What got me interested in the longevity of society?

I was obsessed with the question, why did Rome fall, why did Romans fail?

It fell for three reasons and failed for one. It fell because of the fractional reserve ‘fiat’ slavery that ensnared everybody, the decadence of the patrician classes trickling down via moral decline to full degeneracy of society and solar-incited crop failures (fed an army but mostly women, children aka the future). The Empire failed because of the People, they were no longer a People, homogeneously, by inviting their former slaves, who doubtless believed they were Roman citizens too (magic dirt), and breeding with them, the composition of the Roman people became weak and remains weak to this day. Otherwise they’d have bounced back, the sins of the father, onto the son. Once water has been sullied, its original purity is lost. Empires fail when they take slaves instead of slaying the conquered, that communist laziness. Think about it, you’re inviting a known (pissed-off) enemy back home to influence your future. Rome was literally polluted with the blood of losers, a society which initially prized itself on strength, vigour and bloodlines. Their dysgenic dicks led to their demise, one family at a time. They enabled spoiled sons and eventually lose their fortunes.
Shortly after my research, I discovered all Empires fail by the same pattern.
Look for wheat yields, if you want. Europe has the best records. The Middle Ages drop in wheat really revolved around Renaissance degeneracy. Read r/k into it, maybe biohistory or HBD but it’s all out there.

It’s WIKI TIER.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_ancient_Rome
“The final way a slave could be obtained was through birth: if a female slave gave birth to a child, that child became property of the slave’s owner. Extramarital relations with women who were not citizens was not considered to be adultery under Roman law (and Roman wives were expected to tolerate such behavior), so there was no legal or moral impediment to having children being fathered by a slave’s owner or overseer.”
They preferentially bred with their slaves. I’m sure such anti-Christian adultery and random heirs running around caused no problems, least of all accidental incest. Christianity came too late to save them. #badum-ttssh

Screwing their ‘slaves’ emboldened them, the sexual validation made them consider themselves equals, as nothing else does:

“Land owners also faced problems with slave rebellions at times.”

no shit?

“In addition to invasions by Carthaginians and Celtic tribes, slaves rebellions and civil wars which were repeatedly fought on Italian soil all contributed to the destruction of traditional agricultural holdings

Civil war? What changed? Except the population. And its new savage composition.

Don’t open that door.

“Also, as Rome’s agriculture declined, people now judged others by their wealth rather than their character.”

Materialism and hook-ups because it takes two to Devil’s tango. Every time men drop the ball of leading society as a moral authority, they blame women. Um. Nah. Stop fucking cheap pussy. It brings down Empires.

And the yuck factor of what certain modern men are willing to sleep with (manjaw mongrel mystery meat types) is subconsciously putting off white women from considering wanting kids with them. You see pics of their “ex” and go, ew no. All women do this. All races do this. You could actually do a study on this, if he shows a pic of a same-race girl or other, odds of wanting another date? Nobody’s jealous, it’s disgust.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/08/17/study-finds-bias-disgust-toward-mixed-race-couples/

Participants responded faster to images of same-race couples and selected them more often for inclusion in the study. More significantly, Skinner said, participants showed higher levels of activation in the insula — an area of the brain routinely implicated in the perception and experience of disgust — while viewing images of interracial couples.

“That indicates that viewing images of interracial couples evokes disgust at a neural level,” Skinner said.

Nobody’s jealous of the mud sharks and rice cookers. Like nobody is jealous of fat girl tits.

Sure, that one part is nice but…. at what cost?

The guys who brag about their exotic exes end up lonely for a reason. High flight risk. Not to mention shitty taste. Likely poor parental skills. Low racial loyalty – including to their own kids. Then the fact mixers are by default lower quality to the point they can’t ‘make it’ with their own. Just… no. Women would literally rather buy a tiny handbag dog than breed with a weeb, for the most common example you can ask as a socially acceptable question at the bar and get away with. As a cost/benefit analysis, it just isn’t worth it. Women contribute more to their existing family’s survival with relatives than squandering personal resources on inferior genetics, men do not get this. They assume all women have baby rabies. Nope. Women filter to keep the species somewhat intact, the debt system has made the low quality women bolder. And this applies across the races between women, actually, any out-group involvement. I guess it’s a K motivator among women for the tribe’s collective gain. To reject the disloyal genetics plus the risk of outer diseases. I’d be willing to bet money in a study the girlfriends of such weebs would be more likely to abort his baby than average, more willing. I’d guess her oxytocin with him is also lower. Whether or not she’s the same race as him.

https://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html

“In evolutionary terms, one could argue that mixed-race marriages are maladaptive in that they reduce a person’s overall genetic fitness – i.e. passing on copies of one’s own genes.  In a multiracial marriage or relationship, one is showing altruism toward a partner who shares fewer genes than a co-ethnic would share.  A parent will also share fewer genes with a multiracial child than with a same-race child.”

Instincts evolved for a reason. Genetic distance means white people always lose, mathematically, as the recessive race. I’ve posted about it before. White parents of mixed kids are less than half related to them, that’s why non-whites want us. The white party’s cucking themselves. If you could fill up a soda cup in a bigger or smaller size, you’d go for the best deal for you. Genetically, they can pass more on with a white partner as their vessel. The white parent’s unique traits are lost by recombination/mutation, dilution of mixing per se plus regression to the mean e.g. with iq. That’s also why supermodels have plain or fugly kids or parents.

