First, I would like to link to a video by Numinous Sun showing how the reverse bluff works in a simple example, also involving Alex Jones. If you are not familiar with the reverse bluff, please watch this first:
Recently Alex Jones has invited David Duke to Infowars for a “debate”. Here is the “debate”:
At first I wasn’t sure if Alex Jones is just an idiot or if his debating style has a deeper logic to it, but as the video went on, some patterns emerged. Jones constantly cutting Duke out is particularly annoying, and makes the audience, consciously or subconsciously, sympathize with Duke, which many of the comments indicate. (The tone of the two men also does this to some extent, making Jones look like an aggressive, rambling idiot, and Duke like a rational, intelligent, and kind person, even if one disagrees with his views. It’s likely, though, that this wasn’t planned out, as Duke is generally a much more polished person than Jones.)
But beyond giving support to Duke on a completely personal level through this personality dynamic, Jones also sponsors Duke’s ideas through the reverse bluff. What is important to note is that there are actually two “debates” going on, one regarding Jewish domination of the world, and the other concerning the “preservation of white people and their culture”. In the first “debate”, Duke’s claims of Jewish hegemony are evidenced through solid historical and political narrative (with plenty of excellent examples and accurate claims) and an explanation of Jewish tribalism. Jones’ counterarguments can overall be reduced to a single one – “not all Jews are bad” – with which Duke never disagreed (and which shows that Duke’s “every race deserves to preserve itself” is contradictory to genuine anti-Zionism, by the way).
Duke easily won the first of the two debates, and now the real danger begins. By presenting Duke as the voice of anti-Zionism, Jones is herding his audience to either one of two options in the second debate: either take racism (regardless of what Duke wants to call it) along with genuine anti-Zionism, or drop both even if Duke’s case for Jewish hegemony is accurate. Jones praises the “white” creators of Western civilization from the very start, agrees with Duke’s stance on the need to preserve the “European people” because he wants to continue seeing “European babies” (without detailing what this means for “whites” not interested or for people of other skin colors), and at times agrees that “whites” are in imminent danger not just as a collective but as individuals, we can easily tell which is Jones’ preferred effect. Jones even goes another step forward, by labeling the False (PC) Left as more racist than Duke or other racists, thereby subconsciously making anti-racist leftists question their own allegiance to the Left as a whole. I’ve taken a few Jones quotes from about halfway through the debate for a demonstration of Jones’ fundamental agreement with Duke on this issue:
“I want everybody to either keep their culture, mix cultures, don’t: whatever you want to do – I’m a libertarian!” – Alex Jones (How can you both keep and mix cultures?)
“The Left wants to destroy it [Western Civilization] even though they’re in control of it. So there is an attitude – and I call it basically leftist, garbage, collectivist garbage – that does want to overthrow any originally Western institutions, even though that’s the source of the power structure’s power. And so I think it’s more an act of ceremonial domination, almost at a subconscious level, than it is anything else. And regardless who’s running the show, there is freakish racism being made against whites now being prodded everywhere, a-a-and I think it’s just meant to just condition everybody to accept anything and to accept what’s coming in the future.” – Alex Jones (“And I love Western Civilization and the “white” people who created it, and so I think they ought to be preserved. And I really don’t know who the bad guys are (though Duke has made a pretty good case, which I will continue to ignore), but they’re bad, and they’re trying to ruin Western civilization and are racist against “white” people. A-a-and the Left is one of the bad guys. How can you continue being conditioned to be leftists?”)
