• ARYANISM

Sorry for the delay:

http://aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/aryan-diffusion-part-7/

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:

http://www.ivu.org/history/native_americans.html

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.)

Comments 15 Comments »

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.

Legality

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.

Gentilism

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:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/may/14/eurovision-politics-terry-wogan

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.

 

 

Comments 44 Comments »

Again on the subject of Ukraine, I have just read this article:

http://rt.com/news/kerry-russia-us-pretext-494/

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.

Comments 13 Comments »

I just found out about this:

http://www.twitch.tv/twitchplayspokemon

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.

Comments 6 Comments »

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.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-collaborates-with-ukranian-neo-nazis/5367798

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.

http://aryanism.net/about/contact/

 

Comments 36 Comments »

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.

 

Comments 33 Comments »

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’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

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!

http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/gold-standard/

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

Noam Chomsky

Milton Friedman

Emma Goldman

Friedrich Hayek – author of the ironically entitled ‘Road to Serfdom’ (in fact, the road to serfdom is listening to what Jews have to say)

Robert Nozick

Ayn Rand – founder of Objectivism

Murray Rothband – founder of anarcho-capitalism

Richard Epstein

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.

Comments 20 Comments »

Why not Anarchism?

Some of the problems with Anarchy have already been dealt with here:

http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-anarchism/

but what would happen if we decided that the risks of state power outweigh the benefits, and we should simply accept Anarchism as a compromise?

This Anarchist society would exist briefly, but soon be subverted, and the ease of subverting an Anarchist society is one of the strongest arguments against it. Unless there are forces to stop any one individual or group from becoming too powerful, whether through private armies, holding people to ransom through control of vital resources, or using their skills in manipulating people, the Anarchist (or Libertarian) society will not last. But if these forces do exist, it is not an Anarchist society!

Even some high-profile Anarchists/ Libertarians (i.e. the honest ones) admit this. In the words of Julian Assange, ‘So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free’.

So, how can we stop someone from coming along and seizing power by manipulating, deceiving and brainwashing people? Answer: Breed people who are immune to being manipulated and deceived. (http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/empiricism-vs-rationalism/) How can we stop someone from subverting the nation by bribing people to overlook his crimes or carry out his plans? Answer: breed people who cannot be bought. How do we stop a tyrant from seizing power because people are afraid to speak out against him? Answer: Breed people who are not afraid to speak out against tyrants. (http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/survivalism-vs-militarism/)

This is Aryanism. In the words of Hitler: ‘The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred… Those states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities. The fact that they do exist is no more of a justification than the successful raids carried out by a band of pirates can be considered a justification of piracy… As Aryans, we can consider the state only as the living organism of a people, an organism which does not merely maintain the existence of a people, but functions in such a way as to lead its people to a position of supreme liberty by progressive development of the intellectual and cultural faculties’.

The Anarchist would reply to us by saying that trying to prevent an authoritarian government by installing an authoritarian government is absurd, however no truly evil government would actively make it more difficult for itself to exploit and enslave the population, whether by breeding people to be more defiant or freely allowing its citizens to carry firearms.

Greece vs. Rome

In this post: http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/those-who-think-babylon-is-evil-must-think-zion-is-good/ AS mentioned people who admire Zion and, in particular, people who contrast Zion with Babylon, Zion being perceived as good and Babylon as evil. Regrettably, a lot of the people who do this are good but merely confused and misled. Probably the best historical example was William Blake, who hated the same aspects of Judaism and its derivatives that we do but ended up being a Philo-Semite. This was because he hated the materialism, naturalism, survivalism, injustice and idolatry of Paganism, but saw Judaism as the opposite of Paganism, and Jews as the people who had originally fought against Paganism to create an idealistic, monistic religion. Goethe did his research better and declared himself a Hypsistarian.

