The world boycott of Apartheid South Africa (after which BDS activists modelled our boycott of Israel) reached the scale it did in no small part due to the personal charisma of Nelson Mandela. He was without a doubt one of the most iconic personalities of the pre-9/11 period, of the 1990s especially, one of the figures who immediately comes to mind when we recall that more hopeful era, and one of the figures who personified that hope and inspired many young kids of that era to better themselves and believe in their own potential as individuals to bring great change to the world via dedicating one’s life to a cause. With his death, as with the deaths over the past years of such other world-famous pop culture icons as Michael Jackson, and before that Princess Diana, I fear that the people of the 21st century have lost yet another living connection to that era and its positive emotions that we today need so much to revive in a pessimistic and demoralized society. On the romantic level, we can and should remember that hope that Mandela’s name and image symbolized and find a way to give it to the world again, perhaps one day ourselves becoming new icons to the kids of the future.
On the other hand, now as sober students of politics, we also have an important lesson to revise from Mandela’s mistakes (though as National Socialists we probably know this already). Fighting apartheid under the banner of democracy, as Mandela did, was just plain STUPID. What post-apartheid South Africa needed was autocracy under one unelected leader who - as an individual beholden to no one - could be fair to all South Africans in a way that no vote-dependent politician can. Mandela himself, with his local support at the time, could easily have been that leader. With the absolute power of a lifetime monarch, he could have made long-term plans to free South Africa from Zionist banking/financial control and built a country like Eritrea or Gaddafi’s Libya or North Korea or even National Socialist Germany. What South Africa did not need was democracy – basically an open invitation for the masses to bloc-vote by ethnic interests and thus guarantee the continuation of division and the impossibility of true unification. While Mandela did become president for a while, the restrictions of the presidency due to limited terms of office and limited actual authority made it no threat to Jewish power, which is the whole point of democratic institutions. Some mainstream media articles I read today parallel Mandela to George Washington; it is a valid parallel, but not the way they expect! Washington made the same mind-numbingly stupid mistake as Mandela did; following his victory over Britain, he refused monarchy, and consequently the newly independent US fell back under Jewish domination before long.
In summary, the high point of Mandela’s career was the ending of the apartheid regime in 1994. Following this, he disappointingly never become the great national leader he could have become. He was an icon, but he had a chance to have been a greater icon, and he threw it away. He will be remembered as an anti-apartheid activist, but he had the chance to have been additionally remembered as an anti-Zionist head of state (who, with his charisma and image, might even have rekindled worldwide trust in positive dictatorship), and he threw it away. All because his rhetoric against apartheid was to criticize it as “undemocratic” instead of simply unjust, as ”contrary to human rights” instead of simply contrary to conscience, in other words because he used the arguments of the False Left instead of the arguments of the True Left.
South Africa today needs more desperately than ever to end democracy if it is to truly unite as Mandela dreamed it should. Its indescribably tangled, interlocking problems cannot realistically be solved except by a dictator with a clear plan and unlimited state authority to push it through regardless of the popularity of the plan. And yes, the plan must include state control over reproduction or it will fail. Mandela gave South Africa an idealistic goal, but what South Africa needs now is a precise way to attempt to reach this goal. That way is National Socialism. Aryanists and anti-Zionists in South Africa who wish to help find someone suitable to one day become this dictator (or if you wish to nominate yourself for the position), please contact us:
Here are the links to BDS South Africa again:
A main site page is currently in the works about how to adapt the strategy we used against Apartheid South Africa in order to defeat Israel, but it has been left idle for some time. I will get back to work on it soon.
19 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Other
A guest article by TalmudAwareGoyim, who is not at present an Aryanist but who has recently entered into strategic conference with us on anti-Zionist activism. This article was written prior to his discovery of our site, and it is significant that he has independently reached a diagnosis similar to ours as expressed on pages such as these:
Please welcome TalmudAwareGoyim to our discussion and offer him feedback.
This note is an acknowledgement that there are two main groups in the jewaware community (those that are aware of who the jews are, what they as a people are striving to accomplish, and the power that they currently have and the ways they use that power). Generally included in this knowledge is an awareness of jewish history, awareness of the talmud, and an ability to access that knowledge thru non- jew approved sources. What I want to do is put ourselves (jewawares) into two categories that seem to dominate this movement. I am not going to analyze whether one view is correct as much as to simply give you my take on the components that make up each movement, in a general sort of way. One approach to outing jewish power is thru the “Separatist” approach. It is currently made up of ”pure blooded whites” or, in some cases, slightly compromised blood mix. They see the jew as primarily targeting their own race, and pretty much see it as a direct fight between the white man and the jew; there may be a few black separatists, or Arab separatists, but their numbers are miniscule compared to whites. The other, I call the “Inclusionists”, they accept the jew at his word, that he has, indeed, included all non -jews as adversaries to jewish aims and as targets for enslavement. Because of this, an “Inclusionist” prefers to embrace all non jews as potential brothers or comrades and acts,accordingly. The following paragraphs will go into these two divisions in more detail. At the outset, it’s important, if our movement is to mature, and we are to have some success in our endeavors, to clearly separate these two movements, for they have some irreconciliable differences while also having some commonalities that make for possible temporary cooperation. It also allows the two groups to disavow needless baggage of the others as they focus on the jew fight! Now, I will analyze the “Separatist” jewawares, then the “Inclusionist” and having done that offer up a few examples of areas we differ, which are severe, and areas we can agree. Since there is a “rope pull” going on about a desire to bring certain non-jew groups into our midst, and there seems to be no way to appease either side, in my opinion the only intelligent course of action is to create two different and distinct entities (political parties?) swirling around the jew, outing him for his treachery in much the same way that, in America, the democrats and republicans swirl around the jew protecting him and following his orders. It is also my hope that, gathering around a “Separatist”-”Inclusionist” dynamic, we can quit the petty attacking each other over the issues neither is planning to give on and focus on our common agreements. Now for the “Separatist” view.
