don't fall far from trees so to speak. Bananas and pineapple are actually most readily propagated clonally, since both plants produce new growth clones offshooting from the plant after fruiting which only occurs once per growth point. Pitaya is ridiculously easy to clone from cuttings, and is also known to be propagated by seed in the stool (the seeds come out the other end with plenty of fertilizer nearby).

    So I would think selective breeding was known to them even if they did not know what the mechanisms were.

    Selective breeding has been known long as is the idea of agriculture and animal breeding, but how did sacrifice start and why is it associated with agriculture?

    Sacrifice (plant, animal or human) is rare in hunter-gatherer societies. It is common in agricultural societies. Human sacrifice is most common in societies where rain water was needed, not irrigation by rivers. It has been suggested that it is because of the uncertainty of rain. Agricultural societies also gazed stars and have the world tree myth, which should be the Polar Star myth. That myth naturally leads to the concept of times: the Polar star changes over time. The concept of times includes the end of the times and a catastrophe at the end of the times, which often includes a sacrifice.

    “ALL Aztec deities and all Mayan deities required human sacrifice in one form or another. Human sacrifice was holistic in meso-american religions.” This is true. Most of the humans were sacrificed to the sun god (tribal god) Huitzilopochtli, but humans were sacrificed to most gods. The Aztec corn god was Centeotl, but seems that Aztecs did not sacrifice humans to this god. In Palenque, there were the Maya gods the Feathered Serpent and the Maize God as the main gods depicted in the buildings and there I think the sacrifices were for the Maize God, but I am not sure. However, let facts not destroy a fine theory in so hazy area as the origin of religion. Sacrifice started from something and has a connection to agriculture, so the god of agriculture must have originally been there.

    It is interesting that endogamous groups should be less cannibalistic than exogamous, it does not fit to Kevin MacDonald’s phobia of endogamous groups. (Matrilinear more cannibalistic? Bonobos do not count matrilinearly or patrilinearly but females are higher in hierarchy and they are peaceful apes.) The New World is obviously very different, no wonder we worry about the New World Order.

    I know I wrote a bit rubbish, but sometimes it is nice to do so.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    I'm curious, do you know any of the cultures with this world tree axis myth? I thought that was specifically associated with shamanism from north eurasia. But I checked wikipedia and ironically it says also the aztecs and maya, I did not know they had an aztec yggdrasil. That comes out of nowhere to me, I guess it's not just north eurasia.

    At any rate, this type of speculation may be technically rubbish from the modern perspective but I think it is valid to speculate about this stuff and you may be right about some of that.
  232. Things are looking good for Russia: price of oil is up, the World Cup is a big success, and Putin is getting a summit with Trump…

    • Replies: @Bliss
    Speaking of the World Cup it’s halftime in the England vs Belgium game. Half the players on the field are non-white, mostly african. The team of France is majority african. All 3 teams have made it to the round of 16. France is one of the favorites to win the Cup.
  233. Anon[764] • Disclaimer says:

    I get annoyed at claims like this-that-or-the other ancient city had 250,000 citizens. REALLY? Give me modern-style census data please. Yes, accurate data. No, we have none for ancient societies.

    There are plenty of excitable claims that ancient cities, civilizations, or even primitive hunter-gatherers had supersized massive populations comparable to modern times. There’s a phenomenon akin to this when ancient scholars write about warfare. The ancient writers always claim that so-and-so’s army was really, really, big, like several hundred thousand and even the millions, and from what we know of logistics today this is impossible.

    In modern scholarship there is a similar phenomenon. Some prof wants a grant. He has to persuade some committee that what he’s doing is actually important, so he exaggerates. He claims X, the city or civilization he is studying, was super-massive, similar to modern cities in size, a big deal in the entire ancient world compared to everywhere else at the time, and therefore super-important, so that it would be a horrible crime if the committee turned down the funding of such obviously important research, blah, blah, blah.

    Tenochtitlan has 45 remaining public building, most of them palaces and temples. If every ruler decided to build his own palace and temple to “make a monument to himself and his legacy,” a quirk that all egotistical rulers are prone to everywhere, that would mean layer after layer of accumulated building being produced every generation, but it does NOT mean they were all in use at any one time, or that Tenochtitlan had a large population at all. Tenochtitlan is the accumulation of hundreds of years of cultural detritis, nothing more than that.

    Great Britain has about 700 castles still standing. Many others are in ruin. If all we knew about Great Britain were its castles, some yo-yo scholar would be saying, “Oh my God! I can’t imagine a place where 700 different armies were fighting each other all at the same time! They must have had a super massive population to support all those armies, etc.”

    Tenochtitlan was a nasty place, but its importance is very likely exaggerated. Here’s a link to a paper that says it was more like 50,000. http://anth.la.psu.edu/documents/evans_2013_tenochtitlan

    • Agree: melanf
  234. @AP

    After all, Ethiopia has been Christian for over a thousand years. It hasn’t noticeably been a powerhouse of technological innovation.
     
    But it has been more advanced than the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.

    It was a combination of Christianity and people with a certain general temperament and intellectual abilities. Both factors were necessary but neither was sufficient on its own.

    Well, it seems easy enough to calculate which of the two parts of your formula for a successful civilization was lacking for the Ethiopians, for I don’t think that their Christian religious zeal has ever been in question. So, it seems that the ‘out of Africa’ paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased? I wonder why?…

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    It may be orthodox dogma but it is based on nothing really, not anymore. The original evidence that suggested it has mostly been overturned by new evidence. It's a theory.
    , @AP

    So, it seems that the ‘out of Africa’ paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased?
     
    The cause is a complex question but differences in measured IQ, brain size, brain metabolism, and genetic underpinning are well-established.

    Probably several factors are involved - Neanderthal ancestry and increasingly complex societies requiring higher intellectual capacity and come to mind.

    Society can drive evolution. This society of people, who spend much of their time diving (a social position), have evolved larger spleens to enable them to spend up to 13 minutes underwater without breathing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3fOf5YZI-Q

    It makes sense that peoples who have lived in complex urban social environments for hundreds or thousands of years have likewise developed greater cognitive ability (and altered temperament, such as reduced level of impulsive violence).
    , @Colin Wright
    'So, it seems that the ‘out of Africa’ paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased? I wonder why?…'

    My own pet theory is that in tropical Africa, resistance to disease and the fecundity necessary to overcome very high rates of infant mortality were disproportionately important.

    As man moved out of tropical Africa, intellectual ability became more important. If you can think of sewing clothes, you get to live through winter! How about saving some dried meat for when these animals move off?

    Etc. In non-tropical environments -- at least for paleolithic hunter-gatherers -- disease and the resulting mortality would be less of a concern. On the other hand, the rewards for innovation and foresight would escalate.

  235. @Bliss
    Things are looking good for Russia: price of oil is up, the World Cup is a big success, and Putin is getting a summit with Trump...

    Speaking of the World Cup it’s halftime in the England vs Belgium game. Half the players on the field are non-white, mostly african. The team of France is majority african. All 3 teams have made it to the round of 16. France is one of the favorites to win the Cup.

  236. @utu

    from the Americans (Amazon) that would be contrary are bananas
     
    Portuguese colonists introduced banas to America in the 15th and 16th centuries.

    Huh, I did not know that I thought it was American and plantains were old world. But apparently not, and there is no clear distinction between bananas and plantains.

    The scientific name for pineapple, which definitely comes from the amazon, is Ananas, which comes from the Amazonian (tupi) ananas, nanas, and mananas meaning variations on “good fruit” or “delicious”. I thought bananas was also a derivative, but apparently etymologically it may come from some asian or african term.

    I know the dragonfruit (pitaya or pitahaya) and papaya are south/central american and spread to asian and africa.

    • Replies: @utu
    America gave many fruits and vegetable most people are not aware of. But Asia is even a bigger source. It is not about available plant diversity but about humans who domesticated various species that were available. It is all about culture/civilization. It seems that not that much came from Africa. Even manioc in Africa is South American cassava. South America and Mesoamerica were under European 'management' since early 1500's while Africa only since mid 1900s. Europeans made a lot of improvements. Even turkeys eaten on Thanksgiving by Pilgrims were most likely domesticate turkey variety from Mexico via Spain and England that were brought to Massachusetts in 1600's. Potatoes from Peru also made it via Europe. Sunflowers came back to America after being improved in Russia.
  237. @DFH

    about the attitude to the achievements of antiquity “Bernard Chartres of the Cathedral school of Chartres, (one of the major centers of the Renaissance of the XII century.), claimed : “we are dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants”
     
    Architectural techniques were essentially reinvented after their drop to a primitive level in the Dark Ages though.

    It’s just wrong

     

    But it's not. Which scientific or technological discoveries came from the Renaissance?

    In Russian science, this is called the “Northern Renaissance”. It is assumed that the driving forces were the same as the Italian Renaissance (or Greek miracle) – only the forms were different .
     
    But it wasn't, it did not come from the rediscovery of Antiquity. The art was an organic development of Gothic art. It was also obviously very Christian.

    This is obviously wrong. Without Greek mathematics, astronomy and mechanics ( block, screw, water mill…) the development of Europe would be delayed for a thousand years.
     
    Simple machines like the water mill were not even invented by the Greeks, but already existed in the Middle East. Medieval people showed themselves capable of independently developing agricultural, metallurgical and shipbuilding technology which surpassed that of the Romans or Greeks.

    But it’s not. Which scientific or technological discoveries came from the Renaissance?

    The era of rapid progress in shipbuilding, firearms and printing

    (The Northern Renaissance) was an organic development of Gothic art

    Any phenomenon is the development of something previous. But realism and the turn to glorify the beauty of people – meant the retreat of medieval Christianity

    This is not Christian art

    water mill were not even invented by the Greeks, but already existed in the Middle East.

    The first written mention (as well as the first archaeological finds) belong to the to the “classical” ancient world.

    Medieval people showed themselves capable of independently developing agricultural, metallurgical and shipbuilding technology which surpassed that of the Romans or Greeks.

    These technologies have developed based on the achievements of the ancient world (not independently). Christianity for this development was not necessary. If Europe did not become Christian, Europe would still develop technologically. Perhaps at a faster pace.

    • Agree: Dmitry
    • Replies: @DFH

    The era of rapid progress in shipbuilding, firearms and printing
     
    These had nothing to do with the Renaissance, except occuring at roughly the same time

    But realism and the turn to glorify the beauty of people – meant the retreat of medieval Christianity
     
    Realism (in a sense of depicting things more realistically, not in the choice of subject matter) developed in religious art, in Christian Italy and Antwerp, taking Christian subjects. The people painted in religious art were much more attractive, in my opinion, than the ugly old women Rembrandt painted. I personally find the endless Dutch paintings of old women, men in black clothing, flat landscapes, cows, flowers and dead animals very boring, but perhaps this is a matter of personal taste.


    These technologies have developed based on the achievements of the ancient world
     
    They were based on the low level of technology in these fields that existed during the Dark Ages.

    If Europe did not become Christian, Europe would still develop technologically. Perhaps at a faster pace.
     
    It is not as if Christianity cut short a thriving Classical culture. Great Classical literature was already essentially over by the adoption of Christianity, and their technology had plateaued.
  238. @Mr. Hack
    Well, it seems easy enough to calculate which of the two parts of your formula for a successful civilization was lacking for the Ethiopians, for I don't think that their Christian religious zeal has ever been in question. So, it seems that the 'out of Africa' paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased? I wonder why?...

    It may be orthodox dogma but it is based on nothing really, not anymore. The original evidence that suggested it has mostly been overturned by new evidence. It’s a theory.

  239. An article like this one can make me cry. I am a teacher in a technical college, and what I witness in the pupils seeking us, is a simplified knowledge on almost anything.They can not spell, they hardly know syntax, they annot do math “in the head” , they are unable to formulate a problem in a mathematical expression, theey are ignorant of “basic” physical laws and rules and they think that Google is the solution to any problem. And of course they cannot use a foreign language.
    But they know how to find porn on the internet.
    I only have to endure a few years more of this train-wreck, then I retire, thank something.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Move to Russia, they can do all of the above, and also find porn on the internet.
  240. @Bliss

    There have now been several genetic studies done on Egyptian mummies from various periods.
     
    The one undisputed genetic study of a known Egyptian Pharoah (and thus of all Pharoahs of that Dynasty) reveals a paternal Haplogroup that is African.

    They were predominantly Semitic and came across the Sinai from the Fertile Crescent.
     
    Stupid nonsense. Egyptian civilization is older than the semites, Arab or Jew. Your Hebrew ancestors may have originated in the Fertile Crescent (in what is now southern Iraq) but they ended up as slaves in African Egypt for a few centuries. Slaves speak the language of their masters. Which is why the language of the Hebrews is related to the ancient Egyptian language, which is an african language, not to the ancient languages of the Fertile Crescent. Centuries of being enslaved by the Egyptians also explains why the Hebrews practiced circumcision, which only Egyptians and Ethiopians practiced in ancient times

    So the fact that the Torah/Old Testament and the Quran are both written in languages that belong to the Afro-asiatic language family, which originated in Africa, is an example of the extensive civilizational impact of Egypt.

    OK. Ergo, Ashkenazi Jews are Semites because our paternal Haplogroups are Semitic (60-70%, including me per 23andMe). But if you look at everything else (autosomal dna, mitochondria) Ashkenazis are 55-65% European… Heck, don’t half of all Black Americans have NW Euro Y chromosomes. Are Blacks really English/Irish? Are dark brown Mestizos European Spaniards?

    Egyptians are not older than Sumer. Civilization started at the other end of the Fertile Crescent. Whether civilization spread to Egypt or arose there independently I don’t know. Yes, I assume there would be African influence. Regardless, the main “racial” stock of Egyptians (at least the well-preserved rulers) was not African. This isn’t history or cultural influence, it’s just genetic, scientific evidence.

    I’m not sure what studies you’re looking at. Maybe Mossad has hacked my Google so all I see are the studies showing Ancient Egyptians were closest to Bronze Age populations of the Eastern Med.

    I’m sorry Bantus didn’t build the pyramids (or really much of anything, for that matter). But hey, there’s Jazz.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    Sumerians were not semites you ignoramus.

    The latest about the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews is that they were Turks, Greeks, Romans who were converted to Judaism by Iranian Jews. Whatever their origins the fact remains that the two ashkenazi Jews whose names will be longest remembered are Einstein and Marx. What did they have in common? They both rejected Judaism and they both looked part-african. Their doppelgängers would be found among the mixed race populations of MENA and the Americas. Perhaps that’s the genetic legacy of the Jewish enslavement in Egypt? Quite a few Jews still sport a soft Afro.

    Until the time of Herodotus and Aristotle the Egyptians still looked very much african, for that’s who they were equated with by the ancient Greeks. No one ever compared the ancient Egyptians to Levantines or Persians or Anatolians or Greeks.
  241. @Den Lille Abe
    An article like this one can make me cry. I am a teacher in a technical college, and what I witness in the pupils seeking us, is a simplified knowledge on almost anything.They can not spell, they hardly know syntax, they annot do math "in the head" , they are unable to formulate a problem in a mathematical expression, theey are ignorant of "basic" physical laws and rules and they think that Google is the solution to any problem. And of course they cannot use a foreign language.
    But they know how to find porn on the internet.
    I only have to endure a few years more of this train-wreck, then I retire, thank something.

    Move to Russia, they can do all of the above, and also find porn on the internet.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    They even are as kind as to share it with everyone:

    https://gizmodo.com/5785446/a-man-is-going-to-prison-for-hacking-a-billboard-to-play-porn-nsfw


    A year ago, the Russian man hacked a highway video billboard in Moscow and rigged it so it would broadcast porn. Traffic stopped to a standstill as drivers enjoyed the public peep show.
     
    Probably my favorite "Russian hacker" story.
  242. @Daniel Chieh
    Move to Russia, they can do all of the above, and also find porn on the internet.

    They even are as kind as to share it with everyone:

    https://gizmodo.com/5785446/a-man-is-going-to-prison-for-hacking-a-billboard-to-play-porn-nsfw

    A year ago, the Russian man hacked a highway video billboard in Moscow and rigged it so it would broadcast porn. Traffic stopped to a standstill as drivers enjoyed the public peep show.

    Probably my favorite “Russian hacker” story.

  243. @AP

    ...atheism was unthinkable at the time. So, to state that Keppler was motivated by his faith, at the time, one might say, anything was motivated by faith.
     
    Correct. And it as this society in Europe, so strongly imbued with Christian faith, that produced humanity's scientific miracle.

    It is not a coincidence.

