BLM sides with Third Reich!

The London statue of Bomber Command leader Sir Arthur Harris was reviewed by the charity after appearing on a hit list of statues following Black Lives Matter protests.

Harris’s bombing campaign against Nazi Germany has been decried as a “war crime”, according to information produced by the charity in March 2021.

New material on his statue outside the dedicated RAF church St Clement Danes on the Strand also outlines his involvement in colonial conflicts in Pakistan and Iraq.

In other words, National Socialist Germany is understood to have been on the same side as Pakistan and Iraq (ie. victims of Western colonialism), which is what we have been saying all along).


The Bombing of Waziristan | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine (

To defend the British colonial territory, the RAF devised a new form of frontier warfare, which its strategists called “air policing.”

“In warfare against savage tribes who do not conform to codes of civilized warfare[,] aerial bombardment is not necessarily limited in its methods or objectives by rules agreed upon in international law.”

The air directive recommended that on the specified date, strikes be conducted immediately, “to ensure the greatest concentration of men and animals around the village.” The bombs should therefore be “man-killing,” and machine guns were to be fired against any movement. “Incendiary bombs should be used for good effect against villages and crops.”

How these strategies would affect the population was predicted in the directive as well. “The enemy will as the result of such measures feel insecure at all times; men must hide in caves…cattle if not driven into caves must be grazed in small bunches at great labour…tillage of fields must cease….”

the surviving diaries and letters of pilots in the RAF squadrons indicate that the airmen managed to enjoy the gentleman’s life, even amid the mayhem of the frontier. G.M. Knocker, who spent 1918 to 1922 in India, recounted in his diary a jolly life with darts, dances (“only eight girls” at one), a bearer—personal servant—to attend his daily baths and press his uniforms, soccer and rugby games, and lots of “afternoon snoozes.” Wing Commander D.L. Allen, who flew DH.9A light day bombers and Bristol Fighters out of Risalpur from 1927 to 1929, wrote of Sunday afternoon tennis parties, “good hockey and football grounds, tennis and squash courts, polo, picnics and dances for all ranks.” Being stationed at a larger base, he had a better chance than Knocker did at female companionship: “there were usually some 70 eligible young women staying with relatives and friends, termed irreverently, the Fishing Fleet,” he wrote. “They were always in demand for dances and parties.”

Bombing operations prevented the watering of livestock and thwarted the plowing or harvesting of crops, according to Waging War in Waziristan: The British Struggle in the Land of Bin Laden, 1849–1947, a book recently published by Andrew M. Roe. For the first 10 days of March 1937, Pilot Officer A.M.A. Birch, also flying Westland Wapitis, flew several missions of “convoy escort,” or “road recce to Jandola,” often from 8,000 feet, all the while fully loaded with bombs. Later he pasted a photo in his logbook captioned “20-pound bombs bursting among cattle in Razmak area.”

The 1920s British air bombing campaign in Iraq – BBC News

The end of World War One left Britain and France in command of the Middle East – as the defeated Ottoman Empire fell apart. The allies then carved up the region with a series of “mandates”.

A new way of controlling Iraq was needed, and the man who needed it most was Winston Churchill. As war secretary in Lloyd George’s coalition government, Churchill had to square huge military budget cuts with British determination to maintain a grip on its mandate in Iraq.

The result became known as “aerial policing”. It was a policy Churchill had first mused on in the House of Commons in March 1920, before the Iraqi uprising had even begun.

There was apparently little debate about the morality of bombing.

One of the RAF squadron leaders in Iraq was Arthur Harris – who in 1942 assumed the leadership of RAF Bomber Command. Several of his senior officers in Bomber Command had served in the same squadron.

For Harris, what was true of Iraq was true of Germany.

It goes without saying that, for the IDF (which is practicing aerial policing as we speak), the same is true for Palestine.

Back to original link:

This comes after his statue was added in 2020 to the Topple the Racists website listing monuments that should fall for connections to slavery and colonialism, with campaigners claiming Harris was a “colonial warmonger”.

Visit the site:


Harris, sometimes known as “Butcher Harris”, became a controversial figure even before the war ended and his statue was protested and tagged with the word “Shame” after it was unveiled by the Queen Mother in 1992.

There have long been calls in Germany for an official apology for the UK’s Second World War bombing campaign.

In conjunction with:

there is by now really no reason for any anti-colonialist to not be a fan of Hitler.

I have no intention of changing your mind. We support both.


Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | Leave a comment

Stop calling anti-Jewishness “anti-Semitism”!

A brick shattering a window of a kosher pizzeria on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Jewish diners outside a sushi restaurant in Los Angeles attacked by men shouting anti-Semitic threats. Vandalism at synagogues in Arizona, Illinois and New York.

Exercise: of the four words marked in bold, find the odd one out. (Hint: one of the words is unrelated to Judaism.)

In Salt Lake City, a man scratched a swastika into the front door of an Orthodox synagogue in the early morning hours of May 16. “This was the kind of thing that would never happen in Salt Lake City,” said Rabbi Avremi Zippel, whose parents founded Chabad Lubavitch of Utah almost 30 years ago. “But it’s on the rise around the country.”

Israel was also the kind of thing that would never happen in Palestine, until it did.

The past several weeks have seen an outbreak of anti-Semitic threats and violence across the United States, stoking fear among Jews in small towns and major cities. During the two weeks of clashes in Israel and Gaza this month, the Anti-Defamation League collected 222 reports of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism and violence in the United States, compared with 127 over the previous two weeks.

If it is an “anti-Semitic” outbreak, why is there fear only among Jews? Why is there no fear among non-Jewish Semites?

If only Jews feel fear of the outbreak, can we not deduce that this is not really an “anti-Semitic” outbreak, but rather an anti-Jewish outbreak?

Incidents are “literally happening from coast to coast, and spreading like wildfire,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL’s chief executive. “The sheer audacity of these attacks feels very different.”

