True Left

Quote

One does not need be an Aryanist to be a True Leftist, just as one does not need be an Aryanist to be a National Socialist.

What's the difference between Aryanism and the true left? Is Aryanism the racial Ideology and true left the political Ideology?

National Socialists do believe in racial 'quality over quantity'. However, we could technically remove this section: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/ and still have a viable leftist political ideology for the contemporary world. A person could also believe that all three groups, hunter-gatherers, steppe-herders, and neolithic-farmers, were all ignoble for example, and that there have yet to be quality people to inhabit this planet, and still subscribe to the idea of racial quality over quantity National Socialism adheres to. Aryanism comes down to whether or not a person believes that the neolithic-farmers that founded human civilization were in fact the Noble One\Aryans whose foundations have been corrupted by the other two groups, or not. This is why the mythology of Aryanism goes so well with the racial quality ideas of National Socialism too though. An Aryan National Socialist would argue that the neolithic-farmer is who humanity should attempt to racially emulate, while a National Socialist could simply argue that we need a race of compassionate, efficient, and quality humans, going forward without elevating the Aryans as a model worth emulating.

90sRetroFan will be able to explain this much better than I ever could. Hope I did not confuse you...

So then Aryanism's task is to identify an ideal human type and try to produce this type of human  in a future national socialist state?

Correct, whilst simultaneously preventing the non-ideal types from reproducing. 

Have you guys found the ideal ancient aryan type, or is there still more research that needs to be done?

They have. Ectomorph body type; oval face, soft facial features, non-sloping forehead, the "long toe" longer than the "big toe", a certain finger length ratio (Which I cannot remember currently), and vegan.

I see your point. Aldrich certainly has soft facial feature.... 

"What is the difference between gracilization and reduction? Also what is reduction?"

Gracilization is explained here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/aryan-bones/

Reduction is a concept that Zea_mays came up with:

http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/the-obligatory-eye-candy-page/comment-page-1/#comment-20342

“Reduced” traits are more a result of environmental pressure and thus are even less “race” (in the old anthropometric sense) specific. Reduction is useful in climates where it is difficult to both hunt/gather and farm, as it lessens the need for caloric intake.
...
It is interesting to note the high sexual-dimorphism in many Gentile groups, where females are more pedomorphic due to sexual selection (again, another example proving that the signs of youth are only feigned, all “sexy” or “voluptuous” women have a pedomorphic face, while at the same time have exaggerated sexual features!) and environmental pressure (i.e. the males hunted while the females stayed behind (contrast to the low sexual-dimorphism in Aryans where both genders farmed together)).

Simon Elliot keeps talking about the Gentile beauty ideal which favors high sexual-dimorphism (Would a pedomorphic male ideal ever be supported?

http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/the-obligatory-eye-candy-page/comment-page-1/#comment-20549

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough of this when writing my post, but reduction is an evolutionary process which happens to populations, meaning “full-sized” (e.g. “normal” robust or archaic people) were _reduced_ so that their adult form (“morphe”) became less markedly archaic or robust and more child-like (“pais”) (or more specifically “baby-like” (baby-faced)). Whereas with Aryan neoteny there was no “base-population” that was then “neotenized,” as they _retained_ their youthful traits; they never were ‘archaic’ or ‘robust’ to begin with. (How the ancient Aryans’ ancestral line evolved is a mystery to both myself and science).

Pedomorphy cannot ‘return’ to Original Nobility because it is a continuation of an evolutionary process on a population whose ancestors were unreduced Gentiles.

though for some reason I cannot at present find the page on Aryan Anthropology covering this in detail with photographic examples.

While gracilization does produce some smoothing (albeit by a different mechanism than reduction), it is possible (though rare) for a highly gracilized skull to nevertheless exhibit a degree of hardness, for example:



while still looking nothing like a robust skull (driver):



Bonus Counterculture movie trailer:

Decrease of features such as brow ridge, deep eyesockets, protruding chin, cleft chin, angular jaw, etc..

Here is an example of unsmoothness (what Zea_mays called "archaic", and what incels calls "Chad"):



Reduced types (e.g. most incels) commonly feel inferior to the archaic type, but think that gracilized types should feel the same way. We should not.