    Reality check:

    1. Christianity did not originate in Europe. The nations that have been Christian the longest, Armenia and Ethiopia, had no scientific miracle.

    2. There is no STEM in the Bible. Not even a hint of it.

    3. Correlation is not causation. Besides there is far more correlation to the contrary. For example: the peak of Christianity in Europe, the Dark Ages, was it’s most backward period in science and technology, while the greatest scientific and technological progress has occurred in the post-Christian Enlightenment Age. And in Asia the most Christian nation, the Philippines, is among the most backward in STEM while the least Christian nation, Japan, is the most advanced.

    4. You won’t find many Christians in Silicon Valley or any other collection of cutting-edge scientists and technologists.

    • Replies: @I'm a doofus
    There is more to the human being and the human soul than STEM alone. Also correlation does not prove causation (as you said). China and East Asia looks like it is going to do very well in STEM in the coming future. Is that necessarily a good thing for the world?
    , @anonymous coward

    The nations that have been Christian the longest, Armenia and Ethiopia, had no scientific miracle.
     
    Both are heretical strains of Christianity. (This matters, because heretical Christianity is highly susceptible to the Muslim virus.)

    But in general you're right, Christianity is necessary but not sufficient. It seems like the conflict between Christianity and Gnosticism drives scientific progress.
  244. @Guillaume Tell

    Crucifying or impaling hundreds or thousands of people was routine,
     
    I have always wondered how they managed to achieve such feats, in an era where the machine gun was not invented yet and therefore the relative strengths of opposing groups was somewhat proportional to their respective sizes.

    Half a dozen kebabs with AK47s can slaughter many dozens of unarmed people in a concert hall, with the latter group not even being able to take down a single assaillant.

    However how can an army of a few thousand men equipped only with blades and spears force as many (or more) individuals to let themselves be crucified or impaled alive I don’t understand. At least the 6000 of so vanquished rebels could have charged their victors and be killed in the battle (while in this process killing many Romans), rather than being crucified. I really can’t fathom why many 1000s of able bodied men would have surrendered en masse to this most horrible mode of execution.

    Capture people, tie them up and then do with them as you will.

    Despite modern technology, the Mongols probably still hold the world record for most people killed in the shortest amount of time.

    In multiple cases they captured a city, bound the inhabitants, distributed them among their soldiers and then at the signal everybody chopped heads.

    This is well documented, with the only real issue being how many people were in the city so treated. Records of the time talk about 1M+, but this is probably not true, as cities of such size were really, really scarce back then.

    But they probably did this to a good many cities of 100,000+ and quite possibly one or more of 250,000. So that’s 100k to 250k people dead in a few minutes. Multiple times.

    Hiroshima, Hamburg and Tokyo weren’t that efficient. Hiroshima was about 150,000 total, but only about half died on the first day. Hamburg was around 50,000. Tokyo was perhaps 100,000. Auschwitz supposedly reached peak “production” of about 20,000 in 24 hours.

    There is a commonly believed myth that you need “industrial methods” to kill a lot of people quickly. You don’t. All you need is sharp blades and a lot of willing killers..

    • Replies: @Bliss
    Northern Europeans handily beat the Mongols in massive slaughter: in 6 short years they killed tens of millions less than 80 years ago.

    As for efficiency in killing nothing comes close to the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: tens of thousands killed in a split second.
    , @Simpleguest
    "the Mongols probably still hold the world record for most people killed in the shortest amount of time."

    You have to be careful with statements like this one. This record probably goes to the Americans, if you take the atomic age into consideration.

    , @Guillaume Tell

    Capture people, tie them up and then do with them as you will.
     
    Well — that is part of the problem. Have you ever tried to immobilize someone who does not want to be immobilized? How about many 1000s of such unwilling people? If you know you are going to be subjected to the most gruesome kinds of torture, why surrender and not fight until death? In both cases you will be killed; but the latter will be faster, less painful, and less humiliating. What’s the downside really of not letting yourself be tied up?

    Put yourself in this situation (by the way I mentally already have, having served in the military and having been through bootcamp which is conducive to this kind of introspection): you are with a handful of comrades, surrounded by an enemy with greater strength than yours for whatever reasons (number; ammunition; whatever). You know you cannot flee — and you also know they are going to crucify you when they catch you. What would you do?


    In multiple cases they captured a city, bound the inhabitants, distributed them among their soldiers and then at the signal everybody chopped heads.
     
    Again: in the absence of firearms, this model does not scale up. In order to achieve this plan, the executioners must overwhelm their victims. Otherwise the captives would simply just resist.
    , @notanon

    This is well documented, with the only real issue being how many people were in the city so treated. Records of the time talk about 1M+, but this is probably not true, as cities of such size were really, really scarce back then.

    But they probably did this to a good many cities of 100,000+ and quite possibly one or more of 250,000. So that’s 100k to 250k people dead in a few minutes. Multiple times.
     
    i think a region that could support a city of 100,000 could easily hold up to a million during a siege if everyone from the surrounding countryside had moved in.
  245. @Bliss

    There have now been several genetic studies done on Egyptian mummies from various periods.
     
    The one undisputed genetic study of a known Egyptian Pharoah (and thus of all Pharoahs of that Dynasty) reveals a paternal Haplogroup that is African.

    They were predominantly Semitic and came across the Sinai from the Fertile Crescent.
     
    Stupid nonsense. Egyptian civilization is older than the semites, Arab or Jew. Your Hebrew ancestors may have originated in the Fertile Crescent (in what is now southern Iraq) but they ended up as slaves in African Egypt for a few centuries. Slaves speak the language of their masters. Which is why the language of the Hebrews is related to the ancient Egyptian language, which is an african language, not to the ancient languages of the Fertile Crescent. Centuries of being enslaved by the Egyptians also explains why the Hebrews practiced circumcision, which only Egyptians and Ethiopians practiced in ancient times

    So the fact that the Torah/Old Testament and the Quran are both written in languages that belong to the Afro-asiatic language family, which originated in Africa, is an example of the extensive civilizational impact of Egypt.

    The Semitic languages, all of them, come from the Arabian peninsula. Various waves of out-migration brought the languages that developed into Akkadian, Assyrian, Aramean, Hebrew, etc.

    There is no consensus as to where the Afro-Asiatic family of languages originated. It may have been in Africa or the Levant.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    The Afro-Asiatic language family is of african origin. The oldest written record of it is found in Egypt. The Levantines under Egyptian rule for centuries hence the language legacy
  246. @Logan
    The Semitic languages, all of them, come from the Arabian peninsula. Various waves of out-migration brought the languages that developed into Akkadian, Assyrian, Aramean, Hebrew, etc.

    There is no consensus as to where the Afro-Asiatic family of languages originated. It may have been in Africa or the Levant.

    The Afro-Asiatic language family is of african origin. The oldest written record of it is found in Egypt. The Levantines under Egyptian rule for centuries hence the language legacy

    • Replies: @Logan
    Sorry, but the date of writing for a language group is comprehensively irrelevant to its origin.
  247. @Dmitry
    I think this view of Ancient Greece was already earlier popular in the 19th century - in the German language with men such as the young Nietzsche.

    I believe it is from Nietzsche's early essays (he has written an essay about this perhaps while he was still a professor in Switzerland), but I do not have access to the book now.

    I think this view of Ancient Greece was already earlier popular in the 19th century – in the German language with men such as the young Nietzsche.

    Rather Jacob Burckhardt

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Jacob Burckhardt was a friend of Nietzsche. In fact, the two were colleagues at the University of Basel (in Switzerland).
  248. @Logan
    Capture people, tie them up and then do with them as you will.

    Despite modern technology, the Mongols probably still hold the world record for most people killed in the shortest amount of time.

    In multiple cases they captured a city, bound the inhabitants, distributed them among their soldiers and then at the signal everybody chopped heads.

    This is well documented, with the only real issue being how many people were in the city so treated. Records of the time talk about 1M+, but this is probably not true, as cities of such size were really, really scarce back then.

    But they probably did this to a good many cities of 100,000+ and quite possibly one or more of 250,000. So that's 100k to 250k people dead in a few minutes. Multiple times.

    Hiroshima, Hamburg and Tokyo weren't that efficient. Hiroshima was about 150,000 total, but only about half died on the first day. Hamburg was around 50,000. Tokyo was perhaps 100,000. Auschwitz supposedly reached peak "production" of about 20,000 in 24 hours.

    There is a commonly believed myth that you need "industrial methods" to kill a lot of people quickly. You don't. All you need is sharp blades and a lot of willing killers..

    Northern Europeans handily beat the Mongols in massive slaughter: in 6 short years they killed tens of millions less than 80 years ago.

    As for efficiency in killing nothing comes close to the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: tens of thousands killed in a split second.

  249. utu says:
    @Lars Porsena
    Huh, I did not know that I thought it was American and plantains were old world. But apparently not, and there is no clear distinction between bananas and plantains.

    The scientific name for pineapple, which definitely comes from the amazon, is Ananas, which comes from the Amazonian (tupi) ananas, nanas, and mananas meaning variations on "good fruit" or "delicious". I thought bananas was also a derivative, but apparently etymologically it may come from some asian or african term.

    I know the dragonfruit (pitaya or pitahaya) and papaya are south/central american and spread to asian and africa.

    America gave many fruits and vegetable most people are not aware of. But Asia is even a bigger source. It is not about available plant diversity but about humans who domesticated various species that were available. It is all about culture/civilization. It seems that not that much came from Africa. Even manioc in Africa is South American cassava. South America and Mesoamerica were under European ‘management’ since early 1500’s while Africa only since mid 1900s. Europeans made a lot of improvements. Even turkeys eaten on Thanksgiving by Pilgrims were most likely domesticate turkey variety from Mexico via Spain and England that were brought to Massachusetts in 1600’s. Potatoes from Peru also made it via Europe. Sunflowers came back to America after being improved in Russia.

  250. DFH says:
    @melanf

    But it’s not. Which scientific or technological discoveries came from the Renaissance?
     
    The era of rapid progress in shipbuilding, firearms and printing


    (The Northern Renaissance) was an organic development of Gothic art
     
    Any phenomenon is the development of something previous. But realism and the turn to glorify the beauty of people - meant the retreat of medieval Christianity

    This is not Christian art
    http://www.arteveryday.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/211.jpg

    water mill were not even invented by the Greeks, but already existed in the Middle East.
     
    The first written mention (as well as the first archaeological finds) belong to the to the "classical" ancient world.

    Medieval people showed themselves capable of independently developing agricultural, metallurgical and shipbuilding technology which surpassed that of the Romans or Greeks.
     
    These technologies have developed based on the achievements of the ancient world (not independently). Christianity for this development was not necessary. If Europe did not become Christian, Europe would still develop technologically. Perhaps at a faster pace.

    The era of rapid progress in shipbuilding, firearms and printing

    These had nothing to do with the Renaissance, except occuring at roughly the same time

    But realism and the turn to glorify the beauty of people – meant the retreat of medieval Christianity

    Realism (in a sense of depicting things more realistically, not in the choice of subject matter) developed in religious art, in Christian Italy and Antwerp, taking Christian subjects. The people painted in religious art were much more attractive, in my opinion, than the ugly old women Rembrandt painted. I personally find the endless Dutch paintings of old women, men in black clothing, flat landscapes, cows, flowers and dead animals very boring, but perhaps this is a matter of personal taste.

    These technologies have developed based on the achievements of the ancient world

    They were based on the low level of technology in these fields that existed during the Dark Ages.

    If Europe did not become Christian, Europe would still develop technologically. Perhaps at a faster pace.

    It is not as if Christianity cut short a thriving Classical culture. Great Classical literature was already essentially over by the adoption of Christianity, and their technology had plateaued.

    • Replies: @melanf

    These had nothing to do with the Renaissance, except occuring at roughly the same time
     
    These events are just part of the Renaissance. Technical progress was driven by competitive spirit and the pursuit of glory , not by Christian ideas of the killing of the flesh and the salvation of the soul. This is except that the ancient philosophers were the authors of the idea of printing in typesetting and transatlantic voyages to America. Also great geographical discoveries were based on ancient achievements in cartography and astronomy. Round Earth is not a Christian idea.
    ____________________________________________________________

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe? Perhaps Europeans (without Christianity) would become even more violent and bloodthirsty. Almost certainly-less religious fanaticism. Science and technology? Any positive influence of Christianity on these areas is impossible to see.
  251. @AP

    the psychological motivation for the achievements of the Renaissance, was little related to Christianity (but very similar to the motivation of Greek philosophers or artists).
     
    You believe that devout Christians compartmentalized the faith that drove much of their lives and that their scientific pursuits could be separated from their faith?

    For example, Kepler:

    (article apparently written for high school students and the style matches)

    https://www.space.com/35772-copernicus-vs-catholic-church-real-story.html


    Going Bananas: The Real Story of Kepler, Copernicus and the Church

    Paul Sutter is an astrophysicist at The Ohio State University and the chief scientist at COSI Science Center


    All mixed up

    In modern times we neatly separate science, philosophy and religion into their nice tidy little boxes, and get annoyed when members of one box start talking about the contents of another domain. And we view the history of science as proto-scientists fighting against the Church to leave them in peace and let them do their science-y thing

    However, there are two important things to remember when looking at the early history of science around the time of Copernicus and Kepler:

    ...What we now call science, philosophy and theology were all mixed up together.

    ...Kepler penned a work in defense of the Copernican model, but not on physical or mathematical grounds — Kepler's argument was religious. He said that since the son of God was at the center of the Christian faith, the sun ought to be at the center of the universe. Ergo, heliocentrism.

    Kepler's day job was as the court astrologer for the Holy Roman Emperor. Yes: astrologer. Horoscopes and stuff. And he was way more obsessed with numerology than he should have been.

    Or maybe not, since that obsession led him to develop his now-famous three laws. Convinced for quasi-spiritual reasons that the sun was at the center of the universe, he labored for years, poring over tables and tables of handwritten charts detailing the precise locations of the planets.

    Kepler wasn’t just looking for a handy fitting formula; he was searching for signs of the divine. He was convinced that the heavens, being naturally closer to God, contained a sort of perfection not seen on Earth since the Garden of Eden. What's more, if he could deduce the divine geometry of the heavens, he could look for similarities here on Earth to help predict the future.

    Here's an example. After years of continual frustration from trying ever-more Byzantine (and ever-more unsatisfactory) equations to fit the motions of the planets, Kepler gave the simple ellipse a shot. Besides working really, really well, Kepler was convinced he got it right because of the relationship between the motions of the planets and music.

    Kepler found that the planets move in ellipses, not circles, around the sun. He also found that when the planets are closer to the sun, they move faster than when they're farther away.

    When it comes to the Earth, the ratio between its fastest speed and slowest speed reduces to 16/15, which is the same ratio between the notes fa and mi. Needless to say, Kepler thought this was fantastically important:

    “The Earth sings Mi, Fa, Mi: you may infer even from the syllables that in this our home misery and famine hold sway.”

    To Kepler, this was the clincher. Why were the heavens so perfect but the Earth so full of wretchedness? The music of the spheres tells us - it fit so perfectly! His new system wasn't just a mathematical convenience, but a window into the mind of God and the hidden order of the universe.

    Kepler was so convinced that there was some sort of hidden order in the heavens that he dug even deeper. Surely there was something that could unlock those juicy divine mysteries. After more years of laborious study, he found it: the square of a planet's orbital period (the time it takes to get around the sun) is directly proportional to the cube of its semimajor axis (the planet's farthest distance from the sun), and that proportion is the same for all the planets.

    Why the square of the orbital period? Why not the semimajor axis to the fourth power? Kepler didn't know and (probably) didn't care. He found a universal constant, a single number that tied together the motions of all the planets — and the Earth.

    Here, at least, was the divine music — and numerology — Kepler sought after years of labor. His model of the universe united the earthly and celestial realms in (literal) harmony, it found beautiful and simple geometric elegance in the motions of the planets, and his simple formulas for predicting planetary positions made for excellent horoscopes.

    ::::::::::

    So scientist/theologian/astrologer was motivated by his faith and his work was the product of that faith.

    For example, Kepler:
    ….…What we now call science, philosophy and theology were all mixed up together.
    …Kepler penned a work in defense of the Copernican model, but not on physical or mathematical grounds — Kepler’s argument was religious.