It is because there is no shame in Ahimsa. By the way, for those who missed it:

President Joe Biden has denounced the recent assaults as “despicable” and said “they must stop.” “It’s up to all of us to give hate no safe harbor,” he wrote in a statement posted on Twitter.

No, it is racism that must be given no safe harbour. Hating racists, in this case Jews, is part of giving racism no safe harbour.

The outbreak has been especially striking in the New York region, home to the world’s largest Jewish population outside Israel.

On Friday a brawl broke out in Times Square between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian protesters, and it soon spread to the Diamond District, a part of Midtown that is home to many Jewish-owned businesses.

At least one roving group of men waving Palestinian flags shouted abuse at and shoved Jewish pedestrians and bystanders. Video of the scenes spread widely online and drew outrage from elected officials and a deep sense of foreboding among many Jewish New Yorkers.

The New York Police Department arrested 27 people, and two people were hospitalized, including a woman who was burned when fireworks were launched from a car at a group of people on the sidewalk.

The Police Department opened a hate crimes investigation into the beating of a Jewish man, and a Brooklyn man, Waseem Awawdeh, 23, was charged in connection with the attack.

“Waseem” is a Semitic name. Why is a Semite beating a Jew being called “anti-Semitic” instead of anti-Jewish?

The next day, federal prosecutors charged another man, Ali Alaheri, 29, with setting fire to a building that housed a synagogue and yeshiva in Borough Park, a Brooklyn neighborhood in the city’s Hasidic Jewish heartland. Alaheri also assaulted a Hasidic man in the same neighborhood, prosecutors said.

“Ali” is also a Semitic name. Why are the actions of a Semite against Jews being called “anti-Semitic” instead of anti-Jewish?

“Rashida” is also a Semitic name. Why is a Semite defending a Semitic country (Arabic is the official language of Palestine) being called an “anti-Semite”?

Avital Chizhik-Goldschmidt, an Orthodox Jewish writer on the Upper East Side, said she had encountered a palpable anxiety among congregants at Park East Synagogue, where her husband serves as a rabbi.

“Quite a few” synagogue members had in recent months asked for help planning a move to Israel, she said, and she secured Swiss passports for her own children after watching a presidential debate in October.

“I know this sounds crazy because on the Upper East Side there was always this feeling that you can’t get safer than here,” she said.

But her fears are not unfounded. Last year, while out in the neighborhood with their young son, her husband was accosted by a man “shouting obscenities, and ‘You Jews! You Jews!” she said.

If this is “anti-Semitism”, shouldn’t the man have been shouting obscenities and “You Semites! You Semites!”? Why isn’t the man shouting obscenities and “You Jews! You Jews!” being called anti-Jewish?

“Nobody cares about things like this because it is just words,” she added. “But what if this person was armed? And what if the next person is armed?”

We care a lot about words. We care in particular about why anti-Jewishness is being deliberately mislabelled by Jews as “anti-Semitism”.

As for being armed:


The ADL has been tracking anti-Semitic incidents in the country since 1979, and its past three annual reports have included two of its highest tallies. The organization recorded more than 1,200 incidents of anti-Semitic harassment last year, a 10% increase from the previous year.

But of these >1200 incidents, how many targeted non-Jewish Semites? My guess is 0. So why is this being called “anti-Semitism” instead of anti-Jewishness?

For some Jews, the last few weeks have accelerated a sense of unease that has been percolating for years.

Why do non-Jewish Semites not also feel unease, if what is going on is “anti-Semitism” and not anti-Jewishness?

“We do not cower to these sorts of acts,” he said, recalling emails and conversations in which congregants vowed to continue wearing the kipa in public, for example. “The outward desire to be publicly and proudly Jewish has been extremely inspiring.”

So even Jews themselves admit that this is not about Jews being Semitic, but about Jews being Jewish! So why do these same Jews not use the term “anti-Jewish” to describe those who attack them? Why is it always “proudly Jewish” (never “proudly Semitic”), but then always “anti-Semitic” (never “anti-Jewish”)? What is going on with this switching of self-identifier depending on context? Specifically, why do Jews self-identify as Jews when taking credit, but as “Semites” (not even the narrower “Hebrews” who are at least overwhelmingly Jewish (Hebrew being the official language of Israel), but the much broader “Semites” among whom Jews are a small minority) when complaining about being attacked (including, absurdly, when the attackers are Semites)?

Semitic languages – Wikipedia

The most widely spoken Semitic languages today, with numbers of native speakers only, are Arabic (300 million),[6] Amharic (~22 million),[7] Tigrinya (7 million),[8] Hebrew (~5 million native/L1 speakers),[9] Tigre (~1.05 million), Aramaic (575,000 to 1 million largely Assyrian speakers)[10][11][12] and Maltese (483,000 speakers).[13]

We already answered this in the past:

This is a Zionist herding trick. If “anti-Jewish” were used, people could simply ask: “What’s so wrong about being anti-Jewish? Judaism is racist! Do not all anti-racists automatically have a moral duty to be anti-Jewish?” This is why Jews insisted on using the term “anti-Semitic”: to ensure that the mainstream reaction to an accusation of anti-Semitism is denial of being anti-Semitic (since indeed there is no good reason to be opposed to speakers of Semitic languages for speaking Semitic languages) which creates an artificial consensus that anti-Semitism (which Jews then surreptitiously switch to meaning anti-Jewishness) is so indefensible that even anti-Semites themselves always deny being anti-Semitic. This then dissuades observers from feeling any need to study what is behind hostility towards Jews, instead dismissing it as nonsensical.

If Jews want a sincere debate about whether or not it is justified to be anti-Jewish, we are ready to take them on any day of the week. But as soon as they use the term “anti-Semitic”, they are in effect admitting that it is so self-evidently justified to be anti-Jewish that they must resort to calling it something else in order to persuade low-attention-span people not to join in.

