Summer cleaning

So, what I’ve done is merged the old ZC and BS Lists into a single Backlash Herders page, which now lists only Jews:

http://aryanism.net/blog/information/backlash-herders/

As previously discussed, the non-Jews have become far too numerous to keep up with. Which in itself is the clearest sign we have of how big the backlash has become. We need your help to stop it. If you want to help us, please send in a contact form:

http://aryanism.net/about/contact/

Because the Backlash Herders page was made by transplanting the BS Jews over into the old ZC List, this means that the comments section of the page is that of the old ZC List. However, I noted that there were some valuable discussions in the comments section of the old (now removed) BS List, so I have decided to repost select edited comment excerpts in this post. Hopefully newcomers and regulars alike can benefit from revisiting these old discussions and perhaps even further elaborating on the arguments involved; I have put in bold my personal favourite parts. Please also take this opportunity to discuss anti-backlash argumentation tactics in general. If you have encountered enemy arguments that you have trouble dealing with, please feel welcome to post them below in case someone else might be able to suggest good counterarguments to them.

AS vs “Red Pill” junkie:

“You claim that tribalism, which is natural, is exactly what the Jews want us to practice. Well, why do they preach communism across the globe?”

Because communism is the tribalism of proles. By the way, they have not preached communism for several decades. The more recent involvement of Jews is with far-right politics.

“Why do they condemn all forms of Tribalism other than their own?”

They do not. They promote it. One way by which they promote it is to make it non-PC, so that useful idiots like yourself then think you are rebelling when you are actually following the Zionist script.

But it is universalist ideologies which Jews have truly opposed throughout history, because only universalist ideologies expose the inferiority of Judaism (a tribalist religion) and hence of Jews themselves in comparison. Gentile tribalist ideologies, on the other hand, normalize Judaism and hence remove the motivation to destroy it.

“Whites pose the greatest threat to World Jewry.”

LOL! In an alternate world history where “whites” never existed, would Jews be more powerful or less powerful than they are today?

“It seems that YOU are helping the Zionist cause by preaching anti-tribalism”

Remember to tell that to Jesus also. Only universalists are able to despise tribalists with the intensity required to not rest until they have been wiped out. That is what we need to destroy Zionism, not more tribes in addition to Jews (which just spreads the disease)!

“The second I read that you are anti-tribalism (not allowing human beings to group naturally with others like them)”

I am currently grouping with people like myself (other universalists); the hint is in our motto: UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY. That is folkism, not tribalism. Do you see the difference? Two tribalists from different tribes may share a belief in tribalism, but this shared belief does not unite them, instead it sets them against each other. Two universalists, in contrast, are united by their shared belief in universalism.

“You say race doesn’t matter”

We say race matters. “Whiteness” is what doesn’t matter.

“and that as long as “Aryans” carry “the torch” it doesn’t matter what “team” they are from?”

And that is what we mean by race.

“Well then why do you exclude Jews?”

Because they are tribalists.

“Is it because of their racial makeup or soul?”

Both. Any group which lives among another larger group for multiple generations (as Jews have done for several thousand years) and still exists as a distinct identity has surely selected for genetic tendencies towards tribalism within its own members (since any non-tribalists among them would have integrated, so each new unintegrated generation will be more tribalistic than the generation before). Therefore even an individual Jew today who claims to be universalist should not be trusted, unless he voluntarily refuses to reproduce (as Jesus did).

“Then I could argue Blacks and other races who have lower IQs and more of a genetic propensity for violence etc., couldn’t be Aryans either.”

If “blacks” had a consistent historical record of refusing integration, then we would treat them no differently than Jews. (Indeed this is why National Socialism is hostile to Gypsies.) But that’s not the case for “blacks” at all. Wherever welcomed, “blacks” have always enthusiastically integrated. WNs implicitly admit this every time they complain about “black” men having sex with “white” women! (Portugal, for example, once had a “black” community which has since been fully absorbed into the population.) Wherever “blacks” remain unintegrated, it is invariably because others took measures to keep them segregated. In the US, for example, it was “white”, not “black”, Americans who passed Jim Crow laws. Indeed the very fact that “blackness” is defined as possessing any quantity of “black” ancestry shows clearly that the concept of “blackness” is fundamentally integrationist. The same cannot be said for “whiteness”, which is defined not by possession of “white” ancestry but by non-possession of “non-white” ancestry (a.k.a. the One Drop Rule).

