When we first started out and I promised that we would reclaim Hitler from the far-right, I was told that this would be impossible. We did it. Here is the far-right now using our Hitlerist narrative:
Then when I promised that we would reclaim the term “Aryan” from the far-right, again I was told that this would be impossible. We did it. Here is the far-right now using our definition of Aryan morality:
I have also promised that we would be reclaiming the term “nationalism” from the far-right, and here too I was told that this would be impossible. I am happy to announce that we have now done this also. Here is, at last, the far-right explicitly backing off from nationalism (in favour of identitarianism, exactly as I predicted long ago that they would):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rprBLT8SPjg
Next, watch us reclaim Christianity. This might take a bit longer, but it will be big when it happens.
Well that’s great then.
-
I want to remind everyone I changed my outlook email to an aol email so make sure your sending to my aol email and not my outlook one.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVTmkhSg3Vy5bFGKULLyl76dTlxItVwCA
@Unsure
You have correctly pointed out that there are more men than women working for Aryanism, but the resulting discussion is wrongheaded in so far as it explains this phenomenon by looking at sexual differences between the two. Aryanism is based on nobility and so transcends espousing values particular to either sex. If we were to say that the unequal men:women ratio is based on sexual dimorphism, that would mean one of two things:
1) Aryanism isn’t actually based on nobility but on virility, hence the greater number of men. This is clearly incorrect, and the whole site details why.
2) Aryanism attracts more men because our male members mistake our values to be male-specific values. I believe our members’s nobility is great enough to not mistake nobility for virility and champion the latter while incorrectly calling it the former. I don’t believe this option is correct either.
Rather I would guess the disparity has to do with National Socialism popularly being viewed as a rightist ideology, thanks to both Zionist academics and propaganda, as well as the neo-Nazis we’re trying to reclaim the ideology from. This would also explain why we also don’t have, for example, many “black” members. If somebody believes that a National Socialist movement necessarily excludes “blacks”, and then doesn’t see any “black” members, the prejudice would be reinforced. Similarly, if somebody believes that a National Socialist movement necessarily excludes women (or values them less than men), and then doesn’t see any female members, the prejudice would be reinforced. Neither would join.
Overall, the more women we have, the more rapidly we’ll prove wrong the prejudices, and the more rapidly more women will join. (The same also goes for other groups.) I’m hoping we’ll be able to reclaim Aryan individuals this way.
By the way, we regularly have female contacts at the contact forms. At the moment, one of our members, NWReborn, happens to be a woman, and she’s made great artistic contributions. (NWReborn, I’m hoping to see you more around the blog. You’ve good ideas which would make for excellent discussion on the blog.)
@AS
I’ll get back to you soon. I have a few articles I want to finish up first so I could send them to you.
@Hashtali
I did not mean to say that Aryanism has an appeal to male values, I meant to say that Aryanism attracts more men because of lack of mainstream and sexually dimorphed “female” values; for example, women want to reproduce more than men, more often than not, due to the man’s lack of responsibility, and same for the woman. Therefore, there is – theoretically – already an emotional foot in the door for male Aryanists. Male and female Aryanists have dissimilar personal spiritual obstacles to overcome, to be sure. What this comes down to is the fact that many of us have had false left values but eventually were drawn to the True Left due to our original nobility.
To conclude, I also do not mean to say that women have nothing to offer. They have tons to offer!! But the fact that there are more male Aryanists than female Aryanists is but a lack of current circumstance.
@Hashtali
Don’t mistake what I wrote to mean that I think women are less likely to be an Aryanist because of biological reasons, I always believed that is purely regardless of gender. I was simply trying to think of a societal reason of why and I couldn’t really figure it out. Thanks, for describing it for me.
“The male/female gap is only relevant to sexual desire and reproduction, we’re not doing that here.”
I said this to describe gender inequality within humanity, and trying to describe we do not agree with that. That had nothing to do with this sites lack of present females.
@Lucius
“I did not mean to say that Aryanism has an appeal to male values”
Don’t worry. I wanted to clarify that none of us actually believe this.
“I meant to say that Aryanism attracts more men because of lack of mainstream and sexually dimorphed “female” values; for example, women want to reproduce more than men, more often than not, due to the man’s lack of responsibility, and same for the woman. Therefore, there is – theoretically – already an emotional foot in the door for male Aryanists.”
Fair enough, but then we need to ask why we don’t have enough above-average-quality (i.e. non-mainstream) women. After all, it’s the same quality of men we should be drawing, which we have had more success in doing; so why has this not also worked with women?
By the way, could you clarify what you mean with “same for the woman”? Also, why do women want to reproduce more due to lack of responsibility (for what?) on men’s parts?
@Eric
“Don’t mistake what I wrote to mean that I think women are less likely to be an Aryanist because of biological reasons, I always believed that is purely regardless of gender.”
I didn’t.
“I said this to describe gender inequality within humanity, and trying to describe we do not agree with that. That had nothing to do with this sites lack of present females.”
Agreed, though we can see it extend to various professions also. I was arguing earlier that Aryanism isn’t anywhere close to a gender-specific profession.
@Hashtali
“I didn’t.”
I had a feeling you did, I just wanted to clarify because I’m easily mistaken by anyone.
“Agreed, though we can see it extend to various professions also.”
We can also extend it to lifestyle as well, I realized I am the only or very few male vegetarians/vegans at my school, where as I noticed there was plenty of female vegans/vegetarians, I think this could be because being compassionate towards animals is considered a feminine trait in popular culture. When I tell other males I am vegan they usually try to unsuccessfully insult me, and they mostly say “that is for girls”.
@Eric
“We can also extend it to lifestyle as well, I realized I am the only or very few male vegetarians/vegans at my school, where as I noticed there was plenty of female vegans/vegetarians, I think this could be because being compassionate towards animals is considered a feminine trait in popular culture. When I tell other males I am vegan they usually try to unsuccessfully insult me, and they mostly say “that is for girls”.”
It’s interesting that you point that out, as AS noted a similar divide a while back. Unfortunately, the females too might have the wrong blood memory:
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/non-aryan-blood-memory/
The males that try to insult you are definitely showing their Gentile blood memory. However, what the female vegans think of non-vegans, of male non-vegans specifically, and of dating male non-vegans even more specifically would be more valuable information. (The same goes for vegetarians.) Perhaps you could do a survey when you have spare time?