    From writers of late antiquity, especially Caesarina and Boethius, the idea of harmony of the spheres was inherited by the medieval West and for centuries remained one of the few representations associated with the name of Pythagoras. Later, the picture of the universe, which is full of divine harmony, attracted many Renaissance poets and thinkers. Kepler was more interested in the idea of celestial harmony than any other astronomers of the New time . However, this idea appears in his highly modified form. Kepler didn’t believe in the real music of the spheres and looking for the harmonic ratio, not in the distances of the planets to the Sun, and between their lowest and highest angular velocity. But most of all, Kepler was distinguished from the former adepts of this idea by the fact that he was not satisfied with the approximate results. During his search for Kepler, based on the exact observations of Tycho Brahe, tried and discarded many options until finally formulated in his “Harmony of the world” the famous law: the squares of the periods of rotation of any two planets are proportional to the cubes of their average distances to the Sun. It is this law that has become, perhaps, the most valuable result of the centuries-old development of the Pythagorean idea.

    Л.Я. Жмудь. Наука, философия и религия в раннем пифагореизме

  252. Please dont publish this comment.

  253. @Bliss
    Reality check:

    1. Christianity did not originate in Europe. The nations that have been Christian the longest, Armenia and Ethiopia, had no scientific miracle.

    2. There is no STEM in the Bible. Not even a hint of it.

    3. Correlation is not causation. Besides there is far more correlation to the contrary. For example: the peak of Christianity in Europe, the Dark Ages, was it’s most backward period in science and technology, while the greatest scientific and technological progress has occurred in the post-Christian Enlightenment Age. And in Asia the most Christian nation, the Philippines, is among the most backward in STEM while the least Christian nation, Japan, is the most advanced.

    4. You won’t find many Christians in Silicon Valley or any other collection of cutting-edge scientists and technologists.

    There is more to the human being and the human soul than STEM alone. Also correlation does not prove causation (as you said). China and East Asia looks like it is going to do very well in STEM in the coming future. Is that necessarily a good thing for the world?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    It is a great thing for humanity. Mars must be terraformed.
  254. @Talha

    more than likely comes from a crooked merchant and has nothing to do with religion.
     
    I agree here. In this day of the internet, it is pretty easy to bypass middlemen and go right to the source. Muslims ask our scholars for fatwas on various subjects all the time. If you want to know what the Islamic position is on something, simply find a reliable source and search their answers - that is unless you think our scholars do taqiyyah in answering fatwas (LOL!).

    This is a great one for Hanafi rulings:
    http://www.daruliftaa.com/biography (one of the scholars I have attended class under)

    This is a great one for Shafi'i ones:
    http://shafiifiqh.com/

    Proselytizing not permitted, which as I understand makes it haram to live in a non-Islamic state.
     
    No, it is fine to live there if it is part of the dhimmah contract. It would obviously be highly discouraging, and many might go to Muslim countries because of that change in rules, but it is not asking us to commit a haram act - it is simply asking us to halt a meritorious one. But like I said, a huge chunk of the people coming into Islam are doing so through independent research on the internet (of course a good chunk leaving Islam* are also due to the internet).

    White converts to Islam become legally considered Mohammedans and treated as such by the state.
     
    Nice!

    Certainly don’t want to revisit the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.
     
    Yeah - that's the big issue you guys have to balance out. I agree this must be approached with wisdom.

    Constitutional amendment to declare America a Christian nation.
     
    Interesting - I wonder if there's a chance that would ever happen again...

    But that would simply mean joining a fairly big club of countries where there is an official (or preferred) state religion (go blue team!!!):
    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/10/03090603/PF_10.04.17_statereligions-00.png

    Anyway, did you know it is officially against the Greek constitution to proselytize? No joke:
    "The Constitution establishes the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ (Greek Orthodox Church) as the prevailing religion, but also provides for the right of all citizens to practice the religion of their choice. While the government generally respected this right, non-Orthodox groups sometimes faced administrative obstacles or encountered legal restrictions on religious practice. The Constitution and law prohibit proselytizing and stipulate that no rite of worship may disturb public order or offend moral principles."
    https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2007/90178.htm

    Dag yo! Though I think they have not been super into enforcing it much these days since neo-pagans have started to take root there.

    You're an interesting guy with very interesting ideas. We need more people thinking out of the box. And a Swede, so I'm kind of biased towards you guys anyway.

    Peace.

    *So, what's the deal on our apostates? Can we, you know...deal with them? We can make it a sport using Hanafi rules - if you make it across the border of the millet you win!

    Iceland FTW!

    Also: Kazakhstan is hostile to religion?

    • Replies: @Talha

    Iceland FTW!
     
    Well, it's there:
    "Article 62
    The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the State Church in Iceland and, as such, it shall be supported and protected by the State.
    This may be amended by law."
    https://www.government.is/publications/legislation/lex/?newsid=89fc6038-fd28-11e7-9423-005056bc4d74

    It's very specific to name Lutheran Church - probably goes back to the day when Danes were in charge and apparently pushed it officially:
    "In the year 1551 the last Catholic bishop of Iceland Jón Arason was beheaded in the North of the country for refusing to convert to Protestantism and recognize the Danish king. With the beheading, the history of the Catholic Church in Iceland came to an end. For the next three hundred years, there ceased to be Catholics in Iceland. Things started to change on the 5th June 1849, when Denmark got a new constitution and for the first time religious freedom became part of this new constitution."
    https://nome.unak.is/wordpress/09-1/c66-interviews-memoirs-and-other-contributions/regaining-iceland-for-the-catholic-church-in-the-mid-19th-century-3/

    Also: Kazakhstan is hostile to religion?
     
    Very likely, many of the old Communist Central Asian countries are still hostile to religion, though it is changing gradually. Turkey (as a secular country) was officially hostile to Islam until fairly recently.

    Peace.
  255. @DFH

    The era of rapid progress in shipbuilding, firearms and printing
     
    These had nothing to do with the Renaissance, except occuring at roughly the same time

    But realism and the turn to glorify the beauty of people – meant the retreat of medieval Christianity
     
    Realism (in a sense of depicting things more realistically, not in the choice of subject matter) developed in religious art, in Christian Italy and Antwerp, taking Christian subjects. The people painted in religious art were much more attractive, in my opinion, than the ugly old women Rembrandt painted. I personally find the endless Dutch paintings of old women, men in black clothing, flat landscapes, cows, flowers and dead animals very boring, but perhaps this is a matter of personal taste.


    These technologies have developed based on the achievements of the ancient world
     
    They were based on the low level of technology in these fields that existed during the Dark Ages.

    If Europe did not become Christian, Europe would still develop technologically. Perhaps at a faster pace.
     
    It is not as if Christianity cut short a thriving Classical culture. Great Classical literature was already essentially over by the adoption of Christianity, and their technology had plateaued.

    These had nothing to do with the Renaissance, except occuring at roughly the same time

    These events are just part of the Renaissance. Technical progress was driven by competitive spirit and the pursuit of glory , not by Christian ideas of the killing of the flesh and the salvation of the soul. This is except that the ancient philosophers were the authors of the idea of printing in typesetting and transatlantic voyages to America. Also great geographical discoveries were based on ancient achievements in cartography and astronomy. Round Earth is not a Christian idea.
    ____________________________________________________________

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe? Perhaps Europeans (without Christianity) would become even more violent and bloodthirsty. Almost certainly-less religious fanaticism. Science and technology? Any positive influence of Christianity on these areas is impossible to see.

    • Replies: @AP

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe? Perhaps Europeans (without Christianity) would become even more violent and bloodthirsty.
     
    Probably wouldn't recover from the barbarian invasions. Or recover much more slowly.

    Science and technology? Any positive influence of Christianity on these areas is impossible to see.
     
    To the willfully blind.

    http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages

    This week’s guest blogger is James Hannam, he has a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge and is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (published in the UK as God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science).

    Few topics are as open to misunderstanding as the relationship between faith and reason. The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed. Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus. For instance, the Church has never taught that the Earth is flat and, in the Middle Ages, no one thought so anyway. Popes haven’t tried to ban zero, human dissection or lightening rods, let alone excommunicate Halley’s Comet. No one, I am pleased to say, was ever burnt at the stake for scientific ideas. Yet, all these stories are still regularly trotted out as examples of clerical intransigence in the face of scientific progress.

    Admittedly, Galileo was put on trial for claiming it is a fact that the Earth goes around the sun, rather than just a hypothesis as the Catholic Church demanded. Still, historians have found that even his trial was as much a case of papal egotism as scientific conservatism. It hardly deserves to overshadow all the support that the Church has given to scientific investigation over the centuries.

    That support took several forms. One was simply financial. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organisation in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. The cathedrals themselves were designed to double up as astronomical observatories to allow ever more accurate determination of the calendar. And of course, modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden.

    But religious support for science took deeper forms as well. It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe away.

    Given that the Church has not been an enemy to science, it is less surprising to find that the era which was most dominated by Christian faith, the Middle Ages, was a time of innovation and progress. Inventions like the mechanical clock, glasses, printing and accountancy all burst onto the scene in the late medieval period. In the field of physics, scholars have now found medieval theories about accelerated motion, the rotation of the earth and inertia embedded in the works of Copernicus and Galileo. Even the so-called “dark ages” from 500AD to 1000AD were actually a time of advance after the trough that followed the fall of Rome. Agricultural productivity soared with the use of heavy ploughs, horse collars, crop rotation and watermills, leading to a rapid increase in population.

    It was only during the “enlightenment” that the idea took root that Christianity had been a serious impediment to science. Voltaire and his fellow philosophes opposed the Catholic Church because of its close association with France’s absolute monarchy. Accusing clerics of holding back scientific development was a safe way to make a political point. The cudgels were later taken up by TH Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, in his struggle to free English science from any sort of clerical influence. Creationism did the rest of the job of persuading the public that Christianity and science are doomed to perpetual antagonism.
    , @DFH
    By 'Renaissance', I mean the intellectual movement connected to the rediscovery of Classical texts (which is, I think, the common usage).

    Technical progress was driven by competitive spirit and the pursuit of glory
     
    Well, I suppose almost all technical progress is driven by competition in some sense. But none of those advancements were caused by anything to do with the Classical world. Was the reason that medieval knights didn't invent better firearms because they were insufficiently competitive and didn't care about glory enough?

    not by Christian ideas of the killing of the flesh and the salvation of the soul
     
    Portuguese navigation and exploration was very religiously motivated. The vast majority of the demand for mass production of books came from a demand for religious literature.

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe?
     
    We would know almost nothing about the Classical world and no Classical literature would have survived.
    , @anonymous coward

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe?
     
    This experiment was actually conducted. You can look at India and see the result. (And not modern India, mind you, but the one before Britain made it modern.)
  256. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Well, it seems easy enough to calculate which of the two parts of your formula for a successful civilization was lacking for the Ethiopians, for I don't think that their Christian religious zeal has ever been in question. So, it seems that the 'out of Africa' paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased? I wonder why?...

    So, it seems that the ‘out of Africa’ paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased?

    The cause is a complex question but differences in measured IQ, brain size, brain metabolism, and genetic underpinning are well-established.

    Probably several factors are involved – Neanderthal ancestry and increasingly complex societies requiring higher intellectual capacity and come to mind.

    Society can drive evolution. This society of people, who spend much of their time diving (a social position), have evolved larger spleens to enable them to spend up to 13 minutes underwater without breathing:

    It makes sense that peoples who have lived in complex urban social environments for hundreds or thousands of years have likewise developed greater cognitive ability (and altered temperament, such as reduced level of impulsive violence).

  257. @AP

    ...atheism was unthinkable at the time. So, to state that Keppler was motivated by his faith, at the time, one might say, anything was motivated by faith.
     
    Correct. And it as this society in Europe, so strongly imbued with Christian faith, that produced humanity's scientific miracle.

    It is not a coincidence.

    atheism was unthinkable at the time

    It was hardly unthinkable (it certainly wasn’t to, say, Anselm), it just wasn’t intellectually respectable.

  258. AP says:
    @melanf

    These had nothing to do with the Renaissance, except occuring at roughly the same time
     
    These events are just part of the Renaissance. Technical progress was driven by competitive spirit and the pursuit of glory , not by Christian ideas of the killing of the flesh and the salvation of the soul. This is except that the ancient philosophers were the authors of the idea of printing in typesetting and transatlantic voyages to America. Also great geographical discoveries were based on ancient achievements in cartography and astronomy. Round Earth is not a Christian idea.
    ____________________________________________________________

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe? Perhaps Europeans (without Christianity) would become even more violent and bloodthirsty. Almost certainly-less religious fanaticism. Science and technology? Any positive influence of Christianity on these areas is impossible to see.

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe? Perhaps Europeans (without Christianity) would become even more violent and bloodthirsty.

    Probably wouldn’t recover from the barbarian invasions. Or recover much more slowly.

    Science and technology? Any positive influence of Christianity on these areas is impossible to see.

    To the willfully blind.

    http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages

    This week’s guest blogger is James Hannam, he has a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge and is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (published in the UK as God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science).

    Few topics are as open to misunderstanding as the relationship between faith and reason. The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed. Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus. For instance, the Church has never taught that the Earth is flat and, in the Middle Ages, no one thought so anyway. Popes haven’t tried to ban zero, human dissection or lightening rods, let alone excommunicate Halley’s Comet. No one, I am pleased to say, was ever burnt at the stake for scientific ideas. Yet, all these stories are still regularly trotted out as examples of clerical intransigence in the face of scientific progress.

    Admittedly, Galileo was put on trial for claiming it is a fact that the Earth goes around the sun, rather than just a hypothesis as the Catholic Church demanded. Still, historians have found that even his trial was as much a case of papal egotism as scientific conservatism. It hardly deserves to overshadow all the support that the Church has given to scientific investigation over the centuries.

    That support took several forms. One was simply financial. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organisation in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. The cathedrals themselves were designed to double up as astronomical observatories to allow ever more accurate determination of the calendar. And of course, modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden.

    But religious support for science took deeper forms as well. It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe away.

    Given that the Church has not been an enemy to science, it is less surprising to find that the era which was most dominated by Christian faith, the Middle Ages, was a time of innovation and progress. Inventions like the mechanical clock, glasses, printing and accountancy all burst onto the scene in the late medieval period. In the field of physics, scholars have now found medieval theories about accelerated motion, the rotation of the earth and inertia embedded in the works of Copernicus and Galileo. Even the so-called “dark ages” from 500AD to 1000AD were actually a time of advance after the trough that followed the fall of Rome. Agricultural productivity soared with the use of heavy ploughs, horse collars, crop rotation and watermills, leading to a rapid increase in population.

    It was only during the “enlightenment” that the idea took root that Christianity had been a serious impediment to science. Voltaire and his fellow philosophes opposed the Catholic Church because of its close association with France’s absolute monarchy. Accusing clerics of holding back scientific development was a safe way to make a political point. The cudgels were later taken up by TH Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, in his struggle to free English science from any sort of clerical influence. Creationism did the rest of the job of persuading the public that Christianity and science are doomed to perpetual antagonism.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Excellent read - thanks!

    Peace.
  259. @I'm a doofus
    There is more to the human being and the human soul than STEM alone. Also correlation does not prove causation (as you said). China and East Asia looks like it is going to do very well in STEM in the coming future. Is that necessarily a good thing for the world?

    It is a great thing for humanity. Mars must be terraformed.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Mars must be terraformed.

     

    Pfffshshsh. This all sounds good until some doofus settler accidentally goes into a cave and awakens the dormant advanced alien ant species after their millennia of slumber. Then we'll see who terraforms who!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE

    Remember that I warned you all first.

    Peace.
  260. @Anon
    Iceland FTW!

    Also: Kazakhstan is hostile to religion?

    Iceland FTW!

    Well, it’s there:
    “Article 62
    The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the State Church in Iceland and, as such, it shall be supported and protected by the State.
    This may be amended by law.”
    https://www.government.is/publications/legislation/lex/?newsid=89fc6038-fd28-11e7-9423-005056bc4d74

    It’s very specific to name Lutheran Church – probably goes back to the day when Danes were in charge and apparently pushed it officially:
    “In the year 1551 the last Catholic bishop of Iceland Jón Arason was beheaded in the North of the country for refusing to convert to Protestantism and recognize the Danish king. With the beheading, the history of the Catholic Church in Iceland came to an end. For the next three hundred years, there ceased to be Catholics in Iceland. Things started to change on the 5th June 1849, when Denmark got a new constitution and for the first time religious freedom became part of this new constitution.”
    https://nome.unak.is/wordpress/09-1/c66-interviews-memoirs-and-other-contributions/regaining-iceland-for-the-catholic-church-in-the-mid-19th-century-3/

    Also: Kazakhstan is hostile to religion?

    Very likely, many of the old Communist Central Asian countries are still hostile to religion, though it is changing gradually. Turkey (as a secular country) was officially hostile to Islam until fairly recently.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Anon

    many of the old Communist Central Asian countries are still hostile to religion
     
    Interesting, I had been unaware of that-- Azerbaijan is certainly a shocker. "Hostility to religion" can hardly be very intense in these cases?

