Category Archives: Antiquity

The Homeland and Southward Journey of the Indo-Aryans

Varun writes:

You believe in OIT (aka Out of India theory of Aryan migrations)?

I used to believe that Aryans could possibly have originated in Southern-Central Asia, i.e just above Kashmir. Now I even don’t believe that, as Dravidians are actually Central Asians, possibly of Near Eastern origin. Aryans are way up the globe, somewhere around Russian Steppes. It is impossible to pin point exact location. They are subsumed among us.

The Indo-Aryan Homeland is in the area where northwestern Kazakhstan meets southwestern Russia near the southern end of the Urals close to Baskkoria and the Tatar Republic. I had a map of it that I had drawn for this site a while back. They were up there around 4,500 YBP probably. Between 4,500 BP and 3,500 BP, they moved south, eventually occupying the Indus River Valley. We can actually follow their migration every step of the way and yes, On the way down, they settled in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, (here one arm, Indo-Iranian, branches off over to Iran and Afghanistan) and the Chitral up in the Northwest Territories of Pakistan over and across Gilgit and the north of Pakistani Punjab and Pakistani Kashmir to the Indus River Valley into Punjab, Kashmir, etc. where they settled. A number of these people along the way – the Tajiks, many Pakistanis, and the northwest Indians are all heavily Aryan. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are also heavily Aryan although the Aryan is heavily mixed with Mongol.

BMAC was one of the areas where they lived on the way down.

24 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asia, Asians, East Indians, History, India, Iran, Kashmir, Near East, Pakistan, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia, South Asians, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan

Gedalia Braun’s Piece on Africans

Sam: A possible explanation for Black behavior.

“…common understanding among blacks of what morality is: not something internalized but something others enforce from the outside…”

https://whitelocust.wordpress.com/morality-and-abstract-thinking-how-africans-may-differ-from-westerners/

Tulio: Interesting article. But I’d like to examine multiple perspectives on this topic before I draw any conclusions. I’ve never been to Africa to observe her findings first hand, and given that the author writes for Amren, this individual has an obvious predisposition.

For example she speaks of cruelty and torture in Africa, but that has existed among whites as well. I’ve seen some of the torture devices used during Europe’s middle period. Even looking at them was unbearable. Even in this country witches were burned at the stake. Blacks were hung from trees on false accusations while whites stood around and cheered.

I don’t like her conclusion that blacks have some inherent flaw that makes them incapable of being moral or having any abstract thoughts. Google a list of African proverbs and they contradict everything she just said.

First of all, Gedalia Braun is a man, not a woman. No idea what that first name is all about.

I actually think he is onto something, especially as he lived in various African countries for many years. That was always one of my favorite articles on Amren. The odd thing about that article is that while is not real flattering towards Africans, the author doesn’t seem to hate Africans at all. In fact, it seems that he is rather fond of them despite it all.

I don’t think just writing for Amren should disqualify you as biased. One of the truly disturbing things about Amren that I learned from hanging out there a very long time is that so much of what those articles say is flat out true. That is hard to swallow. However, the site is dishonest and biased as it only reports the downside to Blacks and never says anything good about them, while I know some of you will be amazed, but there are actually quite a few good things you can say about US Blacks if you are looking to write good things about them.

The Black love of cruelty and sadism does seem to be a part of the race. Yes any culture can become extremely cruel and sadistic, even the “highest” races of all which can become downright genocidal under the right conditions of Organized Violence.  Not long ago, two of the “highest” races of all, the Germans and Japanese, engaged in some spectacular cruelty, sadism, out and out evil and even horrific genocide. And yes, European White did use to be quite sadistic and cruel as the torture devices indicate. However, under normal peacetime conditions, most European Whites in Europe and the West demonstrate remarkably little sadism and cruelty, while with Blacks, even US Blacks, it just seems to go on unabated.

I should note that cruelty and sadism are not Black traits. They are human traits! Humans are naturally cruel, sadistic and downright evil, at least at times. Most human societies and most humans have it in them to be sadistic and cruel. I was a pretty vicious little boy, but all my friends were too, so I just figure that boys are just naturally rather evil. But you grow out of it. I still have cruelty and sadism in me of course, but I try to keep it locked up in a cage inside of me and hope it never comes out. My argument is going to be that Blacks are more susceptible to the normal human tendencies than say Whites or Northeast Asians are, not that Blacks are evil and sadistic and White people are real nice. Screw that.