Blaming mixed people for their health problems is bloody evil e.g. shaming mixed blacks in America for a “bad diet” predisposing them to heart conditions, outsized to the common population. Turns out a lot of the white guys raping their slaves had awful cardiac health.

This is why patriarchy’s approach to rape claims is “hang ’em high”. The law must be a deterrent and since their intention is to extend their lifespan by breeding without masculine commitment, a death penalty of rapists is just.

Men acting/bluffing like they’re morally better for being sexually weaker is just sad.

https://speedywordz.blogspot.com/2015/12/cut-your-coat-according-to-your-cloth.html

Control the rest of the world and still, if you cannot control yourself it won’t matter, no respect.

A little more on the agri page:

Roman agricultural practices may have contributed to soil depletion throughout the Roman world.”

The same rules apply elsewhere.

If you look at the British Empire, it was the foundation of globalism. Sorry but… yeah. We got too cocky and that’s why we fed them. We fed the bear.

White saviour became white martyr. Depicting Jesus as white was a mistake.

Culturally, the degeneracy started by Victorian hypocrites.

All the Victorian brothels enabled by weak priests, cheating judges and stupid wives (enjoy your syphilitic dead baby, remarkably preserved in its jar to this day) instigated the cultural norm of sexual deviance looooong before the 1960s.

The wages of sin are death.

Stop slutting.

Reject usury.

This isn’t hard.

The atomised late Roman

Does Stoicism Extinguish the Fire of Life?

An honor culture can only function in a society in which there is a shared code — clear rules, standards, and expectations for interaction and engagementand within a closed community of equals. But as the Roman Republic transformed into a sprawling, porous, far-flung empire, its society became increasingly large, complex, and diverse, and “The citizen of Rome became a citizen of the world,” this common, level playing field disintegrated.

In an honor culture, you can only be insulted by someone you consider an equal. But in Roman society, discerning who deserved this level of respect, and whose slights to take seriously, became increasing difficult and unclear. If someone possessed a different set of values, was a citizen still honor-bound to care what they thought?

relativism

Early Romans had shared rules of engagement — boundaries that checked their competitions and kept them civil. In the greater chaos of the empire, in the absence of shared norms, citizens made the rules up as they went. It was every man for himself. In fact, the less a man cared about honor, the more unable he was to be shamed, the more strategic advantage he gained. Early Romans had not played to win, but for the sake of engaging in a good fight; now, citizens were prepared to win at any cost.

cucks
the noble loser
the traitor
saving face
political gain > spiritual

Romans thus came to see contests as unequal and destructive. Those who engaged in competitions under the old assumption of participating on a level playing field, found instead that the odds were stacked, and this gap between expectation and reality engendered great bitterness. As did the fact that it seemed more and more men began receiving commendations, laurels of honor, who hadn’t actually earned them.

nepotism
favouritism
no meritocracy or scant

As a result, Romans became disillusioned and began to withdraw from the contest, from active engagement with their fellow citizens and civic life. “When competition was insupportable, then paralysis, the desire to hide, and the desire to be insensitive and autonomous became widespread cultural phenomena. With the loss of the good contest and the rules that framed it, cold, callous, brazen shamelessness became a cure for shame.”

apathy
nihilism
hopelesssness (a sin if you check with Catholics, despair)
self-sabotage
atomisation
casualisation
“individualism” ego rationalisation, vanity (good for self and appearance’s sake, not for thede)
mentacide

“Shamelessness” for the Romans did not necessarily mean, as it does for us, to be unvirtuous, but rather to literally be incapable of being shamed. That is, the shameless care nothing for what others think of them.

dullards
spiritually vapid celebrities or role models

It always starts with the men doesn’t it?

Weak personal morals/actions of men, appeal to exception and excuses, weak moral authority > no honour > loss of respect to other men and all women, no social power, nobody listens. The levy breaks, the dam bursts. “If it’s okay when they do, why not me?” Monkey see, monkey do. Children don’t listen what you say, they witness you.

A hierarchy of modern men would rank far below late Romans, but how often do they virtue signal against men who’d at least risked death in battle? Like, STFU. They could build houses and fires. They were useful. Women hate gammas for the fake signals like that. The snarky “I’m so much better” – then DO something, DO anything useful!

Fathers should stick around to tell their sons this, it isn’t women’s business and we resent this novel pressure to kinda ‘mansplain’ to boys what they should already know as adults – STANDARDS.

Women who complain about the manchild are 100% right, there shouldn’t be a word! Nor mantrum! We shouldn’t understand what it means nor see it!

