Please share widely:
In an attempt to spread knowledge about Jewish crimes more quickly, many of the early post-9/11 truthers attempted to get in contact with the far-right. Both sides believed they could win out of this connection – popularity for the truthers and young members for the old far-rightists. To create this connection, the truthers began to feature far-right ideas in anti-Zionist work, thus bringing the two so closely together that today virtually anybody who wishes to learn more about Jewish domination will also read far-right material sooner or later. This means Gentiles find a group in which they belong more easily, leading not only to the popularization of the far-right, but also to strengthening the misconception that the far-right and anti-Zionism go hand in hand. This is also problematic for Aryans who are not yet familiar with anti-Zionism because either they cannot find the far-right appealing and so they drop anti-Zionism along with it, or because they may repress their instinctive contempt for rightist ideas in order to become more informed, often losing confidence in their own instincts and fooling themselves into joining the far-right, thus giving it members that are unusually loyal and idealistic. (There is also the possibility of pursuing anti-Zionism while standing aloof of rightist hubris, but this will become more difficult as the far-right increasingly dominates the scene with each passing day. As if that weren’t enough, Jews are also beginning to portray themselves as “anti-Zionists” – usually doing nothing more than jumping on the anti-Israel bandwagon – without joining either the far-right or leaving the tribe. For those who don’t get what’s going on, a brief study of the relationship between Israel and Apartheid South Africa may be helpful.)
Obviously the problem won’t be solved unless meaningful action and organization is carried out in the real world. (http://aryanism.net/politics/beyond-propaganda/) The propaganda war must also be fought constantly in order to find new members, and the Internet is a perfect place to do this. It has been used so far by our BS opponents, but also by genuine anti-Zionists (and Jews trying to enter this scene also!). While those who are genuinely anti-Zionists have their heart in the right place – and so we would easily accept them in our ranks – they tend to dabble in the ideas of the False Left, promoting democracy, human rights and countless other ideas – or if not they find sympathy for anarchy – alongside with anti-Zionism. This only complicates matters, wasting our time with debates as to whether or not Israel is a democracy (who cares?) or about the human rights of Jews in Israel (again, who cares?). (Gentiles have also picked up on the Zionist rhetoric when it comes to these matters, using it for their own tribe instead.)
As for our movement, while we are ethically upright and intellectually sound, we are easily mistaken for neo-Nazis
On the other hand, we cannot afford to be too inflexible either. If our ideas are to be shared, we cannot afford to have them be unapproachable because of historical lies. We need a web site for the True Left without the National Socialist theme. In this fashion, people may find some of our ideas a bit odd at first, but will have an easier time accepting them if they didn’t think of them first and foremost as “Nazi ideas”. The website will link to this one in a place that is easy to spot. It will act as a liaison for Aryans between whatever their actual misconceptions are and our movement.
In order to create this web site, a team of at least three dedicated people is needed. As the web site expands, more sections can be added to the site, and, when appropriate, more people to the administrative team, but the essentials for now are:
Ideology – The purpose of this section is to discuss matters of ideology. It will be essentially the same as our three sections on culture, philosophy and politics, and, if possible, religion. This section is extremely important as it’s meant to familiarize Aryans with the True Left – i.e., it’s the essential purpose of the site. Newcomers, even if trying to keep an open mind, will probably have ideas from any shade of the political spectrum which may contradict our own. Seeing why their ideas are wrong (if they are) is just as important as seeing why ours are right if we want a true conversion. Some examples of potential topics are ‘Universalism without Egalitarianism’, ‘Anti-Traditional Absolutism’, ‘Identity vs Personality’.
In the negative aspect of the work, you will be countering two positions. Firstly, you will have to counter the right. Admittedly, we cannot do much about those who are instinctually drawn to the right; again, our purpose is not to draw Gentiles to the True Left, but Aryans. What we are seeing today is a shift in popularity from the left towards the right. What is needed to counter this is to counter right-wing ideas and arguments methodically so that those who are not rightists (i.e. Aryans), but are seeing the right as an alternative to the disappointing False Left, will not be drawn into the sphere of the right. One example is ‘Anti-Traditional Absolutism’: many are disappointed with relativism of the False Left, and in the hope of finding something more meaningful they’ll accept traditional (right-wing) absolutes as alternatives, so what we need to do is to show that the real alternative is not the traditional absolute, but the absolutes of the True Left and especially immanence.
Secondly, for those who have stuck with the False Left, it is crucial for them to change their position – not from left to right, but from False Left to True Left. If they aren’t going along with the flow from left to right, this is a sign that their heart is in the correct place, though their ideas may not be, which not only weakens their position (and confidence), but also strengthens the right. We need to show them what the left is through topics such as ‘Universalism without Egalitarianism’. Also important is to remove behavioural patterns the False Left has been fixing into its followers’ minds for years, such as the unwillingness to engage in physical combat – we cannot expect victory against the increasingly militarized right if we don’t become militants as well. This doesn’t mean turning the leftists into barbarians, but reawakening the warrior spirit. Consequently, we need to make sure we get rid of the focus on rights, not only because the intellectual premise from which they emerge is incorrect, but also because the hope for some sort of gratification is always present; we need a sense of duty arising from moral superiority and a willingness for complete sacrifice in carrying out one’s duties.
If this task is overwhelming, feel free to work with others on it and get others involved in individual work.
