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.
An interesting op-ed relevant to this issue:
http://www.livescience.com/42157-state-of-animals-in-2013.html
An interesting article here. A 70 year old body-builder who’s fit, strong and healthy… and vegan.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/12/78-year-old-vegan-bodybuilder-might-make-you-reconsider-your-diet
The piece dispels myths that you need meat to be strong. I don’t thing bodybuilding is compatible with Aryanism as it is an end in of itself, however, the man seems to be demonstrating a valid point. The following link is found within the above article and may be added to the site’s article on veganism.
http://gentleworld.org/10-protein-packed-plants
In regards to the discussion the started some weeks ago.
This is the reason why the issue is very complex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
Frai, I agree with you on this: there will not be a simple solution to the problem. When I was little, I once read that wolves are mainly scavengers, responsible for cleaning up the their habitats of the bulk of carcasses and leaving the rest for smaller creatures responsible for decomposition; that is another important role they play. It’s hard to remove one part of an ecosystem without endangering the rest.
Before another debate rises, I should mention one more thing: we are nowhere near a position where the conclusive decision will turn into reality. Attention ought to be on anti-Zionism and the replacement of Zion with Aryan culture.
Omnivore-Human Hypocrisy in Art:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8ob1H4UQuS0/UKeXNXTRDoI/AAAAAAAA9Ak/zJswZB1oWFg/s1600/Darkly-Satirical-Paintings-02-634×386.jpg
when it comes to diet, metabolic type comes into play; it is no secret that certain people are more adapted to certain foods than others, and it is no secret that a diet that may be ideal for one person, could be disastrous to another and visa versa
simple question: is this movement universally against all acts of predation? or are you simply seeking to form a society without inter predation? because the latter would be feasible, given the society be composed of people of like metabolic type and like spirit. but the former? good luck trying to stop a cat from eating meat; the only way to do that is to take said creature out of its natural niche, and introduce it from birth to things like the grain feed that for instance pet cats are fed. a pet cat will eat such grain feed in an artificial setting, but not in its natural setting. not to mention this comes off as rather alarming, trying to create such a “utopia” even with good intention isn’t enough, because you know what they say about good intentions…and that is assuming the intentions are good (after all, its typical communist dogma to promise “a society without predation” and “a workers paradise”, and the “perfect harmony” between even different species can be seen at play in typical internationale propaganda cartoons shown to children. i’m not accusing the lot of you of have the intentions to subjugate and exploit under the guise of harmony, but…i’m just saying it seems eery to believe in the notion that nature can be altered in this manner)
so, is the movement seeking to transcend the natural world itself?
note: i’m not trying to be picky here, and given that this is my first post here it would be understandable if i came off that way; i am just surprised to see idealism taken to such an extreme, as to see some of the authors of this site ideologically promoting that alterations of nature to such an extent…seeking such an ideal with a potential aryan society is one thing, but to take the universalism principle so far as to ideologically seek to “perfect” nature based on said ideals?
granted as Decebal says the practicality of the movement comes first; but, lets say a hypothetical aryan world society is established. whats next? are the lot of you really ideologically willing to attempt to “perfect” nature based on said ideals? not that this discredits the practicality of the movement in present times…but, well is that really your ideal? or am i simply misunderstanding, an the lot of you simply seek to form an aryan society based on these principles, that would be capable of living in harmony with the greater existing nature? which would make more sense…
“simple question: is this movement universally against all acts of predation?”
Yes, our compassion is truly universal. A system that relies upon killing and exploitation is not one that we wish to sustain, whether it be humans or non-humans that are doing the killing.
“i am just surprised to see idealism taken to such an extreme, as to see some of the authors of this site ideologically promoting that alterations of nature to such an extent…”
We are radicals, we take things to their ultimate conclusions and wish to provide deep solutions for all time, rather than half-hearted ones that will fail to ultimately address the root of problems.
Rather than being too extreme, think of it as being at the pinnacle of idealistic thought, where all other idealistic solutions fall short, because their idealism _is not strong enough_.
“good luck trying to stop a cat from eating meat; the only way to do that is to take said creature out of its natural niche, and introduce it from birth to things like the grain feed that for instance pet cats are fed. a pet cat will eat such grain feed in an artificial setting, but not in its natural setting. i’m just saying it seems eery to believe in the notion that nature can be altered in this manner”
As Decebal says, we understand that we must be practical for the sake of the movement.
For example, vegans seem to have a poor reputation in some circles on the internet because some vegans are so vocal and militant with their beliefs (which in itself is not a bad thing); however, although this movement promotes veganism, we logically understand that one of us refusing to eat a hamburger is not going to save any animal who was bred for the slaughtermills, nor will it bankrupt and bring down the meat industry… We understand that if we want an ideal world where humans don’t have to raise animals for food, we first have to take care of some ‘big picture’ political issues, such as the ever-increasing human population, Jewish and Gentile racism, and so forth before it is feasible to turn our attention to changing the way the world eats.
In the same way, we understand that a perfect world without any form of predation will most likely not come into being within our life times. Similar to the idea of the ’1000-year Reich’ (the idea that even after an Aryan state is established, 1000 years of careful administration will be necessary before it is truly ideal), maybe something similar could be done for non-human animals?
Perhaps we could get animals to undergo a process similar to what we call “Aryanization” in humans? For example, domestic dogs have more genes that allow them to digest carbohydrates than wolves, are less aggressive, etc: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/23/science/la-sci-how-dogs-evolved-20130124 . Surely this would work with other animals as well. Just my opinion for a possible idea.
“so, is the movement seeking to transcend the natural world itself?”
Yes, we are not trying to preserve nature. Natural selection actually selects for the most ignoble traits! The most tribalistic, violent, survivalistic, and reproductively successful are favored by nature, rather than the most noble, compassionate, and idealistic! We have no affinity towards nature as a system (but of course have compassion for all lifeforms that have found themselves forced to play the game of life that nature has trapped them in).
Read our criticism of appealing to nature as a source for morality: http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/naturalism-vs-idealism/ . Nature is an inherently violent and unsatisfactory system, that is why we must transcend it. It may not happen any time soon, but it is the rational conclusion of our principles and we must never forget that, no matter how far off it seems.
Also, read AS’s comments on the previous page of this thread.
—-
If we’re not willing to look ahead into the far future and attempt to find a radical solution for all time, then what is the use?
@culpeo
JJ has accurately answered your questions, but I have two additions. Firstly, a switch from predation to veganism can happen naturally. Besides humans, we can see this in bees, the ancestors of which were predatory (like wasps), but bees today do not feed on other animals, with the exception of kleptoparasitic ones. Even though there are more complex organism out there, there’s no need to believe it cannot be done (we humans have proven it’s possible!).