Some of those things may not be race-dependent. For instance, even if Blacks are bad at abstract thinking as a race, if you push their IQ up, their capacity for abstract thinking ought to grow quite a bit. African Americans appear to be dramatically more intelligent that Africans for whatever reason. One standard deviation is nothing to shake your finger at. Hence, even if US Blacks are have some inherent issue with abstract thinking, pushing that IQ up to one SD is going to make US Blacks a Hell of a lot more abstract than Africans.

I should also note that a number of the other downsides to Africans that he writes about – childlikeness, love of cruelty and sadism, needing morality imposed from the outside rather than from within

A lot of that has been said before. Albert Schweitzer wrote much the same things after working for years as a do-gooder in Africa. The fact that he was such a do-gooder makes his remarks particularly potent, as I do not see how a man with that much of a kind heart would deliberately make up a bunch of evil things about Blacks. In fact, if you study so called racist literature down through the years, you will find many of these things that Braun talks about repeated many times. Much early anthropological writings on Blacks are now called racist because they were pretty blunt about the race, whereas now the field is very PC.

For instance, the thing about Blacks being “childlike.” Childlike is not the same thing as childish. Childlike is not a bad thing really. I would love to be childlike in some ways and I hope I am, actually.

Early American writings including I think Thomas Jefferson noted the same thing: they also said that Blacks were childlike.

The morality thing sort of makes sense. In situations where brute force enforces morality, Blacks do pretty well. I heard they do pretty well under Communism. Supposedly you could walk from one end to the other of Maputo in the middle of the night and no one would bother you. Maputo is the capital of Mozambique.

That was under the Communist like government of Samora Machel, who is actually one of my heroes. Havana is the safest large city in the Americas and it is very Black. Blacks also do well under Islam. Reporters have gone to the parts of West Africa that are under Islam and they say that things are a lot smoother, less chaotic and far less crime ridden than in the non-Muslim countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia to the south.

I hear there are also many Blacks in Yemen, maybe up to 40%. They are light-skinned, but there is a lot of discrimination against them. Racially they look like Ethiopians, which is maybe what they are. They commit almost zero crime, even property crime.

Under both Islam and Communism, morality is for sure imposed from the outside in a pretty heavy handed way. It was similar in the typical African village or villages that was ruled by a king. I have heard that pre-1960, Nigeria was mostly a country of small rural villages. There was almost no crime in these villages.

Not only was law enforcement pretty brutal, there was also a heavy shame factor involved similar to what we see with the Northeast Asians, who do not want to commit crimes or even do bad things in general because it will bring shame unto their families. Amazingly rural Africa was able to operate under the same shame-based morality as the Northeast Asians, yet the NE Asians are usually thought to be a “higher” race than Africans. So it looks like some of those things that make these “higher” races higher can actually be imported and be used by the “lower” races, which seems counterintuitive but is also hopeful.

The notion that Black genes make societies inherently unstable is belied by the fact that North Africa (13% Black by genes) and the Gulf (17-21% Black by genes) are remarkable stable places under normal peacetime conditions.

Also Ancient Egypt was 13% Black by genes and it was one of the greatest countries in the history of the world. So Caucasians having a certain amount of Black genes is not the end of the world.

75 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asians, Blacks, Cultural, Egypt, Ethics, Europeans, History, Intelligence, Islam, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Mozambique, Nigeria, North Africa, Northeast Asians, Philosophy, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, South Africa, West Africa, Whites, Yemen

The Basque-Caucasian Hypothesis

I have gotten a lot of crap from my enemies for being on the Academia.edu site in the first place, but really anyone can join.

The following was posted by one of the reviewers in an Academia session by one of the leading lights of the Basque-Caucasian theory. As you can see, the mythological and multiple lines of genetic evidence are starting to pile up pretty nicely too. This is neat stuff if you are interested in the Basque-Caucasian link in addition to work going on into the remains of the Neolithic Farmers who were subsumed in the Indo-European waves. It turns out there is quite a bit left in different parts of Europe, especially in terms of Neolithic Farmer mythology.

From a discussion among academics and independent scholars on a paper on the Basque-Caucasian Theory in Historical Linguistics during a session in on Academia:

I am not a linguist but interested in the topic as it proposes a linguistic correlation between Caucasic languages and Basque, as it parallels my own current research on reconstructing European Paleolithic mythologies using ethnographic analogies constrained by on archaeogenetics and language macrofamily correlations.

