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.
Hello everyone. I don’t want to belabor a worn out subject, but reading the earlier discussion in the comments raised some questions for me. I figured it couldn’t hurt to ask, both for my own understanding, and in case I myself were ever asked similar questions; that way I can know how to best represent the Aryan perspective.
About Aisha’s relationship with Mohammed, if we are to consider children capable of consenting to “intimacy”, shall we say, surely there must still be an age at which this type of relationship is inappropriate. I’m assuming that no one here would be in support of an adult man having intercourse with a newborn. What about at 2 months, 6 months, 10 months, 2 years, etc? Would we just solve this issue by saying that it is not about age, but rather about the individual’s ability to express consent somehow?
If it relies on ability to express consent, then we would just judge on a case-by-case basis. Some 6-year-olds might not have that ability, nor would some adults for that matter (like the severely mentally handicapped or brain damaged, or someone in a coma), and others might.
I’m looking at the issue from the perspective of a psychologist, since that is my profession. Would this reasoning extend to the whole animal kingdom as well? Would the Aryan perspective have no ethical problems with a human having sexual relations with an animal, as long as it could be shown that the animal expressed consent somehow? Although it is not my area of expertise, I have colleagues who have counseled people dealing with what we deem “bestiality” in Western psychology. The patients argued that their animal partners expressed consent in the manner appropriate to their species. I can see how this might happen with some mammals. Other creatures, not so much.
So how far does this idea of consent extend? Just curious what the Aryan position is. Can an insect’s consent be violated? What about a bacterium? A blade of grass? Would we judge these cases based on the level of Phi found within each individual organism? (Do Aryans even ascribe to Integrated Information Theory?)
I understand if no one wishes to discuss the above subject any further. I’ve been in contact with AS, who has asked me to start drafting the basis for an Aryan form of psychology, as opposed to Western psychology. The questions mentioned in my previous comment, I feel, would be relevant to the Aryanization of psychology. It’s important for me to have an accurate understanding in order to complete this task correctly. That is why I asked; I’m not trying to spark a debate or prove a point. I am interested to know people’s thoughts on this, but if you would rather not bog down the comments section any further with discussion of this matter, feel free to contact me by email. AS, I don’t mind if you share it with others on this site.
@Moriah: “I’ve been in contact with AS, who has asked me to start drafting the basis for an Aryan form of psychology, as opposed to Western psychology.”
Well you deserve a Swastika next to your name then, that’s all I’m going to say about that…
Happy Sunday folks!
Buddy Stuart – Sun shine on me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpGJSt4r36A
@Moriah: Here’s a thought that just came to light while I was doing some chores earlier.
Is it not dishonorable to die in a death bed? What’s if everyone who knew they were going to die, or wanted to die, via a medical prognosis, etc. decided to pull out a list and play eeny meeny miny moe which one of this depraved psychopathic homicidal racist egomaniacs am I going to take with me when I go, the world would probably be a much better place very quickly, and the psychology profession as we know today would probably almost dry up…
I don’t know how I feel about ‘consent’ considering an intelligent psychopath who is out to manipulate others will always be able to blend in and fool many, even in an honorable and noble civilization.
How do you protect from that?
@Moriah
“surely there must still be an age at which this type of relationship is inappropriate”
What is preventing this discussion from being serious is that many people try to establish one standard for sex ONLY, and another standard for everything else. We should be setting one standard for all actions.
“I’m assuming that no one here would be in support of an adult man having intercourse with a newborn.”
Of course I would not support this, but I put this in the exact same category as adults circumcising newborns, or injecting them with vaccines etc., or any of countless other actions that the adults may think is a good idea but which causes obvious distress to the newborn. I feel burning fury even to see an adult wash/clothe/feed/etc. an infant when the infant obviously does not want it (but of course is too physically weak to resist). Sex would be just another one of these countless actions of violation that occur constantly around us, the rest of which most people routinely fail to even notice. Their ability to ignore all the rest but suddenly panic when it comes to sex demonstrates just how sex-obsessed present-day society is.
“Would we just solve this issue by saying that it is not about age, but rather about the individual’s ability to express consent somehow?”
Yes, and by saying that consent is important for EVERYTHING, not just for sex.
“If it relies on ability to express consent, then we would just judge on a case-by-case basis. Some 6-year-olds might not have that ability, nor would some adults for that matter (like the severely mentally handicapped or brain damaged, or someone in a coma), and others might.”
Yes, but if a particular 6-year-old were deemed not to have the ability to consent, then that 6-year old should be considered to have no more ability to consent to school or a soccer game or any other activity involving other people than to consent to sex. To be consistent, such a 6-year-old should be prohibited from ALL activities involving other people. Is that what you are proposing?
What annoys me are those (traditionalist parents) who ignore their own children’s consent in almost every aspect of their lives, cruelly tyrannizing them throughout the children’s entire childhood while telling them “It’s for your own good!”, but THEN believe they are qualified to look down not only on child rapists (whom they are no better than) but even on some individuals so superior to themselves in kindness towards children that they cannot even imagine it, such as Mohammed, or Lewis Carroll.
Bonus music video (this could just as easily be Mohammed and Aisha):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsqmR1P1Ztw
“Would the Aryan perspective have no ethical problems with a human having sexual relations with an animal, as long as it could be shown that the animal expressed consent somehow?”
Again, before it is even possible to have this discussion with any semblance of intellectual seriousness, the first thing we need to get rid of is the double-standard. The people who condemn “bestiality” should on the same grounds start condemning ALL activities involving interaction between humans and non-humans. Either consent is a factor or it is not; it can’t be a factor for some activities but not for others.
