Reduced Armenids - Their Traits and History, Particularly in the Jewish People

[Agrippa]

What does a soul have to do with typology?

The reduced Armenids were bred among sedentary farmes and city dwellers in the area of the Fertile Crescent in the Near East, being particularly often active in the field of trade. They were made to be subdominant looking, no threat, even rather wretched, but getting you with from behind...

Of course, thats a generalisation, but really this is the only really urban type in the world, I mean bred for the chaotic cities of the Near East with all their traps for thousands of years. This is particularly evident if comparing them, both appearance, physical qualities and character, with the mountain herders of the more progressive Armenoid kind, they wouldn't stand a chance in anything but a degenerated culture and social niche in comparison to more harmonious progressive forms, both physically and with their dominant personality traits.

Its not by chance that you find them so often among the worst elements of the Jewish people, or other people in which this element is present too...

Kissinger, Blankfein, Soros, Mayer, Sharon, Knobloch, Friedman etc., one could name so many individuals which represent not just "the stereotypically bad Jew", but even in its worst expression.

The Armenid type wasn't successful otherwise latest since its independent states were conquered by Indoeuropeans and Semites...

[Äike]

The reduced Armenids were bred among sedentary farmes and city dwellers in the area of the Fertile Crescent in the Near East, being particularly often active in the field of trade. They were made to be subdominant looking, no threat, even rather wretched, but getting you with from behind...

Of course, thats a generalisation, but really this is the only really urban type in the world, I mean bred for the chaotic cities of the Near East with all their traps for thousands of years. This is particularly evident if comparing them, both appearance, physical qualities and character, with the mountain herders of the more progressive Armenoid kind, they wouldn't stand a chance in anything but a degenerated culture and social niche in comparison to more harmonious progressive forms, both physically and with their dominant personality traits.

Its not by chance that you find them so often among the worst elements of the Jewish people, or other people in which this element is present too...

Kissinger, Blankfein, Soros, Mayer, Sharon, Knobloch, Friedman etc., one could name so many individuals which represent not just "the stereotypically bad Jew", but even in its worst expression.

The Armenid type wasn't successful otherwise latest since its independent states were conquered by Indoeuropeans and Semites...

Your post gave a new definition to pseudoscience. Do you have any reliable scientific articles not from the pre-WW2 era that say that people with certain physical traits are fit for a certain job. It's hard to believe that a group of people achieved a "subdominant look" by practicing a profession(trading).

[Truth Seeker]

Your post gave a new definition to pseudoscience. Do you have any reliable scientific articles not from the pre-WW2 era that say that people with certain physical traits are fit for a certain job. It's hard to believe that a group of people achieved a "subdominant look" by practicing a profession(trading).

I read a study about Americans with different professions having different metrics like neck circumference and face size and other metrics. If I find it Ill post it.

[Truth Seeker]

A study on chinese workers http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/52/8/773

Here is pdf http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/52/8/773.pdf

[Agrippa]

Your post gave a new definition to pseudoscience. Do you have any reliable scientific articles not from the pre-WW2 era that say that people with certain physical traits are fit for a certain job. It's hard to believe that a group of people achieved a "subdominant look" by practicing a profession(trading).

They "achieved" their subdominant look because being forced into a subdominant position as farmers and city dwellers.

It's in a way similar to what the Jews as a whole experienced when they were restricted to certain fields, for which they were both fit and had to adapt even more.

In a similar way you deal in this case with a racial form which origins can be sought in the Caucasian mountains most likely.

From there a rather progressive Armenoid group of people expanded into the Fertile Crescent were they mixed with local Alpinoids and other stock, but were finally bred to something more dependent, less warlike and herder adapted, tillers and city dwellers. Those were subjugated in a whole series of conquests with their own names being long forgotten, being related to the Churri/Hurrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrians), Urartians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu) and Chatti/Hatti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattians) people of most likely Caucasian related languages. Those were not fully Armenoid in any case, but they already had the seeds in their genpool and at that time largest portion of the reduced Armenids already.

They were later divided between Indoeuropeans (Hittites, Mitanni, Armenians, Kurds, Medes, Persians etc.), Semits (Jews, Arabs etc.) and Turkic people (Turks). So the Armenid type, common among Jews today, was originally no Semit racial type, but the local farmer and urban people's descendents Semits assimilated, similar to what happened by the Indoeuropeans in Armenia.

In this subdominant position and in the context of sedentary people with low level individual and group selectionf or saving and social adaptation, they had to compete for their very own niche especially in the cities and more often than otherwise they succeeded in trading.

We have the skeletons of the warriors and elite from Syria f.e. which looks still a like a highly progressive group of people but under this pretty surface this degenerated racial form emerged out of the subjugated people and had to adapt to its subdominant position, while striving for dominance from the back.

This reduced Armenid variant is in comparison to others, even in its very own region:
- disharmonious
- unattractive
- physically less potent and versatile
- a subdominant physique
- saving variants as they can comply better to deficiencies

Thats for sure and I add to that:
- less often among people which are ready to sacrifice or have higher Idealism
- more often among people which are active in trade, corruption, political and intellectual manipulation

Really they have no other niche or "right to exist" from a biological standpoint, their shere existence must be explained by an advantage for survival among the other forms in the Near East.

Interestingly those variants are also among those with high social intelligence, they somewhat tend to a combination of schizothymic and zyklothymic trait in their own way.

I'd suggest that in the situation of the South Western Fertile Crescent among the sedentary people a strong selection towards subdominant social adaptation took place, but with the result of a people, different f.e. from the Alpinid and Osteuropid type, which are not followers, but rather active hustlers which don't compete with the warrior, but in the priest and merchant class, or generally the adaptive and independent farmers.

One has to say that the living conditions especially in this area of the Near East were really different, so it is just absurd to assume that the same selection worked there as f.e. in Eastern Europe.