If IQ were the qualification for being Aryan, Jews would be the most Aryan of all.

As for genetic propensity for violence, you have to be fucking kidding me. In world history, the “black” civilizations have been BY FAR the least aggressive. Alexander was not “black”. Genghis Khan was not “black”. Not a single one of the colonial empires were “black”. “Blacks” did not introduce WMDs to the world, nor banking with all its economic consequences, nor industrialization with all its environmental consequences, nor democracy with all its sociopolitical consequences, and the list could go on for hours if I wanted (dont even get me started about the indescribable quantity of violence involving trillions of victims in meat/egg/dairy factories, again not introduced by “blacks”). “Blacks” certainly did not help to create Israel! In fact, NONE of the enormous problems in the world that we have to deal with today were created by “blacks”, NOT ONE. This is why I get angry whenever people trash “blacks”, one of the ethnicities LEAST responsible for the mess we’re currently in. I don’t care about ethnicity myself, but when others start talking about ethnicity first, I will always remind them which ethnicity is MOST responsible for the mess we’re currently in. (Hint: not “blacks”.)

“which race produced the most Aryans and the most advanced civilizations? It was the Caucasian race; mostly “White people” I would say.”

If that were the case, we should at least expect that Aryan movements in Europe would have been less persecuted than Aryan movements in other parts of the world. This is not the case. Look what happened to the Pythagoreans, the Cathars/Bogomils, and National Socialist Germany. You simply don’t know what you are talking about (despite supposedly spending hours reading the site).

“Jews use homosexuality to destroy morality and the family unit of Goy nations, which is my main reason I stand against it from being accepted and taught to our children as “normal”.”

Jews were the ones who introduced homophobia thousands of years ago! Read the Tanakh! Before Judaism, nobody cared! That’s what we need to get back to. The fact that you are homophobic shows you have bought into the Judaic worldview, and are thus unqualified to be a serious anti-Zionist. Serious anti-Zionism entails rejecting everything Judaic, including homophobia.

“denying nature”

If there is one thing we DO NOT do, it’s deny nature. If we denied nature, we would be talking about using education to improve everyone. We don’t. We talk about breeding first and education second.

“One can race-mix if they choose to, but others can refuse to do it and protect their children from doing so.”

In other words the children don’t get to choose. You’re not fooling anyone with your wordplay.

“I ask what is wrong with a White Nationalist who simply wants a future for White children in their own ethno state; wishing no harm on anyone else?”

I ask what is wrong with Israel.

“For you to deny these types of Whites, or any people, who are compassionate towards others and only want to be safe in their own homelands would make you a supremacist, by claiming they have no right to their own form of sovereignty and that they must live according to your anti-tribal standards.”

Jews tell me the same thing when I criticize Israel. I don’t take them seriously either.

“Hell, you even have a list of religions you want to destroy – how are you compassionate Aryans again?”

Compassion is not tolerance. Only those who lack compassion will tolerate cruelty.

“Jews want the whole world to be multicultural cesspool except for Israhell. You seem to want the same thing.”

No, we want to destroy Israel.

We are also against multiculturalism. We want to create a new culture. We merely allow individuals of all ethnic backgrounds to participate in this project.

Besides, who says Jews want the whole world multicultural??? I think they want non-Jewish ethnostates to form so that Israel won’t be the only ethnostate in the world and therefore will become harder to criticize. That’s why they are using multiculturalism to engineer a backlash against multiethnic society. We want to show that multiethnic society can work so long as it is not multicultural.

“But do you realize that multiculturalism is the PRECURSOR to all conflict?”

Make sure you tell that to the Incans. There they were with an entire ocean separating them from Spain, so no multiculturalism there! But then all of a sudden your favourite ethnicity came along and massacred them. TRIBALISM is the precursor to conflict.

“How can you have “racism” in a nation that has ONE race?”

Ask the people who massacred the Incans. As long as Spain was multiethnic (Andalus), the Incans were safe. The moment Spain became monoethnic again, the Incans were in trouble.

While you’re at it, ask any of the other colonial empires. Each one started as a monoethnic nation. Precisely because of this, each developed a tribal identity around their ethnicity, and colonialism was the result. You’re not even aware of this, and you call yourself a realist?

“How can you have religious conflict in a nation that is ONE religion?”

Again, ask the people who massacred the Incans.