    All the Norse countries have an official religion (the same one, I think) except Sweden-- shows where the real Vikings are, I guess. :)

    In the year 1551 the last Catholic bishop of Iceland Jón Arason was beheaded in the North of the country for refusing to convert to Protestantism and recognize the Danish king.
     
    There is going to be a major dispute here: Arabs generally behead with the sword, Norsemen with the axe. Which one is right?
  261. @Daniel Chieh
    It is a great thing for humanity. Mars must be terraformed.

    Mars must be terraformed.

    Pfffshshsh. This all sounds good until some doofus settler accidentally goes into a cave and awakens the dormant advanced alien ant species after their millennia of slumber. Then we’ll see who terraforms who!

    Remember that I warned you all first.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Then we’ll see who terraforms who!
     
    (1) You mean MARTIFORM.

    (2) This definitely calls for "whoM." Кто кого?
  262. @Wally
    said:
    "Macchu Picchu had been abandoned or wiped out long before the Spanish incursion."

    Absolutely correct. And the reason it was built in the first place was for an Elitist Only save haven.

    And what the unhinged left rarely tells anyone is that number of Spaniards in Peru at any given time were no more than 200. Because the brutal, human sacrificing, slave keeping Incas were hated by the other subjugated, enslaved tribes. Hence the Spaniards found willing allies everywhere.

    Notice that the left always tries the 'European disease' canard, while ignoring the indigenous diseases.

    Because the brutal, human sacrificing, slave keeping Incas were hated by the other subjugated, enslaved tribes.

    Wow.

    • Replies: @Wally


    "Wow" ... only to the uninformed.

    www.codoh.com
  263. @Anonymous Jew
    OK. Ergo, Ashkenazi Jews are Semites because our paternal Haplogroups are Semitic (60-70%, including me per 23andMe). But if you look at everything else (autosomal dna, mitochondria) Ashkenazis are 55-65% European... Heck, don't half of all Black Americans have NW Euro Y chromosomes. Are Blacks really English/Irish? Are dark brown Mestizos European Spaniards?

    Egyptians are not older than Sumer. Civilization started at the other end of the Fertile Crescent. Whether civilization spread to Egypt or arose there independently I don't know. Yes, I assume there would be African influence. Regardless, the main "racial" stock of Egyptians (at least the well-preserved rulers) was not African. This isn't history or cultural influence, it's just genetic, scientific evidence.

    I'm not sure what studies you're looking at. Maybe Mossad has hacked my Google so all I see are the studies showing Ancient Egyptians were closest to Bronze Age populations of the Eastern Med.

    I'm sorry Bantus didn't build the pyramids (or really much of anything, for that matter). But hey, there's Jazz.

    Sumerians were not semites you ignoramus.

    The latest about the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews is that they were Turks, Greeks, Romans who were converted to Judaism by Iranian Jews. Whatever their origins the fact remains that the two ashkenazi Jews whose names will be longest remembered are Einstein and Marx. What did they have in common? They both rejected Judaism and they both looked part-african. Their doppelgängers would be found among the mixed race populations of MENA and the Americas. Perhaps that’s the genetic legacy of the Jewish enslavement in Egypt? Quite a few Jews still sport a soft Afro.

    Until the time of Herodotus and Aristotle the Egyptians still looked very much african, for that’s who they were equated with by the ancient Greeks. No one ever compared the ancient Egyptians to Levantines or Persians or Anatolians or Greeks.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    Your first sentence displays a complete lack of reading comprehension. Or you just didn't read my post, which is also fine.

    The rest of your post re the Ashkenazi reminds me of a certain poster on a human biodiversity forum I've come across that posits wild theories of commonly accepted genetic research re modern Jews. Well, whatever. Maybe all these genetic researchers are part of a conspiracy and we really are Khazars. Fine with me.

    There are a quite a few facial reconstructions of Ancient Egyptians based on CT scans and DNA. I've actually recently seen some at a museum alongside the real mummies. They're obviously primarily Caucasian and not substantially SSA. Do they have some African ancestry? Yes, of course, just as Black Americans have some English ancestry. Are Black Americans a Caucasian race because the median Black person is roughly 15% White? (25% average White but it's not uniformly distributed, so I'm not sure what the median is - maybe someone here does).

    Anyways, I'm talking about genetic differences not geographic/continental ones. The mummies that have been tested (regardless of geography, culture, history, etc) are not a Black African people anymore than Black Americans are a European people. They're Caucasians with a small amount of Black admixture.

    Again, I'm not talking about history, culture, etc. Just common-sense genetic classification of human subspecies.

    And oh yes, we Jews wuz kangz!

  264. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    Iceland FTW!
     
    Well, it's there:
    "Article 62
    The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the State Church in Iceland and, as such, it shall be supported and protected by the State.
    This may be amended by law."
    https://www.government.is/publications/legislation/lex/?newsid=89fc6038-fd28-11e7-9423-005056bc4d74

    It's very specific to name Lutheran Church - probably goes back to the day when Danes were in charge and apparently pushed it officially:
    "In the year 1551 the last Catholic bishop of Iceland Jón Arason was beheaded in the North of the country for refusing to convert to Protestantism and recognize the Danish king. With the beheading, the history of the Catholic Church in Iceland came to an end. For the next three hundred years, there ceased to be Catholics in Iceland. Things started to change on the 5th June 1849, when Denmark got a new constitution and for the first time religious freedom became part of this new constitution."
    https://nome.unak.is/wordpress/09-1/c66-interviews-memoirs-and-other-contributions/regaining-iceland-for-the-catholic-church-in-the-mid-19th-century-3/

    Also: Kazakhstan is hostile to religion?
     
    Very likely, many of the old Communist Central Asian countries are still hostile to religion, though it is changing gradually. Turkey (as a secular country) was officially hostile to Islam until fairly recently.

    Peace.

    many of the old Communist Central Asian countries are still hostile to religion

    Interesting, I had been unaware of that– Azerbaijan is certainly a shocker. “Hostility to religion” can hardly be very intense in these cases?

    All the Norse countries have an official religion (the same one, I think) except Sweden– shows where the real Vikings are, I guess. 🙂

    In the year 1551 the last Catholic bishop of Iceland Jón Arason was beheaded in the North of the country for refusing to convert to Protestantism and recognize the Danish king.

    There is going to be a major dispute here: Arabs generally behead with the sword, Norsemen with the axe. Which one is right?

    • Replies: @Talha

    “Hostility to religion” can hardly be very intense in these cases?
     
    They can be, people get tortured fairly routinely in those places. Not just for religion though, I believe they go after labor unions, etc. Unfortunately, there is a lot of overlap in the anti-terrorism and hostility to religion issues. For instance, Kazakhstan banned the Tablighi Jamaat - the frickin' Tablighi Jamaat - that's about as non-political an organization as you get - they change the subject when you start talking politics. It's definitely not as bad as it used to be in the 1990s right after the soviet collapse.

    Which one is right?
     
    The one with his head still on his shoulders? ;)

    Peace.

  265. DFH says:
    @melanf

    These had nothing to do with the Renaissance, except occuring at roughly the same time
     
    These events are just part of the Renaissance. Technical progress was driven by competitive spirit and the pursuit of glory , not by Christian ideas of the killing of the flesh and the salvation of the soul. This is except that the ancient philosophers were the authors of the idea of printing in typesetting and transatlantic voyages to America. Also great geographical discoveries were based on ancient achievements in cartography and astronomy. Round Earth is not a Christian idea.
    ____________________________________________________________

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe? Perhaps Europeans (without Christianity) would become even more violent and bloodthirsty. Almost certainly-less religious fanaticism. Science and technology? Any positive influence of Christianity on these areas is impossible to see.

    By ‘Renaissance’, I mean the intellectual movement connected to the rediscovery of Classical texts (which is, I think, the common usage).

    Technical progress was driven by competitive spirit and the pursuit of glory

    Well, I suppose almost all technical progress is driven by competition in some sense. But none of those advancements were caused by anything to do with the Classical world. Was the reason that medieval knights didn’t invent better firearms because they were insufficiently competitive and didn’t care about glory enough?

    not by Christian ideas of the killing of the flesh and the salvation of the soul

    Portuguese navigation and exploration was very religiously motivated. The vast majority of the demand for mass production of books came from a demand for religious literature.

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe?

    We would know almost nothing about the Classical world and no Classical literature would have survived.

  266. @Logan
    Capture people, tie them up and then do with them as you will.

    Despite modern technology, the Mongols probably still hold the world record for most people killed in the shortest amount of time.

    In multiple cases they captured a city, bound the inhabitants, distributed them among their soldiers and then at the signal everybody chopped heads.

    This is well documented, with the only real issue being how many people were in the city so treated. Records of the time talk about 1M+, but this is probably not true, as cities of such size were really, really scarce back then.

    But they probably did this to a good many cities of 100,000+ and quite possibly one or more of 250,000. So that's 100k to 250k people dead in a few minutes. Multiple times.

    Hiroshima, Hamburg and Tokyo weren't that efficient. Hiroshima was about 150,000 total, but only about half died on the first day. Hamburg was around 50,000. Tokyo was perhaps 100,000. Auschwitz supposedly reached peak "production" of about 20,000 in 24 hours.

    There is a commonly believed myth that you need "industrial methods" to kill a lot of people quickly. You don't. All you need is sharp blades and a lot of willing killers..

    “the Mongols probably still hold the world record for most people killed in the shortest amount of time.”

    You have to be careful with statements like this one. This record probably goes to the Americans, if you take the atomic age into consideration.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell

    You have to be careful with statements like this one. This record probably goes to the Americans, if you take the atomic age into consideration.
     
    There is absolutely no doubt about that. Hard to beat many 1000s of kills within a few seconds.
  267. Anonymous[229] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    Mars must be terraformed.

     

    Pfffshshsh. This all sounds good until some doofus settler accidentally goes into a cave and awakens the dormant advanced alien ant species after their millennia of slumber. Then we'll see who terraforms who!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE

    Remember that I warned you all first.

    Peace.

    Then we’ll see who terraforms who!

    (1) You mean MARTIFORM.

    (2) This definitely calls for “whoM.” Кто кого?

  268. @Anon

    many of the old Communist Central Asian countries are still hostile to religion
     
    Interesting, I had been unaware of that-- Azerbaijan is certainly a shocker. "Hostility to religion" can hardly be very intense in these cases?

    All the Norse countries have an official religion (the same one, I think) except Sweden-- shows where the real Vikings are, I guess. :)

    In the year 1551 the last Catholic bishop of Iceland Jón Arason was beheaded in the North of the country for refusing to convert to Protestantism and recognize the Danish king.
     
    There is going to be a major dispute here: Arabs generally behead with the sword, Norsemen with the axe. Which one is right?

    “Hostility to religion” can hardly be very intense in these cases?

    They can be, people get tortured fairly routinely in those places. Not just for religion though, I believe they go after labor unions, etc. Unfortunately, there is a lot of overlap in the anti-terrorism and hostility to religion issues. For instance, Kazakhstan banned the Tablighi Jamaat – the frickin’ Tablighi Jamaat – that’s about as non-political an organization as you get – they change the subject when you start talking politics. It’s definitely not as bad as it used to be in the 1990s right after the soviet collapse.

    Which one is right?

    The one with his head still on his shoulders? 😉

    Peace.

  269. @AP

    If we imagine that Christianity disappeared in the 2nd century ad, what would happen to Europe? Perhaps Europeans (without Christianity) would become even more violent and bloodthirsty.
     
    Probably wouldn't recover from the barbarian invasions. Or recover much more slowly.

    Science and technology? Any positive influence of Christianity on these areas is impossible to see.
     
    To the willfully blind.

    http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages

    This week’s guest blogger is James Hannam, he has a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge and is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (published in the UK as God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science).

    Few topics are as open to misunderstanding as the relationship between faith and reason. The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed. Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus. For instance, the Church has never taught that the Earth is flat and, in the Middle Ages, no one thought so anyway. Popes haven’t tried to ban zero, human dissection or lightening rods, let alone excommunicate Halley’s Comet. No one, I am pleased to say, was ever burnt at the stake for scientific ideas. Yet, all these stories are still regularly trotted out as examples of clerical intransigence in the face of scientific progress.

    Admittedly, Galileo was put on trial for claiming it is a fact that the Earth goes around the sun, rather than just a hypothesis as the Catholic Church demanded. Still, historians have found that even his trial was as much a case of papal egotism as scientific conservatism. It hardly deserves to overshadow all the support that the Church has given to scientific investigation over the centuries.

    That support took several forms. One was simply financial. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organisation in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. The cathedrals themselves were designed to double up as astronomical observatories to allow ever more accurate determination of the calendar. And of course, modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden.

    But religious support for science took deeper forms as well. It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe away.

    Given that the Church has not been an enemy to science, it is less surprising to find that the era which was most dominated by Christian faith, the Middle Ages, was a time of innovation and progress. Inventions like the mechanical clock, glasses, printing and accountancy all burst onto the scene in the late medieval period. In the field of physics, scholars have now found medieval theories about accelerated motion, the rotation of the earth and inertia embedded in the works of Copernicus and Galileo. Even the so-called “dark ages” from 500AD to 1000AD were actually a time of advance after the trough that followed the fall of Rome. Agricultural productivity soared with the use of heavy ploughs, horse collars, crop rotation and watermills, leading to a rapid increase in population.

    It was only during the “enlightenment” that the idea took root that Christianity had been a serious impediment to science. Voltaire and his fellow philosophes opposed the Catholic Church because of its close association with France’s absolute monarchy. Accusing clerics of holding back scientific development was a safe way to make a political point. The cudgels were later taken up by TH Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, in his struggle to free English science from any sort of clerical influence. Creationism did the rest of the job of persuading the public that Christianity and science are doomed to perpetual antagonism.

    Excellent read – thanks!

    Peace.

  270. @Bliss
    Sumerians were not semites you ignoramus.

    The latest about the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews is that they were Turks, Greeks, Romans who were converted to Judaism by Iranian Jews. Whatever their origins the fact remains that the two ashkenazi Jews whose names will be longest remembered are Einstein and Marx. What did they have in common? They both rejected Judaism and they both looked part-african. Their doppelgängers would be found among the mixed race populations of MENA and the Americas. Perhaps that’s the genetic legacy of the Jewish enslavement in Egypt? Quite a few Jews still sport a soft Afro.

    Until the time of Herodotus and Aristotle the Egyptians still looked very much african, for that’s who they were equated with by the ancient Greeks. No one ever compared the ancient Egyptians to Levantines or Persians or Anatolians or Greeks.

    Your first sentence displays a complete lack of reading comprehension. Or you just didn’t read my post, which is also fine.

    The rest of your post re the Ashkenazi reminds me of a certain poster on a human biodiversity forum I’ve come across that posits wild theories of commonly accepted genetic research re modern Jews. Well, whatever. Maybe all these genetic researchers are part of a conspiracy and we really are Khazars. Fine with me.

    There are a quite a few facial reconstructions of Ancient Egyptians based on CT scans and DNA. I’ve actually recently seen some at a museum alongside the real mummies. They’re obviously primarily Caucasian and not substantially SSA. Do they have some African ancestry? Yes, of course, just as Black Americans have some English ancestry. Are Black Americans a Caucasian race because the median Black person is roughly 15% White? (25% average White but it’s not uniformly distributed, so I’m not sure what the median is – maybe someone here does).

    Anyways, I’m talking about genetic differences not geographic/continental ones. The mummies that have been tested (regardless of geography, culture, history, etc) are not a Black African people anymore than Black Americans are a European people. They’re Caucasians with a small amount of Black admixture.

    Again, I’m not talking about history, culture, etc. Just common-sense genetic classification of human subspecies.

    And oh yes, we Jews wuz kangz!

    • Replies: @AaronB
    The mummies were the ruling caste. Ruling castes are often somewhat different genetically than the mass of the population.

    The British royal house is German and the Indian ruling caste recently were Europeans.

    I wonder how much you can conclude about a population based on its ruling caste.
    , @Bliss

    Your first sentence displays a complete lack of reading comprehension. Or you just didn’t read my post, which is also fine.
     
    I read your posts and your stupidity and ignorance is too obvious for anyone to miss. You were claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were predominantly Semites from the Fertile Crescent. I pointed out that Egypt was more ancient than the Semites. Your response to that was that Sumer was older than Egypt. I pointed out that Sumerians were not Semites. Now instead of responding to my point you are bullshitting about my lack of comprehension. Obviously you could not respond reasonably without admitting that you were wrong or that you lied. An honestly ignorant person can be led to the truth but a willful liar such as yourself cannot.