“I just want to promote the ideals of liberty across the board, and I want to be able to throw it into the face of the Southern Poverty Law Center and other people that I don’t sink down to their race-based nature, you know, that the left pushes. And that’s what I’m saying, that I want to transcend that, and try to promote liberty to everybody, and not fall into the race-based system. But it looks like they’re pushing it so hard, and the Left is so racist, that at the end of the day it’s just going to become that because if you’re white, you won’t be able to be in area that has people that aren’t white in it because you’ll be killed, and I guess that’s the goal, and I mean whoever’s behind it, it sure is working.” – Alex Jones (“I really want myself (and others) to stand up against racism, stand up for catchphrases like “liberty” and the “free market”, and I want to be able to throw it into the face of racists that I’m not a racist like leftists. But “whites” are in imminent danger from all “non-whites”, and this is all the fault of the Left and bad guys who are bad (and who Duke identifies in a very good manner, but let’s ignore that). And I guess I’m not going to explicitly tell “whites” to be on their guard against “non-whites” and leftists (and those bad guys) from now on to stop this, and I mean you guys already know what the solution is for you not to be killed by “non-whites”.”)
Though Jones says he disagrees about the importance of “race”, he supports Duke’s argument the whole time. What really happened here is that the debate on Jews was reverse-bluffed by Jones to favor Duke’s side, and thus by extension Duke won the “debate” – more like the Duke-presents-his-racist-arguments-and-Jones-agrees talk show – on “preserving the white race”. The real poison here is not in either of the two debates, but in making the two issues – anti-Zionism and “preserving the white race” – one and the same, and then letting Duke easily win. Going through the various YouTube versions of the debate, there have been over one hundred thousand views so far, meaning Jones may have herded over one hundred thousand people to support Duke and WN.
We figured out this trick years ago (see example 5); why couldn’t Alex Jones?
Duke’s racist points are easy to demolish; why couldn’t Alex Jones?
14 Comments »
In case anyone was worried that, with our recent concerted shift towards wider True Left rhetoric, we are distancing ourselves from core National Socialism, I hope this page reassures you that this is absolutely not the case:
I for one did not spend all these years arduously reclaiming the swastika flag from the neo-Nazis just to let go of it again as we try to become mainstream. Of course we must speak more widely to show firstly that the True Left is much bigger than just National Socialism and secondly that we are not so zoomed in on Hitler and the Third Reich as to neglect to give credit where due to other historical True Left personalities and movements, but at the same time we must never feel the need to hide the truth that National Socialism is indeed one of the most important forces of the True Left in history.
We are the benchmark of authentic National Socialism. All others who want to call themselves National Socialists must measure up to the high standards that we have set and that they know every single one of us really lives up to in our personal conduct 24/7 regardless of whether or not anyone is watching. The flag is ours now because we put the work in to make Aryanism.net so incomparably superior to every neo-Nazi site out there as to make their claims of being ”National Socialist” about as credible as claims of Cro-Magnon skulls being “Aryan” after people have been shown photos of actual Aryan skulls (and don’t forget we were the ones to do that too!). I intend to keep the ground we have gained, and hopefully so do you.
If you want to help out our movement, you know where to find Hashtali:
74 Comments »
• Asked about Israeli influence on US foreign policy, an overwhelming 76% of Democrats, as compared to 20% of Republicans, said Israel has “too much influence.”
• Asked whether Israel is a racist country, 47% of Democrats agreed it is, as opposed to 13% of Republicans. Another 21% of Democrats didn’t know or were neutral (as opposed to 12% of Republicans), and only 32% of Democrats disagreed when asked if Israel is a racist country, as opposed to 76% of Republicans. (Overall 32% of those polled said Israel is a racist country.)
• Asked whether Israel wants peace with its neighbors, while an overwhelming 88% of Republicans said it does, a far lower 48% of Democrats agreed. Another 21% of Democrats didn’t know or were neutral (as compared to 7% of Republicans). And 31% of Democrats did not think Israel wants peace (as compared to 5% of Republicans).
• Asked whether they would be more likely to vote for a local politician who supported Israel and its right to defend itself, an overwhelming 76% of Republicans said yes, but only 18% of Democrats said yes. Meanwhile, only 7% of Republicans — but 32% of Democrats — said they would be less likely to support a local politician who backed Israel.
• Asked whether they would be more likely to vote for a local politician who criticized Israeli occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians, 45% of Democrats said yes, compared to just 6% of Republicans. Asked whether they would be less likely to vote for a local politician who criticized Israeli occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians, a whopping 75% of Republicans said yes, compared to just 23% of Democrats.