Secondly, I hpe you become less cynical about our intentions; if a movement were filled with doubt about its ideals from the highest-ranking member to the lowliest follower, nothing would ever get done (and the situation would be utterly deplorable). We are well-intentioned and would, if in power, do our best to figure out practical, ethical ways to implement this. If you have any criticisms about putting ideals into practice, please also do your best to find ways to better the solutions.
@culpeo
Cats are a perfect example that the spiritual world is far stronger than the natural world. A domestic indoor cat, can learn to love an animal that would otherwise be its prey in the wild, such as a rabbit. Domestic cats, especially the stereotypical pet “fat cat”, are often very docile and have lost or grown up without any predatory instincts. It has also been proven that even the most “exclusive” of meat eaters, such as cats, can indeed survive a long healthy life on a vegan diet. The spiritual world changes the natural world, through adaptation. The spiritual world is the next step after the natural world, and evolution is slow, so we must be patient. We’ll be long long gone, before our dreams are every realized. What was once before, will become different tomorrow.
As Aryans, we live in the spiritual world. Gentiles and Jews still live in the natural world, hence their instincts to prey on others in order to attain power or material wealth. But even today, we see some Gentiles and Jews with potential Aryan tendencies, and like domestic cats, eventual their predatory genes will cease to exist.
Altruism and Nobility are the anti-thesis of nature. These traits are alien to nature.
Thank you for the responses. I only may seem cynical do to the notion that you may have difficulties attracting people to this movement with such far off visions of the world and universe; although I take it you seek to associate first and foremost with such people. That being said in the present times, it is not necessary for all people to agree on hypothetical implementation of policy in the distant future, but to enlighten the members of the population willing to be enlightened to the day to day meaning of such a movement…in which I’m quite sure is something inherently spiritual. This has to be done on the ground through lifestyle; watch and learn they say, if your actions are noble and honest, others will likely follow suit.
I am not against such a movement; and bringing up the dog example, yes indeed dogs can digest complex carbohydrates considerably better than wild wolves, much like contemporary humans of certain genetic background can digest complex carbohydrates much better than paleolithic humans could. I have no doubts that some groups of people can do well on diets primarily composed of complex carbs, and with dietary supplements the deficiencies of the diet can be taken care off. Not to mention should genetic engineering of foods ever be put to its noble implementation ie the pursuit of perfect health foods, as opposed to the design of destructive but economically profitable foods…well, anybody should be able to see that such a technology has great potential to better the human body, that is going to waste in favor of human profits.
Could you just clarify one more thing please: In the “Bloody Type” article comments, there was a poster(s) talking about “killing all carnivores for the sake of herbivores”; surely this movement is not for something like that? I know it is only hypothetical future policy…but discussion like that can make a movement like this look bad; I have read much of the main site, and some of these articles and comments so I have a general understanding of your outlook, and that is because I was willing to do so. However many potential followers of this movement, may not be willing to read through the main site or grasp the main concepts, but will simply latch on to the notions of a single comments conversation and then go on to pass on the contents of said single conversation as if it were the defacto message of this movement. I could very well see any future media going about its way to smear this movement in such a manner. While it probably wouldn’t turn away someone willing to inform themselves of the movement (although it did stun me for a bit), conversations like that could be used to make the lot of you appear as deranges and deluded psychopaths to anybody not familiar nor willing to become familiar.
It is not my place to dictate what goes on on this site of course; but as an outsider I am obliged to offer some outsider insight from an outsiders perspective. I would sincerely recommend either keeping such discussions in private, or to whenever should this movement reach any mainstream attention, make sure to well before hand undertake a “culling of content” so to speak on this blog, to cull any particular discussions that have no greater contribution to the meaning of the movement itself (that hasn’t already been explained either on the main site or elsewhere), that could possibly be used as demonizing fuel for any future media. I admire the courage of this movement in using the swastika so proudly, despite its contemporary negative stigma, and taking upon the challenge of directly confronting the lies with truth. Just don’t provide any more potential fuel for further negative stigma, less the next generation is told that “new studies confirm that the nazi’s didn’t just kill 66 million jews, but they also sought to kill billions of animals -insert baby animal faces here- and make lamps out of them” or something along those lines…
@culpeo
“I only may seem cynical do to the notion that you may have difficulties attracting people to this movement with such far off visions of the world and universe; although I take it you seek to associate first and foremost with such people.”
Thank you for clarifying. While ideally we would draw all Aryans to us (Aryanism . net) in an instant, we won’t, and the type we really need are those who are idealistic and radical, because those would be the future leaders. But we have to go beyond Aryanism . net and into the real world also, which is where propaganda will take an important role and the topics discussed would be narrowed as fit for the situation.
This doesn’t mean we should be wasting our time on topics that have nothing to do with the movement. For example, in the past I said that we should not be discussing David Icke and his alien lizards. Discussing topics like these will only make us look like loonies, in effect wasting our time on something irrelevant.
The future of carnivorous beings is relevant, though. Since our ultimate goal is the eradication of violence, it follows that we must also discuss animal-on-animal violence.
“In the “Bloody Type” article comments, there was a poster(s) talking about “killing all carnivores for the sake of herbivores”; surely this movement is not for something like that?”
No, we are not for that. (I believe there was only one person who argued that should be done, and that individual is not a member. Members have a swastika besides their names, like me.) I do not believe that all herbivorous animals are better than carnivorous animals, just that a herbivorous diet may have been better under certain circumstances, which is why it continues in some species. If humans were to become vegans en masse for health reasons, the selective pressure would be essentially the same, for example. And in any case, if we want to solve the “carnivore problem”, we ought to do it in the way that causes the least suffering on individuals of predatory species and their environment. This is not only compassionate, but also practical.
“However many potential followers of this movement, may not be willing to read through the main site or grasp the main concepts, but will simply latch on to the notions of a single comments conversation and then go on to pass on the contents of said single conversation as if it were the defacto message of this movement.”
If they cannot devote time to a few articles and an occasional contact form with a question, we don’t need such people.
“I could very well see any future media going about its way to smear this movement in such a manner.”
We are not big enough at the moment for something like that, but when we do catch on, have no doubt they will make stuff up if they must.
“It is not my place to dictate what goes on on this site of course; but as an outsider I am obliged to offer some outsider insight from an outsiders perspective.”
I thank you for this.
“I would sincerely recommend either keeping such discussions in private,…”
We do discuss these things in private, but I also believe they are not harmful if presented publicly. (In fact, it may even work as a sieve between moralist traditionalists and genuine idealists!)