We know that the Zion-Babylon dichotomy is an inaccurate analogy for spirituality, quality, devotion, idealism, purpose and justice versus materialism, quantity, hedonism, naturalism, survivalism and injustice. The best way to convince people to discard an inaccurate analogy is to present them with an accurate one – here, one of two historical opposing peoples who do represent these characteristics. I propose that we promote the analogy of Greece versus Rome. The Greek philosophers were, after all, often monists with a spirituality and theology far more sophisticated than that of the Hebrews, a search for God that did not involve submission or reverence for the material world, and Plato’s ideal state and laws were better than anything in Exodus, Numbers or Deuteronomy.

And this brings us back to Anarchism. If we ignore the slavery endemic in Greek city-states, we might fantasise about living there. The idea of a community formed voluntarily of people working for the common good (in other words, a Folkish community) is very appealing, much more appealing than the faceless, anonymous society we live in today, where relationships between people are insincere, being based on custom and obligation, where almost everything people do is a result of them being told they should do it rather than an expression of innate desire.

The city-state appeals to Aryan blood memory because, like the Neolithic farm, it is a space that its inhabitants cultivate without the need to plunder the spaces of others in contrast to colonial empires that seek to plunder foreign colonies and empty its wealth into the home state. And historically, small city-states have proven to be the societies most conductive to high culture and prosperity. Ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy, medieval Germany and even Babylon are all examples of this. Fascists (as we define them), who worship quantity, take their inspiration from Rome. We, who worship quality, take inspiration from Greece (despite our use of the Roman salute.)

But what happened to the Anarchist Greek states? Again and again, they became tyrannies or were conquered by more powerful enemies because they could not unite – whether Gentile Rome or Gentile Sparta. Greek freedom is beautiful, especially in contrast to Roman tyranny, but we want a freedom that lasts, not one that is easily taken away.

In the words of Philip K Dick, ‘the empire never ended’. Rome, not Greece, has controlled the West for thousands of years now (and now the Jews control Rome) and one of our objectives should be to destroy Roman civilization in the name of Greek civilization. The second incarnation of Rome was the Catholic Church. America has chosen to become the third incarnation. I sincerely hope the American people take their nation back from Roman civilization – from the ‘Senate’, ‘Capitol hill’, decadent materialism and consumerism and the corrupt despot who claims to uphold the freedom of the people, just as the Roman emperors did.

And now, with the US opposition to the Syrian regime, it seems that the Greek-Roman conflict is being played out again. Assad is really nothing but the latest bearer of the Olympic torch. Even his sect, the Alawites, is strongly influenced by Gnostic and Neoplatonist ideas. And while the US is supporting Wahabbists who eat the beating hearts of their enemies and want to establish a patriarchal Judaic theocracy, Assad is fighting to keep the ignorant, the violent and the oppressors in line as they deserve.

The UK has proven to be particularly hypocritical about Syria. A few days ago, it was revealed that British citizens returning from Syria now face arrest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25893040

If you type something along the lines of ‘Westerners fighting in Syria’ into google, you will find that just about all the Westerners leaving to fight for Syria are joining the rebel side, not Assad’s army. In fact, I have been unable to find a single case of a Westerner leaving to fight for Assad (because it would obviously be difficult to join the army of a foreign country.) So, the UK has decided to arrest the people they are funding and supporting in the media. One report I saw said that people coming back to the UK after fighting in Syria were a threat because they have learned to express themselves through violence. Since they are saying this about the side they support, they might as well say this about their own soldiers in Iraq as well!

The difference between ancient Greece and Syria is that Assad is no Anarchist. He is fighting for the correct values, but using autocracy to defend these values, like Plato and Pythagoras before him. And that is we consider him an ally, and will promote him as the latest fighter in a struggle that has been going on for centuries, both of Aryans against Jews and Gentiles and Greece against Rome.

Comments 11 Comments »

The rape culture in India has been in the news again. This time, village elders ordered a woman to be raped because she had a relationship outside of her tribe. I have already written a post arguing against those who think the West is superior because of an absence of such a culture. (http://aryanism.net/blog/anthony/muslamic-rape-gangs/) The views on that post were confirmed today (although such confirmations are quite frequent, and not events of special significance) when the BBC, which was reporting the event, predictably promoted ‘education’ as the solution to these problems. In the earlier post, I pointed out that this behaviour is less common in the West due to ‘education’ and not biology. I also said that ‘education’ is a poor solution because it only masks these instincts and because we want a population of people who are sincerely good and not just who have been forced to be good.

