True Left

I have already declared present-day JAM as our enemy here:

It's quite interesting that the only reason you cite for him being an enemy is that he hates your precious Muslims. No-one here said anything about him becoming a Jew.

I'm actually not surprised that JAM converted to Judaism. When he was promoting his Satanism nonsense (which was at the time he was also promoting his Monarchist Party) he made posts about how various fruits resembling body parts that they were good for (e.g. a walnut resembling a brain and being good for the brain) proved the existence of a creator god. And then he would go on about how Satan is the true creator god and not the god that Jews worship. He clearly just wanted Judaism without the Jews.

The version of JAM I worked with had nothing good to say about the Old Testament, but on the contrary labelled himself a Gnostic Christian.

JAM did not consider himself a Gnostic Christian. If he ever claimed to be one, it was insincere. I suggested to him that Paul had corrupted Christianity and Gnostic Christianity was the true version of Christianity, and he told me that Gnostic Christians should be put on spikes. Well, now he is a messianic Karaite Jew who agrees that Paul corrupted Christianity, so maybe he should put himself on a spike. Or maybe he should put himself on a spike because he believes that Jews should fight against evil and he used to be one of the people who wanted to kill the Jews. You know, I actually have no issue with JAM constantly changing his views. Changing your views is fine because that's part of learning. But I think it's wrong to declare, while your views are still evolving, that you are so confident in your views that you're prepared to kill people with differing views, and then changing them. By doing that, he has lost all credibility. If he had became king of America, it wouldn't really have been acceptable to say 'Well, I killed all those people, but actually I realise I was wrong to do that now. My bad.' Having said that, some of his views have remained constant over the years, and from them we can see what the issues that really matter to him are: veganism (well, I can't fault him there), misogyny, having a harem of teenage girls to 'suck his dick', and absolute monarchy (although now the monarch would be Jewish).

Therefore your accusation that I have ever promoted Karaitism via working with JAM is unfounded.

But you did think that he could be trusted enough to be given absolute power. I really don't know why you would ever have thought that. From a cursory glance at his current website, it's obvious that he has nothing valuable to say. Considering that he has an article on his site listing all the extremely outlandish conspiracy theories he believes in, it's comical that he now believes that Jews did 911, but it was partially justified as an excuse to attack Muslim countries, thereby missing the blatantly obvious point that the USA attacked relatively secular countries such as Iraq and Libya while retaining good relationships with Saudi Arabia, which is the one of the most fundamentalist of them all. He made a documentary about how 911 was done by Jews but can't see the most blatantly obvious hole in Bush's rhetoric that they were going to war to 'defend freedom'. It somewhat reminds me of how you missed the opportunity to point out that there are many good Muslims by pointing out that Assad's troops were Muslims and yet were fighting against ISIS, choosing to support ISIS instead.

“The Mongols were quite numerous, though”
“Doesn't this also happen(ed) quite a bit in the Middle East, where people largely live off of livestock to survive?”

These two groups are pastoralists, not hunter-hatherers. Aryanism.net distinguished between farmers, hunters, and herders, and I suppose it is sensible to make this distinction, although I have concentrated on the differences between farmers and (some but not all groups of?) hunter-gatherers in this thread, and not talked about herders.

“But in that case, can we also agree that we don't have to worry as much about a expansionist agrarian civilization overturning self-restricting agrarian civilizations, as people did in ancient times?”

Yes. I’m not saying that it would be bad to move towards a low impact agrarian civilization in the present day. I’m only saying that the original transition from hunting to settled civilization caused a mental degradation of humanity. I'm just trying to explain what domesticated behaviour and thinking consists of and how domestication caused people to behave and think like that.

“We can say the same thing about agrarian society, that the people in charge will only be supported as long as they're respected.”

No. The thing that gives rulers in large, highly organised societies power is that everyone might have no respect for the leader, but each person can’t be sure what other people think. So in theory someone could kill the tyrant and everyone could just agree that it was good and the tyrants guards could just not arrest the assassin, but in practise the assassin will not kill the tyrant because he will think “The guards might decide to side with me but what if they don’t and they arrest me”. And if he does kill the tyrant, one of the (let’s say) two guards might think “I agree with him killing the tyrant but I can’t side with him because then the other guard might kill me” and the other guard might be thinking exactly the same thing as well. Now imagine that there are 100 guards thinking “I agree with the assassin but how likely is it that the other guards won’t arrest me if I take his side?”

“Unless you're in England”

You got it in one. Proud citizen of Bongistan.

“Is it a bad thing that civilization conflicts with undomesticated thinking?”