• Asked whether the US should support Israel or the Palestinians, a vast 90% of Republicans and a far lower 51% of Democrats said Israel. Another 8% of Republicans and 31% of Democrats were neutral. And 18% of Democrats said the Palestinians, compared to 2% of Republicans. Overall, 68% of those polled said the US should support Israel, and 10% said the US should support the Palestinians.
• Asked about which side they themselves support, 88% of Republicans and 46% of Democrats said they were “pro-Israeli” while 4% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats said they were “pro-Palestinian.”
• Asked if settlements are an impediment to peace, 75% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans agreed.
He also predicted that Israel is in for “a lot more trouble” from the BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions) campaign. Once they had been informed about the BDS campaign, 19% of respondents supported it — 31% of Democrats and 3% of Republicans. And, stressed Luntz, 60% of America’s opinion elites said they were not familiar with BDS. “Israel is already having trouble with BDS, and Americans don’t even know what it means. Can you imagine how bad it will get?”
He also foresaw a looming battle in the US over foreign aid to Israel. Some 33% of Democrats and 22% of Republicans, his poll found, were upset that “Israel gets billions and billions of dollars in funding from the US government that should be going to the American people.”
Luntz also asked whether respondents see anti-Semitism as a problem in the US. Overall, 58% agreed with the idea that anti-Semitism is a problem in America (57% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats), compared to 28% who disagreed. “Non-Jews recognize the problem, even if some Israelis want to minimize it,” he said.
Ironically, the poll also found, 50% of Democrats and 18% of Republicans (and 36% of all respondents) agreed with the proposition that “Jewish people are too hyper-sensitive and too often label legitimate criticisms of Israel as an anti-Semitic attack.”
What do you think, Donald? Do you have a strategy to rally all the percentages marked in bold? Anyway, please repost this data over at NCP for easy reference (add your own analysis if you wish), and most importantly to let everyone know that we were correct all along in our predictions about where the popular support for anti-Zionism would be coming from.
Speaking of Corrie, a tribute page to her at NCP would be a nice addition when you have time.
44 Comments »
After years of us talking about the great need for this project, at last Ossendowski has put it into action! This will be the project that can bring our views to a whole new audience:
Every Aryanist who isn’t presently occupied with a project of your own should join the True Left team immediately under Ossendowski’s leadership. (Ossendowski, please add a contact form to your site ASAP.) We want this to be the kind of site that visitors will check back at every day for the latest news, rather than just surf by once in a while. For this, we need a rapid rate of blog updates and we need the comments sections to be as active as possible. Got a news link you want to share? Don’t post it here, post it over there! Want to get something off your chest? Don’t post it here, post it over there! Make the True Left site your main hangout site from now on.
Every Aryanist presently occupied with a project of your own should link to the True Left site from your own, and refer to its content regularly in your own content.
Rightism has dominated the post-PC (and especially Jew-aware) scene for too long. Now is the time for this to change. Now is time for us show the whole world – especially its youth – what it means to be post-PC and leftist at the same time. Now is the time to put the “W” back into the term “SJW” and make it once again a label that leftists can be proud of. Because we are the ones who know what the world should be like, and more importantly we are the ones who never let ourselves forget this despite the ever-increasing volume of right-wing propaganda deluge during the last 15 years. We held on while so many others let go. We held on, and because we held on we found one another. We have to believe that there are more of us out there who are still holding on but who think they are alone, and who may be close to giving up hope. We must find them, and let them know that they are not alone, and that they must not give up hope. And even if some of them do give up hope, at least we will now be there to catch that hope as it falls, and find yet others to carry it.
Let’s do this, everyone.