By the way, using the logic you’ve used so far, this suggestion should not be welcomed because it may be taken to mean that we have things to hide by some newcomer. (To those who think this: we have nothing to hide, and culpeo wishes for us to develop our ideas better before presenting them to the public.) But I do not think this is the case, because you are making a suggestion as to how to make us more practical, and such things ought to be discussed, just like the topic of carnivorous animals.
“…or to whenever should this movement reach any mainstream attention, make sure to well before hand undertake a “culling of content” so to speak on this blog, to cull any particular discussions that have no greater contribution to the meaning of the movement itself (that hasn’t already been explained either on the main site or elsewhere), that could possibly be used as demonizing fuel for any future media.”
I’m on the lookout.
By the way, have you considered joining our team? Take your time to digest the material more, but if you do decide to, please send in a contact form here: http://aryanism.net/about/contact/
@NCTS
“But even today, we see some Gentiles and Jews with potential Aryan tendencies, and like domestic cats, eventual their predatory genes will cease to exist.”
We must not assume that people with potential Aryan traits will eventually rid themselves of non-Aryan tendencies. In fact, it is actually the opposite case!
Aryan tendencies are an error that natural selection attempts to eliminate: http://aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/
To go off the cat example: if abandoned deep in a remote forest, domesticated cats would either starve and die due to their inability to hunt, or their hunter instincts would assert themselves, and eventually any non-hunting tendencies that they may have had will be bred out in favor of hunting traits. The process of domestication was an unnatural one brought about by the influence of humans, and as such, nature/natural selection works to eliminate it.
This is why idealism is so important, because without it, we cannot escape from the slavery of nature. Those with Aryan traits can be ‘Aryanized’, or selectively bred to promote their Aryan traits; but such a processes could not occur naturally in the modern world, it must be brought about by noble idealists. Time is a degenerate, downward cycle where things will not improve naturally. We are Men Against Time, we must actively bring about these changes against the will of nature.
“Altruism and Nobility are the anti-thesis of nature. These traits are alien to nature”
Actually we believe that altruism is ultimately motivated by greed; instead, it is universal compassion which is the Aryan trait.
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/tribalism-vs-universalism/
@Decebal
“Since our ultimate goal is the eradication of violence, it follows that we must also discuss animal-on-animal violence.”
To be clear, humans are animals too. It would be best to say something like non-human on non-human violence, even if that does seem a bit awkward.
@culpeo
“I could very well see any future media going about its way to smear this movement in such a manner.”
I would think that our positive views on Hitler, National Socialism, and the Swastika (as well as our willingness to criticize Jews(!)) would make a much better media smear campaign than someone’s views on complex, philosophical issues that most people have no interest in and do not have the ability to understand!
Remember, the media tries to sell its stories to the lowest common denominator. For example, go to Huffington Post, CNN, or any ‘reputable’ news site and notice how many more articles they have about sex, celebrities, or other unimportant things than about complex political issues (and even these articles are dumbed down and loaded with ZC false dichotomies and outright lies). All they need to do to stir up a storm about us is say “OMG Nazzis!”, because people eat that stuff right up. But then they’d just be giving us free advertising.
I understand your concerns, but how else are we to get our message out and attract new people if we are not willing to debate opposing views and debate and clarify philosophical and practical issues? We aren’t really at the point of having a major ‘on the ground’ presence at the moment, and stopping all public debates would make it much more difficult to attract new people. Additionally, it would make the movement seem kind of dead if there are never any comments or discussions on our home territory!
As Decebal mentions, at this stage the movement is not yet trying to convince everyone, we are trying to attract high-quality idealists who will be tomorrow’s leaders.
“less the next generation is told that “new studies confirm that the nazi’s didn’t just kill 66 million jews, but they also sought to kill billions of animals -insert baby animal faces here- and make lamps out of them” or something along those lines…”
All that lampshade stuff has really been used to the point of exhaustion. Believe me, they will find much more sinister and horrible lies to attempt to discredit and defame us, regardless of what we post.
There’s really nothing we can do to stop them from lying about us. If we are going to be bold enough to stand up and declare our beliefs, then we have to be ‘as hard as Krupp steel’ and not be afraid of the lies, insults, and threats that _will_ come.
@JJ
I suppose I should read that page regarding “altruism”, I must have an misunderstanding of the word in comparison to the movement. I concede to your point that “nature” would eliminate “aryan” tendencies.
Now, we’ve discussed that the cat would either die due to starvation or reactivate its hunter instincts – if placed in a situation of survival in a remote forest. But what about us, those who are consciously aryan. I suppose the ultimate aryan litmus test would be to place any “supposed” aryan in a situation where he must either accept death by starvation or succumb to the temptation of surviving by killing an innocent sentient being in order to eat and survive.
The way you speak of idealism, reminds me of technology, in the sense that it needs a conscious source to constantly maintain it, otherwise if unattended for an indefinite period, nature will just swallow everything again. If all humans die, technology eventually goes offline and crumbles and the weeds push through and swallow the infrastructure, kinda the same if all us consciously aryan people died tomorrow, all idealism would die with it.
However, now thinking of it, idealism was always on the brink of extinction, but as long as there’s that drop somewhere within someone or some being, then it’ll always have a chance to reignite itself. Idealism is fragile, but also somewhat immortal. It’s fragile in the sense that it takes lots of power to make it universal, but resilient in the sense that it has always existed, but always an infinite minority.
@Culpeo
The reason why I could never join the movement, is not because I don’t agree with it, but because of its association to the past, such as the NAZI party or Hitler.
I align with the movement, since I am an ethical vegan, and I’m in accordance with the elimination and eradication of carnivorism (carnivore instincts), slavery, captivity, greed, materialism, and so on.
However, I disagree with the notion of praising Hitler, or even associating with Hitler and the Nazi co. Firstly because, we don’t need him and co., to express ourselves. Why does Hitler need to give us justification? I don’t think he does. Furthermore, I pass judgement on most history, thus I pass judgement on Hitler and the Nazi co., because I’m not confident that I know enough about him (for or against) to make a confident judgment about him. I don’t know what he truly stood for, all I know is that there’s all kinds of history about him (both for and against). Unless I meant him in that time in history, and I felt like I truly knew him, then and only then would I feel condiment to make a judgment about him, and the same can be said for most history. I don’t know what to truly believe, and if I don’t feel certain, then I won’t jump into it. Was Hitler an ethical vegan, was he against all the things I’m against? I don’t know, because I never met him, and I don’t feel confident enough in the stuff that’s written about him to make that judgement. Thus, I don’t have positive or negative views, I’m completely agnostic on Hitler and the Nazi movement. I’m also agnostic on the majority of history, if not all of it. I’m only concerned about the present and future, time as we know it right now (or at least as I know it right now), only moves in one direction.
