Peace, Poverty and Betrayal: A New History of British India. Don’t read if you haven’t read on this topic before. Also, check out John Darwin’s Unfinished Empire: The Global Expansion of Britain.
Applying IQ to IQ. This is my most popular Substack post. I always feel stupid arguing that being intelligent is important.
Herded and hunted goat genomes from the dawn of domestication in the Zagros Mountains.
PRDM9 losses in vertebrates are coupled to the loss of at least three other meiotic genes.
New version of AdmixTools.
Thank you to everyone here who subscribed to my Substack. For those of you who subscribe to the paid content, I am hoping you can tell I’m putting a lot of effort into the writing!
(1/2) RE: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
(SlVlad, draft, google translated, another reflection of sc. ‘Indo-European’ story)
The globalization of sports, in which former sports clubs become companies or franchises, has led to its complete depersonalization. Paradoxically, while these elite companies fight each other “angrily” in stadiums or halls, their managements belong to the same global environment, so there is a perfect peace between them dedicated to a common goal: producing a spectacle and making a profit from it.
Spectacle implies a renunciation of one’s own peculiarities. Guy Debord wrote in the 1960s that “the agent of the spectacle who enters the stage in the role of a star is the exact opposite of the individual: he is as much the enemy of his own individuality as the individuality of others.” In other words, a star cannot be a person, she must be a model. This is evidenced by the biggest sports stars who perform off-field as agents of the spectacle/Global Capital, and not as personalities. With these stars, there is no distance from the spectacle, no personal attitude, as a trace of some irreducible individuality in them, or at least a moment of slight irony towards the spectacle that would give us the opportunity to sense that there is something in these people that Global Capital did not buy and appropriate. That, however, is not happening. Even when they are not on the field, they remain agents of the spectacle, who train their fans so that they believe that the spectacle and the Global Capital that produces it are the only good, and that everything else is evil. G.Debord says:
“The spectacle itself presents itself as a wide and inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. His only message is: What is seen is good, what is good is seen. The passive consent, which the spectacle demands, is in fact effectively imposed by its monopoly on appearance, the way it appears and which leaves no room for any answer. ”
Djokovic’s entire career is one long, epic match of Man against Global Capital. It is not unimportant that Djokovic is a tennis player. Namely, tennis is exactly the sport that until recently represented Global Capital in its purest form. The Wimbledon final is watched by just over 14,000 spectators. So, chosen. Plebeians are outside. The spectacle is intended for them.
The symbol of the connection between Tennis, Spectacle and Global Capital is Roger Federer. His capacity is not only tennis, concretized in titles, but also visual: his movements are elegant, and his game is multidimensional. He does not act as a machine that always repeats the same movements, but as an artist who has countless options on the field – as a true genius. Off the field, Federer speaks several languages, so like a global brand, not belonging to anyone, it seems to belong to everyone. He is a handsome, striking man, who radiates masculinity, but, thanks to his hairstyle, not machismo; he mediated an aura of elegance but not arrogance. That’s why his brands are Rolex, Mercedes and once Nike, during the peak of his career. That is his image. It is a projection of Federer as shaped by Global Capital, showing himself in it. Therefore, if in the we replace the word spectacle with the name Federer and you will understand what it was for Global Capital: “The spectacle is the constant speech of the ruling order about itself, its continuous monologue of self-confidence, “
Federer, therefore, was destined to be GOAT, the best tennis player of all time, which would (Anglo-Saxon) Global Capital Tennis concrete into the narrative of its own superiority, for ever and ever, which suggests the schedule of four Grand Slam tournaments. Three of those four are in the Anglo-Saxon sphere, and only one in the Romance (Roland Garros).
Federer was supposed to be the emperor of such Tennis, and to rule forever in the name of the Global Capital he represents. In order to cover up such static and immutability of his power in Tennis, it was necessary, however, to create some illusion of spectacle, that is, fight, agony, duel, but so that the final winner is known in advance, although it would not always be obvious on the court.