From my vantage point, “Separatists” have great pride in family, race and Country. Being jewawares, and knowing how our government has been coopted by internationalists at the top, I think it’s safe to say that country pride is not a reference to those in power but to the land they grew up in and the neighbors they have come to know. Most, as I said before, are a white, caucasian extraction, and have a belief in keeping the race pure and separated. Some hold the position that other non-jew groups don’t fully deserve a human classification.Many see Muslims and Arabs to be a threat to their way of life due to their mass immigration into European countries and their supposed desire to spread sharia law everywhere. They mostly understand that the jew has been orchestrating much of these problems from behind the curtain but are still convinced that as much attention must be foccussed on other ethnic behavior as on the jew. They believe god or nature separated the races for a reason, and bad things happen when they interact too much. They are also fully convinced that many of these other non-jews are hopelessly coopted into the jew camp, thus further making their interests in working with other non-jew minorities null and void.
Now my conception of “Inclusionists” would be that it encompasses all ppls concerned with jewish power from all non-jew ethnicities. They are aware of the culture clashes going on, but consider it more of an orchestrated phenomenom than an inevitably negative occurrance while admitting that, currently, it is a mostly negative occurance.They look to the proclamations of the protocols in using various non-jew ethnic interactions as a source of conflict and as a buffer distraction from the elite, talmudic jews which plays out in such areas as wars between gentile powers fought for jewish profit and jewish aims, and massive immigration with the purpose to undermine the host nation and dilute the base, etc. They understand that jewish power comes from a divided non-jew population and so believe the antidote to that is to create a unified non-jew population. To him, this means being careful to use respectful language when referring to all non-jews and to trace conflicts to the jew source rather than bog down on the pawn, non-jew irritant which then raises suspicion and trust issues among all involved. Views on race can vary a lot, but a decision has been made that to defeat the jew, as many noble non-jew bodies are needed as possible.
A conflict I have noticed arising by being one loosely defined jewaware entity is amongst the predominant white element, who seem to demonstate a dislike, bordering on hatred, for blacks, especially, but other non-jews as well. This has taken the form of daily rantings in public, demonstrating their lack of respect, and reinforcing the opinion that other ethnicities are at war with the white man, for example with post after post of black on white horror stories. I have yet to recall any positive posts by these “Separatists” concerning their target non-jews of concern. This troubles ”Inclusionists” who would prefer to post stories that might elicit curiosity and interest from other non-jews rather than the distrust that is, currently, occurring.
This leads me to my claim that forming two movements to accomodate each side, or political party, would be the best solution for both sides to target their own message without the infighting that the jew soooo likes! For me as an “Inclusionist”, the idea of recruiting someone, only to be undermined by my own people in that effort by opposite signals being sent at strategic moments, makes me believe that outreach without clarity of purpose can not be accomplished, and for clarity of purpose to take hold, like minded thinkers on the basics of operation need to come together and unlike minded thinkers need to be removed. Look folks, everyone is waiting for some dynamic occurance to happen to wake us up. The jew, himself , has proved that it takes a coordinated attack to make progress towards a goal. He has also divided up his resources into seemingly opposite camps. He covers every area of dissent with his own. It’s really not such a monumental occurrance to fracture ourselves a bit, strategically, in this fight.This is my call for that – both groups can contribute, even join hands on occasion, but there are irreconciliable differences in the jewaware community that precludes working together daily. “Separatists”, don’t want “Inclusionist” baggage to rebut, and neither do Inclusionists want to deal with separatist claims that they disagree with. Focussing on the jew is what we all have in common, and whether that be ending the fed, fighting Obamacare, or stopping our troops from supporting Israel, we all have a dog in that fight. Let’s come together when we have the same dog in the same fight, and stay apart, otherwise and, in this fashion, we can best keep our eyes on the prize (Jewish power and it’s abuse and removal). A final thought is that if we did separate our efforts, when we do come together, lets leave our conflicts at home and focus on the current goal which brought us together.