While today we tend to admire this kind of radical indifference to public opinion, to the Romans unbounded autonomy was the mark of a man whose energy had been drained, whose being had been destroyed;

libertarians are lazy, in practice

excuses to do less, altogether

as Cicero put it: “To take no heed of what other people think of you is the part not only of an arrogant man but, to be sure, of a dissolutus.” How could someone who remained unmoved even in the face of legitimate criticism, who refused to be ashamed even when confronted with their culpability, ever be trusted?

the shameless man, the attention-seeking psychopaths as role models based on short-term results

high time pref parasitism on society

[see Hare’s work]

Still, even Cicero, though himself a political leader, was sympathetic to the impulse to become callously disengaged, rhetorically asking, “what spirit trained in these times, ought not to become insensitive?” Elsewhere he quotes a line of Euripides: “If this mournful day were the first to dawn for me, had I not long sailed in such a sea of troubles, then there would be reason for anguish like that felt by a colt when the reins are first imposed and he bridles at the first touch of the bit. But now, broken by miseries, I am numb.”

it isn’t an excuse

it’s egocentric to assume the world must care about your trivial problems or bow to your whims, princess

Social media has even made men princesses who “need” their coffee and “need” a chest wax and “need” to take a selfie. Is all that really a need or are you an entitled brat?

Hollywood tells us stuff magically happens. That’s why people pay – to see the FICTION.

Reality doesn’t allow escapism but genetic suicide comes close. Moral self-destruction.

The Bible warns about disconnection of the spirit, it’s the ideal condition the Devil wants, all you have left is the animal body, hedonism. There’s no judgement or conscience or sense of higher things, basically Nietzsche’s abyss wasn’t death, it was hedonism. It leads to excuses for oneself – a form of moral relativism.

In this self-imposed withdrawal and “the collapse of conditions for healthy competition in ancient Rome . .  . various strategies [had to be] devised by the Romans for creating a new emotional economy and redefining their spirit.” Said another way, “With the loss of the rules and conditions of the good contest, the entire language of honor ‘imploded’ and had to be ‘reconstructed.’”

oh yay critical theory

This reconstruction process would involve nothing less than a complete inversion of values, and produce multiple radiating effects on Roman society.

pride from shame
free from diseased
individual from alone

Honor centered around control, constraint, consistency; the ideal man becomes he who is poised, tranquil, disengaged. The passive values were elevated above the active.

Good for a society of strong defences, death for a society of weak ones, permitting invasion for shekels.

Virtue < Virtue signal

e.g.

I can be a slut, if I criticize sluts.

Moral hypocrisy, hallmark of degeneracy. The bottom of honour’s barrel. Drunken chambering.

Soldier becomes selfish slutty peacock, basically. It’s Calhoun but IRL. Needn’t be slutty with the opposite sex either, people forget that. The homosexuality rates are an outcrop of this noxious social weed where we don’t expect successful men to marry faithfully.

Shame is GOOD and JUST and NECESSARY for civilization.

“judge not lest ye be judged” refers to using the same societal standard for the entire society i.e. NO exceptions based on class, wealth, sob story etc etc

It does NOT say “never judge” – notice that?

Double standards are the first weakness e.g. cheating in sports.

Read the rest yourself, it’s jarring.

Fifth, as Romans collectively withdrew from participating in a contest culture, they ironically began to lionize the individual who continued to play the game, and did so with a “winner-take-all” disregard for the old rules. The “man not prepared to lose” was idolized.

Instead of competition being something in which every average citizen took part, the masses mounted the bleachers, to cheer on, and live vicariously through, the few “gladiators” still in the arena. As spectators, they both worried over and felt excited by the rise of would-be tyrants who were willing to crush anyone who stood in their way; the thrill of the cult of victory,

infantilising the criminal

siding with the anti-hero

sports substitute for war

idolatry cult – celebrity role models

Cult of voyeurism, we even have that with fucking now.

There was a rarely mentioned line in Fight Club, “this isn’t love, it’s sports-fucking”.

That’s it, right there. That is the essence of the degenerate. The sick men who look up to the unreal Tyler ignore the fact it’s satire, it’s mocking them. But they are shameless. They make all sacred things worldly.

Teenagers are brainwashed but anyone older who views it feels a little disgust, if their conscience, moral compass functions. Tyler says “God hates us”, he means himself. His God is the Narrator, and does hate the impossible fake* ideal. Tyler is Ikea Model Man, a product of society and NOT a person. Americans in particular miss all this subtle irony, since it’s like an ego play. He remodels his kitchen, then his reputation. It’s ridiculous, a morality play. If you could be transplanted into the “perfect” body of a warrior, you’d still be a coward. It’s your soul, your character.

How many buff gym dudes with tatts nowadays would refuse the draft more than the scrawniest Boomer?

Some Boomer-bashing comes from weaker men. Would Tyler go to war? But he runs a military cult.

Tyler knew he was a character, from wall breaks, and would be destroyed in the end like a Devil on the shoulder.

A mannequin of postmodern immoral “manliness”. A man with the appearance of a God and the low morals of a Devil.

*worldly, hedonistic, materialistic, VAPID, Tyler is all-looks

Vapid: I don’t need women ….but here’s Marla, fuck capitalism ….but start a business, I have depression and no purpose ….except I’m energetic and obsessed**, who cares about appearances but punch my face, he’s basically a bloody thot, come on. Well ‘ard, he call them here, like a chav. Can you imagine what he’d do alone? Nothing, he has nothing. It’s like James Bond, if he can’t shoot it or seduce it, he isn’t interested.

Edgy McEdgelord, Puncheyface Champion.

Shocked he didn’t get Marla to strangle him during sex with apron-strings.

Print it, Hollywood!

A chav with better threads.

