Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 30 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 27, 2024, 11:39:40 pm »

How Western Liberal Mentality which resulting Barbarism, got Formed

Quote
In the realm of culture and history, where all differences are relative rather than absolute, differences of quantity, scale, or intensity may be substantially important. John Keegan, in his general study, A History of Warfare, is quite definitive in his assessment that the pastoral peoples of the steppes, Scythians, Huns, Mongols, were a “new sort of people” in being “warriors for war’s sake, for the loot it brought, the risks, the thrill, the animal satisfactions of triumph.” But Keegan is another historian who remains silent on the Indo-Europeans, and believes that the Scythians were the “first steppe people” (1994: 188– 89, 180). Still, if we agree that the Indo-European were a people of the steppes, the first horseback riders and inventors of chariots, we can make the inference that they were the first peoples from the steppes to engage in warfare for the sake of the joys, the risks, and the prestige it brought.

Yet, at the same time, we should avoid the converse error of delinking the martial temperament of the IE peoples from their pastoral way of life. Keegan is aware of this, and in response to the question “why should…pastoralists…have been more warlike than their hunting ancestors or agricultural neighbors,” he answers that young pastoralists had to “learn to kill, and to select for killing” their domesticated animals. “It was flock management, as much as slaughter and butchery, which made the pastoralists so cold-bloodedly adept at confronting the sedentary agriculturalists” (160–61). This answer, however, is limited. In the first instance, Keegan is viewing warfare for its own sake in downbeat terms, and, in the second, he is abstracting one datum – killing young, nimble animals – from a whole way of life. The Indo-European economic lifestyle included fierce competition for grazing rights for specific areas, constant alertness in the defense of one’s portable wealth, and an expansionist disposition in a world in which competing herdsmen were motivated to seek new pastures as well as tempted to take the movable wealth (cattle) of their neighbors. This life required not just the skills of a butcher but a life span of horsemanship and arms (conflict, raids, violence) which brought to the fore certain mental dispositions including aggressiveness and individualism, in the sense that each individual, in this male-oriented atmosphere, needed to become as much a warrior as a herds-man.

Indo-Europeans were also uniquely ruled by a class of free aristocrats. In very broad terms, I define as “aristocratic” a state in which the ruler, the king, or the commander-in-chief is not an autocrat who treats the upper classes as unequal servants but is a “peer” who exists in a spirit of equality as one more warrior of noble birth. This is not to say that leaders did not enjoy extra powers and advantages, or that leaders were not tempted to act in tyrannical ways. It is to say that in aristocratic cultures, for all the intense rivalries between families and individuals seeking their own renown, there was a strong ethos of aristocratic egalitarianism against despotic rule.

Let me pull together a number of traits I have found in the literature which, in their combination, point to a life of aristocratic equality, vigorous, free, and joyful activity. First, all Indo-European cultures from the “earliest” times in the 5th millennium have seen the presence of warriors who sought to demonstrate their standing and wealth, by dressing in “ostentatious” ways; for example, with long or multiple belts and necklaces of copper beads, copper rings, copper spiral bracelets, gold fittings in their spears and javelins – with variations of styles depending on place and time but all demonstrative of an “individualizing ideology” (Anthony: 160, 237, 251, 259–63).28 Second, the Indo-European warriors “were interred as personalities showing off the equipment of life and their personal position in a final coup de theatre, rather than joining a more anonymous community of ancestors” (Sherratt 2001a: 192). Kurgan burials commemorated the deaths of special males; the stone circles and mounds, and the emphasis on “prestige weapons and insignia,” were intended to isolate and self-aggrandize the achievements of warriors (Anthony: 245).29 Third, they developed a distinctive tradition of feasting and drinking, in which “individual hospitality rather than great communal ceremonies” dominated the occasions. These feasts – backed by a “prestige goods economy” – were “cheerful” events of gift-giving and gift-taking, performance of poetry praising individual deeds, and animal sacrifices (2001b: 253; Anthony: 343, 391). These feats served as a great opportunity for warriors with higher status and wealth, in this world of constant small-scale raids and persistent inter-tribal conflicts, to acquire the greatest number of clients. They were also an opportunity for the less powerful or younger warriors to attach themselves to patrons who offered opportunities for loot and glory. The more followers the patron could recruit, the greater the expectation of success to be gained by all. Fourth, as Gimbutas clearly articulated, and as Anthony (93) has further noted, this was a culture in which “all [the] most important deities lived in the sky.” While Gimbutas described these sky gods in negative terms as the gods of a belligerent people, one may see them as the gods of an energetic, life-affirming people whose gods were personified as celestial heroes and chieftains. The sky-gods of the Indo-Europeans reflected – to use the words of Dawson (2002) – their “intensely masculine and warlike ethics, their mobility.” If the gods of Egypt and Mesopotamia demanded unquestioned submission to their will, passive acceptance; and if the female deities of Old Europe – to borrow the language of Camille Paglia (1991) – represented the “earth’s bowels,” and embodied the “chthonian drama of an endless round, cycle upon cycle,” the sky-gods of Indo-Europeans furnished a vital, action-oriented, and linear picture of the world.30 Finally, I would highlight the purely aristocratic manner by which Indo-Europeans organized themselves into war-bands (koiros, brotherhood). The nature of this association might be better understood if we were to start by describing Indo-European society as different levels of social organization. The lowest level, and the smallest unit of society, consisted of families residing in farmsteads and small hamlets, practicing mixed farming with livestock representing the predominant form of wealth. The next tier consisted of a clan of about five families with a common ancestor. The third level consisted of several clans – or a tribe – sharing the same.31 Those members of the tribe who owned livestock were considered to be free in the eyes of the tribe, with the right to bear arms and participate in the tribal assembly. Although the scale of complexity of Indo-European societies changed considerably with the passage of time, and the Celtic tribal confederations that were in close contact with Caesar’s Rome during the 1st century BC, for example, were characterized by a high concentration of both economic and political power, these confederations were still ruled by a class of free aristocrats. In classic Celtic society, real power within and outside the tribal assembly was wielded by the most powerful members of the nobility, as measured by the size of their clientage and their ability to bestow patronage. Patronage could be extended to members of other tribes as well as to free individuals who were lower in status and were thus tempted to surrender some of their independence in favor of protection and patronage.