“However, what the female vegans think of non-vegans, of male non-vegans specifically, and of dating male non-vegans even more specifically would be more valuable information.”
I’ve had that experience with this disgusting vegan female at my school who had a choice between an ugly sexually promiscuous non-vegan gypsy guy who harasses me on a daily basis and listening to me who is the complete opposite of him and treats her with a lot of kindness. I tell her that guy is poisonous and don’t near him, he is not compassionate towards women, animals, or me even, and she doesn’t listen to me and goes and dates him, and he physically abused her and he got her pregnant and dumped her. What an idiot!
“Perhaps you could do a survey when you have spare time?”
Yes, of course, I want to discuss the details in private. Then I can announce my results here.
I don’t mean to sound picky, but there are some aspects of your movement that I don’t understand.
first of all, you seem to have a bizarre concept of duty. I’ve seen this demonstrated in the content of your website and your responses to other commenters on the blog. “it’s your duty to do this,” “it’s your duty to do that,” etc. you act like people have some kind of inherent duty just by being born. but we don’t have a duty to anyone or anything else unless we’ve sworn an oath to uphold one. you can argue that by swearing an oath to a particular person or cause, we might be doing something beneficial, but that is a different matter entirely. I do not understand why you speak as if people have automatic duties thrust upon them simply because they exist. have I misunderstood?
secondly, I noticed that you quote david myatt a lot, aka anton long, the aggressive satanist who advocates human culling and space colonization.
(https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/myatt-quest-vindex.pdf)
I know how you guys feel about space colonization, since you state these feelings explicitly on your main site. so why do you consistently reference a man who wants to create a so called galactic imperium? are you aware that this is believed to be (and likely is, in fact, based on similar themes and writing style) david myatt using a pseudonym?
@Unsure: “first of all, you seem to have a bizarre concept of duty.”
I would say it is the duty of every good and just person to defend the innocent, who themselves have been ‘forced’ against their own will to exist in a material world with limited resources, and others who are immoral and unjust, no?
As far as David Myatt goes, he also ended up denouncing Adolf Hitler as a ‘tyrant’, this does not take away from the truth of statements such as this: “In this war – as almost always – the unjust are known by their arrogance, their pride and their bullying nature. In this war – as almost always – the just are known by their honour, and by their noble behaviour.” – David Myatt
Just because David Myatt is quoted, does not make this a David Myatt movement, just as quoting Zionists does not make it a Zionist movement.
If a known liar were to tell me that the sky is blue, I would tend to believe him, even though I mistrust them in general.
@Unsure: Furthermore, some who work here have told me in private that the denunciation of Adolf Hitler by Myatt was in itself dishonorable, I would tend to agree. But his quotes still hold truth in them, are we meant to go back through the entire site and remove them all because of everything Myatt believed or ended up professing?
“I would say it is the duty of every good and just person to defend the innocent, who themselves have been ‘forced’ against their own will to exist in a material world with limited resources, and others who are immoral and unjust, no?”
wolf, I can see how one might make the claim that a good person WOULD WISH to take an oath to defend the innocent. I could agree with that. but an automatic, inherent duty? no. a duty is like a contract, a covenant. it should be null and void unless the party that is taking on responsibilities has consented to the deal. me being conceived and birthed by someone else should not count as consent to such a contract.
also, why do you guys express such support for islam? muslims, like jews, have their own derogatory term that they use for outsiders, kaffir. and worst of all, how can you support a religion that advocates bowing to the creator of this world 5 times a day? islam, submission to god, the slavemaster? you can get behind that?
:/
as for the david myatt quotes, ok, so he has made some statements that you agree with. I’m sure there are also some white supremacists who’ve made statements that you could agree with, especially about jews. nonetheless, I would still question repeatedly quoting a white supremacist on your website (in a positive manner, just as I questioned the david myatt quotes), even if you could agree with some of the things they’ve said.
“Just because David Myatt is quoted, does not make this a David Myatt movement, just as quoting Zionists does not make it a Zionist movement.”
but when you quote zionists, you do not do so with an attitude of support for their statements. you do so to draw attention to their racism and cruelty. when david myatt is quoted, it IS with an attitude of support, giving the impression that myatt is a person whom you agree with overall.
“If a known liar were to tell me that the sky is blue, I would tend to believe him, even though I mistrust them in general.”
indeed, we can independently confirm that the sky is blue. nevertheless, I wouldn’t want to make a habit out of publicly quoting a known liar.
“are we meant to go back through the entire site and remove them all because of everything Myatt believed or ended up professing?”
that’s up to you. it’s your movement. but by repeatedly quoting myatt in a positive manner, you therefore create an association between him and aryanism in people’s minds. if this is an association you wish to have, and you believe it is beneficial to your group, then by all means continue displaying his quotes all over the main site. but if you were to conclude that this association is negative and damaging, then yes, frankly I would say it is worth going back through the entire site to remove all of his quotes.
if you had someone’s statements peppered throughout your site, and then that person turned out to be a virulently racist white supremacist who believed and espoused things that were totally contradictory to your movement, would you want to continue fostering the appearance of an association with that person, or would you want to remove those quotes and thereby eliminate that association?
I must say I am quite surprised at how often you display and promote the statements of a man who went on to denounce hitler as a tyrant, considering how abundantly clear you’ve made it that it is VERY important for aryanists to support hitler. you guys are already aware of how difficult it is for most people to get past the lightning bolts, swastikas, and hitler quotes all over the main site. now you wish to add confusion by quoting someone who maligned hitler, your hero? who made other statements that you vehemently disagree with (such as this: “the honourable, futuristic solution is the colonization of Outer Space”)? and who has a rather complicated reputation besides (much like hitler himself)? seems like an odd choice to me…
but again, if this is an association that you wish to keep, and you believe it is beneficial to your movement, then obviously it is your prerogative to continue prominently displaying his statements. sorry, but I have to call out these things that don’t make sense to me so that I can try to understand them. I cannot lend support to your movement without resolving these issues. hope you understand…
@Unsure: “no. a duty is like a contract, a covenant. it should be null and void unless the party that is taking on responsibilities has consented to the deal. me being conceived and birthed by someone else should not count as consent to such a contract.”