And when this trick is exposed, it makes Jews look even worse, and anti-Jewishness even more irreproachable.


None of this is new:

“The Germans do not fight the Jews because they are Semitic or because they come from the East, but for their character, egoism and their hostility to society… While Germany forbids the entrance of the Jews into her territory, she welcomes all Arabs of Semitic origin and cares for them. The attitude of the Germans for the Arabs is that of respect.” – Walter Gross

Finally, to be clear, “anti-Zionism” is still a perfectly valid term, as there are also plenty of non-Jewish Zionists around:

Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | 1 Comment

Reminder: we exist

Now, with violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories forcing the issue back to the forefront of American politics, divisions between the leadership of the Democratic Party and the activist wing have burst into public view. While the Biden administration is handling the growing conflict as a highly sensitive diplomatic challenge involving a longstanding ally, the ascendant left views it as a searing racial justice issue that is deeply intertwined with the politics of the United States.

For those activists, Palestinian rights and the decades-long conflict over land in the Middle East are linked to causes like police brutality and conditions for migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Party activists who fight for racial justice now post messages against the “colonization of Palestine” with the hashtag #PalestinianLivesMatter.

on Friday, nearly 150 prominent liberal advocacy organizations issued a joint statement calling for “solidarity with the Palestinian residents” and condemning “Israeli state violence” and “supremacy” in Jerusalem.

The statement was signed not just by groups focused on Middle Eastern and Jewish issues but by groups dedicated to causes like climate change, immigration, feminism and racial justice — a sign that for the party’s liberal faction, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has moved far beyond the realm of foreign policy.

“The base of the party is moving in a very different direction than where the party establishment is,” Mr. Zogby said. “If you support Black Lives Matter, it was not a difficult leap to saying Palestinian lives matter, too.”

This is a debate which Jews cannot win:

Daniel Gordis, senior vice president at the Shalem College in Jerusalem

the history of Jews and Israel should not be viewed through the same lens as the racial and political history of the United States. Israel’s experience is distinct, he said, because of Judaism’s biblical ties to its land

Translation: “Because we stole the land the first time, we should be allowed to steal it a second time.” Yes, really:

Book of Joshua – Wikipedia

A powerful multi-national (or more accurately, multi-ethnic) coalition headed by the king of Hazor, the most important northern city, is defeated with Yahweh’s help. Hazor itself is then captured and destroyed.

Joshua “carries out a systematic campaign against the civilians of Canaan — men, women and children — that amounts to genocide.”[61] In doing this he is carrying out herem as commanded by Yahweh in Deuteronomy 20:17: “You shall not leave alive anything that breathes”. The purpose is to drive out and dispossess the Canaanites, with the implication that there are to be no treaties with the enemy, no mercy, and no intermarriage.[7]:175 “The extermination of the nations glorifies Yahweh as a warrior and promotes Israel’s claim to the land,” while their continued survival “explores the themes of disobedience and penalty and looks forward to the story told in Judges and Kings.”[42]:18–19

Joshua has become an iconic figure for the Jewish Zionist movement,[78] and many Israeli settlements sit on land taken by force from Palestinians.[79] David Ben-Gurion saw in the war narrative of Joshua an ideal basis for a unifying national myth for his new State of Israel, framed against a common enemy, the Arabs.[80] He met with politicians and scholars such as Bible scholar Shemaryahu Talmon to discuss Joshua’s supposed conquests and later published a book of the meeting transcripts; in a lecture at Ben-Gurion’s home, archaeologist Yigael Yadin argued for the historicity of the Israelite military campaign pointing to the conquests of Hazor, Bethel, and Lachish.[80] Zionism thus presented the 1948 war (the war which saw the creation of the State of Israel) as a “miraculous” clearing of the land based on Joshua, and the Bible as a mandate for the expulsion of the Palestinians.[81]

The most important thing now is to expose Jews who claim to be “sympathetic towards Palestinians” but who are actually promoting the Two-State Solution (which amounts to requiring us to declare Israel legitimate):

“What most American Jews desire is to see Israelis and Palestinians living in dignity, in a just and equitable society,” said Rabbi Sharon Brous, the leader of IKAR, a large progressive synagogue in Los Angeles. “It is imperative that we support a third way,” she said, “recognizing the generational trauma and suffering of both peoples and creating a just and shared future for everyone.”

A “just and shared future for everyone” is an oxymoron. Logically, a shared future for everyone would imply the victim sharing the oppressor’s punishment, which is in no way just. A just future for everyone would imply different consequences for the oppressor than for the victim, hence would not be a shared future.

True justice would involve all Jews ever to have lived burning in hell for eternity. In this world, it at least means Israel wiped off the map and all presently existing Jewish bloodlines permanently eliminated (and those who try to deceive us with oxymoronic False Left platitudes having their tongues removed).

And if there is to be justice:

Freelance CNN contributor Adeel Raja, who reported from Pakistan, has been fired by the network over a now-deleted tweet in connection with the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Islamabad-based journalist tweeted Sunday, “The world today needs a Hitler.”

All interested in this position (or others) can audition here:

Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | 12 Comments

Elon Musk etc.

The following enemy article shows that rightists and False Leftists have more in common than True Leftists and False Leftists:

Why do they hate Elon Musk? The head of Tesla and SpaceX should be a progressive hero.

Because True Leftists are not progressives:


Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company Tesla should thrill progressives who worry about the planet.

It is possible to worry about the planet without being progressive. Indeed, to the extent that harm to the planet has been largely caused by progress over the last few centuries, the only environmentalists who are progressives are those idiots who think that a problem caused by progress should be solved with more progress:

Ponzi scheme – Wikipedia

True Leftists want a world without cars, not a world where internal combustion engine cars are merely replaced with electric cars. Where does the electricity come from? Even a 100% solar-powered electric car is still worse than no car at all, since it is heavier. The heavier something is, the more energy expenditure is required to move it, period. Anyone who finds this concept difficult to understand should try walking a certain distance, and then compare that with pushing a car the same distance.