@JJ
“To be clear, humans are animals too. It would be best to say something like non-human on non-human violence, even if that does seem a bit awkward.”
Yes, that’s true.
@NCTS
“The way you speak of idealism, reminds me of technology, in the sense that it needs a conscious source to constantly maintain it, otherwise if unattended for an indefinite period, nature will just swallow everything again. If all humans die, technology eventually goes offline and crumbles and the weeds push through and swallow the infrastructure, kinda the same if all us consciously aryan people died tomorrow, all idealism would die with it.”
There is mutation, of course. But I do hope that we reach a point where no noble action, big or small, feels like a chore, but is decided upon spontaneously (what we mean by “immanence”).
I thank you for this honest Article after my own Heart.
It seems that what Aryans have been saying since the creation of the neolithic diet is finally starting to have some sway, again, over the mainstream.
News Report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN7sQNDc5PY
Documentary of interest: “Cowspiracy” – basically, capitalism and materialism are so rooted in animal agriculture that it would be too damaging to profits to try and stop the practice.
HELLO.
I WONDER: ARE YOU ALL SELFPROCLAIMED “ARYANISTS” ACTUALLY VEGAN? I MYSELF AM; I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF ALL OF YOU ARE ALSO.
Yes i am vegan….
In the Aryanization process how do we know whether someone is vegan or not?
I expect the SS-men and the Lebensborn kids to be vegan.
@LoZ
“Don’t ask don’t tell.”
Many vegans these days are doing it for self-aggrandizement and as a fashion. Even monkeys are vegan – it doesn’t make one special. What gives me inspiration is to see strong (not just physically) men who refuse to live at the expense of others – i.e. they reject usury.
But I agree, it would be very hypocritical for someone to talk about Aryanism while living off the flesh of others – hence one should probably be given the opportunity to find out if someone isn’t vegan.
Maybe we should just shut down slaughterhouses, make hunting illegal and substitute all meat and dairy with vegan alternatives that taste about the same.
It’s better for the animals.
Did the plants consent to be eaten?
It is quite hypocritical of you all to claim universal compassion and yet to draw a line between animals and plants when it comes to what is fine to eat. And you are all awfully silent about the animal pests that have to be eliminated for your plants to not be wiped out, and the forests that need to be wiped out for your farms to exist…. This silence is either malicious or proof that none of you have any knowledge of or practice in farming.
Nino,
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and ignore the stupidity that is the argument “Do planta consent.” Plants, as far as we know, do not suffer pain. The jury is still out on that one. They do not possess a nervous system which allows them to register pain. Moreover, plants are also more energy efficient than animals for consumption, if you want to view the issue from a pragmatic perspective. You can only reap 10% of the energy an animal consumes. Consumer level 1 species only render roughly 1% of the suns energy, while producers render roughly 10%. High school level biology, Nino—did you graduate?
Forests need not be deforested, as plains naturally exist, which are perfect for cereal grains. In a biologically and ecologically harmonious system, pests need not be exterminated, as there is a surplus of food being produced anyway. We are not ignorant in the practice of farming, we are all quite aware of its modern state. This is why we wish to change it.
Additionally, we do not care if we are called hypocritical by someone who clearly has no sense of morality anyway.
Lucius Rhine,
Regarding your point that plants do not suffer pain, I have no clue, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. On your page about violence you say:
“Present-day society, as a consequence of desire for longevity and squeamishness towards physical damage (a symptom of increasing materialism and cowardice), has become used to a casual association of violence with people getting injured or dying, to the extent that even combat sports are sometimes inaccurately described as “violent”, whereas some crimes are inaccurately described as “non-violent”. Actually, the essence of violence is not physical damage, but lack of consent (ie. violation in the truest sense of the term).”
We can include suffering under “people getting injured”, meaning you officially repudiate a definition of violence based on suffering. Unless you wish to redefine violence, the point is lack of consent, which plants have not given you to consume them. Obviously, this is the reason why you are vegans rather than vegetarians: it would be ludicrous to claim that taking eggs and milk from animals is painful in itself to them, and your argument, at least in absolute terms, can only be based on the issue of consent.
If you wish to change the definition of violence to the infliction of suffering, though, your morality suddenly becomes quite tacitly anthropocentric to me: apparently only those living beings sharing in something you can understand by reference to your human experience, namely suffering, are worthy of consideration as having had violence done onto them. In contrast, opposition to violence defined as lack of consent, while more explicitly anthropocentric, at least permits the inclusion of life forms other than animals under its protective banner.
I admit, I am horrible at biology! Haha! However, I can tell you that, one, you changed the topic from ethics to a “pragmatic perspective”, and, two, are already presuming an animal-plant distinction in your efficiency-based argument that has nothing to do with the question of efficiency itself. For example, it is more efficient energy-wise to consume a chicken than a cow. Why not say, then, that it is “pragmatically” fine to eat chickens and plants and bad to eat cows? The reason that you do not do so is because you have already presumed it wrong to eat chickens.
Of course, we could also say that it is more efficient and therefore better to eat plants than chickens. But if we keep following this line of thought we will end up only being permitted to eat the one and only most efficient plant in the world (which plant is that, Lucius?), which would be ridiculous.
Besides, there are nutrients that are more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain from plants than animals, so “efficiency” should not be generalized but considered in terms of what exactly we’re looking at. From where are you getting your B12 and Vitamin D?
This post here goes into more depth about the inefficiencies (and class-based violence) of veganism; please read it: https://sixpersimmons.blogspot.com/2015/05/nutritional-and-agricultural-realities.html
You say:
“Forests need not be deforested, as plains naturally exist, which are perfect for cereal grains.”
My point was not really about forests, but about changing ecosystems to fit your agricultural needs without the consent of the inhabitants of those ecosystems.
You say:
“In a biologically and ecologically harmonious system, pests need not be exterminated, as there is a surplus of food being produced anyway.”
Your hypothetical biologically- and ecologically-harmonious surplus of food (which, by the way, sounds highly inefficient and extremely complex to ensure) will only lead pests to reproduce in even greater number due to the availability of surplus food, thus leaving less “surplus” food, which ultimately brings us back to square one. Besides, outside of this hypothetical reality, what do you plan to do about mice in your grain storage and insects eating up your plants?
You say:
“We are not ignorant in the practice of farming, we are all quite aware of its modern state. This is why we wish to change it.”