Fair enough. I will let AS answer that one for himself, as I believe that refers to him, as I have never told anyone it is their duty. I myself on the other hand, feel it is my duty, not because I was forced to consent.
“also, why do you guys express such support for islam? muslims, like jews, have their own derogatory term that they use for outsiders, kaffir. and worst of all, how can you support a religion that advocates bowing to the creator of this world 5 times a day? islam, submission to god, the slavemaster? you can get behind that?”
It is our task to SALVAGE both Christianity and Mohammedanism as they have both been thoroughly corrupted from their original state. Contemporary Islam as such is not compatible with Aryanism: “The term “Islam” (submission), popularly and erroneously used to refer to Mohammedanism as a whole, in fact refers only to the lowest level of Mohammedanism, which happens to be the most well known due to its coverage of sociopolitical issues. All who admit the soundness of loyalty to one god rather than to many, and who outwardly adhere to the minimum rules of behaviour set out by Mohammed, are considered Muslims – submitters to God. Thus Islam on its own is a form of traditionalism without regard for inner quality, hence cannot be satisfactory for Aryans.” http://aryanism.net/religion/mohammedanism/
However, considering the geopolitical situation today, the shattering and attempted balkanizing of the Middle-East to make way for the Greater Israel Project\Oded Yinon Plan, ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815 ) we feel that it would not be prudent to criticize Islam as such because it would only play directly into the Zionist agenda which has spent a large amount of money and effort in turning the ‘West’ into an Islamophobic bloc, so as to divide and conquer thru creating ethnic and religious tension, further exacerbated by the current ‘refugee crisis’. We must never forget that Muslims are first and foremost the targets of the Zionist agenda at present. What we need now more than ever is UNITY between non-racist non-Jews. The obvious reversal of this would be to turn Europe and the West into a pro-Islamic anti-Zionist bloc, which is possible still, but gets more difficult day by day as Zionist agents fund many of the xenophobic far-right groups in the West. Add to that a few terrorist attacks here and there, and you get the picture…
Furthermore, there is no compulsion in Islam, and no authentic Muslim would attempt to convert a non-Muslim by force, but by invitation only. So, anyone can become a Muslim, likewise for Christianity. Try to become a Jew, and let me know how that works out for you? Sure you can convert to Judaism, but unless you have a Jewish mother, you will always be seen as a ‘crypto-Jew’ by authentic Jews, you will never be one of them at the end of the day. Add to that the Zionist agenda that is being forced upon everyone whether they want it or not, well…
“Allah says: ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.’” – [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]
“when david myatt is quoted, it IS with an attitude of support, giving the impression that myatt is a person whom you agree with overall.”
Fair enough. I actually questioned the David Myatt quotes when I first came across Aryanism.net as well, as I was never comfortable with the fact that Myatt started out in Neo-Nazi circles. Being German myself, and having grandparents that actually served National Socialist Germany, I had once also believed all the Judeo-Anglo propaganda of WWII in regards to the Third Reich. I have never been racist, and ‘White’-Nationalism and Neo-Nazism had always been a huge turn-off for me. After searching for the truth almost daily for 12 years, I finally came across Aryanism.net (imagine my surprise) and all the pieces of the puzzle finally made sense. That there actually is an alternative to Communism and Capitalism that worked EXTREMELY well, and the Judeo-Anglo elite did everything in their means to wipe it off the face of the earth. This site is a life-saver for many who come across it, including me. For that I am very grateful, and am willing to look past the Myatt issue, even though it still makes myself a little uncomfortable. AS and Hashtali have been here much longer than I, and they manage the site, so I will let them speak for themselves in regards to the Myatt topic further, if they wish.
“indeed, we can independently confirm that the sky is blue. nevertheless, I wouldn’t want to make a habit out of publicly quoting a known liar.”
Good point. Bad example on my part…
“I cannot lend support to your movement without resolving these issues. hope you understand…”
Fully!
Just know that Aryanism.net is an ideological core, the ideology in practice can manifest in many different ways throughout society. The Swastika (The Sun) and the Lightening Bolt symbols belong to all of humanity, not just National Socialists or the Third Reich. We must reclaim them for all of us! UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY!
https://stopobamanowsd.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/chicano-park-1.jpg
@unsure
“I’ve seen this demonstrated in the content of your website and your responses to other commenters on the blog. “it’s your duty to do this,” “it’s your duty to do that,” etc. you act like people have some kind of inherent duty just by being born.”
We’ve told people who claim moral quality on their own part, or denounced others’ immorality, that they have duties as a result of their own claims. For example, somebody who is appalled by the arsons on refugees shelters has the duty to put an end to them and not just denounce the criminals. Duty is not an explicit pledge necessarily; it is an imperative as a result of one’s conscience. Anybody who claims to have a conscience has duties to fulfill as a result; if they don’t attempt to fulfill them, they aren’t living up to their claims and may very well be lying. (As to which duties they wish to fulfill and how they wish to fulfill them, that is a matter of personal choice and general strategy.)
We don’t, in contrast, tell Gentile visitors that they have a duty to protect refugees. They don’t have a conscience, so we don’t attempt to appeal to it.
“I do not understand why you speak as if people have automatic duties thrust upon them simply because they exist.”
Birth is an injustice to the person born, as we’ve covered before:
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/violence/
Those who do not attempt to put an end to this injustice, as well as to the countless injustices which occur simply by existing in this world (that is, as a result of birth), are betraying both themselves and every other child born into this world. If we are to be true to ourselves, we have duties to fulfill.
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/what-is-nobility/original-nobility/
“so why do you consistently reference a man who wants to create a so called galactic imperium?”
The Myatt quotes we have on the main site are noble and compatible with Aryanism. This does not mean everything Myatt has ever professed is noble, and the ignoble aspects we denounce (as he has also denounced some of them). By pointing out his more noble statements, we hope to reclaim Myatt (by showing him how he could do better and how not everything in his past is worth denouncing) or at least his fans.
“are you aware that this is believed to be (and likely is, in fact, based on similar themes and writing style) david myatt using a pseudonym?”
This is still highly speculative. Myatt himself has denied these allegations, and until definitive evidence emerges, I’ll take his word for it.
“no. a duty is like a contract, a covenant. it should be null and void unless the party that is taking on responsibilities has consented to the deal. me being conceived and birthed by someone else should not count as consent to such a contract.”