Tuite (2006, 2004, 1998, 1997) has pointed out the hunter-gatherer beliefs and myth motifs shared across a ‘macro-Caucasic’ area to the Hindu Kush and into Western Europe. Basque deities Mari, Sugaar, and Ama Lurra and their associated mythologems have striking similarities to the macro-Caucasic hunter mythologies (not found in Finno-Ugric or Middle Eastern ancient mythologies.)

I am currently writing a paper identifying many examples of Southern/Western Gravettian art in Italy, Spain, southern France that appear to depict imagery only explicable by analogy to Macro-Caucasic religious myth and ritual.

With respect to mtDNA fossil genetics, three skeleton samples are from Paglicci Cave, Italy, ~25 cal BP: one is macro-N-mtDNA (homeland Caucasus/Caspian/Iran; currently highest frequencies Caucasus, Arabia), and two skeletons, RO/HV-mtDNA (homeland northern Middle East; currently highest frequencies, Basque, Syria, Gilaki, Daghestan).

During the later Magdalenian another diffusion occurs apparently by a similar route: HV4-mtDNA emerges in Belarus-Ukraine (~14±2 ka) and under Late Glacial Maximum HV4a (~13.5 ka) moves south and splits in the three refugia: southern Italy, southern Russia (HV4a1, ~10 ka), the Middle East (HV4a2, ~9 ka), and Basque area (HV4a1a, ~5 ka, suggesting full emergence of distinct Basque culture and language), (Gómez-Carballa, Olivieri et al 2012).

These studies further support the existence of a Macro-Basque-Caucasic mythological stratum as well as shared language substrate.

The cutting-edge liberal theory is that Basque (and some other odd far-flung languages) is part of the Caucasian language family. In other words, at one time, the Basques and the peoples of the Caucasus like Chechens were all one people.

What this probably represents is the ancient Neolithic farmers who covered Europe before the Indo-European invasion replaced almost all of the languages of Europe. All that is left is Basque and the peoples of the Caucasus. Everything in between got taken by IE except for some late movements by Uralic and Turkic speakers. Up in the north, the Lapp Uralic speakers are, like Basques, the last remains of the Neolithic farmers. The Sardinians also an ancient remaining group of these people, but their language has been surmounted recently by a Latinate tongue.

As it turns out, the Basques and Caucasians also share a number of cultural similarities. There are also some similar placenames. And there is some good genetic evidence connecting the Basques with the Caucasian speakers.

It’s all there, but the conservatives are balking, to put it mildly, about linking Basque with the Caucasian languages.

I have long believed in this theory.

I read a book over 20 years ago comparing Basque to the Caucasian languages and a few other distant tongues and thought the case was proved even via overkill by the book. And recent work is so super that one wonders why the conservatives are still winning. I feel that the link between Basque and the Caucasus languages is now proven to an obvious and detailed degree.

2 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Antiquity, Art, Asia, Basque, Belarus, Caucasus, Cultural, Eurasia, Europe, France, Genetics, History, Iran, Isolates, Italy, Language Families, Linguistics, Middle East, Near East, Regional, Russia, Spain, Turkic, Ukraine

Guess the Quote

Let’s play guess the quote!

Opposition there was none: the boldest spirits had succumbed on stricken fields or by proscription-lists; while the rest of the nobility found a cheerful acceptance of slavery the smoothest road to wealth and office, and, as they had thriven on revolution, stood now for the new order and safety in preference to the old order and adventure. Nor was the state of affairs unpopular in the provinces, where administration by the Senate and People had been discredited by the feuds of the magnates and the greed of the officials, against which there was but frail protection in a legal system forever deranged by force, by favoritism, or (in the last resort) by gold.

1. Who wrote this? If you are close, that’s ok. He was a very famous writer, I will give you that much.

2. What is the name of the work that this is written in? Any of the author’s works would be ok.

3. Where in the book can this quote be found? Approximate pages ok.

2. Where was this written?

3. When was this written? Approximate times are ok.

4. What language was this originally written in? This is an English translation from another language.

5. What is the writer discussing in this paragraph?

15 Comments

Filed under Antiquity, Government, History, Law, Literature, Roman Empire

Cultural Left Theory of Homophobia: The Cultural Left Is Wrong Again

The Cultural Left says straight men are afraid of gay men if they are afraid of being gay themselves or if they have gay tendencies themselves. There is no evidence whatsoever for this, but obviously reaction formation does form in some straight men who have some minor gay tendencies but deny them. There are also a few closeted gay men who are very self-hating such as Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter. But by and large, it’s just not true.