Politics – This section is not primarily meant as a place to debate political ideology – that is reserved for the “Ideology” section – but to be on top of news, to rise above false dichotomies and to present them from our angle. This task will not be easy not only because one must be thoroughly familiar with ideology, but also because deception in the news is a constant. If you are certain you are up for the task, you are welcome to take it. Also, there are about 200 states in the world, so obviously not everything can be covered; however, if regional experts can be found, get them involved.
History - Where do we cut off the “past” from the “present” in order to separate this section from the previous one? As a rule of thumb, anything post-9/11 will fall into “Politics”, and anything pre-9/11 into “History”. If the historical roots of a political matter are important, by all means include them in an article under “Politics”, and if the present-day results of historical events are mentioned, simply keep it in this section. In any case, this section is not to be used to solely discuss the Third Reich, but ought to be for history in general. It is especially important to discuss historical trends, such as the fall of monarchies, and not focus on “isolated” events or individuals who, though inspiring, haven’t really impacted the world; however, if you ever feel particularly inspired by an exemplary Aryan, you’re free to do an article about the character, but don’t let this form the bulk of the work. Articles on topics such as the extinction of dinosaurs or the battle between Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthals, while potentially interesting, are not extremely relevant, so do not spend too much time on them. Mythology or articles like our own “Aryan Diffusion” series are also welcome. There is a wide span of time to discuss, so feel free to gather experts, especially as the site expands.
The history section is not as important as the other two, but it still has a value. Beyond merely presenting history in accordance with our worldview, we need to make sure that we correct some potential mistakes and give a general nudge in the right direction. In Aryan Diffusion Part 3 and Part 4, we corrected the mistaken beliefs that the Vedics and other Indo-European nomads (and Indo-Europeans in general) were/are Aryans, meaning that we can assess other matters such as the lifestyle of the original Aryans or their religious beliefs without contradicting ourselves. On the topic of the fall of monarchies and aristocracies, while we do not respect degenerate monarchs, and so we encourage their downfall, we need to show that what followed historically – republics and democracies – and those responsible for popularizing these ideas – Freemasons – were far inferior to what could have followed – absolute Aryan dictatorships – led by Aryans.
It is crucial to work together. This doesn’t mean that all articles have to be team projects, but that you should let each other know what you are working on and how you can help each other out.
Of these three sections, the “Ideology” and “Politics” ones are the most important. If at least two people can be found for these sections, then you may start before a historian joins the team, but if one of the two is missing, it is better to wait until somebody joins the team to work on the missing section.
Questions, Answers & Discussions
Newcomers will have questions, and answering them is just as important as creating them. A contact address like our own will be needed to do this, and the administrators will have to keep up to date and answer e-mails.
Answering questions and discussing various issues means that numerous e-mails on the same topic will be coming in because conversations by e-mail are usually one-on-one. One solution to this would be to have a public area for discussion such as a blog. This can function in the same way as our own. Another solution would be to have a forum, but this would be more helpful only if the site attracts many visitors. Also, people like to be reassured others are also interested in what they are, and it is best that the site does not show itself as empty in its early stages. The blog is better suited for this purpose because the blog will look new, not empty, while a forum will probably have many largely empty subsections (which one is tempted to create for future discussions) and will not generate as much discussion. It is best to stick with a blog for now.
So who’s in?
If you think you are fit for the job, or would like to discuss matters pertaining to the web site, send in a contact form detailing which section you’d like to cover.
We will have to check your ability to communicate your ideas on matters dealing with your section and your understanding on them. To do this, you’ll need to send us at least one article about a relevant topic. On the bright side, think of it as a head start because you will already have at least one article for each section before you even open the site.
Sorry for the delay:
Firstly, I want to most sincerely thank JJ and Decebal for their help; without the two of them, this page would simply not exist. They have been working behind the scenes on this since last year; in many ways this is their page more than mine, and I look forward to both of them playing important roles on our team in future.
Secondly, we have not heard from JJ for a while and therefore decided to release the page without him, but he is of course more than welcome to turn up at any time with the additional material he was supposed to have (including more pictures and maps), which can be used to update the page in future (so do not assume the current version of the page is final). JJ also mentioned that he wanted to talk about Thanksgiving and how the festivities could be modified to reflect our values, so I really hope we will hear from him soon.
Thirdly, Anthony wanted to use the occasion to share this link:
Fourthly, how has everyone been doing? I have basically been away since the beginning of the year, and I will be away again soon, so this is just a brief visit to say hello. As mentioned previously, it is vital that the momentum of Aryanism is not dependent on the constant presence of any particular individual active within it, but that it is capable of continuing (in the correct direction!) irrespective of the people carrying it – only then can it truly call itself a movement. It is not because I don’t care, but because I care so much about Aryanism that I am deliberately stepping back from it in order to test whether or not it is a movement yet, and if not, what can be done to make it one. We are at the stage where (as Miecz and I were discussing in private a while back), we now have plenty of content, and more content is not what we most urgently need. What we need most is a propaganda army applying our content in debates, in context-specific presentations, in focused applications, etc.. We already know we have the better arguments, but what we are not doing enough of is spreading our arguments to those who most need to hear them, namely those who are currently trying their best to counter far-right propaganda but who are having trouble doing so using False Left premises. This is what needs to be our top priority in the near future. The True Left must let the world know it exists.