I was not criticizing modern farming per se. I agree it is more harmful than other agricultural systems, but that was not the point. Otherwise you would have to justify why you’re arbitrarily fine with eating food from one violent system (modern, industrial agriculture) and not another (the livestock industry). I have a feeling you are not a self-sustaining farmer, and I did not intend to question the ethics of your lifestyle too much. Instead I simply questioned the ethics behind your veganism in itself.
Additionally, your individual veganism in itself is irrelevant to changing the current system, but depends on it, so don’t get ahead of yourself.
You say:
“Additionally, we do not care if we are called hypocritical by someone who clearly has no sense of morality anyway.”
Congratulations! You have successfully deflected an ethical challenge by puffing up your chest! I tremble in fear at your moral high ground! Have mercy on me.
Seriously, though, do you Aryanists talk like this to people in real life too? I apologize if I was insulting in my earlier comment, I wanted to make a bit of a tongue-in-cheek joke. But this aggressive style is unnecessary, lacks empathy, and honestly will not get you anywhere, which is a problem this group seems to have. Please do not presumptuously presume my lack of morality and simply address my arguments.
Nino,
Thinking it over, I believe you are correct in your criticisms. Veganism is the closest we can get to a non-violent lifestyle, without losing our militarism like the Jains. The issue is, how can we fight our fight if we cannot eat? This answers why we resolve to eat the least violent food we know, plant matter. You will read, though, that aryanists dream of photosynthetic humans. I will not guess at the possibility of such a thinf, but I will not hold out on an idea only because I am unaware of its possibility.
A similar problem to this is the aryanist willingness to reproduce for the sake of the mission, like he will eat for the sake of the mission. Both are justified, in that both of those actions have a purpose—to end violence itself. If the child hates their genitors for all of his life, I think he would also be justified.
As for the purpose of my pragmatism argument, I only meant to bring that up to show the superiority of veganism over meat eating. The link you provided seems to be speaking from the point of view of a foraging and non-sedantary lifestyle, of which aryanists do not wish to live.
From the link:
This clearly speaks from the perspective advocating against sedentary life. Furthermore, the economic and state system we will establish will address the concerns of class-based violence, as the article speaks from the standpoint of the modern, once again. If you would care to reread our politics section on economics, I would highly suggest you do so. Regarding eating the “most efficient plant,” if such a plant existed that contained all of the nutrients that one needed to survive, of course I would promote it! Forcing people to eat it would be violent—which I do not condone. But I do not see anything ridiculous about the proposition of an “all-efficient plant.” If you asked me 500 years ago which apple tastes the sweetest I would likely look at you sideways, so do not ask me “which plant it is,” because I do not see the future. Hypothetically, though, such a plant is possible with careful breeding.
My Vitamin D comes from mushrooms, which I pick. My B12 comes from Kombucha, which my wife brews. I am not a self-sustaining farmer, nor do I expect any aryanist to currently become one. I participate in a Community Supported Agriculture program and assist with my neighborhood gardens, however.
In regard to your concern with the ecosystems we change, yes we will change ecosystems. We have the philosophy to back this movement, but the plan of action will change depending on the locale, hence National Socialism. You are correct that left unchecked “pests” will soon grow in number. We do not plan to let that issue go unchecked, as a core aryanist principle is population control, which is easy if conducted preemptively.
The way your arguments are poised (not to mention the barrage of no-good detraction in the comments section we receive anyway) lent to my response coming off as jaded, I agree. I believe I addressed the confusion adequately.
In short, we do not draw a line between what is “okay to eat,” and what is “immoral to eat.” All forms of violence are unethical. However, there is a hierarchy of violence we have to work with—I do not subscribe to the Judeo-Christian belief that “all sin is equal in eyes of God.” The redeeming quality of aryanism finds itself where we have an end-goal. An end to the violation of plants and animals and all life entirely.
@Nino:
“We can include suffering under “people getting injured”, meaning you officially repudiate a definition of violence based on suffering.”
It doesn’t work because plants and animals can make themselves “suffer” if they so choose, intentional starvation being one way this can be accomplished. This form of ‘suffering’, however, could obviously not be considered initiated violence because there was consent, even if just to ones own intent.
Suffering can by a byproduct of both initiated violence and retaliatory violence. Aryanists are only concerned with the elimination of initiated violence. With initiated violence eliminated, suffering caused from from both forms of violence would also cease.
I think this maybe where you are getting a little confused?
“But this aggressive style is unnecessary, lacks empathy, and honestly will not get you anywhere, which is a problem this group seems to have.”
Meanwhile, Israel probably has hundreds of nukes by now, and has openly threatened the entire world that they would be willing to use them if “Israel goes under”. Israel has not signed the non-proliferation treaty, and used “fake control rooms” to fool American inspectors of their nuclear facility. God only knows what else they are developing over there, perhaps even racially specific biological weapons, that they will unleash on the entire world to simulate the “end-time” plagues that are prophesied in the Jewish racial doctrine known as Judaism. Jews clearly had their hands in getting Trump elected, weakening the political left around the world, and have made a clear cut path for “white nationalists” to seize power very soon throughout much of Judeo-Greco-Christian culture, a.k.a. Western civilization. Aryanists seem to be the only people who see what’s coming. AS in fact has made so many political predictions that have come true at this point, I’m losing track. He genuinely seems to be one of the few people on the planet who actually knows what the fuck he is talking about in regards to politics.
Aryanists are furious, and rightfully so! They tell you this on their own website in advance….
Yet, here you go, another passer-by who has something to tell “this group” about why they are such failures. You have no clue what you’re talking about in that regard.
Where is your fury?
Shame on you!
I’m afraid I’m going to die of laughter the day that what Aryanists have predicted comes to pass, recalling all the fools and trolls who came by this website and told Aryanists that they are “failures”….
What a bunch of fucking imbeciles! ROFL!!!
“Come young suffering, enter chaos!” Such a true statement! I think all mothers should say that to their infants as soon as they are born. Should be the first words they ever hear. A proper welcome into this world….
If Jews win, it won’t be the because of the “failure” of Aryanists. That failure will rest on the heads of every single human who chose not to become an Aryanist. Non-Aryanists will pay dearly for that failure. Indeed, some could even argue that their will be HELL to pay, especially to those of us who see the concept of Yahweh as synonymous with that of the devil.
Palestinians, Aryanists, and a few others, will be the furthest from blame for what could come.
ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO SPEAKS TO ARYANISTS HERE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS DOES NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS!
Aryanists are NOT the “failures”, ALL of YOU ARE because you refused to help Aryanists! DUH!!! LMAO!!!
