DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19381--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: Ascesis Date: May 9, 2023, 7:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
>An argument in the finest tradition of this website... So, it
isn’t that whites shouldn’t reproduce so that native Americans
can inherit the land. It’s that both whites and native Americans
shouldn’t reproduce so that the noble Capybara can inherit the
land! To paraphrase Diogenese the Cynic “Behold! An Aryan!”
I actually laughed out loud reading these ;D
#Post#: 19382--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: antihellenistic Date: May 9, 2023, 7:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Let’s just pray that the rightist death squads that are
gearing up don’t take us out first then. Or that the coming
refugee crisis doesn’t send the majority to the right.[/quote]
So, order the leftist to get armed for defense and
counter-attack, simple...
[quote]Or that our enemies don’t develop technology that will
make it impossible to defeat them.[/quote]
So, order the leftist to get armed for defense and
counter-attack, simple...
[quote](And before you try arguing it, no, the refugees will not
help your blue shift. They will be shot/bombed where they stand
or left at the border to die.) [/quote]
So, order the leftist to get armed for defense and
counter-attack, simple...
[quote]....yes it is. It it WAY more socially acceptable to be a
racially aware "black" in the States, than it is to be a
racially aware "white". No one questions the "black" guy wearing
the "black and beautiful", but switch both with "white" and
everyone will lose their minds. Saying everyone gets to be
racist but one group, is only really going to make that one
group racist.[/quote]
Your ignorance of the "whites" word is an offensive term is your
problem
[quote]Tribalism is tribalism. You are basically saying that
slave identities are okay, but enslaver identities are not,
although at this point they're honestly both slave
identities.[/quote]
When "white" identity got abandoned, we can remove "black"
identity too. But sadly people like you prevent it to succeed.
[quote]You think "blacks" have never had trouble with Koreans &
Latinos? lol[/quote]
Because Koreans and Latinos tend to close to "whiteness".
[quote]This "group" includes people who are not responsible for
things people who vaguely look like them did. Learn basic
Aryanism.[/quote]
If they not responsible for "whiteness", they will agree to hate
themselves as "white" when they got reprimanded of their
unconscious self-identification of "white"
[quote]No, its OUR problem if people become racist. The entire
point is to stop that from happening, whereas you your boy 90sRF
straightup acknowledged that his politics are increasing racial
tensions and injustices, but does not care. If you're entire
argument is "well people suck lol" then why are you even
here[/quote]
Increasing anti-whiteness and making them suffers is our
struggle. If our struggle against it is your problem, then you
are our mortal enemy
[quote]He has not provided any "facts", only argumentative
fallacies.[/quote]
[img]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FiP8k-WaMAICGZU?format=png&name=small[/img]
He even providing data which you always ignore without showing
the another data to refute it. It's you who always doing
argumentative fallacies. Answer that data first
[img width=1280
height=1280]
HTML https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsoR588UWIv1H2Boxt9tizad_Dn9YMBYHB9xanyn_LOvtEhEPwaz2cj6qth5xGn6lSR-6ADnmg_-_NhNlMvl7ROil95EfhsPO05NR4a6K1CcC8bCNHhUUVNF3ZFQ9-rt7e4ea4kV4eE_atQG9M4BwnHHPX2Fh2FDDAPNfq3QWEAC2xhgq0USOp8g2u/s1600/2023-04-09_nato-members-map-2023.png[/img]
Now, answer my data, which genes which must be eliminated first
before others?
[quote]I don't care, "blacks" still cling to it more than
"whites" cling to "whiteness." Tribalism is tribalism, now
answer the question.[/quote]
People from other ethnic can support "blacks" whereas "whites"
not want the "colored people" even though they support them.
Therefore "whites" are tribalism, and "blacks" are still
possible to become integrationist.