Modern men are sports-fucking civilization to death. No love, totally sterile of meaning. All about the cult of victory and selfies. Muh “men invented civilization” bullshit is proof, number 1 white men (and women) and 2 get off your arse then and at least maintain it!

It’s like the son of a famous gardener standing before a pile of weeds and bracken, pontificating how it’s HIS garden and it won awards and it’s HIS HIS ALL HIS.

On behalf of all women: STFU.

Be useful and still, STFU.

Be Spartan with your words, please.

** fucking uwu lad

Context in the Bible

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Why mention sexually immoral and adultery also? By modern, i.e. false, meanings those would be the same point? The same act i.e. sexing someone you aren’t married to, a particular type of intercourse.

I’ve been re-reading the sections with the word ‘adultery’, with the historically accurate context of adultery and it was there the whole time.

The Bible did say to test things so I looked and I’m shocked it’s clearly there in the phrasing. The only possible interpretation given the multiple instances of context like this is the Thou shalt not mongrelize linguistic origin of the Sixth Commandment.

This doesn’t bode well for the weebs and other outbreeding fetishists. “Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

The narrow modern definition is interpreted falsely (with intellectual dishonesty) and this lends new credence to the concept of the Way being narrow i.e. having the full context.

Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

That would be a great way for a Satanist to destroy us, sell us a publicized misinterpretation of a Commandment so many break it. It also justifies their own lusts (belly, loins) as not sinful for the same acts. They flatter greedy fools (the simple) and what are men most easily deceived by? The phallus.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Equalism aka Liberal Creationism is the myth. Nobody who buys into it can be right-wing i.e. reality-based.

We even have genetics studies, we can physically SEE the differences!

Proverbs: Take the garment of one who puts up security for a stranger; hold it in pledge if it is done for an outsider.

e.g.

Consider the context of:

James 4:4 You adulterers! Don’t you realize that friendship with the world makes you an enemy of God? I say it again: If you want to be a friend of the world, you make yourself an enemy of God.

with the modern limited sense, the use of the concept adultery there is erroneous.

They must mean the deeper, broader rooted sense of the sin.

FYI, scroll to the Sixth Commandment

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl720.htm

“In most translations of the Bible, Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are translated: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” In the literal translation of the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament and in the true translation of the Ten Commandments in The Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: “You will not mongrelize”.

In many people’s minds, there is a very great difference between these two translations, though, as we shall see later, this is due primarily to the purposeful degeneration of the etymology of the word adultery. At issue in the Greek Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament are two Greek words: ou moicheuseis. …

In the Latin Vulgate, Exodus 20:13 was translated as non moechaberis and Romans 13:9 as non adulterabis. The Latin word moechaberis is an inflected form of moechari, a transliteration of the Greek moicheuo, and is of little etymological importance since what it means is merely dependent upon what the Greek word means, which we will explore. However, what is important is adulterabis, an inflected form of the word adultero, since this is the Latin word most often used in the Vulgate and elsewhere to translate the Greek word moicheuo. 

The Greek word ou and the Latin word non are simply negative particles, translated not. Thus, the words that we need to define in order to determine the correct translation of Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are the Greek word moicheuo and the Latin word adultero. 

First, in order to define the word moicheuo, let us turn to a commonly used and commonly available dictionary, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated into English by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Now let us note that Kittel was a well-renowned German Greek scholar and is held in high-esteem by the scholarly community. 

Under the entry word moicheuo, the following definition is given: “of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races.” [In the German original, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, we find the original words of Kittel: “auch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von Mischung verschiedener Rassen”]. 

This, of course, is the classical definition of mongrelization. So the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek Septuagint confirm that the translation “You will not mongrelize” is correct. 

Now that we have defined the Greek, what about the Latin Vulgate? Now we must define the Latin word adultero, and we shall do so using the finest Latin dictionary currently available and the standard among Latin scholars, the Oxford Latin Dictionary: “To mix (a substance or kind) with another, adulterate: to impair the purity or strength of, to give a variety of appearances to, change . . . to corrupt, debase.” Once again, when this is applied to people, we have mongrelization. So we find age-old agreement between the Latin and the Greek. 

Therefore, using two of the most respected reference works available regarding Biblical Greek and the Latin language, and simply looking the words up, we find that these verses in the Bible are in fact an explicit prohibition against race-mixing. 

To any intellectually honest person, the above definitions should be more than enough to convince him that the Bible explicitly prohibits race-mixing. This is exactly why the coalition of evil is so against a true and literal translation of the Word of God. In fact, it may be stated that their theology is little more than a justification system for the breaking of this divine law of God. If the translation You will not mongrelize is wrong, then the two reference works cited above, certainly two of the most prestigious works of their type available, are also wrong. Any legitimate Greek or Latin scholars would agree with these definitions; anyone who would disagree with these definitions have in fact turned their backs on legitimate scholarship and should stop being hypocritical and admit that they do not believe the Bible instead of trying to change what it and what legitimate scholars say.

Now, many people will simply go and find a dictionary that defines the above words as adultery, and then ignorantly presume that adultery is defined as marital infidelity and simply forget about the two definitions cited above.