I wanted to go into more detail about the explicit use of the word ‘education’ by the BBC. How exactly do you educate someone not to be a rapist? You cannot. The only thing you can do is appeal to their sensitivity, asking people to put themselves in the victim’s shoes, think about how they would feel etc. (or you can tell them that transgressions will lead to a fiery punishment in the afterlife or bad karma, but this dishonest approach is more accurately called ‘brainwashing’ than ‘education’.) But appeals to a person’s sensitivity will fail because if they are raping people, they don’t have any sensitivity in the first place, and if they are not inclined to rape there is no need to educate them.

The idea that we should educate people not to engage in primitive behavior such as rape actually exposes democracy for the shambles that it is. The idea is that government should be in the hands of the people, but before the people are allowed to make important decisions they have to be taught how to think. People should be allowed to make their own decisions, but first they have to be taught which decision to make. It is absurd.

There are only two honest systems of government. One is a democratic or anarchic system with no education from the state (which we do not advocate since, among many other reasons, this would not solve the rape problem in India!) AryanAim and I were arguing with someone recently who thinks that humans are naturally good and morality must come from the grassroots. We used the tradition of foot-binding to argue against this at the time, but this tribalist, Gentile rape example would also have sufficed. The truth is that most human beings are primitive, being only a few steps away from the apes and always taking the easiest option that gives the most gratification rather than making an effort to do the right thing. The second is a system where, rather than pretending you trust people to make their own decisions but indoctrinate them into your value system nonetheless, you simply put people in charge who have developed this value system independently or were born with it. Aryanism falls into this second category.

Comments 105 Comments »

I decided to review the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o2EWtGrK5s

which is intended as a rebuttal against the idea that Asians are superior to whites because they have higher IQs.

I neither agree that Asians are superior to whites nor, as is claimed in the video, that whites are superior to Asians in spite of their lower IQs. But, setting my disagreements to one side, I think the video starts quite well. I often criticise people who use averages in racial analysis (saying, for example, that one race is more intelligent than another because they have higher IQs.) Averages are the most basic aspect of statistics, and the first thing anyone learns. Compared to more advanced statistical tools, averages do not give much information, and to get a really good understanding of the spread of a trait through a population and the reasons for this spread, a much more detailed statistical analysis is required.

The narrator of the video compares the spread of Asian and white intelligence (i.e. the variance), which while not much more advanced is still a step almost every single White Nationalist fails to make. He asserts that Asians have higher average intelligence, but that they are more concentrated around the average, producing fewer individuals of extreme low or extreme high intelligence. I agree with this to some extent, but we still need to question whether such emphasis should be placed on intelligence, and also analyse the differences in intelligence in more detail.

How much does intelligence matter?

‘Today, our ideal is not the artist or the citizen, but the hero.’ – Helmut Stellrecht

I can think of four reasons for valuing intelligence.

i)                    Desire for an economically successful society

ii)                  Belief that intelligence increases morality

iii)                Intelligence increasing resistance to brainwashing

iv)                Valuing creative genius

i) Desire for an economically successful society: the narrator says that whites produce more scientific and mathematical geniuses, even though Asians are better at this on average.

I agree that whites (and Jews) have made more scientific and mathematical discoveries. The narrator praises scientific achievement, but advanced technology in a world where most people are incapable of introspection can be extremely destructive. We have made immense technological progress, but we have shown ourselves to be completely unable to use technology responsibly. Technology has led to overpopulation, environmental damage, deadlier warfare, wastefulness, terrifying prospects for a more complete kind of slavery. In light of this, those groups that chose to remain low tech and retain simple, agricultural societies seem to have chosen the more sensible option. Advanced technology would be impressive if it were used responsibly, but since whites have failed to do this, they do not deserve praise for their technological innovation.