[quote]"Whites" do not have nearly the same racial and spiritual
homogeneity that Jews do. Why not apply this to "black" people
too? Don't get me wrong, just saying that "whiteppl suck" isn't
enough. Autarkic living, and a complete moral paradigm shift
needs to follow. But this applies to everyone else as well, not
just "whites".[/quote]
Your ignorance on Jews's total association with "whites" and
their similar behaviour is your fatal problem
[quote]...That's what I did. You think your Leftist schizo forum
is Ascesis' source of recruitment?[/quote]
You just doing soft opposition to "whiteness" which hamper our
struggle
[quote]Who would you rather die, an average "white" guy or a
"black" Zionist politician?[/quote]
Both of them, but of course we will use total ruthlessly to
"whites" more than to anyone. And your argument about "black"
Zionist politicians is not proven in reality, showing that
Zionist prefer Indo-Europeans ("whites") rather than the
"colored people"
[quote]Me calling Leftists hypocrites has nothing to do with how
the media portrays them. It has to do with you saying things
like whites should stop reproducing so that native Americans can
have back the land that was stolen from them but Arabs in North
Africa can stay there and do not have to give North Africa back
to the Berbers and Copts.[/quote]
The Arabs until today don't have problems with their fellow
countrymen like how "whites" with "blacks" on the West, so your
comparation is not match
[quote]The Khoisan held most of sub-saharan Africa before the
Bantu expansion. A displacement easily comparable in magnitude
to the displacement of native Americans by Europeans.[/quote]
There's no apartheid on their struggle of expansion, so they
still make possibility to result integration. Different to
"whites" and "blacks". So, destroy "whites"
[quote][quote]“Jews will answer the same thing if they got
questioned about the history of their ancestor's settlement's
progress on Islamic land. I don't take their argument
seriously”[/quote]
More laughable imitations of 90sRF’s bullshit.[/quote]
Just answer my argument, or admit your inability to do it
[quote]Sure. Most Aryanists, even if we disagree one a few
topics, are largely negotiable and rational people. You and your
yes-men do not represent most Aryanists.[/quote]
We are anti-democracy whereas you justify your stand with
democratic thinking. You are away from National Socialism
#Post#: 19383--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: antihellenistic Date: May 9, 2023, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Preferably the one world government will be some kind of
federation[/quote]
You are liberal, you're not part of our movements
[quote]so that people can choose what laws they live
under[/quote]
Including Mosaic Law, including western law? Alright, thank you
for showing who you are
[quote]encourage the advancement of technology, since by
automating jobs we will eliminate the need for people who are
dumb enough to be able to concentrate on menial tasks day in day
out and create a demand for people who can build and understand
machines, which is good because you have to be able to think
critically to understand highly technical subjects, although
there are a small number of people capable of thinking
critically about technical subjects but not about social
issues[/quote]
Jews will like you and you got employment from them
[quote]Right on brother, but you need to realize that the "black
is beautiful" shirts nevertheless increase racial tensions for
both "whites" and "blacks"[/quote]
The "whites" who are aware of their evilness will surrender for
the sake of reducing racial tensions, and people like you will
not want to do that.
[quote]There's a difference between getting someone to
acknowledge that they are wrong, and simply giving up when
someone is clearly not going to stop their dishonest and evasive
debating strategies.[/quote]
You always evading
#Post#: 19384--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: Junito18 Date: May 9, 2023, 7:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"You are liberal, you're not part of our movements"
I never claimed to be part of your movement and also I wasn't
talking to you.
#Post#: 19385--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: Ascesis Date: May 9, 2023, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@Junito
>For example, 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. I don’t
believe that Neolithic people were vegan or vegetarian. There
never was a vegan race of humans except for some castes in India
(although that doesn’t mean that the ideology of veganism is
wrong). And not all pre-agricultural people were superior to
modern people. Some groups were superior but very specific
conditions had to be present.
I'm okay with this and have always been aware of these
observations; its just that to me, ultimately, the most
essential part of its worldview is its philosophy and ideals.
Its only natural and healthy for its exact views on history to
change. But nevertheless, I will defend the Neolithic Revolution
saying that although it was certainly no utopia, it at least
made beauties like Veganism, art, and truly transcendent
religion (that wasn't just ancestor worship), possible.
>Humans have essentially been domesticated and this is not a
good thing.
Tell me more about this. I've heard this idea a bit, namely from
Konrad Lorenz, but wanna get a better understanding of what you
think this entails before I give an opinion on it
>A society that can produce a large surplus population is going
to use that population as cannon fodder to try to pillage and
conquer neighbouring societies every generation. That’s why the
majority of men have violent tendencies and why there are so
many murderers and rapists. Of course, there were warlike
societies before agriculture but in more isolated areas with
abundant resources (the ‘specific conditions’ I referred to
earlier), there were more peaceful societies. It’s much easier
for small bands of hunter-gatherers to avoid conflict and
maintain equilibrium with their environment than a hierarchical
society capable of producing a large excess population.
If you ask me, this is why Aryanists should make a distinct
between Aryan permacultural society, and Monsanto monocultural
society, if that makes sense. If I am correct, the Aryan
Diffusion series makes mention that population explosion often
occured whenever frugal Aryan agrarianism combined with
aggressive Hunter-Gatherers (who weren't afraid to hunt, raid,
and fertilize crops with fish for more food), for what its
worth.