President Obama toured SpaceX HQ with Mr. Musk, and he’s hardly a conservative. Mr. Musk endorsed Democrat Andrew Yang in the 2020 presidential campaign and supports a Universal Basic Income. Republicans don’t hate him, either. Democrats and Republicans support him at about equal rates, which is rare in a partisan age.

True Leftists despise Obama as a coward and consider Yang a False Leftist:

It is also extremely unlikely that we will like anyone whom Republicans do not hate. As such, Musk’s social credentials are in our eyes just more reasons for us to hate him.

Elon Musk appeared in the movies Iron Man 2 and Machete Kills as a smart, socially conscious CEO who was saving the world. He represented the ascendant “creative class” — the pragmatic, progressive, environmentally friendly elite who think globally and aren’t held back by old-fashioned nationalism. Elon Musk is even an immigrant.

True Leftists are old-fashioned nationalists (ie. anti-colonialists). One of our most-used words is “decolonization”, which is old-fashioned nationalist vocabulary.

Musk as an individual should, no different than any other individual, be allowed to live in whichever country he wants to live in. The problem is that Musk, despite knowing he is descended from an Apartheid South African bloodline, indeed even by his own account an especially low-quality one:

Elon Musk – Wikipedia

Musk has become estranged from his father, whom he has described as “a terrible human being… Almost every evil thing you could possibly think of, he has done.”[16]

nevertheless chose to reproduce. With that decision, he voluntarily forfeited the benefit-of-doubt based on which we had previously been willing to treat him purely as an individual. Henceforth he must be treated as “white”. (And, for that matter, as his father’s son. Anyone who claims to hate their parents but who voluntarily reproduces is lying.)


Children 7

Musk “environmentally friendly”???

What makes Elon Musk “dangerous?” Historically, progressivism is about “problem-solving.” A managerial elite uses state power to end poverty, war, and racial disparities. During the George W. Bush years, many leftists called themselves the “reality-based community.” “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens became heroes for the Party of Science. Engineers like Elon Musk would stop climate change with new technology.

Progressives thought the same thing about race. Bad policies and prejudice caused inequality. Education would “solve” racism. Freedom of speech would break old habits.

That was the False Left. We of the True Left were always hostile to New Atheism, as it tried to encourage dismissiveness towards ancient religions as a whole. We opposed Bush’s wars, but for different reasons than the False Left did. They were opposed to interventionism. We, in contrast, argued that the US should intervene only in support of the correct side. (Hence we strongly supported Clinton’s bombing of Serbia, and still hope for a future US-led military invasion of Israel.)

True Leftist anti-racism is not about equality, but about exterminating racists. We do not believe in equality: racists are inferior to anti-racists. We also do not believe education can end racism: racists are racists by blood, hence must be prohibited from reproducing if racism is to end:


However, over the last few years, American progressivism became more like a religion, unleashing what we call “Woke Culture.” Yesterday’s heroes are today’s villains. In 2018, Vox said Sam Harris was part of the “Intellectual Dark Web,” a movement close to the Alt Right. Christopher Hitchens did his career a huge favor by dying, because he would certainly be “canceled” today.

In other words, we succeeded.

Rather than trying to solve racial disparities in intelligence and academic achievement, some schools are abolishing advanced classes.

Because we want less Western civilization, not more.

As for “racism,” it can’t be cured, since all whites are racist no matter what we do.

An individual with “white” parents who voluntarily refrains from reproducing would not be considered racist, or even “white”.

Even if whites were gone, the battle would rage on between mixed-race people and non-whites.



Elon Musk is a man who wants to solve problems. His girlfriend, the musician known as Grimes, defends his occasional offensiveness, noting that his life is about “making travel/house power etc. sustainable and green.” However, the new progressives are not the flawed but optimistic technocrats of the Kennedy administration, or even the Obama administration. They are believers championing a faith. The problems they oppose not only can’t be solved but aren’t supposed to be solved. Ending racism would end an entire industry just as ending the doctrine of sin would end the clergy.

No one who actually knows the True Left well would claim we do not want to solve problems. The difference between our idea of problem-solving and Musk’s is that his is about preserving the cause of a given problem while circumventing undesirable consequences, whereas ours is about eliminating the cause. Take travel: Musk wants people to keep travelling as much as they are currently used to doing (or actually incomparably more, as he promotes space travel FFS!), whereas we want people to travel less, and moreover we want fewer people in existence who may or may not do any travelling in the first place.

The key is the word “sustainable”. Musk is about making evil sustainable. We are about destroying evil, especially sustainable evils precisely because they are sustainable and hence will not end without conscious action to destroy them:

As those who know us well are also aware, we do not enjoy having to be activists. Nothing would please us more than being able to stop being activists. But that would require solving the problems first.

Are we meant to solve problems or to complain? Do we strive upward or accept decline? Elon Musk stands for the former; progressives stand for the latter.

We are meant to solve problems, not make them sustainable. We have a duty to complain when evil is made sustainable instead of punished.

Do we strive to return to where we were before the problems were created by the (Western) desire for progress, or do we accept progress? We stand for the former; Elon Musk stands for the latter. (So stop calling us “progressives”! Musk is the progressive!)

Consider this from Bernie Sanders.

Space travel is an exciting idea, but right now we need to focus on Earth and create a progressive tax system so that children don’t go hungry, people are not homeless and all Americans have healthcare. The level of inequality in America is obscene and a threat to our democracy.

It is clear from Sanders’ language that he would support space travel as soon as his more immediate priorities are taken care of. Sanders is just another False Leftist:

Space travel is not “exciting”, it is horrifying. (It is also a uniquely Western idea.) We do not support democracy either. (Democracy is another uniquely Western idea.) Indeed, we figured out that Sanders was a Westerner just from his inferior aesthetical tastes:


Elon Musk says he is “accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.”