    There are a quite a few facial reconstructions of Ancient Egyptians based on CT scans and DNA. I’ve actually recently seen some at a museum alongside the real mummies. They’re obviously primarily Caucasian and not substantially SSA.
     
    You must be thinking about the famous facial reconstruction of Tutankhamen which, btw, is controversial. Here is the reconstruction:

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/photogalleries/king_tut/images/primary/tut02.jpg

    And here are depictions of Tutankhamun from Ancient Egypt:

    https://media.npr.org/programs/re/archivesdate/2004/dec/interviews_hawass/main-3ba479b94f0f1d33601dab8cc7eda07c703a7d11-s600-c85.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/564x/01/1e/dd/011edd37083e8c122528ba2e371071cd--egypt-today-tutankhamun.jpg

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtPDyTDqtc30ooyIFwO6uW5Kst_GeeYP2M7PpzUCBadqQTfZC1
    , @Bliss

    I’m talking about genetic differences not geographic/continental ones. The mummies that have been tested (regardless of geography, culture, history, etc) are not a Black African people anymore than Black Americans are a European people. They’re Caucasians with a small amount of Black admixture.
     
    Unfortunately for you the mummy of Ramesses III a Pharaoh of native Egyptian ancestry was genetically tested and found to have the paternal Y-DNA Haplogroup E1b1a which is subsaharan african.


    Caucasians with a small amount of black admixture tend to look like this:

    James Watson (16% Black):

    https://i.pinimg.com/236x/4b/f8/e4/4bf8e4d944d091ef7ca243d46824a38e--james-watson-inventors.jpg


    Not like this:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Egyptian_Farmers.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/GD-EG-Caire-Mus%C3%A9e120.JPG

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/AmenhotepIII.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/%C3%84gyptischer_Maler_um_1360_v._Chr._002.jpg/1759px-%C3%84gyptischer_Maler_um_1360_v._Chr._002.jpg
  271. @Anonymous Jew
    Your first sentence displays a complete lack of reading comprehension. Or you just didn't read my post, which is also fine.

    The rest of your post re the Ashkenazi reminds me of a certain poster on a human biodiversity forum I've come across that posits wild theories of commonly accepted genetic research re modern Jews. Well, whatever. Maybe all these genetic researchers are part of a conspiracy and we really are Khazars. Fine with me.

    There are a quite a few facial reconstructions of Ancient Egyptians based on CT scans and DNA. I've actually recently seen some at a museum alongside the real mummies. They're obviously primarily Caucasian and not substantially SSA. Do they have some African ancestry? Yes, of course, just as Black Americans have some English ancestry. Are Black Americans a Caucasian race because the median Black person is roughly 15% White? (25% average White but it's not uniformly distributed, so I'm not sure what the median is - maybe someone here does).

    Anyways, I'm talking about genetic differences not geographic/continental ones. The mummies that have been tested (regardless of geography, culture, history, etc) are not a Black African people anymore than Black Americans are a European people. They're Caucasians with a small amount of Black admixture.

    Again, I'm not talking about history, culture, etc. Just common-sense genetic classification of human subspecies.

    And oh yes, we Jews wuz kangz!

    The mummies were the ruling caste. Ruling castes are often somewhat different genetically than the mass of the population.

    The British royal house is German and the Indian ruling caste recently were Europeans.

    I wonder how much you can conclude about a population based on its ruling caste.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I wonder how much you can conclude about a population based on its ruling caste.
     
    Often not much...

    "The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour."
    - Abbasid Caliph, Ma'mum ar-Rashid

    Peace.
  272. @melanf

    I think this view of Ancient Greece was already earlier popular in the 19th century – in the German language with men such as the young Nietzsche.
     
    Rather Jacob Burckhardt

    Jacob Burckhardt was a friend of Nietzsche. In fact, the two were colleagues at the University of Basel (in Switzerland).

    • Replies: @melanf

    Jacob Burckhardt was a friend of Nietzsche. In fact, the two were colleagues at the University of Basel (in Switzerland).
     
    I know that. But Burckhardt is famous not for friendship with Nietzsche, but for his outstanding historical works. For local religious fanatics, I can add that Buchardt was a Christian, of very conservative (though unorthodox) views
  273. @AaronB
    Depends what you mean by civilized.

    If you mean rising above the physical to the spiritual through great art, architecture, music, and literature, then yes. This means not being a materialist.

    If you merely mean the technique of making physical life more comfortable and easy, then that is boring.

    The Germans themselves seem to find your version of civilization as mere pleasant living as not worth defending - so the ideal life is one that people who live it are unwilling to defend and become gloomy and pessimistic?

    The best bits of that civilized life are the old architecture and old art - so the best life is one in which we appreciate things created by people with the exact opposite mentality to us and we can no longer create?

    You have interesting ideas my friend...

    Somewhere like Heidelberg – it’s far from my ideal or most favourite place in the world.

    But it has in many ways, ingredients of human flourishing, which are absent from many parts of the world for primarily cultural reasons.

    And this in quite a simple, objective (or rather, intersubjective) way – it’s why Africans and Arabs are flooding to live in Germany, whereas Germans are not flooding to live in African or Arab countries (beyond some workers in Dubai or Kuwait), for all the potential Africa and Arabia should have to be the nicest countries in the world (great landscapes and climatic conditions).

    • Replies: @AaronB

    it’s why Africans and Arabs are flooding to live in Germany, whereas Germans are not flooding to live in African or Arab countries

     

    Western countries are like junk food - unhealthy and unsatisfying but delicious looking on the outside and you only realize how disgusting it is once you're hooked, fat, and without energy.

    Germans may not be fleeing to live in Arab countries, but they sure seem intent on destroying their wonderful lifestyle and importing Arabs. A
  274. @Wizard of Oz
    Is there any standard answer- or any answer at all to the question why God/Allah allows the errors to persist uncorrected by him, given that he cares for mankind and cares about the details of faith and morals?

    why God/Allah allows the errors to persist uncorrected by him

    Perhaps no one has taken the time to point out his errors.

    If you decide to give it a try and succeed in getting his attention, see if he will do something about all the waste involved when preparing a fresh pineapple for the table.

  275. @AaronB
    The mummies were the ruling caste. Ruling castes are often somewhat different genetically than the mass of the population.

    The British royal house is German and the Indian ruling caste recently were Europeans.

    I wonder how much you can conclude about a population based on its ruling caste.

    I wonder how much you can conclude about a population based on its ruling caste.

    Often not much…

    “The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour.”
    – Abbasid Caliph, Ma’mum ar-Rashid

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Good example. It seems quite common for the ruling caste to be quite different. So it seems silly to conclude too much based on mummies, but sadly very much in line with the level of sophistication of much thinking today.
  276. The Aztec cults never died. They went underground.

    Besides the estimated 1.5 million Nahua peoples in Mexico (“indios mexicanos”) that speak a dialect of Nahuatl (Aztec), there seems to be a residue of the Aztec religion and culture still extant in Mexico and among Mexicans just below the surface, especially among those who live on the fringes of society. This is expressed in the worship of Santa Muerte (Sacred Death), whose roots can be traced to pre-Columbian practices, including human sacrifice and the notorious Aztec skull towers to gain favor with the gods for healing, protection, financial wellbeing, and the assurance of a path to the afterlife.

    The worship of Santa Muerte has exploded in recent times, especially among the urban poor looking for an alternative to the traditional Catholic faith that has failed to deliver them from poverty and oppression.

    This fits in with the original 16th Century transformation of an Aztec goddess into Our Lady of Guadalupe in the hope for a better life. When that fails to occur, there is understandable cultural pressure to return to one’s roots in Aztec hagiography (for lack of a better term).

    Speaking of violence, the worship of Santa Muerte is especially popular in the violent subculture associated with drug cartels and their operations. This phenomenon warranted a feature article, “Troubled Spirits”, in National Geographic.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/05/mexican-saints/

    Also, from Wikipedia:

    By the late 2000s, Santa Muerte had become Mexico’s second-most popular saint, after Saint Jude and had come to rival the country’s “national patroness”, the Virgin of Guadalupe. The cult’s rise was controversial, and in March 2009 the Mexican army demolished 40 roadside shrines near the U.S. border. Circa 2005, the Santa Muerte cult was brought to the United States by Mexican and Central American migrants, and by 2012 had tens of thousands of followers throughout the country, primarily in cities with high Latino populations. As of 2016, the cult of Santa Muerte is said to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the world, with an estimated 10 to 12 million followers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell
    My thoughts exactly; I can confirm this with my own observation of the horrible decorum put forth by the Latrinos in “catholic” churches all across the southwestern US on the occasion of All-Saints (i.e. Halloween), with shameless permission of the local clergy. The “catholic” hierarchy in the US looks the other way from what is evidently a shallowly concealed mesoamerican cult, for the sake of inflating their numbers (and probably for other less avowable motives too). But yes indeed the Aztecs are not dead and they are still living amongst us.
    , @AP
    Sounds like Mexico needs a real Inquisition.
    , @Clyde

    The Aztec cults never died. They went underground.
    Besides the estimated 1.5 million Nahua peoples in Mexico (“indios mexicanos”) that speak a dialect of Nahuatl (Aztec), there seems to be a residue of the Aztec religion and culture still extant in Mexico and among Mexicans just below the surface
     
    True! The Cartels love killing the competition in creative ways. Very gruesome to say the least. Complete innocents also get caught up in this.
  277. @Anonymous Jew
    Your first sentence displays a complete lack of reading comprehension. Or you just didn't read my post, which is also fine.

    The rest of your post re the Ashkenazi reminds me of a certain poster on a human biodiversity forum I've come across that posits wild theories of commonly accepted genetic research re modern Jews. Well, whatever. Maybe all these genetic researchers are part of a conspiracy and we really are Khazars. Fine with me.

    There are a quite a few facial reconstructions of Ancient Egyptians based on CT scans and DNA. I've actually recently seen some at a museum alongside the real mummies. They're obviously primarily Caucasian and not substantially SSA. Do they have some African ancestry? Yes, of course, just as Black Americans have some English ancestry. Are Black Americans a Caucasian race because the median Black person is roughly 15% White? (25% average White but it's not uniformly distributed, so I'm not sure what the median is - maybe someone here does).

    Anyways, I'm talking about genetic differences not geographic/continental ones. The mummies that have been tested (regardless of geography, culture, history, etc) are not a Black African people anymore than Black Americans are a European people. They're Caucasians with a small amount of Black admixture.

    Again, I'm not talking about history, culture, etc. Just common-sense genetic classification of human subspecies.

    And oh yes, we Jews wuz kangz!

    Your first sentence displays a complete lack of reading comprehension. Or you just didn’t read my post, which is also fine.

    I read your posts and your stupidity and ignorance is too obvious for anyone to miss. You were claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were predominantly Semites from the Fertile Crescent. I pointed out that Egypt was more ancient than the Semites. Your response to that was that Sumer was older than Egypt. I pointed out that Sumerians were not Semites. Now instead of responding to my point you are bullshitting about my lack of comprehension. Obviously you could not respond reasonably without admitting that you were wrong or that you lied. An honestly ignorant person can be led to the truth but a willful liar such as yourself cannot.

    There are a quite a few facial reconstructions of Ancient Egyptians based on CT scans and DNA. I’ve actually recently seen some at a museum alongside the real mummies. They’re obviously primarily Caucasian and not substantially SSA.

    You must be thinking about the famous facial reconstruction of Tutankhamen which, btw, is controversial. Here is the reconstruction:

    And here are depictions of Tutankhamun from Ancient Egypt:

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtPDyTDqtc30ooyIFwO6uW5Kst_GeeYP2M7PpzUCBadqQTfZC1

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell
    Certainly does not look negroid to me!
    , @Anonymous Jew
    I'll make this as simple as possible:

    The DNA of Egyptian mummies is primarily Caucasian in origin. Does this fact hurt your feelings? To be fair, as another poster noted, this doesn't necessarily mean the majority of Egyptians had the same racial makeup as the ruling class. Also note that Caucasians come in many different colors. Just a couple thousand years before the Ancient Egyptians there may have still been dark-skinned people in Northern Europe.

    For the sake of argument, I will retract all of my other points and concede everything else to you. Maybe the ancestors of Ancient Egyptians didn't walk across the Sinai. Maybe they were another group that sailed from somewhere else. You can tell me which way the language flowed, etc. I'll even concede your bizarre theory on the origin of Ashkenazi Jews (though I'm curious as to how you reconcile it with DNA evidence, both Y-chromosome and autosomal).

    To repeat, the only point I'm left making is that the Pharaohs were not SSA. It's relatively easy to distinguish the DNA of Black Africans from other groups.

    BTW: are you Black? Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ancient Egyptians - or even just the ruling class - were somehow "Black"? Why not go where the evidence takes you? It seems more appropriate to rethink your understanding of history in light of new DNA evidence than to stubbornly cling to prior beliefs/conclusions.

    On a personal note, as DNA research established that Ashkenazi Jews are primarily European my reaction was "meh". I could care less if we came from Khazars. I'd rather know how history really unfolded. I'd bet money that some Palestinian groups have a much greater genetic affinity to the Biblical Jews than the Ashkenazi. And if we suddenly found some ancient Jewish mummies I would be happy to see their DNA tested, whatever the results.

  278. @TheJester
    The Aztec cults never died. They went underground.

    Besides the estimated 1.5 million Nahua peoples in Mexico ("indios mexicanos") that speak a dialect of Nahuatl (Aztec), there seems to be a residue of the Aztec religion and culture still extant in Mexico and among Mexicans just below the surface, especially among those who live on the fringes of society. This is expressed in the worship of Santa Muerte (Sacred Death), whose roots can be traced to pre-Columbian practices, including human sacrifice and the notorious Aztec skull towers to gain favor with the gods for healing, protection, financial wellbeing, and the assurance of a path to the afterlife.

    The worship of Santa Muerte has exploded in recent times, especially among the urban poor looking for an alternative to the traditional Catholic faith that has failed to deliver them from poverty and oppression.

    This fits in with the original 16th Century transformation of an Aztec goddess into Our Lady of Guadalupe in the hope for a better life. When that fails to occur, there is understandable cultural pressure to return to one's roots in Aztec hagiography (for lack of a better term).

    Speaking of violence, the worship of Santa Muerte is especially popular in the violent subculture associated with drug cartels and their operations. This phenomenon warranted a feature article, "Troubled Spirits", in National Geographic.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/05/mexican-saints/

    Also, from Wikipedia:

    By the late 2000s, Santa Muerte had become Mexico's second-most popular saint, after Saint Jude and had come to rival the country's "national patroness", the Virgin of Guadalupe. The cult's rise was controversial, and in March 2009 the Mexican army demolished 40 roadside shrines near the U.S. border. Circa 2005, the Santa Muerte cult was brought to the United States by Mexican and Central American migrants, and by 2012 had tens of thousands of followers throughout the country, primarily in cities with high Latino populations. As of 2016, the cult of Santa Muerte is said to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the world, with an estimated 10 to 12 million followers.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte

    My thoughts exactly; I can confirm this with my own observation of the horrible decorum put forth by the Latrinos in “catholic” churches all across the southwestern US on the occasion of All-Saints (i.e. Halloween), with shameless permission of the local clergy. The “catholic” hierarchy in the US looks the other way from what is evidently a shallowly concealed mesoamerican cult, for the sake of inflating their numbers (and probably for other less avowable motives too). But yes indeed the Aztecs are not dead and they are still living amongst us.

  279. @Talha

    I wonder how much you can conclude about a population based on its ruling caste.
     
    Often not much...

    "The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour."
    - Abbasid Caliph, Ma'mum ar-Rashid

    Peace.

    Good example. It seems quite common for the ruling caste to be quite different. So it seems silly to conclude too much based on mummies, but sadly very much in line with the level of sophistication of much thinking today.

    • Replies: @Talha
    I don’t mind this, but at least drop the veneer of “objectivity” and come out straight and say you are challenging “we wuz kangz” with “wee wizz kingzz”.

    Peace.
  280. @Bliss

    Your first sentence displays a complete lack of reading comprehension. Or you just didn’t read my post, which is also fine.
     
    I read your posts and your stupidity and ignorance is too obvious for anyone to miss. You were claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were predominantly Semites from the Fertile Crescent. I pointed out that Egypt was more ancient than the Semites. Your response to that was that Sumer was older than Egypt. I pointed out that Sumerians were not Semites. Now instead of responding to my point you are bullshitting about my lack of comprehension. Obviously you could not respond reasonably without admitting that you were wrong or that you lied. An honestly ignorant person can be led to the truth but a willful liar such as yourself cannot.