Now, about the topic of the page itself. JJ and I discussed at great length the lack of exposure of students to American mythology and prehistory in present-day American formal education. This has led to Americans thinking that America is somehow a solely modern entity, as a consequence of which, when modernity disappoints, Americans stop being American and start identifying with their Old World roots, the obvious outcome of which is ethnic division and strife, right on Zionist schedule. For national unification, what we need is a vivid awareness of ancient America, so that Americans disappointed with modernity can pledge allegiance to the distant past of their own homeland instead. Right-wingers like to make fun of those Americans who tell others they have partial Native American ancestry despite not really having any, but I have always viewed such people as basically motivated by nationalistic sentiments – they are the ones who really want to emphasize their loyalty to America rather than to the Old World. But our position is emphatically that you don’t need to have Native American ancestry to be American. As long as you have Aryan blood memory, even if it is from Old World Aryan bloodlines, it is surely capable of sympathetic resonance with New World Aryan bloodlines. All you have to do is allow it to resonate in this way. I hope our American Aryanists can lead by example in this respect. By all means be fans of Old World mythology also, but as you live in the New World, the mythology that should guide your artistic and cultural development first and foremost is such as presented in Part 7, not Parts 1-6.
I always wondered why there are virtually no Hollywood studio movies about Native American mythology. Sure, there are plenty of high-profile movies featuring Native Americans, but only ever depicted in interaction with Columbian-era arrivals. Why not movies about events prior to the Columbian era? There is a huge and completely untapped resource of story material here, enough for hundreds if not thousands of such movies, from exciting action blockbusters to heart-wrenching psychological dramas. So why haven’t they been made? Oh, of course, Hollywood is owned by Jews. Jews don’t want Americans inspired by the heroic archetypes of the land they are living in – that might actually lead Americans to become a folk, and they can’t have that happening! No, let’s just make another “300″ sequel instead!
But if we were in control of the entertainment industry, local mythology would definitely be one of our top genres for movies, TV, video games, etc.. Unfortunately we are not, at least for now. One project I suggest we do start at once, however, is a pan-American social networking group for people enthusiastic about culturally unifying a post-Western New World under broadly Aryanist/True Left ideals. My first thought was to call it “People of Atlantis” (a take on “People of WalMart”), but anything else with an Atlantean theme would be fine also. If successful, this could develop into a talent pool for our future projects. Anyone want to volunteer for this project?
In the right-wing worldview, America (by which they mean Western civilization in America) is coming to an end. In our worldview, America (by which we mean America) is only now about to begin. If we play our cards well enough, the next civilization in the New World can be ours.
(P.S. Back in the old days, JAM and I talked vaguely about making a Dungeons-&-Dragons-style RPG campaign setting based on Aryan prehistory. Now with all seven parts of the Aryan Diffusion series posted, this could really be done. Something else for you guys to think about.)
Following from my previous post, I want to discuss some more of the lies surrounding events in Ukraine. The purpose of this post is not to discuss the events in the Ukraine, although you are welcome to do so in comments. It is use them to point out some things that are worth bearing in mind in the future. What I am going to say does not just apply to the Ukraine crisis, but in geopolitical issues all around the world.
I have heard some people condemn the government in Ukraine as illegal. This is a very common red herring. Similarly, I have heard people say the Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal. I have heard people say the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal. (Illegal to whom? Obviously, the British and American government think they are legal. Do these people support the subordination of national governments to international organisations?) The flaw in this argument is that by saying we should condemn something because it is illegal, we imply that if it were legal, it would be justified. In fact, even if the Israeli occupation of Palestine were legal, it would still be immoral. Contrary to the view of Liberals and democrats, morality is not something decided by majority consensus.
‘For no nation on earth possesses a square yard of ground and soil by decree of a higher Will and in virtue of a higher Right. The German frontiers are the outcome of chance, and are only temporary frontiers that have been established as the result of political struggles which took place at various times. The same is also true of the frontiers which demarcate the territories on which other nations live. And just as only an imbecile could look on the physical geography of the globe as fixed and unchangeable–for in reality it represents a definite stage in a given evolutionary epoch which is due to the formidable forces of Nature and may be altered to-morrow by more powerful forces of destruction and change–so, too, in the lives of the nations the confines which are necessary for their sustenance are subject to change. State frontiers are established by human beings and may be changed by human beings.’ – Adolf Hitler, being honest
Anyone who thinks that being legal makes something right or being illegal makes it wrong is nothing but an obedient slave, since they uphold whatever values legislators tell them they should instead of following their own conscience. And yet it is these slaves who mock National Socialists for ‘only following orders’, thereby demonstrating their stupidity in addition to their slavishness.
Besides this slavish view that holds that legislators (or any other human being) have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong, there are two other views.
The first is that morality does not exist. In this view, if someone has control of a territory, they have no ‘right’ to it, and nor does anyone else. It belongs to whoever has power over it at a given time, and if someone succeeds in taking it from them, then it will belong to them instead. This was the view held by people like Nietzsche. It is less absurd than the first view I discussed, but still not of much interest to Aryanists.
As Aryans, our view should be that morality is objective and independent of human opinion. So, as I said, it makes no difference whether some organisation says the Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal. Even if they were to change their mind and decide it is legal, it would still be immoral. I doubt there are many people who would accept the occupation if the UN or some other body did declare it legal. So, by claiming it does make a difference they are being dishonest.