“Wouldn’t it make more sense to solve both issues by allowing people to live among their own?”

And the next thing you know, they are massacring the Incans. That’s why Spain should have stayed Andalus.

“THAT is a permanent solution to these issues; tribalism/nationalism SOLVES them permanently.”

Tell that to the Incans.

“2.) Multiculturalism doesn’t work, and never will work, and is the precursor to all conflict. 3.) You cannot alter the immutable laws of nature because of your feelings; conflict is part of the natural order and is here to stay.”

Which is it? If conflict is part of the natural order, then it would not be ended by removing multiculturalism. But of course you don’t notice your self-contradiction because you didn’t think of any of these ideas yourself, you just read them at far-right blogs.

“each race/people/religion, should have their own homeland with borders and their own way of life.”

That was what we had hundreds of years ago. Ask the Incans what happened next.

“But it seems, after reading your site, you would not allow Tribalists to exist in their own lands because you claim that they would eventually be a threat”

Ask the Incans if you don’t believe me. Or the Palestinians.

“yet you fail to see that your multiethnic/racial/religious states are states that will produce conflict anyway, and ARE A THREAT THEMSELVES.”

A threat to Jews, and to people like yourself (Gentiles). That’s the point. What kind of anti-Zionists would we be if we do not intend to be a threat to Zionism? Again, do you bother to think before writing?

“Why do you preach against those tribalists/nationalists, who wish to form an ethnostate away from your kind?”

What do you want me to do, say Israel has a ‘right’ to exist?

“Jews, with their tribalism, have survived for thousands of years while other nations collapsed BECAUSE of race-mixing and multiculturalism.”

Jews have wreaked havoc around the world for thousands of years because of their tribalism, and now we have a chance to finish them off. You want to ruin this chance.

“you are actually supremacists that will not allow others to live how they wish”

Jews tell me the same thing when I criticize Israel. I don’t take them seriously either.

“You say are against oppression, yet you have no qualms destroying those who you disagree with.”

I am against oppression, therefore I certainly have no qualms destroying oppressors.

“You say Aryans are people who have freedom and refuse slavery, so then you are destroyers if you wish to destroy all people who want their own type of freedom; like living in their own lands secluded from others…”

Jews tell me the same thing when I criticize Israel. I don’t take them seriously either.

“Would you wish to destroy the Amish for doing just that?”

I would destroy the Amish just for their tradition of torturing children (following the methods prescribed in the Tanakh) alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish_way_of_life#Child_discipline

“Also, I am not homophobic because I’m not afraid of gays or whatever, but I don’t think their lifestyle is healthy nor would I hope my children are gay so my lineage dies off.”

In other words, you view your children as Goys for the function of continuing your lineage. That is a selfish and exploitative attitude, which I have come to expect from people like yourself.

“Every species/organism on earth wants to ensure its bloodline continues and genes are passed on”

I point you to the giant pandas that are currently being raped by machines as we speak because they themselves have no interest in continuing their bloodlines but humans are forcing them to reproduce so that humans can derive pleasure from watching them in zoos.

“No parents are hoping their children are gay.”

It’s none of the parents’ business in the first place.

“I have a handful of gay friends and we get along because they aren’t running around forcing homosexual propaganda down my throat. Those who did, actually stopped being my friend because they could not accept that I didn’t agree with their lifestyle.”

I am willing to bet that they did not attempt to argue that “heterosexuality” is wrong. You, however, are arguing that “homosexuality” is wrong. Who is forcing stuff down whose throat?

“Do you believe a Christian bakery should be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple if it violates their beliefs?”

I believe it is deceptive for such a bakery to call itself “Christian”, since Jesus was not homophobic. They should not be forced to bake a cake for anyone, but if they refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because the couple is gay, they should be required to describe their bakery as “Judaic” in all correspondence henceforth, and to put a Star of David on their door.

“you do realize that the Jews use the LGBT community to cause drama, so we agree with that point.”

The point is that it would be mechanically impossible for Jews to use the LGBT community to cause drama if homophobia were rejected. Therefore it is people like yourself who make it possible for Jewish tactics to so easily succeed.

“none of us have a problem with Japan.”