If you think that some Northern European areas have the same degree of urban life like those areas in the Near East since hundred of years or decades, those for many thousands of years and the reduced Armenid type was not present originally in significant numbers, was not the founder of civilisation, but rather a niche adaptation after the civilisation was established by mostly Mediterranoid people.

I suggest: Proto-Iranoid -> progressive Armenoid in the Caucasian mountain areas -> expansion into the valleys and the Fertile crescent, mixture with Alpinoids and selection for a more sedentary, saving farmer variant and city dweller. In those cities strong selection for "clever social competition from a subdominant starting position" in the context of the chaotic habitat of the Near Eastern cities.

[Breedingvariety]

Your post gave a new definition to pseudoscience. Do you have any reliable scientific articles not from the pre-WW2 era that say that people with certain physical traits are fit for a certain job. It's hard to believe that a group of people achieved a "subdominant look" by practicing a profession(trading).

Do you need scientific articles to understand that for example long legged people are fit for running?

More precisely saying people of "subdominant look" were better suited for trading so "dominant looking" individuals were less successful in it and were outbred causing group to become less "dominant looking". Natural selection works on humans as well. Individuals have to adapt to nature and find their place in social order that strongly determines their spouse suitors. Peoples of similar lifestyles develop characteristics suitable for these lifestyles simply because unsuitable are outbread from these social circles. Individuals of higher social status not only are more likely to posses better values and physical characteristics but they also can get more desirable spouses from lower social classes thus making higher classes more evolutionary versatile simply because of wider choice of partners if nothing else. In time social classes become more biologically defined and mixing becomes unusual.

[Agrippa]

Probably we need some illustration.

We can keep everything to the basic variants present in the Near East.

Iranian plateau herder and herder-farmer, warrior type, dominant progressive racial form, the Iranid type:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4818&stc=1&d=1274882315

In Kurds being much more common among free, warlike Kurds with their animal husbandry rather than "village Kurds", which are more often mixed, had worse nutrition, often worked as tillers and dependent people.

The same category for the hotter lands, the deserts and Oasis, dominant progressive racial form, the Arabid type:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4819&stc=1&d=1274882316

Civil service personell from Barak, note the typical avocations:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4820&stc=1&d=1274882486

From left to right by occupation:
Railway, customs, police and military official.

By racial standards (after v. Eickstedt) pred.:
Alpino-Armenid, Alpinid, Mediterranid, Nordid

I mean in the early Bronze Age, if nothing went horribly wrong, who do you think was dominant? And now imagine not just one, but 100 of the same kind, hundred of the first, second, third or fourth variant - who would make it in a fight of free clans for ressources, wives and land?

Here again a harmonious herder-warrior breed, original Semitic type, progressive-dominant and refined form of the Arabid racial type:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4821&stc=1&d=1274882916

In comparison to a Jewish Armenid (supposed to have Mediterranid admixture after L.F. Clauss, but only so because the head is somewhat longer, facial features are ultra-typical for the reduced Armenid):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4822&stc=1&d=1274883061

Armenid from the Kurdish people:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4823&stc=1&d=1274883061

In comparison to the progressive-dominant Iranid herder-warrior type (modern Kurdish fighter):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4824&stc=1&d=1274883375

Needless to say that the general body and physique goes in the same direction, as can be seen in the Barak officials too.

[Truth Seeker]

Thanks agrippa. Do you have pictures of the skeletons and skulls from syria? Whats difference between arabid and mediterranid proper? It sounds like you agree with coon that armenoids are irano-afghan+alpine.


Why do people always add stupid titles to their classification threads?

"O MAI GOD DIS DUDE HAS 3% J HALPOGROUP!!!!!111111oneoneone SUM BUDY CALL DA INKWASITION!"

Why do people add stupid posts like you. Get a life you loser with no ethnic identity. What are you?

[Agrippa]

Thanks agrippa. Do you have pictures of the skeletons and skulls from syria?

Not at hands right now, but I can just say that I read about them in various works, with concrete description.

I can link a newer one posted on Dienekes page originally:

The first skeleton belonged to a man, 45/50 years old. It is extremely heavy and large. On the right humerus, near the proximal edge, we found two cuts. The healed edges of the wound suggest that the man from Terqa survived after the wound was inflicted. Many muscular attachments were clearly marked on the bones and bone robustness was far above the average, which may suggest that the skeleton belonged to a warrior. These observations correspond to the fact that the bronze part of a belt together with bronze weapon-blades was found on the right side of the hip.


http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123269018/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/02/mtdna-haplogroup-k-in-bronze-age-syria.html

You can imagine a robust boned Iranid from the region being close to this:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3432&d=1261424580
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3433&d=1261424618

All related leptodolichomorphic Europoid forms:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152217&postcount=64

Here some Mesopotamian skulls for comparison (after O. Reche) - original culture bearers of the region:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4826&stc=1&d=1274910775


Whats difference between arabid and mediterranid proper?

Primarily detail features. Like higher frequencies of large almond eyes, convex, arched nose, straight forehead profile even in males, "Semitic smile" and facial expression, deeper fossa canina, somewhat darker and more olive skinned, female sex more often obese etc.

On the skull the differences are much more limited (fossa canina is easier to recognise though...), pretty much like between robust Mediterranid and Nordid or Iranid.


It sounds like you agree with coon that armenoids are irano-afghan+alpine.

Well, not really, especially not in the way Coon postulated it. Because he said, just put a certain mixture together, and stable Taurids pop up - well, thats not true. The brachycephalic cranial shape might have been influenced in Taurids by Borreby-Cromagnoid or Alpinoid infusions, probably, but not necessarily, but the real cause for the shortening of the head was modification + selection. Its clearly the spread of a type which reproduced in its own terrain, as herders of the mountainous areas, more successfully than others.

The reduced Armenids on the other hand came in an area in which we can assume significant Alpinoid presense, but again, crucial was selection.

The Alpinisation trend itself is rather old, but its success story in most parts of the Alpinids current distribution very young, not older than Medieval times, similar for Baltisation and Dinarisation.