I have also heard people say that the Russian occupation of the Crimea is justified because Russia has cultural, linguistic, historical and ethnic links to the area. Anyone who cannot see that is a Gentile argument does not understand what a Gentile is. The same argument has been used countless times throughout history by Gentiles as a poor excuse for tribalist behaviour. Our response, as Aryans, to this sort of argument should be ‘So what?’ It is as simple as that.
For a trivial example of this mentality in action, see here:
It is quite ridiculous that human history has worked like the voting on the Eurovision song contest. Of course, now the voting system in Eurovision has been reformed. I wish I could say the same thing for geopolitics.
Again on the subject of Ukraine, I have just read this article:
Kerry’s hypocrisy about using false pretexts to invade other countries goes without saying. It is a classic example both of tribalist double standards (since he does not criticise his own country even though it has done the same thing) and of the idea that, as Savitri Devi put it, ‘The keynote of human history is not less and less violence, it is less and less honesty about violence’, since he pretends that the USA’s wars are motivated by ethical concerns rather than power politics.
However, an aspect of his speech that might easily be overlooked is the fallacy that later periods in time must be better and more ethical than earlier ones. By this I mean his statement that ‘This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th century behaviour in the 21st century.’ This is a fallacy that I have seen countless times, and is one that I think the majority of people in the West believe. Of course, this fallacy is a manifestation of the myth of progress, but why do people believe in the myth of progress in the first place? There have been advances in technology over time and advances in technical knowledge (philosophy has been heavily degraded, but most people will not realize that.) But technological advancements are not necessarily accompanied by ethical improvements. In fact, technology is often used for unethical purposes. The main reason people believe in the myth of progress and the above-mentioned fallacy is that it appeals to temporal tribalism, a form of tribalism strongly represented by the False Left.
Temporal tribalism works in exactly the same way as other forms of tribalism. Someone like Kerry (or someone is prone to falling for Kerry’s lies) thinks without questioning that the West is always justified and that Western values are the best values, not because they have really thought about it, but because they are the values of their tribe. A temporal tribalist thinks that the values of their period of history must be the best ones – again, not because they have actually studied and compared other periods of history, but just because they assume the values of their group (in this case, their contemporaries) must be superior to the values of other groups.
But not everyone who rejects temporal tribalism does so out of universalist sentiment. Those who believe that the world is becoming less violent, rather than simply less honest about violence, would prefer to return to a time of overt violence. Others belong to a group that was dominant at some earlier point in history, and want to return to that point in history for tribalists reasons (for example, people who would prefer European countries to still overtly have extensive foreign colonies.) Thus, many Gentiles also reject temporal tribalism, but on the grounds that it conflicts with other forms of tribalism, not on grounds of universalism. Many of these people could be referred to as traditionalists.
The purpose of the myth of progress is not just to provide people like Kerry with ammunition to justify themselves. It is particularly beneficial to Jews. For example, if someone were to point out that there are verses in the Tanakh stating that the welfare of non-Jews does not matter, that non-Jews were placed on Earth to serve Jews and that it is Yahweh’s will that Jews will one day rule the world, they can reply by saying that is what Jews believed in thousands of years ago, that all peoples were tribalist and barbaric in ancient times (a blatant lie – there were many works of literature and individuals in ancient times promoting the highest ethical values), that Jews now ascribe to ‘more modern’ interpretations of the Tanakh and that no-one believes in such things ‘in the 21st century’.
This does not mean we should be pessimistic. It is not an absolute certainty that things will get worse and there is no hope for a better future. It is just not guaranteed, and unlikely. Any improvement that does occur will be the result of taking advantage of rare and anomalous opportunities. At the moment, we have a window of opportunity to create a better future. We must not waste it. We must use it to destroy every form of tribalism without exception.
I just found out about this:
Take a classic game that is supposed to be single-player. Set up a program that allows several people to play on it at once (as the same character). Design this system so that what the character does is determined by what the majority are trying to make it do (for example, if 60% want it to move right, it will move right.) The result is this. As of now, the game has been going on for 14 days and it looks like it’s still in the early stages. It’s funny to watch the character go round and round in circles doing nothing, but also sad because this is what is happening to the societies we live in under democracy.
Originally, I was not going to write anything about the revolt in the Ukraine. There have been so many fake revolutions in the last few years and no single one of them deserves special attention. It is just the same pattern repeating itself – calls for democracy and accusations of corruption, protests, Western support for the protesters, conflict with the West either intervening directly or funding anti-government forces, and then either continuous civil war or a failed sham revolution. However, the situation in the Ukraine differs in some important ways.
1) While other revolts have been Jew-facilitated (networking on facebook played a large role in the Arab uprisings, for example), this revolt is Jew-led. Klitschko and Tymoshenko are both Jews, as are many of the foreign players. Information about the Jewish influence can be found on other sites, so is not worth repeating here.
2) Right-wing neo-Nazi parties are set to become much more influential as a result of this revolt. As with every party that the mainstream media describes as neo-Nazi, I initially hope that they are genuine National Socialists, but prepare myself for the much more likely conclusion that they are not. In this case, the fact that they are being supported by the USA is all you need to know.
Authentic National Socialists do not collaborate with a regime as corrupt as that of the USA, that supports Israel and is controlled by Jews, and do not allow themselves to be used as geopolitical pawns. While the mainstream media is condemning the ‘evil Nazis’, Gentile, racist sites are clearly very embarrassed about this and struggling to explain how this can be happening. Many of them are trying to explain it away by saying that these groups are ‘not real National Socialists’. I agree with them, but they fail to extend the same criticism to themselves. Only we have the real answer – that these groups are not authentic National Socialists and neither are the White Nationalists who would support them if they were not working with the USA. This is what we have been saying all along – that Jews do not see White Nationalism as a threat and have no problem with promoting it.
