DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19432--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: Ascesis
Date: May 10, 2023, 4:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
>Do you feel like I owe you something? If so, why?
Do you? I never said anything about that
#Post#: 19433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: 2ThaSun
Date: May 10, 2023, 4:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Do you? I never said anything about that"
You really are illiterate! Embarrassingly so!
--- Quote ---
> Question (noun)
> 1
> a(1)
> : an interrogative expression often used to test knowledge
> (2)
> : an interrogative sentence or clause
> b
> : a subject or aspect in dispute or open for discussion :
issue
> broadly : problem, matter
> c(1)
> : a subject or point of debate or a proposition to be voted on
in a meeting
> (2)
> : the bringing of such to a vote
> d
> : the specific point at issue
> 2
> a
> : an act or instance of asking : inquiry
> b
> : interrogation
> also : a judicial or official investigation
> c
> : torture as part of an examination
> d(1)
> : objection, dispute
> true beyond question
> (2)
> : room for doubt or objection
> little question of his skill
> (3)
> : chance, possibility
>
> Question (verb)
>
> questioned; questioning; questions
>
> transitive verb
> 1
> : to ask a question of or about
> 2
> : to interrogate intensively : cross-examine
> 3
> a
> : doubt, dispute
> b
> : to subject to analysis : examine
--- End Quote ---
I suppose posting the definition for the word "question" is
pointless to someone who cannot f@#ken read in the first place!?
Or even comprehend what they read.... Jesus!
#Post#: 19436--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: May 10, 2023, 4:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"You're not an "Aryanist" by your original definition either if
you're now classifying people by geographic origin."
You are illiterate. I have never denied that there are noble
individuals with "white" parents currently alive, or even that
the nobility of such individuals is heritable from their Aryan
blood, therefore I have not changed my original position at all.
Nowhere does this imply that I am obliged to preserve those
Aryan bloodlines. You should recall the main site explicitly
stating multiple times that we are not preservationists.
The mission of Aryanism is to end up with a purely Aryan
population. Nowhere do the mission parameters specify that this
purely Aryan population must include descendants of every Aryan
bloodline currently around. From the main site:
--- Quote ---
> We seek racial type in the pure sense: we care about the
heritable trait, not about where the heritable trait evolved.
We want a society of people genetically superior in nobility, in
honour, in empathy, in kindness, in health and in beauty - in
short, a society of Aryans. It does not matter at all what
colour they are or in which part of the world their ancestors
lived.
--- End Quote ---
The correct reading of the last sentence (and the above passage
as a whole) means that it does not matter if we eliminate all
bloodlines from 10th century "Europe" (yes, including the Aryan
ones) prior to beginning Aryanization. If there were a rigid
condition that we had to include Aryans of every ancestrally
geographical region in the Aryanization project, that would
actually imply geographical region does matter! It does not,
therefore we do not have to.
Aryanist position (unchanged since the beginning): it does not
matter ethnicitywise which bloodlines we use to breed the Aryan
population we want.
Direct logical implication (used today): it does not matter if
our eventual Aryan population includes zero bloodlines currently
classified as "white".
Anyone literate could have figured that out.
"Now, who is the authentic anti-racist - you, who feels close to
Adolf Hitler, or me, who does not?"
From the same page on the main site:
--- Quote ---
> "Once the conditions of the race’s purity are established,
it’s of no importance whether a man is a native of one region
rather than another.” – Adolf Hitler
--- End Quote ---
"Of no importance" means we can use the one, the other or both
as we prefer (which is what I am sticking to), not that we must
use both (which is what you mistakenly think we have to do). If
we want to breed an Aryan population with zero genetic
contribution that can be traced back to 10th century "Europe",
that is fine by Hitler.
#Post#: 19439--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: 2ThaSun
Date: May 10, 2023, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"5375887445378398166776447961461484495301998010068644221150460037997543883471579195482483081087533149"
WTF is this?
[img width=902
height=1280]
HTML https://i.weltbild.de/p/rain-man-093173976.jpg?v=11&wp=_max[/img]
??? ;D
#Post#: 19441--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: Junito18
Date: May 10, 2023, 8:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"You are illiterate. I have never denied that there are noble
individuals with "white" parents currently alive, or even that
the nobility of such individuals is heritable from their Aryan
blood, therefore I have not changed my original position at all.