To show the stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of these people, I have previously written a work entitled Hidden Truth, now published under the title The Truth Unveiled, which gave many more proofs of the definitions of the Greek and Latin family of words commonly translated adultery, and examined in detail every Biblical passage, both Old and New Testaments, where these words occurred. That is not the purpose of this present work. The reader is encouraged to also read the chapter regarding this family of words in The Truth Unveiled for a complete Biblical analysis of this family of words. The objective herein is to examine in detail the etymology of both the Greek and Latin words commonly translated adultery, the ways these words were used in other Greek and Latin literature and in key passages in the Bible, and to explore how the web of deception regarding these words has been woven through the degeneration of language. The information presented hereafter is indisputable and not a subject of debate: one will either be intellectually honest and believe it or one will suffer the fate of all liars and those who help make a lie. 

Whites were the original Native Americans (Clovis people)

Solutrean hypothesis. [Aside from small bands of Viking later on].

https://www.thoughtco.com/solutrean-clovis-connection-american-colonization-172667

“The Solutrean-Clovis connection (more formally known as the “North Atlantic Ice-Edge Corridor Hypothesis”) is one theory of the peopling of the American continents that suggest that the Upper Paleolithic Solutrean culture is ancestral to Clovis. This idea has its roots in the 19th-century when archaeologists such as CC Abbott postulated that the Americas had been colonized by Paleolithic Europeans. After the Radiocarbon Revolution, however, this idea fell into disuse, only to be revived in the late 1990s by American archaeologists Bruce Bradley and Dennis Stanford.

Time of academic standards and real proofs.

Radiocarbon is bullshit and everyone knows it. The hard limit is a thousand years or two.

Radiocarbon Dating Becoming Unreliable

https://carm.org/carbon-dating

“I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

(1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago.  This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. ”

And that’s wood, DNA dies faster but thankfully, we have skeletal forensics.

Their supposed and awfully convenient Asian DNA/Clovis finding was based on, you guessed it, radiocarbon data.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140212-anzik-skeleton-dna-montana-clovis-culture-first-americans/
Plus a hefty pinch of BS.
“Only 1 to 2 percent of the collected DNA was human,” Willerslev said. “The rest of it came from bacteria that invaded the skeleton after death.” “Comparison studies of the ancient DNA showed that it was similar to the genomes of ancient people living in Siberia and the ancestors of East Asians.”
– Siberia is European, racially, especially at that time. So they didn’t actually disprove Solutrean whatsoever.
You also cannot compare 1% of an ancient child’s skull shavings, tops, with modern 100% human DNA.
ANY modern human. It’s well within error range for a racial study. Hypothetically, however….
If they were Asian, they’d be comparable with modern Asians including those living American tribes, not ambiguous and long-dead ‘ancestors’ of certain Asians. AKA they’re (Clovis) not actually related to the modern tribes at all claiming the name ‘Native American’, by their own admission. What does ancestors mean? Could be bloody African for all we know, because they do not explain. Could be an amoeba. Literally.

And why would they genocide their own relatives? Think.

More on Solutrean:

Bradley and Stanford argued that at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, ca 25,000–15,000 radiocarbon years ago, the Iberian peninsula of Europe became a steppe-tundra environment, forcing Solutrean populations to the coasts. Maritime hunters then traveled northward along the ice margin, up the European coast, and around the North Atlantic Sea. Bradley and Stanford pointed out that the perennial Arctic ice at the time could have formed an ice bridge connecting Europe and North America. Ice margins have intense biological productivity and would have provided a robust source of food and other resources….”

Migration proof, timing, ecosystem, food supply. All in keeping with Darwinism.

In line with other intellectually honest, more recent info e.g. A Troublesome Inheritance.

Cue bullshit cover-up.

“Evidence supporting the Solutrean theory of Clovis colonization includes two artifacts—a bi-pointed stone blade and mammoth bone—which are said to have been dredged from the eastern American continental shelf in 1970 by the scalloping boat Cin-Mar. These artifacts found their way into a museum, and the bone was subsequently dated to 22,760 RCYBP. However, according to research published by Eren and colleagues in 2015, the context for this important set of artifacts is completely missing: without a firm context, archaeological evidence is not credible.”

It’s negative evidence for the latter Asian hypotheses, you are wrong.

Appeal to credulity, fuck off with your scientism.

No artifact has context because you can’t go back in time and ask them questions, not an argument.

They literally have objects taken from areas of the earth from those time periods, no radiocarbon required.

PROOF:

One piece of supporting evidence cited in Stanford and Bradley’s 2012 book, ‘Across Atlantic Ice,” is the use of caching. A cache is defined as a tightly clustered deposit of artifacts that containing little or no manufacturing debris or residential debris, artifacts which appear to have been deliberately buried at the same time. For these ancient site types, caches are typically made up of stone or bone/ivory tools.

Ancient preppers, aye.

So you have undisturbed earth, specific cultural objects and known white behaviour.

Stick a fork in it, it’s done.

Bone artifacts are recorded as European and Neanderthal based. They are still used in Europe for leathercraft.

Related reading to Solutrean: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html

“A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast.”

Stanford and Bradley suggest that “only” Clovis (such as Anzick, Colorado and East Wenatchee, Washington) and Solutrean (Volgu, France) societies are known to have cached objects before 13,000 years ago. But there are pre-Clovis caches in Beringia (Old Crow Flats, Alaska, Ushki Lake, Siberia), and pre-Solutrean caches in Europe (Magdalenian Gönnersdorf and Andernach sites in Germany).”