Yes, if you agree that the domesticated thinking include the traits I listed before and that those traits are negative, and hence that undomesticated thinking is positive.

“Personally, I think the modern disconnection from Sun, Earth, wind, water, and stars has caused enormous physical, psychological, and spiritual damage.”

Well yes, none of us want to look up at the night sky and see one of Musk-san’s space billboards advertising Coca-Cola.

"You are illiterate. I have never denied that there are noble individuals with "white" parents currently alive, or even that the nobility of such individuals is heritable from their Aryan blood, therefore I have not changed my original position at all. Nowhere does this imply that I am obliged to preserve those Aryan bloodlines. You should recall the main site explicitly stating multiple times that we are not preservationists."

But you do believe that anyone of European descent who reproduces is non-Aryan, so people of which ethnicities can reproduce and still be considered Aryan? The Capybara ethnicity?

By the way, it's pretty rich that you keep calling people illiterate considering you can read a quote like "It was the Jews who brought the negro to the Rhine. The motive behind this is clear and his intention is always the same. He wants to destroy the hated white race through bastardization. He continues to bring negroes in as a flood and force the mixing of races." and then conclude that the author is an "anti-racist".

“Tell me more about this. I've heard this idea a bit, namely from Konrad Lorenz”

I’d never heard of Konrad Lorenz, to be honest. And I haven’t fully thought it through. I can’t, for example, give you a list of which pre-agricultural populations I would consider to be superior. I heard about this idea at the start of 2021 here https://andreashofer72.medium.com and here http://the-big-ger-picture.blogspot.com/2022/10/could-morpho-psychology-ever-become.html and at first I was arguing with the author, since at that time I believed in “Aryanism” and was saying the same things that you are saying now, but over time I realised that he is probably right. Like I said, Varg teaches a variation of this. And there is also a book called ‘Sex at Dawn’ which teaches a variation of this, although I admit I’m yet to read it.

“The issue here is overpopulation, which is something Aryanism has always been staunchly against.”

But can’t you see that any complex agricultural society needs to maintain a high population otherwise it will simply be conquered by its larger neighbours? I suppose you would argue that it need not fear neighbouring hunter-gatherers since they would have a small population and neighbouring farmers would not attack them because they are noble. But imagine one of the farmer societies went bad and did attack them simply to become more powerful. That society would win in the evolutionary contest and hence, by the principle of natural selection, all the farmer societies will end up being expansionist and having high populations since those are the societies that will win. This is just natural selection at work.

“but killing small animals in the woods for a living isn't the only alternative option”

I know it isn’t. I’m not saying that we should all become hunter-gatherers, only that people who are less domesticated are superior. we can have traits of the hunter-gatherers without becoming literal hunter-gatherers with stone age technology. As I said, I think that both the hunter-gatherers and the agriculturalists killed animals.

“Hunting tribes were/are definitely dominated by brutish personalities, considering the typically harsh environments that demands forceful personalities, high sexual dimorphism, and the Alpha-Beta dynamic.”

See – this is a stereotype about hunter-gatherers but I don’t think it has any basis in fact. High sexual dimorphism is needed by societies that are constantly at war (men) and produce many children (women). It wouldn’t be necessary for certain pre-agricultural societies. And why would there need to be an alpha-beta dynamic? Like I said, is it easier to say ‘no’ to someone with authority in a civilised society with laws and hierarchies backed up by the army and a police force or a in a small band of hunter-gatherers? Would there even be people in non-agricultural societies with significant authority?

“This is just romanticization my guy. They wouldn't have been as rugged as they were, if they truly did have so much control. “

I’m not saying that their lives weren’t hard or they weren’t at the mercy of the elements, but they were individually in control of how they responded to those challenges. You don’t have individual control if you live in a civilised society. How you live and what you’re allowed to do and say is dictated to you by others.

“Genghis Khan, and his childhood, are a great example”

The Mongols are an example of a pre-agricultural society that wouldn’t have had the right conditions for the sort of person I favour to develop. They were very warlike due to the lack of resources. And the horse meant that they could travel quite easily and could hence make war with many different groups of people. Native North Americans have a reputation as ‘noble savages’ – by practising empathetic childcare, for example. I wonder if this is due in part to the absence of the horse in America until Europeans came.

“The entire paradigm of the education system needs to be overhauled for this reason.”

But my point isn’t that the problem is with the education system, but with how certain people’s minds work naturally.

“I wonder if/how BRICS could be used as a stepping stone to all of this.”