71 Comments »
One issue currently being hotly debated across political blogs and forums is that of how to treat refugees seeking asylum. And, as we have come to expect, leftists simply are not arriving at the debate with the necessary toolkit to win. They know clearly in their hearts that the rightists are bad people, but they cannot effectively articulate why, because they are stuck with False Left foundations which, as we have said before, were designed (by Zionist agents) to be beaten down by far-right counterarguments (ie. Israeli policies, which Israel wants other countries to adopt so that Israel can no longer be singled out for moral condemnation for such policies). This is where we – and I hope especially Ossendowski with his upcoming new project – come in: to supply leftists with the True Left toolkit with which they could easily recover a winning position if they are willing to rapidly switch bases from False Left to True Left.
We all know the far-right popular fantasies regarding refugees (a.k.a. the Katie Hopkins Position, just so we are under no illusion as regards the intellectual calibre of the enemy): sink the boats with torpedoes, or variants thereof (put the refugees on planes and throw them out in midair, poison their food/water, shoot them with machine guns (using bullets coated with lard if the refugees are Muslims), impale them like Dracula used to do, etc.). They set this up so that when their own far-right politicians then recommend ’merely’ ignoring all asylum applications and flatly deporting refugees, or even deporting those whose asylum applications were already approved, but without endorsing the additional sadism of their voters, they appear “moderate” in comparison, which then fools ignorant fence-sitters to vote for them. This is the trick of offering a fake middle-ground that we have discussed in the past.
In response to this, all the False Left teaches leftists to do is endlessly bring up “human rights” as a reason for accepting refugees. The problem is, “human rights” is not an argument. “Human rights” is merely a formal abstraction that various organizations around the world have declared that they will observe in their decision-making process. Repeating the term “human rights” over and over again does not convince those who do not believe in “human rights” to suddenly start believing in them. It just produces the image that the repeaters lack actual pro-asylum arguments. If you are a pro-asylum leftist, the single best thing you can do is stop believing in the idiotic notion of “human rights” yourself and go back to ideological basics instead. This is what the True Left is trying to help you to do. The True Left is not, and will never be, about “rights”. The True Left is, and will always be, about empathy.
The first thing we recommend is to mentally place ourselves in the position of the refugees. If we were refugees fleeing from war/famine/disaster/etc. in our original country, how would we hope our destination country treats us? This, then, is how we should similarly hope our country treats refugees from another country, for as we would hope others treat us, so should we strive to treat others. It is really that simple, and this used to be common sense among ordinary youth as recently as the 90s, before 9/11 changed the mentality of the world. Yet here already is an argument for the leftist arsenal much more effective than any amount of blathering about “human rights”: challenge rightists to explain WHAT IS WRONG WITH treating others as we would hope to be treated by others.
The empathic approach does not stop here. We can further challenge rightists to place themselves in the position of the refugees under the policies they themselves demand. Among those rightists who recommend torpedoing the refugee boats, for example, how many would still favour this response if they themselves were the ones in the boats? This reminds me of a private discussion I had with Miecz some time ago about a thought experiment in which we invite people to come up with policies for a society that they will have to live in for the rest of their lives, while these people are given no knowledge of the position that they themselves will occupy within that society, which hence forces even ordinarily selfish people to recommend policies not based on self-interest but from considering what is fair. Rightists advocate cruel policies towards tribal outgroups because they know in advance that they themselves won’t be the ones on the receiving end of such cruelty. When nobody is allowed to know who will be on the receiving end of whatever cruelty is advocated, support for rightism drops like a rock, which demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of rightism. In contrast, leftist policies stay largely unaffected by possession or non-possession of knowledge about who will be on the receiving end, which demonstrates the moral strength of leftism.