The corollary of this silliness is if you are secure about your masculinity, you do not fear or hate gay men. So straight men who fear or hate men are not secure about their masculinity. This stupid lie is just not true, though of course it may be true in a few cases where you see some projection and especially reaction formation defenses.

What I have noticed in my life is the opposite: the more masculine or macho the man is, the more he fears or more properly hates gay men. At the very least, they make him very uncomfortable and they do not want to get close to them. They also do not want to be seen out in public with a gay man for fear that people will think that they are gay too.

The masculine the man is, the more uncomfortable he is around gay men. And the most masculine men of all were the most homophobic of all. These were men who straight up say things like, “I hate faggots!” They also tend to vastly overestimate the number of gay men and seem to think that ~20% of the straight male population is gay because they are not masculine enough for these guys. Any straight man who doesn’t measure up in the masculinity department is automatically seen as gay by this type of men.

I have been around an awful lot of men in my life and I have had probably hundreds of male friends. Of course most all of my good friends have been straight because frankly I do not associate with gay men, and I think this is very much for the best because to me they are nothing but trouble with a T.

The interesting thing that I have noticed is that many straight men are not exactly completely straight. They are straight of course because they are maximally attracted to women and much of their lives revolve around women. However, quite a few men like this do have some minor gay feelings.

Of course, the Cultural Left  would say that these men are gay because the Cultural Left scum want to claim as many gay men as possible for their sick Gay Agenda. According to the Cultural Left, any man who has any gay feelings at all is automatically a homosexual! This is absolutely insane, as minor gay feelings among straight men are about as common as weeds. They’re everywhere.

Look at the chart below.

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual
90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual
80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual
70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual
60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual
50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual
40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual
30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual
20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual
10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual
0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual

According to the best data that I have, 62% of all men are 100-0’s. Nevertheless, I am convinced that many or most 100-0’s are capable of having sex with males and even enjoying it if the culture opens the door wide for such things. We have only to look at cultures like Afghanistan and Ancient Greece and Rome to see that in some cultures, up to 95% of men engage in homosexuality. No doubt most of them are 100-0’s, assuming the 62% figure is a biological average.

The best study I have seen is that 38% of all men have some level of gay feelings, albeit generally at a low level. Most of these men are 90-10’s and 80-20’s. I am convinced that men like this are everywhere in the straight community, and you can’t spot them. Probably only 6% of men actually lean gay according to one study. Since minor gay feelings are quite common in straight men, why should it be so shocking that some men have issues with these feelings, do not like them, and possibly defend against them via reaction formation? It should not be surprising at all.

I have noticed in my life that the more a straight man was ok with homosexuality, especially to the point of being almost violently ok with it like, “There’s nothing wrong with it! There’s nothing wrong with it! Who cares!” that if I watched that man for a number of years, quite a few of them engaged in gay activities with other men, I would say at least once.

The ones that I followed up had all been predominantly straight when I knew them. They were somewhere  between 90-10’s to 60-40’s. The gay activity phase was in their late teens to early 20’s, and it seemed like they aged out of it after a bit. A few were in it for the money. These were very goodlooking mostly straight men who hooked up with older gay men who became their sugar daddies in order to get nice clothes, lots of money, fancy cars, etc. It was pretty close to being male prostitution. However, even this phase did not seem to last long, and they often aged out of it.

The last I heard about most of them was that they were living in a big house somewhere married to a woman, and they had a couple of kids. In other words, they were regular suburban husbands and fathers. As the obviously leaned straight anyway (so for all intents and purposes were straight) it makes perfect sense that they trended towards marriage, children and a house in the suburbs by their 20’s and 30’s like most straight men.

The gay stuff seemed to be a more  minor interest that they grew out of. Keep in mind that I did not monitor these men closely because very soon after I found out they were having sex with men, I bailed on them because I am not going to associate with you if you are doing such things. Instead I simply heard about what they were up to.