Those are processes caused by natural selection, adaptive trends in an environment which was harsh in a way which didnt favoured effectiveness over efficiency in the case of Alpinisation and Baltisation - Dinarisation was more complex and had an effective result in its own right.

Reduced Armenids are pretty much degenerated Taurid forms, this is absolutely evident if comparing them, in every regard, with the more progressive versions.

Like this Armenian f.e.:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4827&stc=1&d=1274911687

From Georgia:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4828&stc=1&d=1274911840

Just compare this mountain type with the reduced Armenid caricatures from above.

Or Individuals representing this, the reduced Armenid type predominantes, like in Kissinger:
http://no-one.us/Henry_Kissinger.jpg

Blankfein:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/28/timestopics/blankfein.jpg

Knobloch:
http://www.merkur-online.de/bilder/2009/01/08/30258/1412888290-fordert-blauhelmsoldaten-einem-robusten-mandat-charlotte-knobloch-praesidentin-zentralrats-juden.9.jpg

Friedman:
http://www.obermayer.us/award/images/friedman.jpg

Louis B. Mayer:
http://new-brunswick.net/Saint_John/fame/pics/mayer.jpg

[Pallantides]

http://www.merkur-online.de/bilder/2009/01/08/30258/1412888290-fordert-blauhelmsoldaten-einem-robusten-mandat-charlotte-knobloch-praesidentin-zentralrats-juden.9.jpg


She is hideous. :puke

[Truth Seeker]

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/02/mtdna-haplogroup-k-in-bronze-age-syria.html


Here some Mesopotamian skulls for comparison (after O. Reche) - original culture bearers of the region:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4826&stc=1&d=1274910775




On the skull the differences are much more limited (fossa canina is easier to recognise though...), pretty much like between robust Mediterranid and Nordid or Iranid.


mtDNA k is high in ashkenazi jews around 1/3 but not as high in other jews.

The mesopotamian skulls look high headed. Mine is low. The last looks large with fat nose opening like some r1a skulls or was it broken? The second looks like this roman officer found in york or not? Cant find front.

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/romans/officer.jpg

What are fossa canina? I read this before didnt get it.

[Aemma]

Do you need scientific articles to understand that for example long legged people are fit for running?

More precisely saying people of "subdominant look" were better suited for trading so "dominant looking" individuals were less successful in it and were outbred causing group to become less "dominant looking". Natural selection works on humans as well. Individuals have to adapt to nature and find their place in social order that strongly determines their spouse suitors. Peoples of similar lifestyles develop characteristics suitable for these lifestyles simply because unsuitable are outbread from these social circles. Individuals of higher social status not only are more likely to posses better values and physical characteristics but they also can get more desirable spouses from lower social classes thus making higher classes more evolutionary versatile simply because of wider choice of partners if nothing else. In time social classes become more biologically defined and mixing becomes unusual.

I'm sorry. As interesting as all of this is (to some degree), and with respect to Agrippa and his very deep knowledge base, I still find it incredibly difficult to wrap my head around the idea that one's nose has anything to do with one's social class or station in life.

[Osweo]

I'm sorry. As interesting as all of this is (to some degree), and with respect to Agrippa and his very deep knowledge base, I still find it incredibly difficult to wrap my head around the idea that one's nose has anything to do with one's social class or station in life.
It's not 'social class' as such, Aemma - think of it rather as 'ecological niche'...

If you accept the mechanisms at work behind evolution - variation within a population, inheritance of traits, and selection for traits based on reproductive success < survival rate - then you cannot argue that this blind statistical process does NOT apply to long-standing human populations.

In this case, we have the city dweller of the near east. You and I live in cities, but where are our ancestors from? I only need go back two generations to find farming folk, and I bet about six or seven would be enough to find almost all of my progenitors on the land. Compare that with the ancestors of Louis B. Mayer, and you have a striking difference. The greater part of his forebears have been urbanites since about three thousand BC or earlier!!! How could these different circumstances NOT have had a role in shaping his genes, and therefore his look?

Sumerians set up their temple-city-statelets... The Priest-Kings organise mass labour to manage the irrigation and so on. A bureaucrat class is born. Semites invade, warriors from the wastelands... Any upright handsome new subject without a talent for scurrying around in near invisible self-abasement is highly likely to lose his head. He won't be doing much breeding - his traits are less likely to be passed on. His more crafty yet inoffensive (even comical) looking brother survives, however. He fathers children. Not much in the way of dignity here, but it's survival at least. Akkadians, Chaldees, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, ... all come and go, and the city dweller of Babylon/Jericho/Jerusalem is inevitably shaped by these circumstances.

Proud strutting conquerors sweep in on horseback from the north and east, taking the cities, laughing at the fawning little townsman, but he gets the last laugh, swallowing up his new overlords as his ancestors had done so many times before. Before the Satrap he is all obsequies and grovelling, but behind the scenes he mocks the outsider and looks after his own interests quite well, using his business acumen and social nouse...

He lives by trade, bargaining, his wits, any physical trait better suited for playing this role will be selected for accordingly. They learn to be successful merchants within the Roman Empire, all the while not attracting anything more dangerous than scorn and derision from the ruling people; they follow the trade routes into the Rhine provinces and Iberia... They manage to wriggle their way through the mediaeval period, moving from Germany to Poland to Russia to England to the USA... And there you have them. :p What's so unbelievable about that?

I've laid it out as a pretty gross and simplistic caricature ,and there's more going on that I've neglected due to the pressures of space, but it's not something to instantly dismiss, surely? And not at all a topic that should be taboo if we truly want to examine all possibilities in figuring out the history of our species as a whole.

[Aemma]

It's not 'social class' as such, Aemma - think of it rather as 'ecological niche'...

If you accept the mechanisms at work behind evolution - variation within a population, inheritance of traits, and selection for traits based on reproductive success < survival rate - then you cannot argue that this blind statistical process does NOT apply to long-standing human populations.