Bernie Sanders wants higher taxes to end hunger, homelessness, and bad health care, and says inequality threatens “our democracy.”  We must choose: greatness or equality.

We choose neither. We choose heroism: KILLING WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

No. The purpose of life is to build something greater than ourselves. … The true Right is the pursuit of greatness.

If the “purpose” of life is to build something greater than ourselves, then what is the “purpose” of that greater thing you build? By the same logic, it could only be to built something even greater than itself. And so on. Since this sequence logically has no completion point, how can it be called a “purpose”? It is merely hubris:

The True Left is the pursuit of eliminating Homo Hubris. Unlike the rightist bullshitting above, a completion point for out pursuit can be trivially defined: when the last one has been eliminated. This is what an actual purpose looks like.

Finally, I have a special gift for our readers. Years ago, I wrote:

Now I present our enemies’ official concession statement:

In this sense, Marxists were more authentically “right-wing” than many Republicans. Marxists thought outdated theories were holding back human potential, and Marx wrote that money “distorted” real value. “I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women,” he said in 1844. Capitalism alienated workers. In The German Ideology, he wrote that under communism, a man could “hunt in the morning, rear cattle in the afternoon, criticize after dinner.” Communism would free people and make them better.

The first country to launch a satellite or put a man in space was the USSR.

And this is why we (who understood the above all along – note in particular Marx’s blood memory) have emphasized that we are anti-Marxist. I am always happy to reach academic agreement with our enemies. Now we are just waiting for the rest of the leftist scene to catch up with us. We even have a waiting room:

Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | 3 Comments

How we changed US politics

A Major Rights Group Says Israel Is Guilty of Apartheid. It Might Fracture the Status Quo in Washington

On Tuesday, the U.S.-based rights organisation, Human Rights Watch (HRW), accused Israel of two crimes against humanity: the crime of apartheid, and the crime of persecution.

Moreover, the designations declared that elements of the crimes were applicable not simply in the occupied Palestinians territories but within the internationally recognized borders of Israel itself.

More people now understand that the problem is not how much territory Israel occupies, but what Israel is. And this is owed to our relentless fixation on anti-racist logic expressed in the simplest possible form:

1) Israel is a Jewish ethnostate.

2) Ethnostates should not exist.

3) Therefore Israel should not exist.*

None of that pathetic “Two-State Solution” nonsense! Israel must be destroyed!

(* Advanced section:

4) So long as Jewishness exists, they could create another Israel even if the current one is destroyed.



The assessment was predictably met with ferocious indignation among supporters of Israel in Washington D.C.; but mostly from the right-wing of American politics and not the left. The HRW report is just one report, but it’s a significant milestone in a particular trajectory, leading us towards the moment when the bipartisan pro-Israel American consensus that has endured for decades breaks apart.

This was our aim from the outset. Now it is an inevitability and only a matter of time.

Progressive Democratic congresswomen, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, were at the heart of that shift going against the party line. Their support for a boycott movement aimed at pressuring Israel to change its policy toward Palestinians was met with resistance from the overwhelming majority of House Democrats in 2019, who supported a resolution to condemn that movement. But Tlaib and Omar’s push received help from an unlikely quarter: Donald Trump, probably the most pro-Israel president in living memory. It’s ironic indeed. The Trump White House had withdrawn funding for UNRWA, the UN’s organisation for taking care of Palestinian refugees; closed the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s office in DC; and had moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

But Trump made a crucial mistake. In 2019, it was widely suspected Tlaib and Omar were banned from Israel owing to a direct request by Trump to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; and that forced criticism of Israel by senior Democrats.

But the seeds were laid before then. The more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, with whom Tlaib and Omar are immensely popular, is growing in strength due to simple demographics. Disproportionately, younger Americans, and Americans of color, are more likely to be progressive.


Contrary to popular misunderstanding, Demographic Blueshift was never solely about increasing the % of Blue voters (relative to Red) in the US, but just as much about increasing the % of BDS supporters within Blue politics. Politicians like Biden are a dying breed. Politicians like Tlaib will be the centrists of the future. Even today we already have people who consider AOC too rightist:

so imagine how far left we could take Blue politics within another generation!

At the same time, mainstreaming of white supremacy in the Republican Party only invigorates progressive activists on the Democratic side — and because of the deep polarization of American politics, it makes sense for the Democrats to resist fracturing at all costs, and hold a united front against the Republicans. That means, inevitably, more, not less, progressive influence within the party. And, invariably, that will mean more critical voices on Israel.

We look forward to it. Just one correction: we are not “progressives”. BDS calls for turning Israel back into Palestine, hence by definition is regressive, as are similarly all calls for decolonization (ie. reversion to pre-colonial conditions), which we also cover here:

Indeed, progressivism itself is a Western idea, therefore leftists (who hate Western civilization) cannot be progressive:

Thus mainstream journalists continue to lag far behind where the discussion really is:

Join us!

Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | 5 Comments

When history is written by leftists contd.

The next step of our WWII views getting representation in mainstream academia has arrived sooner than I expected:

UCT to probe lecturer’s comments that Adolf Hitler committed no crimes

CAPE TOWN – The University of Cape Town (UCT) on Friday said it had been alerted and was looking into controversial comments made by one of its lecturers in which he said German dictator Adolf Hitler committed no crimes. Political studies lecturer Lwazi Lushaba allegedly made the comments recently during an online lecture.

Other media have reported that Lushaba further said that what Hitler did to white people was what white people normally reserved for black people.

In other words, Hitler was practicing Ahimsa against the actual criminals.

Initiated violence:

Retaliatory violence:

And this is why Hitler is beloved by victims of Western colonialism around the world. This is also why:!/

However, Hitler did not succeed. Therefore it is up to us to pick up from where he left off:

Join us!

Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | 10 Comments

Correct stereotyping

One tiny step at a time, people are understanding what authentic National Socialism is about, even if they themselves don’t like it:

Sandwich shop workers in Oklahoma City were called “Nazis” after asking an enraged customer to wear a mask. Lee’s Sandwiches, a Vietnamese American fast-food chain located off Classen Boulevard near 30th Street, posted a video of the incident on its Facebook page on March 9, reports The Charlotte Observer.

After being told that the restaurant’s customers must wear masks, the unidentified anti-masker yells at various employees, saying, “You’re all Nazis!”

Is the anti-masker correct? Yes:

“If we consider the question of what those forces actually are which are necessary to the creation and preservation of a State, we shall find that they are: The capacity and readiness to sacrifice the individual to the common welfare.” – Adolf Hitler

“The Aryan willingly subordinates his own ego to the common weal.” – Adolf Hitler

“Pflichterfüllung, which means the service of the common weal before the consideration of one’s own interests. The fundamental spirit out of which this kind of activity springs is the contradistinction of ‘Egotism’” – Adolf Hitler

The second quote in particular can be used in conjunction with the following link to prove yet again (as over the years we have already done hundreds of times using dozens of different approaches) that Aryan =/= “white”:

White people, the researchers found, were the least likely of any race to wear a mask consistently, with just 46 percent reporting that they wear one while in close contact with people they do not live with. That was compared with 67 percent of Black people, 63 percent of Latinos and 65 percent of people from other races.

Dr. Uché Blackstock, founder and CEO of Advancing Health Equity and a Yahoo Life medical contributor, says the statistics aren’t unexpected. “It’s not terribly surprising,” Blackstock says. “The videos that we’ve seen on social media and television of people refusing to wear a mask or demonstrating against it have been predominantly white.”

Anti-mask protests have indeed been dominated by white people, many of them wearing T-shirts or waving flags that bear the name of Donald Trump.

“Even though wearing a mask is something that protects you and protects people that you love and other people in your community, it’s seen as an infringement of your rights,” she says. “Instead of being seen as something that could help others, it’s being seen as a threat to your [freedom].”

So when will False Leftists learn to at least stop comparing Trump to Hitler? Trump is not even a fascist, let alone a National Socialist:

If you are a leftist ready to convert from False Left to True Left, join us here:

Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | 9 Comments

When history is written by leftists

Our long-held view of WWII breaks through to mainstream academia:

Outrage as controversial taxpayer-funded black studies professor claims ‘British Empire was worse than the Nazis‘ in debate

The British Empire was branded ‘far worse than the Nazis’ during a controversial debate about Sir Winston Churchill’s legacy last night.

The wartime prime minister was also described by an academic as a ‘white supremacist‘ who benefited from Britain’s ‘heavily skewed national story’.

The online discussion – held by Churchill College, Cambridge – on ‘The Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill’ looked at his ‘backward’ views on empire and race and was held as part of a year-long ‘inclusivity’ review.

‘There is no debate. His white supremacy is pretty much on record and the question here is why does Churchill still hold the level of popularity that he does? It’s almost like he’s been beatified – a saintly figure beyond reproach.’ Professor Andrews has previously accused Britain of being ‘built on racism’ and called RAF airmen who bombed Nazi Germany war criminals.

The real question should be: why did it take mainstream academia so long to arrive at such an obvious conclusion? The simple answer is that the British Empire was Jew-friendly whereas National Socialist Germany was hostile towards Jews. But this goes beyond mere Jewish personnel infiltration of academia and subsequent conscious promotion of a Zionist-protagonist version of history. It is my contention that even among non-Jewish Westerners, hostility towards Jews is judged more negatively simply on account of Jews being known for their disproportionate contribution to every field of Western civilization:

so that hostility towards Jews is viewed (accurately!) as action slowing Western progress:

In contrast, the British Empire’s colonialism is viewed with relatively mild revulsion because its colonies were territories originally belonging to non-Western civilizations, hence colonialism is subconsciously viewed (accurately!) by Westerners as action to weaken the rivals of Western civilization, which is comforting to Westerners’ sense of security. Ultimately, Westerners judge everything by whether it advances or retards Western progress:

Professor Priya Gopal, a fellow at the college, was chairman at yesterday’s meeting.

She accused Britain of a ‘national silence’, saying the debate was ‘precisely to bring a long-overdue balance to a heavily skewed national story that has preferred untrammelled glorification to a balanced assessment in the round’. She added: ‘Historians and scholars who don’t think history should be treated as a comfort blanket or a warm bath with candles have to constantly negotiate weaponised fragility and, quite frankly, a degree of cowardice.’

Remember me saying last year that Gopal will become our ally?

The next step for mainstream academia is to realize that not only was Hitler merely “far better” than Churchill, he was the actual good guy in WWII. To reach this step, it will be necessary for mainstream academics to become anti-democratic. Since Hitler was explicitly outspoken against democracy, it will then be trivial for anti-democratic academics to see Hitler as the good guy. The fastest way to get them to recognize that they must become anti-democratic is to remind them that so long as they remain pro-democratic, they will not be taken seriously when they argue against Western superiority in other contexts, since democracy is part of Western civilization. To help this process along, I recommend spreading the following simple challenge, which I previously posted here, to anyone who claims to disbelieve in Western superiority:

A) “Western civilization is not superior to all other civilizations.”
B) “Democracy is superior to autocracy.”

PICK ONE. Because if you believe B), you logically cannot believe A).

In other words, False Leftists (who currently defend both A and B) must either become rightists (by discarding A)) or True Leftists (by discarding B)).

Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | 4 Comments

A Jew complains about us

Why do people never refer to the “Y-word” in place of the offensive “yid”?

“Yid” refers to Yiddish language, which was not imposed onto Jews by anyone else, but developed by Jews themselves despite them already being fluent in German:

Yiddish – Wikipedia

a main point of difference was the use of the Hebrew alphabet for the recording of the Germanic vernacular, which may have been adopted either because of the community’s familiarity with the alphabet or to prevent the non-Jewish population from understanding the correspondence.