Japan is not an ethnostate. It does not legally restrict interethnic marriage. On the contrary, anyone who has one Japanese parent is automatically Japanese, irrespective of the ethnic background of the other parent (try to persuade your WN friends to adopt this policy and see how far you get), and even people with no Japanese ancestry can, and have, become Japanese. On the other hand, people with even 100% Japanese ancestry who have lived abroad are not necessarily welcome to return to Japan (notable example being Brazilians of Japanese descent), further demonstrating that ethnicity is not the priority.

“To give you some background I have only been aware of the “jewish problem” for about 2 years now”

Then I guess you weren’t around back in 2007-2009 when the first-generation post-9/11 anti-Zionist activists had established a solid non-racist anti-Zionist movement (culminating in the OWNP), and then crypto-Jews inundated us with WNs who contaminated our work by stealing our research but inverting our message from the need to end tribalism (Jews being tribalists and therefore the enemy of the world) to the need for “white” tribalism to RIVAL Jewish tribalism. I was around back then, which is why I know first-hand that WN is absolute poison to serious anti-Zionism. You are looking at the scene after Zionist agents have already come in and gone back out, having altered its essence.

This was our song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foTWkiIwg10

We might have won by now if not for WN.

“I stated I have compassion for all people and are willing to help them all, but I can’t do that if my people are destroyed now can I?”

On the contrary, it is realistically likely to come down to nuclear war if we are to destroy Israel (look up the Samson Option). Only those who are willing to risk destroying ‘their own’ people in order to simultaneously destroy Israel have any hope of destroying Israel.

“I do want to protect my people from genocide.”

Jews tell me the same thing. I don’t take them seriously either.

“I don’t’ agree with flooding Whiten nations with Islam and non-Whites etc. I don’t’ agree with affirmative action and racial quotas…Do you?”

I believe everyone should be allowed to live where they want, since none of us choose where we were born. I oppose the Mexica Movement that wants “white” Americans to be expelled from America, just as I oppose Golden Dawn that wants “non-white” Europeans to be expelled from Europe.

I am against quotas.

I am also against BobWhitakerisms such as “flooding” to describe entirely voluntary migration by individuals and “genocide” to describe entirely voluntary interethnic marriage by individuals. (I bet it was Bob Whitaker who taught you to throw Japan at me also.) You call me condescending, but I assure you there is nothing more condescending than using BobWhitakerisms in a serious discussion.

“And yes, the West colonized and do bad things, sure…But I was not there for that nor would I condone such things today.”

Which is why, if you are a “white” American, I would fight for you to be allowed to continue living in America if you wish to do so. I only despise you because you would not in return fight for “non-white” Europeans to continue living in Europe if they wish to do so.

“I do not agree with genocide; especially “white genocide” which is of my own people…”

I do not agree with using BobWhitakerisms in a serious discussion.

“Blacks are responsible for 92% of the interracial crime on whites. They rape white women at the rate of 30k per year with under 10 white men raping black women per year….the knock out game etc…”

Arrest and execute the criminals. What else do you expect me to say? Let innocent people take the blame? By the way, I don’t take FBI information at face value, since according to the FBI, al-Qaeda did 9/11.

“Are you telling me you will feel less safe in a White or Asian town than a Black town?”

Nobody is safe in a world with weapons that allow combat with no risk to the attacker, such as nukes, chemical/biological weapons, drones, sniper satellites and other remote-controlled devices, or even conventional explosives delivered by bomber aircraft or ballistic missiles (don’t get me started about chemtrails). Nobody is safe in a world filled with radioactive waste and smog and fluoridated water and toxic soil/building materials and oil spills that can’t be cleaned up and nuclear meltdowns that can’t be cleaned up. Nobody is safe in a world where people are shot up with vaccines since childhood. In fact, nobody is safe in a world where food is not grown locally. I suppose you want to tell me that all this is the fault of “blacks”.

Feeling safe has little to do with being safe. The Incans were probably feeling safe until your favourite ethnicity arrived and massacred them.

“Lets not forget the Irish slaves.”

I get along with many Irish nationalists because they refuse to self-identify as “white”, but instead stand in solidarity with fellow victims of the British Empire. I also like their welcoming attitude towards immigrants to Ireland, which they base on the reasoning that they should treat immigrants to Ireland as they would wish other countries treat Irish immigrants. This is the kind of attitude we desperately need more of these days. This is real nationalism.

“Blacks and Mexicans commit MOST of the crime in the US and they are a minority.”

According to feminists, men commit most of the crime, therefore let’s blame men as a whole! This is what you sound like to me. And I still don’t take FBI information at face value.