However, there is one group that seems to represent authentic National Socialism (I really hope I am right about this) – the Right Sector. Muzychko, a leader of the Right Sector, is quoted as having said in 2007 that he would fight ‘Communists, Russians and Jews as long as blood flows in his veins’. Obviously, we support him fighting Jews and Communists. Russians are not our enemies, but fighting Russians is also understandable for a Ukrainian, since Russia is threatening Ukraine’s sovereignty. He has also said ‘I warn you, if anyone in this town, this area, engages in ‘lawlessness’ and looting, Right Sector squads will shoot the bastards on the spot. Then there will be order and discipline’, which we fully support. In fact, we have consistently promoted vigilantism and neighbourhood patrols in the past. And finally, speaking about Svoboda, the right-wing party I previously mentioned is being supported by the West, the leader of the Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh, had this to say:
“We have a lot of common positions when it comes to ideological questions, but there are big differences. For instance, I don’t understand certain racist things they share, I absolutely don’t accept them. A Belarusian died for Ukraine, and an Armenian from Dnipropetrovs’k died for Ukraine. They are much greater comrades of mine than any, sorry, Communist cattle like Symonenko, who play for Russia but are ethnic Ukrainians.
Stepan Bandera once advocated three ways of dealing with non-Ukrainians. It’s very simple. You deal with them as comrades – and this is for those who fight with you for Ukraine, regardless of their nationality. You deal with them in a tolerant way – for those who live on the land and do not oppose our struggle; thus, we treat them normally, Ukraine has a place for all. The third way of dealing with them is in a hostile way – and this is for those who oppose the Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle. And this is in any state; any people takes exactly these positions.”
The quote was taken from this interview: http://seansrussiablog.org/2014/02/07/interview-dmytro-yarosh-leader-right-sector/#main
The White Nationalists who are trying to come to terms with the neo-Nazi Ukrainian opposition being supported by the USA are also struggling to understand an authentic National Socialist group. On the Daily Stormer, I saw an article accusing the Right Sector of being backed by the USA and Jews, but then to prove this the article starts talking about Svoboda, showing a picture of leaders of Svoboda with John McCain, as if Svoboda and the Right Sector are the same organisation. In fact, Yarosh says in the above interview:
‘After January 19th, not a single opposition leader came up to see our guys’.
‘But if you talk about the entire opposition, for the most part, we have no relationship with them at all. They don’t recognise our existence’.
Unfortunately, there is not much information about the Right Sector available at the moment. They have a website: http://banderivets.ho.ua/index.php If anyone can speak Ukrainian, I would appreciate them telling us what the site says. Also, if anyone from the Right Sector or any other Ukrainian sympathetic to our ideology wants to contact us, please do not hesitate to do so.
We often hear of the False Left accusing people of being ‘privileged’ or telling them to ‘check their privilege’. To me, such terms sound disgusting and I feel extremely irritated whenever someone uses them. I wouldn’t even call a Jew ‘privileged’ even though that’s the only kind of privilege no-one ever talks about. If I told this to a False Leftist, I suppose they would have a completely false impression of me. You see, I also hate it when people say ‘I deserve this. I worked hard for it’, but by saying I hate the use of the term ‘privilege’, I suppose the False Leftist would assume I am the sort of person who says ‘I deserve this. I worked hard for it’, since it is the sort of thing a right-winger would say in reply to being told to ‘check their privilege’. In fact, the fact that I hate both of these expressions is a good example to illustrate how we are neither Right nor False Left and what the alternative is.
Closer inspection reveals that these phrases, although apparently coming from opposite sides of the political spectrum, are based on exactly the same mentality. The non-Aryan attitude, which is manifested in both of these phrases, is that we only deserve not to suffer if we work our way out of suffering. The Aryan attitude is that no-one deserves to be born into a life of suffering in the first place. We know the reality is that we do have to work to end suffering, but the difference is that we do not think this is just. The Aryan does not think, for example, that people only deserve to be free if they work for their freedom, although in a slave society they realize work is required to end slavery. They hate the slave-master, but they would not accuse a free person who is not a slave-master of being ‘privileged’, as if it is a bad thing to be free, or as if being free when others are not is immoral.
And this non-Aryan attitude does not just apply to humans. It is the attitude that everything is a resource to be exploited. Indeed, I have heard carnivores argue that animals should be eaten because otherwise they would not be useful.
Of course, the attitude that we do not deserve to be born into a world of suffering is not confined to Aryans. Many Gentiles have this attitude for members of their own tribe. For example, in certain cultures in the Pacific and in Mongolia, which are obviously not pure Aryan societies, everyone above a certain age is entitled to their own land, even though they have not worked for it. In fact, it is quite common for Gentiles to believe they are entitled not to suffer. The difference is that they do not have a problem with attaining this state at the expense of others. It is understandable that people criticise this attitude when there is a double-standard, but it is better call it ‘tribalism’ or ‘exploitation’ rather than privilege, since ‘privilege’ hints at the attitude that we deserve to suffer.