If you feel a need to invent a completely new tribal language to hide ingroup intentions from the outgroup, it is not offensive for the outgroup to point out that you are doing it.


Why, when the BBC recently broadcast a reading of TS Eliot’s poetry, did it read out the famously and staggeringly racist lines from “Burbank with a Baedeker” when it is inconceivable that it would regurgitate similar abuse of any other minority, even in the name of art?

Because Jews are not any other minority. Jews are practitioners of Judaism, a racist religion. Criticism of Jews is therefore anti-racism.

Yes, Judaism is categorised as a religion but there is no anti-Semite in history who viewed atheism as grounds for exemption from persecution.

Because atheist Jews are merely Jews who do not believe Yahweh exists, but who still self-identify as Jewish and are identified as Jewish by other Jews (theists as well as atheists) for tribal purposes. Even if all Jews stop believing in Yahweh’s existence, they will continue to use the tribal behaviour of the Israelites (as described in the Tanakh) as models for their own behaviour. That is the true meaning of religion. Theology is peripheral.

How, with the Holocaust still a living memory, do so many on the left feel content to dismiss the fears of one of the most persecuted peoples in history, to regard anti-Semitism as something that matters less than other prejudice, a sort of second-degree offence?

Firstly, thank you for acknowledging that the True Left is rising.

Secondly, no one has actual memories of any “Holocaust” ever occurring. That is precisely why people are imprisoned for investigating the official story:

Legality of Holocaust denial – Wikipedia

Sixteen European countries and Israel have laws against Holocaust denial,

Thirdly, Jews were historically persecuted because they were historically racist. Leftists are anti-racists. Why should leftists care that racists are persecuted? We only care that racists are not persecuted enough! I suspect you know this. Why otherwise do you call our anti-Jewishness “anti-Semitism” if not because you are worried that “anti-Jewishness” would sound too self-evidently reasonable and justified? For how is it not an anti-racist duty for all non-Jews (those who have been placed in the outgroup) to be hostile towards Jews (those who have placed themselves in the ingroup)?


Anti-Semitism is on the rise and yet political progressives, the people who ought to be allies and who normally stress the need to listen to the experience of other minorities, seem to suspend those rules when those voices are Jewish. Why is it, as writer and comedian David Baddiel asks in his short polemic, that Jews Don’t Count?

Firstly, we are True Leftists, not progressives (who are False Leftists):

Secondly, “whites” have always been a numerical minority in South Africa. Should we therefore listen to them? Should we take them seriously if they complain that Whites Don’t Count? No! Because we know the history of Apartheid. It was “whites” (Jews included) who decided to call themselves “white” and everyone else “non-white”. Thus every last one of their bloodlines must be eliminated. Preferably starting with Elon Musk’s bloodline, though that is a separate discussion:

Similarly, we know the history of Zionism. It was Jews who decided to call themselves Jews and everyone else non-Jews. Thus every last one of their bloodlines must be eliminated. It is about history, not numbers.

Speaking of Apartheid and Zionism:

Israel–South Africa relations – Wikipedia

South Africa was among the 33 states that voted in favour of the 1947 UN Partition Plan,[1] recommending the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, and was one of only four Commonwealth nations to do so. On 24 May 1948,[2] nine days after Israel’s declaration of independence, the South African government of Jan Smuts, a long-time supporter of Zionism, granted de facto recognition to the State of Israel, just two days before his United Party was voted out of office and replaced by the pro-apartheid National Party. South Africa was the seventh nation to recognise the new Jewish state. On 14 May 1949, South Africa granted de jure recognition to the State of Israel.[3]:109–111[4] The Israeli interest in South Africa sprang in part from the presence of about 110,000 Jews in South Africa, a figure which included more than 15,000 Israeli citizens.[5]

Israel’s victory in the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequent occupation of the Sinai and West Bank alienated it diplomatically from much of the Third World and African states. Black nationalist movements then began to see it as a colonial state.[21] At the same time, in South Africa, Israel became the object of widespread admiration, particularly among the country’s political and military leadership. The editorial of Die Burger, then the mouthpiece of the South African Nationalist Party, declared: “Israel and South Africa are engaged in a struggle for existence… The anti-Western powers have driven Israel and South Africa into a community of interests which had better be utilized than denied.”[15]

Within less than a decade, South Africa would be one of Israel’s closest military and economic allies, whilst Israel would occupy the position of South Africa’s closest military ally, and Israel had become the most important foreign arms supplier to the South African Defence Force[3]:117–19

By 1973, an economic and military alliance between Israel and South Africa was in the ascendancy. The military leadership of both countries was convinced that both nations faced a fundamentally similar predicament, fighting for their survival against the common enemy of the PLO and the ANC.[31]

Israeli and South African intelligence chiefs held regular conferences with each other to share information on enemy weapons and training.[34] The co-ordination between the Israel Defense Forces and the South African Defense Force was unprecedented, with Israeli and South African generals giving each other unfettered access to each other’s battlefields and military tactics, and Israel sharing with South Africa highly classified information about its missions, such as Operation Opera, which had previously only been reserved for the United States.[35]

The South African government’s yearbook of 1978 wrote: “Israel and South Africa have one thing above all else in common: they are both situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples.”[36]

Israel was one of the most important allies in South Africa’s weapons procurement during the years of PW Botha’s regime.[41]

By 1980, a sizeable contingent of South African military and government officials were living permanently in Israel, to oversee the numerous joint projects between the countries, while their children attended local Israeli schools.[42] Scientific collaboration also continued to increase, with many scientists working in each other’s countries. Perhaps most sensitive was the large group of Israeli scientists working at South Africa’s Pelindaba nuclear facility.[42]

During Operation Protea in 1981, the South African Defence Force made military history, as arguably the first user of modern drone technology, when it operated the Israeli IAI Scout drones in combat in Angola. They would only be used in combat by the Israel Defense Forces a year later during the 1982 Lebanon War and Operation Mole Cricket 19.[43]