“So how far does this idea of consent extend? Just curious what the Aryan position is. Can an insect’s consent be violated? What about a bacterium? A blade of grass?”
Ultimately, consent extends all the way. Which is why when insects or bacteria or grass reproduce, they too violate their own offspring who did not consent to birth.
“(Do Aryans even ascribe to Integrated Information Theory?)”
None of our ideology is contingent upon the validity of IIT in order to itself be valid.
Coming full circle back to Myatt. (the yet to be reclaimed) Funny how that worked out. The only way the word ‘consent’ would ever be resolved for me is if the human genetic code was altered to increase empathy by 200% at the least, and to allow humans to absorb energy from the Sun like plants do, so they don’t ever need to eat. Then, and only then would I be comfortable with the word consent.
In fact, those two genetic alterations should be the only ones allowed. Anything other than those two and the humans are probably doomed anyway…
Why did Hitler talk talk about living space in eastern Europe for germans?
Thanks, AS. I understand and agree with your main point. You are right that there is a double standard and a strange (harmful) obsession with sex in Western society. That one issue in and of itself is extremely far-reaching, and its myriad consequences would need to be addressed in the Aryanization of psychology, and society in general.
“None of our ideology is contingent upon the validity of IIT in order to itself be valid.”
I was not implying that its validity would be contingent upon IIT. I’m trying to determine precisely how the judgment would be made about whether or not an individual is capable of consent. Does one have to be considered conscious or sentient? If so, would this be determined by the level of Phi within the mind? Would there be set criteria such as: the individual must have 1) a concept of self, 2) a concept of future, and 3) a concept of causality and consequence?
Would we say that in addition to possessing the ability to consent, the individual must also display the ability to express that consent in some way? (For example, a person suffering from total body paralysis might have the ability to consent, but not to express it.)
If an individual cannot meet those two criteria, would we say that the ethical course then is to practice non-interference?
If anyone has thoughts on the above, please email me. Thank you.
“If anyone has thoughts on the above, please email me. Thank you.”
I’ll post my thoughts here instead so others can see and discuss it as well.
“I’m trying to determine precisely how the judgment would be made about whether or not an individual is capable of consent.”
I’m not so sure that we can talk about consent as an isolated issue, as it is fundamentally intertwined with other concepts.
Doing something without one’s consent is violence, but we are not opposed to all forms of violence (i.e. Ahimsa). Nobility is the quest for freedom, and freedom cannot be ensured unless we avenge the violence initiated by birth. No doubt many people _consent_ to live as slaves in this world (see transhumanism and quests for immortality), but their consent does not make it less ignoble.
AS mentioned that even bacteria and grass can have their consent violated via being born, although I think we could extend this even further: all forms of matter ultimately did not consent to being brought into existence (via the Big Bang, the Demiurge, etc.).
Bacteria or rocks may not be able to _express_ their consent, but I suppose exerting a stimulus on them to which they could not consent (let us say this stimulus is created by an external actor who does not even care about the bacterium’s consent–therefore even if the bacterium _could express_ consent, the actor would exert the stimulus without informing the bacterium) is still “violence”. Humans often approach complex problems by observing that we are the most complex lifeforms on Earth, and therefore believe we have the cleverest answers to everything… Things get interesting if we turn this around and view things from the “bottom up”. Increasingly “higher”/more complex organisms are better able to express their consent to slavery (with humans being the undisputed champions of this). Inorganic matter, such as rocks, can NEVER consent to slavery, and cannot even introduce additional violence to the universe (since they are unable to reproduce, let alone pursue other selfish activities).
“Does one have to be considered conscious or sentient? If so, would this be determined by the level of Phi within the mind? Would there be set criteria such as: the individual must have 1) a concept of self, 2) a concept of future, and 3) a concept of causality and consequence?
Would we say that in addition to possessing the ability to consent, the individual must also display the ability to express that consent in some way? (For example, a person suffering from total body paralysis might have the ability to consent, but not to express it.)”
While you may not find this a satisfactory answer to your question, I believe that trying to define a rigorous definition of one’s capability to consent might not be the best way to probe at ethics. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY lifeform to consent to birth; therefore to end the cycle of violence started by this original act, the individual must transcend material existence. Violations in consent along the way pale in comparison to the magnitude of the “original evil” of creation.
Of course, we wish to bring about freedom using the absolute minimum amount of violence possible. Consent is critically important in this endeavor, but I don’t think trying to reduce consent to a series of bullet points that can be clinically checked off will help us act more ethically.
If rocks violate others’ consent less often than humans, perhaps we should not look to the complexity of the human mind or “Phi” as a model to construct a theory of consent upon.
“If an individual cannot meet those two criteria, would we say that the ethical course then is to practice non-interference?”
I would say that an ethical action must follow from compassion. To use your example of a person with total body paralysis, I think it would certainly be unethical to leave them alone in a corner of a room until they expire, and then come by later to sweep up their bones. (Especially if this person is ‘normal’ mentally, but unable to communicate due to being trapped in their body).
I believe the best course of action is to compassionately view them as an individual, and treat them how we would like ourselves to be treated. (If I imagine myself in this hypothetical person’s situation I imagine I would be quite scared, but I would feel much better knowing that someone still cared for me and would not abandon me even if I was unable to communicate). This will avoid the cruelty of coldly ignoring an individual who is in distress, but it will also avoid the selfish over-interference that is all too common with Western medical practices (e.g. families keeping elderly people alive against their will).
Perhaps the most ethical course of action is to let such an individual die instead of hooking them up to machines (and only prolonging their agony), but such a conclusion should arise from our innate set of emotions such as compassion and empathy. Someone could program a machine to ask or somehow determine if an individual is able to consent based on some definition, but this machine will never be able to empathetically view any being as an individual. (Even human tribalists are unable to do this!). Such a machine might ultimately arrive at the “correct” answer, but for the wrong reasons!