I see where you may have missed the point:
“Consequential to quality, this is the idea – coined by the OWNP as the “Christic Principle” – that the more superior a person, the greater his duties to combat Evil. Strength, far from entitling one to oppress the weak, obliges one to actively help the weak who are victims of oppression by stronger others. This, of course, is the basis of our anti-Zionism.
(Right-wing ideologies, in contrast, believe merely in responsibilities, which are not duties, since responsibilities are owed to predecessors who handed down power to oneself and to heirs to whom one plans to hand down power in turn, whereas duties are owed to those subject to the effects of one’s power. For example, rightists talk about their responsibility to keep lands (Israel, America, Australia, etc.) which their ancestors conquered and from which they drove out the existing inhabitants in favour of their own progeny, whereas we talk about our duty to enable the homecoming of the displaced.)”
http://aryanism.net/politics/foundations-of-the-true-left/
“also, why do you guys express such support for islam?”
We outlined it here:
http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-islam/
Is there anything you would like clarified?
“muslims, like jews, have their own derogatory term that they use for outsiders, kaffir.”
We also have derogatory terms for non-Aryans, like “Gentile”. But please do not confuse matters. “Kafir” is a matter of belief. At worst, a Muslim will believe all non-Muslims to be kafirs. At best, a Muslim will believe only those of ignoble personality are kafirs. The latter is in keeping with Mohammed’s own beliefs:
“He who amongst you sees evil should stop it with his hand, and if he has not strength enough to do this, then he should speak out against it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do even this, then he should hate it with his heart, and that is the least of faith.”
“When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer.”
Thus I have Muslim friends who don’t regard me as a kafir, even though I’m Christian. In contrast, by simply not being born to Jewish parents, Jews automatically regard me as a goy.
“and worst of all, how can you support a religion that advocates bowing to the creator of this world 5 times a day?”
We dealt with this under the section “Sufism?”:
http://aryanism.net/religion/mohammedanism/
Ultimately we mean to purify Mohammedanism just as we intend to purify Christianity; in both cases we will be removing the Judaic worship of the creator god, among other things.
“but again, if this is an association that you wish to keep, and you believe it is beneficial to your movement, then obviously it is your prerogative to continue prominently displaying his statements.”
We don’t demand that Aryanists support David Myatt and become his fans. We do demand that they follow the Aryanist ideology outlined on the main site. If the Myatt quotes help them understand it better, then great. If not, the Myatt quotes can be ignored.
@Noble Wolf
“Sure you can convert to Judaism, but unless you have a Jewish mother, you will always be seen as a ‘crypto-Jew’ by authentic Jews, you will never be one of them at the end of the day.”
Do you mean “be seen as a goy”?
“AS and Hashtali have been here much longer than I, and they manage the site”
Actually, only AS is managing it now, as I have moved to another project:
http://aryanism.net/blog/hashtali/contact-form-job-changes/
If anybody is interested in helping AS with management, send in a contact form here:
http://aryanism.net/about/contact/
It’s much appreciated!
@Hashtali: Thanks for the correction!
@Unsure: “indeed, we can independently confirm that the sky is blue. nevertheless, I wouldn’t want to make a habit out of publicly quoting a known liar.”
“Even a broken clock is right twice a day!” There ya go, fixed it! When all else fails pull out a cliché, at least that’s what the French say!
“Anybody who claims to have a conscience has duties to fulfill as a result; if they don’t attempt to fulfill them, they aren’t living up to their claims and may very well be lying.”
so this is basically what I said earlier: “…I can see how one might make the claim that a good person WOULD WISH to…defend the innocent. I could agree with that.” if you are a good person, then you will choose to defend the innocent, because you are impelled to do so by the stirrings of your own conscience. and if you are not impelled to do so, then perhaps you aren’t that great of a person after all. this makes sense to me.
“However, considering the geopolitical situation today, the shattering and attempted balkanizing of the Middle-East to make way for the Greater Israel Project\Oded Yinon Plan…we feel that it would not be prudent to criticize Islam as such because it would only play directly into the Zionist agenda…”
fair. I can accept this.
although I would point out that if islam means submission, then I am islamophobic, although I am not anti muslim. I am AVERSE to submitting myself to anyone simply because that being is more powerful than me, whether it is a human being or allah himself. in that respect, my intense AVERSION to SUBMISSION means I could accurately be called islamophobic.
“Ultimately we mean to purify Mohammedanism…”
“Mohammed himself lived to incomparably higher standards of honour and compassion than those of formalized Islamic law, and it is his personal example…that we should follow and promote.”
I do not find in mohammed a character worthy of emulating. reasons for this abound, but the historical fact that he took, and had sexual intercourse with, a child wife should suffice as an example. that is absolutely revolting. I don’t care if it was part of the culture any more than I care that blatant racism is part of jewish culture; it’s no excuse. I thought you guys cared about the consent of children and protecting their original nobility. yet you hold up mohammed as some righteous exemplar? what could crush a young girl’s nobility more totally than an arrangement that makes her feel obligated to have sex with an adult man while she is still playing with dolls? (surely you will not try to claim that aisha gave her FULLY INFORMED consent to this arrangement at the age of 6, when they were first married?!)
“Mohammed himself exempted children’s dolls [from destruction]…”
how thoughtful of him, considering his child bride’s penchant for the toys.
“[sufism] is by far the most sincere and positive form of Mohammedanism…”
then why wasn’t he the founder of sufism?
mohammed was a warlord and an initiator of reproductive violence, and had sexual intercourse with a little girl. I don’t see how mohammedanism, this imitation of this man, could possibly earn the support of aryans.
“first of all, you seem to have a bizarre concept of duty.
…
I do not understand why you speak as if people have automatic duties thrust upon them simply because they exist.”
“One of the most bifurcated Hitler quotes of all time is the following: “He who is not willing to fight does not deserve to live.” The survivalist interprets it to mean: “If you want to stay alive, then fight [for your survival].” The militarist interprets it to mean: “If not to fight [for a purpose], why bother staying alive at all?” These two readings are reflections of two diametrically opposed perspectives. The survivalist reading presumes instrinsic value to life, and then recommends fighting as a means to secure life. The militarist reading presumes absence of intrinsic value to life, and then recommends fighting in service to a genuine purpose as the only way by which life – as a means towards that purpose – could have any value.”