The narrator even admits that whites are disorganised and have higher crime rates than Asians, but says that this is a trade-off for having scientific geniuses. But again, scientific genius in such an irresponsible society will inevitably have very negative results.

ii) Belief that intelligence increases morality: It is commonly said that a person behaves immorally because they are not educated or have low intelligence. Ironically, this argument is one of the main causes of people valuing intelligence in eugenics even though it is a Liberal idea with its origins (for Westerners, at least) in the ‘Enlightenment’. It is derived from the idea that if something is fully proven, it is undeniable, so those who deny something that is proven (in this case, moral truths) either have not seen the proof or do not understand it. In fact, moral truths have not been proven, and even if they were, there would be many who would understand but would still not care. If we want an ethical society, there are plenty of traits we should prioritise over intelligence.

The emphasis on intelligence, which is ubiquitous in this sort of analysis, could originate as a Jewish tactic to distract from other factors that make one successful. Consider the film Lord of War, for example, which is the true story of a Jewish arms dealer. It is stated in the film that his ability to learn languages quickly contributed to his success, and indeed Jews are renowned for their verbal abilities. This is what the typical ‘IQ racist’ would focus on. But in fact, his most important asset was probably his lack of principles, even compared to his rival who sold arms only to selected regimes to promote his own principles, whereas he sold arms indiscriminately for the sole motive of profit and eventually outcompeted his rival.

iii) A society of intelligent people cannot be brainwashed in the way our current society has been: This point is not mentioned in the video. It is my own, and I include it for the sake of completeness. The question has two components – firstly, whether intelligence is the only factor in being immune to brainwashing and secondly, whether it is a prerequisite in being immune to brainwashing.

Intelligence is certainly not the only factor, since even most intelligent people do not understand the problems of our society or question the official narrative. And it is not a prerequisite because these problems are actually quite obvious. The reason most people do not find the truth is a lack of sensitivity and a trust in the culture they were raised in that stops them from asking questions in the first place (i.e. tribalism), not lack of intelligence. This latter point is a particularly strong inhibitor. An intelligent historian can write a highly detailed analysis of the Holocaust or 911, but they would never dream of questioning whether the Holocaust happened or the official story of 911. A religious scholar could write an extreme logically, detailed treatise on the Bible, but they would never dream of seriously questioning whether the Bible is a valid source. Indeed, most of their arguments will be based on analysis of different Bible verses, taking it for granted that these verses are valid.

In theory, Jews and others could do a better job at hiding truth, so that higher intelligence would be required to uncover it. Also, people of lower intelligence might realise they are being lied to, but come to wildly incorrect conclusions (we all know, for example, of people who think the WTC was struck by a missile designed as a plane.)This is one argument for valuing intelligent that I cannot refute, but intelligence would still not be the highest priority.

iv) Valuing creative genius: People interested in IQ testing often define a genius as anyone who achieves a certain score or higher. This is very misleading. If everyone with an IQ of 140 were a genius, they would all be producing creative masterpieces. In fact, genius involves much more than mechanical, logical intelligence.

Following from the point I made about even many highly intelligent people not questioning the narrative or foundations of their culture, I want to make a distinction between Aryan and non-Aryan intelligence.

Non-Aryan intelligence is quantitative, Aryan intelligence is qualitative. Non-Aryans make assumptions, and then deduce truths from these assumptions very well, but only Aryans actually question the assumptions, which non-Aryans may not even be aware of. We have made great progress in describing the natural world, but are explanations are more becoming ever more crude – materialistic, mechanical and atomistic.

I have heard Gentiles say that Hitler is more evil than Stalin because he killed more people. Even if he had killed more people (which he did not), evil is a personal quality and not something circumstantial. What matters is how many people they would have killed if they had both faced the same situations, but a non-Aryan would not think of this because they can only think in terms of quantity.