The Aryanist line is generally just that agrarianism alone
provides opportunities for environmentally "low-impact" and
noble living, but that yes, ignoble people have used the idea of
farming for ignoble purposes
>Consider that pit bull terriers, which are used as fighting
dogs, are more domesticated than wolves, but this doesn’t mean
they are less aggressive. They are extremely aggressive but they
are loyal to their master, just like a domesticated human who
fights for their king and country, or for some bullshit
Abrahamic religion.
Good point
>It’s much easier for small bands of hunter-gatherers to avoid
conflict and maintain equilibrium with their environment than a
hierarchical society capable of producing a large excess
population.
The issue here is overpopulation, which is something Aryanism
has always been staunchly against. You're right that large
agriculture-based societies become cancers, but killing small
animals in the woods for a living isn't the only alternative
option
>Pre-agricultural people were in control of their environment
and their own destiny.
This is just romanticization my guy. They wouldn't have been as
rugged as they were, if they truly did have so much control. No
societies have yielded the forces of nature as much as agrarian
ones have. At the very least, I'm sure we could agree that
people without self-determination exist in both Agrarian &
Hunter-Gatherer societies.
>People in hierarchical societies are controlled by their
rulers.
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.
>People in hierarchical societies are controlled by their
rulers. They have to follow whatever ideology or religion their
rulers demand, often on pain of death. If I had then said no, I
would no longer have a job or somewhere to live. A Palaeolithic
hunter-gatherer who says no to someone who is more respected in
his band can go and pitch his tent somewhere else. A
Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer who says no to someone who is more
respected in his band can go and pitch his tent somewhere else.
This all can easily go both ways. A high-stakes Hunter-Gatherer
lifestyle can, depending on the situation, favor people willing
to speak up just as much as the tension of the moment can lead
to violence for anyone who does not fall in line (Genghis Khan,
and his childhood, are a great example). Furthermore, people can
and often do establish their own homes separate from everyone
else, in agrarian societies as well.
>These are the people who believed in individual liberties and
the value of consent at one moment, then that people should be
forcibly injected with an experimental medical treatment that
could have potentially killed a thousand times more people than
it saved at another, just because an authority figure told them
to believe it.... You’ll go to one of these domesticated people
and say something like ‘Corporations are destroying the planet’
and they’ll say ‘But we live in a Capitalist society so there’s
nothing we can do about it’ or you’ll say ‘there is no longer
true freedom of speech in this country’ and they’ll say ‘that’s
what every country’s like’.
Absolutely, but the issue here is runaway human ignobility
getting drunk off of something noble (agrarianism), turned into
something rotten
>They might be able to follow an algorithm to multiply numbers
well and do it very quickly and accurately but will not
understand how it works and certainly not be able to come up
with a new and better algorithm.
The entire paradigm of the education system needs to be
overhauled for this reason. Been studying some math lately, and
I quickly realized that all math really is, is following a
formula. Its more so about pedantically following a rule book,
than it is puzzle solving. This obviously is not always the
case, but the point remains
>I now think that kings, aristocracies and dictators are the
ones who made ordinary people stupid and evil in the first place
(by warring with other societies to gain more power for
themselves), and are therefore bad, but since I acknowledge that
ordinary people are stupid and evil I am still sceptical about
democracy.
Its a feedback loop between the two, if you ask me. National
Socialism managed to strike a good balance between acknowledging
how some people are better than others, but in a way that
uplifted everyone, rather than make a snobby clique.
>encourage one world government (since that will eliminate wars
and hence eliminate the need for countries to have large
populations so they can defend themselves against other
countries). Preferably the one world government will be some
kind of federation so that people can choose what laws they live
under – basically like the United Nations was supposed to be
except that all the countries will be small and of roughly the
same size and power so that it actually works and ii)
I wonder if/how BRICS could be used as a stepping stone to all
of this. Right now its undermining the West, but whether or not
it merely replaces it, is another issue
>encourage the advancement of technology, since by automating
jobs... I know that you are all anti-technology, but it does
have its good points and in recent years there has actually been
a lot of progress in green technology.
We could honestly do mind-blowing wonders with the technology we
already have. Technology has exploded so much that we really
don't know what to do with it, so if anything, we should focus
on making good with what we already have, rather than expand
technological knowledge, which is virtually guaranteed to end
horribly the moment someone either stupid or ignoble get their
hands on it. Generally, technology should be avoided when
possible BUT I will acknowledge that if used intelligently but
noble people, it can do some amazing things.