That is why, in addition to the First (Federer), another was needed: Rafael Nadal.
Nadal is called the King of Clay, which sounds like a compliment, but it really isn’t. This formulation unmistakably reveals Nadal’s provincial character. He was destined to rule his Romanesque-clay kingdom: Madrid, Rome and, of course, Paris. Occasionally he could win something else outside his area, but, all in all, Federer would be the master of London, New York and Melbourne. So, it would be known who is the Emperor and who is his vassal. This can be clearly seen in Nadal’s game: while Federer’s game at the peak of his career was truly multidimensional, everything depends endlessly on forehand for Nadal. Nadal’s tennis one-dimensionality can be seen in his statistics (out of 20 GS titles, 13 he won at Roland Garros), and from there it spilled over into his appearance: Nadal’s English is almost stuttering compared to Federer’s. Because of all that, even if he beaten Federer, he looked inferior.
So, Nadal was never designed to endanger Federer, but only to oppose him in order to make the spectacle something more interesting. They should be two “angry” opponents on the field, under the same Nike umbrella, but they would both serve the same master: Global Capital. And so, while there would be a fight for victory on the field, the symbolic winner would be known in advance.
Weird adna paper of the day (…of all time?) – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ggn2.10051
Claimed Caucasus “yeti” in the 1800s was actually an 6 foot 6 tall East African woman with a body hair condition.
Just a short addition to my comment on Substack…
It is another example of hidden or falsified history. Not only the highest mountain on Sinai, where Moses got 10 commandments from the God, had and still has the name Mt Serbal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Serbal), it was the name of the whole Sinai, too. A couple years ago all worldwide media announced the great archaeological discovery – the palace of king David was found at the Philistine’s city of the Ashkelon. King David was a Jew who found a refuge among Philistinian enemies who gave him this palace. It was established that Philistines were people with ‘European’ (!) genes from the Aegean region. At that time, Aegean Sea had the archaic name – Belo More (in Serbian – Belo More, in English – White Sea).
After that I haven’t seen more details about Philistines, but none speculated that they could be (future) Greeks. At the time of their arrival to the Middle East was also a ‘Sea People’ period, covered by enormous literature, but also none mentioned Greeks in any context. They could be somewhere in a state of deep ancient hibernation or they already started preparation for the first Olympic games and grandioso entrance into the world history. So, if we already know enough about Samson and his hairstyle, now, we are in expectation to find out more about Philistines, Goliath (what is the meaning of his name and in which language?) and (why, why, why) Delilah and her scissors. Forgive me, Delilah, I just couldn’t take anymore.
@Matt
I notice her son is apparently Z2103 and half West Eurasian but they don’t seem to analyze further where more specifically his paternal ancestry might come from (though I assume Caucasian of some kind, probably Abkhazian if completely local).
A funny in retrospect bit I noticed with a quick look: “Some anthropologists who examined Khwit’s photograph (Figure S1.1) consistently defined him as belonging to the “Aboriginal Australian” type.”
@Forgetful – That just confirms my conviction that most anthropologists are airheads who are full of it. I have seen (and known first hand) *lots* of Aboriginal people, and he was nothing like.
I don’t know why I feel ashamed because no one sent the answer about the meaning of the term ‘Europe’. I believe that many readers are Europeans or have Euro origins or, at least, they learned about EU in their primary school geography. It seems that my hint that the name of Teheran at one stage was ‘Europe’ did not help and created more confusion. My incentives in a form of cases of Croesus did not help, either. Arrogant, con men, provocateurs, mr ‘nice guys’, real nice guys, contrarians, honest guys, indo-europeans – simply, there is no one to come. Maybe we should give a credit to only fair challenge so far by prince Eugen (the name of Tripoli). As a consolation, I would accept the meaning of ‘Asia’ (DT came very close), but I am also pessimistic about this.
PS: apologies because GE published my comments about ‘Federer, Nadal & Djokovic’ out of order.