In this case, we have the city dweller of the near east. You and I live in cities, but where are our ancestors from? I only need go back two generations to find farming folk, and I bet about six or seven would be enough to find almost all of my progenitors on the land. Compare that with the ancestors of Louis B. Mayer, and you have a striking difference. The greater part of his forebears have been urbanites since about three thousand BC or earlier!!! How could these different circumstances NOT have had a role in shaping his genes, and therefore his look?

Sumerians set up their temple-city-statelets... The Priest-Kings organise mass labour to manage the irrigation and so on. A bureaucrat class is born. Semites invade, warriors from the wastelands... Any upright handsome new subject without a talent for scurrying around in near invisible self-abasement is highly likely to lose his head. He won't be doing much breeding - his traits are less likely to be passed on. His more crafty yet inoffensive (even comical) looking brother survives, however. He fathers children. Not much in the way of dignity here, but it's survival at least. Akkadians, Chaldees, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, ... all come and go, and the city dweller of Babylon/Jericho/Jerusalem is inevitably shaped by these circumstances.

Proud strutting conquerors sweep in on horseback from the north and east, taking the cities, laughing at the fawning little townsman, but he gets the last laugh, swallowing up his new overlords as his ancestors had done so many times before. Before the Satrap he is all obsequies and grovelling, but behind the scenes he mocks the outsider and looks after his own interests quite well, using his business acumen and social nouse...

He lives by trade, bargaining, his wits, any physical trait better suited for playing this role will be selected for accordingly. They learn to be successful merchants within the Roman Empire, all the while not attracting anything more dangerous than scorn and derision from the ruling people; they follow the trade routes into the Rhine provinces and Iberia... They manage to wriggle their way through the mediaeval period, moving from Germany to Poland to Russia to England to the USA... And there you have them. :p What's so unbelievable about that?

I've laid it out as a pretty gross and simplistic caricature ,and there's more going on that I've neglected due to the pressures of space, but it's not something to instantly dismiss, surely? And not at all a topic that should be taboo if we truly want to examine all possibilities in figuring out the history of our species as a whole.

Ok I'll give you some of this (if not most of it) but surely it is only part and parcel of the whole. I mean there are many other factors involved than just genetics, economics, socio-political forces are but 2 things that come to mind right now.

And thank you for the comprehensive and insightful post, Oss. Food for thought for sure.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I'm sorry. As interesting as all of this is (to some degree), and with respect to Agrippa and his very deep knowledge base, I still find it incredibly difficult to wrap my head around the idea that one's nose has anything to do with one's social class or station in life.

But it has angel face.
The Bantu have thick noses and deep cavities.
Reason they pick their noses with their knuckles and knuckle nose pickers are low class.
I could explain all other type of noses,but you would call me a snot nose. :D

[Agrippa]

She is hideous. :puke

She is, in many ways I might add, as the leader of the Jewish Central organ in Germany and her constant anti-German, anti-European, pro-Zionist, pro-American, pro-Capitalist rants go through the media all the time are well known...

As if that wouldn't be enough, her son Bernd Knobloch is in the supervisory board, responsible for risk management, of the Hypo Real Estate, a major bank which was deeply involved in the big financial crisis, was bailed out by the Geman state with billions and billions, being involved in Greece too of course...

Phenotypically more progressive, he is still a typical example for a "problem Jew" which abused all the privileges they have in Germany:
http://static.wiwo.de/media/1/20_unt_table_knobloch.jpg


The mesopotamian skulls look high headed. Mine is low. The last looks large with fat nose opening like some r1a skulls or was it broken? The second looks like this roman officer found in york or not? Cant find front

Many older Europid populations were higher headed than they are now, Ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians - though certain Iranid variants still are, Corded & Mediterranid in Europe...

The skulls were compared by some authors to the Long Barrow skulls.

The last one has a broken nose, so has the first. Even among Corded skulls in Europe rather broad nosed people were more frequent actually. There was a greater variation in the early leptodolichomorphs for this trait, it seems the narrow nosed variants largely won the selective competition - at least in the progressive leptodolichomorphs.

Thats really evident if looking at the ancient remains of the LBK, Corded etc...

Today broader nosed Europids come mostly from the Cromagnoids and there archaic variants in particular...

In this regard there was a progress from Late Neolithic to Metal Age times. Then it went down again, especially in Medieval Times of course, with strong dysgenic trends, contraselection en large.


What are fossa canina? I read this before didnt get it.

Compare:
http://www.zahnfocus24.de/ZT_Wissen_oberkiefer_maxillae-k31.htm

http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/7/71/Gray157.png

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Medizin/Anatomie/makro1/m010l.gif

If those are deeper, the ends of the mouth might go up differently when smiling/laughing, together with the general lip-mouth shape, thats part of the "Semitic smile".


I'm sorry. As interesting as all of this is (to some degree), and with respect to Agrippa and his very deep knowledge base, I still find it incredibly difficult to wrap my head around the idea that one's nose has anything to do with one's social class or station in life.

The exact type of the nose might represent different stages of maturation, but being otherwise really not that important, thats correct, if its not about psychosocial interdepencies, but obviously the type in question is not just defined by the nose alone, it is rather that this nose fits into the whole trait combination in this racial type...

And in comparison to the "hawkish" large noses, they are just ugly and at the same time more subdominant, not as "arrogant" but rather submissive in a deceptive way.


Any upright handsome new subject without a talent for scurrying around in near invisible self-abasement is highly likely to lose his head.He won't be doing much breeding - his traits are less likely to be passed on. His more crafty yet inoffensive (even comical) looking brother survives, however. He fathers children. Not much in the way of dignity here, but it's survival at least. Akkadians, Chaldees, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, ... all come and go, and the city dweller of Babylon/Jericho/Jerusalem is inevitably shaped by these circumstances.


You are on the right track, but just look at it from another perspective too:

The conquererors, proud clans of herder-warriors enter those cities and lands, now what want they do? Play simple farmers and work for the fields and irrigation system? Can they read? Can they calculate? Do trade?

