The Natural Aryan Form of Government

The Athenian state broke up the tribes into municipal districts called demes, and organizing by deme was a requirement for citizenship, or any level of involvement with the legal apparatus for foreign residents and slaves.

The Athenian tribe was called a phraty and was the organizing subdivision prior to the deme, and the demes deliberately gerrymandered the phraty into near extinction by forcing rival tribal groups into a single political subdivision. The demes were instituted in the early 6th century, so basically on the cusp of recorded history.

The theme of Oikos versus Polis is very present in the extant Greek literature.

FWIW the Ideal Polis thought experiment in Plato's The Republic has a very Aryan Jarls, Karls, Thralls division of the populous with a ruling Guardian warrior-aristocratic class, a proto-Guardian force of auxiliaries that make up the bulk of the military, and then the artisans who are the economic engine of the state.

This sounds like niggerdom. While it worked fine in the Bronze Age, how are we going to have this in the modern world without it looking like Africa? A bunch of tribes fighting for local power where it's anybodies game.

...

Holy shit user, what are you a Greek history professor?

Why is Greece barren? Why Britain still mainly celtic? What time period is this image depicting?

What are some books on this subject? Read all the Greeks but am not familiar on this level. Seems interesting.

I1 master race reporting in.

OP such a genius, as always…

Do as I say, not as I do.

It's how he envisioned society in general. Decentralized feudalism/monarchism organized around villages and communities organizing their business in whatever way suited them best, obviously always held together by tradition and fundamentally good morality. Tolkien held, as Catholic he was, that you could fund the full truth of things in that religion, but that myths and other religions were not entirely devoid of truth and in fact, he attributed those truths as subcreations within the larger creation. Myths are made of men attempting to mimic the truth tale that is the world, which is essentially God's "myth", or story.

But back to organizing society. This is still possible. It's still possible to go back to this. One simply has to consider that the urban areas must be allowed to form their own city states and thus rule themselves in their way. While they may retain the power of being large urban centers, you consider that the rural areas will have monopoly over food and other resources, they'll be forced too cooperate. You can see that in the old HRE, between the ending of the centralized kingship to about when the Habsburgs made vested interest to centralize it again.

Tribal democracy i.e. celtic and germanic tribe.

If we were truly Aryan, we were Persian emperors an shit.

clan shit nigga clan clan clan. good thing we have technology now.

Your own post proves why that system is outdated - it was conquered. Forms of governance are as much subject to evolution as individuals, groups and tradition. If one is more suited to the environment than others, it will outcompete them for resources and either destroy or absorb them. Cities could mobilize larger, more organized forces, and could support much larger populations. Kingdoms were more powerful still, with unified leadership and professional armies. And then Rome wiped everyone off the field with its fledging nation state in central Italy.

Don't kind yourself. Return to a society more primitive than can be supported by the surroundings will just lead to a more complex competitor society moving in and destroying you.

Except the fall of decentralized feudalism is a hell of a lot more complex than just MUH SOCIAL DARWINISM.

And sure an urban area has a bigger manpower pool, but sure as hell less resources.

This is the same as the reason why anarchy is impossible. Anarchy, a perfectly stateless and hierarchy-free society, will almost instantly cease to exist as groups of individuals will associate in gangs for protection in return for loyalty. The second someone who is weaker decides to ask someone who is stronger for protection in exchange for resources, you have the basic concept of a state, and this state will exponentially absorb all the individuals around it who do not form competing states.

In its basic form I guess you can say that this reduces to a rule - every given human population will have a society as complex as it can sustain.

Then you believe that our current form of democracy is better than any form of government that has come before? Since democracy has conquered every other form of governance, whether it be Monarchy or National Socialism. Not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that natural selection is not a perfect system of isolating the 'best' systems.

The countryside, assuming a resource surplus, can sustain population surplus or a higher living standard. Assuming the surplus goes into the former, you get cities. Cities pretty much universally outperform tribal societies. Just because the Celts didn't leave written histories does not mean they did not urbanize. Wherever it was possible, Oppida had emerged. Think about it, user. Farmsteads can support only as much industry as a family can support. By forming a population that does not work the land, it is possible to exponentially increase the output of weapons and tradeable goods. This population also serves as handy spear fodder.

That's literally the only way to analyze history and social trends that isn't muh feels speculation, because it always boils down to game theory math.

So indian and iranic people?

Learn to into 21st century anthro.

Social Darwinism is basically shit made up to discredit Darwin that somehow people started taking seriously.

Also again, not every location can sustain an urban area and there is a reason we have major urban centers were we have them.

Depends on what you define as outperforming. A city is entirely reliant on outside resources to sustain its massive population and in the modern world that includes energy. You can starve a city easily, you can't so easily starve a village that has pastures and livestock. Again, urban areas are completely reliant on trade to survive, they are not self sufficient. There is a reason the entire world is completely covered in urban areas by now.

So central subsaharan africans are aryan?

That's actually fascinating. I wonder why that happens.

doesn't matter who said it. biology is real. social darwinism is the observation that the genes of people who reproduce make up the next generation.

I am making a probability claim, not an absolute claim. Over unlimited time under x circumstances y will tend to happen. Just like the weatherman can predict it's likely to rain but cannot predict exactly how much or what time. With that in mind, however:
You'll have to do better than that. A lot of the features of "modern democracy" are things that have evolved over hundreds or thousands of years, like urbanization, nation states, science and technology, etc. The form of governance is but one factor. A tribal society with guns and computers will beat an urban one with bronze spears. What I am saying is that over time, other factors remaining constant, a tribe that urbanizes will beat the rest of the gun tribes.