“But how many White towns do you know that are full of crime to the point people aren’t safe to walk the streets?”

Castile was so dangerous that even people on the other side of the ocean were not safe to walk the streets. Ask the Incans about it.

“So why is it wrong for someone who wants to live in an all-White town/state/country where they know crime would be less; the streets safer/ the women safer/ the children safer???”

Jews ask me the same thing with reference to Israel. I don’t take them seriously either.

“Children of multiracial parents look nothing like them”

If JJ weren’t so busy he’d eat you alive on this point.

“The fact you promote Hitler all over this site you should realize he was against race-mixing and would only encourage to breed the best with the best”

That’s what we encourage. For example, I would not allow you to reproduce with any of our team members.

“had the Spanish not been among the Inca, they would have not been able to destroy them…which is my point.”

But in reality they did go there, which is my point. If ethnoseparatism worked, the monoethnic Spanish would have stayed in Spain. They didn’t. So you are wrong.

(By the way, the Incans themselves were not monoethnic, they were a multiethnic society including more than 200 formerly separate groups. So we have one multiethnic society (Andalus) and another multiethnic society (Inca Empire) living in peace on two sides of the ocean. Suddenly, one society becomes monoethnic (Spain) and then the next thing you know the other is wiped out despite the ocean separating them. Yet, according to you, multiethnic society is the problem?)

“If Israel minded her own business, I wouldn’t care if she wanted to exist; not being a parasite or destroying other nations. In fact, if every Jew went to Israel and cut themselves off from the rest of the planet, the Jewish question would be solved.”

That’s what they want you to think. The next thing you know, Jews will have built such a large technological edge over everyone else that they can conquer the world by pressing a button. That’s what they are working on in Israel right now. Every day we let Israel continue to exist, they move closer to this endgame.

“You do believe in sovereignty I hope.”

I believe in sovereignty in the original autocratic sense ie. the monarch is sovereign. I am nostalgic for the ancient world when simply knowing that an immigrant population has been welcomed as new citizens by the monarch is the only reason the rest of the citizenry needed to welcome them also. Whereas these days it’s all “We want a referendum!” and other democratic garbage.

Trivia:

Interesting trivia:

“Cow’s flesh, however, none of these [Libyan] tribes ever taste, but abstain from it for the same reason as the Egyptians, neither do they any of them breed swine. Even at Cyrene, the women think it wrong to eat the flesh of the cow, honoring in this Isis, the Egyptian goddess, whom they worship both with fasts and festivals. The Barcaean women abstain, not from cow’s flesh only, but also from the flesh of swine.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_mythology#Egyptian_deities

Humour from AW:

I like that we’ve managed to mention both types of Isis in this conversation.

Christianity from Hashtali:

the word “enemy” is a mistranslation of the original Greek “echthros” (plural: “echthroi”). “Ecthros” is actually somebody who hates you … Thus Jesus was saying love those who hate you, try to mend discord, try to help them. But he was not saying love those whom you hate

JJ vs another “Red Pill” junkie:

“Funny thing is you’re marching in lockstep with George Soros, Peter Sutherland and company who fully back the mass transposition of refugees and migrants to Europe.”

Zionists like Soros, etc. have caused conflict in the Middle East and support having the refugees come to Europe because they know that reactionaries like yourself will promote identitarianism to FURTHER DIVIDE non-Jews.

We on the other hand realize what the Zionists are trying to do and are attempting to PREVENT non-Jews from being further divided along ethnic lines. That’s what UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY means. Anyone who can’t see that inter-ethnic conflict between non-Jews only benefits Jews is not qualified to call themselves an anti-Zionist. (And anyone who immediately reacts to a crisis by turning to selfish identitarianism instead of selflessly extending a helping hand to fellow victims of Zionist violence is not qualified to say they have empathy either…)

You claim Jews are trying to elicit ‘extreme’ empathy in Europeans. Instead there has been a massive surge in the far right and widespread acceptance of racist attitudes. Do you really think Jews are dumb enough to “accidentally” mess up on such a grand scale? You are falling for their reverse-bluff.

“Western culture is not some monolithic thing. There are many variants to “Western” culture, all of which should be preserved in its unique forms.”

Should we preserve Jewish culture and the Jewish race simply because they exist (not to mention _their_ contributions to “Western” culture and all it’s derivatives)??? If not, why should Western cultures be preserved simply for existing?

