True Left

"feelings about my phenotype, coupled with their own ongoing pubertal adulteration, causes me to view them with sort of prejudice, which causes some barriers."

What about their phenotype preferences compared to yours? Do they also prefer gracility, or do they prefer robustness? And so on.

"He did condemn hunting as a vice in another post."
"recall how we mentioned a subgroup of Turanians in the Levant (Israelites) did not practice hunting recreationally as they viewed it as unrefined. Similarly, we could analogize this to some Turanian subgroups in India. However, they would have no qualms about doing it in the context of religious animal sacrifice."

Animal sacrifice symbolizes oppressing those weaker then oneself in order to appease those stronger than oneself. Recreational hunting symbolizes oppressing those weaker than oneself in order to please oneself. Hierarchical society is more stable with only the former, as the latter can be expected to be the source of (Satanic) rebellion. Recreational hunting being labelled as vice/unrefined but animal sacrifice being laudable is what ignoble rulers for their own security want their subjects to believe.

"would you defend them from initiated violence against "Whites"?"

Do you mean defend them against "whites" who initiate violence targeting them? Or do you mean defend them against "whites" whom they target?

In a society with law and order still functional, the best scenario is if "whites" initiate violence targeting them, they kill the "whites" in legally justified self-defence, thereby surviving and remaining free to repeat the scenario with more "whites". If I could help achieve this, I would.

In a society where law and order has already broken down (ie. current US under ICE terrorism), the above is unlikely to apply. Therefore either they aim to quietly get through this period merely staying undeported until law and order returns, or they proactively target ICE agents. In the latter case I would definitely defend them. In the former case I would still advise them to have firearms ready so that if ICE tries to deport them they can resist. The worst response is for them to comply with ICE.

"And should we feel sympathy for them?"

Not as such, but we can agree if they feel unfairly treated being targeted by ICE while similarly evil "whites" are not.

"If so, how do you balance feeling sympathy for these type of people with viewing them as evil?"

Similarly, I have stated that the Venezuelan fishing boats actually deserve to be bombed (although of course Trump is doing it for the wrong reason), but at the same time agree it is unfair that fishing boats with "white" crews are not also being bombed.

"Do you mean defend them against "whites" who initiate violence targeting them?"
This

"he is definitely not a folkist"

Can you elaborate? Do you mean that he would potentially side with "whites" against some "non-white" group? If so, which one and why?

"masculinity makes folkism harder, it even views insufficiently masculine men as potential sexual competitors)."

But if someone is confident in their competitiveness, would they not calculate that increased competitors but also increased resources is overall a tradeoff to their advantage, since they estimate that they will be able to outcompete most of their competitors anyway?

"I sometimes view people of the same age group in a prejudiced way"

Why only of the same age group? Why are you not prejudiced against older or younger people?

"I have to come to terms with the fact that my religion isn't perfect. But how to do this, my whole life I was super religious"

What would your life hypothetically have been like if you had never been religious? If you compare this hypothetical to your actual life and still prefer your actual life, then despite your religion not being perfect, it at least helped you. On the other hand, if you prefer the hypothetical, then you have no reason to remain attached to your religion.

"Older people have mostly all reproduced so there's really nothing about them for me to be prejudiced about."

I am not following. What is the content of your prejudice?

"regarding defending ignoble people from "Whites" what if they themselves start supporting "Whites" (e.g. ICE supporters)."

Then they are making it more dangerous for others whom ICE is also targeting. We should prefer ICE to deport them first rather than any others.

"Prejudice that people are ignoble based on appearance."

I guess this all the time in order to train my eye for physiognomy. But I always give them benefit of doubt until their actions reveal their ignobility (thereby confirming my guess, which happens >90% of the time). I will never withdraw benefit of doubt based on appearance alone.

"the close quarter nepotism of the FIL, I would say this is a non Aryan trait, no?"

Yes. It would make no sense to do this on a Neolithic subsistence farm, since if an incompetent blood relative is allowed to make farming decisions over a competent in-law, the productivity of the entire farm is likely to decrease which then reduces everyone's survival chances. In contrast, in a Turanian nomadic setting, if you send your incompetent blood relative to stake out a safe location and send your competent in-law to stake out an unsafe location, this is actually a better survival strategy than the reverse.

"Also, if we should not feel sympathy for hunters/fisherman, why should we feel sympathy for meat eaters?"

We should feel sympathy only for those who are genuinely unaware of how the meat was produced. I have told many times the story of how as a young child I assumed that meat came from animals who had died on their own. I cannot be sure that there are no meat eaters making the same assumption (although realistically I expect them to almost all be children*), whereas I can be sure that a hunter/fisher (regardless of age) is not making this assumption!

"What about in a paleolithic Gentile setting?"

Possible lifestyles and associated selective pressures are too varied.

"he would probably dismiss it by saying "women have no ideology" (this is just my guess) since there is a high rate of those same women marrying meat eating men"

I agree that a vegetarian of any gender who marries a meat-eater is inferior to a vegetarian of any gender who marries another vegetarian, and based on my observations it indeed appears to be the case that vegetarian women marry meat-eating men at a higher percentage than vegetarian men marrying meat-eating women.

However, even if we assume 100% of vegetarian men marry vegetarian women, that would mean that an equal raw number of vegetarian women marry vegetarian men. So within this group of all-vegetarian couples, men and women cancel out and there is hence neither male nor female superiority. But having removed this group from the analysis, of the remaining vegetarians, 100% are women. So these vegetarian women will be compared against outright meat-eating men. The aggregate conclusion is still female superiority.

By the way, this is consistent with women being higher in average neoteny. What is your relative's opinion on neoteny? As a male supremacist, does he consider low neoteny superior? And if so, how does he avoid being a "white" supremacist (given that "white" men are lower in average neoteny than "non-white" men)?