Nowhere does this imply that I am obliged to preserve those
Aryan bloodlines. You should recall the main site explicitly
stating multiple times that we are not preservationists."
But you do believe that anyone of European descent who
reproduces is non-Aryan, so people of which ethnicities can
reproduce and still be considered Aryan? The Capybara ethnicity?
By the way, it's pretty rich that you keep calling people
illiterate considering you can read a quote like "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." and then conclude that the author is an "anti-racist".
#Post#: 19442--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 10, 2023, 8:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> But you do believe that anyone of European descent who
reproduces is non-Aryan, so people of which ethnicities can
reproduce and still be considered Aryan? The Capybara ethnicity?
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20200114211447/http://aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/
--- Quote ---
> By the way, it's pretty rich that you keep calling people
illiterate considering you can read a quote like "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." and then conclude that the author is an "anti-racist".
--- End Quote ---
So, it's clear that you even not read the analytics of Hitler's
racial policies on this forum :
1.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/hitler-the-face-of-anti-tribalism/
2.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/racial-view-of-western-philosopher-from-john-locke-to-karl-marx/
It's not us who are "illiterate"
#Post#: 19444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: Junito18
Date: May 10, 2023, 9:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“The same applies to clans of Hunter-Gatherers, doesn't it?”
No, because the hunter-gatherer lifestyle cannot support a large
population.
“I know what you're saying, but there are also ways to win wars
without producing a massive population.“
There are now that we have advanced technology. But there wasn’t
in the Bronze Age, when the society that won wars was simply the
one with the largest army of the best fighters. I suspect that
we have fewer extremely aggressive, violent men than we did in
those days because it is now the society with the best
technology and economy that wins wars, so there is a much
greater demand for men who do other jobs apart from fighting.
“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.”
No. I deny that there was a low-impact agricultural civilization
that was taken over by the hunters. I think it was always
corrupt. And yes, they are inferior due to things like industry,
chauvism, and endemic warfare.
“Well does acquiring the traits of Hunter-Gatherers mean
exactly?”
So just take the traits I listed in my first post explaining my
theory, which were traits of domesticated people, and think of
the opposite of them.
“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”
I disagree that it decreased socially. Once people had private
property that could be inherited from one generation to the
next, women became commodities to be married off to whichever
husband would provide her father’s family with more wealth and
power. You might have trapped me on the point about them being
skeletally less sexually dimorphic in agricultural societies
though. Not sure how to respond to that.
“The tribe leader would presumably have all of the authority.”
The leader of a small band of hunter-gatherers wouldn’t have any
real power. It wouldn’t be backed up by anything. People would
only follow his decisions as long as he still commanded their
respect.
“Ultimately, nothing is stopping us from homesteading away from
civilization, besides ourselves”
It may be that you think that because you have undomesticated
instincts – a feeling that if you don’t like things you can just
walk away. In practise, that would be very difficult. Where I
live, you can’t just build a house on a random piece of land,
even if the land isn’t owned by anyone (but good luck finding
land that isn’t owned by anyone anyway). It’s illegal. The house
would be torn down.
“So then are you saying that agrarian culture is in conflict
with how people naturally think?”
No. I’m saying agrarian society has changed people’s genetics
and this change in genetics has changed the way they think.
Agrarian society is in conflict only with how undomesticated
people think.
#Post#: 19452--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: Ascesis
Date: May 11, 2023, 2:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
>Question (noun) an interrogative expression often used to test
knowledge
Umm. What exactly are you quoting here?
#Post#: 19453--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: Ascesis
Date: May 11, 2023, 3:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
>No, because the hunter-gatherer lifestyle cannot support a
large population.
The Mongols were quite numerous, though
>There are now that we have advanced technology. But there
wasn’t in the Bronze Age, when the society that won wars was
simply the one with the largest army of the best fighters. I
suspect that we have fewer extremely aggressive, violent men
than we did in those days because it is now the society with the
best technology and economy that wins wars, so there is a much
greater demand for men who do other jobs apart from fighting.
I agree here on that. But in that case, can we also agree that
we don't have to worry as much about a expansionist agrarian
civilization overturning self-restricting agrarian
civilizations, as people did in ancient times?
>No. I deny that there was a low-impact agricultural
civilization that was taken over by the hunters. I think it was
always corrupt. And yes, they are inferior due to things like
industry, chauvism, and endemic warfare.