We are idealists, we wish to remove ignoble elements from all cultures–fundamentally changing them. We do not wish to “preserve” anything.

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Summer cleaning

  1. John Johnson says:

    Do you still have a list of the non-Jew ZCs/BSs saved somewhere?

    As I mentioned before, even if there are too many Gentiles to keep track of, our lists were still light years ahead of other lists compiled by anti-racists, and therefore it is a public service to at least have that info available somewhere.

  2. AS says:

    @JJ

    “Do you still have a list of the non-Jew ZCs/BSs saved somewhere?”

    If you go to the ‘Edit’ option under each relevant page, you can access previously saved versions. Versions from before July 2017 would include the non-Jews.

    “even if there are too many Gentiles to keep track of”

    Most of the new racists today aren’t even Gentiles, but raceless people who are turning to racism just because they see it becoming popular and fashionable. They often introduce themselves as “former anti-racists”, “recovering anti-racists”, etc., whereas new Gentile racists introduce themselves with lines like “I had always been disgusted seeing black men with white women but just didn’t know why” etc..

    In a past private discussion, I proposed that a possible litmus test to distinguish a Gentile racist from a raceless racist is whether or not the visceral disgust towards interethnic couples exists in them. If it does, they are not worth the effort of persuasion. Even if you give a fantastic speech and temporarily tune them in to anti-racism, the effect only lasts until they catch a glimpse of the next interethnic couple on the street or on TV, which instantly takes over their entire brain and plugs it back in to racism. Gentiles are THAT PRIMITIVE.

    The raceless, on the other hand, I believe can be persuaded to an extent. We just have to show that we can consistently smash racists in debate. In other words, if we – and I mean all of us – are not debating as dominatingly as we can be, then it is OUR FAULT that the backlash continues to grow among the raceless.

    By the way, earlier this month I received a mailing list email from JAM where he and his guys were discussing a related topic. Here is an excerpt:

    I’ve theorized before that there is no legitimate anti-Jewish sentiment among White Nationalists—that it’s just all a charade, even at at the lowest levels.

    White Nationalist, Michael Delaney had a strong friendship with the Jew “Quest” (Evren Hun Welshons, mother’s maiden name Kaplan) even after I repeatedly warned him that Quest was a Jew. Popular “Alternative Right” reporter, Lauren Southern, is a half-Jew. Trump is in bed with the Jews. White Nationalists will kill anybody, except Jews. So long as the Jew allows whites to be the head house nigger of all the gentiles, then they don’t really mind that the Jew has so much power. Notice that the whites are getting really loud and frustrated now that it looks like they won’t be the head house nigger anymore. That’s why they look the other way when it comes to Trump’s Jewish connections.

    The whites celebrate their benefits and say, “At least he’s restoring our house nigger status.”

    This is why I’ve said before that whites will never defeat Jewish Supremacy. … it’s privileges come from the Jew—and since they don’t want to let go of all those privileges—they won’t ever destroy Jewish Supremacy. Whites might lose their house nigger status if they did that. Perhaps Blacks, Chinese, East Indians or some other “non-whites” would eventually become the dominant superpower in the world, and “whites” can’t allow that to happen. It’s better for “whites” to let the Jews help them oppress other peoples, so long as the whites aren’t being as oppressed as the non-whites.

    This is not too different from what we have been saying.

  3. Hypnotix says:

    Something that caught my eye:

    The tribalist here said: “you are actually supremacists that will not allow others to live how they wish”

    To which you replied: “Jews tell me the same thing when I criticize Israel. I don’t take them seriously either.”

    Do we truly deny others to live ethnically segregated if they insist on doing so, however? I presumed concentration camps are precisely to keep segregated those who want to stay segregated, with the added condition that they do not reproduce, and merely live out their lives how they wish – i.e. ethnically segregated. Am I missing something?

  4. Gallery Guy says:

    @Hypnotix

    Tribalists would also love to attain power and security for survival in general, which includes procreation. So, we would be dictating how they live.

  5. Gallery Guy says:

    @Hypnotix

    Actually, you know what, that rule applies to indivuals who are like Jesus (that is, that you are an individual with bad genes but still capable of being a noble individual and actually are one, such practicing an intentional abstainence from procreation for your entire life). Any actual tribalistic individual is going to be punished.