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/survivalism-vs-militarism/
By existing, anyone with a heart has a MORAL DUTY to help other life forms which are also trapped in existence. If someone has no interest in these duties, there is no ethically-sound reason for them to continue existing. Willfully _choosing to continue to exist_ is an “oath”.
Building on the concept of Original Nobility, I believe it is fair to give people the benefit of the doubt and say that they are born with an innately selfless and noble attitude–therefore their “oath” is to uphold “Arya Dharma” or ‘noble duty’. Even if they do not consciously realize their duty, noble people will still spontaneously act in a compassionate and kind-hearted manner.
By adopting a selfish worldview (which most people do once they lose their original nobility), one breaks this oath and instead swears one to the forces of evil (aka the Demiurge, Yahweh, etc). They betray not only their younger self (who was born into this world without consent), but all other living beings as well.
–
“then why wasn’t he the founder of sufism?”
Why wasn’t Jesus the founder of Catharism? (or Catholicism or Protestantism for that matter?)
john, I have revised my stance on the aryan concept of duty espoused here. I misunderstood some of the statements directed at blog commenters, but hashtali’s explanation has clarified matters for me. I now see nothing amiss with the aryan concept of duty.
I understand why you refrain from publicly criticizing islam and try to combat anti muslim sentiment. I’ve stated that I can agree with this position.
I was initially confused by the frequent david myatt quotes on the main site and felt the need to question it, just as I would question the decision to feature anti zionist david duke quotes (if you were to make such a choice), even if the particular quotes you used were in perfect agreement with aryan ideology. hashtali has explained this as an attempt to “reclaim” myatt. interesting. I presume you would not extend this effort toward gentiles, else it would be wasted. therefore, you must consider myatt to be an aryan. am I wrong? and do you have contact with myatt, such that he would be reached by your attempt?
what I am left struggling with now is your promotion of mohammed as a man worthy of veneration and imitation.
“Why wasn’t Jesus the founder of Catharism? (or Catholicism or Protestantism for that matter?”
I would say that jesus was not the founder of catholicism or protestantism because they are not based on his teachings, but are rather corruptions of them. on the other hand, it can be argued that the cathars did truly and accurately strive to imitate jesus. they were ascetic, refrained from procreation, included women, etc. just as jesus is recorded to have done during his lifetime. but do sufis imitate mohammed? do they practice the things that he is recorded to have practiced during his lifetime? do they accurately recreate his lifestyle?
the claim made by aryans is that sufis imitate mohammed in a pure, unadulterated manner. if this were true, I would expect to see more sufis leading offensive raids to seize the possessions of others, conquering cities, taking to themselves a multitude of wives whom they then cloister away from public view, and permissibly having sexual relations with children, all of which mohammed is recorded to have done during his lifetime. let me just say, first of all, that I am glad this does not generally seem to be case. modern sufis are better people because they do NOT imitate mohammed with such exacting precision.
I ask how, then, sufism could be considered a form of mohammedanism. and I ask why mohammedanism, the imitation of mohammed’s lifestyle and behavior, is something you would encourage people to emulate. I notice you did not respond at all to my questions about mohammed’s character.
@Unsure: An Islamic scholar I am not.
It is hard to tell how old anyone really was in those days because no one kept a birth registry, and no one celebrated birthdays. Many of Muhammad’s marriages were for political reasons, helping out widows, spreading the message of UNITY between different clans, etc. In regards to warmongering, most of it was actually horse raiding from what I understand, that usually did not end up in bodily harm or death. Stealing, I suppose so, but it went back and forth between different factions almost as a dare, or game. Did he partake in reproductive violence, sure. Most people do. Aryanism hopes to change this, as perhaps will the next prophet of Islam who arises…
You may also find this of interest: Women’s Rights Inspired By Muhammad
http://www.inspiredbymuhammad.com/womens_rights.php
@Unsure: I’m surrounded by clocks and calender’s every day, and I often forget how old I am. Some thing to take into consideration…
“I was initially confused by the frequent david myatt quotes on the main site and felt the need to question it, just as I would question the decision to feature anti zionist david duke quotes (if you were to make such a choice)”
David Duke’s anti-Jewish views stem from his tribalism. The reason he hates Jews is because he views them as an enemy of the “white race”. Authentic anti-Zionism is rooted in anti-tribalism/anti-racism; we hate Jews because _Jews are racist_. Duke can never be an anti-Zionist because he does not hate racism.
While Myatt has renounced his former views, it does not change the spirit in which his quotes were originally made. While Zionists attempt to divide Muslims and non-Muslims, Myatt sought to unify them. While Neo-Nazis are attracted to National Socialism on the mistaken belief that it is the most racist ideology in existence, Myatt was attracted to it because he believed it was NOT racist.
By “reclaiming” his quotes we hope to direct his fans, as well as those unfamiliar with him, to a more noble worldview. Given the sentiment of his quotes that we use on this site, he certainly has Aryan blood memory, but whether he wants to fully live up to that blood memory is up to him. Gentiles (e.g. David Duke) on the other hand are biologically incapable of being noble, and it is indeed a waste of time to attempt to pretend any of their quotes have a noble sentiment behind them or to try to “convert” their fans.
(Also, I do not have contact with Myatt).
“on the other hand, it can be argued that the cathars did truly and accurately strive to imitate jesus. they were ascetic, refrained from procreation, included women, etc. just as jesus is recorded to have done during his lifetime.”
Did they attempt to walk on water, magically create wine, and clone fish, just as Jesus is recorded to have done during his lifetime?
Did they take the word of the Bible (which was written many years after Jesus died) literally, or did they recognize the inherent (and often politically-motivated) corruption and fallibility of the official Bible? It seems like the latter considering Gnosticism’s incorporation of apocryphal gospels and emphasizing emulating the spiritual journey of Jesus rather than worshiping a book like modern “Christians” do.
I imagine no matter how positively you view Jesus and Christianity, you would not advocate taking the Bible literally as a 100% accurate historical record, nor would you advocate following to the letter what is written in it. If so, why would you believe the Quran and hadiths (the source for Aisha’s age, which gives many conflicting accounts if I might say) should be? No double standards, please.