It is the failure of the Aryanists, none of you do any proper activism on the street. There is even infighting and disagreement in your movement.
@MH:
So concerned you are with what Aryanists are up too though….
For all you know there could already be several Aryanists in every governmental establishment around the world, (except for Israel) that’s what really frightens you isn’t it?
“Thinking it over, I believe you are correct in your criticisms. Veganism is the closest we can get to a non-violent lifestyle, without losing our militarism like the Jains.”
To my knowledge, Jains are lacto-vegetarian, so I am not sure what comparison you are making here.
“The issue is, how can we fight our fight if we cannot eat? This answers why we resolve to eat the least violent food we know, plant matter.”
I have two primary problems with these statements. First, you say that you need to eat to fight, which is obvious (or is it?). However, despite this constant rhetoric, I am not entirely sure Aryanists have a clear goal in mind for which they are fighting. (Well, to be fair, there are some, like the defeat of Israel, but I am talking about ultimate goals.) There is a vague notion that you wish to transcend the material world and defeat the demiurge in a systemic, state-directed way. However, I have not seen a clear indication that anybody knows what this means exactly or how it will be done. There are some plans – and they are extremely sloppy and harmful plans – to use state power to control reproduction, but that’s as far as it goes. There is no discussion of how to end life, never mind how to ultimately defeat the demiurge and stop the creation of new life. (As far as I can tell, some of you understand “the demiurge” literally and some metaphorically, which raises even more questions as to what/whom you’re fighting.) I am not bringing this up for the sake of criticising your plans, but because it shows that there are no clear plans beyond this world. The lack of a clear plan indicates that the rhetoric of the ultimate fight masks what are, at least in my view, the very worldly and more fundamental concerns of Aryanism to create “Aryan societies”. I think this needed to be said because it reframes the whole idea that veganism is simply a less violent means to achieve your supposed goal of transcending the world: in fact, veganism is an ethically good way of life in itself for Aryanists and there is no plan to supersede it, mystifications (and “optimistic”, futuristic hypothetical scenarios) aside.
Second, I am arguing that eating plant matter is not non-violent, at least by your definition. If violence is defined as lack of consent, then there is no qualitative difference between eating a plant or an animal in so far as violence is concerned. You could create some quantitative comparison of inflicted violence through some extremely complicated arithmetic. I am not sure how you would do this, but I am sure that it would ultimately be as abstract and divorced from real compassion for real beings as the complicated calculations of utilitarians. I would further add that the record shows that hunter-gatherer societies are far more sustainable than agricultural ones. (Yes, I know sustainability is supposed to be a “Gentile” concern, but the greater sustainability of these “Gentiles’” ways of life shows that less violence – or harm, since I don’t share your definitions – is done to the environment.)
“You will read, though, that aryanists dream of photosynthetic humans. I will not guess at the possibility of such a thinf, but I will not hold out on an idea only because I am unaware of its possibility.”
Ew…. Sorry, just the instinctive reaction of my animal self. But it is also a reaction to which I want to listen. I think our dependence on the physical environment for survival is a good thing, teaching us humility and limits, as well as reciprocating respect for the lives of other living beings (including humans). It is no surprise, therefore, that our increasing independence from the nonhuman world, especially following the industrial revolution, has been accompanied by lack of respect for other living beings and widespread environmental destruction, as well as by a spiritual emptiness that comes from detachment from our natural selves and the natural world. In my view, the idea of photosynthetic “humans” is just a development of the same pride, attempting to separate us even more from all natural relations, and I’m sure it will lead to even worse catastrophes. (Besides, I do not think that it can be practically achieved without the maintenance of the environmentally-destructive technological infrastructure and scientific practices we have. So much for that idea.)
“A similar problem to this is the aryanist willingness to reproduce for the sake of the mission, like he will eat for the sake of the mission. Both are justified, in that both of those actions have a purpose—to end violence itself. If the child hates their genitors for all of his life, I think he would also be justified.”
I should disclose that I do not agree with your anti-natalism and Gnosticism either. I thought I should mention it because we are operating with different premises, even if I understand the logic of your system.
“As for the purpose of my pragmatism argument, I only meant to bring that up to show the superiority of veganism over meat eating. The link you provided seems to be speaking from the point of view of a foraging and non-sedantary lifestyle, of which aryanists do not wish to live.”
Yes, he already assumes that a sedentary, agriculturally-based lifestyle is not good. There are a variety of reasons to argue this, but I do not think we should enter on such a tangent right now (or I should also be honest that I don’t have the time for it). The main point I was making was that in many respects (as listed by the author) it is much more difficult to obtain certain nutrients from plants, including through fermentation, than simply getting them from animals, in contradiction to your argument from efficiency.
“Furthermore, the economic and state system we will establish will address the concerns of class-based violence, as the article speaks from the standpoint of the modern, once again. If you would care to reread our politics section on economics, I would highly suggest you do so.”
I was actually referring to the pre-modern issue of non-vegan peasants feeding vegan Buddhist monks, who were physically incapable of feeding themselves (including, admittedly, for reasons besides veganism) and so relied on others’ labour. I mentioned this to hint at a bigger issue tied to class violence. Vegetarianism is difficult to maintain in non-industrial societies in most climates, and, to my knowledge, evidence doesn’t indicate the existence of historical agricultural societies where veganism was common. Some ate more plants, some less, but vegetarianism was globally uncommon at a societal level, and veganism non-existent. We can explain this by various factors, but I think down-to-earth necessity is the most compelling: people relied on locally-available food sources and what they could practically produce, and vegetarianism, never mind veganism, was (and is) not practical. Yet, in many societies we do find certain elites – Buddhist monks, Brahmins, Greek philosophers, Christian monks, etc. – who practiced some form of vegetarianism. You (and I mean you Aryanists specifically) could explain this in terms of some racial divide, where elites were more “Aryan” and the masses less so. A more compelling explanation, in my view, has to do with the mass of producers being necessarily more in tune – materially, culturally, spiritually – with their ecosystem than elites. Elites, unlike the masses, could afford to detach themselves from local necessity and pursue “veganism” because they parasitically appropriated the surpluses of the masses’ labour, including of both those producing agricultural goods and those who were responsible in producing tools in some way; veganism has not been feasible for those who provide for themselves.
I am making this point not (just) to criticise historical veganism, but to show that it has always depended on the labour of subject populations – slaves, serfs, our modern, industrial, oil-based mechanical slaves, etc. To be even more explicit, veganism inflicts violence not just on animals and nonhumans generally (as I argued previously), but also on humans who are forced to produce a surplus. Things will not and cannot be any different under your economic and political system: once rural producers find no reason to produce a surplus en masse for urban vegans (and self-sustaining rural communities have no such reason), they will surely be forced to do so and otherwise be condemned for engaging in class warfare.