So I am a bit wary of straight men who are vehemently to almost violently “ok” with gay men. I consider it a warning sign of some incipient bisexuality. There just a bit too “ok” with homosexual behavior, wink wink.

Yet, I have noticed  that many regular straight men who were anywhere from 100-0’s to possibly 80-0’s do have some minor gay interest. How do I know this? Because they tried to have sex with me, that’s how! This happened especially when I was young and I was reportedly a very goodlooking man. I had offers to be a male model, and I even interviewed for an agency. As I pointed out, these men are not gay at all (a 100-0 to 80-20 is considered a straight man), but let’s put it this way, an awful lot of straight men, while often extremely heterosexual, are not exactly completely straight if you catch my drift.

Anyway, the Cultural Left line is a lie. The Cultural Left says the more secure you are with your masculinity or heterosexuality, the more ok you are with gay men, and the more worried you are about your masculinity or heterosexuality, the more you fear and hate gay men. This theory is not only wrong, it’s completely backwards!

I have observed that instead of the most uncertain men being the most homophobic, it’s the other way around. The more strongly and solidly to unmovably heterosexual (the type who say they would not have gay sex if you put a gun to their head) a man is, the more uncomfortable he is around gay men, and often the more he dislikes gay men. And there is much better correlation with masculinity. The more hypermasculine or macho the man is, the more he dislikes gays even to the point of hating them.

So the Cultural Left has it backwards. It’s the studs and the he-men who are the most homophobic of straight men, not the men who are most worried about their masuclinity and heterosexuality. And the more accepting a man is of homosexuality, instead of making him more securely straight as the Cultural Left theory says, instead this is correlated with a willingness to engaging in sex with men.

71 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Roman Empire, Sex, South Asia

Can Ancient Egyptians Be Classified as Caucasian?

Modern Egyptians have some admixture from West Asian invaders, Hyskos, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Berbers, Levantines, Mamluks etc. So they will look lighter and more Caucasoid than the Ancient Egyptians. There is also some Black admixture; they were after all conquered by the Nubians, and later Islam brought slavery, but looking at some of the pre-Nubian statues, there already were some Blacks in Ancient Egypt in high positions.

The best representation of Ancient Egyptians is from the mural in the Tomb of Seti. In Gates’ book, The Races of Man, the Ancient Egyptians portray themselves as brownish, while the Semites and Berbers are portrayed as White and the Nubians as Black.

Ancient Egyptians in my humble opinion are their own distinct group.

How will modern Egyptians look more Caucasoid than the Dynastic Egyptians? The Dynastics were 13% Black, and the modern Egyptians are 30% Black, 20% in the north and 40% in the south. The Black percentage of the stock has increased by 2.5X, and the Caucasoid percentage of the stock has decreased by 20%. Given that, how could they possibly look more Caucasoid?

The problem here is that we look at these ancient races through modern lenses. Caucasoids in some parts of the world looked quite different than they do now.

And this is true not only of Caucasoids but of other races too. Racial stocks existed then which have vanished from the Earth. Kennewick Man’s race has vanished. There is not a trace of his race left. There are only a few minor races that look somewhat like Kennewick in the sense that they place closest to him on a graph, but they are not his people. His people are gone.

The ancient Romans are gone. There is nothing left of them at all. It is another vanished race. Sure, the modern Italians have evolved from them, but few if any modern Italians are actually “Romans” because this racial stock has vanished.

It is clearly the same with the ancient Egyptians with the caveat that skull studies show broad continuity between modern and ancient Egyptians. Modern Egyptians look more like Dynastics than any other stock on the planet does, but in general, they are not Dynastics.

The Dynastics were a peculiar Caucasoid race that has vanished from the Earth. However, based on studies of skulls and even genes, the Dynastics were absolutely Caucasian. The skulls plot clearly Caucasian on a graph. And 87% of the genes are derived from the surrounding region, mostly from the ancient Levant where the pre-Dynastics originated prior to 13,000 YBP. At that time, these archaic Levant Caucasians moved out of the Levant, down into Egypt and over time evolved into the Dynastics.

47 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Anthropology, Antiquity, Egypt, Egyptians, History, North Africa, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional

Dynastic Egyptian Phenotypes in Modern Day Egypt

There is very strong continuity between ancient Egypt and modern Egypt in genes and skulls. The bottom line is that Egyptians have not changed a whole lot other than getting Blacker. Ancient Egyptians were 13% Black and modern Egyptians are 30% Black, so the Black genes have more than doubled.