“The most prominent opponent of the Solutrean connection is American anthropologist Lawrence Guy Straus.”
One guy means fuck-all. Whataboutism doesn’t work.

The proof wouldn’t be there if the peoples were not.

Since the discovery of credible Preclovis sites, Bradley and Stanford now argue for a Solutrean origin of Preclovis culture. The diet of Preclovis was definitely more maritime-oriented, and the dates are closer in time to Solutrean by a couple of thousand years—15,000 years ago instead of Clovis’s 11,500, but still short of 22,000. Preclovis stone technology is not the same as Clovis or Solutrean technologies, and the discovery of ivory beveled foreshafts at the Yana RHS site in Western Beringia has further lessened the strength of the technology argument.”

Lessened is not debunked, lessened is your claimed opinion, they just need more data (edit: found, added above). The data they have doesn’t vanish.

Above link up to 26,000 years ago now, guess they found the extra evidence they needed.

“Finally, and perhaps most compellingly, there is a growing body of molecular evidence from modern and ancient indigenous American people indicating that the original population of the Americas have an Asian, and not a European, origin.”

Conflation, intellectual dishonesty, false equivalence.

Er, studying modern people claiming a title means NOTHING to ancient ones. Non sequitur. The modern tribes are Asian based but they’re noticeably not dead under icy layers. It is mathematical certainty the modern Asians in America must’ve killed the ancient Clovis tribes. Genocide.

So there’s no thing as a Native American – that’s still alive.

Latter X2a studies essentially try to prove a negative, therefore impossible, as well as wrong.

Modern tribal Asians in America are also European-Asian mongrels, drawing any conclusions on their DNA is patently false, as it pertains to ancients. Shit in a pool is still shit.

Outside of America, the Clovis child skull study was interpreted correctly:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/dna-analysis-shows-native-americans-had-european-roots-a-954675.html

Now a team of scientists led by the Danish geneticist Eske Willerslev has analyzed the boy’s origins and discovered that he descends from a Siberian tribe with roots tracing back to Europe. Some of the boy’s ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany.

S I B E R I A N

Krauts are so Asian, aren’t they?

Their findings go even further: More than 80 percent of all native peoples in the Americas — from the Alaska’s Aleuts to the Maya of Yucatan to the Aymaras along the Andes — are descended from Montana boy’s lineage.

Mongrels, discounted. Some of those the product of white female rape. Well documented into the late 19th century.

Last week, the scientists published the results of sequencing the child’s DNA in the scientific journal Nature. Late last year, the same team published the decoded genome of another early human: A juvenile buried near Lake Baikal in Siberia some 24,000 years ago. Their genomes showed surprising ancestral similarities.

That American publications forgot to mention.

Along with the entire Siberian study, really.

Totally forgot.

Not suppressed, no.

Perish the thought.

This earned Willerslev’s team an astounding publishing achievement in just 100 days: The decoding of the genomes of the oldest analyzed members of homo sapiens in both the Old and the New Worlds. This has allowed them to reconstruct the settlement of the Americas via the Beringia land bridge during the ice ages — when what is now the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska was frozen over — in greater detail than ever before.

specific DNA, mapped migration patterns, items used…. where’s the argument against now?

In the trash, where it belongs.

A third of both juveniles’ DNA can be traced to the earliest European. Physical evidence also supports this European origin: Archeologists discovered 30 ivory pendants at Mal’ta, the Stone Age settlement site near Lake Baikal where the remains were found. The pendants show great similarity to ones found at Hohle Fels cave, an important Paleolithic site in southern Germany’s Swabian Jura mountains.

Germans are the new Asian?

Such genetic analysis of Native American bones is highly controversial. It is a sacrilege to some. Others fear it could link their ancestors to Europeans, as this study has done. 

If you don’t like science, stop taking our antibiotics.

Gathered at the burial site, Willerslev revealed the team’s results: the remains’ age, the boy’s ancestry to native tribes of the Americas and the links to Siberia and Europe. Doyle’s reaction would determine whether or not Willerslev’s study could be published or not because the scientist had promised to destroy it if he didn’t obtain permission.

Quit your bullshit, scientism.

We don’t destroy findings because the non-whites get uppity. They raped enough white women to have that DNA, it means f-all. It doesn’t connect to ancient peoples directly, as the most PC reporters actually admit.