Now, in addition to these relations of clientage, Indo-European nobles were grouped into war-bands. These bands were freely constituted associations of men operating independently from tribal or kinship ties. They could be initiated by any powerful individual on the merits of his martial abilities. The relation between the chief and his followers was personal and contractual: the followers would volunteer to be bound to the leader by oaths of loyalty wherein they would promise to assist him while the leader would promise to reward them from successful raids. The sovereignty of each member was thus recognized even though there was a recognized leader, “the first among equals.” These “groups of comrades,” to use Indo-European vocabulary, were singularly dedicated to predatory behavior and to “wolf-like” living by hunting and raiding, and to the performance of superior, even superhuman deeds.32 The members were generally young, unmarried men, thirsting for adventure. The followers were sworn not to survive a war-leader who was slain in battle, just as the leader was expected to show in all circumstances a personal example of courage and warskills.

It is worth adding in this context Heiko Steuer’s observation that the so-called “folk [mass] movements” of Celts, Germans, and Scandinavians (during the 1st millennium AD) were actually initiated by warbands – which could number up to 2000 to 3000 men. These movements, he writes, were “not the migrations of tribes with the whole family… but rather campaigns of warrior bands whose wars only much later led to the occupation of land” (2006: 228). This is the way he describes, for example, the movements of Alamans, Franks and Saxons into the Roman Empire – as raids led by bands, followed by “folk” movements.

However, in contrast to Steuer, who emphasizes the need on the part of warlords to ensure a steady supply of resources for their entourage, I would accentuate the search for prestige and immortality. Young men born into noble families were not only driven by economic needs and the spirit of adventure, but also by a deep-seated psychological need for honor and recognition – a need nurtured not by nature as such but by a cultural setting in which one’s noble status was maintained in and through the risking of one’s life (berserker style) in a battle to the death for pure prestige. This competition for fame amongst war-band members (partially outside the ties of kinship) could not but have had an individualizing effect upon the warriors. Hence, although band members (“friend-companions”, or “partners”33) belonged to a cohesive and loyal group of like-minded individuals, they were not swallowed up anonymously within the group.34

Source :

The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 371 - 377
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 27, 2024, 05:51:12 pm »

"Whiteness" led to the Turanism Western Worldview





Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 27, 2024, 10:29:15 am »

Learning Deep about the Barbarism of Western Civilization Part 3

Ancient Mycenean culture, the root of Western Colonialism and Materialism


Quote
Riding and scouting on horseback would have enhanced considerably the exploitation of the steppes and increased the efficiency of surprised attacks and retreats in raiding. Cunliff e notes that horse-riding probably increased the overall speed of movement by about ten times. Gimbutas estimates that a horse could carry a rider 20–30 miles in one day; that is, about 4–5 times the distance travelled on foot (1997: 356; see also Cunliff e 2008: 158). Gat draws a threefold distinction among i) non- Indo-European pastoralists/herders who did not domesticate horses, ii) early Indo-European “proto-horse pastoralists” who rode horses, and thereby enhanced their “strategic mobility,” and iii) Celtic-Germanic-Roman peoples who mounted horses for warfare (2006: 189–230)

In light of these facts, including the points presented earlier on the pastoral way of life of the Indo-European migrants, one can safely assume that, starting in the 5th millennium, and through the 4th millennium, the Indo-Europeans initiated a most dynamic way of life driven by the invention of wheeled vehicles, the secondary products revolution, horseback riding, large-scale herding, and aggressive raiding. Moreover, the Indo-European peoples may have held a longer term advantage in the use of chariots than Drews has estimated. Anthony believes that the “earliest” chariots probably emerged in the steppes before 2000 BC, and that they were employed in the Near East about 1800 BC, that is, about 200 plus years after they had been invented in the steppes, rather than immediately as Drew argues. Anthony draws a clear distinction between i) “true” chariots with two spoked wheels pulled by horses controlled with bits, guided by a “standing warrior,” and ii) heavy solid wheeled battle-carts or battle-wagons pulled by asses or onagers controlled with lip- or nose-rings, guided by a seated driver. The heavy battle-wagons were a Near Eastern invention, but not the chariots, which most likely arrived into the Near East from the steppes through Central Asia (402–03).