    There are a quite a few facial reconstructions of Ancient Egyptians based on CT scans and DNA. I’ve actually recently seen some at a museum alongside the real mummies. They’re obviously primarily Caucasian and not substantially SSA.
     
    You must be thinking about the famous facial reconstruction of Tutankhamen which, btw, is controversial. Here is the reconstruction:

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/photogalleries/king_tut/images/primary/tut02.jpg

    And here are depictions of Tutankhamun from Ancient Egypt:

    https://media.npr.org/programs/re/archivesdate/2004/dec/interviews_hawass/main-3ba479b94f0f1d33601dab8cc7eda07c703a7d11-s600-c85.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/564x/01/1e/dd/011edd37083e8c122528ba2e371071cd--egypt-today-tutankhamun.jpg

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtPDyTDqtc30ooyIFwO6uW5Kst_GeeYP2M7PpzUCBadqQTfZC1

    Certainly does not look negroid to me!

  281. @Simpleguest
    "the Mongols probably still hold the world record for most people killed in the shortest amount of time."

    You have to be careful with statements like this one. This record probably goes to the Americans, if you take the atomic age into consideration.

    You have to be careful with statements like this one. This record probably goes to the Americans, if you take the atomic age into consideration.

    There is absolutely no doubt about that. Hard to beat many 1000s of kills within a few seconds.

  282. @TheJester
    The Aztec cults never died. They went underground.

    Besides the estimated 1.5 million Nahua peoples in Mexico ("indios mexicanos") that speak a dialect of Nahuatl (Aztec), there seems to be a residue of the Aztec religion and culture still extant in Mexico and among Mexicans just below the surface, especially among those who live on the fringes of society. This is expressed in the worship of Santa Muerte (Sacred Death), whose roots can be traced to pre-Columbian practices, including human sacrifice and the notorious Aztec skull towers to gain favor with the gods for healing, protection, financial wellbeing, and the assurance of a path to the afterlife.

    The worship of Santa Muerte has exploded in recent times, especially among the urban poor looking for an alternative to the traditional Catholic faith that has failed to deliver them from poverty and oppression.

    This fits in with the original 16th Century transformation of an Aztec goddess into Our Lady of Guadalupe in the hope for a better life. When that fails to occur, there is understandable cultural pressure to return to one's roots in Aztec hagiography (for lack of a better term).

    Speaking of violence, the worship of Santa Muerte is especially popular in the violent subculture associated with drug cartels and their operations. This phenomenon warranted a feature article, "Troubled Spirits", in National Geographic.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/05/mexican-saints/

    Also, from Wikipedia:

    By the late 2000s, Santa Muerte had become Mexico's second-most popular saint, after Saint Jude and had come to rival the country's "national patroness", the Virgin of Guadalupe. The cult's rise was controversial, and in March 2009 the Mexican army demolished 40 roadside shrines near the U.S. border. Circa 2005, the Santa Muerte cult was brought to the United States by Mexican and Central American migrants, and by 2012 had tens of thousands of followers throughout the country, primarily in cities with high Latino populations. As of 2016, the cult of Santa Muerte is said to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the world, with an estimated 10 to 12 million followers.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte

    Sounds like Mexico needs a real Inquisition.

  283. @Logan
    Capture people, tie them up and then do with them as you will.

    Despite modern technology, the Mongols probably still hold the world record for most people killed in the shortest amount of time.

    In multiple cases they captured a city, bound the inhabitants, distributed them among their soldiers and then at the signal everybody chopped heads.

    This is well documented, with the only real issue being how many people were in the city so treated. Records of the time talk about 1M+, but this is probably not true, as cities of such size were really, really scarce back then.

    But they probably did this to a good many cities of 100,000+ and quite possibly one or more of 250,000. So that's 100k to 250k people dead in a few minutes. Multiple times.

    Hiroshima, Hamburg and Tokyo weren't that efficient. Hiroshima was about 150,000 total, but only about half died on the first day. Hamburg was around 50,000. Tokyo was perhaps 100,000. Auschwitz supposedly reached peak "production" of about 20,000 in 24 hours.

    There is a commonly believed myth that you need "industrial methods" to kill a lot of people quickly. You don't. All you need is sharp blades and a lot of willing killers..

    Capture people, tie them up and then do with them as you will.

    Well — that is part of the problem. Have you ever tried to immobilize someone who does not want to be immobilized? How about many 1000s of such unwilling people? If you know you are going to be subjected to the most gruesome kinds of torture, why surrender and not fight until death? In both cases you will be killed; but the latter will be faster, less painful, and less humiliating. What’s the downside really of not letting yourself be tied up?

    Put yourself in this situation (by the way I mentally already have, having served in the military and having been through bootcamp which is conducive to this kind of introspection): you are with a handful of comrades, surrounded by an enemy with greater strength than yours for whatever reasons (number; ammunition; whatever). You know you cannot flee — and you also know they are going to crucify you when they catch you. What would you do?

    In multiple cases they captured a city, bound the inhabitants, distributed them among their soldiers and then at the signal everybody chopped heads.

    Again: in the absence of firearms, this model does not scale up. In order to achieve this plan, the executioners must overwhelm their victims. Otherwise the captives would simply just resist.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    You do not understand psychology and morale.

    It is not difficult to "break" someone down. Even very strong people. Not difficult at all. We are all vulnerable.

    A defeated army particularly has just suffered a catastrophic loss of morale, and unless it has tremendous reservoirs of morale to draw upon, usually because of a very strong spiritual basis, can easily be broken down into sheep. Russians in German concentration camps were sheep, as were Jews.

    The crucial element is psychology - a slave army is not likely to maintain morale and self respect after defeat by the mighty Roman empire. They were likely listless putty in the hands of their conquerors, finally accepting the "right" of the Romans to mete out justice to them.

    I am sorry to say it, but in a small scale I have seen how a confident person can be broken down.

    Almost all human battles are really fought on the level of psychology.

    One of the most remarkable things in history is the way the Romans maintained morale despite bring repeatedly defeated in the most crushing way by Hannibal. That is a lesson for the ages.
    , @anonymous

    You know you cannot flee — and you also know they are going to crucify you when they catch you.
     
    I remember that Mossad apparently did an experiment with their agents to see who would commit suicide given such obvious situations of "if you're captured, you're going to be tortured." Most men chose to kill themselves, but not at all. Of the women tested, almost none of them chose to kill themselves even in spite of certain death after capture.
    , @Logan
    You can come up with theories all you want about how people should behave, but my point has the advantage of being based on known historical facts about how people do behave.

    Let's look at the situation of someone is a city that's just surrendered to or been taken by storm by the Mongols after a long siege. You are pretty sure what's going to happen next, since the process is widely publicized by the Mongols to "encourage" populations not to resist.

    But you are 90% starved to death, probably ill and quite possibly wounded. You are certainly in total despair. So do you attack, with zero hope of success, or do you just give up? After all, a line of competent soldiers armed with blades is no more vulnerable to effective attack by unarmed men than the same group armed with AKs.

    In today's world, how many people charge the mass shooter? Not many, as can be seen by the fact that in most such situations if everybody automatically charged instantly the shooting wouldn't be very mass. Instead, people generally try to hide under a desk, though from a purely logical standpoint that makes no sense at all. And that's with people who are healthy.

    In the recent Eastwood movie about the Americans who took down the shooter on the train, they are lauded as great heroes, which they were. But from a purely logical standpoint, their actions were the entirely logical thing to do. Trapped in a railroad car with a shooter, it's not like they had the option of fleeing, whereas attacking had some slight chance of success. But most people in such a situation cower or try to run away.

    Which is why those who charged are considered heroes. They're not the norm.

  284. @Anonymous Jew
    Your first sentence displays a complete lack of reading comprehension. Or you just didn't read my post, which is also fine.

    The rest of your post re the Ashkenazi reminds me of a certain poster on a human biodiversity forum I've come across that posits wild theories of commonly accepted genetic research re modern Jews. Well, whatever. Maybe all these genetic researchers are part of a conspiracy and we really are Khazars. Fine with me.

    There are a quite a few facial reconstructions of Ancient Egyptians based on CT scans and DNA. I've actually recently seen some at a museum alongside the real mummies. They're obviously primarily Caucasian and not substantially SSA. Do they have some African ancestry? Yes, of course, just as Black Americans have some English ancestry. Are Black Americans a Caucasian race because the median Black person is roughly 15% White? (25% average White but it's not uniformly distributed, so I'm not sure what the median is - maybe someone here does).

    Anyways, I'm talking about genetic differences not geographic/continental ones. The mummies that have been tested (regardless of geography, culture, history, etc) are not a Black African people anymore than Black Americans are a European people. They're Caucasians with a small amount of Black admixture.

    Again, I'm not talking about history, culture, etc. Just common-sense genetic classification of human subspecies.

    And oh yes, we Jews wuz kangz!

    I’m talking about genetic differences not geographic/continental ones. The mummies that have been tested (regardless of geography, culture, history, etc) are not a Black African people anymore than Black Americans are a European people. They’re Caucasians with a small amount of Black admixture.

    Unfortunately for you the mummy of Ramesses III a Pharaoh of native Egyptian ancestry was genetically tested and found to have the paternal Y-DNA Haplogroup E1b1a which is subsaharan african.

    Caucasians with a small amount of black admixture tend to look like this:

    James Watson (16% Black):

    Not like this:

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    Again with the Y-chromosome. There are 90+% Black African "African Americans" walking around with English/Irish Y chromosomes and there are blonde, blue-eyed White guys that have a Jewish great-grandfather walking around with Middle Eastern Y chromosomes. So the fact that Ramesses III had a SSA Y chromosome doesn't tell us much.

    So what did the rest of Ramesses III's DNA look like? Was he 5% SSA? 35%? 55%? I'd genuinely like to know. Here's your chance to change my thinking.

    You could gather data on all of the Egyptian mummies, sort them by year, and provide the total SSA admixture for each of them.

    In response to the pictures:

    IIRC, didn't the Ancient Egyptians distinguish between themselves and SSA (Nubians?) in paintings and writing? They depicted SSA as having different lips, noses (see the bridge in particular), and complexions, etc. I'd like to hear from any experts.

    For example, see here ("ancient Egyptian depction of mankind"):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Four-%27species%27-of--Egypt.jpg

    So Ancient Egypt was 4-5,000 years ago, and let's say some of the alleles for White skin began to spread about 10,000 years ago. There's no reason you wouldn't find Caucasians that dark back then. In fact, you can still find Caucasians that dark today.

    Look at the nose bridge, as it's distinctly different between SSA and Caucasians. All the pictures I can find of Pharaohs show a distinctly Caucasian bridge. Please show me an exception that looks like the typical Egyptian depiction of a SSA (per above) with a recessed nose bridge, protruding lips and black skin.

    In sum, I'm open to any theories that people here want to espouse, but you have to first reconcile those theories with recent DNA findings. This is not like DNA research that tries to distinguish the Roman from Levantine admixture in the Ashkenazi. The DNA of SSA is relatively easy to distinguish from other races so there's far less guesswork. Second, there's the depiction of the different races in Egyptian paintings, and their depiction of a distinct and separate SSA race unlike themselves.

  285. @Guillaume Tell

    Capture people, tie them up and then do with them as you will.
     
    Well — that is part of the problem. Have you ever tried to immobilize someone who does not want to be immobilized? How about many 1000s of such unwilling people? If you know you are going to be subjected to the most gruesome kinds of torture, why surrender and not fight until death? In both cases you will be killed; but the latter will be faster, less painful, and less humiliating. What’s the downside really of not letting yourself be tied up?

    Put yourself in this situation (by the way I mentally already have, having served in the military and having been through bootcamp which is conducive to this kind of introspection): you are with a handful of comrades, surrounded by an enemy with greater strength than yours for whatever reasons (number; ammunition; whatever). You know you cannot flee — and you also know they are going to crucify you when they catch you. What would you do?


    In multiple cases they captured a city, bound the inhabitants, distributed them among their soldiers and then at the signal everybody chopped heads.
     
    Again: in the absence of firearms, this model does not scale up. In order to achieve this plan, the executioners must overwhelm their victims. Otherwise the captives would simply just resist.

    You do not understand psychology and morale.

    It is not difficult to “break” someone down. Even very strong people. Not difficult at all. We are all vulnerable.

    A defeated army particularly has just suffered a catastrophic loss of morale, and unless it has tremendous reservoirs of morale to draw upon, usually because of a very strong spiritual basis, can easily be broken down into sheep. Russians in German concentration camps were sheep, as were Jews.

    The crucial element is psychology – a slave army is not likely to maintain morale and self respect after defeat by the mighty Roman empire. They were likely listless putty in the hands of their conquerors, finally accepting the “right” of the Romans to mete out justice to them.

    I am sorry to say it, but in a small scale I have seen how a confident person can be broken down.

    Almost all human battles are really fought on the level of psychology.

    One of the most remarkable things in history is the way the Romans maintained morale despite bring repeatedly defeated in the most crushing way by Hannibal. That is a lesson for the ages.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell

    You do not understand psychology and morale.
     
    If you say so, that must be true, right? By the way have you ever served in the military? Here we all do and as I wrote earlier about my experience in bootcamp, I fully understand how easy it is to break someone. But you probably missed my comment in that regard.

    You also probably missed my other comment where I was referring to a mental state of stunning due to extreme stress as a plausible explanation for such a submissive behavior (accepting to be put to death through agonizing torture without even trying to rebel).

    But when one wants to become the guru of one’s own cult, there is no need to really pay attention to what others are adtually saying, is there?

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your concluding remarks prompt the thought that people with civilizations based on cities may be very resilient against nomads and raiders. (Hannibal was in a sense just a raider).Byzantium held out for centuries. Vienna stood against the Mongols and Ottomans. The Western Roman Empire only fell after the Goths' taking of Rome in the 5th century. Perhaps a combination of having a secure snd comprehensive culture with a possibility of military defence.
  286. @DFH
    Are you talking about this? (unfortunately I can't get it on sci-hub)

    https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/dissertations/AAI9925492/

    It says that the Cheyenne's performance IQ is higher than average but that the Full-scale IQ is (contrary to your comment) significantly lower.

    No, that is not what I was talking about.

    • Replies: @DFH
    Then what were you talking about?
  287. @iffen
    BTW, if this Aztec stuff interests you, you definitely need to watch Mel Gibson's Apocalypto.
    It is a very good movie.

    BTW, if this Aztec stuff interests you, you definitely need to watch Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto.
    It is a very good movie.

    This movie is a hash of Aztec and Mayan. The Mayans did not do nearly as much human sacrifice as Azteca. Apocalypto takes place more in a Mayan environment. Just look where it was shot. Still a great movie. Mel Gibson was a driven genius to pull this off with all the filming done down there in steamy jungles and finding good, native enough actors. What a production!

  288. @TheJester
    The Aztec cults never died. They went underground.

    Besides the estimated 1.5 million Nahua peoples in Mexico ("indios mexicanos") that speak a dialect of Nahuatl (Aztec), there seems to be a residue of the Aztec religion and culture still extant in Mexico and among Mexicans just below the surface, especially among those who live on the fringes of society. This is expressed in the worship of Santa Muerte (Sacred Death), whose roots can be traced to pre-Columbian practices, including human sacrifice and the notorious Aztec skull towers to gain favor with the gods for healing, protection, financial wellbeing, and the assurance of a path to the afterlife.

    The worship of Santa Muerte has exploded in recent times, especially among the urban poor looking for an alternative to the traditional Catholic faith that has failed to deliver them from poverty and oppression.

    This fits in with the original 16th Century transformation of an Aztec goddess into Our Lady of Guadalupe in the hope for a better life. When that fails to occur, there is understandable cultural pressure to return to one's roots in Aztec hagiography (for lack of a better term).

    Speaking of violence, the worship of Santa Muerte is especially popular in the violent subculture associated with drug cartels and their operations. This phenomenon warranted a feature article, "Troubled Spirits", in National Geographic.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/05/mexican-saints/

    Also, from Wikipedia:

    By the late 2000s, Santa Muerte had become Mexico's second-most popular saint, after Saint Jude and had come to rival the country's "national patroness", the Virgin of Guadalupe. The cult's rise was controversial, and in March 2009 the Mexican army demolished 40 roadside shrines near the U.S. border. Circa 2005, the Santa Muerte cult was brought to the United States by Mexican and Central American migrants, and by 2012 had tens of thousands of followers throughout the country, primarily in cities with high Latino populations. As of 2016, the cult of Santa Muerte is said to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the world, with an estimated 10 to 12 million followers.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte

    The Aztec cults never died. They went underground.
    Besides the estimated 1.5 million Nahua peoples in Mexico (“indios mexicanos”) that speak a dialect of Nahuatl (Aztec), there seems to be a residue of the Aztec religion and culture still extant in Mexico and among Mexicans just below the surface

    True! The Cartels love killing the competition in creative ways. Very gruesome to say the least. Complete innocents also get caught up in this.