But I'm not really trying to assert a historical claim at this
point, just that Monsanto civilization is worse than Hunting &
Gathering, but since Hunting & Gathering is still ignoble, some
kind of low-impact permacultural living is the best alternative
>I disagree that it decreased socially. Once people had private
property that could be inherited from one generation to the
next, women became commodities to be married off to whichever
husband would provide her father’s family with more wealth and
power.
Doesn't this also happen(ed) quite a bit in the Middle East,
where people largely live off of livestock to survive?
>You might have trapped me on the point about them being
skeletally less sexually dimorphic in agricultural societies
though. Not sure how to respond to that.
I think it'd be rational to conclude that both agrarian and
Hunter-Hatherer societies were both considerably matriarchial or
patriarchial. The question is which mode of living can would
lead to less conflict between men and women, in which case I
favor agrarianism as the extreme ooga booga of Hunter-Gathering
favors high sexual dimorphism to facilitate competition, and
therefore, "faster" natural selection
>The leader of a small band of hunter-gatherers wouldn’t have
any real power. It wouldn’t be backed up by anything. People
would only follow his decisions as long as he still commanded
their respect.
We can say the same thing about agrarian society, that the
people in charge will only be supported as long as they're
respected. A dependable, strong, and charismatic leader in any
kind of society can enforce their will (tyrannical or otherwise)
through personality
>It may be that you think that because you have undomesticated
instincts – a feeling that if you don’t like things you can just
walk away. In practise, that would be very difficult. Where I
live, you can’t just build a house on a random piece of land,
even if the land isn’t owned by anyone (but good luck finding
land that isn’t owned by anyone anyway). It’s illegal. The house
would be torn down.
I get your point, but at the very least you can always move to
another country to carve out a homestead. For what its worth, at
the very least you can get away with "camping" discretely for
much longer than you'd think. Unless you're in England:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lL1MF_vbBs
But even then, urban stealth camping is an option. Not trying to
bust your balls, I just don't want you to let the dream die you
know?
>No. I’m saying agrarian society has changed people’s genetics
and this change in genetics has changed the way they think.
Agrarian society is in conflict only with how undomesticated
people think.
Okay, I got you. The question is then, what has agrarianism
changed, and is that bad? Is it a bad thing that civilization
conflicts with undomesticated thinking?
Personally, I think the modern disconnection from Sun, Earth,
wind, water, and stars has caused enormous physical,
psychological, and spiritual damage. But at the same time, I'm
not really mourning the decline of the Alpha-Beta male dynamic,
or the complete and total reliance on killing living creatures
for food. I know that industrialized civilization factory
"farms" more animals than Hunter-Gatherers ever could, but at
least that is a choice, rather than a necessity
#Post#: 19455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why You All Suck
DIR By: Ascesis
Date: May 11, 2023, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
>Nowhere does this imply that I am obliged
Quick reminder, you almost definitely have zero control over
anyone's bloodlines, never mind millions. It is hilarious
watching you talk as if you have any real power. If you did, you
wouldn't be spending years shítposting everyday.
>to preserve those Aryan bloodlines. You should recall the main
site explicitly stating multiple times that we are not
preservationists.
This very clearly is not about preservation for the sake of
preservation. Its about letting noble genetics win over ignoble
genetics, regardless of which broad group(s) either come from...
And why would you not want that? Because people who vaguely look
like them are ignoble? Guess they weren't so noble after all. Oh
well. But how come that doesn't include other noble people who
vaguely look like people who also do bad things?
The mission of Aryanism is to end up with a purely Aryan
population. Nowhere do the mission parameters specify that this
purely Aryan population must include descendants of every Aryan
bloodline currently around.
Jew lawyer logic.
"Well our business contract DOESN'T say that I CAN'T cut off one
of our streams of revenue, to the suspicious benefit of our
competitors"
Aryanism also doesn't state anything against doing crack.
>Aryanist position (unchanged since the beginning): it does not
matter ethnicitywise which bloodlines we use to breed the Aryan
population we want. Direct logical implication (used today): it
does not matter if our eventual Aryan population includes zero
bloodlines currently classified as "white".
And? The same applies to "blacks", Arabs, Asians, Latinos, Et
cetera.
*****************************************************
Page 21 of 38
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page