Many rightists try to take the offensive by claiming that it is the refugees themselves who are in the wrong by staying in the countries offering them asylum instead of returning to live in the countries they fled from. But once again we can apply the empathic approach: how many of these rightists would themselves be willing to go and live in those countries that the refugees are fleeing from? And if they would not, then why would they demand the refugees to be any more willing than themselves to do so? The funny thing is that the rightists spend most of their own propaganda telling their audiences about what “dangerous, unsalvageable hellholes” these countries are. How then can they with a straight face blame the refugees for basically agreeing with them, and hence fleeing? I can guarantee that if the rightists had been born in these countries, every single one of them would be doing exactly the same as the current refugees. I moreover challenge every rightist who arrogantly tells refugees to “Go back and improve your own countries!” to personally emigrate to one of these countries and give a demo of themselves achieving this. When they are successful, then we might start taking them seriously. Not until then. (In reality, it is leftists who travel to disaster-hit countries to do volunteer work. In other words, we are the ones who actually do what the rightists tell the refugees to do while never doing it themselves.)
But we can talk about rightist inferiority and leftist superiority all day and it won’t make any difference, because the whole refugee crisis is a Zionist conspiracy designed to make racism mainstream, and hence facilitate the pre-scripted shift from PC to ZC. And this is something that can also be deduced by the empathic approach: how would we feel as taxpayers to see successful asylum applicants – who have never paid into the welfare system - instantly becoming welfare recipients? We would feel robbed, and justly so. But this absolutely does not mean that refugees should not be given asylum, as Jews are herding us to think. What it means is that refugees should not be eligible for welfare. If refugees need asylum, give it to them, but then simply make sure they pull their own weight by assigning all of them who are unable to find private-sector employment a sufficient schedule of compulsory state-organized labour to more than offset their living expenses. This not only makes it fair for taxpayers, but gives the refugees themselves respectability as contributing members of society (and hence worthy of citizenship eventually), and makes negativity towards them indefensible. This is authentic National Socialism: empathy for refugees (which ZC/BS lacks) and at the same time empathy for taxpayers (which PC lacks) – positive asylum.
National Socialism is thus able to provide an exact answer to the question of how many refugees a country has a duty to take in. The answer is: at least as many as the state can put to work (plus however many can be supported via voluntary charity funding). In practice, this would be a larger number than what most refugee destination countries are currently taking in, because their calculations are based on welfare capacity instead of labour capacity, because they patronizingly view refugees by default as permanent dependents, rather than as we empathically view them – just as we would wish to be viewed by our destination country if we were refugees - as future citizens.
(Incidentally, any country which applies our principle and hence harnesses the potentially vast value of state-organized refugee labour would gain an economic and military edge both over countries which put refugees on welfare and (though to a lesser extent) over countries which refuse to accept refugees at all in the first place. So not only National Socialists but even authentic fascists should support positive asylum.)
Treating others as we would wish to be treated by others has been taught by all universalist religions around the world. Meanwhile, a rightist is, in essence, someone who considers Katie Hopkins to be a better person than Jesus (for example). And the rightist calls this “taking the Red Pill”…..
101 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Hashtali
I was recently notified that somebody set up a Facebook account in our name without our permission:
This might be tolerable if he at least presented our views properly (in which case I would simply contact him to establish official connections), but as can be clearly seen, he doesn’t even understand them. For all those who have seen the page before, there is absolutely no connection between us, and it will stay that way.
25 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Other
A new JAM video, including a refresher on the USS Liberty incident:
Watching this video felt like returning to the beginning of our activism days back in the mid-2000s, when the focus was on spreading information about Jewish crimes, including 9/11 false flag, the central banking scams, the “Holocaust” hoax, circumcision, vaccination, water fluoridation, and so on, and of course the ongoing siege of Palestine by Israel. Back then, we naively assumed that just by giving people this information, they would rise up as one against Zionism. Through our combined efforts, we made millions of people Jew-aware, directly or indirectly. Well, where are most of these people now? Actually, most of them are hanging around at the various BS Gentile sites. The Jews weren’t worried about being exposed, because they understood Gentile psychology better than we did back then. They knew that all they had to do was deploy Zionist agents among us to mix Jew-awareness with racism, and the Gentile blood would automatically do the rest, which is exactly what happened. The more successful we were at spreading Jew-awareness, the faster we completely lost control of the anti-Zionist movement.