So to wrap up, I think we need to divide our jewaware zionist challenging strategy into two political parties so that our primary concern of stopping jewish power over our lives doesn’t get bogged down with secondary issues that many of us differ on. I have identified the dividing line as “Separatist” and “Inclusionist”, primarily over issues of” to what extent various non-jew ethnicities are to get involved with this fight, a fight that the jew wins by dividing and conquering us. Thanks!
119 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Anthony
Note: The following article is purely theoretical in nature. We do not advocate any illegal activity.
People sometimes remark that vegans care about animals more than people. To some extent, this is true. I certainly care about some animals more than I care about some people. Consider this quote from Savitri Devi:
‘A ‘civilization’ that makes such a ridiculous fuss about alleged ‘war crimes’ – acts of violence against the actual or potential enemies of one’s cause – and tolerates slaughterhouses and vivisection laboratories, and circuses and the fur industry (infliction of pain upon creatures that can never be for or against any cause), does not deserve to live.’
People always talk about how evil it is to take a life, and yet they continue to slaughter animals for their products. This is the height of hypocrisy. How can it be right to kill a being that is completely innocent, and has never harmed you in any way, but heinously evil to kill someone you do not like? Even killing someone for looking at you the wrong way is less evil than killing an animal that has done nothing.
The reason I do not kill people I dislike is that if I do, I will go to jail. I know how people would react to this sentiment. ‘There are some people you want dead? You’re evil!’ But I reiterate – this is hypocrisy and nonsense. If it is OK to kill an animal, who has done nothing to me, without feeling guilt, then why would I feel guilty about killing someone I actually dislike? (I am not saying, by the way, that we should kill people just because we dislike them. I am just pointing out the absurdity of those who kill beings they have nothing against claiming it is less evil.)
Likewise, cannibalising our enemies is arguably preferable to eating the innocent (and it would reduce the demand for animal products!), although actually I recommend against cannibalism because the consumption of one’s enemies is primarily used by the leaders of primitive Gentile tribes as a status symbol.
Figure 1: Pigs
Figure 2: Swine
‘According to Jewish-controlled psychology, I’m a psychopath. If I had my way, I’d get rid of these hunters who collect trophies of animal heads, and I’d have such a cold psychopath face while doing so.’ – AryanAim
Psychology also teaches that people who kill other humans are deeply flawed, but does not make any judgements against those who kill animals. This is because psychology is actually nothing but a Jewish tool for promoting the values they think people should believe in by claiming that the validity of these values has been ‘scientifically proven’.
Psychology would declare a psychopath anyone who wants to exterminate those who deceive, exploit, are arrogant, are cruel etc., but again I reiterate: if it is OK to kill an animal without feeling guilty, why should you feel guilty about killing someone who actually makes you angry?
Psychologists are completely incorrect. These feelings are normal (at least to those who are sensitive enough to evil to actually care), not pathological. Consider that humans have developed the idea that God will punish the wicked in Hell forever. At its best, this teaching is that God’s judgement is objective and not necessarily in line with the opinions of organised religion or society, which is comforting because it means that even if everyone else (including the Church) thinks you are wrong and God will punish you, if you know you are right then you know that He will not. People believe in this teaching because they want to see justice done – and not only against the actively evil, but also against those who get in the way of attempts to make the world a better place (by passively accepting evil, for example, or obnoxiously refusing to question the lies and attitudes the forces of evil are indoctrinating them into believing in.) It may seem harsh to kill people just for mocking our beliefs or refusing to listen to us (and I would not actually do it), but again – the point is that it is still less evil than killing an animal that has done nothing!
People who believe in Hell have the luxury of saying that it is wrong for us to take justice into our own hands, but what if they are wrong about Hell? Would they at least admit that if there is no Hell, it would be OK to take justice into our own hands and exterminate the guilty? What we propose is actually much less severe than this, and much less severe than the idea of an eternal Hell that has historically been a part of Western civilization.
66 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Other
Please read and pass on the following letter from the ANSWER Coalition, a grassroots group which has rallied a huge number of committed activists since its founding in 2001 in response to the 9/11 political aftermath:
One thing I can say about the people at ANSWER is that they are among the few who have retained the pre-9/11 mindset and have not allowed the events (and ZC/BS propaganda) of the last 12 years to poison their hearts. For this alone they deserve some credit.
I entirely understand and appreciate that our main fundraising is going towards Manifest Neolithia (AA’s intentional community project, which you can donate to here), therefore I am in no way asking our intentional community financial donors to divert funds from there to ANSWER. What I do ask is that everyone here forward this link to as many people as possible who wouldn’t be funding the intentional community anyway, but who might be willing to donate to ANSWER, and ask them to forward it to their contacts, and so on. (Of course if anyone reading this wishes to donate to ANSWER yourself, you should of course follow your conscience.)
UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY
No Comments »
To revisit the point previously made about thinking of geography in terms of river basins rather than continents, I believe especially that the concept of “Africa” (and all related concepts) must be discarded once and for all. So-called Afrocentrists think they are restoring morale among their intended audience by talking about “Africa” in a positive way so as to combat the centuries of derogatory caricatures piled by Zionist/Western propaganda. What these Afrocentrists neglect is that the very concept of “Africa” is a Western concept, therefore to even use it in a serious tone reinforces not Afrocentrism but Eurocentrism! Japanese think of themselves as Japanese, Chinese think of themselves as Chinese, Indians think of themselves as Indian, Iranians think of themselves as Iranian, and so on; none of them think of themselves according to the Western concept ”Asian” (at least, not until prompted into doing so by Zionist multiple choice questionnaires). Similarly, the first thing that anyone who wants to restore morale among the people who live in so-called “Africa” needs to do is stop calling them “African”! Use either the names of present-day countries, or of ancient language groups, or of (my personal preference) regional river basins: speak not of “African” people but of Nile people, Orimiri people, and so on. The psychological effect is completely different, and this is what it takes to change the worldview. Only then will the audience be ready for the Aryan narrative, which recalls the Aryan culture-founders who came to these river valleys, and which attempts to find their heirs who are alive today. Thus attention can finally be shifted away from ethnocentrism and towards the pursuit of quality, away from racial identity and towards racial idealism.
“In 1942, exactly 3300 years will have elapsed since he passed away. If, tired of war, men be ready, then, to express their aspiration towards a higher ideal, no better suggestion, it seems, could be given, than that of celebrating all over the world the “thirty-third Centenary” of the oldest Prince of Peace, and teaching the future generations to love his memory “forever and ever.”” – Savitri Devi
Now we are nearer the 34th centenary than the 33rd, but our sentiment is unchanged:
JJ, have you found the skull pictures yet? (By the way, JJ as well as Decebal have been working really hard on Part 7, so don’t blame them for not being able to do everything at once.) Also, Anthony, didn’t you have something you wanted to say about Rastafarianism?
If you have Puntian or Sahelian blood memory and wish to join our team, please contact us:
If you are prepared to slog through the academic material to really understand local anthropology and how badly it has been mangled by Eurocentrism, this paper is a good place to start:
By the way, if you find yourself having to deal with those quacks who can’t stop talking about “red-haired mummies”, please give them a middle school education:
On the subject of Punt, even present-day Somalis are constantly portrayed as bad guys by the Jewish-owned media, and a lot of idiots swallow it up. The common ZC idiot meme about Somalis is: “They are black AND Muslim, the worst combination possible!” Here is a clue to as to what it is really about (inside the red circle):
In other (slightly old) news, well done to Muhammed Desai and all the guys over at BDS South Africa for their tireless work:
For more information about the work of BDS South Africa, go here:
This is the main reason why the Jewish-owned media has recently been working overtime to demonize South Africa.
13 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Anthony
We often hear of people referring to themselves as ‘Conservatives’, but is there really such a thing as the Conservative ideology? The first possible definition of Conservatism that comes to mind is simply a contrast against ‘progressive’ ideologies. In other words, that conservatives want to keep things as they are (conserve them) and progressives want to change them. The motivation for the conservative position would perhaps be to avoid unpredictable negative consequences of the change – an ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ attitude. But in fact, this is not accurate. Conservatives too want to change things, rather than keep the current status quo. It is true that they want to revert to an earlier period rather than try something that has never been tried before, which involves less risk, but the least risk would surely come with not changing anything at all.
So, conservatives want to revert to the ideas and institutions of an earlier period, but which earlier period? In America, being a Conservative means believing in the values that America was founded on in the 18th Century, such as Protestantism and constitutional democracy. But in the 16th century, Protestantism and democracy were radical concepts. A democrat would be seen by a conservative in the 16th century as just as radical as the modern democratic conservative sees the Communist. In Britain, being a conservative means believing in the values of 50 or 100 years ago, and the same criticism applies: in the Middle Ages or earlier, those values would have been considered radical. And Medieval Judeo-Christian values would have been considered radical by the Pagan conservatives of ancient Rome. These makes the term ‘Palaeo-conservative’ especially ridiculous, since it is most often applied to people believing in the values of the 18th century, which are very modern in the grand scheme of things.
The British conservatives are often criticized for supporting aristocracy, and this shows the extent to which conservatives believe in modern ‘progressive’ ideas, because they do not support an aristocracy. In Vedic India, society was structured so that (in theory) philosophers and priests were at the top, then secular rulers, then warriors, then business people, which is the ‘aristocracy’ modern conservatives support. In ancient India, this ‘aristocracy’ had little or no power, and the true aristocracy was martial and spiritual. This is what it should be like today. Similarly, in Plato’s republic, philosopher-kings were at the top, followed by warriors, followed by producers, and the philosopher-kings, rather than living in luxury, led ascetic lives.
Some people may believe in the values of 18th century America or Britain 50-100 years ago on their own merits, but I think that far more people believe in them just because they are ‘traditional values’ or ‘British values’ or ‘American values’. Because, as I have said, the traditional values of today are the radical values of yesterday, these people are really just a joke and should not be taken seriously. If the British conservatives, for example, renamed themselves ‘the conservatives of 1900’ and a rival party were founded called ‘the conservatives of 1500’ and they had a debate about whether we should revert to the year 1900 or 1500, that would just about show how ridiculous a reverence for ‘traditional values’ is.