They conquered not just the land, but also the people to let them work for them. They dominate.

But under their dominance is also a helplessness, because this whole new civilisation, even if they were able to conquer it, is still much to complex for them to fully get it. I mean thats the same with the Indoeuropeans and Semites unless they really form a ruling class in caste like system.

And so who do they need?

Now think the new conquerors have inner conflicts or cousins from the outside world - the herders and warriors from the flat land, look what they did and want the same life. What will follow? Wars, wars, wars.

But who will be killed primarily? The political leaders and warrior class, because the simply farmers, traders and administrators being not exchanged, but only the head changes.

In some areas of the Fertile Crescent we can be pretty sure that it didn't really matter which Indoeuropean or Semitic tribe controlled it, a large portion of the population of simple, dependent and fully sedentary farmers, town- and city folk with traders and administrators, will have been the same under each rule.

So unlike in early times, when the higher level individual and group selection worked out, the successful clans might not get a higher reproductive success than those they conquer. Among the herder-warriors and farmer-warriors the loser was dispossessed, wives taken, land taken, children and males eliminated often. The winner, even if he had to lose a brother or cousin, would have had a much higher reproductive success = biological progress.

If the warlike and well organised elite fights over land AND people, to use both for their well being, economically-politically, then the conquerors and warriors might suffer much heavier losses on the long term perspective.

Until the negative maximum was reached in modern mass wars. But actually even much earlier, since large state armies fought each other and no Eugenic measurements balanced the losses of good variants out.

In the Near East, the reduced Armenids were not super-successful actually, rather the contrary for a certain time, namely as long as they couldn't make it among all farmers and herders and they were constantly crushed, really crushed, by the more powerful neighbors.

Their great success came in rather stable political environments, in which the trader and city dweller was protected. That resulted in their great advantage and the survival of their niche. They really concentrated on their social niche and had great success in it, but still they also exist among sedentary-dependent farmers.

Again, even if you don't take only the city dwellers into account - most of the progressive European Europids and Near Eastern Europids ancestors were rather mobile. Always ready to move if a chance waited for them.

Its funny that the Jew is now the nomad, because by specialisation it wasn't and it in fact still isn't. Because the real nomads moved on their own and build up their culture and land were they came. The Jewish trader or other traders, interestingly many being since ancient times from the same stock like Armenians were well known for their professional trade, moved just from one city to another, they never changed their niche or build up a civilisation, they just changed the location but are everywhere in the same microcosmos.

Thats very different from what real half-nomads and nomads were, which were often quite self-sufficient, the trader never is, he fully relies on structures others build up and defend for him. His trade must be protected by other people, by laws and ideas, so he can go on. So he must manipulate his social environment, thats his greatest challenge. To be secure, to be able to trade, to be save and successful, making huge profits.

The warlike nomads lived on thier own or conquered on their own, which is a totally different mentality.


Ok I'll give you some of this (if not most of it) but surely it is only part and parcel of the whole. I mean there are many other factors involved than just genetics, economics, socio-political forces are but 2 things that come to mind right now.

Every coin has two sides and since humans are a social and cultural species, they always have the social-cultural aspect too. We deal here quite often with long lasting family traditions, memetic programs so to say.

There are always memes & genes. Culture is a tool for survival, like the biologial part, it can degenerate and become useless or even dangerous.

In the social and cultural species of Homo sapiens, the social and cultural environment can be as, or even more important for a selective trend than the natural environment. Just imagine such traders jumping from one city to another, always in this small microcosmos which was supported by the rural areas around it - how much had they care for temperature or sun?

Not too much at all.

But for their social and cultural system, their memetic strategy? Very much. Thats why Jews became in some clans quite inbred and at the same time more intelligent, especially by social intelligence. That mattered just much more for their social niche and cultural strategy.

Many European farmers became reduced, broader, more stupid, compliant and superstitious especially during the famines, peasant wars, inquisiation, plagues, religious indoctrination etc.

F.e. in France during the great famine, starving farmers organised warbands and began to plunder the neighbouring areas. What happened? They were massacred.

Farmers learned that they have to endure even the worst and lowest life. Those who didn't learn that lesson or were not able to were eliminated in the poor areas of Europe = Alpinisation + Baltisation.

That was not just the "natural selection", because what would have happened without the state intervention? Warbands of clans would have going through the countryside and only those would have made it which were able to defend their goods, rather than those which could survive just from a handfull of grain while the black death went through the scorched lands...

Also the mercenary, those who went to the cities and priests: Gifted, more intelligent and capable people often. But they died off.

The simple farmer which could survive from a handfull of grain survived and 6 from his 12 children too...

But thats again no "natural selection" like it is in animals, because the environment in which this took place was formed by humans!

In another cultural environment, things would have looked different probably.


Also look at what Capitalism is, Capitalism, especially Liberalcapitalism is the Jewish merchant spirit which has overtaken the whole society.

Often with the allied Calvinists so dominant in the USA and England in particular.

What kind of environment being build up that way?

An idealistic doctor or nurse which works all day to save others, do something for the group with ruin itself and probably die childless, but asocial foreigners and speculators, bankers will get a huge fortune, political power and more offspring too.

Is the doctor and nurse inferior? In a Capitalist system like this they are, because the system itself is asocial, asocial variants will prevail.

Now imagine clans which have an asocial attitude for thousands of years - every honest and more idealistic member would have had a significant disadvantage for being as successful like his asocial relatives.

Of course, you have to limit that behaviour, at least the bloodline must work together, because otherwise you eat up yourself - or better your own relatives and offspring.

But that doesn't mean you have to care for anybody else.

Just recently studies have proven that collective punishment will pay off biologically. Now collective punishment largely eliminated asocial behaviour and punished those which were not group oriented so hard, that they had to comply or had significant disadvantages.

Now again, think about when those measurements are low: Especially in chaotic cities and among traders. Because in those environments, the naturally grown communities cannot exist in the same way as they did among farmers and herders, at least if there was no political will to do so. At best only religion could keep them together.