The idea that it is immoral to look after your own interests even if they do not conflict with anyone else’s is Jewish in origin and has had a strong influence on Judeo-Christian and Western values, as is the idea that we do not deserve good things and should be grateful for having them, rather than angry when we do not have them. The Judeo-Christians teach that we should be grateful to Yahweh for giving us his grace when we did not deserve it. The Gnostic Christians follow the teaching that came directly from Jesus: ‘Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you’ and ‘If you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give it to the one from whom you will not receive it back’.
The masses are petty and spiteful. They believe that the only motivation for helping someone is the promise of being given something in return. They believe only in self-interest. Consequently, they assume the only possible motivation for gaining power is personal gain and distrust all non-democratic leaders. In Gadaffi’s Libya, newly married couples were given $50000 to buy a house. Everyone was given free education and housing. A university graduate who could not find a job was paid the salary they would be expected to earn when they did find a job until they found one. Instead of thinking, like the typical pathetic, spiteful person with their Jewish debt mentality ‘I had to work hard for these things, and so should everyone else or else it’s not fair and they are ‘privileged’!', Gadaffi thought ‘We should try to minimize suffering’. This is in contrast to someone like Hilary Clinton, who laughed about Gaddafi’s death and said on another occasion that Iran needs to ‘become a productive member of the international community’ or some other such nonsense. Critics of attitudes like Gadaffi’s are motivated only by self-interest, but also have no self-respect since they accept that it was just for them to have to work to end their suffering. Similarly to Gaddafi, Hitler said ‘We do not say to the rich people: Please, give something to the poor. Instead we say: German people, help yourself!’
We also see the non-Aryan strongly displayed by those who oppose immigration. There is an alleged quote from Vladimir Putin circulating on the internet at the moment that encapsulates this attitude just as well as the phrases we have already discussed:
‘Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’.’
Some people who dislike this quote might accuse the Russians of being ‘privileged’ and using their ‘privilege’ to gain an unfair advantage over the immigrants, but notice that in the quote Putin accuses the immigrants of being privileged!
Now, instead of saying this, Putin could have said ‘Even though our position of power enables us to disregard your concerns, we will not disregard your concerns because it is unjust’. Instead he argues that the immigrants owe Russia and have no power over Russia, so Russia will treat the immigrants however it likes, both because Russia does not owe them anything and because it can get away with it. It is a ‘might is right’ argument mixed with the Judeo-Christian debt argument (the same argument that says that Yahweh is entitled to do whatever he likes with us because we owe him gratitude or because of original sin.)
These attitudes can only be destroyed if the Capitalist, Judaic society that produced them is also destroyed. Only then can we build a platform for working towards the complete abolition of suffering.
During the course of my life, I have occasionally encountered idiots who have said to me that Jews deserve to be successful because they work hard. I think it is about time that someone exposed the sort of ‘hard work’ they do.
Anti-usury activism has definitely increased since the 2008 crash, but in fact the problems with our economic system are blatant and could have easily been pointed out well before this (and were by people like the prophet Mohammed and Ezra Pound, both of whom have been largely ignored in the West. Indeed, most civilizations throughout history have been anti-usury, despite False Left claims that Socialism is something ‘new’ and ‘progressive’. In fact, the reason pre-modern civilizations had no word for socialism is because alternatives were inconceivable, so no need was needed to distinguish it from another system. They had no word for ‘capitalism’ either.) In the last decade, some good documentaries have been produced on this subject, most notably Zeitgeist, but even they do not get to the root of the problem, creating overly elaborate theories and descriptions of the problems that simply confuse people.
So, let us try to explain the problem as simply as possible. The following diagrams may be considered ‘crude’, but better to be crude than over-complicate things and confuse people.
Firstly, let us set up a very simple economy to use as an example. It consists of two people – person A and person B. The ‘real size’ of the economy is 8. For simplicity, we will say that this means that 8 items exist to be traded, distributed between A and B. For example, person A might own 3 items, person B might own 5; or they might both own 4. It does not really matter. And we also have a bank, where A and B keep their money. Let us say that both A and B each have 4 units of money, meaning that the total amount of money in the bank is 8 units. This means that the average cost of an item is 1 unit of money, since there are 8 items and 8 units of money. All of what I have just said is represented in the diagram below.
Now, let’s say person A wants to take out a loan of 1 unit of currency. This means that the bank gives person A 1 unit, but where does the bank get this money from? There are two options.
Option 1: Taking the money from another account
The first is that the bank takes the money from person B’s account. This is known as fractional reserve banking, and is already unethical. The bank has taken money that does not belong to it, that it was supposed to be keeping in storage for someone else. If person A cannot pay that money back so that the bank can give 1 unit back to person B, then person B will effectively have had that unit of currency stolen from them. This is represented in the diagram below:
This is a common cause of economic collapse. The problem is that mainstream economists, instead of criticising the act of the bank stealing money from its customers, are debating the best way to ensure person A will definitely be able to pay it back, thereby entirely missing the point. This is why so much emphasis is placed on economic growth. In a society where everyone is borrowing money, the only way for them to pay back that money is for new money to be made, and the only way for that money to be worth anything rather than this simply leading to inflation is for the economy to grow. So, in such a system we have to ‘expand or die’. The economy must either grow or collapse. Even if we do not want it grow and are happy with what we already have, we are slaves to growth. And when it cannot grow any more, the system falls apart.