As Miguel Serrano said ‘The definitive, crucial moment in the tragedy of the Second World War was the decision by Hitler not to destroy the English troops at Dunkerque and not to invade the British Isles. An English friend told me: “We were defenseless, inert. Instead of invading us, Hitler turned against Russia.” With their practical (Jewish) spirit, totally anti-philosophical, the English could not understand this. They lacked the organs with which to be able to comprehend the greatness and magnanimity of the gesture’.

A Gentile general may be a military genius and lead his troops to great victories, but he is incapable of questioning whether the aims of his side are justified. In fact, the reason for his success is that he is incapable of thinking of anything but victory.

But in all honesty, we prioritise ethics over creative genius anyway. A race of ethical people is the first thing we should be trying to achieve, and only after we have achieved that should we be worrying about creating a race of highly creative or intelligent people.

Our aim is not to breed geniuses, this but I think that if the population is Aryanised the proportion of creative geniuses will increase anyway. In the present population, only a small proportion of people with ‘genius’ IQs are actual geniuses because they lack the other traits needed. In an Aryan population, a much greater proportion would be actual geniuses because some of the other traits required, which are currently rare (such as sensitivity and qualitative thinking) will be common.

Further analysis

Let’s examine some of the claims the narrator makes:

—-‘the world’s greatest novelists, philosophers and orators have tended to be white’

I strongly disagree with this statement. I admit that there are some areas in which whites have been far superior. Music is the best example (especially for Germans, who obviously have an extremely high aptitude in music), but Western philosophy is extremely poor compared to Indian and (to some extent) Islamic philosophy.

Remember though that I agreed that they have made more scientific and mathematical discoveries. This is again about non-Aryan and Aryan intelligence. This does not mean that I think all whites are Gentiles, only that this sort of knowledge is valued more highly in the West and is hence able to flourish.

This does not mean that Europeans are innately inferior in these areas, only that the direction their civilization has taken has made high-quality philosophical enquiry difficult. The last great European philosopher was probably Plotinus, and all after that were of low quality, with some such as Descartes and Berkeley rediscovering basic truths.

In fact, I propose that the reason for European excellence in music is that they have been forced for many centuries to follow a religion that does not make sense and is generally unsatisfying, so had to find other outlets for their spirituality. The arts provided this outlet. There are few great European artists left, so we cannot ascribe this only to genetic factors.

Now, back to the quote in question. Let us ask why the narrator has chosen to point out that so many great thinkers are white when he admits that most whites are not great thinkers.

If we wanted to breed a race of people who are fast runners, we could simply have everyone run 100 metres and breed the people who get the highest score.  Even if one race does tend to have faster runners, there would be no point in excluding the race that tends to have slower runners, because a standardised test could test everyone on an individual basis. But creative genius is something that, though we may recognise it when we see it, cannot be tested. If we want to breed a creative genius, we have to either breed together people we already know are creative geniuses (rather than discovering they are geniuses through a standardised test, which is impossible) or correlate with other traits. The latter is what the narrator is suggesting. He claims that most creative geniuses are white, so the best chance we have at producing a creative genius is to breed white people.

I disagree with this approach. If he wants to breed creative geniuses by trait correlation, he should not be demanding that action is taken based on the small amount of information we have. He should be demanding that more research is undertaken. Perhaps we could find out what percentage of great writers or composers had a certain blood type, or were left- or right-handed, or were vegetarian (Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind as a particularly great vegetarian creative genius) or had many other traits from which we could find patterns further increasing our chances of breeding a genius. Incidentally, highly creative people tend to be left-handed, but nowhere does he advocate breeding left-handed people with each other or preventing right- and left-handed people from breeding together.

Buddhists understand trait correlation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddha#The_32_Signs_of_a_Great_Man

Consider this animal:

If we look only at the most superficial characteristic (its wool), we would classify this animal as a sheep. But any competent taxonomist would classify it as a pig. They would tell us that although it has wool like a sheep, it is the same shape as a pig, it has the same skeletal structure as a pig, its genetic code is more similar to a pig than a sheep, its behaviour is more similar to a pig than a sheep etc. These things are comparable to the results of the aforementioned detailed analysis, and to our Aryan race theory. Classifying it as a sheep is comparable to the current white/ black/ Asian racial classification, which is based on only the most superficial features, or to those people who think that whales and dolphins are fish because they live in the water. It would be quite interesting to do a survey to find out what percentage of white Nationalists think whales and dolphins are fish compared to the general population.