Niches for all kind of asocial traits were formed and in the end, variants were allowed to exist, even to flourish, which are highly detrimental to the greater whole.

So a group has a disadvantage from those variants - but if such variants work together in a network on their own, they might win in the end, because they can - like in the new Capitalism say: "Profits are private, but losings and costs can be socialised - have to be paid by the local community."

The current system is the wet dream of every city trader since thousands of years, Capitalism without the state intervening for the greater whole and political rules by a master class is the ultimate asocial behaviour which became the new standard for ALL PEOPLE.

But even if this asocial behaviour is the new standard for all people, who will profit from this the most?

Those which were adjusted, biologically-genetically and culturally-memetically to be the ultimate competitors as a group in such a chaotic system of bargaining, racketeering, cheating, corrupting, exploiting other people without mercy etc.

Just to give you an impression of the memetic program which is the direct equivalent to the reduced Armenid types biological status:

Orthodox Jews say the rules were made by god, and god is all knowing and almighty, so if you can cheat on god, if you can cheat on his rules, you were just chosen to do so, because he made it that way that you can cheat, so you can have success in a time you need it.

So many Jews work a great time looking at how they can cheat on their own religious rules. Rather than changing them - which they refuse, also because it would change their "identity", they just look for loopholes in stupid rules and try to "cheat on god".

I mean how perverted is that!

Thats also why they are so good lawyers and why the current Western law system is like it is, it is not about the sense of a law, but its wording.

You have to keep that in mind, it's never about the sense, always about its wording. Thats directly against old European Christianity in a certain way, but not against (AGAIN!) Calvinists which take the bible literally!

And with this attitude, every rule is just there to find a loophole and if you find a loophole, you are chosen by god, who knew this (Calvinist predestination!), you are good, your success being "god's will".

Only the stupid follow the sense of a rule and lose an advantage because of that. Thats the spirit of Capitalism and certain Jewish groups at least.

A mind thinking that way naturally is often also a great social manipulator, because it has no consciousness in the sense we Europeans think of it.

Thats really poison and unfortunately the whole Western culture became infected by Jews and Calvinists originally.

Not because cheating and the search for loopholes wasn't existing before, but because this way of thinking and acting became a moral standard even!

The honest one, the one sticking to the sense of something and really caring being "the idiot" - of course in that way they can argue for "Egoism like in Capitalism being genetic", because in such a system many people have to become or at least play assholes just to make it, so they themselves become sick and unhappy by this way of life.

Again who can stay healthier while being so? Those adapted to it by their genes and memes.

Clans like the Rothschilds and Rockefeller just prove it - just on a much higher level than the average Armenid hustler, which does a great part of the work though and founded especially this memetic social traditions in my opinion...

[Truth Seeker]

The long barrow from coons book looks lower and wider to me. I read from a table that nordics had deep canine fossa. This picture was on my computer somewhere. I think I found it at a slavic forum.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/3292/179dfa1f67b6.png

[Agrippa]

The long barrow from coons book looks lower and wider to me. I read from a table that nordics had deep canine fossa. This picture was on my computer somewhere. I think I found it at a slavic forum.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/3292/179dfa1f67b6.png

Thats "interesting", but not so much because Nordids should tend towards a deeper fossa canina too, but rather because they wrote nothing about that for the "Orientals", whats really a mystery.

But probably not as much, because they describe the "Orientals" as taller and hairier than typical Arabids are, so probably as much in a Iranid than Arabid direction going.

Its a very, very basic scheme without more differentiations, its from the Polish School, can't say very much about it otherwise.

Here an extreme case for the visibility on the living:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4841&stc=1&d=1275053368



The long barrow from coons book looks lower and wider to me.

Yes indeed, thats how they were described. I too think they are closer to Corded, high skulled Eastnordids and Iranid skulls rather than Western robust Mediterranid, though they share traits with those too - clearly with all robust leptodolichomorphic and Europids, also their mixtures with more progressive Cromagnids.

As for what I said about the "Jewish loopholes" with which they cheat on their own rules and "moral", cheat on god in the end, I remembered an excellent example.

Some Christians and most believing Muslims have the imperative that the woman should cover her body and being clothed in a rather modest way, often cover her hair as a sexual signal if having contact with foreign males.

Now some Christians did it, some sects or nuns used a cover for their head, Muslims use their well known clothes as well and usually Muslims which think thats unnecessary just don't do it. Its a clear decision for a believer: Do you think its a commandment of god or the prophet or not, if you think it is, you have to wear it, if not, you don't.

What did the radical Ashkenazic Jews which are the extreme in this regard?

They lived in an environment in which the women did not cover their hair in Europe, now they would have attract attention in a negative way if covering their hair. So the women just cut off their hair and wear wigs!

Can you imagine that?! A rule which was made up so that the women don't attract the sexual attention of foreign males and they follow its wording by cutting their hair, wearing wigs and getting foreign males attention...

There were whole Jewish religious schools which works and rules are mostly based on such "loopholes", how to obey god's rules and still getting a personal advantage by finally "cheating god", rather than questioning some stupid rules or if believing in them really following like it was supposed to...

@Osweo: Calvinism was very influential in Britain, in Scotland too and interestingly at a certain time many traders were Scots and there is this idea of remnants of the Knights Templars making it up to Scotland, being very influential with their ideas and forming there also the first higher freemasons - obviously before Protestantism of course.

In England one cannot miss the story of Oliver Cromwell and William III of Orange, which came to power with the support of the plutocrats, but most important was the Puritan movement.

Actually Jewish investors helped to spread the writings of Calvin in England and it had a heavy impact even after the real Puritans departed.

An absolutely sick aspect of this influences, living on to this day, is "British Israelism", typically born again in the crucial period of the 17th century:

One of the first published forms of the theory of an Israelite genealogy for the British was The Rights of the Kingdom by John Sadler, published in 1649

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

Similar views live on to this day and were a great tool for supporting the Zionist-Jewish - Evengelical-Calvinist Christian union.