So in relation to your argument, we can only tell in time what system of government will prevail in our conditions, though we can make estimates. It's not always one factor deciding who wins and who loses. Any given society in any given time and place is likely to show some statistically outlying features, same as just about no living thing is perfectly adapted to its environment, and individuals differ. When taking a time cross section only the relative strengths and weaknesses matter. Finally,
Not democracy, but supranational oligarchy is what defeated fascism. It stands to reason that larger states or groups of states will beat smaller ones. So your entire premise is wrong to begin with.

Whichever survives the other. All your claims are valid yet miss the point. A city beats a tribe only if the city can sustain itself. That is what I mean by saying "most complex form that can be sustained". In the desert, there are no cities, because there isn't the resource surplus.

Because haplogroups do not accurately represent anything.

It's a joke of a pseudoscience used as "evidence" to any crackpot theory any blogger has in the anthro world.

In all likelyhood, indo-european R1b and probably R1a grossly overepresent themselves by being genetically linked to producing more male lineages, but this is just one theory as to what makes haplogroups such a broken form of measurement.

inb4 someone says there are cities in the desert, I mean that city states dont independently form in deserts, you fucking bunch of autists.

Except even in places with resources the cities are still dependent on the countryside.

Lets take a real example. Who do you think would win a direct war with no side interference. The breadbasket states or the cities of the west coast (just the cities) in America?

Who would win a direct war. London, Manchester, etc, or the rural areas?

A few precise attacks on the energy grid, a lockdown on trade, you'd starve them out, incite panic and disorder. And this has been the case even back during medieval times and even before then.

A city will not survive without the countryside, doesn't matter what age, doesn't matter what resources.

Is it is, but social Darwinism isn't biology. It's a strawman created by people trying to discredit evolution.

with advances in transportation and communications technology this is no longer necessarily true.

Rural communities connected by radio and the internal combustion engine could organize and mobilize forces very efficiently.

with the addition of railroads massive industrial cities are no longer 100 percent necessary. Of course major centers of industry will develop, but if a simpler more rural lifestyle was adopted half of the manufactured things wouldnt need to be manufactured in the first place.

Rural communities also produce strong men and healthier children, and the strong family presence help to combat degeneracy in women.

The biggest reason all this is done in cities is for profit. Humans are easier to dumb down and control in confined places and in large groups. Scale of economy and all that lead to it being easier to produce shekels in cities.

If values in society were shifted away from the material, a rural country could compete handsomely on the world stage.

the hajnal line:
hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

tldr: by luck of the taboo christianity condemned consanguineous marriage, forcing outbreeding among racially similar/the same people across different clans. This extended kin relations from clan scale to nation scale. In western Europe the nation is literally your family because of this, which is why national socialism works for them.

Islam is so fucked because it did the opposite, and now they're a bunch of inbred, low iq, violent, clannish, sectarian retards (them and the Irish, lololololol, sorry Micks).

nice try leftypol

good point

i dont however believe this to rule out the superiority of rural vs urban communities

And say we did implement something akin to National Socialism in western Europe. Even in a couple hundred years it would decay into a disgusting perversion of its original self. The focus on rural communities would promote tradition and help slow the decay. Propaganda in the cities can only do so much

The kind of people arguing his are more right wing than fascists.

Read Evola's take on fascism to understand where we're coming from.

How did railroad technology, internal combustion engines, advanced metalworking become a thing?

Iron foundries are manpower intensive and energy intensive. Chemical industry, mining, scientific communities are only possible with surplus population. The grid and transport infrastructure is not required in a self-sustenance agricultural economy. Etc, etc. Yes, with our past advances made under larger populations we could well sustain a rural population with high levels of tech…
UNTIL WE HAVE TO FIGHT A COMPARABLE MORE COMPLEX SOCIETY
The rurals may be better fighters, smarter, more tightly knit, but that won't matter for shit when they spend their free time toiling the land while the plebeans in the city can R&D new tech, or simply manufacture fighter jets, tanks, drones and other shit that destroys the rurals.

All inventions with any sort of longetivity offer an advantage to the user. Cities, which come with a ton of disadvantages for the individual, would not be around if they were not somehow superior. That, and individual cities aren't a thing anymore anyway. Feudal kingdoms proved stronger, with both large rural hinterlands and core cities. And then those were superseded by nation states.

My argument was never even about this. It's that urbanization brings advantages that cannot be overlooked. No city stste could ever work without controlling land. All modern nation (and pseudo-nation-) states have a large rural hunterland sustaining a huge urban population.

I know I am a fucking fag for constantly P.S.ing myself, but such is ADD

The core argument summed up is that OP is a fag because his society, without an urban surplus population, would get defeated and absorbed by pretty much any current competition.

Same

im not saying we have 0 cities, just a lot fewer and with a nation-state culture focusing on rural values.

its larpy, but exterminating shitskins and making a deal with lightskinned chinks, we wont have to worry about that as much

i agree.

but OPs way is still how whites are metaphysically adapted to live. we should be able to find a balance between that and the advantages cities offer

I agree, we should form clans.
But the rest of the world wants us dead, and will gang up to achieve it so wat do?

It is no surprise that shitskins are well adapted to city life (shitty life) as there were big cities in their areas long before northern europe because of climate issues among other things.

Europe has had monarchy for thousands of years and we were fine. Now with universal suffrage, it hasnt even been 100 years and we are already being taken over by the third world.

no

Yes, absolutely. So is culture

Monarchies are for Christian slave faggots

Are you this ignorant about Aryan culture?

This