True Left

"Part 1:"

Greeks started to condemn traditional aristocratic-
Homeric values, "claiming them to be hubris, the root cause
of disorder, injustice and violence."

It is! I more accurately call it Achilleanism, which Duchesne seems to acknowledge:

as embodied with intense passion in
the figure of Homer's Achilles, a character fundamentally at
odds with any form of servility to a ruler.

But is Achilles aristocratic?

It is the aristocratic character especially
who welcomes and values the "proud, exalted states of the
soul," which are experienced firsthand through "combat,
adventure, the chase, the dance, war games," and in general
all that presupposes "a strong physique, blooming, even
exuberant health...free, joyful activity.""

This is what we call the barbaric character. When we talk about the aristocratic character, we mean something almost the opposite: one who gets involved in competition (against the barbarians) with the utmost reluctance, only out of duty to defeat them, but who would every time prefer they never existed in the first place.

Why did they Indo-
Europeanize the West but not the East?

Because the true aristocrats did their duty in the latter.

the Indo-Europeans were a "new type"
of warlike society in the sense that "some men," not just the
king, were free to strive for personal recognition. They were,
moreover, horse-riders in possession of a more dynamic
economy which included ox-drawn wheeled wagons, cattle
rearing, and ploughs, combined with a healthier diet of
meat, bone marrow, and dairy products, which gave Indo-
Europeans a more robust physical anthropology.

I agree. Aristocrats, in contrast, are pictured as more gracilized than average.

For thousands of years Old Europeans were living quite
well in harmonious interaction, "of humans in nature, and of
men and women with each other as complementary"—until
horse-riding warriors from the Kurgan Culture of the Pontic
steppe came in three massive waves during the period 4500-
2500 BC, and dominated this "Old European kin-group
society" with their hierarchical social structure and their
"sky-oriented pantheon of warriors.

I agree. And this is consistent with our observation of Western civilization being more patriarchal than non-Western civilizations (which as Duchesne has already admitted the Turanians failed to influence culturally to the same degree).

(One thing that has always annoyed me is False Leftists who think non-Western civilizations are more patriarchal on the grounds that physically less masculine men compensate for their lower sexual dimorphism (which they are presumed by the False Leftists to feel insecure over) by being more culturally patriarchal. The truth is much simpler: physically more masculine men are more culturally patriarchal because they perceive greater difference between themselves and women.)

The fact that this economy was more nutritious
explains why the "physical anthropology of the deceased [in
the new Kurgan-style burial mounds] speaks of a population
that was more robust-appearing with males averaging up
to 10 centimeters taller than the native Eneolithic [Balkan]
population."5 7
The PIE lexicon was rich with words for domesticated
animals in addition to the horse: cow, ox, bull, sheep,
ram, lamb, goat, dog, as well as words for ducks and pigs.
There are also words for coagulated or sour milk, butter,
and curds.5 8 Diakonoff says that the IE economy, as it was
located in the Balkans and the Danube basin (which he thinks
was the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans) "must
have been an economy based on high grade agriculture and
animal breeding, which supplied milk and meat food for the
population in relative plenty."
By contrast, he reminds us that "the mass of Sumerians
and Akkadians had no meat or milk in their daily diet."5

This is what you get with a true aristocracy in charge.

The real resemblance lies in the singular presence
of weapons in the burials, which show that this was "an
essentially warlike" culture. Andrew Sherratt thinks that
the "battle axes...express the ideal of a society whose self-
image was not work but warfare."6 2

Specifically, warfare to raid those who do the work. Because if no one worked, there would be nothing to raid, and warfare would not be profitable. If everyone practiced the Turanian way, it would not be viable. The Turanian way  is only viable when there are others who do not practice it. Thus the Turanian way is parasitism. Who (other than Duchesne) would call parasites "aristocrats" FFS?!

It is worth contrasting the mobility of the Indo-Europeans
with what Sherratt sees as the "constrained" and "small-
scale of activity" of the farming communities of Old Europe,
whose "efforts were often narrowly focused on fixed points
within the world which they had created."6 5

I agree.

This
expansion—typified in the spread of a culture of drinking,
feasting, and horses—is equally disruptive of the native
archaic societies as were the prior expansions by Indo-
Europeans.
Sherratt also observes a "profound change in attitudes"
suggested by more colorful woolen clothing replacing the
older garments of skin and linen, new finery and jewelry,
new dress fashions, weapons with decorative elements, extra
"ostentation on the part of particular individuals,"72

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/