By de-emphasizing the importance of the “official” written account of Mohammad, are Sufis not doing the same thing as Gnostic Christians who de-emphasize the “official” written account of Jesus? In any case, even if Mohammad was merely an imperfect human, what is wrong with finding inspiration in the noble aspects of his life and teachings?
wolf, are you trying to imply that aisha might not have been a child when mohammed married her, or when they had intimate relations for the first time? that’s pretty weak. the scholarly consensus is that she was 6 when they got married, and 9 when they consummated. aisha narrated over 2000 of her own hadiths. the scholarly consensus matches her recorded narration.
“Many of Muhammad’s marriages were for political reasons, helping out widows, spreading the message of UNITY between different clans, etc.”
I am aware of the political motivation behind many of his marriages, but my feeling is that no woman, especially no CHILD, should be used as a TOOL, a mere means to achieve some political end. women and children are worth more consideration than that, especially from a man who is supposed to be a paragon of morality.
“Did he partake in reproductive violence, sure. Most people do.”
indeed, and most people are ignoble. they are not touted as being representatives of some ethical ideal, like mohammed.
“I’m surrounded by clocks and calender’s every day, and I often forget how old I am.”
but you surely do not lose track of the passage of time so utterly that you believe yourself to be a prepubescent child when you are not? (unless, of course, you are…?!) my point is that even if aisha’s age was not known by her exact birthdate, or month, or even year, there could still be no question about whether or not she was a child when she and mohammed were betrothed and married. she WAS a child. MOHAMMED USED TO WATCH HER PLAY WITH DOLLS. how could this man, this supposed embodiment of virtue, transition back and forth between observing a little girl playing imaginatively with her toys, and inserting his penis into her body? (the sick reality of that situation deserves no more elegant phrasing.) if you are not creeped out by the thought, then there is something seriously wrong with you. it nauseates me to the core.
from my perspective, aisha bint abu bakr is the one who should be admired in all this, not mohammed ibn abdullah. she deserves ten thousand times more reverence than the ummah gives her, and that is saying something.
john, I understand now why the main site often quotes david myatt. AT FIRST I was very confused that you would promote an association with someone who has flagrantly contradicted the stated principles and aims of your movement in more than one significant way, but now that I have inquired about it, I accept the explanations that were presented to me.
please understand that I do not raise these concerns with the intention of solely being a detractor, or to demoralize anyone. I am actually attempting to be constructive, and I apologize if I have come across differently. what I am doing is offering you my honest reaction to your site, as someone who is already fully onboard with anti zionism and universal compassion…in other words, someone you probably would wish to attract. the brazen hitler quotes and swastikas posed no problem for me, yet I was still left with a general sense of unease and a feeling of detachment from your group.
I think this movement suffers from the same issue that a lot of primarily internet based activism experiences. people encounter it and they see a lot of bold rhetoric expressed by a faceless, anonymous entity with little to no tangible connection to the real world that they can locate. thus it seems like a virtual rebellion rather than a concrete one. perhaps, as it says in your aryan diffusion series: “lacking charismatic leadership, the network was failing to break into mainstream acceptance.” who is your leader? generally if I can support the leader, I can support the group. do you have one? or, like myatt, are you waiting for vindex?
There you go.
However, if you are actually interested in getting networked with the various Aryanist movements that are starting up around the world, send in a contact form. You won’t see many of us overtly waving the Swastika, because the circumstances are not so fortunate. Furthermore, many of us, myself included (I am currently working 30 hours a week on this movement) are working very hard. Who are you? What are you doing? What gives you the absolute GALL to come on here and criticize us because we are not ready to even appoint our national leaders – or even state governors here in the US – never mind thinking of appointing a World National Socialist Leader!
I’m going to bed.
@NW & JJ
Please refer to my previous comment to Decebal (now Hashtali) on this topic:
Whoever is so intimidated by Islamophobes that they feel a need to debate Aisha’s age have already lost the argument, since it implies that Mohammed’s ethicality is contingent on Aisha’s age. We must represent the position that Mohammed was ethical irrespective of Aisha’s age, and that what is unethical is one age group telling another that their own wishes somehow don’t count.
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/nopegida/comment-page-1/#comment-97323
@unsure
“the historical fact that he took, and had sexual intercourse with, a child wife should suffice as an example. that is absolutely revolting.”
What is absolutely revolting, and more importantly oppressive, is you claiming that consent does not count as consent.
“I thought you guys cared about the consent of children”
We do. It is you who do not care, since you are saying that their consent should be disregarded(!).
“and protecting their original nobility”
The way to protect their Original Nobility is to refrain from violence towards them. Acting as though their consent does not count as consent is violent towards them.
“what could crush a young girl’s nobility more totally than an arrangement that makes her feel obligated to have sex with an adult man while she is still playing with dolls?”
Telling her that her consent does not count as consent merely because of her age?
“surely you will not try to claim that aisha gave her FULLY INFORMED consent to this arrangement at the age of 6, when they were first married?!)”
I wanted to be vegan at the age of 3. My parents dismissed my wishes on account of my age. To this day I remember clearly the anguish I felt of being considered “too young” to be taken seriously.
“the claim made by aryans is that sufis imitate mohammed in a pure, unadulterated manner.”
We never made such a claim. Our only claim is that Sufi THEOLOGY is nearest to (and even then not perfectly) what we believe Mohammed intended.
“she WAS a child”
Actually she was an individual. Please treat her as one (which includes respecting her consent as such) instead of referring to her merely as a generic member of an age group, which is no less dishonourable as generalizing according to ethnic background.
“from my perspective, aisha bint abu bakr is the one who should be admired in all this”
Apparently you do not admire her enough to even agree that her consent should count as consent.
@Unsure: You have no idea what it means to be an Aryan, that much is obvious.
We don’t talk to each other, except with you lot. Aryans feel each other, funny person.
@AS
“the historical fact that he took, and had sexual intercourse with, a child wife should suffice as an example. that is absolutely revolting.”
What is absolutely revolting, and more importantly oppressive, is you claiming that consent does not count as consent.”
Hold on. Doesn’t original nobility imply a lack such desires? If the child doesn’t normally have such desire, how could she have given consent?????
Maybe I meant neotany, not Original Nobility.
yep, pretty sure I’m just about done here.
the “gall”, lucius? you think it was too bold of me to come here and ask questions, to offer some criticism? why, because you’re all above reproach? I voiced my concerns and gave you the chance to explain, following which I stated that I understood and that I accepted your explanations on two of the issues I had previously questioned, and changed my stance to one of agreement.