I think the following article is a fitting example of nobility expressed by a non-human: (It also shows how absolutely vile many humans can be. Makes one wonder how many humans would just kill themselves and leave the child behind, also…)
Mother Bear Kills Cub and Self to Escape Life of Bile “Milking”
“A mother killed her baby and herself to end the torture of life on a bear bile farm. She hugged her cub until it suffocated, then drove her own head into a wall.”
http://www.care2.com/causes/mother-bear-kills-cub-and-self-to-escape-life-of-bile-milking.html
Re-uploaded:
Defending the Neolithic Revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hst5iaRa13Y&feature=youtu.be
Back to the Garden: Nature and the Mediterranean World from Prehistory to the Present http://www.amazon.com/Back-Garden-Mediterranean-Prehistory-Present/dp/0300197462
Another article for the cause of reclaiming Australian nationalism, capturing a bit more fury this time?
http://www.australianfreedomparty.org/true-nationalism-in-a-nutshell/
@Isaac
What you are not doing is clearly explaining WHY the far-right are not nationalists, why indeed they are not Australians at all, but rather Westerners whose first loyalty is to Western civilization, not to Australia, and who care about Australia only to the extent that it indefinitely remains a mere outpost of Western civilization rather than the proud centre of its own destiny, which is a destiny distinct from that of Western civilization. (Until the term “Westerner” is used as a derogatory term in Australian parlance, the people living in Australia have not yet become proud Australians.)
You make it sound like you are seeking validation from the far-right(!) for your nationalism, instead of attacking theirs. Look at this:
Now immediately by my use of the word “citizen,” alarm bells will go off for such “white” ethno-tribalists who are concerned for the security of their hunting grounds. They will presume that I stand for the State being a mere bureaucracy
WHO CARES ABOUT THEIR ALARM BELLS?! WHO CARES WHAT THEY ARE CONCERNED FOR?!! WHO CARES WHAT THEY PRESUME YOU STAND FOR?!!! YOU ARE THE ONE ATTACKING THEM, FFS!!! WHY ARE YOU, EVEN IN YOUR ATTACK, BEHAVING LIKE A DEFENDER?!!!!
Genuine Australian nationalism stands for the interests of all of our citizens
Which is why you must mention that tribalists will have their Australian citizenship removed when you are in power.
And:
I am convinced that
Don’t say “I am convinced that”. When you must say “I am convinced that”, the first thing the reader feels is your lack of conviction.
Moreover, if you are going to link to an enemy article (as you link to the NatAlt article), you must explicitly explain, point by point, why everything about their article is wrong, from their word definitions to their arguments. Quote, demolish, quote, demolish, all the way down their article. That is what it means to attack. Please go back there and show me you can do this.
I’ll get back to you. Probably by email.
I made some adjustments to my original post here: http://www.australianfreedomparty.org/exposing-crypto-globalists/
I will work on a point-by-point demolition and get it back to you soon.
@Isaac
I acknowledge and appreciate that you are putting in effort, but I honestly have no idea why you would introduce such a term as “crypto-globalist” that would only confuse your readers. The far-right are not globalists at all. They are identitarians who believe that globalism is bad because it threatens their identity. In particular, they are Westerners who believe that globalism is bad because it is destroying Western civilization.
We want to destroy Western civilization. We believe globalism is bad because it will not destroy Western civilization thoroughly enough, because it can create no new civilization to replace it, and therefore will only create a temporary vaccuum that will sooner or later lead to a pro-Western backlash, WHICH WE ARE NOW ALREADY SEEING.
Colonialism was not globalism. Colonialism was about economic security for each colonial power independent of other colonial powers, at the expense of all the colonized lands. Globalism is about worldwide economic interdependence. These are two completely different things.
Calling the far-right “crypto-globalist” tells readers that you are incapable of attacking identitarianism for what it is, but must resort to accusing it of being what it is not, and hence merely attacking a strawman.
If you require a term to emphasize the geopolitical plan of the far-right, use their own sacred term: Imperium Europa. They see Australia as part of Imperium Europa (labelled as “Greater Europe” in this map):
http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/wn-world-map.png
That is why they consider historical “white” mass immigration to a formerly Aboriginal-majority Australia to be perfectly OK, but “non-white” mass immigration to a subsequently “white”-majority Australia to be sacrilege. That is how they justify the old White Australia policy (as opposed to a British-only immigration policy despite Australia being exclusively British-ruled). And so on.
The far-right criticism of the old form of colonialism is that the colonial powers were too concerned with rivalling one another, instead of collaborating to more completely subdue their victims. The far-right believes that if the colonial powers had believed in Imperium Europa, the West could have colonized the whole world. This is why they are promoting Imperium Europa today.
@AS – “I acknowledge and appreciate that you are putting in effort, but I honestly have no idea why you would introduce such a term as “crypto-globalist” that would only confuse your readers.”
The term was a suggestion from New Dawn as a way of referring to the false nationalists, but as you point out, it has great potential for confusion. As you write below, we are fighting globalism (as the far-right are) but for very different reasons. I was mostly wanting to understand how to speak of Australia not as a part of Western Civilisation but as a new folkish entity of its own. He explained that those who settled here were not looking to extend European domination, but merely for a new life. The colonial elite however saw it as an outpost for their Imperium Europa.
“The far-right are not globalists at all. They are identitarians who believe that globalism is bad because it threatens their identity. In particular, they are Westerners who believe that globalism is bad because it is destroying Western civilization.”