Having five superpowers is preferable to having two superpowers as we did in the Cold War era, since that made the UN ineffective. The point of a world federation would be that if one state of the federation (or country of the UN) rebelled and invaded another, all the other states could attack and neutralise it. If you have two superpowers, that means you have two massive blocs of allies each effectively functioning as a separate, equally powerful federation. But I’m not fanatically anti-Western like the people on here. I would have no problem with America being one of the superpowers.

“which is virtually guaranteed to end horribly the moment someone either stupid or ignoble get their hands on it”

We’ve already seen over the last few years the pandemic being used as an excuse to implement mass surveillance through schemes such as ‘track and trace’ and their push for a cashless society and universal digital IDs that link to all your activities including your internet usage, shopping habits and so on, and who knows what damage the vaccines will cause in the long-term. And then there is the terrifying prospect of Elon Musk trying to drill holes in our heads and controlling our brains. So yes, the direction technology could potentially go in is frightening.

@Ascesis

“Not completely per se, no. But I've always been comfortable with adhering to a dynamic worldview that acknowledges its faults, and changes in order to reach its ultimate mission.”

Well, I think there are serious problems even with the original ideology. For example, I no longer agree with their idea that the Neolithic agricultural lifestyle led to the birth of a race of superior people. In fact, I think the opposite is true – that agriculture caused degradation  of the human genome. Humans have essentially been domesticated and this is not a good thing. This isn’t my own idea. I’ve encountered in it in a few places. It’s what Varg teaches, for example. I don’t believe that Neolithic people were vegan or vegetarian. There never was a vegan race of humans except for some castes in India (although that doesn’t mean that the ideology of veganism is wrong). And not all pre-agricultural people were superior to modern people. Some groups were superior but very specific conditions had to be present.

The reason I think this is that many of the traits that I dislike in human beings are explained better as adaptations to living in a highly organised hierarchical society that is in competition with other such societies than as adaptations to living as hunter-gatherers.

1. People in agricultural societies are more violent and tribalistic

As people born after WW2, we take for granted how peaceful society has been since then. The reason for this peace has been that everyone is scared of the nuclear bomb. Before the end of WW2, war was virtually endemic in civilised society. A society that can produce a large surplus population is going to use that population as cannon fodder to try to pillage and conquer neighbouring societies every generation. That’s why the majority of men have violent tendencies and why there are so many murderers and rapists. Of course, there were warlike societies before agriculture but in more isolated areas with abundant resources (the ‘specific conditions’ I referred to earlier), there were more peaceful societies. It’s much easier for small bands of hunter-gatherers to avoid conflict and maintain equilibrium with their environment than a hierarchical society capable of producing a large excess population.

Consider that pit bull terriers, which are used as fighting dogs, are more domesticated than wolves, but this doesn’t mean they are less aggressive. They are extremely aggressive but they are loyal to their master, just like a domesticated human who fights for their king and country, or for some bullshit Abrahamic religion.

2. People in agricultural societies have no integrity or idealism

Pre-agricultural people were in control of their environment and their own destiny. People in hierarchical societies are controlled by their rulers. They have to follow whatever ideology or religion their rulers demand, often on pain of death. If they are a member of a professional body, they have to follow the regulations of that professional body even if they do not agree (which actually makes sense because an organisation cannot function if everyone just does what they want, which is why civilised people evolved to be like that, but it does not produce free humans who can think critically and act with integrity). For example, I am a covid conspiracy theorist. If I was a teacher, I would have been told to stand in front of my students wearing a mask and tell them to wear a mask and get the vaccine. If I was a doctor, I would have been told to recommend the vaccine to my patients. If I had then said no, I would no longer have a job or somewhere to live. A Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer who says no to someone who is more respected in his band can go and pitch his tent somewhere else.

It stands to reason that people living under conditions where they have no control over anything would evolve to just accept whatever conditions they find themselves in and blindly obey authority figures, particularly when obeying authority figures and high social cohesion does give the society as a whole an advantage over other societies in warfare.

These are the people who believed in individual liberties and the value of consent at one moment, then that people should be forcibly injected with an experimental medical treatment that could have potentially killed a thousand times more people than it saved at another, just because an authority figure told them to believe it. These are the people who believed in Christianity for centuries just because the people around them did and authority figures told them to believe it. These are the people who simply do not have the ability to envision an alternative to the way the world is. You’ll go to one of these domesticated people and say something like ‘Corporations are destroying the planet’ and they’ll say ‘But we live in a Capitalist society so there’s nothing we can do about it’ or you’ll say ‘there is no longer true freedom of speech in this country’ and they’ll say ‘that’s what every country’s like’.