There is no denying, however, that Drews puts together a superb case envisioning the arrival of the Mycenaeans as a conquest by a class of chariot-warriors (“big men, taller and broader” than the typical native inhabitants) rather than a migration of impoverished pastoralists who had been evicted from their original homeland and were seeking new lands “in which to make an honest living” (158, 181).19 Drew thinks that the Mycenaeans came to control an indigenous population that was “perhaps ten times as large as their own” but which was less civilized than the far larger majorities the Indo-Europeans encountered in the Near East. While the Mycenaean minority “did not ethnically transform the land,” it superimposed its language and culture, and thus it “Indo-Europeanized Greece” (195–99). The consensus is that the Mycenaeans were a highly warlike people. Lord William Taylor writes “of the dominant accent placed upon war by the Mycenaeans. It would almost seem as if they loved strife for its own sake” (1999: 135). M.I. Finley tells us that when they came into Greece around 1600 BC “something happened on the Greek mainland which gave a radically new turn to developments there…Mycenae suddenly became a centre of wealth and power, and of a warrior civilization, without an equal in this region” (Finley 1970: 47).20

Louise Schofi eld also observes that before 1600 BC “the mainland of Greece was a cultural backwater […] Th e men were about 5 ft 2 in-5 ft 6 in tall.” But aft er 1600 the archeological records suddenly portray a “military aristocracy” made up of men who “had an average height of 5 ft 7 in…were robustly built, strong and muscular, with large hands and feet.” The archeological remains of this Mycenaean culture “give the impression of a fierce and warlike people who gloried in battle and in the hunt” (2007: 28–35, 118). Most scholars agree that the Mycenaeans came by conquest, creating communities consisting of heavily fortified palaces. Their palaces were centers of food collection, storage and distribution, ruled by kings who relied on “a class of aristocrats,” or “table companions” (Chadwick 2005: 72). Archeologists are always impressed by their well-prepared shaft graves, which buried the top men together with their swords, daggers, spearheads, arrowheads, and blades, and which show that the aristocracy enjoyed remarkable wealth, and that they venerated military prowess. Th ese types of shaft graves were without precedent at Mycenae or anywhere else in Greece. They are seen as in line with the Kurgan graves original to the Pontic-Steppes (Wardle 2001).

Indo-Europeanists generally tend to argue that Proto-Indo-European speakers were compelled to migrate by “external factors,” ecological or demographic pressures. Diakonoff , for example, thinks that Proto-Indo-European peoples migrated in response to “overpopulation” pressures in their original homeland (which in his view consisted of “isolated, poorly connected mountainous valleys” located in the Armenian plateau and Transcaucasia). This scarcity pushed them out in search of new lands. Drews, for his part, highlights the technology associated with chariots as the “essential” factor behind the Indo-European conquests. In one sentence he adds that “the takeovers were motivated… by the desire for power and wealth” (198). But this is a point that, for him, “need hardly be said” since all imperial takeovers are ipso facto about power and riches.

Anthony is more careful in the way he addresses the “causes of migration” by distinguishing “push” from “pull” factors. “Push” factors are generally those that compel a people to leave their homes (demographic pressures, war, disease, crop failure, or high brideprices). Anthony agrees that most current explanations of migrations tend to stress “push” factors. He thinks that “pushes alone” are not enough and that “pull” factors also play a role, by which he means essentially the pulling attractions of the destination (110–111). But all in all, Anthony follows a common line of thinking according to which Indo-European migrations were practical solutions to questions of survival and economic ambition.

Source :

The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 365, 366, 367

Recall :

Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 26, 2024, 04:16:02 am »

Learning Deep about the Barbarism of Western Civilization Part 2

Quote
Another crucial environmental feature of Europe’s unique relationship to the world’s highway is that the Pontic steppe actually forms part of what is known as the “great European plain” which stretches without interruption for over 2,400 miles from the Urals to the Atlantic; and since the Ural mountains are no real barriers, this plain is therefore connected to the entire extension of the steppe that stretches to China.14 Overall the peoples who settled on the plains were not well protected by natural limits; they had to learn to be aggressive, stay aggressive, or be threatened by the constant movement and migration of nomadic tribes (Davies: 47–54).

...

The economy reflected in the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary includes Neolithic farming but not as a primary component; in the Volga-Ural steppe, and also in the western steppe, there are reasons to exclude agriculture as the main component, as contrasted to the importance of stockbreeding (Mallory: 217). One already encounters, in the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary, words associated not only with the original Neolithic Revolution but with what Andrew Sherratt has termed the “Secondary Products Revolution” (Sherratt 1981). According to Sherrat, this revolution occurred during 3500–3000 and refers to the efficient exploitation of the “secondary products” of domestic animals, dairy products (butter, milk, and cheese), textiles (wool), as well as the harnessing of animals to wheeled vehicles, the use of yokes and ploughs, and the domestication and riding of horses. Sherratt believes that this “secondary revolution” resulted from diffusions from the Near East. For their part, M. Zvelebil and K. Zvelebil (1990) see a strong link between the dispersal of Indo-Europeans during 4800–2500 BC and the arrival and consolidation of the “Secondary Products Revolution.” Anthony accepts the idea (74) that there was a “Secondary Products Revolution,” but rejects Sherratt’s thesis that it originated in the Near East. He argues that dairying, horse domestication, and horse riding first appeared in the steppes, and that wool sheep and wagons were diff used conjointly across the Near East and Europe between 3500–3000 BC.

...