“Regarding eating the “most efficient plant,” if such a plant existed that contained all of the nutrients that one needed to survive, of course I would promote it! Forcing people to eat it would be violent—which I do not condone. But I do not see anything ridiculous about the proposition of an “all-efficient plant.” If you asked me 500 years ago which apple tastes the sweetest I would likely look at you sideways, so do not ask me “which plant it is,” because I do not see the future. Hypothetically, though, such a plant is possible with careful breeding.”
The point was not whether we should breed an optimally-efficient plant, but rather that your efficiency-based argument disregards nutritive value for simple energy conversion. Just as it is, by the argument, fine to eat plants rather than animals because of greater efficiency, similarly we should discard all plants but the currently-existing most efficient one. The effects would be catastrophic, and I asked you the rhetorical question both to show that the efficiency-based argument has its limits, and also that you already presupposed a plant-animal distinction. (Also, I’m fairly frugal, but I dislike the Protestant/capitalist smell of the efficiency-based argument. There should be pleasures in life too.)
Tangentially, to address your point about breeding an “optimal” plant, I oppose the idea due to the problems associated with monocultures, and also because it is yet another example of anthropocentric attempts to detach ourselves from relations with the diverse lifeforms of our ecosystems.
“My Vitamin D comes from mushrooms, which I pick. My B12 comes from Kombucha, which my wife brews.”
There are more efficient ways to obtain both from animal products, which was the point. (By the way, I had not heard of this kombucha thing previously, so I will have to look into it some more, especially since different sources claim different things. By the way, apparently pregnant and nursing women, as well as children under four, should not consume it, despite being the groups most in need of vitamin B12. I found this information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kombucha#Adverse_effects)
“I am not a self-sustaining farmer, nor do I expect any aryanist to currently become one. I participate in a Community Supported Agriculture program and assist with my neighborhood gardens, however.”
I admire your community work, Lucius. I think it is a good opportunity for people to learn to grow their own food and not depend on the market and industrial system.
“In regard to your concern with the ecosystems we change, yes we will change ecosystems. We have the philosophy to back this movement, but the plan of action will change depending on the locale, hence National Socialism.”
Again, this will be done without the consent of the nonhumans (and most of the humans) who inhabit those ecosystems. It matters little if you have “the philosophy to back this movement”: you are still doing violence, as per Aryanist definition. (Anyway, what movement does not justify itself by some “philosophy”?) Now, personally, I think defining violence as simply doing something to somebody without his consent is a bit silly, but that is really not the point. The point is that you are somehow justifying the non-consentual change of ecosystems through an ideology that opposes non-consentual action as violent.
(I should note that beyond the abstract issue of consent, these agricultural changes of ecosystems do in fact harm them, through the elimination of fauna (or “pests”), deforestation, soil erosion, salinisation, the depletion of water, and much more.)
“You are correct that left unchecked “pests” will soon grow in number. We do not plan to let that issue go unchecked, as a core aryanist principle is population control, which is easy if conducted preemptively.”
Yes, by killing the pests, directly or indirectly. I do not see how else you intend to control the populations. (Will the state tax all pests that have more than x offspring? Or perhaps place them in prison?)
Admittedly, there are pest-control methods that do not involve killing. These are usually preventative, but you, and certainly the state, cannot control everything. Sooner or later a tough choice will have to be made; realising this years ago was one thing that made me question my previous vegetarianism, as I became aware that there is no such thing.
“The way your arguments are poised (not to mention the barrage of no-good detraction in the comments section we receive anyway) lent to my response coming off as jaded, I agree. I believe I addressed the confusion adequately.”
It’s OK, don’t worry. However, I have noticed that Aryanists often have an aggressive attitude toward others, sometimes even between team members. Even if I have great disagreements with your ideology, I think most of you are moral and intend well, which makes me think that the situation is very unfortunate.
As a side note, I think it is also interesting sociologically. A lot of the aggressions here often put down others for supposed lack of intelligence and, especially, of moral character. It makes me wonder to what extent the ideological belief in innate qualities and superiority, and the “meritocratic” commitment to promoting people based on those qualities, creates a general anxiety among members to prove their “racial correctness”, to repurpose an old Leninist term, and competitively validate themselves by their apparent superiority over others. It also makes me ponder if this competitive dynamic will show itself on a more intense scale in an Aryanist state, sublimating selfish ambitions through a moralised display and promoting the deceitful and immoral rather than eliminating them. I don’t know. In any case, it is not my intention to ever have to see this question become important on such a scale, as I hope that this movement never obtains state power.
“In short, we do not draw a line between what is “okay to eat,” and what is “immoral to eat.” All forms of violence are unethical. However, there is a hierarchy of violence we have to work with—I do not subscribe to the Judeo-Christian belief that “all sin is equal in eyes of God.” The redeeming quality of aryanism finds itself where we have an end-goal. An end to the violation of plants and animals and all life entirely.”
I hope I have demonstrated that you do draw such a line despite (or maybe because of?) recognising such a hierarchy along ideologically vegan lines.
Also, I do not think there exists a Judeo-Christian belief in all sins being equal: in the Catholic tradition of my nation, there is a distinction between mortal and venial sin, for example. Maybe I am being pedantic, but I do actually wonder what the point of your dichotomy between Aryanist and supposed Judeo-Christian understandings of sin is. As far as I can interpret it, your dichotomy bolsters a hidden belief that the ends justify the means. Regardless of how much evil you may do in the process, it is fine, because you will ultimate make a grand, wonderful idea into a reality. And we, human and nonhuman, who suffer in the meanwhile under the stupid fuehrerprinzip for the sake of realising this stupid idea will be promised salvation in the world to come for our sacrifices, just like it was under feudalism.
Of course, this is all an illusion. As I argued earlier, your end-goal is a vague idea, and an ideological mystification that will justify and cover your new ruling class’ ability to control and destroy life for its own benefit – or towards elusive and harmful ideals. Please, Lucius, do not become the victim of such illusions.
@ItIsWhatItIs
“I think this maybe where you are getting a little confused?”
No, I understood that. I was pointing out that your definition of violence is based on consent, not infliction of pain.
