“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
and here
I suppose most people have seen one of the online posts about “What face (or insert any other body parts like hand or teeth - see above) sha...
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.
Home
Search
Login
Register