There are still many modern Egyptians with an ancient Egyptian of Pharoanic phenotype. You can especially find them in the Copts. The Copts are said to be the closest modern Egyptians to the Dynastic Egyptians possibly because they never kept Black slaves as the Muslim Egyptians probably did. Muslims who kept Black slaves often bred in with their slaves and as a result in many ME countries, the Christian population is a lot lighter and Whiter looking than the Black population.

I have some photos of some Dynastic Egyptians that I put up at the end of the piece. I am not sure what they look like. I would say they are Caucasoid, but they are very odd looking Caucasians and they almost look sort of Oriental in the eyes. The nose is very long, narrow and straight. Hair is dark and straight or sometimes wavy.

The skin color is quite dark, however it has a very olive tinge. The mix between a more or less European phenotype and the quite dark skin seems shocking at first. I also knew a Coptic Christian pharmacist and his sister who worked at a pharmacy I used to go to. Their skin was quite dark. They were absolutely Caucasians and they looked  broadly Europid, but I must say that they were some of the strangest and most exotic looking Caucasians I have ever seen.

Modern day dynastic Egyptians often do not really look like European Whites because the phenotype does not exist in Europe. But they sure don’t look like Black people either. Who do they look like? They don’t really look like anyone!

I suppose if you sat back and thought about it, there seem to be some Arabs or possibly Berbers who look like this, especially in the Arabian Peninsula, but they don’t exactly look like those  people. Berberids with a Qaddafi-type phenotype may be an even better resemblance but I am not very familiar with Libyan phenotypes and the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from the Carthaginians as much as they did from the Nubians of the South.

Modern Dynastic Egyptians look like, well, Egyptians! The ancient Egyptian phenotype is quite and while broadly Caucasoid, they are best placed into a separate category all of their own.

Participants of Miss Egypt 2007 competition pose at a news conference in Cairo

Participants of Miss Egypt 2007 competition pose at a news conference in Cairo April 20, 2007. The final ceremony will be held on April 23 in Cairo. REUTERS/Nasser Nuri (EGYPT)

The woman on the far right in the first row is a classic modern day Dynastic Egyptian. Note that she looks a bit Asiatic. The woman in the first row on the far left also shares the phenotype but not in as marked a manner. The woman in the second from right, first row looks the least Dynastic Egyptian of the three, but she does retain some of the look. Note that the woman in the center first row looks almost Asiatic. I am not sure whether she resembles a Dynastic Egyptian at all.

37 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Anthropology, Antiquity, Blacks, Christianity, Egypt, Egyptians, History, Islam, North Africa, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion

What Was the Worst Cultural Genocide Ever?

How about the Romanization of the Celtic World?

main-qimg-cd432faacde2bd15157cba3d845d7413

Yes, all of that land was formerly controlled by the Celts. Even Southwest Poland was Celtic. There is an endangered language spoken there called Silesian that has at its very base a Celtic layer which is the oldest layer of this Slavic language. The French language was Celtic Gaulish, the influence of which can still be seen in the odd French phonology. I do not think there is much Celtic left in the Iberian languages, but I could be wrong on that. Surely there is little or no Celtic left in Turkish. One wonders about Celtic traces in Dutch, German and the rest of Slavic.

In our modern era, Celtic languages only (barely) survive in Ireland (Irish), Scotland (Scottish Gaelic), Wales (Welsh), the Isle of Man (Manx) and Cornwall (Cornish) in England, and Brittany (Breton) in France. In Eastern Europe, Celts were supplanted by Germanic, Iranian and Slavic tribes. In France, Iberia and the Balkans, the Celts were assimilated to the Roman Empire.

It is not particularly difficult to convert a native elite to the language of a conqueror, but converting an entire population to a new language in a short period of time is quite a feat. The Romans did this mostly by showing the superiority of the Latin language and convincing the natives to give up their Celtic words.

In fact, the Romanization of Dacia where the original Celtic speaking people were completely converted to Latin which then turned into Romanian is cited by Wikipedia as one of the worst cultural genocides ever.

Of course there are many other examples of cultural genocide, some of them ongoing.