Like it or not, we bear some accountability for the rise of the far-right today, because we spread the Jew-awareness that gave it a significant portion of its momentum. We can’t undo what we did, so the only thing we can do now is try to make up for it by promoting unification consistently in all our activism henceforth. We can’t turn the clock back, but we can make unification cool again, especially among the youth. To succeed in this, we must not speak of unification merely as a practical requirement for the sake of defeating Jewish domination, but must instead speak of unification as an intrinsic good in itself. Not of unification because we have no other choice, but of unification as the morally superior choice. Not unification as something we must temporarily tolerate, but unification as something so beautiful we would never wish to let go of it. Not unification as a way to avoid conflict, but unification as an ideal for which we are willing to fight those who sow the seeds of division. In other words, not unity through necessity, but UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.
66 Comments »
Do not underestimate the value of this kind of grassroots activism. If Eden had stayed silent, both the Islamophobe and the victims will assume that everyone on the train tacitly approves of the bullying, and hence not only will the victims feel unwelcome in their own neighbourhood, but also the Islamophobe will be emboldened to do it again to someone else. In the worst case, the victims will feel so unwelcome that they move somewhere else, and then the Islamophobes will see that their tactics are working and will then definitely repeat them on more and more other victims.
But simply by Eden speaking up, the entire psychological flow takes a different course. Now no one is sure which side those who stayed silent actually sympathize with in their hearts, and so at the very least the Islamophobe cannot achieve the illusion of representing the neighbourhood in general. More importantly, the victims will know that they are not alone, and in particular that there are non-Muslims willing to defend them, so that they will not feel that they must seek support only from other Muslims in the neighbourhood (which leads to self-segregation), but instead will be encouraged to contribute to the neighbourhood community as a whole.
One real-time action like this does more to combat Islamophobia than the False Left approach of throwing millions of $$$ into “panels” and “workshops” by so-called “experts” against “extremism” that don’t actually do anything.
The next level is Pandorastop’s project: Lion’s Shield. Because we know our enemies aren’t going to back down just like that. So we need to prepare for the possibility that things will get physical. I myself have recently resumed physical training after years of neglect due to focusing on writing etc.. One idea brought up is that we could standardize a physical training program for Aryanists that is tailored to Aryan physiology and metabolism. This could potentially be a project on its own if anyone is interested?
37 Comments »
I would like to take time out to pay a belated and very special tribute to Hayley Okines who died last week, news of which I – a loyal fan of hers ever since her first documentary aired in the early 2000s – only heard about yesterday.
The star that shone within her was one of the brightest I have ever encountered, and I am sure many of her other fans would say the same. The world, and especially Britain, will undoubtedly be dimmer without her around. The only thing we can do now is never forget the starlight: the radiance, the warmth, the energy. The brevity of her life makes it easy to do just this. In her own words: “Sometimes people ask me if I could have three wishes would I wish I didn’t have progeria. And I say no. It would be good to not have it, and it would be fun to go out and not get stared at and not have loads of people ask questions. I would rather have progeria than not have it, though. Don’t ask me why, but I wouldn’t change it.” For most of us, life is not long enough for us to change our surroundings as much as we would want, yet often long enough for our surroundings to change us from the pure souls we all used to be. For Hayley, whose life was much shorter than most of ours, it was nonetheless long enough for her light to reach millions worldwide, and at the same time short enough to spare her from being tainted by prolonged contact with the ugliness of material existence. She departed early enough to leave in our memory only the image of her at her best and purest, which is how she deserves to be remembered.
Farewell, Princess Hayley. You will live on in my heart: spring eternal, autumn undying, love always.
3 Comments »
Posted by Admin in Hashtali
We have officially declared who our enemies are on the ZC List and BS List. Now we officially declare who our allies are:
All Aryanists are demanded cooperation with and support to the living individuals, and we commemorate our fallen heroes. We must never falter in defending our ideals. We must always push forward. And we hope that, as we march towards, and build, a new world, we do so hand in hand with these comrades.
21 Comments »