The only people who can claim to be true traditionalists are people like Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon, who want to return to the original beliefs and values of human civilization. This gives them a good claim to the title of ‘conservative’ too, since the most ancient civilizations of Egypt and Sumeria were also extremely stable and lasted the longest. It would also give Anarcho-primitivists a good claim, since the Stone Age lasted even longer, but now we have gotten to the stage where people demanding very radical change are being called conservatives, and are simply demonstrating the absurdness of the term rather than making a serious case.
We do not agree with these Traditionalists – we have had discussions about them before on this website. But we at least think they have a well-defined ideology. We disagree with these most ancient values not only because we do not think they are the most noble possible values, but also from an Aryanist racial perspective. The first civilizations were already the product of a mixture of many races and hence already the result of a radical change in values. Living in a city would have been considered radical by the Stone Age hunter-gatherer (a true Palaeo-conservative!) This does not mean we see ourselves as more deserving of the title ‘conservative’, because we do not want a return to the Neolithic period when the Aryan race existed. We instead imagine what the ancient Aryans would have done with the world if they had been able to.
12 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Anthony
I want to elaborate on a quote on the ‘Aryanism vs. Communism’ page.
‘The fatal mistake of the communist is to assume that because the slavemaster is evil, the slave must therefore be good.’
In fact, the Communist (and most of the modern False Left) takes this even further. When the slave has done something wrong, they do not blame the slave. Instead, it is because the slave has had a ‘hard life’ (which often boils down to the pathetic excuse of coming from a slightly less wealthy family than their non-violent counterparts), or ‘had a bad childhood’ or any number of other excuses. This leads them to actually have sympathy with the perpetrator. I believe that we genuinely should have sympathy for people due to these things, but not to the extent that we prioritise them over the victim or begin to assume that something bad has happened to them and lose sight of the fact that there are many people who are malicious for no reason and commit acts of violence simply because they enjoy it.
Many criminals actually realise that the liberal narrative that dominates present culture assumes this, and use this to their advantage by engaging in degenerate behavior and then excusing it by the harshness of their life and circumstances. I have heard drug users say they could not help becoming addicted to drugs because they come from a low economic background, as if they have to pay not to be injected with heroin. I have heard thugs say they are thugs because they had a bad childhood, which may be a contributing factor in some cases, but certainly should not be taken seriously when we consider that they know that in a liberalized society they will get sympathy for saying this, and hence have the excuse prepared before they even commit the crime! Perhaps the best example is when someone says ‘We steal/ vandalise/ mug/ beat people up because it’s all we know.’ If it were really all they knew, they would not be aware of an alternative, and hence not be aware that this could be used as an excuse!
There are many variants of this idea that environment accounts for all our behavior. I heard a story recently of a parent telling their child that they should not become vegan because they were raised Catholic. The False Leftist who supports the idea that environment determines a person’s personality is a hypocrite, since they believe in democracy but apparently not that people can think rationally and independently.
Another variant comes from the racist crowd. I remember at one point someone (a certain ‘Falk’) was commenting on this site saying that Nordic Germans are the superior race, since the Hyperborean blood is best preserved in them. When I asked why they had succumbed to Judeo-Christianity and the degeneracy of Western civilization if they were uniformly superior, he answered that this was because they had been dominated and brainwashed by the Jew, just as the violent criminal excuses his behaviour on a bad education or unhappy childhood. So this person, who claimed to be a more ‘hardcore’ National Socialist than us because he was racist, was in fact nothing but a common Liberal in disguise.
One interpretation of the socio-economic excuse is that if they were wealthier they could channel their malice into legal violence (by becoming a bank executive, for example), but I do not particularly admire the people who mean it in this sense either.
This is one of the few merits traditional Christian culture actually had, since their laws were based on the teaching that people have free will and must take personal responsibility rather than say ‘But I was brought up this way’ or ‘I did not have the education or advantages other had’ (although the question of whether free will actually exists in the metaphysical sense is much more complicated, and also irrelevant.) Modern Christianity (in the last century or so) has taken the opposite view, and is in full accordance with the ideas I have just been complaining about, but in fact these ideas are Jewish in origin rather than Christian, which is why they are manifested so strongly in movements that have been heavily promoted by Jews, such as Liberalism and Communism.
Another problem with this culture of rejecting individual responsibility is that if we use upbringing or harshness of experience as an excuse for degeneracy, we are unable to appreciate someone who is excellent despite these things. This would be completely opposed to our emphasis on the individual personality and the hero. People have asked me before how I can reject the family and yet still emphasise the genetic influence in a person’s character. The reason is not because I think everyone is exactly like their parents. It is the opposite. There have been people with ignoble parents, who have grown up surrounded by ignoble people in culturally desolate places, with nothing to influence them to become good people – neither education, nor the general culture, nor exposure to media nor anything else, and yet still they have become good people. If they were given nothing but bad influences, the only explanation for overcoming these influences is that they were innately (i.e. genetically) noble. In such cases, either mutation or the genetic code inherited from their father and mother interacting in strange ways can explain this
We also despise those who think that an easier life makes excellence less valuable. The motivation of this is jealousy, and it is yet another primitive emotion that was heavily exploited by Communism. By fooling people into believing this, the Communist encourages people to make things more difficult for themselves deliberately. The Communist hence succeeds in weakening us.