@Nino
Please send me an email at luciusrhine@gmail.com
ItIsWhatItIs,
I originally decided to ignore the irrelevant comment about Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Yet, I was just thinking that I should ask, why are you so scared? Let me rephrase this. Nuclear weapons are very destructive, as is depleted uranium and, especially, as is nuclear waste for the whole natural world. They have been a massive danger since they were first tapped into seventy (!) ago, regardless of who has them. Why are you so scared that one more warmongering state, Israel, has them? Why are you not as concerned that other nations have nuclear power? In your Jew-obsessed mind, do we need to put a sticker with “Zionist” written on it on nuclear bombs and reactors before they become dangerous? Does your Jew-obsessed mind shut down when we discuss problems other than “the Jews”? You are delusional if you claim to be “the only people who see what’s coming”, and should be ashamed of yourself.
Lucius Rhine,
While I appreciate your offer to give me some of your time and continue discussion in private, I have to decline and ask that we continue here. I am aware that private conversations, at least between people with opposing ideas, tend to go nowhere. Also, my responses take quite a bit of time to write, and I am not sure how much longer I will be able to continue corresponding. Admittedly, I did not think that so much time would be consumed when I started. As such, I would prefer to have a conversation here where it can be continuously accessible by the public.
It is your decision, however. I have just revealed in my proposal above that I intend to most efficiently subvert your ideology, at least for others reading the debate. (I also hope to change your mind, at least a bit, Lucius, but that I cannot control.) Yet, as you can see, I am completely honest: I am not hiding my intentions, and neither do I manipulate anybody, so everybody is free to believe what they wish. What is compelling here is the strength of the arguments. As such, you and the Aryanists will benefit yourselves if your arguments are in fact better. If they are not, I will at least have saved you from wasting more time on this ideology! Hahaha!
@Nino
Arrogance and idiocy, they seem to be a rule for whoever stumbles upon this site.
Who is scared of nukes being actually used? They aren’t manufactured with the intention of being detonated, they serve as a deterrent. At this point, which of us doesn’t know of Moshe Dayan’s words? “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” This means that Israel intends to perpetuate its iniquities while rendering everybody else powerless to do anything against it. And just like we do to any other mad dog, we have to take this one behind the barn and shoot it. So, unlike what you said, we do concern ourselves with other countries that possess nukes — in that they serve as a counterweight against Israel! That’s why they’ve always tried to disarm countries such as North Korea and stir up trouble in Iran and Pakistan. So you should tell us and the visitors you’re openly and admittedly trying to misguide: with the control they try to exert over the rest of the world, who else is a problem other than them and the symptoms they cause?
And just the chutzpah one needs to come on here and openly admit he’s not at all interested in a private discussion for intellectual purposes, but instead in overt “subversion” is the most amusing thing I’ve come across LOL
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tiffany-haddish-sparks-controversy-vow-wear-fur-every-day-police-stop-killing-black-people-162931801.html
@Nino:
“I originally decided to ignore the irrelevant comment about Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Yet, I was just thinking that I should ask, why are you so scared?”
Interesting that you would find a rogue state which stole its nuclear technology, has openly threatened the rest of the world numerous times, and follows a openly racist ideology, Judaism, which prophesizes the enslavement of everything that is not Jewish, as irrelevant. Can you name another nation-state that has, or does, behave as the Jewish state of Israel? Perhaps you may also wish to write the U.S. Justice Department and explain to them that Israel’s stolen nuclear technology is irrelevant, and Jonathan Pollard deserves a full pardon?
“Why are you so scared that one more warmongering state, Israel, has them?”
I find it almost comical that you believe me to be scared, especially when both sides of my family already lost everything twice in both Zionist-World Wars. Admittedly, after completing that last sentence I now find a feeling of disgust growing in my stomach toward your presence here. So scared am I that I actually signed a petition on the White House.gov website stating that the U.S. Federal Government needs to tell the American people that Israel did 9/11…
Did I forget to mention that Israel did 9/11? Well, incase I did, ISRAEL DID 9/11, IT IS PROVABLE IN A COURT OF LAW BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT!!!
Obviously justice is something you are not at all interested in either…
“Why are you not as concerned that other nations have nuclear power?”
Every other nation; minus India, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Israel, that has nuclear power has signed the non-proliferation treaty. Every other nation that has nuclear weapons does not have an OPENLY RACIST ideology guiding their state, ONLY ISRAEL DOES!!!
Bravo on making the Zionist argument about Israel’s nuclear weapons!!! Hope they pay you well for it!
“Does your Jew-obsessed mind shut down when we discuss problems other than “the Jews”?”
Possibly, why don’t you try me moron?
Considering that I am interested in seeing the end of Western Civilization, which is also known as JUDEO-Greco-Christian culture, why would I waste my time obsessing with anything else?
https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/786366946282049536
Clearly ending racism has very little importance to you as well?
Are you stupid or what?
“I have just revealed in my proposal above that I intend to most efficiently subvert your ideology, at least for others reading the debate.”
I feel you would actually need to have at least two functional brain cells to rub together, would have actually read this website and would need somewhat decent reading comprehension, in-order to even give that above claim a good go. Good luck with it… lol!
I guess for your sake I hope your at least getting paid for your mindless ignoble nonsense…
“As such, you and the Aryanists will benefit yourselves if your arguments are in fact better.”
And you clearly have neither the heart or the mind to help us in that regard…
@Nino:
“Does your Jew-obsessed mind shut down when we discuss problems other than “the Jews”?”
You do understand that we are anti-Capitalist Socialists right?
https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/786366946282049536
How are we meant to take you as anything other than an ignoble moron at this point?
“You are delusional if you claim to be “the only people who see what’s coming”, and should be ashamed of yourself.”
I would love it if less people were as blind as you, but clearly that is not the case, considering the majority of the comments we get on this blog. How sure are you that you’re not the delusional one?
I’m 100% sure that I do not suffer from delusional thinking, nor do the Aryanists that dwell around this website and movement. These are some of the most noble people I’ve ever met in my life, and I wish we could have all been friends in our youth. That would have saved me a lot of trouble and heartache, being that I eventually had to remove all of my ignoble “friends” from my life, later in life. Had I been friends with Aryanists in my youth I would never have wasted so much time attempting to maintain friendships with non-Aryanists, and would have been a much better person for it myself at a much younger age.
A shame this quote did not appear in the original post in my opinion:
“Let me say it openly: we are surrounded by an enterprise of degradation, cruelty, and killing which rivals anything that the Third Reich was capable of, indeed dwarfs it, in that ours is an enterprise without end, self-regenerating, bringing rabbits, rats, poultry, livestock ceaselessly into the world for the purpose of killing them.” -
John Maxwell Coetzee, Nobel Award Winner in Literature
“True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power. Mankind’s true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it.” – Milan Kundera
So true! Such a debacle is it that nothing humans do in any other aspect of society makes any sense until it is solved, as the original post pointed out so well!