By putting more emphasis on hybridization, Mallory softens Gimbutas’s vision of a purely warlike pastoral people imposing its culture and causing the “collapse” of what she believes was a more sophisticated Neolithic-Copper Age culture of formerly settled farmers of Balkan origin. Nevertheless, Mallory is clear that “what was sporadically attested prior to 3000 BC swelled during the third millennium to provide unequivocal evidence for a movement of population from the Pontic-Steppe into the Balkans” (239). Kurgan burials now show up in Romania, Bulgaria, and former Yugoslavia and provide us with substantial evidence for the introduction of the domestic horse, larger woolly sheep, and possibly wheeled vehicles. Although Mallory does not frame these claims in terms of an Indo-European expansion, Drews has noted that, by the end of the third millennium, the people of the Tripolye Culture, forming the eastern fringe of the Balkan- Danube farming cultures (long in close contact with the world of the nomadic steppe herders) had turned from hoe agriculture to stockraising. He has also observed that, in the period between 2000 and 1700 BC, about one-fifth of the animal bones found in Tripolye Culture sites are horse bones, “a fairly high figure for a region outside the open steppe” (Drews: 80).

Some contemporary scholars enjoy making sarcastic remarks against the old notion of a “massive violent spread of Indo-European storm-troopers.” What really happened was far more significant in its consequences: not a single invasion but a continuous, long-term intrusion by a highly mobile and warlike people.15 The Indo-Europeanization of the Balkans was thus a persistent process of arrivals of new migrants from the Pontic-Caspian region in such a way that the Balkans would then work as a “staging area” for further intrusions into Anatolia, Greece, and north-western Europe. It was on occasion a straight military takeover but also a gradual intrusive movement led not by plain farmers but by riders on horses supported by a flexible (and healthier) pastoral economy. The fact that this economy was more nutritious explains why the “physical anthropology of the deceased [in the new Kurgan-style burial mounds] speaks of a population that was more robust-appearing with males averaging up to 10 centimeters taller than the native Eneolithic [Balkan] population” (Mallory: 240).

Anthony’s recent research findings (225–59) reinforce the general view I have adopted here regarding the intrusive nature of the arrival of Indo-European speakers into the Balkans starting about 4200 BC. He starts with the Sredni Stog culture which began in the Pontic-Steppes around 4400 and which lasted until about 3400. He notes that this culture is the “earliest” one to have been linked with Kurgan burials or single mound graves, which emphasized the achievements of individuals. Kelekna thinks that the Sredni Stog was the first society to exploit horses on a “regular basis” (2009: 32). An Indo-European culture which emerged from this one was the Suvorovo-Novo culture of about 4200- 3900, which was the first one to migrate from the Dnieper steppes into the northern edges of the Danube Delta. According to Anthony, the movements of these peoples were not only into Europe but also eastwards. He thus detects, from about 3800 BC onwards, a migration into the north Caucasus, which he associates with “ostentatious chiefs” displaying gold-covered clothing and great quantities of bronze weapons in their burials. This movement has come to be identified archeologically as the Maikop culture, dated to about 3700-3500 BC. It is believed that this culture existed as a conduit between the steppes and the urban cultures of the Near East, with wagons entering into the steppes through it, and horses moving out into the south from it.

...

It should be noted here that the Proto-Indo-European lexicon was rich with words for domesticated animals in addition to the horse: cow, ox, bull, sheep, ram, lamb, goat, dog, as well as words for ducks and pigs. There are also words for coagulated or sour milk, butter, and curds (Fortson: 37). Diakonoff believes (1990: 57) that the Indo-European economy, as it was located in the Balkans and the Danube basin (which he thinks was the original homeland of the Indo- Europeans) “must have been an economy based on high grade agriculture and animal breeding, which supplied milk and meat food for the population in relative plenty.” By contrast, he reminds us that “the mass of Sumerians and Akkadians had no meat or milk in their daily diet.” Anthony writes that pastoralism at large “produced plenty of food – the average nomad probably ate better than the average agricultural peasant in medieval China or Europe” (460).

...

Though I will return to this question again later, I shall now briefly clarify that the communities of Old Europe were already “ranked” societies in which, as I mentioned in chapter one, the successful self-interested strategies pursued by aggrandizing individuals brought about differentials in household wealth. The Yamnaya horizon and the Corded Ware, on the other hand, were chief-like societies with a higher degree of differentiation between commoner and elite populations. It is worth contrasting the mobility of the Indo-Europeans with what Sherratt sees as the “constrained” and “small-scale of activity” of the farming communities of Old Europe, whose “efforts were often narrowly focused on fixed points within the world which they had created” (200). The extension of the Corded Ware complex brought “wider networks of social interaction” and greater opportunities to “independent segments of society” for the exchange of goods and livestock. Indeed, older Proto-Indo-European languages typically drew a distinction between movable and immovable wealth; in several languages “moveable wealth” became specifically the word for livestock (Fortson: 19). Mallory thinks that the success of Indo-European languages over the numerically superior languages of Old Europeans was possibly due to the greater vitality and potential for growth of the pastoral economy. He envisions a scenario in which the native population became bilingual, speaking the Indo-European language in the market place or at ceremonial centers in order to obtain better access to goods, status, ritual, and security. The paths to social and material success, and the transmission of this success to future generations, lay in the pastoral way of life and the technology and nutrients associated with the “secondary products revolution” (259). Similarly, Anthony emphasizes the institution of patron/client relations promoted by aristocratic Indo-European speakers promoted within their expanding territories. Chieftains were strong believers in the sanctity of verbal contracts bound by oaths. These contracts permitted Indo-European speakers to incorporate outsiders (who came to assimilate Indo-European dialects) as clients who enjoyed rights of protection in exchange for their services. Anthony also emphasizes the creation of mutual obligations of “hospitality” between “guests” and “hosts” as another way of incorporating outsiders into the Indo-European speaking and pastoral network (303, 341–42).