Another disgusting manifestation of this attitude is when people who disagree with a great person who lived a long time ago say ‘He thought that because of the time he was born in’. For example, someone might say Goethe rejected democracy because of the time he was born in, and that if he had been alive today he would have embraced it. No! Goethe was not one of the ignorant masses, who follows public opinion. He bases his opinions on reason and noble feeling, and it is a complete insult to say he could be persuaded by popular opinion. The sort of people who believe this believe it because they cannot accept there are people who can think independently. It is again the philosophy of jealousy – they cannot think independently, so they want to pretend that no-one else can either and drag everyone down to their mediocre level.
And these are the sort of emotions that groups like the Labour Party in Britain exploit to gain power. The current leader of the Labour Party, Miliband, is in fact a one-man proof of a Jewish conspiracy, since there is no other way someone so destitute of charisma could rise to a position of leadership. In fact, the next time someone asks you hw you know Jews are controlling society, don’t make the ame mistake as I have in the past and start rambling about the Balfour Declaration and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and who owns the banks and the media. No. Just show them this photo:
or any video of him speaking.
Here is an example I found of someone who perfectly exemplifies all of these attitudes.
The first post accuses the public of being idiots, and then the third post proves their point by demonstrating all the attitudes I have just been criticising.
Let’s take a look at what was said. First post:
‘Living in Britain I have noticed over the past 10 years that the English People seem to be apart from a small percentage, totally soulless in their behaviour and attitudes. Most White English People seem preoccupied in their ‘leisure time’ will becoming totally pissed on alcohol, cannabis and cigarettes, going nightclubbing, pubbing and constantly escaping from reality. The level of government corruption, hypocrisy, psychopathic control and subversion is massive in the UK as well. Talk about looking at ‘dumbed down sheeple’!!!! There also seems to be a culture that encourages the awarding of being stupid, anti-social and generally dumb when expressing any level of individual intellect. Friends of mine have cried at how soulless, robotic, braindead and sick alot of English People are. Have any other GLP posters noticed this about British Society?’
Pretty legitimate concerns in my experience.
‘it’s self important middle class nazis like yourself who create this climate where the majority of the population don’t want to do anything than lead a quiet life, have a few drinks and watch television. You and your arrogant friends sneer at everything and everyone, you are the soulless brain dead robots, it’s you and your friends who write the rule books that keep the working classes oppressed, it’s you and your friends who have made redundant millions of people and replaced them with cheap foreign labour just so you can “retire at 50″ and go and live in Portugal next to a golf course. You and your friends are the “pyscopathic government”, you might not have voted tory at the last election, but so what? there is no difference between Labour, Liberals and tories. You sneer at people getting drunk, who passed the rule allowing 24 hour drinking? who sold off all the pubs to unscrupilous estate managers who banged all the prices up to £3 a pint and forcing everyone to buy their drinks from off licences and supermarkets where a pint can be as little as 50p? You force up the price of housing so everyone has to remain on council estates and in rundown slums; you introduce student loans to replace grants, so fewer working class kids can go into further education; you invade foreign countries and send working class kids to fight your bizarre and pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere, then immediately call them war criminals if and when they do something wrong; you lecture everyone on global warming and green issues yet you fly off on foreign holidays 2 or 3 times a year. I could go on, but fuck you middle class nazi, you created this mess, so don’t fucking whinge about it.’
Let’s analyse this piece by piece:
‘it’s self important middle class nazis like yourself who… write the rule books that keep the working classes oppressed’
So, it’s the middle classes that keep the working class oppressed? Are we blaming doctors and lawyers and shop-keepers now? This is a classic case of disguising jealousy and working class tribalism with idealism, which is typical of many Communists. I guess this guy thinks we should kill everyone with a university education, like they did in Cambodia to eliminate potential leaders of dissent.
‘You sneer at people getting drunk, who passed the rule allowing 24 hour drinking? who sold off all the pubs to unscrupilous estate managers who banged all the prices up to £3 a pint and forcing everyone to buy their drinks from off licences and supermarkets where a pint can be as little as 50p? ’
Blaming the government for the alcoholism of the people. An example of not taking personal responsibility.
‘you introduce student loans to replace grants, so fewer working class kids can go into further education’
People of all classes would rather not pay high tuition fees. Again – tribalism. What will the ‘working class’ kids become after they go to university? Middle class. Or maybe the commenter thinks they will ‘remember where they came from’ or some other such bullshit, as if we should be defined by how much money we earn. That, of course, is one of the defining features of a National scialist society – people are NOT defined by their wealth. There are economic classes, but not socio-economic classes.
‘you invade foreign countries and send working class kids to fight your bizarre and pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere’
It was their choice to join up. Many of them do it out of bloodlust and because they are naturally aggressive (i.e. out of thuggery.) This is another example of not taking personal responsibility, and one which is very widespread.
