the_dunk_tank

It is a bit strange to counter a racial supremacist narrative by using racial supremacy and talk of racial purity as your argument.

This is just unironically asserting that white people are majestic Aryans, except you can't be saying that. What, are you going to tell me that it's the inferior DNA of the European woman that has removedd their legacy?

Also it's ridiculous to assert that hunter-gatherers accomplished literally nothing. What do you know about pre-PIE Europe and its culture? This is actually the same thing as saying that Sub-Saharan cultures are inferior because they built huts instead of colonnades.

Native American hunter gatherers produced . . . complex cities

The Mexica and Inca were not hunter-gatherers, neither the Cahokians.

And then of course every other continent mentioned above has been genetically untouched by foreign people since the paleolithic.

This is just entirely without basis.

Literally everything ever accomplished in Europe has been done by Anatolian farmers (Middle Eastern) . . .

This whole premise is bizarre, because the spread of Indo-Iranians is a millenia-long process most likely originating around the north of the Black and Caspian Seas. But these are the people who we think of as early Europeans, they predate the concepts of Europe or Asia. The Germanic peoples of antiquity are descendants of the Corded-Ware culture. This is the Mycenaeans and the Hittites. (who, incidentally conquered previous inhabitants of Anatolia). The expansion of cultures out of the Eurasian steppe probably has a lot to do with horses, chariots, and riding, which would enable a comparatively rapid dissemination (pardon the pun) of their culture and genetics.
I put this under this line because they are the Anatolians and also NOT the "middle-eastern" early agriculturalists like the Sumerians and later Akkadians and Assyrians, who wouldn't even expand into Anatolia until the first millenium BCE.

. . . or post-Aryan admixed people (East Asian admixture)

Please tell me you aren't asserting that Indo-Iranians are East Asian.

I also take issue with your assertion that they killed all of the European men 4500 years ago, which seems to be a result of this unfortunate subtitle on a science-reporting article about an archaeological study in Spain, the site in question also appears to be from 2500 y.a. and the researchers suggest that chromosomal differences are a result of successive preferential access to mates.

Fundamentally, all of the arguments you are putting forward are race supremacist ones. True to form, they are based on a hodge-podge of faulty premises and misrepresented historical pieces arranged in a way to support your vision for who the Superior People are, while ignoring the incredibly complex history of the human species, its cultures, and how they adapted, adopted, spread, mixed, and mutated over the course of millenia.

the Aryans invaded Europe 4500 years ago and killed all the men, but when they invaded Punjab in India they could hardly kill anyone without it happening in turn--they even wrote multi-generational sagas about how long their wars went on

This is the power of Rajma Masala

the Aryans invaded Europe 4500 years ago and killed all the men

No, current consensus is that the "Indo-European/Aryan Invasion" was a process of migration from the Steppe/Black Sea and there were battles over fertile areas and grazing plains but nowhere near a full population replacement or concerted conquest. There seems to be a long process of trade, immigration, and elite intermarriage (the immigration and therefore intermarriage were overwhelmingly men) that cause much of Europe to adopt Indo-European language and material culture. There were some notable exceptions, largest being the southern coast of Britain where there was some Indo-European speaking people that crossed the channel, and from genetic evidence, did fully genocide and replace much of the earlier neolithic population.