SecureSignals
Ere the Sun rises
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
Ere the Sun rises
21hr ago
I can't remember if we had a top-level thread on the Reich paper, but it's an important one validating the notion that Culture War is directly tied to biological evolution of society. The intersection of Culture War and HBD has been why I attribute so much importance to it and it seems like that association is becoming mainstream. But given the persistent taboo on serious HBD analysis, that also means we will continue to have academics who seriously study Culture War, some academics like Reich that seriously study HBD (while steering clear of societal implications), but an enormous gap in the study of the interaction between the two: how cultural memes, religion, and symbols influence the biological evolution of the nation.
The Neolithic Farmers spread into the both Caucasus and Europe, the G2a Early European Farmer haplogroup is concentrated in both Sardinia and the Caucasus region.
I'm not aware of Etruria being a non-Indo-European zone, are you referring to the Etruscans? The Etruscans were assimilated by the Romans, but it turns out they were also actually an IE tribe although they didn't speak an IE language. The Sabines and the Samnites were also IE tribes.
According to almost 2,000 years worth of genomic data, collected from 12 sites across Italy, these enigmatic people did not emigrate from Anatolia (a region that's now part of Turkey), but shared genetic heritage with people who lived nearby in ancient Rome.
All were descended from pastoralists who moved into the region from the steppes during the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age. Given that the steppes are thought to be where Indo-European languages originated, the finding underscores another Etruscan mystery – that of their (now extinct) non-Indo-European language, which managed to persist for centuries.
Isn't the South originally Indo-European descended? Greeks, Romans, Normans, the Aragonese?
All of Europe was originally (for purposes of this discussion) inhabited by Early European Farmers who migrated into Europe like 10,000 years ago. And then starting about 5,000 years ago, during the transition between the Neolithic age and early Bronze Age, Indo European tribes invaded Europe.
All Europeans have significant admixture from both groups, but that's the main story in the North/South divide in Italian admixture, not African admixture (really with the exception of Sicily itself).
The Steppe nomads, Yamnaya culture, were barbarians but then they migrated to Europe and evolved into the Corded Ware culture which became ancestral to Celtic, Latin, Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic cultures. The Haplogroups R1b and R1a are linked to the Indo-European steppe migrations and those haplogroups dominate European Royalty: R1b dominates Western European, British, and French royalty while R1a dominates Eastern European and Slavic royal lines.
Of course Haplogroup R1a is also prominently found in India at high frequencies (40-70%) among Indian Brahmin communities particularly in North India, and that haplogroup was brought to India by IE migrations into India. So that tells the same story as Europe.
The Finns have high levels of IE admixture, much higher than southern Italy.
Just browsing that map of Europe I linked does provide a strong correlation with wealth and development. Looking at that map also suggests there's no coincidence the Industrial Revolution was started in the North Sea area.
Edit: This is not to say I disagree that they were barbarians. But as Nietzsche said "The noble caste was in the beginning always the barbarian caste." The Latin barbarians (dominated by R1b haplogroup) did rampage through Italy and killed a lot of people, and then they built Rome and became the Nobles.
Some significant clarifications:
- Sicily has between 3-7% North African admixture, in some cases up to 12% reportedly, not insignificant but also not dominant and not really stratified across Southern Italy. That North African admixture is almost entirely isolated in Sicily and is 0 - (low) throughout the rest of Southern Italy.
- The Southern European phenotype is not derived from North African admixture, it's derived from the Early European Farmers. The Sardinians are a unique people in that they retain basically an entirely EEF admixture, and their phenotype was not inherited from Africa or Arabs. It's the closest you can get to seeing what a Early European Farmer looked like from thousands of years ago.
- What you do see more significantly stratified across North Italy to South Italy is not Arab/African admixture but Indo-European admixture.
So the story there is more dominantly "Early European Farmers - Indo-European" spectrum from South to North and not really "African/Arab - European". Sicily is somewhat the exception given it does have non-negligible North African ancestry and that shows up in the Genetic analysis as well. You propose somewhat of a false dilemma:
You can conclude the South is poorer because of African ancestry. Or you can notice that the South spent a thousand years as a strategic chokepoint that every Mediterranean power needed to control, while the North was a fractured set of city-states that nobody could grab easily. One of these explanations predicts the data and the other is constructing vibes based on a satellite photo.
Not because of African ancestry but Indo-European ancestry. Yes, the Indo European colonizers conquered the Italian peninsula in different waves and different times, first it was the Romans, then the Barbarians and so on. But the HBD interpretation would be that the percolation of various empires and city states in the areas with greater Indo-European admixture is not a coincidence, i.e. the establishment of the Roman Empire with the arrival of the Latin tribes to Italy. That would be the Noticer explanation for why Northern Italy had this high degree of civilizational development that lacked in Southern Italy, not because of African ancestry.
So the Noticing is not a black mark against North African ancestry as much as it stresses that the Indo Europeans really were a colonize and impose civilization everywhere type of people.
SecureSignals
Ere the Sun rises
2d ago
Resentment is bitterness towards someone or something, ressentiment is formulating your values to be the antithesis of your target of resentment.
SecureSignals
Ere the Sun rises
3d ago
impotency = lack of power, correct? So he's saying people want to realize their positive values, but can't, and so their chronic frustration curdles into "Ressentiment"?
That was my read on this excerpt from Schaler too, but it just seems to be describing resentment. If you want to realize your positive values, but can't, that can lead to resentment but ressentiment is something different. Ressentiment is- you can't realize your positive values so you just define your positive values as being the opposite of the Masters.
You can't join that exclusive WASPy frat, play sports, get the chicks, so you frame all of those things as bad and being a weak, loner, nerd as being the good.
According to Nietzsche's interpretation, ressentiment was derived from a "slave revolt" against Master Morality- flipping the concept of good/bad and making the weak "good" and the strong "evil." That's a cultural phenomenon that spans both ends of the political spectrum but is clearly more of a left-wing cultural phenomenon- the mentally disturbed transgender obese Reddit mod becomes the "good" against the White Frat Chad driving the cool car and getting all the chicks, who is "evil." The socially incompetent, weak, ugly nerd is the good and the charismatic, popular, attractive, strong Jock is the bad guy. That is the sort of moral inversion that strikes at the heart of ressentiment.
Ressentiment frames weakness, ugliness, slave morality as a moral superiority over noble values, strength, and beauty.
Ultimately ressentiment is not about being powerless it's about asserting that state of powerlessness as constituting moral superiority over those who have an exercise power. "I am morally superior because I am weak and oppressed" is the cornerstone of ressentiment and it's a phenomenon that spans both ends of the political spectrum but is clearly derived from left-wing cultural criticisms of traditional morality in the 20th century.
Like the Etruscans, it seems there are instances of male incursion of IE groups into the Iberian peninsula in which non-IE language was maintained. This was the case with the Etruscans and seems to be the case with the Basque people as well, who have something like 90% haplogroup R1b (IE haplogroup), in contrast with Sardinia where the EEF haplogroups dominate. I read some research indicating that some Celtic IE Bell Beakers were basically assimilated into the Basque people, they do retain IE heritage, at least much more than Sardinians. The Estonians likewise have very high IE admixture.
I think it's more likely the case that the general rule is IE introgression events were usually associated with a conversion to IE language, but there are some cases where the tribe retained a non-IE language. The key here is a non-IE language is not decisive evidence against IE genetic introgression, as in the case of the Etruscans, Basque people, Estonians, and Finns.
More options
Context Copy link