Diakonoff disagrees with the notion that there was a “collision” or a “clash” between the Indo-Europeans and the peoples of the Near East and Old Europe. He prefers the quieter, less shocking term “language contacts” (1990: 53). There is no doubt that Gimbutas’s vision of the Indo-Europeanization of Old Europe in terms of three massive waves of invasions by violent and patriarchal peoples is faulty insofar as it ignores demographic and economic processes of gradual infiltration and displacement.16 The successful spread of Indo-European languages cannot be disassociated from the “secondary products revolution” and the mobility of a pastoral life. But it would be just as simplistic (and naïve) to presume that horse-riding warriors were akin to modern-day language teachers.

The spread of Indo-Europeans further westwards is associated with the “Bell-Beaker” handless drinking cups between 2800–1800 BC, which is said to stand “for a whole new way of life” in the areas where this culture appeared, from Scotland to Sicily (Sherratt: 2001b: 250). This Bell-Beaker phenomenon was really an innovative continuation into other parts of Europe of the Corded Ware transformation which had began in Europe after 3000 BC and which had brought about a “breakdown of traditional” native ways of life and the “emergence of more mobile ways of life.” There are strong similarities between early Bell-Beakers and the Corded Ware culture. The following words from Sherratt are worth citing at length:

Like the Corded Ware vessels, these pots [Bell-Beakers] were also typically placed in single male burials, often accompanied by weaponry and covered by a circular mound. They thus represent a diaspora of continental north-west European practices among largely alien populations, carrying the aggressive, individualizing ideology of this area to new parts of Europe. Whereas Corded Ware beakers were usually buried with stone battleaxes, Bell-Beakers are generally found with other weapons: daggers, and archery equipment such as triangular barbed-flint arrowheads and wrist guards of fine stone…This martial image was perhaps completed by leather jerkins and later by woven fabrics, held by a belt with an ornamental stone bone ring to secure it…Early Bell- Beakers display the cords and thongs that distinguished their Corded Ware predecessors; perhaps the later zone ornament, too, is significant, for the Greek word zone means a belt, and the elite of Greek warriors are still evzones, ‘the well-belted ones’, while black belts still symbolize prowess in the martial arts. The imagery of third-millennium Europe was replete with such symbols, and Bell-Beaker graves expressed the warrior values appropriate to a more mobile and opportunistic way of life (2001b: 252).

The Corded Ware culture, which had been expanding during the earlier 3rd millennium in central and northern Europe, makes a “relatively sudden appearance” on the western edge of Europe in the new but familiar form of Bell-Beakers later during the 3rd and 2nd millennium. This expansion – typified in the spread of a culture of drinking, feasting, and horses – is equally disruptive of the native archaic societies as were the prior expansions by Indo-Europeans. Sherratt also observes a “profound change in attitudes” suggested by more colorful woolen clothing replacing the older garments of skin and linen, new finery and jewelry, new dress fashions, weapons with decorative elements, extra “ostentation on the part of particular individuals” (2001b: 254–56, my italics). Meanwhile, later forms of Corded Ware continued to spread on the North European Plain and Scandinavia, while the Bell-Beakers continued to spread during the 2nd millennium, sometimes through gradual diffusion and adaptation and sometimes through “prolonged struggle” with older cultures – into Ireland, Brittany, the Alpine region, Languedoc, Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sicily and Sardinia.

Source :

The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 354, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 11, 2024, 01:34:00 am »

Ancient Westerners (Indo-Europeans) favoured Turanian Diets

Quote
Indo-Europeans were a “new type” of warlike society in the sense that “some men,” not just the king, were free to strive for personal recognition. They were, moreover, horse-riders in possession of a more dynamic economy which included ox-drawn wheeled wagons, cattle rearing, and ploughs, combined with a healthier diet of meat, bone marrow, and dairy products, all of which gave Indo-Europeans a more robust physical anthropology. Th ese economic conditions, combined with their aristocratic temperament, were decisive in the initial restlessness of Indo-Europeans.

Source :

The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 347
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 11, 2024, 12:27:04 am »

Learning Deep about the Barbarism of Western Civilization

Quote
McNeill and the Indo-European Roots of the West’s Warrior Ethos

There are some instances in which McNeill slows down his lively narrative in The Rise of the West (1963) to reflect on the unique characteristics of the West (539, 545, 569. 598). On one of these occasions he asserts in definite terms that no other civilization “ever approached” the “restless instability” of the West (539). To what source did he attribute this restiveness? McNeill poses this question only once, and he does so in the context of his effort to understand why Europeans went on to explore and conquer the world after 1500. He thus writes of Europe’s “deep-rooted pugnacity and recklessness,” adding that the roots of this pugnacity – “the incredible courage, daring, and brutality of Cortez and Pizarro” – lay in the “Bronze Age barbarian” past. What Bronze barbarian past?