True, so as you say, it is wrong to label them crypto-globalists. Maybe I could call them crypto-imperialists, agents for the extension of Imperium Europa, as opposed to genuine Australian nationalists who are seeking to establish a whole new folkish homeland for all who wish for a new world order to oppose the West?
“We want to destroy Western civilization. We believe globalism is bad because it will not destroy Western civilization thoroughly enough, because it can create no new civilization to replace it, and therefore will only create a temporary vaccuum that will sooner or later lead to a pro-Western backlash, WHICH WE ARE NOW ALREADY SEEING.”
As I stated above, I can see that we both oppose globalism, but for opposing reasons. Far-right feel their Empire is threatened by globalism, whereas we see that it will merely leave room for something worse to grow up. Our Movement is here to provide a positive ideal and bring about the reality so as to not leave a vacuum.
“Colonialism was not globalism. Colonialism was about economic security for each colonial power independent of other colonial powers, at the expense of all the colonized lands. Globalism is about worldwide economic interdependence. These are two completely different things.”
Right. Confusion on concepts on my part.
“Calling the far-right “crypto-globalist” tells readers that you are incapable of attacking identitarianism for what it is, but must resort to accusing it of being what it is not, and hence merely attacking a strawman.”
I am hoping that through our discussion, I will be able to make my article clear in a way that really attacks our enemy clearly and not some other creation of my own that will have little effect.
“If you require a term to emphasize the geopolitical plan of the far-right, use their own sacred term: Imperium Europa. They see Australia as part of Imperium Europa (labelled as “Greater Europe” in this map): http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/wn-world-map.png”
So as I said above, could these people be called crypto-imperialists? Or maybe just call them Imperialists flat out?
“That is why they consider historical “white” mass immigration to a formerly Aboriginal-majority Australia to be perfectly OK, but “non-white” mass immigration to a subsequently “white”-majority Australia to be sacrilege.”
Absolute hypocrisy.
“That is how they justify the old White Australia policy (as opposed to a British-only immigration policy despite Australia being exclusively British-ruled). And so on.”
So “White Australia” is actually a part of Imperium Europa, as opposed to merely a British colony?
“The far-right criticism of the old form of colonialism is that the colonial powers were too concerned with rivalling one another, instead of collaborating to more completely subdue their victims.”
So in a sense Imperium Europa is the far-right’s answer to globalism, by creating their own white global entity?
“The far-right believes that if the colonial powers had believed in Imperium Europa, the West could have colonized the whole world. This is why they are promoting Imperium Europa today.”
I think I am beginning to understand.
@Isaac
“I was mostly wanting to understand how to speak of Australia not as a part of Western Civilisation but as a new folkish entity of its own.”
How about starting with the etymology of “Australia”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Australia
“Australia” literally means “southern”. Therefore Australia represents the South, not the West. If Australia were supposed to be Western, it should have continued to use its previous (and embarassingly tacky) Eurocentric name “New Holland”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Holland_(Australia)
You could consider mockingly referring to far-rightists/Westerners in Australia as “New Hollanders” to accentuate their Eurocentrism.
“Maybe I could call them crypto-imperialists, agents for the extension of Imperium Europa, as opposed to genuine Australian nationalists who are seeking to establish a whole new folkish homeland for all who wish for a new world order to oppose the West?”
But there is nothing wrong with imperialism as such. (The name “Australia” itself is Latin, therefore to accept this name implies respect for Roman-style integrationist imperialism.) It is the uniquely Western form of SEGREGATIONIST imperialism (a.k.a. colonialism) that we oppose. Why not simply call them Westerners? How are you going to make “Western” into an anti-Australian term if you go to such lengths to avoid using it directly???
“So as I said above, could these people be called crypto-imperialists? Or maybe just call them Imperialists flat out?”
Westerners. Or New Hollanders.
How can you use the term “imperialist” negatively and build good relations with the Islamic world when Islam is an explicitly (integrationist) imperialist ideology? India, China and Japan as we know them today were all founded as (integrationist) empires also. This is not to mention the Inca Empire, the greatest historical (integrationist) empire of the Southern hemisphere.
“So “White Australia” is actually a part of Imperium Europa, as opposed to merely a British colony?”
In essence, yes. Had Britain forbidden immigration to Australia from anywhere except Britain, then it would have been strictly a British colony, and at least nearer to being justifiable, since at least British people were serving the British Empire (though if it wanted to do things the Roman way it should have permitted immigration to Australia from other British colonies also, since the people there were similarly serving the British Empire). But opening up Australia to immigration from the rest of Europe (ie. by people who had never served the British Empire, and indeed who had probably served its rivals), while STILL prohibiting immigration to Australia from elsewhere (including other British colonies!) revealed a deeper ethnotribalism that values “whiteness” over even service to Britain (and we can forget about service to Australia!).
“So in a sense Imperium Europa is the far-right’s answer to globalism, by creating their own white global entity?”
I’m not sure whether it is necessarily a “global” entity in the sense of positive preference for as wide a sphere of economic interdependence as possible (which is what globalism means). Neo-Nazis preach “autarky if possible” just as we do, but they are still Imperium Europa lapdogs, because in scenarios where autarky is not possible, they would prefer, as you say, “white” economic interdependence (regardless of freightage distances), whereas we would prefer regional economic interdependence (which minimizes freightage distances).
@AS – I’ve sent you by email the link to the latest version of the article that Andrew has helped edit. I might as well post the link here too for others to see: http://australianfreedomparty.org/exposing-crypto-globalists/
“How about starting with the etymology of “Australia”? … Australia represents the South, not the West. If Australia were supposed to be Western, it should have continued to use its previous (and embarassingly tacky) Eurocentric name “New Holland”.