  289. @AaronB
    You do not understand psychology and morale.

    It is not difficult to "break" someone down. Even very strong people. Not difficult at all. We are all vulnerable.

    A defeated army particularly has just suffered a catastrophic loss of morale, and unless it has tremendous reservoirs of morale to draw upon, usually because of a very strong spiritual basis, can easily be broken down into sheep. Russians in German concentration camps were sheep, as were Jews.

    The crucial element is psychology - a slave army is not likely to maintain morale and self respect after defeat by the mighty Roman empire. They were likely listless putty in the hands of their conquerors, finally accepting the "right" of the Romans to mete out justice to them.

    I am sorry to say it, but in a small scale I have seen how a confident person can be broken down.

    Almost all human battles are really fought on the level of psychology.

    One of the most remarkable things in history is the way the Romans maintained morale despite bring repeatedly defeated in the most crushing way by Hannibal. That is a lesson for the ages.

    You do not understand psychology and morale.

    If you say so, that must be true, right? By the way have you ever served in the military? Here we all do and as I wrote earlier about my experience in bootcamp, I fully understand how easy it is to break someone. But you probably missed my comment in that regard.

    You also probably missed my other comment where I was referring to a mental state of stunning due to extreme stress as a plausible explanation for such a submissive behavior (accepting to be put to death through agonizing torture without even trying to rebel).

    But when one wants to become the guru of one’s own cult, there is no need to really pay attention to what others are adtually saying, is there?

    • Replies: @AaronB

    You also probably missed my other comment where I was referring to a mental state of stunning due to extreme stress as a plausible explanation for such a submissive behavior (accepting to be put to death through agonizing torture without even trying to rebel).
     
    I did miss that comment. So if you understand, then there is no mystery.
    , @reiner Tor
    The rebellious slaves were cut from all possible supplies and were probably starving. After the battle the vast majority of them were killed, but they managed to capture some 6,000 of them. Another 5,000 were captured later by Pompey’s legions. The 6,000 were probably exhausted, starving, thirsty, unarmed (to save their lives they probably threw away their weapons) and psychologically broken. Many of them could have been injured. The 5,000 were (besides these conditions) probably captured one by one, each of them by an overwhelming force.

    By the way the passivity of the Jews in places like Treblinka was also strange, they could have caused considerable trouble to the Nazis if they refused to cooperate, but they were so broken that they followed the orders and undressed and went on their own feet to the gas chambers. I think I would’ve refused it, but it’s difficult to know how psychologically broken these people were.
  290. @Thorfinnsson
    Off-topic

    Trump and Putin have agreed to a summit in Helsinki on July 16th.

    A transcript of the G7 meeting was allegedly released to Axios: https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-foreign-policy-europe-nato-allies-worried-bd1e143a-e73a-415b-b688-d18ab2d902e7.html

    Noteworthy:


    Trump made the comment after telling the G7 leaders that Crimea probably should belong to Russia because everyone there speaks Russian, the source added.
     
    That said I'm not that optimistic about the summit for the simple reason that almost everyone in DC other than Trump is now hysterically opposed to Russia, and Russophobia is codified in law which Trump can't overturn.

    And lol at Eurocucks:

    Trump reinforced some of the Europeans' worst fears that he'll take a purely transactional approach to next month's summit.
     

    As opposed to...?

    Thorfinnsson, while we are off-topic, and because you are posting under the name of the first known white man born in America, I want to ask you what you think of this theory according to which the white europeans would currently be going through an evolutionary bottleneck.

    Essentially, this theory goes as follows: the astounding success encountered by europeans over the past half millenium has allowed to survive individuals not especially fit for survival as a result of their pathological altruism. We are seeing the effects of this negative selective pressure in the form of inability to defend one’s country — something which is especially apparent in the case of white countries. However, this ill-fit will be naturally filtered out by darwinian selection, as can be already observed with the near-sterility of liberal, « educated » (indoctrinated really) young white wymyn.

    Any strong opinions about that?

  291. • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    I also find it very disturbing that so many cannibals claim it is addictive, like a drug.

    Oddly more comforting that so many people think they are witches and want to kill them all.

    But this part is funny: accused cannibal Sthembiso Sithole.
  292. @Talha
    Also, if you want a good source for a very concise (within 200 pages) and authoritative view of the subject, I would highly recommend this book (which is fairly inexpensive):
    https://turath.co.uk/shop/islam-and-politics/

    Here is a sample of the table of contents:
    https://turath.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Islam-and-Politics-sample-pages-.pdf

    It covers a high-level understanding of the basic outlines of how Islam influences government. It is written from a classical/traditional viewpoint as well as the practical/pragmatic one that takes our current environment (nation-state, post-WW2, etc.) into consideration.

    The author is one of the top scholars in the Muslim world and served as Grand Mufti of Pakistan and was involved in negotiating the integration of Shariah codes into governance. So he has firsthand practical knowledge about how these things work.

    Peace.

    Talha, thank you for the recommendation.

    Conciseness is good (I have a tendency to read long books halfway and only finish them much later on).

    I will have to cut our conversation short on the other thread, I am going on vacation (well, I was already on vacation in the sense that I was away from school but I wasn’t doing much before) to visit relatives for a few weeks; so I won’t be here at UR much (if at all) and unable to give comprehensive answers.

    • Replies: @Talha
    My pleasure. Keeping family bonds is a great thing.

    May God take you to your destination and back with safety.

    Peace.
  293. @Guillaume Tell

    You do not understand psychology and morale.
     
    If you say so, that must be true, right? By the way have you ever served in the military? Here we all do and as I wrote earlier about my experience in bootcamp, I fully understand how easy it is to break someone. But you probably missed my comment in that regard.

    You also probably missed my other comment where I was referring to a mental state of stunning due to extreme stress as a plausible explanation for such a submissive behavior (accepting to be put to death through agonizing torture without even trying to rebel).

    But when one wants to become the guru of one’s own cult, there is no need to really pay attention to what others are adtually saying, is there?

    You also probably missed my other comment where I was referring to a mental state of stunning due to extreme stress as a plausible explanation for such a submissive behavior (accepting to be put to death through agonizing torture without even trying to rebel).

    I did miss that comment. So if you understand, then there is no mystery.

  294. @j2
    Selective breeding has been known long as is the idea of agriculture and animal breeding, but how did sacrifice start and why is it associated with agriculture?

    Sacrifice (plant, animal or human) is rare in hunter-gatherer societies. It is common in agricultural societies. Human sacrifice is most common in societies where rain water was needed, not irrigation by rivers. It has been suggested that it is because of the uncertainty of rain. Agricultural societies also gazed stars and have the world tree myth, which should be the Polar Star myth. That myth naturally leads to the concept of times: the Polar star changes over time. The concept of times includes the end of the times and a catastrophe at the end of the times, which often includes a sacrifice.

    "ALL Aztec deities and all Mayan deities required human sacrifice in one form or another. Human sacrifice was holistic in meso-american religions." This is true. Most of the humans were sacrificed to the sun god (tribal god) Huitzilopochtli, but humans were sacrificed to most gods. The Aztec corn god was Centeotl, but seems that Aztecs did not sacrifice humans to this god. In Palenque, there were the Maya gods the Feathered Serpent and the Maize God as the main gods depicted in the buildings and there I think the sacrifices were for the Maize God, but I am not sure. However, let facts not destroy a fine theory in so hazy area as the origin of religion. Sacrifice started from something and has a connection to agriculture, so the god of agriculture must have originally been there.

    It is interesting that endogamous groups should be less cannibalistic than exogamous, it does not fit to Kevin MacDonald's phobia of endogamous groups. (Matrilinear more cannibalistic? Bonobos do not count matrilinearly or patrilinearly but females are higher in hierarchy and they are peaceful apes.) The New World is obviously very different, no wonder we worry about the New World Order.

    I know I wrote a bit rubbish, but sometimes it is nice to do so.

    I’m curious, do you know any of the cultures with this world tree axis myth? I thought that was specifically associated with shamanism from north eurasia. But I checked wikipedia and ironically it says also the aztecs and maya, I did not know they had an aztec yggdrasil. That comes out of nowhere to me, I guess it’s not just north eurasia.

    At any rate, this type of speculation may be technically rubbish from the modern perspective but I think it is valid to speculate about this stuff and you may be right about some of that.

    • Replies: @j2
    The world tree myth seems to come from Northern India, from around the place where Y-DNA haplogroup K may have spread to many branches. They have a myth of the world pillar (probably some of those high mountains), it is also known just above North Korea where the comb ceramic started, earliest pottery. In the Indian myth the pillar is shamba, in Finnish mythology Sampo, in the Near East it is the Near East it is the Tree of Life. I place the origin to 17,000 BC when Deneb was the Polar Star and the connection to Aztec sacrifices could be that the theory of the world pillar is that the pillar moves (precession of equinoxes) in about 2000 years and starts a new times. The sacrifices were made to prevent the times from ending as the end is a catastrophe. (crazy theory, but actually not so)
    I am no expert in this and only have a bit studied the topic, but if you are interested on my findings, so I wrote some posts: (just for fun, very speculative)

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/01/15/the-polar-star-and-human-migrations-in-prehistoric-europe/

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/05/23/paradise-was-lost-9500-bc-the-myth-of-the-original-sin-is-in-the-stars/

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/06/04/the-polar-star-baal-cycle-messiah-and-the-temple/

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/05/30/the-fall-of-one-civilization-and-the-end-of-the-times-around-3000-bc/

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/06/01/the-very-ancient-origin-of-our-concept-of-god/
  295. @utu
    Hundreds confess to eating human flesh in South Africa
    https://nypost.com/2017/08/22/hundreds-confess-to-eating-human-flesh-in-south-africa/

    5 arrested in alleged South Africa cannibalism ring after man tells police he’s ‘tired of eating human flesh’
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/29/5-arrested-in-alleged-south-africa-cannibalism-ring-after-man-walks-into-police-station-saying-hes-tired-of-eating-human-flesh/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4eada225921f

    Cannibalism is not a crime, says expert
    https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/1630805/cannibalism-is-not-a-crime-says-expert/

    Cannibalism: ‘WitchCraft’ or Mental Illness?
    https://thisisafrica.me/lifestyle/cannibalism-witchcraft-mental-illness/

    Should South Africa legalize cannibalism?
    http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-south-africa-legalize-cannibalism

    I also find it very disturbing that so many cannibals claim it is addictive, like a drug.

    Oddly more comforting that so many people think they are witches and want to kill them all.

    But this part is funny: accused cannibal Sthembiso Sithole.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Oddly more comforting that so many people think they are witches and want to kill them all.
     
    Yes, it’s just comforting. The South African savages, for all their faults, are thoroughly opposed to this.
  296. @Bliss

    Your first sentence displays a complete lack of reading comprehension. Or you just didn’t read my post, which is also fine.
     
    I read your posts and your stupidity and ignorance is too obvious for anyone to miss. You were claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were predominantly Semites from the Fertile Crescent. I pointed out that Egypt was more ancient than the Semites. Your response to that was that Sumer was older than Egypt. I pointed out that Sumerians were not Semites. Now instead of responding to my point you are bullshitting about my lack of comprehension. Obviously you could not respond reasonably without admitting that you were wrong or that you lied. An honestly ignorant person can be led to the truth but a willful liar such as yourself cannot.

    There are a quite a few facial reconstructions of Ancient Egyptians based on CT scans and DNA. I’ve actually recently seen some at a museum alongside the real mummies. They’re obviously primarily Caucasian and not substantially SSA.
     
    You must be thinking about the famous facial reconstruction of Tutankhamen which, btw, is controversial. Here is the reconstruction:

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/photogalleries/king_tut/images/primary/tut02.jpg

    And here are depictions of Tutankhamun from Ancient Egypt:

    https://media.npr.org/programs/re/archivesdate/2004/dec/interviews_hawass/main-3ba479b94f0f1d33601dab8cc7eda07c703a7d11-s600-c85.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/564x/01/1e/dd/011edd37083e8c122528ba2e371071cd--egypt-today-tutankhamun.jpg

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtPDyTDqtc30ooyIFwO6uW5Kst_GeeYP2M7PpzUCBadqQTfZC1

    I’ll make this as simple as possible:

    The DNA of Egyptian mummies is primarily Caucasian in origin. Does this fact hurt your feelings? To be fair, as another poster noted, this doesn’t necessarily mean the majority of Egyptians had the same racial makeup as the ruling class. Also note that Caucasians come in many different colors. Just a couple thousand years before the Ancient Egyptians there may have still been dark-skinned people in Northern Europe.

    For the sake of argument, I will retract all of my other points and concede everything else to you. Maybe the ancestors of Ancient Egyptians didn’t walk across the Sinai. Maybe they were another group that sailed from somewhere else. You can tell me which way the language flowed, etc. I’ll even concede your bizarre theory on the origin of Ashkenazi Jews (though I’m curious as to how you reconcile it with DNA evidence, both Y-chromosome and autosomal).

    To repeat, the only point I’m left making is that the Pharaohs were not SSA. It’s relatively easy to distinguish the DNA of Black Africans from other groups.

    BTW: are you Black? Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ancient Egyptians – or even just the ruling class – were somehow “Black”? Why not go where the evidence takes you? It seems more appropriate to rethink your understanding of history in light of new DNA evidence than to stubbornly cling to prior beliefs/conclusions.

    On a personal note, as DNA research established that Ashkenazi Jews are primarily European my reaction was “meh”. I could care less if we came from Khazars. I’d rather know how history really unfolded. I’d bet money that some Palestinian groups have a much greater genetic affinity to the Biblical Jews than the Ashkenazi. And if we suddenly found some ancient Jewish mummies I would be happy to see their DNA tested, whatever the results.

    • Replies: @j2
    To see the origins of Egyptians you have to look at the mtDNA of North Africans, like Egyptians. It is not L like in SSA. The main Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b has the spread of afro-asian languages. Bantus spread E (notably E1b1a) to much of Africa, but it spread from the north, like R1b in Cameroon.

    In the Middle East there were three different peoples at the start of agriculture. Natufians were Y-DNA E1b1b and they cultivated barley, Anatolians were Y-DNA G1a, they cultivated wheat and spread agriculture to Europe, Iranians started herding sheep and goats and had Y-DNA subgroups of P and J. Semites are J1/2 and come originally from herders. Sumers were most probably a mixture of all three peoples. All of these people are white (Caucasian). E1b1b people probably spread to North Africa, or came from the Horn of Africa and in North Africa they have old SSA admixture (before the slave trade). Original Levantine people (Natufians) had Y-DNA E1b1b. Semites Y-DNA J1 were quite early in Arabian peninsula and in Sumer, Akkadian is a Semitic language, Gutians destroyed Sumer/Akkad, not known who they were genetically. How the J2/J1 Semites got an afro-asian language? Possibly it was adapted from E1b1b people, not known. Greeks have J2 but also R1b, so J2 people probably were the older, not Indo-European and not Semitic.

    As for Jews, Ashkenazi or not, they are Caucasian, like are the Middle Eastern people and North Africans. Ashkenazi Jews have 55-65% European admixture, mostly Italian, less Eastern European. The rest is still Mediterranean, so it is white and does not much differ from Greeks. Greeks and Turks are almost the same people, as Turkish tribes, which brought the language, did not much change the genetics of Anatolia. The division in Europe/Middle East is south-north where the northern peoples have Y-DNA I2, I1, R1a, R1b, N1 and C and admixture from south, while the southern have G1a, J2, J1, E1b1b, L and so on. As main races of humans all of these are whites and the differences between them are small.
    , @Bliss

    Maybe the ancestors of Ancient Egyptians didn’t walk across the Sinai. Maybe they were another group that sailed from somewhere else.
     
    Too funny. Look at a frickin map. Look at the Deep South of Egypt where the civilization began. How many hundreds of miles is that from the Mediterranean?

    To repeat, the only point I’m left making is that the Pharaohs were not SSA. It’s relatively easy to distinguish the DNA of Black Africans from other groups.
     
    The “only point you are left making” is as wrong as all your other points. Civilizations are founded by men and royal lineages are traced on the paternal line. DNA test results reveal that the Y-DNA Haplogroup of the Pharaohs of the 20th Egyptian Dynasty, which was a native Egyptian dynasty, is E1b1a. Which is sub-Saharan.
  297. @Wally
    said:
    "The man has talent, even if he says stupid shit when he’s intoxicated.

