True Left

"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."

"It’s much easier for small bands of hunter-gatherers to avoid conflict and maintain equilibrium with their environment"

"Pre-agricultural people were in control of their environment and their own destiny. People in hierarchical societies are controlled by their rulers."

Therefore you are by definition not an Aryanist (or a National Socialist, given the anti-Fuehrerprinzip third statement), but an explicitly anti-Aryanist Gentilist.

And to the extent that you, an anti-Aryanist, feel intuitively closer to Ascesis (self-proclaimed "Aryanist") than to me (founder), should leave in no doubt whose version of Aryanism is the authentic one.

"I’m not fanatically anti-Western like the people on here. I would have no problem with America being one of the superpowers."

It is possible to be fanatically anti-Western while being pro-American. Our entire geopolitical plan revolves around ensuring America remains one of the superpowers but merely turning anti-Western! This is why we keep highlighting the contrast between Western and American aesthetics:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg10112/#msg10112

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg10239/#msg10239

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg10255/#msg10255

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg14902/#msg14902

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg17162/#msg17162

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg18363/#msg18363

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg18391/#msg18391

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/counterculture-and-western-civilisation/msg18904/#msg18904

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/msg929/#msg929

etc..

I do agree, however, that you are not anti-Western. Your view that domesticated humans are bad is implicitly a pro-Western one:

A developed hydraulic civilization maintains control over its population by means of controlling the supply of water. The term was coined by the German-American historian Karl August Wittfogel (1896–1988), in his book Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (1957). Wittfogel asserted that such "hydraulic civilizations"—although they were neither all located in the Orient nor characteristic of all Oriental societies—were essentially different from those of the Western world.
...
The typical hydraulic empire government, in Wittfogel's thesis, is extremely centralized, with no trace of an independent aristocracy – in contrast to the decentralized feudalism of medieval Europe.

See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/aryan-hydraulic-empire/

"Therefore you are by definition not an Aryanist (or a National Socialist, given the anti-Fuehrerprinzip third statement), but an explicitly anti-Aryanist Gentilist. "

You're not an "Aryanist" by your original definition either if you're now classifying people by geographic origin. As I said before, which ethnicity is "Aryan"? Do you also think it's the Capybara?

"And to the extent that you, an anti-Aryanist, feel intuitively closer to Ascesis (self-proclaimed "Aryanist") than to me (founder), should leave in no doubt whose version of Aryanism is the authentic one."

The authentic Aryanism is the ideology developed by the 20th century German dictator Adolf Hitler. You know, the man who said "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." No wonder your movement has made no progress in a decade. Saying that National socialism is non-racist is a pretty **** indefensible position when there are quotes like that.

Now, who is the authentic anti-racist - you, who feels close to Adolf Hitler, or me, who does not?

The authentic Aryanism is the ideology developed by the 20th century German dictator Adolf Hitler. You know, the man who said "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." No wonder your movement has made no progress in a decade. Saying that National socialism is non-racist is a pretty **** indefensible position when there are quotes like that.

Now, who is the authentic anti-racist - you, who feels close to Adolf Hitler, or me, who does not?

You're do realize that Hitler regretted writing Mein Kampf because he had to lie to the people in order to gain support, right? You do realize Hitler was indicting the French in that passage right and had no ill will towards 'blacks', right? Haven't you read the 'Hitler: The Face of Anti-tribalism' thread? You can read, right?

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.

So you admit to following the teachings of a 'White' Nationalist/Supremacist.

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.

Someone correct this idiot for me. I'm not qualified enough to answer this.

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.

We already do. There was rampant race-mixing throughout history which degraded the Aryan race and removed all but trace amounts of Aryan blood in present-day humans- look how that turned out.

You and I both know agriculturists did not kill animals. They didn't need to- they grew their own food!

>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?

The same applies to clans of Hunter-Gatherers, doesn't it?

>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.

This is why we should work towards an Aryanist world order that would prevent this (such as your UN example). I know what you're saying, but there are also ways to win wars without producing a massive population.

>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.

For the sake of clarity, you're saying that this is because domesticated civilized humans are more violent than primitive Hunter-Gatherers due to things like industry and Chauvinism, right?  In which case I think it'd be better to say that Hunter-Gatherers are really just less inferior than urbanites for this reason, and that low-impact agricultural civilization is still the ideal. I know something can always go wrong with any system, but its hands down better than the other options

>As I said, I think that both the hunter-gatherers and the agriculturalists killed animals.

They probably did, but Aryanism's point is that even then, agrarianism still made things like Veganism, art, and transcendent religion possible

>we can have traits of the hunter-gatherers without becoming literal hunter-gatherers with stone age technology.

Well does acquiring the traits of Hunter-Gatherers mean exactly? I think this would be self-defeating if taken at face value

>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.

The thing is though, pre-agricultural societies actually were/are very sexually dimorphic in both bone structure between men and women, and the societal gender roles with women typically gathering fruit, and men hunting. It was only until the advent of agriculture do you really start to see sexual dimorphism decreased both skeletally and socially

>And why would there need to be an alpha-beta dynamic?

Competition for the boob lol:



There is a theory that one of the reasons why Humanity took so long to advance into civilization, is because the Alpha-Beta paradigm produced a lot of "Betas" who refused to contribute to the tribe whenever the "Alphas" would hog all of the women. But when the Neolithic Revolution came in, monogamy gave everyone a decent chance to find a partner, and therefore incentized everyone to get to work.

I know this is completely theoretical, but I think this is entirely plausible, and simply makes sense when you consider the extreme sexual dimorphism and Alpha-Beta dynamic you find in primitive Hunter tribes compared to more "domesticated" agrarian cultures.