38 Comments

Filed under Antiquity, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Britain, Celtic, Culture, Dutch, Europe, European, France, French, Geography, German, Germanic, History, Indo-European, Ireland, Italic, Italo-Celtic, Language Families, Linguistics, Maps, Poland, Regional, Roman Empire, Romance, Scotland, Slavic, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Turkish

Yes Virginia, There Is a Christian Catholicism

One of the most bizarre things about own homegrown rightwing Christian Protestant fundamentalists is that they subscribe to the belief that somehow the very first Christians of all, the Catholics, are not Christians. Whether the Papists are apostates or simply heretics is not clear, not that it matters since crazy is crazy. Some of these kooks even push philosophies that say that all evil today is coming out of Catholic Central in the Vatican.

Of course this is scriptural madness. There is no such thing as Catholics and Christians. Catholics are Christians, and I do not care how many times these schismatic born-again nuts insist that they are not.

In fact, they are the very first real Christians of all, ignoring the original Christians who were so Jewish that no Christian today in their right mind would practice their religion though many insist that they do. Yes, you ask one of these Protestant nutcases what sort of Christianity they practice and they all say that they practice “the original Christianity” of say 60 AD or so. Well they don’t practice Judaism, so no they don’t.

But in going back to what they see as the original pure untainted ideal from 2,000 years ago, these Protestant fruitcakes are the equivalent of Muslim Salafists, and when they excommunicate everyone else, they are as bad as Muslim Takfiris like ISIS. So our modern Protestant fundies are sort of a Christian ISIS without all the head-chopping. Wonderful.

Anyway, yes, Christianity and Catholicism were the same thing for 1,500 years until Martin Luther, ignoring a few heretical Catholic splits like the Cathars, who were my ancestors by the way).

The first actual church, the Syrian Orthodox Church founded in 60 AD, now being destroyed and genocided by the “Christian” United States, UK, and  EU, in addition to the jihadist Muslim Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, was a Christian or Orthodox church. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the same thing. One looks to Rome and the other to the east, formerly to Antioch but now to wherever the head of their local branch resides, as there is no Vatican of Orthodox since the Hagia Sofia was turned into a mosque by those lovely Muslims.

It’s all one church. The Western branch is headquartered in Rome, and the eastern branch is headquartered in various nations in Eastern Europe and the Near and Middle East. Even though love to slaughter each other in the modern era, it’s still all one big church. Cain and Abel if you will.

When these fruitcakes say that Catholics are not Christians, they are actually saying that there no Christianity for 1,500 years!

According to our modern evangelical loons, apparently there was some sort of primal Christianity in the Levant in the 1st Century (which was really just ultra-Reform Judaism). These incipient “Christians” kept kosher! Since when do Christians keep kosher? See how retarded these millenarian charismatic boneheads are?

Then apparently “Christianity” went away for 1,500 years. How likely is that?

I guess the real deal was crucified or something just like its prophet. Anyway in both cases, the Romans did it.

And then in re-run of the original, in imitation once again of its prophet, Christianity somehow rose from the dead, came back from extinction, shoved the Catholic Stone aside and strode out powerfully into the glaring sun of the brand new day. The man who resurrected the church and created Zombie Christianity or Protestantism is named named Martin Luther.

Nope. Catholicism in all of its baffling forms is the real deal – the original Christianity, and it doesn’t matter how many modern Protestant Flat Earthers say it’s not true. Historical facts are historical facts, and in this case, revisionism is just lying and some very stupid and transparent lying at that.

The first World Christian Church was headquarted in Rome in the 300’s with the conversion of the crumbling Roman Empire. Those who used to feed the heretics to the lions embraced the same heresy they once persecuted so savagely. That was the shot in the arm that the religion needed, and it was smooth sailing from then on. It mattered not that Christian Rome fell because soon enough the German pagans of Rome were automagically Christians themselves. Soon afterwards, a rival Catholic Church was established in Antioch in Christian Turkey and a rather restrained rivalry was on. All attempts to marry the two ends of the compass failed, but all in all it was an amicable divorce.

If anyone is a splitter or God forbid a heretic, it is the Protestants who frankly began their journey as blood-soaked Catholic heretic genocide victims. Tortured and murdered by the million for a century, the heretics became schismatics became a bona fide branch of Christianity not long after Luther died. The two branches of Western Christianity kept slaughtering each for a while, but familial homicide is actually one of the most common types, so the massacres go are not as counterintuitive as you would think.