You could consider mockingly referring to far-rightists/Westerners in Australia as “New Hollanders” to accentuate their Eurocentrism.”
I may very well work on using this terminology into my rhetoric on our Party site, both Westerner and New Hollander, making them prime derogatory terms for far-right and other Eurocentric tribalists in Australia.
“But there is nothing wrong with imperialism as such. (The name “Australia” itself is Latin, therefore to accept this name implies respect for Roman-style integrationist imperialism.) It is the uniquely Western form of SEGREGATIONIST imperialism (a.k.a. colonialism) that we oppose. Why not simply call them Westerners? How are you going to make “Western” into an anti-Australian term if you go to such lengths to avoid using it directly???”
I see your point.
“Westerners. Or New Hollanders.”
I am learning by your repetition.
“How can you use the term “imperialist” negatively and build good relations with the Islamic world when Islam is an explicitly (integrationist) imperialist ideology?”
Very true. This is also very important in light of the use by Westerners of the “Islamification of the West” propaganda in their subversive activities to undermine Australia’s national folkish unity.
“India, China and Japan as we know them today were all founded as (integrationist) empires also. This is not to mention the Inca Empire, the greatest historical (integrationist) empire of the Southern hemisphere.”
It is these Aryan characteristics in these nations that we will seek to find allies in the future. I’ve also been realising more what you were saying a while back about idealising anti-colonial fighters as heroes in Australia’s fight to break the yoke of British colonialism in Oceania, such as Indonesian leaders.
“In essence, yes. Had Britain forbidden immigration to Australia from anywhere except Britain, then it would have been strictly a British colony, and at least nearer to being justifiable, since at least British people were serving the British Empire (though if it wanted to do things the Roman way it should have permitted immigration to Australia from other British colonies also, since the people there were similarly serving the British Empire). But opening up Australia to immigration from the rest of Europe (ie. by people who had never served the British Empire, and indeed who had probably served its rivals), while STILL prohibiting immigration to Australia from elsewhere (including other British colonies!) revealed a deeper ethnotribalism that values “whiteness” over even service to Britain (and we can forget about service to Australia!).”
This is very good. At some point, I will need to write something about the whole “White Australia” policy, exposing the anti-nationalist Western agenda behind it.
“I’m not sure whether it is necessarily a “global” entity in the sense of positive preference for as wide a sphere of economic interdependence as possible (which is what globalism means). Neo-Nazis preach “autarky if possible” just as we do, but they are still Imperium Europa lapdogs, because in scenarios where autarky is not possible, they would prefer, as you say, “white” economic interdependence (regardless of freightage distances), whereas we would prefer regional economic interdependence (which minimizes freightage distances).”
Right. This is the importance of us seeking political, social and economic co-operation with our Oceanian neighbours.
@Isaac
“I’ve sent you by email”
I have not received any email from you. Please try sending something else to see if it gets through.
“the latest version of the article”
I thought you were going to stop using the term “crypto-globalist”?
Globalism, as we have been made to understand it in the postmodern sense, is generally defined as a post-Cold War political-economic phenomenon represented by unrestricted international trade and migration of peoples throughout the world
Migration of peoples throughout the world is cosmopolitanism, not globalism. It is possible for every country in the world to be autarkic (hence anti-global) and yet still permit unrestricted migration between countries (hence pro-cosmopolitan).
In reality, globalism and the existence of globalists (per se) has, at the very latest (some could say it goes back further), existed since the colonial era.
Several comments ago I highlighted the difference between colonialism and globalism. Again, trying to mischaracterize colonialism as a form of globalism reeks of fear to attack colonialism for what it is and preference to attack a strawman instead.
It is ironic that after several decades (1960s to 1990s) of trying to pass itself off as a ‘progressive’ and ‘socialist’ country in the eyes of the world,
This is not true. Israel was virtually the LAST country in the world to withdraw support from Apartheid South Africa.
Israel is now openly embracing the moral support of European Rightists who see the country for what it is (and boy, do they love it!), a warmongering, imperialist state
I repeat, there is nothing wrong with imperialism as such. Therefore do not describe Israel as “imperialist”.
“It is these Aryan characteristics in these nations that we will seek to find allies in the future. I’ve also been realising more what you were saying a while back about idealising anti-colonial fighters as heroes in Australia’s fight to break the yoke of British colonialism in Oceania, such as Indonesian leaders.”
Further on the topic of Southern consciousness, while Kevin Rudd wanted to make a friendly gesture towards China, his fatal flaw was to show off his ability to speak Mandarin, a northern Chinese dialect, which made him come across as a Huaxia bootlicker. A proud Australian would prefer Yue dialects, in solidarity with the part of China geographically nearest Australia, as well as countries even nearer to Australia such as Malaysia etc. where Yue dialects are also more established than Mandarin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yue_Chinese
@AS – Its alright, the email I sent you just had the link to the article… I can try to send it again though. I’ve linked your comments to New Dawn, so he can look over it and we can discuss. Also maybe I’ll look into Yue Chinese. I have learned a little Mandarin before (as well as some Japanese and Korean, aside from other languages).
I was reading over this: http://aryanism.net/politics/multiethnic-society/is-race-the-new-class/ It talks about globalism vs identitarianism.
“Next, watch us reclaim Christianity. This might take a bit longer, but it will be big when it happens.”
I wrote an article about Jesus and his relationship to the Law of Moses and the Jewish Religion. Following on from this, based on a conversation with Miles Saturni and myself, I’ve written it into a brief transcript. Working towards a genuine non-Judaeo Christianity:
http://www.australianfreedomparty.org/esoteric-considerations/jesus-and-his-perspective-on-the-law-of-moses-and-the-jewish-religion/
http://www.australianfreedomparty.org/esoteric-considerations/jesus-paul-marcion-the-development-of-the-canon/
Lots of missed opportunities in those articles. For a start, tribalism is not the only issue with Judaism. There are other problems with it.