    What "stupid shit" did he say?

    And why was it "stupid"?

    www.codoh.com

    Hey Wally, do neo-Nazis get a quantity discount on de-bunking oil?

    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Wally


    That's it? That's your response? You are just another ignorant redneck Zionist.

    IOW, you have no answers for my questions to you, which were:

    What "stupid shit" did he say?

    And why was it "stupid"?


    iffen, another ignorant Zionist who dodges because he has no answers. LOL
  298. @Hyperborean
    Talha, thank you for the recommendation.

    Conciseness is good (I have a tendency to read long books halfway and only finish them much later on).

    I will have to cut our conversation short on the other thread, I am going on vacation (well, I was already on vacation in the sense that I was away from school but I wasn't doing much before) to visit relatives for a few weeks; so I won't be here at UR much (if at all) and unable to give comprehensive answers.

    My pleasure. Keeping family bonds is a great thing.

    May God take you to your destination and back with safety.

    Peace.

  299. Anonymous [AKA "Fitzman"] says:
    @German_reader
    I think he was offended that you like Braveheart, because it's so anti-English (and probably also quite historically inaccurate). That other movie by Mel Gibson about the American revolutionary war was also pretty bad in this regard.
    Apocalypto is great though.

    Of course, over the past several centuries the English have given many peoples throughout the world more than ample reason to be “anti English”, having committed outrages as savage as any in human history. In my opinion the most egregious “historical inaccuracies” are those portraying them as paragons of civility, fairness and enlightenment.

  300. anonymous[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @Guillaume Tell

    Capture people, tie them up and then do with them as you will.
     
    Well — that is part of the problem. Have you ever tried to immobilize someone who does not want to be immobilized? How about many 1000s of such unwilling people? If you know you are going to be subjected to the most gruesome kinds of torture, why surrender and not fight until death? In both cases you will be killed; but the latter will be faster, less painful, and less humiliating. What’s the downside really of not letting yourself be tied up?

    Put yourself in this situation (by the way I mentally already have, having served in the military and having been through bootcamp which is conducive to this kind of introspection): you are with a handful of comrades, surrounded by an enemy with greater strength than yours for whatever reasons (number; ammunition; whatever). You know you cannot flee — and you also know they are going to crucify you when they catch you. What would you do?


    In multiple cases they captured a city, bound the inhabitants, distributed them among their soldiers and then at the signal everybody chopped heads.
     
    Again: in the absence of firearms, this model does not scale up. In order to achieve this plan, the executioners must overwhelm their victims. Otherwise the captives would simply just resist.

    You know you cannot flee — and you also know they are going to crucify you when they catch you.

    I remember that Mossad apparently did an experiment with their agents to see who would commit suicide given such obvious situations of “if you’re captured, you’re going to be tortured.” Most men chose to kill themselves, but not at all. Of the women tested, almost none of them chose to kill themselves even in spite of certain death after capture.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell
    That is interesting. Thank you for this comment.

    This would supprt the following hypothesis that I am making, namely, that our minds have evolved to the point where delaying inevitable death takes precedence over all other costs. As if the “objective function” that we try to optimize in real time, all the time, put an infinite weight on immediate death itself (and not on assured but slightly delayed death — albeit in atrocious circumstances).

    Another way to look at it might be that we are wired to believe in some miraculous outcome being always posssible. And women would be more prone to this “pathological hope”.

    By the way I have always found it intriguing that the 3 Abrahamic religions (using this approximative designation here for concision) would all be against suicide under ANY condition. I think that suicide can be, in some cases, the ultimate act of courage and decency.
  301. azteks were 40% ancetral north eurasians nearly as pure as the yamna the ones who spread all over the world conquering , genociding and slaving entire populations, they are the ultimate war machine
    look at the chechen with 28% of north eurasian ancestry,the highest in europe you as russian know of what im speaking off
    ANE people evolved to fight against mamuts and other megafaunas in the ancient time not to live in
    the confy modern world,they were out of place already when the spaniards arrive

  302. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Because the brutal, human sacrificing, slave keeping Incas were hated by the other subjugated, enslaved tribes.
     
    Wow.

    [MORE]

    “Wow” … only to the uninformed.

    http://www.codoh.com

  303. @iffen
    Hey Wally, do neo-Nazis get a quantity discount on de-bunking oil?

    [MORE]

    That’s it? That’s your response? You are just another ignorant redneck Zionist.

    IOW, you have no answers for my questions to you, which were:

    What “stupid shit” did he say?

    And why was it “stupid”?

    iffen, another ignorant Zionist who dodges because he has no answers. LOL

    • Replies: @iffen

    That’s it? That’s your response? You are just another ignorant redneck Zionist.

    IOW, you have no answers for my questions to you, which were:

    What “stupid shit” did he say?

    And why was it “stupid”?

    iffen, another ignorant Zionist who dodges because he has no answers. LOL
     

    Gibson climaxed with the words, "Fucking Jews... the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you a Jew?"[193][194] The arresting Sheriff's Deputy, James Mee, was Jewish

     

    Quite stupid to directly denigrate the arresting officer. He should have asked, "Are you a Jew?" first.
  304. @Mr. Hack
    Well, it seems easy enough to calculate which of the two parts of your formula for a successful civilization was lacking for the Ethiopians, for I don't think that their Christian religious zeal has ever been in question. So, it seems that the 'out of Africa' paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased? I wonder why?...

    ‘So, it seems that the ‘out of Africa’ paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased? I wonder why?…’

    My own pet theory is that in tropical Africa, resistance to disease and the fecundity necessary to overcome very high rates of infant mortality were disproportionately important.

    As man moved out of tropical Africa, intellectual ability became more important. If you can think of sewing clothes, you get to live through winter! How about saving some dried meat for when these animals move off?

    Etc. In non-tropical environments — at least for paleolithic hunter-gatherers — disease and the resulting mortality would be less of a concern. On the other hand, the rewards for innovation and foresight would escalate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    Don't Eskimos have the highest IQs among hunter-gatherers?
  305. @AaronB
    Good example. It seems quite common for the ruling caste to be quite different. So it seems silly to conclude too much based on mummies, but sadly very much in line with the level of sophistication of much thinking today.

    I don’t mind this, but at least drop the veneer of “objectivity” and come out straight and say you are challenging “we wuz kangz” with “wee wizz kingzz”.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Went straight over my head sorry :)
  306. @Dmitry
    Jacob Burckhardt was a friend of Nietzsche. In fact, the two were colleagues at the University of Basel (in Switzerland).

    Jacob Burckhardt was a friend of Nietzsche. In fact, the two were colleagues at the University of Basel (in Switzerland).

    I know that. But Burckhardt is famous not for friendship with Nietzsche, but for his outstanding historical works. For local religious fanatics, I can add that Buchardt was a Christian, of very conservative (though unorthodox) views

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Yes yes, and Nietzsche has written down this theory at the same time he is colleagues of the venerable Professor Burckhardt in Switzerland.
  307. @Talha

    I eat too much probably-pork meat to qualify
     
    And there are Muslims who drink alcohol. They're still Muslim, but have a weakness in that regard. One is not expected to be perfect - everyone has their pet sins. One is simply expected to recognize Who sets the rules and to try.

    and some kind of religious instructor
     
    No way - I am a student. I have been learning under scholars (part time) for years and for a particular school (Hanafi). The only ones my teachers have given me permission to teach are young boys in the basics of the religion.

    My wife is very close to getting her alimiyyah degree though in the Hanafi school, so she will be qualified to teach for your average adult what they need to navigate through most of their life. Not give fatwas or anything (you need extra years of specialization for that), just basic guidance.

    Peace.

    One is not expected to be perfect – everyone has their pet sins. One is simply expected to recognize Who sets the rules and to try.

    Some of them do mind. I got lectured once for eating pork once by a Muslim, a somewhat presumptuous one in fact – despite the fact that aside from my ambiguous appearance, I had never given any indication that we shared the same faith, which he should have really guessed from knowing my name.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I got lectured once for eating pork once by a Muslim
     
    As I said, everyone has their pet sins - for some it is the arrogance involved in butting in to other peoples’ business without warrant.

    Peace.
  308. @Colin Wright
    'So, it seems that the ‘out of Africa’ paradigm (and its several variants) that is pretty much orthodox dogma today, indicates that as human beings moved out of Africa and their skin tone mellowed to whiter tones, due to the colder and less sun soaked environments that they acquired, for some reason their intelligence increased? I wonder why?…'

    My own pet theory is that in tropical Africa, resistance to disease and the fecundity necessary to overcome very high rates of infant mortality were disproportionately important.

    As man moved out of tropical Africa, intellectual ability became more important. If you can think of sewing clothes, you get to live through winter! How about saving some dried meat for when these animals move off?

    Etc. In non-tropical environments -- at least for paleolithic hunter-gatherers -- disease and the resulting mortality would be less of a concern. On the other hand, the rewards for innovation and foresight would escalate.

    Don’t Eskimos have the highest IQs among hunter-gatherers?

  309. @Bliss

    I’m talking about genetic differences not geographic/continental ones. The mummies that have been tested (regardless of geography, culture, history, etc) are not a Black African people anymore than Black Americans are a European people. They’re Caucasians with a small amount of Black admixture.
     
    Unfortunately for you the mummy of Ramesses III a Pharaoh of native Egyptian ancestry was genetically tested and found to have the paternal Y-DNA Haplogroup E1b1a which is subsaharan african.


    Caucasians with a small amount of black admixture tend to look like this:

    James Watson (16% Black):

    https://i.pinimg.com/236x/4b/f8/e4/4bf8e4d944d091ef7ca243d46824a38e--james-watson-inventors.jpg


    Not like this:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Egyptian_Farmers.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/GD-EG-Caire-Mus%C3%A9e120.JPG

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/AmenhotepIII.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/%C3%84gyptischer_Maler_um_1360_v._Chr._002.jpg/1759px-%C3%84gyptischer_Maler_um_1360_v._Chr._002.jpg

    Again with the Y-chromosome. There are 90+% Black African “African Americans” walking around with English/Irish Y chromosomes and there are blonde, blue-eyed White guys that have a Jewish great-grandfather walking around with Middle Eastern Y chromosomes. So the fact that Ramesses III had a SSA Y chromosome doesn’t tell us much.

    So what did the rest of Ramesses III’s DNA look like? Was he 5% SSA? 35%? 55%? I’d genuinely like to know. Here’s your chance to change my thinking.

    You could gather data on all of the Egyptian mummies, sort them by year, and provide the total SSA admixture for each of them.

    In response to the pictures:

    IIRC, didn’t the Ancient Egyptians distinguish between themselves and SSA (Nubians?) in paintings and writing? They depicted SSA as having different lips, noses (see the bridge in particular), and complexions, etc. I’d like to hear from any experts.

    For example, see here (“ancient Egyptian depction of mankind”):
    So Ancient Egypt was 4-5,000 years ago, and let’s say some of the alleles for White skin began to spread about 10,000 years ago. There’s no reason you wouldn’t find Caucasians that dark back then. In fact, you can still find Caucasians that dark today.

    Look at the nose bridge, as it’s distinctly different between SSA and Caucasians. All the pictures I can find of Pharaohs show a distinctly Caucasian bridge. Please show me an exception that looks like the typical Egyptian depiction of a SSA (per above) with a recessed nose bridge, protruding lips and black skin.

    In sum, I’m open to any theories that people here want to espouse, but you have to first reconcile those theories with recent DNA findings. This is not like DNA research that tries to distinguish the Roman from Levantine admixture in the Ashkenazi. The DNA of SSA is relatively easy to distinguish from other races so there’s far less guesswork. Second, there’s the depiction of the different races in Egyptian paintings, and their depiction of a distinct and separate SSA race unlike themselves.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Again with the Y-chromosome. There are 90+% Black African “African Americans” walking around with English/Irish Y chromosomes and there are blonde, blue-eyed White guys that have a Jewish great-grandfather walking around with Middle Eastern Y chromosomes. So the fact that Ramesses III had a SSA Y chromosome doesn’t tell us much.
     
    Unfortunately again for your desperate attempts to deny the africanness of the Ancient Egyptians, we have the eyewitness testimony of ancient Greeks (a people far more honorable than your racist ilk):

    Herodotus 2.104:

    Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians
    to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were
    founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly
    hair, which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations
    are so too; but further and more especially, on the circumstance that
    the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations
    who have practised circumcision from the earliest times.
    The Phoenicians
    and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the
    custom of the Egyptians; and the Syrians who dwell about the rivers
    Thermodon and Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macronians,
    say that they have recently adopted it from the Colchians. Now these are
    the only nations who use circumcision, and it is plain that they all
    imitate herein the Egyptians. With respect to the Ethiopians, indeed, I
    cannot decide whether they learnt the practice of the Egyptians, or the
    Egyptians of them- it is undoubtedly of very ancient date in Ethiopia-
    but that the others derived their knowledge of it from Egypt is clear to
    me from the fact that the Phoenicians, when they come to have commerce
    with the Greeks, cease to follow the Egyptians in this custom, and allow
    their children to remain uncircumcised."



    Aristotle:

    https://archive.org/stream/worksofaristotle07arisuoft/worksofaristotle07arisuoft_djvu.txt

    Why are the Ethiopians and the Egyptians bandy-legged ? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry ? The condition of their hair too supports this theory ; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair.
    , @Bliss

    Look at the nose bridge, as it’s distinctly different between SSA and Caucasians. All the pictures I can find of Pharaohs show a distinctly Caucasian bridge.
     
    Ridiculous. As if all caucasians have the same nose. What are you? A nose nazi?

    There are plenty Caucasians with low nose bridges. Look at the stereotypical Russian for example. Are they non-Caucasians? You must be out of touch with reality if you don’t know that africans are a diverse race.

    Btw, as a Jew you must know that in recent history your oppressors in Northern Europe have caricatured your own noses as racially alien. Does that mean that Semites are not Caucasians? Or is it vice versa?

    Secondly, there are plenty examples of Pharaohs who are depicted with low bridged noses. The Pharaohs of the earliest dynasties and the pyramid builders in particular:

    Menes (the first Pharaoh)

    https://i0.wp.com/amazingbibletimeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Menes.jpg


    Djoser (Pharaoh who built the first pyramid):

    http://www.timetrips.co.uk/pharaoh-djoser-statue.jpg


    Khufu (Pharaoh who built the Great Pyramid of Giza):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Khufu2.jpg/190px-Khufu2.jpg


    Khafra (Pharaoh who built the Great Sphinx and the second largest pyramid at Giza):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/%C3%84gyptisches_Museum_Leipzig_035.jpg/1515px-%C3%84gyptisches_Museum_Leipzig_035.jpg
  310. @Guillaume Tell

    You do not understand psychology and morale.
     
    If you say so, that must be true, right? By the way have you ever served in the military? Here we all do and as I wrote earlier about my experience in bootcamp, I fully understand how easy it is to break someone. But you probably missed my comment in that regard.

    You also probably missed my other comment where I was referring to a mental state of stunning due to extreme stress as a plausible explanation for such a submissive behavior (accepting to be put to death through agonizing torture without even trying to rebel).

    But when one wants to become the guru of one’s own cult, there is no need to really pay attention to what others are adtually saying, is there?

    The rebellious slaves were cut from all possible supplies and were probably starving. After the battle the vast majority of them were killed, but they managed to capture some 6,000 of them. Another 5,000 were captured later by Pompey’s legions. The 6,000 were probably exhausted, starving, thirsty, unarmed (to save their lives they probably threw away their weapons) and psychologically broken. Many of them could have been injured. The 5,000 were (besides these conditions) probably captured one by one, each of them by an overwhelming force.

    By the way the passivity of the Jews in places like Treblinka was also strange, they could have caused considerable trouble to the Nazis if they refused to cooperate, but they were so broken that they followed the orders and undressed and went on their own feet to the gas chambers. I think I would’ve refused it, but it’s difficult to know how psychologically broken these people were.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Tell
    Yes, a state of mental stunning. There are many first-hand accounts of people being so broken and despondent to the effect of not even feeling pain.

    When I was young in bootcamp in the military, I got so cold one night aboard a truck that all I was thinking of was to stop being cold. I wonder if I would not have let myself be taken prisoner by horrible foes if they had promised a hot soup and a blanket.
  311. @Talha

    or any answer at all to the question why God/Allah allows the errors to persist uncorrected by him
     
    Well, there certainly is no exact answer because only He knows the wisdom behind why He does what He does. We can certainly glean