Anyway if you have read this far, you can see that the point of this post that anyone who says, “No, I’m not Catholic. I’m Christian,” as you hear so often around my intellectually blighted environs, is a certified idiot and a delusional lunatic.

21 Comments

Filed under Antiquity, Catholicism, Christian, Christianity, Comparitive Religion, Conservatism, Europe, History, Idiots, Islam, Judaism, Lunatics, Middle East, Near East, Orthodox, Political Science, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Roman Empire, Turkey

Repost: The Indian Personality: Superiority and Inferiority Complexes Intertwined

This is a great article from a ways back that neither slams Hindu Indians nor venerates but instead simply objectively describes what is going on with them. We talk about India and this subject in particular on here, so I thought this piece would be germane to the discussion. Plus, a lot of you have probably not read it. Hopefully it will stimulate some discussion.

A fine new Indian Hindu commenter named Janardhan has appeared on our blog, and he repeats some of the same things that other insightful Hindus such as ILOR, Rahul and Pranav have said. This shows us that not all Indian Hindus are bad people and that some of them are capable of looking inwards and trying to better their society. I consider both Rahul and Pranav at least to be strong Indian patriots who simply want the best for their country. As they see it, getting the best for India is going to require some massive changes, hence their critical patriotism.

Hindus have a strange mix of superiority and inferiority complexes. Deep down they massage their ego about how their civilization was ‘da greatest’ with a total ignorance about other civilizations and their achievements. According to Hindus, Ancient India compared to the rest of the world is equivalent to comparing the city of Vienna during Mozart with highlanders in Papua New Guinea. As if Ancient India was like this huge Vienna while the rest of the world were primitive.

But during the last centuries they were first enslaved by Muslims from Central Asia/Persia (whom they consider savage bloodthirsty barbarians ignoring the intellectual side of Islamic civilization which itself was plagiarized to a good extent from Greek learning) and then the Europeans.

One difference was that in the case of Islamic invaders they could hide under the carpet the invaders’ intellectual side, and they are thus dehumanized as savage bloodthirsty monsters (this label is justified though as the Islamic rulers were quite brutal). But when the Europeans, especially the British, came, they could not ignore their obvious technological superiority with their steam engines and telegraphs.

Thus the conflicting superiority/inferiority complex feelings.

They were as per their myth Numero Uno Civilization in the world, but now they are nearly at the bottom. White people with their strange but seeming superior looks and behavior give us an inferiority complex. Besides, even the Japanese/ Koreans are way ahead of us, and now the Chinese are racing ahead. Mainland Indians just cannot accept the rise of China: “Those Chinkis like the Chinkis of Nepal and North Eastern Indians going ahead of us, not possible,” we say.

Thus the desire to prove ancient India being as technologically advanced as the modern world since the modern technological world is 90% a White creation and we cannot fathom a people other than us could have done so.

I think this is same with the Arabs with their Islam. Islam, the last word of God and having an Arab as its last and greatest prophet, has fallen behind the White nonbelievers. Oh, the horror.

Blacks, well most Indians consider Blacks as some savage monkey people anyways.

I would say we Indians are some of the most racist people in the world, but our racism is very subtle.

As someone who works in mental health, I would like to point out the obvious. A person with both a massive superiority and inferiority complex going at the same time is a common creature. This is typical for Cluster B personality types: especially Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Disorders. But it associated more with narcissism than anything else.

In fact, all proper analyses of narcissism begin with the supposition that what is going on in narcissism is often a huge inferiority complex which is apparently being compensated for by its opposite, a huge superiority complex. My view is that the worse the narcissist’s inferiority complex, the greater their superiority complex must be to compensate for it. Whereas if one feels only a bit inferior, one has only to feel a bit superior to compensate as all human beings are trying to equalize things and get at what I call the “zero state” of perfect equilibrium where everything is ok.

Many analyses of the Indian personality on this site have noted the profound narcissism apparent in most Indian Hindus. In many cases, this also looks like solipsism, but then narcissism and solipsism tend to go together anyway (Look at the Jews, the most solipsistic people on Earth).

20 Comments

Filed under Antiquity, Asia, Asian, Asians, Borderline, Britain, Colonialism, Culture, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Hinduism, History, India, Islam, Mental Illness, Narcissism, Narcissistic, Personality, Personality Disorders, Political Science, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, South Asia, South Asians, Whites