The barbarian inheritance – both from the remote Bronze Age invasions of the second millennium BC and from the more immediate Germanic, Scandinavian, and steppe invasion from the first millennium AD. – made European society more thoroughly warlike than any other civilized society of the globe, excepting the Japanese (539).

(570). When we dig further back into this historical account, we find the following revealing observations. First, that the bronze-wielding barbarians who came into Europe “by about 1700 BC” spoke Indo-European languages. Second, that these Indo-European speakers were a “warrior culture” which came from the steppes and reached the “westernmost confines of Europe,” where they established themselves “as an aristocracy” of conquerors over and against the “peaceful megalith-builders of the Atlantic coast” (103). He writes:

The spread of these warrior cultures brought a great revolution to European life. In place of peaceful villagers and remote hunters and fishers, Europe was now dominated by warlike barbarians, familiar with bronze metallurgy. In this linguistic sense, Europe was Europeanized, since the speech of the warrior peoples eventually supplanted the earlier languages of the Continent. In a profounder sense, too, the warrior ethos of the Bronze Age gave European society a distinctive and enduring bias. Europeans came to be warlike, valuing individual prowess more highly than any other civilized people….[T]he style of life befitting warrior herdsmen of the western steppe have remained a basic part of the European inheritance down to the present day (103–04, my italics).

McNeill notes a few more characteristics about the steppe peoples. Most significantly they domesticated horses about 3000 BC, first using them for food, and later, during the second millennium, harnessing them to light, two-wheel chariots for warfare. He also notes that their pastoral way of life “involved a social tradition combining intense admiration for individual prowess with a political organization under authoritative tribal chieftains” (105). But this is as far as he goes in tracing the unique cultural restlessness of the West. He would not address this topic again. In fact, as we saw in chapter one, his current position is that we should do away with the very idea of a civilization that can be identified as “Western.”

Source :

The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 338, 339
Posted by: rp
« on: January 17, 2024, 09:54:16 pm »

Posted by: rp
« on: January 13, 2024, 08:56:24 pm »

https://twitter.com/SnjyRajguru/status/1365885336774078470
Quote
I have listen to all Indian languages including Gondi & tribal. All Indian languages have amazing softness except two Punjabi & Urdu. Punjabi never sounded sweet to ear. It must be barbarians language from remnants of Kushan, Shake, Hunas mixed with Indian grammars.

Shakas and Hunas = Scythians and Huns

As for Kushans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire#Origins
Quote
Chinese sources describe the Guìshuāng (貴霜, Old Chinese: *kuj-s raŋ), i.e. the Kushans, as one of the five aristocratic tribes of the Yuezhi.[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi
Quote
The Yuezhi (Chinese: 月氏; pinyin: Yuèzhī, Ròuzhī or Rùzhī; Wade–Giles: Yüeh4-chih1, Jou4-chih1 or Ju4-chih1;) were an ancient people first described in Chinese histories as nomadic pastoralists living in an arid grassland area in the western part of the modern Chinese province of Gansu, during the 1st millennium BC. After a major defeat at the hands of the Xiongnu in 176 BC, the Yuezhi split into two groups migrating in different directions: the Greater Yuezhi (Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏) and Lesser Yuezhi (Xiǎo Yuèzhī 小月氏). This started a complex domino effect that radiated in all directions and, in the process, set the course of history for much of Asia for centuries to come.[13]

Bonus:
https://x.com/SnjyRajguru/status/1365886654477602816?s=20
Quote
संजय अ. राजगुरु, एक श्री हरी का उपासक!
@SnjyRajguru
Youth in North Indian have this inferiority complex. The abusive, male authoritative & double meaning nature of Punjabi language make it popular among Youth of Hindi speaking state

See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/turanian-sexism/
Posted by: rp
« on: December 20, 2023, 09:01:27 pm »

Truth about "Islamic" invasions in India (Delhi sultanate):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate#Background
Quote
The rise of the Delhi Sultanate in India was part of a wider trend affecting much of the Asian continent, including the whole of southern and western Asia: the influx of nomadic Turkic peoples from the Central Asian steppes. This can be traced back to the 9th century when the Islamic Caliphate began fragmenting in the Middle East, where Muslim rulers in rival states began enslaving non-Muslim nomadic Turks from the Central Asian steppes and raising many of them to become loyal army slaves called Mamluks. Soon, Turks were migrating to Muslim lands and becoming Islamicized. Many of the Turkic Mamluk slaves eventually rose up to become rulers, and conquered large parts of the Muslim world, establishing Mamluk Sultanates from Egypt to present-day Afghanistan, before turning their attention to the Indian subcontinent.[36]

It is also part of a longer trend predating the spread of Islam. Like other settled, agrarian societies in history, those in the Indian subcontinent have been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history. In evaluating the impact of Islam on the subcontinent, one must note that the northwestern subcontinent was a frequent target of tribes raiding from Central Asia in the pre-Islamic era. In that sense, the Muslim intrusions and later Muslim invasions were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions during the 1st millennium.[39]

We don't even have to go back to the Vedics. We can see multiple invaders from the Steppe in post-Vedic times, for example, Sakas (Scythians) and Hunas (Huns).