If these animals were classed with sheep rather than with pigs in all studies undertaken, we would certainly still get different results (e.g. average intelligence) for the two groups. But the point is that the groups themselves would be a poor classification.

—-Whites are more heterogeneous

This may be true, but the narrator does not ask why it is true. It could be explained by Europe being more genetically mixed than other areas. i.e. Europe having blood from several different root races, whereas other regions may tend more strongly in an Aryan/ Gentile direction.

If the narrator thinks they are heterogeneous, why does he not seek a different racial classification, subdividing Europeans into different groups that are more homogenous, or resolving the European population into elements from which other populations are built too? This is what our site offers.

He goes on to talk about the greater spread of intelligence resulting in more individuals of exceptional intelligence, but once again does not ask why there is a greater spread of intelligence. This could be explained by whites being more mixed than other races.

— In a more heterogeneous population, there is more innovation

Again, the narrator raises a good point but does not take it to its logical conclusion. Has there been exceptional innovation/ creativity in Europe because of heterogeneity or because they are superior? If innovation is a result of heterogeneity, then why not allow whites, Asians and other groups to interbreed? I have already stated that the heterogeneity of the white race is likely to be a result of them being a highly mixed race. If they mix further, this will only lead to increased heterogeneity and increased innovation, which the narrator values. If a heterogeneous population is mixed with a homogenous one, then this may make the group as a whole more homogenous, but the extreme individuals will be more heterogeneous because there will be more traits to combine.

The second part of the video

I was extremely disappointed with the second part of the video. Before this, he had raised a few reasonable points that, though I disagreed with them, I found far better than the arguments of the average white nationalist. But the second part focuses on how blacks commit more crime than whites. I definitely do not think the differing crime rate is solely due to genetics. It is a complex socio-economic issue with many factors at play. But even if it were, it is obvious that there are a huge number of non-aggressive blacks. As I said before in my analogy about the runners, there is no point in discriminating against groups when a trait can easily be measured on an individual basis. Criminality is an example of such a trait. Instead of saying that someone should be excluded from society because they belong to a group with a higher crime rate, just look at their own criminal record.

—It is easier to convince blacks that white nations should be preserved than whites

Actually, racial identity is a Western concept. (Ethnic identity is not, but racial identity is.) Muslims, for example, believe in the Ummah – a community of Muslims that transcends race. Before Western civilization, the Romans believed in Roman civilization, not the Roman race. The civilization-based view, not the race-based view, is in my opinion the most sophisticated and rational way of dividing people.

Even a few centuries ago in the West, conflict was based on religion and ideology. Conflict is not ideal, but if we must have conflict, I would rather have conflict based on something that matters. People fighting in the religious wars of Europe were able to transcend national and language differences because they were united by common belief. Now, people are saying we should fight over identity. We have degenerated from fighting about ideological and moral issues to fighting just because we are different, even if these differences do not matter. Catholics from two different countries fighting on the same side in the Thirty Years War would laugh at this.

—No black models in Japan

An interesting topic, and one we have dealt with on the site before. The narrator talks about how black models are aesthetically inferior, and the Japanese, who have not been indoctrinated by Political Correctness, realise this. In fact, the indoctrination is more subtle. Jews say that blacks are as good as whites, but then choose to promote inferior black models. The purpose of this is to lower the self-esteem of blacks (it makes them think that since the black models are unattractive, even the most attractive blacks must be unattractive), and also to make people think that blacks are inferior to whites, and the attempts to make them look superior are futile and insincere. This is why we use pictures of attractive black people throughout the site, who are seldom the sort promoted by Hollywood.

 

Comments 33 Comments »