>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?

The tribe leader would presumably have all of the authority. Power hungry tyrants exist everywhere my guy, primitive Hunter-Gatherer tribes are no different

>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.

I'd say the grass is always greener on the other side. Ultimately, nothing is stopping us from homesteading away from civilization, besides ourselves

>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.

Mongolic behavior is simply a natural consequence of pre-agricultural modes of survival. If someone is going to overwhelm defenseless animals with force, or herd them using deception, what's actually stopping them from treating Humans the same way?

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

So then are you saying that agrarian culture is in conflict with how people naturally think?

>I would have no problem with America being one of the superpowers.

Same here, as long as America drops Zionism & Consumerism

>Do you people seriously not see the problem in having a network so exposed that people can’t actually discuss their activities from fear of legal intervention or punishment?)

iirc the last time I beat 90sRF in an argument, I made the point that the moment someone here actually commits some half-assed terror attack, the main site and this forum will instantly get deleted. You ever visit or post on either site? Congrats, you just got your IP logged and sent off for analysis if it has not been already. Say goodbye to Aryanism, and goodbye to "True Leftism", and say hi to the Glowies for me.

Needless to say, he deleted the thread right after.

>So you just… order the leftist? You don’t recruit them, train them, fund or build their equipment, prepare intentional communities to protect yourselves and receive the refugees who survive? This is what we mean by LARPing: none of you have any actual clue of how to recruit and build a defence force. You think that it’s ‘simple’. You think it’s just (other people) rocking up with a gun and taking some lucky hits. 

I second this. At the very least, you TL retards can expose this forum to actual mainstream Lefties, rather than a few ex-Aryanists. Or better yet, treat your "mission" seriously by learning about Onion hosting, Tor, TAILS & Whonix, PGP, Opsec, Linux distros, vetting procedures, emotionally evocative propaganda, compiling PDFs related to warfare and a mandatory self-improvement program required for all those seeking to join

...But you're not. This forum is a Fed's wet dream, as (especially American) Feds are infamous for enticing political dissidents into committing crime so they can arrest them.



Half the time, these people get arrested for talking, without even doing anything. Look at Randy Weaver, the Whitmer Kidnapping "Plot", and the recent arrest of Brandon Russell for examples. Yes, these people are Rightists but if they can do it to them, they will do it to anyone else — and they have and do.



The fact that you idiots have not realized this indicates to me that yes, you are all indeed LARPers who would rather seethe online rather than actually do anything about the people you so supposedly hate. On a more conspiratorial note, this is why I personally do not trust 90sRF. He is either a misguiding leader who suspiciously undervalues the wellbeing of his followers, and/or is too dumb to inspire any sort of action in an intelligent and meaningful manner.

@christianbethel

>So I guess creating the Jamia from the Quran is LARPing. Gotcha.

Yes buddy. It is.

@Ascesis:

There is a theory that one of the reasons why Humanity took so long to advance into civilization, is because the Alpha-Beta paradigm produced a lot of "Betas" who refused to contribute to the tribe whenever the "Alphas" would hog all of the women. But when the Neolithic Revolution came in, monogamy gave everyone a decent chance to find a partner, and therefore incentized everyone to get to work.

I know this is completely theoretical, but I think this is entirely plausible, and simply makes sense when you consider the extreme sexual dimorphism and Alpha-Beta dynamic you find in primitive Hunter tribes compared to more "domesticated" agrarian cultures.

You are so full of shyte it's hilarious!

The Myth of the Alpha Male
Single straight guys: If you want to attract more women, research suggests you should cultivate kindness and altruism.

There are a lot of false dichotomies out there — left brain vs. right brain, nature vs. nurture, etc. But one really persistent myth, that is literally costing human lives, is the distinction between “alpha” and “beta” males.

As the story typically goes, there are two types of men.

“Alpha” males are those at the top of the social status hierarchy. They have greater access to power, money, and mates, which they gain through physical prowess, intimidation, and domination. Alphas are typically described as the “real men.” In contrast are the “Beta” males: the weak, submissive, subordinate guys who are low status, and only get access to mates once women decide to settle down and go searching for a “nice guy.”

This distinction, which is often based on observations among other social animals (such as chimpanzees and wolves) paints a very black and white picture of masculinity. Not only does it greatly simplify the multi-dimensionality of masculinity, and grossly underestimate what a man is capable of becoming, but it also doesn’t even get at the heart of what is really attractive to women.

As the expression goes, when all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails. When we impose just two categories of male on the world, we unnecessarily mislead young men into acting in certain predefined ways that aren’t actually conducive to attracting and sustaining healthy and enjoyable relationships with women, or finding success in other areas of life. So it’s really worth examining the link between so-called “alpha” behaviors (such as dominance) and attractiveness, respect, and status.

The science of dominance

Consider one of the earliest sets of studies on the relationship between dominance and attractiveness. The researchers presented their participants with videotaped and written scenarios depicting two men interacting with each other. The scenarios varied on whether the male acted “dominant” or “nondominant.” For instance, here’s an excerpt of a scenario in which the male was depicted as dominant:

Entire article:

Hunter-gatherers did NOT invent the wheel, neolithic people did. Hunter-gatherers did not create an aristocracy, neolithic people did.

We can thank hunter-gatherer and herder genes (and the people that promote them) for things like western democracy and western colonialism though:

"Hunter-gatherers were fiercely egalitarian..."

The Truth about Hunter-Gatherers


We can also thank hunter-gatherer genes for things like anthropocentricism: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/

Lastly: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/no-dugin-turanians-did-not-invent-the-wheel!-1632/