If person A and person B wanted to withdraw all their money at the same time (which, remember, is supposed to be 5 units and 4 units respectively, rather than 5 and 3), the bank would not be able to give it to them. In real life, this is known as a ‘run on the bank’.
Note that, contrary to many anti-usury activists (such as the Zeitgeist movement) who focus their criticisms on lending money at interest, everything I have just described is at 0% interest. With interest, these problems would be compounded, but they still exist even without interest. Usury, therefore, does not just mean ‘lending money at interest’, as many believe. It is better defined as making a profit through the ownership of money.
Option 2: Creating money from nothing
Taking money from another person’s account may already seem like a bad idea, but it is actually the least harmful way the bank can provide person A with his loan of 1 unit of currency. The next method is for the bank to simply create the money out of thin air. Shown below is this practice occurring at nominal 0% interest.
According to Adair Turner, former Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, this is exactly what happens.
‘Banks do not, as too many textbooks still suggest, take deposits of existing money from savers and lend it out to borrowers. They create credit and money ex nihilo – extending a loan to the borrower and simultaneously crediting the borrower’s money account.’ – Adair Turner
But we do not have to take his word for it. Consider that, in the previous diagrams, we have assumed that only one person is taking out a loan. In real life, it is not true that half the population is taking out loans and half are not. Most people take out loans – to pay for a house or university tuition, for example. So, realistically, both person A and person B would be taking out a loan (of 1 credit, say). This means that each of them would end up with 5 credits in their account (compared to the original 4 credits.) Obviously, there is no way this money could be given to them by taking money from the accounts of others, since this is a total of 10 credits and there were originally only 8 credits in circulation! The only way to give them both this loan is to create more money.
An important implication of this is that money does not represent resources. A society where almost everyone needs a loan should not be possible. Cost should be determined by the amount of money in circulation. In the first diagram, there were 8 credits and 8 items that could be traded. This means that the average cost of an item is 1 credit, because the value of the total amount of resources is equal to the total amount of money. So, if there 8 items and 8 credits, the 8 items will be worth 8 credits. If there are 8 items and 16 credits, the 8 items will be worth 16 credits etc.
But if everyone needs to take out a loan, that means that the total amount of resources/ items must be worth more than the total amount of money (otherwise, there would be no need to create more money to pay for them.) To understand this, look again at the first diagram. Between them, A and B have all the money, so between them they should be able to buy all the items. They should definitely not need a loan to pay for the items. In real life, they might only be able to buy (for example) 4 or 5 of the 8 items despite having all the money.
Before we move forward, I will deal with one objection to this idea. Some people would argue that because people are constantly earning new money, if there were enough money in circulation at any one time to buy everything in the economy (all the items, in our simple model) there would soon be enough money in circulation to buy more than what is available. For example, if the average person had enough money to buy a house without having to save up to do so then when they received their next pay cheque they would have enough to buy two houses, which would be disastrous for the economy because it would not be an accurate reflection of their wealth.
This objection is wrong because it assumes that when someone earns money, that money is newly produced and added to the money already in circulation. However, an economy could exist (and work) where new money is only added to the money already existing when something new is produced (in our diagram, this would correspond to someone producing a new item, so that there are 9, 10 or more items instead of the original 8.) One might think that perishable items (ones that are produced but do not last) such as food would cause a problem because new money would be added and hen the product would be destroyed without the money being destroyed, but this is not so. There is no reason to add new money to pay for perishable goods (or services, which also do not last.) The diagram below shows why.
In the above diagram, the production of services and perishable goods does not increase the money supply. Since the goods and services produced only increase the size of the economy temporarily, this is an accurate reflection of what is happening. So, contrary to the objection that if people did not have to save up to buy high value goods such as a house, and could instead buy one at any time with the money they had, they would be able to buy many times this amount by saving, we see instead that the total amount of money in circulation would actually not increase and it would be impossible for the average person to get wealthier by saving (unless the economy were growing) and that they hence should have enough money at any one time to purchase their rightful share of the economy (including a house.)
In reality, houses are much more expensive than they should be. We have just shown that, as long as there are enough houses for everyone, the average person should be able to afford a house (or have one already) with the money they have without saving and without taking out a loan. But, since taking out a loan to pay for a house has become the norm, sellers charge more than houses are actually worth because they know they can get away with it. So, you need to take out a loan to pay for a house because prices are so high, but the reason they are high is because of the existence of loans! If loans were illegal, those selling houses would lower the prices because they would know no-one would be able to afford them.
Just like Yahweh, the banks take credit for solving problems they create in the first place. The banking system is completely Jewish in spirit (contrary to the opinions of certain fools who would have us believe we are favouring non-usury Islamic banks over ‘Christian’ ones.)
So, we agree with those activists (in the Zeitgeist Movement, for example) who advocate a ‘resource-based economy’, but only in the sense that money should represent resources. We do not see money itself as a problem, and there is no reason why money cannot continue to be used.
Inflation occurs in every scenario we have discussed except lending money at 0% interest where that money is taken from another person’s account. Consider the previously discussed scenario of an economy of two people with each taking out a loan of 1 credit. Originally, there were 8 credits in circulation. Now, there are 10, even though no new work has been done (i.e. even though the ‘size’ of the economy is still 8.) Considering again our simple model of there being 8 items to be traded, this means that the average price of an item has risen from 1 credit to 10/8 (=1. 25) credits. Usury is therefore one of the main causes of inflation (although there are others.)