Secondly, you didn’t explore how Jesus’ views differed from the views of traditional Christians. For example, you mentioned the verse “Is it not written in YOUR Law, “I said, ‘You are Gods’?” You could have pointed out that Jesus didn’t believe he was ‘the only son of God’ as traditional Christians believe, but thought that others can become a ‘son of God’ (‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God’) and even linked it to Genesis where it talks about the sons of God (Aryans) interbreeding with the daughters of men (non-Aryans).
If you want anti-traditionalism to be a major theme in the article, the best way to do that is to point out how traditional Christians beliefs contradict what the Gospels actually say, and that the only reason people still believe in them is because it’s what their parents and teachers taught them to believe and that they lack critical thinking abilities.
You also didn’t mention non-canonical scripture such as the Gospel of Thomas, and the fact that it predates canonical scripture and is hence a more reliable source for Jesus’ views.
@AW – Right… Just the beginning… Throwing some thoughts out there mostly
Another video from Varg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRYoAedMvHA
or
https://vid.me/D8BL
If his views on civilization (which we call paganist) spread more amongst rightists, it will become 100% impossible for them to appropriate National Socialism (at least the Hitlerist perspective, which is the correct one according to the fuehrerprinzip), since Hitler always stressed the importance of civilization, and valued races accordingly.
Varg frequently hints in his videos and comments that he sees “National Socialists” (neo-nazis actually) favorably, even though he doesn’t like socialism in any form. He said that he self-identified as a “national socialist” when he was younger, but now he will not talk about certain things for legal reasons.
Maybe we should point out to onlookers the fact that he contradicts the very basis of the Hitlerist worldview. I don’t have an account on vidme, but maybe I will make it and copypaste relevant quotations from Mein Kampf.
About the issue of Neanderthal, Sapiens, Denisovan etc… : from what I understand, he and his wife think that native europeans are mainly neanderthals and mainstream science is trying to cover it. I haven’t read his wife’s researches on the subject, nor watched her videos, but is this true? If so, does this have any relevance for the history of the Aryan race? Were the original/real Aryans sapiens-only, while neanderthals were the original hunter-gatherer and denisovan the… “predecessor” of turanians?
A small correction on my former comment (which is awaiting moderation):
Varg and his wife think that native europeans were originally neanderthals, but current white europeans are mixed individuals with the main genetic contribution coming from neanderthal.
“Varg and his wife think that native europeans were originally neanderthals, but current white europeans are mixed individuals with the main genetic contribution coming from neanderthal.”
They are utterly wrong. “Whites” only have small amounts of Neanderthal DNA and morphology. While some Paleolithic European Homo sapiens 40,000 years ago (i.e. when the mixture with Neanderthals was happening) do show noticeable Neanderthal-influenced features, it would be quite difficult to look at a modern skeleton and find definitive traces of Neanderthal influence. Maybe some individuals have extreme atavisms, but this is not significant on a population level.
Of course, if WNs feel “whites” have more in common with Neanderthals than Humans, that’s fine with us.
“If so, does this have any relevance for the history of the Aryan race?”
Not really. From what I’ve read, it seems tiny amounts of Neanderthal DNA are mixed into all groups which left Africa, and even a number of African groups have Neanderthal DNA from groups who migrated back into Africa.
Phenotypically, Aryans are much more distant from Neanderthals than Paleolithic hunter-gatherer descended populations. Aryans are more skeletally gracile, have longer limb proportions, and their skulls are more different from Neanderthals than Paleolithic “whites”. So we might hypothesize that Aryans have less Neanderthal DNA than non-Aryans, but there has been so much mixing over the past 10,000 years, and the alleged ‘Neanderthal DNA’ is such a small proportion of people’s DNA to begin with, that it doesn’t make much of a difference.
“Were the original/real Aryans sapiens-only, while neanderthals were the original hunter-gatherer and denisovan the… “predecessor” of turanians?”
No, Aryans, Turanians, and Paleolithic Europeans are all H. sapiens, and mixture with Neanderthals or Denisovans likely did not have too great of an impact.
But again, if our enemies want to play up the importance of Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA, that’s fine with us.
@JJ
“Of course, if WNs feel “whites” have more in common with Neanderthals than Humans, that’s fine with us.”
Their primary obsession is to distance themselves from “black” people, whom they insist belongs to a different species. The very idea that both they and “black” people are Homo Sapiens causes them psychological unease. So the moment they learned that “black” people had on average the least Neanderthal DNA, they instantly made Neanderthal DNA their identity flagship. This might all be amusing if not for the fact that now they are increasingly acting on their neuroses:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/03/timothy_caughman_s_murder_was_a_lynching_in_trump_s_america.html
(But of course no travel ban from Maryland into NYC will be proposed by Trump…..)
“Aryans are more skeletally gracile”
I’m still trying to figure out how to promote aesthetic preference for gracility, as well as ectomorphy. There is currently some appreciation for female gracility and ectomorphy (though rightists frequently mock men who prefer such women as “repressed pederasts”), but there is very little appreciation for male gracility and ectomorphy. Any good ideas?
@AS
Have you ever read Madison Grant’s “Passing of the Great Race”? I haven’t read it in awhile, but I think Grant legitimately tried to say in it that at least Neanderthals aren’t “negroes”. And to be honest myself tho, I only read it after reading “The Great Gatsby”.