Many of them are good thinkers, but only within set paradigms. They cannot move out of the paradigm given to them because they have evolved to be soldiers and workers and just to follow instructions. A simple example: They might be able to follow an algorithm to multiply numbers well and do it very quickly and accurately but will not understand how it works and certainly not be able to come up with a new and better algorithm.

They don’t care about truth. They only care about saying whatever will get them status or help them achieve their goals, like in the days when someone could be accused of witchcraft for making herbal tea and everyone would just go along with it because they were afraid to be the one who spoke out even though everyone (including the accusers) knew it wasn’t true.

And there are other traits I could list, but those two are some good ones to start with.

So, to conclude, I used to think that kings and aristocracies were good and were needed because ordinary people are stupid and evil and need to be kept in line. I now think that kings, aristocracies and dictators are the ones who made ordinary people stupid and evil in the first place (by warring with other societies to gain more power for themselves), and are therefore bad, but since I acknowledge that ordinary people are stupid and evil I am still sceptical about democracy.

So, if we want to improve the human genome, we should do what we can to i) encourage one world government (since that will eliminate wars and hence eliminate the need for countries to have large populations so they can defend themselves against other countries). Preferably the one world government will be some kind of federation so that people can choose what laws they live under – basically like the United Nations was supposed to be except that all the countries will be small and of roughly the same size and power so that it actually works and ii) encourage the advancement of technology, since by automating jobs we will eliminate the need for people who are dumb enough to be able to concentrate on menial tasks day in day out and create a demand for people who can build and understand machines, which is good because you have to be able to think critically to understand highly technical subjects, although there are a small number of people capable of thinking critically about technical subjects but not about social issues. I know that you are all anti-technology, but it does have its good points and in recent years there has actually been a lot of progress in green technology.

"An end to all tribalist or generally violence-initiating bloodlines would defacto make this a reality, or as close to a reality as it can possibly get before a theoretical final victory is achieved."

Would it? Can you give me an example of a non-tribalist, non-violence-initiating bloodline, given that you are now categorising people based on geographical ethnic origin?

"So then what do you make of the data, and historical experience?"

I addressed that in the comment I made about the scientific method and the example I gave of the MOSFET.

"I have yet to come across any online or real life circle that doesn’t fit this bill."

Very well. Then I shall leave you with some insults as well. You call yourselves Leftists. In my mind, "Leftist" has become synonymous with "hypocrite" and you have all certainly earned that title. I want you to burn this image deep into your mind: Somewhere in the world, delendaestziobot is sitting at his computer in his My Little Pony pyjamas laughing at what this site has become. Have a nice day.

"Let’s take a Jewish person. They claim to reject their Jewish identity, but then proceed to reproduce with another Jewish person, creating even more ethnic Jews, many of which will decide to self-identify as Jewish when they get older, even if the parent continues to not self-identify as such. "

OK. So he does think that all people of European descent should not reproduce, regardless of whether they identify as white. Glad we cleared that up. He thinks 'Jew' is a valid racial category based in biological reality. I suppose that, contrary to countless previous statements he has made over the years, he now thinks the same about 'white people', as him posting that graph would suggest.

Does he also think that African Americans should also not reproduce because they are descended from members of tribes who displaced the Khoisan, and who warred amongst each other? Does he think that Austronesian people should not reproduce because they displaced the native Negritos. Is that what the ideology is now - an ultra-recidivist movement whose goal is to return all land to whatever aboriginal people first laid claim to it?

"On the blog and on the forum, they mention that the story of the native Squanto making an attempt to accept the new arrivals and help them secure food is a positive one."

And yet that contradicts what he is saying now.

"I also recall over on the blog, a “white” nationalist asking 90sRetroFan if they would let “Europeans” migrate to “African” countries if they wanted to, and 90sRetroFan said yes, to the “white” nationalist’s dismay."

That was on the blog. It contradicts what he is saying now.

"No. The first working transistors are credited to John Bardeen, Walter Brattain and William Shockley, and before it was actually made, the person who came up with the concept was Julius Edgar Lilienfeld. "

Fine - the MOSFET, which is the specific type of transistor used in modern computers, was invented by a Korean and an Arab. I'm not going to argue about this because, as you must know, I don't think the ethnicity of the person who invented it is important, except in refuting your claim that whites have a unique genetic propensity to advance technology. It took centuries of trial and error and fumbling about with things such as alchemy for Europeans to create the scientific method. The idea that they are genetically predisposed towards empirical thinking because it wasn't created all over the world independently and at the same time is an absurdity.