  6. AS says:

    @Hypnotix

    “Am I missing something?”

    Their definition of “living how they wish” includes nobody controlling their reproduction.

    “I presumed concentration camps are precisely to keep segregated those who want to stay segregated”

    In terms of pure ethics, if (for example) a non-Jew voluntarily wishes to live and work inside a Jewish concentration camp, should he not be allowed to do so?

    In terms of practicality, concentration camps require a considerable number of camp guards. If we were to acknowledge segregation as a “right”, we would be letting Jews talk us out of stationing non-Jewish guards in their camp, in other words we would have to rely on Jewish(!) camp guards. How do you think that would work out?

  7. Hypnotix says:

    @AS

    “Their definition of “living how they wish” includes nobody controlling their reproduction.”

    Fair enough, though we are basically giving them a choice: if they feel being ethnically segregated is so important to them, they can sacrifice passing down their genes to be as segregated from the rest of society as can be (albeit under constant supervision).

    “In terms of pure ethics, if (for example) a non-Jew voluntarily wishes to live and work inside a Jewish concentration camp, should he not be allowed to do so?”

    Of course he should. I only wonder whether or not such an individual should be prohibited from reproducing as well.

    “If we were to acknowledge segregation as a “right”, we would be letting Jews talk us out of stationing non-Jewish guards in their camp, in other words we would have to rely on Jewish(!) camp guards. How do you think that would work out?”

    I wouldn’t go so far as to call it an acknowledgement of any right to segregate, since rights in general are not conditional on anything, whereas being allowed to live out one’s life segregated in a concentration camp would be conditional upon not having offspring. (Obviously we would never agree to let them supervise themselves on the basis of their wanting same-ethnicity guards.)

  8. Hypnotix says:

    A relevant recent debate between me and Steven:

    Ironic meme… [...] But would you say that means they are tribalists and worthy of Aryan condemnation?”

    Tribalism has to be exclusive, i.e. “No non-blacks allowed.” as opposed to “No whites allowed.” Difference being that, with the second attitude, you could explain that you do not count yourself among the “white” tribe, which should be enough for other “non-whites” to not see you as an enemy. Whereas with the first attitude – i.e. genuine tribalism – this would not work, as not being part of the “white” tribe (or any other tribe) still would not make you accepted, since you would still not be a part of the “black” tribe (hence the exclusivity).

    (This is the same idea we use to explain why anti-Zionism is not racist (parallel with “No Jews allowed.”), by the way.)

    “Lol… So because they dont explicitly say its only blacks, its alright… Hmm”

    Of course it matters what they mean, you can’t tell with absolute certainty from the sign alone. You do have to give them the benefit of the doubt, however.

    “I actually don’t think these guys would be satisfied if I as a white person said, “Your sign doesn’t apply to me because I don’t self identify as white”… I think that whole concept is a bit of a pipe dream probably”

    Being sceptical that these people mean this in the way I described does not mean you do not still have the duty to assume they do until you see evidence to the contrary. Innocent until proven guilty.

    “what I’m meaning is I reckon people wouldn’t get the impression that we believe white people are innocent until proven guilty of tribalism if they follow the Aryanism blog, nor that the BLM can ever do anything that would cause our judgement of them to change to being negative…”

    Self-identified “whites” (much like self-identified Jews) are already guilty of tribalism by their own admission, therefore it is entirely intended for people to assume that from reading the blog. Also, the BLM movement can do plenty to make us hate it, yet so far has not.

    “OK, but if I put no blacks allowed, you wouldn’t give me the benefit of the doubt, right? Cos I’m white… But self identified blacks are fine… Lol. Just being hypothetical”

    “Blacks” did not invent “white” identity, whereas “whites” did invent “black” identity in order to mark “blacks” as an outgroup, and hence keep themselves separate. Prior to colonialism, these people did not think of themselves as “blacks”, but categorized themselves mainly according to language. So when “whites” say “No blacks allowed.”, of course I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt. They are imposing an identity that they themselves invented on people who never chose it.

    Contrast this with “blacks” saying “No whites allowed.” – they are not imposing an identity they invented, but an identity “whites” invented for themselves, much like Jews invented Jewish identity for themselves. You can easily parallel this same exact situation with the Third Reich – Germans saying “No Jews allowed.”, versus Jews saying “No Germans allowed.”