You Nazi scum are fucking liars. Hitler was no leftist and if he was a leftist, why did he shut down labor unions and supported the aristocratic capitalists? Plus the Nazis discriminated the LGBT community, sending them to the concentration camps, and my great grandmother who was a bisexual was sent to the camps. You delusional assholes disgust me with your obvious dishonesty and revisionism of war world war 2. I hope you guys kill yourselves or don’t reproduce at all because I don’t want another fucking holocaust to happen (if you guys were in power you would send all the Jews, Slavs, transsexuals, homosexuals and the mentally disabled to the gas chambers).
@AS I would suggest that these circumstances are attributed to the nature of racial mixing in antiquity. When one group would conquer another, the prescription for the conquered was that all the men would be killed, and the women and children enslaved or taken as wives/harems. If an Aryan population was conquered, most of the Aryan men would be killed, and the women would mostly be absorbed into the conquering population. DNA tells us that male and female genetics are uniquely inherited to an extent via mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome. I hypothesize that women could therefore contain a greater extent of, or more frequent occurrence of Aryan blood than men. This would also, at least partially, explain why I have a difficult time distinguishing Aryan phenotypes in women than men, which are quite easy to tell apart for me.
@Jason:
Did you know the Iraqis were also building gas chambers for the Jewish people? I read it in a Jewish Press article, you can find it online. Although, considering you are incapable of reading comprehension it probably won’t mean much to you.
Lastly, if you’re going to claim we are ‘revisionists’ you should be able to prove it with, no?
@Gallery Guy
“I haven’t read it in awhile, but I think Grant legitimately tried to say in it that at least Neanderthals aren’t “negroes”.”
I think I found the quote you’re thinking of, but he wasn’t suggesting Neanderthals are better than “Negroes”. The only racist judgment he makes in this passage is saying that Australian aborigines and some Irishmen are on the same level of primitiveness as Neanderthals.
“In later Acheulean times a new human species, very likely descended from the early Heidelberg Man of Eolithic times, appears on the scene and is known as the Neanderthal race. Many fossil remains of this type have been found.
The Neanderthaloids occupied the European stage exclusively, with the possible exception of the Piltdown Man, from the appearance of man in Europe to the end of the Middle Paleolithic.
…
The Neanderthal species disappears suddenly and completely with the advent of postglacial times, when, about 25,000 years ago, it was apparently supplanted or exterminated by a new and far higher race, the famous Cro-Magnons.
There may well have been during Mousterian times races of man in Europe other than the Neanderthaloids, but of them we have found no record. Among the numerous remains of Neanderthals, however, we do find traces of distinct types showing that this race in Europe was undergoing evolution and was developing marked variations in characters.
Neanderthal Man was an almost purely meat eating hunter, living in caves or rather in their entrances. He was dolichocephalic and not unlike existing Australoids, although not necessarily of black skin and was, of course, in no sense a Negro.
…
Some of its blood may have trickled down to the present time and occasionally one sees a skull apparently of the Neanderthal type. The best skull of this type ever seen by the writer belonged to a very intellectual professor in London, who was quite unconscious of his value as a museum specimen. In the old black breed of Scotland the overhanging brows and deep-set eyes are suggestive of this race.
Along with other ancient and primitive racial remnants, ferocious gorilla-like living specimens of Paleolithic man are found not infrequently on the west coast of Ireland and are easily recognized by the great upper lip, bridgeless nose, beetling brow with low growing hair and wild and savage aspect. The proportions of the skull which give rise to this large upper lip, the low forehead and the superorbital ridges are certainly Neanderthal characters. The other traits of this Irish type are common to many primitive races. …If, as it is claimed, the Neanderthals have left no trace of their blood in living populations, these Firbolgs are derived from some very ancient and primitive race as yet undescribed.” -Madison Grant
“There is nothing whatever of the Negroid in the Cro-Magnons and they are not in any way related to the Neanderthals, who represent a distinct and, save for the suggestions made above, an extinct species of man.” -Madison Grant
@Legion
Your hypothesis is supported even without mixing via deadly conquest.
In evolutionary terms, males in many species are under stronger sexual selection than females, so they become sexually-differentiated faster than females (this is apparent in some birds for example, where the male is brightly colored).
If you are curious about this, biologists sometimes quantify this difference using Bateman Gradients:
“Although it is common to confuse Bateman’s ideas with those of later scientists, his principle can be expressed in three simple statements. The first is that male reproductive success increases with the number of mates they attempt to copulate with, while female reproductive success does not. The second is that male reproductive success will show greater variance than female. The third is that sexual selection will have a greater effect on the sex with greater variance in reproductive success.
…
[In Bateman's study on flies] male reproductive success increased at a steady and steep rate, never dropping. Female reproductive success, on the other hand, plateaued after a single mate. …His main conclusion was that the reproductive success of females does not increase with an influx of mates, as one fit mate was enough to successfully complete fertilization. This is often referred to as Bateman’s Gradient.”
Basically, the most masculine males have many more children than the least masculine males (who in many animal species often end up with 0 offspring–no executions needed), whereas fewer females have difficulty finding a mate and females have less offspring overall compared to males. (In humans, females must wait 9 months before having a second child, while a male could impregnate many women during that 9 month period!) Therefore alleles for high masculinity are passed on at a quicker rate than alleles for high femininity.
In Aryanist vocabulary, men have been comparatively more corrupted by masculinity than women have been corrupted by femininity.
@GG
“Have you ever read Madison Grant’s “Passing of the Great Race”?”
I have read parts of it, enough to get the gist. Compared to the views of today’s WNs (who typically consider Eastern Europe to have the best blood on the grounds that identitarian groups there are more proficient at bullying), I find myself almost nostalgic for Grant’s theories! Grant classified Eastern Europe as more “Alpine” (which he considered inferior), whereas we consider it to have more Turanian admixture.