#Post#: 19386--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: antihellenistic Date: May 9, 2023, 7:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I never claimed to be part of your movement and also I
wasn't talking to you.[/quote]
I just want to show to the members that your arguments shows
that you are our enemy
[quote]Its a feedback loop between the two, if you ask me.
National Socialism managed to strike a good balance between
acknowledging how some people are better than others, but in a
way that uplifted everyone, rather than make a snobby
clique.[/quote]
Yes, better make good balance rather than making "whiteness" and
"whites" keep preserved, they are the snobby clique
[quote]Generally, technology should be avoided when possible BUT
I will acknowledge that if used intelligently but noble people,
it can do some amazing things.[/quote]
As long as you preserve machines, not automation, you will
preserve complexification and resulting potential western
society which is totally evil. As long as you preserve "whites"
you never succeed in your goal. Noble people focus on
integrating people, not getting distracted by the "amazing
features" of technology
#Post#: 19387--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: antihellenistic Date: May 9, 2023, 8:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ascesis link=topic=1853.msg19385#msg19385
date=1683679415]
@Junito
>For example, 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. I don’t
believe that Neolithic people were vegan or vegetarian. There
never was a vegan race of humans except for some castes in India
(although that doesn’t mean that the ideology of veganism is
wrong). And not all pre-agricultural people were superior to
modern people. Some groups were superior but very specific
conditions had to be present.
I'm okay with this and have always been aware of these
observations; its just that to me, ultimately, the most
essential part of its worldview is its philosophy and ideals.
Its only natural and healthy for its exact views on history to
change. But nevertheless, I will defend the Neolithic Revolution
saying that although it was certainly no utopia, it at least
made beauties like Veganism, art, and truly transcendent
religion (that wasn't just ancestor worship), possible.
>Humans have essentially been domesticated and this is not a
good thing.
Tell me more about this. I've heard this idea a bit, namely from
Konrad Lorenz, but wanna get a better understanding of what you
think this entails before I give an opinion on it
>A society that can produce a large surplus population is going
to use that population as cannon fodder to try to pillage and
conquer neighbouring societies every generation. That’s why the
majority of men have violent tendencies and why there are so
many murderers and rapists. Of course, there were warlike
societies before agriculture but in more isolated areas with
abundant resources (the ‘specific conditions’ I referred to
earlier), there were more peaceful societies. It’s much easier
for small bands of hunter-gatherers to avoid conflict and
maintain equilibrium with their environment than a hierarchical
society capable of producing a large excess population.
If you ask me, this is why Aryanists should make a distinct
between Aryan permacultural society, and Monsanto monocultural
society, if that makes sense. If I am correct, the Aryan
Diffusion series makes mention that population explosion often
occured whenever frugal Aryan agrarianism combined with
aggressive Hunter-Gatherers (who weren't afraid to hunt, raid,
and fertilize crops with fish for more food), for what its
worth.
The Aryanist line is generally just that agrarianism alone
provides opportunities for environmentally "low-impact" and
noble living, but that yes, ignoble people have used the idea of
farming for ignoble purposes
>Consider that pit bull terriers, which are used as fighting
dogs, are more domesticated than wolves, but this doesn’t mean
they are less aggressive. They are extremely aggressive but they
are loyal to their master, just like a domesticated human who
fights for their king and country, or for some bullshit
Abrahamic religion.
Good point
>It’s much easier for small bands of hunter-gatherers to avoid
conflict and maintain equilibrium with their environment than a
hierarchical society capable of producing a large excess
population.
The issue here is overpopulation, which is something Aryanism
has always been staunchly against. You're right that large
agriculture-based societies become cancers, but killing small
animals in the woods for a living isn't the only alternative
option
>Pre-agricultural people were in control of their environment
and their own destiny.
This is just romanticization my guy. They wouldn't have been as
rugged as they were, if they truly did have so much control. No
societies have yielded the forces of nature as much as agrarian
ones have. At the very least, I'm sure we could agree that
people without self-determination exist in both Agrarian &
Hunter-Gatherer societies.
>People in hierarchical societies are controlled by their
rulers.
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.
>People in hierarchical societies are controlled by their
rulers. They have to follow whatever ideology or religion their
rulers demand, often on pain of death. If I had then said no, I
would no longer have a job or somewhere to live. A Palaeolithic
hunter-gatherer who says no to someone who is more respected in
his band can go and pitch his tent somewhere else. A
Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer who says no to someone who is more
respected in his band can go and pitch his tent somewhere else.