It was a tool to strength the individual citizenship and religious affiliation even more while cutting off the true ethnoracial bonds, especially with the other people of Europe.

At the same time the Bank of England was founded, this opened up the doors for the control of the bankers:

It was established in 1694 to act as the English Government's banker, and to this day it still acts as the banker for HM Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

Crucial is not the foundation of a Central Bank as such, which could have been a good step if it would have been done in another way, but the exact way it happened, under which rules it could operate and being operated by whom.

You can see, the 17th century was really crucial for the "English deviation" and the overtaking of the plutocratic power and their associated ideologies. Like in the case of the USA centuries later, the plutocrats moved from Italy, Spain and the Netherlands to England, the emerging trading superpower and took part in its ascension.

William III was really in the centre of the development and so was, from an ideological perspective Calvinism. After all religion is in its function just an ideology with an additional motivation due to transcendental powers and some sort of salvation being involved, which strengthen the importance of the - often stupid, but also often identity related and quite often useful in one way or another for the group or at least those who made it up - rules.

The Puritan/Calvinist spirit and influence really gave England, after having had a deviating tendency before already with the Norman conquest (foreign aristocracy), different inheritance pattern leading to a large part of the aristocracy becoming bourgeois, law for ownership, magna carta etc., the final and real spin - I might add by the spin doctors of their time - in the direction of what plutocratic powers which were in formation at that time really wanted and needed. It became their centre with the City of London being its best representative:


"Nowadays, with its Lord Mayor, its Beadles, Sheriffs and Aldermen, its separate police force and its select electorate of freemen and liverymen, the City of London is an anachronism of the worst kind. The Corporation, which runs the City like a one-party mini-state, is an unreconstructed old boys' network whose medievalist pageantry camouflages the very real power and wealth which it holds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation

If you think about that England had good tendencies before too, the impact can be thought even bigger, just think of the tally stick story, some might know it already and how England changed into a plutocratic hostage, the tally stick story might be a good example:


Royal tallies (debt of the Crown) also played an infamous role in the formation of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century when these royal tallies—trading at a hefty discount of up to 60 percent—were engrafted into the Bank’s capital stock.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick

The 17th century was the end of the Germanic England politically, from that on, it largely served as an operation base for the new Anglo-Jewish plutocracy.

England had a long fight, but finally lost, thanks to its treacherous aristocracy and bourgeois, but also with the infamous king Henry VIII., which, though he wanted something else, finally began the downfall.

Also the USA, though being infiltrated by the Puritans, had a long fight until the Federal Reserve System was installed, but in the end, it is definitely not by chance that these two nations became the most infected ones and the true base of the Western Plutocratic Oligarchy. Not by chance...

Current financial Capitalism being easier to accept by Calvinists:

Calvin expressed himself on usury in a 1545 letter to a friend, Claude de Sachin, in which he criticized the use of certain passages of scripture invoked by people opposed to the charging of interest. He reinterpreted some of these passages, and suggested that others of them had been rendered irrelevant by changed conditions. He also dismissed the argument (based upon the writings of Aristotle) that it is wrong to charge interest for money because money itself is barren. He said that the walls and the roof of a house are barren, too, but it is permissible to charge someone for allowing him to use them. In the same way, money can be made fruitful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

In this regard, Calvin argues like the Jews, because obviously, if Jesus had one thing in mind, going after the scriptures, it was surely not, "usury is ok if it's not much more than about 5 percent..."

Even more so because if you open that door without a more strict interpretation, it's clear that you can't stop it there, at least if you can add 2 + 2, but probably that's how we look at it now, with the knowledge of our historical past, Calvin was more honest and naive - or a Crypto-Jew or at least against European values, I don't know for sure.

I'm just sure about the outcome of certain Calvinist movements, in particular those of England...

[Osweo]

Agrippa, this is quite fascinating, and you draw links between some facts that had been floating around in my head previously without the necessary connection. It's very easy for an Englishman, or American, to turn round at this and go into Chauvinist autopilot, but I'm trying to control that instinct - I see we ARE on the wrong track, and it's important to know how and why that happened.

As you can imagine, however, this means struggling against several centuries of indoctrination, to the point where it's become ingrained almost.

I don't know if this is my only motivation in seeking to find holes in your thesis, but I do have some problems with it. A lot of my own Englishness is wrapped around the 1640s struggle, indeed, and perhaps even more so in that of the 1530s. I have little trouble with seeing the menace in William III, but to have to do this for Cromwell, and even Henry VIII is incredibly difficult for me. I suppose I have to separate the good from the bad in these figures - the anti-Popery and anti-Absolutism, from the vulnerability they may have caused us in ideological terms...

And I still sniff a little too much Catholicism in your analysis... ;) You should add into your list of villains those popes and bishops that forever damned that religion in the eyes of Englishmen, with their 'as soon as the Geld in the coffer klingt, the soul from purgatory springt'. With this putrid corruption, it was all made inevitable from the start.

And if it was all so clear at the time - why was there so little attempt from countries free of this taint to save us? I imagine you even see this continuing down to the Great War. Has the propaganda deafened out other dissident voices?

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, this is quite fascinating, and you draw links between some facts that had been floating around in my head previously without the necessary connection. It's very easy for an Englishman, or American, to turn round at this and go into Chauvinist autopilot, but I'm trying to control that instinct - I see we ARE on the wrong track, and it's important to know how and why that happened.

As you can imagine, however, this means struggling against several centuries of indoctrination, to the point where it's become ingrained almost.

It is even worse if its a religious doctrine of course, because then you have to reject something "god said" if you are a believer. But in fact, thats the situation many people are today, even believing Jews themselves if they want to better - most don't want though it seems...


I have little trouble with seeing the menace in William III, but to have to do this for Cromwell, and even Henry VIII is incredibly difficult for me.