‘then immediately call them war criminals if and when they do something wrong’
Now coming from a ‘rough background’ is an excuse for being a war criminal apparently. Again, exactly the sort of nonsense I was criticizing before.
A few years in Britain, a huge fuss was raised over politicians claiming expenses when they should not have been. The whole thing just made me laugh. You do not need events like that to expose politicians as liars. I could tell just from hearing them say ‘which prevents young working class people from going to university’ instead of just ‘which prevents people from going to university’ or ‘they’re sending OUR men abroad to die’ instead of just ‘they’re sending men abroad to die’, because when a politician says something like that, you know they are doing it because they are telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth. Since people hardly ever listen to the truth, this is an absolute necessity for succeeding in a democracy.
21 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Other
Please share my best wishes for the recovery of Keith Mann, who is one of the most ardent and militant heroes of the animal welfare movement in the United Kingdom and the World.
A little background on Keith:
Keith Mann was born in Manchester, UK. He was first aware of animal captivity at a tender age when he worked on a dairy farm and soon noted that the Cows were crying for their removed calves. This was a lasting memory that was Keith’s moment of epiphany, one which would direct his life with direct action with the Animal Liberation Front and other groups dedicated to freeing animals from Capitalist usury and suffering.
His first animal liberation took place when he was travelling home from the school and constantly saw the same rabbit in a neighbour’s garden, which was in distress. His second liberation took place after a visit the a fairground where he found goldfish being used as ‘prizes’, resulting in 53 goldfish finding a home in his mother’s bath until he found homes for them all. These early acts led to many many others, some he would confess to, others he couldn’t.
Keith was jailed in 1991 for his part in the planning of setting ‘meat’ trucks on fire. He was held on remand until 1993. He later escaped and went on the run with his girlfriend and found a temporary home at an animal sanctuary.
In 1994 he was caught and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment to which he served 11 years for possession of explosives and going on the run from the authorities.
In April 2005 he was found guilty of burglary and given 230 hours community service after liberating mice from a laboratory which was testing the anti-muscle spasm serum ‘botox’ on mice.
On leaving the court, he threatened a director of the company, telling him: “Your trouble has only just started, you will need to look under your bed,” as a result of which he was charged with contempt of court and sentenced to six months in custody, which he served in Winchester Prison.
All in all Keith Mann is one of the heavyweights in the Animal Liberation movement and an ardent fighter for non-human welfare and protection. In short a hero.
Early this year, Keith was diagnosed with a virulent form of cancer. A long time vegan it seems unjust that such a man has been stricken by such a disease.
Diagnosis and treatment:
Keith has been diagnosed with follicular lymphoma, which is a particularly vicious strain of cancer and has no known cure. He’s been given three years to live. True to his spirit as a warrior he has refused conventional treatment on moral and ethical grounds and is partaking in a natural and holistic approach to his disease. I will not name the techniques and treatments here to keep impartiality but this information is widely available on the internet.
All said, I and many others including all Aryanists should hope and pray for Keith’s recovery. A remarkable man and a true warrior who has fought and is still fighting for liberation for the defenceless and those who have no voice.
In the spirit of our Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, in his Reichstierschutzgesetz, shines the spirit of individuals such as Keith Mann. Please offer what you can, even just your thoughts and well-wishes for a remarkable man.
25 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Anthony
Just walked into a room where a TV was broadcasting the inane white noise that is the BBC news. Today’s topic was education. As usual, they started talking about how education should give people the skills that employers are looking for. Since I’ll soon be working on writing articles against Capitalism again, I thought I’d use this as a warm-up.
Firstly, there’s more to life than work. A person’s education should consist of more than preparing them to be a corporate slave (for example, helping them to become confident, helping them find meaning and purpose in life, training in ‘useless’ things like art and music.) Or maybe there isn’t more to life than work, but then working would be pointless. Either way, people should not be pursuing a purely vocational education.
Having said this, I would not stop people from pursuing such an education if that’s what they wanted to do. This is irrelevant to the current education system, though, since people are told what classes to take against their will.
My problem with the BBC isn’t that it is promoting a purely vocational education. The British government has, for a long time now, being doing something much worse. They’ve been teaching people art, music, literature etc., then defiling it by reducing it to something to give ‘transferable skills’ to mention on a CV. In the British education system, study of Shakespeare is reduced to something you can use to impress an employer. So, the British government and the BBC should make their mind up – either give a genuinely vocational education or teach non-vocational subjects without a vocational motivation. (I know, by the way, that great literature can be vocational in the sense that it motivates you onto a personal mission. I am using the word ‘vocational’ only in the common sense here.)
But the BBC has been saying the same thing for years, and I’ve come to expect it. I’d almost forgotten this attitude to education existed, since I’ve been away at university studying maths, and most mathematicians don’t care about the human world at all. Oh well – at least today the presenters on the BBC weren’t saying ‘the rebels, or terrorists as the Syrian government calls them’ with completely straight faces like the last time I was unfortunate enough to see the news.