South Africa provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its nuclear weapons. South Africa built its own nuclear bombs, possibly with Israeli assistance.[57] Some Resolutions of the UN General Assembly in the early 1980s which condemned the cooperation between Israel and Apartheid South Africa, also mentioned nuclear collaboration.[58] U.S. Intelligence believed that Israel participated in South African nuclear research projects and supplied advanced non-nuclear weapons technology to South Africa during the 1970s, while South Africa was developing its own atomic bombs.[59][60] According to David Albright, “Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel.” He goes on to say “A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation.”[61]

Chris McGreal has written that “Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa’s development of its nuclear bombs”.[25] In 2000, Dieter Gerhardt, Soviet spy and former commander in the South African Navy, stated that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with “special warheads” for South Africa.[62]

According to journalist Seymour Hersh, the 1979 Vela incident, was the third joint Israeli-South African nuclear weapons test in the Indian Ocean, and the Israelis had sent two IDF ships and “a contingent of Israeli military men and nuclear experts” for the test.[63]


The author’s question is less about why anti-Semitism exists than why good people care less about it.

That’s what makes us good people. Good people hate racists. Jews are racists by definition. Therefore good people hate Jews.

The key is that Jews are not seen as underprivileged or marginalised. They are caricatured as rich capitalists. They are also “too white” for campaigners. This means they are beyond the interest of social justice activists who see racism as a class construct, one in which you need to be economically or socially disadvantaged.

It is true that Jews are “white” (not just by Apartheid South African standards either; look at their role as colonialists worldwide in colonial-era history!) and rich. It is untrue that social justice activists only care about racism against economically or socially disadvantaged groups. If we did, we would ignore racism against, for example, Chinese (with China well on the way to becoming – if not already – the leading economic power in the world). We do not. Because we know the history of China’s colonization by the Western colonial powers. We know the history of the Opium Wars. Speaking of which:

David Sassoon – Wikipedia

When the Treaty of Nanking opened up China to British traders, Sassoon developed his textile operations into a profitable triangular trade: Indian yarn and opium were carried to China, where he bought goods which were sold in Britain, from where he obtained Lancashirecotton products. He sent his son Elias David Sassoon to Canton, where he was the first Jewish trader (with 24 Parsi rivals). In 1845, David Sassoon & Co. opened an office in what would soon become Shanghai’s British concession, and it became the firm’s second hub of operations.

In 1844, he set up a branch in Hong Kong, and a year later, he set up his Shanghai branch on The Bund to cash in on the opium trade.

David Sassoon, as an Orthodox Jew, continued his Jewish religious observances, observing the Jewish Sabbath throughout his busy life.


Wrapped into this, of course, is anger at Israel, a poster cause for the left. But on this Baddiel, no supporter of Israel, has a simple riposte. The issue of Palestine offers no justification for anti-Semitism in Britain

Absolutely it does! Without British Jews, there would have been no Balfour Delcaration:

Balfour Declaration – Wikipedia

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.

In other words, greater hostility towards British Jews a century ago could have prevented the existence of Israel. That ship has unfortunately sailed, but perhaps greater hostility towards British Jews from now on can contribute to ending the existence of Israel.


The one worry is that this will be read mainly by Jews and not by those who need to read it. It should be essential reading for progressives, self-proclaimed anti-racists, and those offering diversity and awareness courses. If it is, then Baddiel will have done a sterling service.

This self-proclaimed anti-racist has read it and rebutted it. Baddiel’s service is to offer yet another demonstration of Jewish intellectual dishonesty.

(P.S. Please contrast the above easily explained moral reasoning based on readily verifiable historical information, the approach that characterizes True Left anti-Zionism, with the approach of such clowns as Marjorie Taylor Greene that characterizes rightist anti-Semitism (which really is hostile to non-Jewish Semites (e.g. Rashida Tlaib) also). Under no circumstances should newcomers be tempted by False Left propaganda to assume that Taylor Greene’s batshit lunacy discredits all forms of hostility towards Jews.)

Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | 1 Comment

Kristallnacht tribute

On the old forum I had posted a set of pictures of synagogue architecture. Originally I planned to simply repost them in this topic:

but I then thought they would be better off posted here. By noting the similarities with what Westerners in general (see above link) considered beautiful during the height of the colonial era, there should be no dispute that Jews (who by no coincidence were among the most notable colonialists) are aesthetically Westerners, and hence, in aesthetics no less than in ethics:!/

because it goes without saying that we find this style of architecture utterly vampiric, and collectively a perfectly accurate portrayal of the personality of Yahweh (a.k.a. the Devil/Demiurge, creator of the material world) whom these synagogues were built to worship:

After looking at all that, hopefully you can now better appreciate how aesthetically cathartic Kristallnacht actually was:

Kristallnacht – Wikipedia

The rioters destroyed 267 synagogues throughout Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland.[6] Over 1,400 synagogues and prayer rooms,[39] many Jewish cemeteries, more than 7,000 Jewish shops, and 29 department stores were damaged, and in many cases destroyed.

It did not take long before the first heavy grey stones came tumbling down, and the children of the village amused themselves as they flung stones into the many colored windows. When the first rays of a cold and pale November sun penetrated the heavy dark clouds, the little synagogue was but a heap of stone, broken glass and smashed-up woodwork.[41]

After this, the Jewish community was fined 1 billion Reichsmarks (equivalent to 4 billion 2017 € or 7 billion in 2020 USD).

Notice how peaceful and relaxed the rubble feels compared to the synagogues:

In an article released for publication on the evening of 11 November, Goebbels ascribed the events of Kristallnacht to the “healthy instincts” of the German people.

Of course, Western colonialists disagreed:

Former German Kaiser Wilhelm II commented “For the first time, I am ashamed to be German.”[46]

What do you think?

Posted in Aryan Sanctuary | 3 Comments