Well, obviously Cromwell and Henry VIII had good AND bad sides, so they are more ambiguous, probably even Calvin was in a certain way, but with their historical impact, they made possible what followed.

Some Marxists want many things, but surely not something like Cultural Marxism and this being applied as a mean of control and destruction by a Capitalist plutocracy.

Thats why I said, especially for Henry VIII: "Though he wanted something else". He didn't wanted that, but his break with the tradition, his actions and character, damaged the kingdom.


I suppose I have to separate the good from the bad in these figures - the anti-Popery and anti-Absolutism, from the vulnerability they may have caused us in ideological terms...

Even Capitalism had some positive effects, even the bankers were not always just a pain in the ass to say it blunt, but with their bad deeds they caused some good developments too at times.

But still, I say the good things could have been achieved otherwise too, but the bad things finally prevailed and culminated in what we face now, the very extinction of European people, culture and race, the enslavement and exploitation of mankind by the Plutocratic Oligarchy with all higher values being destroyed.


And I still sniff a little too much Catholicism in your analysis...

Catholicism had some good and some bad aspects. F.e. that priests couldn't marry and too much monasteries were build up had negative effects biologically. Among many other things.

Other Catholic weaknesses are present in "the Western church" as such, so deeply rooted in Western Christianity and often being present in an even more extreme form in Protestants.

The good aspect was that Catholicism is more oriented on a Gemeinschaft and anti-Capitalist in a certain way - but this is also regionally very different and from time to time etc. But speaking of a general sentiment in the population...


You should add into your list of villains those popes and bishops that forever damned that religion in the eyes of Englishmen, with their 'as soon as the Geld in the coffer klingt, the soul from purgatory springt'. With this putrid corruption, it was all made inevitable from the start.

I know that was perverted and the only one who said something positive about the simony and selling of indulgences, with the general corruption of Catholicism, which I can accept, was Nietzsche in "Antichrist":


Here it becomes necessary to touch on a memory which is even a hundred times more painful for Germans. The Germans have cheated Europe out of the last great cultural harvest which Europe could still have brought home—that of the Renaissance. Does one understand at last, does one want to understand, what the Renaissance was? The revaluation of Christian values, the attempt, undertaken with every means, with every instinct, with all genius, to bring the countervalues, the noble values to victory.

So far there has been only this one great war, so far there has been no more decisive question than that of the Renaissance—my question is its question—nor has there ever been a more fundamental, a straighter form of attack in which the whole front was led more strictly against the center. Attacking in the decisive place, in the very seat of Christianity, placing the noble values on the throne here, I mean, bringing them right into the instincts, into the lowest needs and desires of those who sat there!

I envisage a possibility of a perfectly supraterrestrial magic and fascination of color: it seems to me that it glistens in all the tremors of subtle beauty, that an art is at work in it, so divine, so devilishly divine that one searches millennia in vain for a second such possibility; I envisage a spectacle so ingenious, so wonderfully paradoxical at the same time, that all the deities on Olympus would have had occasion for immortal laughter: Cesare Borgia as pope. Am I understood? Well then, that would have been the victory which alone I crave today: with that, Christianity would have been abolished.

What happened? A German monk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts of a shipwrecked priest in his system, was outraged in Rome—against the Renaissance. Instead of understanding, with the most profound gratitude, the tremendous event that had happened here, the overcoming of Christianity in its very seat, his hatred understood only how to derive its own nourishment from this spectacle. A religious person thinks only of himself.

Luther saw the corruption of the papacy when precisely the opposite was more than obvious: the old corruption, the peccatum originale, Christianity no longer sat on the papal throne. But life! But the triumph of life! But the great Yes to all high, beautiful, audacious things! And Luther restored the church: he attacked it.


http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Religion/Nietzsche-The-Anti-Christ/

Thats the only thing, that they abolished useless Christian restrictions - but since they didn't so in a honest way, they acted too - "like a false Jew" - the pope and his menials I mean...


And if it was all so clear at the time - why was there so little attempt from countries free of this taint to save us? I imagine you even see this continuing down to the Great War. Has the propaganda deafened out other dissident voices?

After the Plutocracy made sure it had England and its trade and Empire, obviously it always looked carefully for secure their dominance, English political and Plutocratic interests became to a large degree the same for some centuries.

It definitely eliminated other dissident voices or at least kept it down - or allowed it in certain limits, distracting it from it really important things. Because even if one was an Antisemite, if he didn't got how Financial Capitalism worked, was used and abused, he had no means...

There were many people which had opposing views in England in this or that regard, but none of those resulted in a great movement which could have really changed things again.

Here a post of mine related to the issue, if its about the policy and wars:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=207300&postcount=9
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=207319&postcount=11

[Truth Seeker]

Thats "interesting", but not so much because Nordids should tend towards a deeper fossa canina too, but rather because they wrote nothing about that for the "Orientals", whats really a mystery.

But probably not as much, because they describe the "Orientals" as taller and hairier than typical Arabids are, so probably as much in a Iranid than Arabid direction going.

Its a very, very basic scheme without more differentiations, its from the Polish School, can't say very much about it otherwise.

Is it not a good idea to read polish writings? I dont want to be reading the wrong stuff. The table is saying the nordic can have ci up to 82 and fi as low as 84. Im reading coons book right now I got from the local library. I only read parts of it. I dont know much about the mideast or the jews. Everything I know about the jews is on the internet.

[Agrippa]

Is it not a good idea to read polish writings? I dont want to be reading the wrong stuff. The table is saying the nordic can have ci up to 82 and fi as low as 84. Im reading coons book right now I got from the local library. I only read parts of it. I dont know much about the mideast or the jews. Everything I know about the jews is on the internet.

I'd say it is not bad to know the Polish writings, which can be valuable, but there were different authors in Poland too and it is like it is with others too, some things they got right, others probably less so.

Also the basic Polish system was quite specific in its mathematical approach, limited numbers of types etc. One has to know that especially if it's about the way they use certain terms in contrast to other anthropological schools.