26 Comments »
This is how Jews do geneaology:
“Reuben was the firstborn of Israel. The children of Reuben were: of Hanoch, the family of the Hanochites; of Pallu, the family of the Palluites; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites; of Carmi, the family of the Carmites. These are the families of the Reubenites: those who were numbered of them were forty-three thousand seven hundred and thirty. And the son of Pallu was Eliab. The sons of Eliab were Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. … The sons of Simeon according to their families were: of Nemuel, the family of the Nemuelites; of Jamin, the family of the Jaminites; of Jachin, the family of the Jachinites; of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites; of Shaul, the family of the Shaulites. These are the families of the Simeonites: twenty-two thousand two hundred. The sons of Gad according to their families were: of Zephon, the family of the Zephonites; of Haggi, the family of the Haggites; of Shuni, the family of the Shunites; of Ozni, the family of the Oznites; of Eri, the family of the Erites; of Arod, the family of the Arodites; of Areli, the family of the Arelites. These are the families of the sons of Gad according to those who were numbered of them: forty thousand five hundred. The sons of Judah were Er and Onan; and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Judah according to their families were: of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites; of Perez, the family of the Parzites; of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites. And the sons of Perez were: of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites; of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites. These are the families of Judah according to those who were numbered of them: seventy-six thousand five hundred. The sons of Issachar according to their families were: of Tola, the family of the Tolaites; of Puah, the family of the Punites; of Jashub, the family of the Jashubites; of Shimron, the family of the Shimronites. These are the families of Issachar according to those who were numbered of them: sixty-four thousand three hundred. The sons of Zebulun according to their families were: of Sered, the family of the Sardites; of Elon, the family of the Elonites; of Jahleel, the family of the Jahleelites. These are the families of the Zebulunites according to those who were numbered of them: sixty thousand five hundred. The sons of Joseph according to their families, by Manasseh and Ephraim, were: The sons of Manasseh: of Machir, the family of the Machirites; and Machir begot Gilead; of Gilead, the family of the Gileadites. These are the sons of Gilead: of Jeezer, the family of the Jeezerites; of Helek, the family of the Helekites; of Asriel, the family of the Asrielites; of Shechem, the family of the Shechemites; of Shemida, the family of the Shemidaites; of Hepher, the family of the Hepherites. Now Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters; and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. These are the families of Manasseh; and those who were numbered of them were fifty-two thousand seven hundred. These are the sons of Ephraim according to their families: of Shuthelah, the family of the Shuthalhites; of Becher, the family of the Bachrites; of Tahan, the family of the Tahanites. And these are the sons of Shuthelah: of Eran, the family of the Eranites. These are the families of the sons of Ephraim according to those who were numbered of them: thirty-two thousand five hundred. These are the sons of Joseph according to their families. The sons of Benjamin according to their families were: of Bela, the family of the Belaites; of Ashbel, the family of the Ashbelites; of Ahiram, the family of the Ahiramites; of Shupham, the family of the Shuphamites; of Hupham, the family of the Huphamites. And the sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman: of Ard, the family of the Ardites; of Naaman, the family of the Naamites. These are the sons of Benjamin according to their families; and those who were numbered of them were forty-five thousand six hundred. These are the sons of Dan according to their families: of Shuham, the family of the Shuhamites. All the families of the Shuhamites, according to those who were numbered of them, were sixty-four thousand four hundred. The sons of Asher according to their families were: of Jimna, the family of the Jimnites; of Jesui, the family of the Jesuites; of Beriah, the family of the Beriites. Of the sons of Beriah: of Heber, the family of the Heberites; of Malchiel, the family of the Malchielites. And the name of the daughter of Asher was Serah. These are the families of the sons of Asher according to those who were numbered of them: fifty-three thousand four hundred. The sons of Naphtali according to their families were: of Jahzeel, the family of the Jahzeelites; of Guni, the family of the Gunites; of Jezer, the family of the Jezerites; of Shillem, the family of the Shillemites. These are the families of Naphtali according to their families; and those who were numbered of them were forty-five thousand four hundred. These are those who were numbered of the children of Israel: six hundred and one thousand seven hundred and thirty.” – Tanakh
This is how Aryans do geneaology:
“If they say to You: ‘Where did You come from?’, say to them: ‘We came from the light, the place where the light came into being of itself, established itself and revealed itself in their image.’” – Jesus
Which is cooler?
This time we will be visiting the Tigris-Euphrates basin:
Again I have failed to find skull comparison pictures (though at least this time there is a written description of the skulls) and am requesting some from anyone (JJ?) who happens to have any, including any pertaining to the point outlined in the written description:
I can’t count the number of times (and I think SolAryan is quite familiar with this also) some BS Israelite-wannabe has tried to convince me that they are the real Israelites. This page answers most of their rubbish. Nevertheless, I still recommend the approach that whoever claims to be an Israelite, we should believe them. If you call yourself an Israelite, fine, we will treat you like one.
On the other hand, if you are from this region and have Aryan blood memory, please contact us:
28 Comments »