This all can easily go both ways. A high-stakes Hunter-Gatherer
lifestyle can, depending on the situation, favor people willing
to speak up just as much as the tension of the moment can lead
to violence for anyone who does not fall in line (Genghis Khan,
and his childhood, are a great example). Furthermore, people can
and often do establish their own homes separate from everyone
else, in agrarian societies as well.
>These are the people who believed in individual liberties and
the value of consent at one moment, then that people should be
forcibly injected with an experimental medical treatment that
could have potentially killed a thousand times more people than
it saved at another, just because an authority figure told them
to believe it.... You’ll go to one of these domesticated people
and say something like ‘Corporations are destroying the planet’
and they’ll say ‘But we live in a Capitalist society so there’s
nothing we can do about it’ or you’ll say ‘there is no longer
true freedom of speech in this country’ and they’ll say ‘that’s
what every country’s like’.
Absolutely, but the issue here is runaway human ignobility
getting drunk off of something noble (agrarianism), turned into
something rotten
>They might be able to follow an algorithm to multiply numbers
well and do it very quickly and accurately but will not
understand how it works and certainly not be able to come up
with a new and better algorithm.
The entire paradigm of the education system needs to be
overhauled for this reason. Been studying some math lately, and
I quickly realized that all math really is, is following a
formula. Its more so about pedantically following a rule book,
than it is puzzle solving. This obviously is not always the
case, but the point remains
>I now think that kings, aristocracies and dictators are the
ones who made ordinary people stupid and evil in the first place
(by warring with other societies to gain more power for
themselves), and are therefore bad, but since I acknowledge that
ordinary people are stupid and evil I am still sceptical about
democracy.
Its a feedback loop between the two, if you ask me. National
Socialism managed to strike a good balance between acknowledging
how some people are better than others, but in a way that
uplifted everyone, rather than make a snobby clique.
>encourage one world government (since that will eliminate wars
and hence eliminate the need for countries to have large
populations so they can defend themselves against other
countries). Preferably the one world government will be some
kind of federation so that people can choose what laws they live
under – basically like the United Nations was supposed to be
except that all the countries will be small and of roughly the
same size and power so that it actually works and ii)
I wonder if/how BRICS could be used as a stepping stone to all
of this. Right now its undermining the West, but whether or not
it merely replaces it, is another issue
>encourage the advancement of technology, since by automating
jobs... I know that you are all anti-technology, but it does
have its good points and in recent years there has actually been
a lot of progress in green technology.
We could honestly do mind-blowing wonders with the technology we
already have. Technology has exploded so much that we really
don't know what to do with it, so if anything, we should focus
on making good with what we already have, rather than expand
technological knowledge, which is virtually guaranteed to end
horribly the moment someone either stupid or ignoble get their
hands on it. Generally, technology should be avoided when
possible BUT I will acknowledge that if used intelligently but
noble people, it can do some amazing things.
[/quote]
You never answer my counter-arguments, it's you who are evading
from this discussion. Even though you're the first who create
the debate
#Post#: 19388--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: Ascesis Date: May 9, 2023, 8:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@antihellenistic
I'm not responding to you because I've already had to repeat
myself fifty times to 90sRF, and a many more times with others —
all because you retards can't answer my points without
argumentative fallacies. So I'm not going to do it all over
again for you, merely because you want to prove what a good boy
you are to 90sRetroFan from trueleft.createaforum.com
Plus, I think its funny that the more I ignore you, the larger
your font size and responses get. I know who you are, and your
actual intentions. So no, I'm not going to take you seriously.
But feel free to seethe out even more walls of text though, I
will be happy to scroll right past them like I've been doing for
the past week.
#Post#: 19389--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: Junito18 Date: May 9, 2023, 8:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“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
HTML https://andreashofer72.medium.com
and here
HTML http://the-big-ger-picture.blogspot.com/2022/10/could-morpho-psychology-ever-become.html<br
/>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.
#Post#: 19390--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
By: antihellenistic Date: May 9, 2023, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]all because you retards can't answer my points without
argumentative fallacies.[/quote]
We already give answer and even scientific data. Now where is
your data to prove your logical standpoint, all you do from 2
days ago just say to us with words like "ad hominem", "fallacy,
"tribalist", and "straw man". That's even not data and logical
thinking. We cannot agree with you then. You merely showing your
own inability and ignorance on this forum, so, thank you. Your
point is to defend every single potential "whites" who are
suited for your counter-revolutionary movements
[quote]Plus, I think its funny that the more I ignore you,
...[/quote]
Keep writing on this forum, I will answer every single of your
arguments to educate the members about your ignorance and
hypocrisy. That's not a hard thing
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page