The Islamic rulers should have castrated the Turks after enslaving them.
Posted by: rp
« on: December 19, 2023, 08:20:25 pm »

https://twitter.com/IgnorantBoh/status/1737141099880186026
Quote
Neo vedics seethe too much on 'ooga booga' they need to be shown the mirror.

This was a cult of a semi barbaric bronze age peoples

Yes, these elements slowly disappeared, and most would agree for good.

As the outlook changed, so did the rest
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: December 15, 2023, 04:30:54 am »

Short Description of Western Civilization, Terror Civilization

Quote
The West — depending on locality, time, and groups — has been Platonic, Aristotelian, Epicurean, Stoic, Cynic, Augustinian, Monarchist, Newtonian, Gothic, Anglican, Humanist, Republican, Machiavellian, Hegelian, Fascist, Marxist, Darwinian, Surrealist, Cubist, Romantic, Socialist, Liberal, and much more. By contrast, the intellectual traditions set down in ancient/medieval times in China, the Near East, India, and Japan would persist in their essentials until the impact of the West brought some novelties.

We must have a sense of the changing cultural character of the West when we ask where it is. The West in Roman times is not the same West in Classical Greece, and the West in Elizabethan England is not the same in Renaissance Italy. Parts of the Roman Empire ceased to be Western, and huge parts of the world previously not Western became Western, i.e. Australia and North America. Much of the Hellenistic world never became Western, and Classical Greece fell out of the West in Ottoman times. What I will do first is locate the West by way of a rough outline of the major epochs that shaped it.

The West originated and expanded:

(1) Through the spreading out of the aristocratic warlike cultures of the pre-historic Indo-Europeans out of the Pontic Steppes into Europe after the 4th millennium BC.

(2) Through the successful establishment in the Greek mainland of the Mycenaean civilisation, starting in the 2nd millennium until its eclipsed in the 1100s.

(3) Through the flourishing of Hellenic Classical culture in the period between 800 and 300 BC.

(4) Through the Macedonian conquests of Alexander the Great and the creation of the Hellenistic World from 323 BC onwards.

(5) Through the rise of Rome to its greatest extent in the 3rd century AD until its end around 500 AD.

(6) Through the Germanic invasions and the revival of the aristocratic Indo-European spirit.

(7) Through the rise of Christianity in fusion with Greco-Roman culture and its dynamic spread through the Mediterranean world and Europe.

(8) Through the medieval enlargement of Christendom’s frontiers and the stretching of the West’s boundaries into north and eastern Europe, solidifying the Catholic High Middle Ages.

(9) Through the rise of cities, the Renaissance, and the Discovery of the World in the 16th century.

(10) Through the rise of Modern Science and the spread of Industrialisation.

(11) Through the spread of Bourgeois Institutions and the Enlightenment.

(12) Finally through the pioneering migration of whites into North America and Australia leading to the creation of three massive new countries.

Source :

Faustian Man in Multicultural Age page 86, 88
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: November 27, 2023, 01:01:12 am »

Colonialism in Ancient Time

Quote
In an earlier article, I wrote about the conquest of Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy during the same period by the Aryan Turan, Indo-European Phrygians, Hellenes, and Italics (see “What Race Were the Greeks and Romans?” AR, Oct. 2010). It is entirely likely that other Aryan tribes travelled south-eastward into Southwestern Asia. Until the Second World War, scholars believed that conquering white warriors formed the ruling aristocracies of ancient Media (the land of the Medes), Persia, and Vedic India, and ruled over darker-skinned people.

...

The Indo-Aryans Turan

It is now politically incorrect to talk of an Aryan Turan conquest of India in the 2nd millennium BC, but many scholars continue to believe there was such a conquest. The chapter on “Vedic India” in The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations (2005) begins thus: “Around 1500 BC, the Aryans Turan, nomads from Central Asia, crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains into the Indian sub-continent. The Aryan Turan language gained ascendancy over the indigenous languages and was the ancestor of Sanskrit, the language of classical Indian literature and of the modern Indic languages including Hindi and Urdu.”

We know from both archeology as well as literary evidence that these Eastern Aryans Turan ate beef, burned their dead (but not surviving widows), and had more in common with the Aryan-speakers of Europe than with the Hindus of today. The Rig Veda (c. 1400 BC) is an ancient collection of Sanskrit hymns, and one of the four canonical texts of Hinduism. It is also the only literary source for early Aryan history in India.

According to Hans F.K. Gunther’s The Racial Elements of European History (1927), the conquering Indo-Aryans Turan called themselves the Haris, meaning “the blondes,” and, according to the Vedas, they called the dark skinned indigenous people the Dasas, or “slave bands of black descent.” These people were later called Dravidians. Like the Greeks, many of their gods were blonde. The Vedas describe the Storm God Indra as having cheeks, beard, and hair the color of gora, which is Sanskrit for “golden-yellow.”

The Aryans Turan themselves separated into three classes, or castes: the Brahmins, priests and scholars; the Kshattriyas, nobles and warriors; and the Vaisyas, farmers and craftsmen. This parallels the division of Proto-Indo-European societies into clerics, warriors, and herder-cultivators. We find the same division in Rome: flamines, milites, and quirites.