I offered you my honest impression as someone just encountering aryanism for the first time; you might be able to make constructive use of this information. I asked questions and engaged fairly with the responders. I asked if you had an appointed leader because, as a newcomer, I WOULDN’T FUCKING KNOW, WOULD I? (with all the site’s focus on hitler’s leadership and emulating heroic noble personalities like jesus and [you say] mohammed, aryanists themselves certainly seem to give off the impression that this is an important aspect for motivating activism.) I’m not even talking about a “world national socialist leader”, just a person directing affairs for your team. I don’t think I’ve done anything out of line here, or been unfair.
you asked what I do…as if typing words in a blog comment will prove anything. but for what it’s worth, in addition to protesting and boycotting israel, I am employed by the globalgiving foundation where I co-direct a project to help palestinian farmers grow and sell their crops. I have no children and I refuse to purchase any products that perpetuate cruelty to animals. I also protest racism and the meat industry, and have volunteered my assistance to battered women, animal shelters, abused & neglected children, and even human trafficking victims on one occasion. is that enough for you lucius?
I think I’ll just keep doing what I’m doing.
“@Unsure: You have no idea what it means to be an Aryan, that much is obvious.”
really, wolf? well, thank you for that assessment. it seems to me that my ideology and my behavior is far more in line with aryans’ than david myatt, whom you are all so fond of quoting. I suppose I just spend my time and effort helping palestinians and other abuse victims, both human and non-human, to make myself look good, not because I care and have a conscience. that must be why I’m vegan as well. or maybe I’m making all of this up, just for kicks. yes, that must be it! of course, you don’t know me intimately or even at all, so could never actually make such judgement. but if you guys believe that myatt has aryan blood memory, then it would seem inconsistent to claim that I don’t, judging by what I have professed here.
very well then. I have no idea what it means to be noble. that must be the case, since an internet stranger has deemed it so. and, that being the case, you surely must not want me around. message received, loud and clear. honestly, it makes no difference to me. As stated, I will keep doing what I’m doing (you know, for attention, not because I have any nobility whatsoever). the only party here that it will make a difference to is all of you…you noble aryans who are superior to me in every way. you constantly claim to need help, lots of it. if this is the way you go about getting it, no wonder you are in such need.
my last contact with this site will be in response to AS.
dear AS, I spent 9 months working with agape international mission, a christian organization, during which time I helped rehabilitate rescued women and girls who were recovering from various kinds of sexual abuse. twelve of the people I helped were young girls who had been forced into marriages at an early age and later escaped. I DO absolutely view children as capable of giving consent to such a union. but I also recognize that BECAUSE they are children, their consent is more than likely going to be disregarded, and not even asked for in the first place. the custom in cultures where child marriages happen, and are not outside the norm, is such that NO ONE asks the little girls what their wishes are. the parents simply make the arrangements and hand the girls off. such was the culture during mohammed’s time. it is likely that aisha was not consulted about her marriage to mohammed.
IF aisha DID consent to the marriage, which we cannot be certain of, THEN I WOULD TAKE NO ISSUE WITH IT.
aisha was a badass, regardless of the circumstances surrounding her marriage. she wasn’t afraid to call mohammed out on his bullshit with a sharp tongue. (“it seems to me that your lord hastens to satisfy your desire!” go aisha!)
please, AS. I have held crying girls in my arms who had escaped from marriages arranged when they were toddlers. of course I care about the consent of children. I’ve never met a little girl who wished to be married off to a 50 yr old man, and thenceforth cook his meals, clean his home, and open her legs to him at his whim. have you? that would certainly be an anomaly.
but if aisha was one such anomaly, then more power to her.
@NWReborn
“Doesn’t original nobility imply a lack such desires? If the child doesn’t normally have such desire, how could she have given consent?????”
We are talking about the importance of respecting people as individuals. If 99.9% of children would not give consent, their non-consent deserves to be respected as non-consent for each individual case. Similarly, the 0.1% who do give consent deserves to have their consent respected as consent for each individual case.
@unsure
“in addition to protesting and boycotting israel, I am employed by the globalgiving foundation where I co-direct a project to help palestinian farmers grow and sell their crops. I have no children and I refuse to purchase any products that perpetuate cruelty to animals. I also protest racism and the meat industry, and have volunteered my assistance to battered women, animal shelters, abused & neglected children, and even human trafficking victims on one occasion.”
“I spent 9 months working with agape international mission, a christian organization, during which time I helped rehabilitate rescued women and girls who were recovering from various kinds of sexual abuse. twelve of the people I helped were young girls who had been forced into marriages at an early age and later escaped.”
Please keep doing what you are doing, and good luck with it. It is you who choose not to work with us. If you change your mind, you are welcome to send in a contact form.
“I DO absolutely view children as capable of giving consent to such a union.”
Thank you.
“but I also recognize that BECAUSE they are children, their consent is more than likely going to be disregarded, and not even asked for in the first place. the custom in cultures where child marriages happen, and are not outside the norm, is such that NO ONE asks the little girls what their wishes are. the parents simply make the arrangements and hand the girls off.”
In other words, it is the parents who are the actual problem. It is family power that is the actual problem. This is something which we have pointed out extensively over the years.
Also, for every family that forced an girl into an unwilling relationship, I can show you another family that prohibited a relationship between a girl and someone she loved. So the family tyranny works both ways.
“such was the culture during mohammed’s time. it is likely that aisha was not consulted about her marriage to mohammed.”
This is your guess. What I know, however, is that Mohammed spoke out against the power of family and kinship structures (which as I just pointed out above is the true problem) in the society of his time, and developed the concept of the Ummah to counter it. In the Ummah, orphans were looked after, slaves who had fled slavery and people who had fled their clans were looked after, and so on. Therefore if you despise parents who treat their children as objects of barter for building inter-family social ties, how can you be against someone who tried to create a society in which inter-family social ties would matter less?
“IF aisha DID consent to the marriage, which we cannot be certain of, THEN I WOULD TAKE NO ISSUE WITH IT.”
Thank you.
“aisha was a badass, regardless of the circumstances surrounding her marriage. she wasn’t afraid to call mohammed out on his bullshit with a sharp tongue.”