Here are some familiar “Alpine” heads:
http://gdb.voanews.com/4DE00C0F-4A78-4999-8480-91973927C9B4_cx0_cy6_cw0_mw1024_s_n_r1.jpg
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/ministerprsident-robert-fico-whrend-einer-pressekonferenz-anlslich-picture-id550201445
http://www.kamilbazelak.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Jaros%C5%82aw-Kaczy%C5%84ski.jpg
The one good thing about them is that they make nice targets for NS’s .50…..
@Legion
“I would suggest that these circumstances are attributed to”
I didn’t exactly ask why people do not presently appreciate male gracility, I asked how we can PROMOTE appreciation for male gracility. Let’s be positive!
“I have a difficult time distinguishing Aryan phenotypes in women”
You are welcome to post pictures of examples that you find ambiguous.
@AS
“but there is very little appreciation for male gracility and ectomorphy. Any good ideas?”
Other than showing examples of good-looking ectomorphic men, and thereby proving they can be attractive, I’m not sure.
In recent years there seems to have been a surge in movements which appreciate different body types (mostly in women)–e.g. “fat acceptance”/”beautiful at any size”, increased interest in body-building (which is being heavily marketed to women), and of course there are people who fixate on becoming so frail that they develop anorexia.
I’m sure we could enter into the fray and show males that there are more body types available than ripped Xtreme mega-muscle body-builder.
@JJ I think your hypothesis is more relevant to already racially mixed societies, whereas mine was geared more towards in what manner societies became racially mixed.
@AS I understand what you are looking for, I just wanted to share something I’ve frequently pondered and is related to the subject.
“You are welcome to post pictures of examples that you find ambiguous.”
I’ll take you up on this offer.
Promoting male ectomorphy and male Aryan phenotype is a lot easier with resources at our disposal. Heroes depicted as Aryan looking in comics and films; successful in social relations, craft, work, and labor, as well as athleticism, especially in more holistic bodily functions i.e. gymnastics
If you want to try and make promotional material now, you could try this through animation (make a show of similar construction to the Xombie series for example, but obviously made unique: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AbsS6BrZh8), or through the use of memes we could perhaps get our point across.
@JJ & Legion
“I’m sure we could enter into the fray and show males that there are more body types available than ripped Xtreme mega-muscle body-builder.”
“comics and films”
I’m glad Legion mentioned comics. In the US, at least, we could criticize Marvel, DC, etc. (owned by you-know-who) for stabilizing the drawn heroic type as robust (heavy jawline and often cleft chin, brow ridge, and generally non-neotenous facial features, thick joints, and other signs of thick bones) as well as extremely mesomorphic (heavy muscle bulk), for example:
http://cdn.designrfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/New_Batman_color_by_JPR04.jpg
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5800000/Punisher-the-punisher-5858285-1024-768.jpg
http://superwall.us/wallpaper/superman_dc_comics_superheroes_hd-wallpaper-_RMU.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8b/84/19/8b841945436297c5857d8d671812c0ff.jpg
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3500000/Wolverine-Comics-wolverine-3508261-800-600.jpg
A contrasting drawn heroic type is already well-developed in non-Western comics, which I think we could use for guidance, for example:
http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/76.jpg
Look at how much narrower both the limbs and the torsos are! Their waists are thinner than some of the Marvel guys’ arms! And the chins, brows, etc. are all lighter. What do you guys think?
The nearest physique to this type in Marvel would be someone like Nightcrawler:
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/13600000/Nightcrawler-nightcrawler-13647668-385-573.jpg
yet not only is Nightcrawler a relatively minor character, but he is portrayed as a freak with his tail, his three-digit hands/feet and non-human posture…..
REGARDING THE PROMOTION OF MALE GRACILITY: I THINK THAT IT IS A FUTILE ENDEAVOUR, OR AT LEAST SUPERFLUOUS; THOSE WHO REGARD MALE GRACILITY AS BETTER ALREADY HAVE ARYAN AESTHETIC SENSIBILITY, AND THOSE WHO DO NOT, WILL NEVER CHANGE THEIR AESTHETIC SENSIBILITY, REGARDLESS OF EXTERNAL SUGGESTION, OR FORCE.
REGARDLESS, IF IT IS ATTEMPTED, I THINK THAT THE BETTER WAY WOULD BE VIA ETHICOMORALITY —STEREOTYPING EVERYTHING NOBLE, AND CONDUCIVE TO THE “GOOD”, WITH PHYSICAL GRACILITY—, SINCE ETHICOMORALITY IS MORE MUTABLE THAN AESTHETICS, THUS, IF ONE IS NOT ABLE TO IMPROVE NONARYAN AESTHETIC STANDARDS, AT LEAST ONE WILL ACHIEVE AN UNCONSCIOUS CORRELATION BETWEEN NOBLE PERSONALITY, AND PHYSICAL GRACILITY, IN NONARYAN MINDS.
@RY
I changed. I used to value mesomorphy as a male ideal, as well as high sexual dimorphism. This is the world I was brought up in and eventually came to accept. This same situation happens to most people. This website, along with my own research and conscious reasoning led me to alter (or perhaps return to) my ideals.
By creating examples via entertainment or otherwise, we are helping people retain appreciation (or to begin to appreciate) ectomorphy, gracility, and low sexual dimorphism. This is not a moot endeavor.
I SUBMITTED TWO COMMENTS; ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN “AWAITING MODERATION” FOR APPROXIMATELY TWENTYTWO HOURS.
WHY?
@RY
As we’ve mentioned to people in the past, when someone submits a post with links, it must be approved before appearing. Moderators are not always logged on at every waking moment to approve posts.