I’ll believe they’re related to whites when they stop taking AA.

http://www.y-str.org/2014/09/clovis-anzick-dna.html

Further reading

New book reveals Ice Age mariners from Europe were America’s first inhabitants

Some of the earliest humans to inhabit America came from Europe according to a new book Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture. The book puts forward a compelling case for people from northern Spain traveling to America by boat, following the edge of a sea ice shelf that connected Europe and America during the last Ice Age, 14,000 to 25,000 years ago."Across Atlantic Ice : The Origin of America's Clovis Culture" Across Atlantic Ice is the result of more than a decade’s research by leading archaeologists Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, and Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Through archaeological evidence, they turn the long-held theory of the origins of New World populations on its head. For more than 400 years, it has been claimed that people first entered America from Asia, via a land bridge that spanned the Bering Sea. We now know that some people did arrive via this route nearly 15,000 years ago, probably by both land and sea. Eighty years ago, stone tools long believed to have been left by the first New World inhabitants were discovered in New Mexico and named Clovis. These distinctive Clovis stone tools are now dated around 12,000 years ago leading to the recognition that people preceded Clovis into the Americas. No Clovis tools have been found in Alaska or Northeast Asia, but are concentrated in the south eastern United States. Groundbreaking discoveries from the east coast of North America are demonstrating that people who are believed to be Clovis ancestors arrived in this area no later than 18,450 years ago and possibly as early as 23,000 years ago, probably in boats from Europe. These early inhabitants made stone tools that differ in significant ways from the earliest stone tools known in Alaska. It now appears that people entering the New World arrived from more than one direction.

In “Across Atlantic Ice,” the authors trace the origins of Clovis culture from the Solutrean people, who occupied northern Spain and France more than 20,000 years ago. They believe that these people went on to populate America’s east coast, eventually spreading at least as far as Venezuela in South America. The link between Clovis and contemporary Native Americans is not yet clear.

Sure it fucking is – there isn’t one.

They’ve looked and found nothing.

Bradley and Stanford do not suggest that the people from Europe were the only ancestors of modern Native Americans.

They’re mixes, duh. Heavily Asian, look at the skulls.

They argue that it is evident that early inhabitants also arrived from Asia, into Alaska, populating America’s western coast.

Afterward.

Their ongoing research suggests that the early history of the continent is far more intriguing than we formerly believed. Some of the archaeological evidence analyzed in the book was recovered from deep in the ocean. When the first people arrived in America, sea levels were nearly 130 meters lower than today. The shore lines of 20,000 years ago, which hold much of the evidence left by these early people, are now under the ocean. This is also the case in Europe.

We now have really solid evidence that people came from Europe to the New World around 20,000 years ago,” Bradley says. “Our findings represent a paradigm shift in the way we think about America’s early history. We are challenging a very deep-seated belief in how the New World was populated. The story is more intriguing and more complicated than we ever have imagined.” “There are more alternatives than we think in archaeology and we need to have imagination and an open mind when we examine evidence to avoid being stuck in orthodoxy,” Stanford adds. “This book is the result of more than a decade’s work, but it is just the beginning of our journey.” Across Atlantic Ice is published by University California Press, Berkeley.–Source University of Exeter

Problems with “Gladiator diet” rhetoric

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198250/

  1. they were slaves, restricted diet
  2. they were poor, no choice in diet
  3. they were often diseased, multiple
  4. they’re studying the ones bad at the job, enough to die
  5. there’s no such thing as one gladiator, they weren’t even mostly male.

Gladiators in practice wanted to put on a little fat at least to protect the major organs from spears and knives. Do not carry modern Ho-wood assumptions to the ancient world.

The gladiator cemetery discovered in Ephesus (Turkey) in 1993 dates to the 2nd and 3rd century AD. The aim of this study is to reconstruct diverse diet, social stratification, and migration of the inhabitants of Roman Ephesus and the distinct group of gladiators. Stable carbon, nitrogen, and sulphur isotope analysis were applied, and inorganic bone elements (strontium, calcium) were determined. In total, 53 individuals, including 22 gladiators, were analysed.

aka most of those tested were NOT gladiators

yet included?

All individuals consumed C3 plants like wheat and barley as staple food. A few individuals show indication of consumption of C4 plants. The δ13C values of one female from the gladiator cemetery and one gladiator differ from all other individuals. Their δ34S values indicate that they probably migrated from another geographical region or consumed different foods. The δ15N values are relatively low in comparison to other sites from Roman times. A probable cause for the depletion of 15N in Ephesus could be the frequent consumption of legumes. The Sr/Ca-ratios of the gladiators were significantly higher than the values of the contemporary Roman inhabitants. Since the Sr/Ca-ratio reflects the main Ca-supplier in the diet, the elevated values of the gladiators might suggest a frequent use of a plant ash beverage, as mentioned in ancient texts.

Are you telling me they sucked down on almond butter? Legumes, really?

Beverages are not food.

And it might’ve been to stave off infection (use for ash).

Due to the preferred uptake of Ca compared to Sr and the resulting “biopurification” of Ca in the food chain, it was long believed that Sr functions as a dietary plant-to-meat ratio indicator . It was assumed that a high Sr amount in the bone reflected a high vegetarian intake, and a low Sr amount indicated a diet rich in meat. Therefore, studies of Sr/Ca-ratios for the reconstruction of diet were introduced in 1965 for extinct animals and in the 1970s and early 1980s for prehistoric humans . Since then, numerous studies have dealt with this subject. Thus, we refer to detailed review articles(e. g. by , and ). Two major issues with this concept of diet reconstruction have to be highlighted:

Assumed?

First, the dietary plant-to-meat ratio approach experienced a major correction by Burton and Wright . They showed that Sr/Ca ratios in bone reflect the Sr/Ca ratio of the strongest Ca supplier rather than the whole plant-to-meat ratio of a multicomponent diet. This limits future Sr/Ca studies to identifying the major Ca source of the diet.