Which is also a very strong clue as to the kind of relationship they had, if you are willing to see it.
The Third World Today, much like the Third Reich of an earlier time, is accused of having an as many children as possible strategy (except, of course for China, which is under the influence of Anglo Saxon Eugenicists). Mind you, others fail to perceive the similarities between today’s Third World and the Third Reich of yesteryear. They are completely fooled, bamboozled, by the idea that the Nazis were into blond hair, blue eyes, and fair skin: that Nazism was a White movement.
Liberals, who shed not a tear for the German killed in The Second World War, shed copious crocodile tears for the brown, red, yellow, and black masses exterminated off by the U.S. Army. Mind you, said Liberals are motivated more out of hatred of their own military than they are motivated out of any concern for Third World Peoples.
Others assume that the Third World is somehow opposite of the Third Reich, since the latter is associated, quite falsely, with Whites– certain Whites but not others. And for this reason, they do not take Third World peoples seriously. They, the Liberals, perceive The Third World peoples as victims if anything, in their condescending and rather patronizing way. Liberals refuse to perceive Third World people as a threat, the same way that said Liberals perceived the Third Reich.
Third World people are destroying the West via immigration. Let us call them what they are: Brown, Yellow, Red, and Black Nazis!
Most of the Third World countries are under some form of dictatorship. Multiculturalism falls apart when one realizes this. I am sure that the Third World people seem so cute and cuddly to the Liberals, especially those who are Multiculturalists.
Who, in truth, has historically been into Eugenics and Race Science? Great Britain, and other Anglo Saxon nations, such as The United States. That is who! Only after Nazi Germany adopted such ideas for themselves, that they became taboo.
Noble Wolf, I have a question that’s been bugging me for awhile. I’ve read the excellent article here on gender issues, but I don’t recall anything mentioning why (if at all) Homosexuals were sent to the internment camps. If you could clarify I would be most grateful, as I’ve worried about many of my fiends who aren’t as farmilier with National Socialism (the real thing, not that Nutzie crap peddled by white as well as christian nationalists) who might think of me as a hypocrite identifiying as a National Socialist, despite being Bisexual. If you have any info I would be most grateful.
I thought that the National Socialists supported family values.
How can you have children without reproduction? Didn’t the National Socialist government supported people getting married and game them money and medals for having children? And what about the Lebensborn program?
“Nobody who dies and finds good from God would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and everything in it, except the martyr, who – seeing the superiority of martyrdom – would wish to come back to the world to be killed again.” – Mohammed
That’s all I ever needed to know about Mohammed. Simple really.
@Johann Sturm: Being that I’m celibate I don’t really sympathize with other peoples sexual desires. I could careless to be honest with you, so I never looked into it. I imagine, knowing what I know about Hitler and National Socialism, that if one found themselves in a camp it was for some other reason than their sexuality. Someone else here can probably answer that question better than I can.
I’m actually quite disgusted with myself that I got drawn into this discussion in the first place, that will never happen again, lesson learned. Follow your intuition, and keep things as simple as possible have always been my modus operandi. Being drawn into discussions such as this I only end up betraying myself and my duty.
@Johann
If you read this line from the gender issues page it should explain it for you:
“Hitler simply kept those who were good National Socialists. Quality of character and strength of ideology in his followers were what mattered to Hitler, not their sexual preferences, in his own words: “What people do in their beds do not concern me so long as relationships do not prejudice the State and its leadership.”"
Basically, what that means is that it wasn’t the government’s business.
I personally am romantically (not sexually) attracted to individuals and gender isn’t really an issue for me, so I don’t call myself ‘biromanic’ because it takes individuality out of love. I have no idea what it is like to be attracted to people at face-value.
If you are introducing National Socialism to your friends keep sexuality out of the discussion they’ll realize on there own that sexuality is unimportant to National Socialism.
And, I’m pretty sure the homosexuals in concentration camps is just a hoax, like ‘blacks’ being sterilized.
‘Theater of the Absurd’
ISIS urges German jihadists to turn country into battleground with Brussels-like attacks https://www.rt.com/news/337956-isis-urges-germany-attacks/
Let us not forget: Armed Mossad agents found trespassing in Germany
http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/03/08/454425/Germany-Mossad-bill-Israeli-mud
What a bunch of DEGENERATES!
@Noble Wolf and @Eric, I thank you for your responses. Noble Wolf I understand completely you frustration about being dragged into debates with those who simply beg the question, acting as though an adequate response has not been given. Some people simply think they have all the answers, and come to convert as opposed to engaging in dialouge. Been there all too many times. Eric, thanks for your thoughts. I do not simply seek mere physical attraction in a romantic relationship. Ultimately, I care more about who the person is on a spiritual level. Things like personal character, common interests etc, are what ultimately makes or breaks it for me. I do have certain tastes when it comes to physical appearance, but that’s just an added extra. It’s like choosing a car. I certainly notice the nice paint scheme, but whats under the hood is what really counts. Just because you appear beautiful on the surface, doesn’t mean you are on the inside. Appearances can be deceiving, and in all too many cases a persons physical beauty is a mask hiding the darkness within. I suspect many in the camps were not who they are portrayed as being, and I would certainly agree with Wolf that if you ended up in one, it had nothing to do with such trivial details. I have, and would never, bring such details into a discussion about National Socialism with friends. If I mention my belief in Hitler and NSDAP Germany being the true victims, who simply acted in self defense during the war is when some people have criticised me as being hypocritical, being aware of other facets of my life, that because of their historical conditioning, they see as odd, as unlike myself, they view Hitler in the strawman cartoon portrayal depicted by both mainstream historians and the Nutzi’s. Essentially, we’re seeing the same person in a completely opposite light, and it naturally results in confusion. “Follow your intuition” is advice I do my best to follow as well. My thanks to both of you for answering my question. ^_^
@Fred: “I thought that the National Socialists supported family values.
How can you have children without reproduction? Didn’t the National Socialist government supported people getting married and game them money and medals for having children? And what about the Lebensborn program?
That was in the period directly after WWI when Germany was completely decimated and needed to be rebuilt. We’re not in the 1930′s anymore.
This is now: http://aryanism.net/politics/population-and-demographics/
http://aryanism.net/culture/environmentalism/