We have already looked at loans at 0% interest, where the loan is taken from another person’s account. In this scenario, everything works out fine as long as the loan is paid back. Now consider a scenario where person A has taken out a loan of one credit, but must pay back one credit plus 1/50 of a credit. Again, the bank has chosen the less harmful method of taking the one credit from B then giving it back to B when A has paid the money back. The diagram below shows the situation after A has paid the money back to the bank. It assumes that person A has made the money by increasing the size of the economy, which in our simple model means producing an item.
Everyone knows the banks make money through interest, but rarely consider that if the bank becomes richer, everyone else becomes poorer because they own a smaller proportion of the total wealth. In the above diagram, A and B have 9 credits, but this is not enough to buy the 9 items. Inflation has occurred and each item has increased in value (but only by 1/450 credits.) Doing this repeatedly will continue to increase the wealth gap between the people and the bank.
Now consider the scenario where person A has taken a loan of one credit and the bank has created this money from nothing. In this case, everything is the same except that instead of the black square representing 1/50 credit, it represents this plus 1 and 1/50 credits (i.e. 1.02 credits.) This means that the bank now owns more than 10% of the economy and the price of an item has increased from 1 credit to approximately 1.1 credits. It is easy to see that a policy like this (which is the policy being carried out in real life) will eventually leave the people completely dispossessed.
Who is responsible?
All this disproves the Libertarian claim that if the economy is unregulated everyone will make rational choices. People do what gives them instant gratification. They do not think about the long-term consequences of their actions or their impact on society as a whole. Loans are a perfect example of this – they temporarily give increased wealth but inevitably lead to economic catastrophe.
Even if people were thinking rationally, modern society gives them no opportunity to put this thinking into effect. Almost no employer gives its workers the opportunity to receive their payment directly as cash. Even those who are fully aware of the problems with the banks are obliged to set up a bank account and participate in this system. But, according to the Libertarian, they are free because they could, in theory, apply only for jobs that do offer cash in hand (even though none exist.) This is a typical example of the ridiculous Libertarian concept of freedom.
Libertarianism and free market capitalism are just another controlled opposition ideology designed to distract people from the true solution. Libertarianism does not criticize usury at all. Some Libertarians advocate that money should be backed by a resource, such as gold, but this is not true Libertarianism since demanding that money be backed by some resource counts as a form of economic regulation!
There are also Libertarians who have spoken out against fractional reserve banking (Milton Friedman being an example), but then proposed full reserve banking instead, which will only lead to inflation and means that the loans given to customers are essentially worthless. All of these ideas are distractions from the real issue of usury.
So, who is responsible for Libertarianism? If you look at a list of libertarian theorists and advocates, you will be shocked by the number of Jews. Here is a list of Jews involved in the Libertarian movement:
Walter Block – author of ‘Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty’
Murray Bookchin – founder of Libertarian municipalism
Friedrich Hayek – author of the ironically entitled ‘Road to Serfdom’ (in fact, the road to serfdom is listening to what Jews have to say)
Ayn Rand – founder of Objectivism
Murray Rothband – founder of anarcho-capitalism
David D. Friedman
We also know that the Tea Party Movement was funded by the Koch brothers.
As for the banks themselves, Goldman Sachs is controlled by Jews. Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and CEO, is a Jew. Gary D. Cohn, the president and COO, is a Jew.
The Federal Reserve Bank, which is the central bank of the USA, is controlled by Jews. On their website, the following list of members of the board of directors is provided. I have marked Jewish members with an X:
Janet Yellen – chair (X)
Daniel K. Tarullo
Sarah Bloom Raskin (X)
Jeremy C. Stein (X)
Jerome H. Powell
The previous five chairs of the Federal Reserve, with one exception, were also Jews.
The main economic advisory bodies in the USA, which are maintaining the status quo, are controlled by the Jews. Here is a list of leading members of the National Economic Council (as of 2011):
Chair: Barack Obama
Director: Gene Sperling (X)
Deputy Director for Domestic Affairs: Jason Furman (X)
Deputy Director for International Affairs: Diana Farrell
Jason Furman is also director of the Council of Economic Advisors, and Alan Krueger (Jew) was director before him. Jacob Lew (Jew) is the Secretary of the Treasury and the USA’s governor for IMF. Mark R. Stone (Jew) is the USA’s Chief Economist.
Mainstream Socialist parties (e.g. Labour party in Britain) are yet another distraction. They blame the so-called middle class for these problems, thereby exploiting people’s jealousy to get votes, but support the banks, who are the real enemy. And unsurprisingly, these parties are also controlled by Jews. The Labour party in the UK is led by Ed Milliband (Jew.) The Democratic Party in the US is chaired by Jew Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Jew) and heavily funded by the banks.
There are also parties who blame the unemployed. We can criticise the unemployed (although it is not always entirely their fault), but we and other anti-usury activists are the ONLY people who are entitled to criticise them. People who criticise the unemployed but vote for political parties that are funded by banks or are not going to take any action against the banks are either hypocrites or fools. Both are neglecting their duties – the unemployed are neglecting their duty to work and the people who do not fight against the banks (and indeed, do not even make the effort to vote for a political party that is against the banks) are neglecting their duty to fight against the banks! These people are damaging the economy just as much as someone who is unemployed. Not only are they failing in their duties as citizens to protect their fellow citizens from theft and to speak out against injustice, they are actively contributing to the problem by voting for pro-usury parties.