In India, below the three higher classes were the Sudras, or slaves, who were non-Aryan. Turan In an attempt to preserve these social and racial divisions and codify ancient customs, the Brahmins drew up the Laws of Manu. They forbade intermarriage, and in some cases even social mingling among Indians of different castes. They also recognized the existence of three instead of two racial groups: more or less pure Aryans Turan, dark-skinned Sudras or Dravidians, and the Varna-Sankara (those of mingled colors). The Sanskrit word for caste, varna, literally means “color.” The caste system can be viewed as the world’s most long-lived and elaborate system of racial separation.

Although it survived into modern times, the caste structure failed to preserve the Aryan racial type. Higher-class Indians are never blond or fair skinned, though they are taller and lighter than other Indians and some have Aryan Turan features. Examples are the actress-model Aishawarya Rai and the Indian-American Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, whose parents are Sikhs. Color prejudice and a preference for lighter skin remain strong both in India and among Indians of the diaspora.

Source :

The Indo-European Expansion by Jon Harrison Sims

https://www.amren.com/news/2017/11/aryan-indo-european-migration-the-white-race-persia/

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 13, 2023, 05:01:35 pm »

"Ricardo Duchesne's description of farmer people, European people, and "Aryan" people"

Please explicitly call the latter Turanians.

Quote
This white gene was selected in Europe as the lower vitamin D grain diet from the Near East spread

This fits our narrative about Aryan diet. Of course it is sloppy to talk about a single "white gene" when there are >100 genes that affect skin colour:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Genetics

Quote
A recent systematic study found 169 genes involved in human skin coloration.

It would be more accurate to say that the lower levels of sunlight exerted selective pressure (among those who had switched to a grain-based diet) against genes that generated dark skin.

On the subject of skin colour, though, it should be emphasized that ruddiness (obliviously called "white" by Eurocentrists):

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BWME77/red-faced-man-on-tram-prague-czech-republic-BWME77.jpg

https://cf.ltkcdn.net/skin-and-body/skin-conditions/images/orig/299576-1711x1283-rosacea.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49075205636_aa430a0e7a_b.jpg

we currently speculate to come from Edom (Turanian):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom#Name_of_Edom_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

Quote
The Hebrew word Edom means "red", and the Hebrew Bible relates it to the name of its founder, Esau, the elder son of the Hebrew patriarch Isaac, because he was born "red all over".[15]

See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/esau-and-jacob/

The funny thing is that Duchesne himself(!) has ruddy complexion:



Contrast his "white" (according to him) skin colour with the (optical) white wall colour behind him.

See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/autism/msg20050/#msg20050
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: November 13, 2023, 07:34:17 am »

Ricardo Duchesne's description of farmer people, European people, and "Aryan" people

His view on the evolution of "farmer people" in Europe. Was "Aryan", the people of "farmer", were evolutionary into having "white skin" ?

Quote
It was the inhabitants of central and southern Europe that remained dark until Neolithic farmers from the Near East with a white skin gene colonised these areas with their farming technologies. This white gene was selected in Europe as the lower vitamin D grain diet from the Near East spread

...

His views on the origin of European people

Quote
But if we were to concentrate on the actual science of these findings, [9] rather than pushing ideological agendas, we would see that this report of a mass migration from the steppes refers to a culture that is originally from southern Russia, the Yamnaya. The actual research also teaches us that the lineage of the Corded Ware people, located in north-central Europe around the 3rd millennium, were genetically close to the Yamnaya population. Roughly speaking, the genetic link between today’s European population and the pastoral societies that migrated to Europe from southern Russia, or present-day Ukraine, is around 50% of the gene pool in Northern and Central Europe, and around 25% in the Iberian Peninsula

...

His view about Indo-European people

Quote
However, a more recent study [12] is more definite in stating that the ‘Caucasian’ genetic traits of the Yamnaya population were original to the steppes, belonging to the European continent and the European race, rather than being of Near Eastern/Caucasian origin. This new study also distinguishes the Yamnaya-Corded Ware people from other European-derived populations from the steppes, such as the Sintashta and Andronovo, which migrated eastwards and were gradually replaced by people of East Asian ancestry or people who shared ancestry with ‘Native American’. Indo-Europeans were not ‘immigrants’ and not a ‘mysterious’ people coming from outside to join a European ‘melting pot’; they were a people that evolved in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, which is part of the European continent. There is evidence that the Indo-Europeans who moved into the Asian side of the steppes, both as Iranian speakers and as Tocharian speakers, into the Tarim Basin, were ‘fair-skinned and light-haired people,’ before they were replaced by Mongoloids. [13]

Source :

Faustian Man in Multicultural Age page 67, 70, 72

Posted by: rp
« on: October 19, 2023, 10:30:36 pm »

https://twitter.com/Yatharthverse/status/1714680932505141732?t=ru8iwdv9pqpXDUXwQunAcw&s=19
Quote
Saw a car displaying sticker, "I stand with ISRAEL, I support JEWS".
I asked the car owner why he supports an abrahamic race to which he replied that yahudi originated from yaduvanshi. I then asked him why do you think so and why do you care?

"It's because I'm a YADAV", he said.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadav#In_practice
Quote
There are several communities that coalesce to form the Yadavs. Christophe Jaffrelot has remarked that

Quote
The term 'Yadav' covers many castes which initially had different names: Ahir in the Hindi belt, Punjab and Gujarat, Gavli in Maharashtra, Golla in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka etc. Their traditional common function, all over India, was that of herdsmen, cowherds and milksellers.[6]