A second major drawback for the investigation of trace elements arose from the fact that bones buried in soil undergo diagenetic alterations . Many attempts were made to identify and quantify diagenetic changes to Sr/Ca-ratio with the target to reconstruct original Sr/Ca-ratios (summarized in ). Because of the complexity and variability of soil processes, this seems impossible up to now. Therefore, the scientific focus has shifted from trace elements to stable isotopes for diet reconstruction in recent years. Only few combined studies on trace elements and stable isotopes are available. Though we believe that trace element and stable isotope investigations complement each other and have the potential to draw a more comprehensive picture of ancient diets.

it gets worse

run while you still can

The bone sample preparation followed a protocol developed for spectroscopic trace element analysis in bone or teeth . First, the bones were superficially cleaned with tap water and dried at room temperature.

Archaeologists are idiots with spades, exhibit A.

TAP WATER.

ELEMENT ANALYSIS CLEANING.

THEY USE FUCKING TAP WATER.

on ancient samples, my stars

leave it out on the counter near students, it’ll be fiiiiiine

All individuals consumed C3 plants like wheat and barley as staple food.

i.e. Not fucking kale.

Pliny the Elder reported in his Naturalis historia that barley (hordearii), a C3 plant, was a main component of the gladiators nutrition which matches our findings . However, most NG individuals apparently also had C3 plants as a staple food since no statistical difference is detectable.

apparently? no ‘statistical’ difference? detectable?

whose job dis?

Me marking papers, the flashbacks.

A few individuals show more positive δ13C values. The most probable cause for this is an increased consumption of C4 plants such as millet.

probable how

no

how about no

keep filling in those gaps with BS, I’ll wait

Millet was an important nutrition crop in Eurasia and its consumption has already been verified in several ancient societies by stable isotope investigations , especially since the Middle Bronze Age in Italy  published similar δ13C data for imperial Rome Isola Sacra (−18.8‰ versus −18.9‰ here). They mention ancient literature in which millet is described as an animal food and as less desirable for human consumption under “normal” circumstances.

So animal feed. Not suggested for modern humans. K.

In their study, the δ13C values of the faunal remains are more negative than those of the humans, so it was assumed that the terrestrial herbivores basically fed on C3 plants. Although animal bones have not been investigated yet for reference in our study, we agree with .

wut

Cunts with spades, I swear.

Yeah just throw some tap water on it then wonder about the calcium. It’s fine!

If the δ13C values were caused by the consumption of millet-fed animals, then higher δ15N values would be expected for the Ephesus population.

If. I read a scientific analysis of elements for a fucking IF.

It’s like grading a philosophy paper. IF.

If I were Batman.

One of the individuals with a rather strong signal for C4 plants, a δ13C value of −17.8, belongs to the gladiator group (EPH-DAM 187/93 rFEM 6) (Fig. 3).

One person?

One?

Freud had larger sample sizes!

Another gladiator (EPH-DAM 248/93 rFEM 6) and one female (EPH-DAM 72/93 rFEM-1) show at least hints for a mixed signal of C3 and C4 plants.

Kill me now.

show – ok

at least – numbers?

hints – no

Fuck off and die. NO.

mixed signal – a pox on your family line

This individual is also extraordinary as she was the only female to be found in the gladiator cemetery.

No.

This leads to two hypotheses: 1) these individuals had a different diet than the others

no shit Sherlock

or 2) they came from other geographical regions with a more C4 plant-based diet and migrated to Ephesus.

and died before leaving, let’s tell everyone to eat like slaves who died young!

The second one is more probable because the extensive cultivation of millet is only evidenced since the Early Byzantine Period, ca. AD450, for this region . Comparable δ13C data from Roman North Africa (Tunisia) with a mean of −17.7‰ were published by . However, their combined δ13C and δ15N values suggest a significant amount of dietary protein intake from marine resources.

You slipped that one in there, didn’t you?

Last sentence of section. Thought I wouldn’t notice, but I did.

An ancient cookbook written by Apicius which contains a collection of Roman recipes, suggests that seafood was probably consumed in Ephesus. Fish was most likely eaten as fish sauce (garum), but also cooked and salted.

Yeah another thing Whites invented.

 In contrast to this, the two individuals with the highest values are from the gladiator group, too (EPH-DAM 146/93 rFEM 1 and EPH-DAM 76/93 rFEM 2). That indicates a regular consumption of animal proteins and a lower intake of legumes. Within the gladiator group, the isotope data extend over more than one trophic level for δ15N but also for δ13C. This leads to the conclusion that the individuals from the gladiator cemetery were a very heterogeneous group who consumed different kind of foods.

Too pissed, you read the rest.

The meat values simply don’t show up because their methodological test is biased to conceal it with legume intake.

“Pirate” accents are classist and anti-white

That’s just how we originally sounded. Still should should.

Estuary is an improvement on the pretentious modern bollocks of RP.

The comment about heritage hit me in the gut. At school it’s common to be told you’re speaking wrong because you sound too “regional” as an insult aka not right off the banana boat.

Learning the wrong dialect actually shapes the palette of your mouth in childhood.

So really it’s a minor attempt at cultural genocide.

Tongue position is also a major factor in attractiveness.

The 50s deliberately tried to eradicate regional accents at school. People write papers about British accents. Like rhotic and non-rhotic.