    Continuing from that parallel, notice what you said earlier, adapted for the Third Reich to make the situation more clear: “I actually don’t think these guys would be satisfied if I as a Jewish person said: “Your sign doesn’t apply to me because I don’t self-identify as Jewish.”"

    You would have just admitted to self-identifying as Jewish in the first part of your sentence. If you say you are not Jewish, while internally still believing you are, you would be lying, therefore of course they would not be satisfied. Proof would satisfy them, however.

    “So basically I’m a Jew in your eyes”

    I merely swapped “white” with “Jewish” in your hypothetical situation to make the parallel obvious. What you are depends on you.

    “The trouble is for anyone to have to bend and scrape to someone else’s opinion is the furthest thing from freedom to me… Like honestly what the fuck would I be doing if just to live my life to prove something to some black racists that I’m not white… To hell with them honestly… But if I have a personal preference for having a European ethnicity wife, it makes me a Jew… It seems like in Hypnotic empire, if I don’t choose to go against my personal preference I’m a Jew and worthy of the burn pile”

    We require of Jews to prove they are not racist if they want to be treated as Aryans, we require the same of everyone else. Actively requiring of your wife to not have any “non-white” ancestors – the definition of “whiteness” – (instead of simply not prioritizing ethnicity) is, of course, racist. Hence choosing not to go against that would also be. It wouldn’t make you a Jew worthy of the burn pile. It would, however, mean you should not pass on such genes.

    “So Germans mating with Germans was wrong policy in NS Germany…”

    Contrast “actively requiring” with “having nothing against” having no “non-white” ancestors. Being German does not involve having no “non-white” ancestors, therefore a policy of Germans reproducing with Germans is not racist.

    “The point is that I think supporting BLM who say “No whites allowed” is stupid, because they’re racist, and we might as well admit it, rather than defending them and acting like they’re not racist LOL
    Somehow we have a propensity for hating people because of the colour or lack thereof actually of their skin ROFLMAO
    and as soon as I say something, you just think I’m a white racist boy
    That is how wonderful Aryanism has become ROFLMAO
    This is the very reason most of our long-standing members have left primarily…”

    We do not hate anyone because of his ethnicity alone. We hate those who self-identify as part of an exclusive identity they themselves created to keep themselves separate from everyone else in perpetuity. Such exclusive identities created by their own members are the Jewish identity, the “white” identity, and others.

    The “black” identity, in contrast, is neither exclusive (you need not have exclusively “black” ancestors to be considered “black”), nor created by “blacks” to keep themselves separate from “non-blacks”, but by “white” colonialists to keep “blacks” separate from themselves.

    Therefore we do not hate people who self-identify as “black” (i.e. proud to have had a “black” ancestor, which will continue to be true for such people’s children regardless of the ethnicity of their spouses, therefore they would not care about the ethnicity of their spouses) but do hate people who self-identify as, for example, Jewish or “white” (i.e. proud to have no “non-white” ancestors, which will not continue to be true for such people’s children should they reproduce with “non-whites”, therefore, crucially, they would always categorically refuse to reproduce with any “non-white”).

  9. Schutzmann F1 says:

    Why do you keep on giving speech marks around the words white and black? You do realise Hitler said in Mein Kampf that the Jews brought the Negroes into the Rhineland in order to destroy the white race which they hate so much. And do you also realise that Rosenberg who hated blacks talked of the mulattoisation of America in his memories saying that even the churches have black bishops?

    Also why do we continue to pretend that non Jews can become aryan? When clearly the Aryan Race is for Germanic people only

  10. Gallery Guy says:

    “Why do you keep on giving speech marks around the words white and black? You do realise Hitler said in Mein Kampf that the Jews brought the Negroes into the Rhineland in order to destroy the white race which they hate so much. And do you also realise that Rosenberg who hated blacks talked of the mulattoisation of America in his memories saying that even the churches have black bishops?

    Also why do we continue to pretend that non Jews can become aryan? When clearly the Aryan Race is for Germanic people only”

    “Mein Kampf” was literally written by Hitler as a way to help himself get out of prison to continue his political and social activism via lobbying his party; and not too long afterwards, he tried his best to disassociate himself from the book.

    “But surely you recognize that Hitler was very careful not to offend in this direction in Mein Kampf or anywhere else in public, and I must be ten times more careful here in America.”-George Lincoln Rockwell to Savitri Devi after Devi questioned Rockwell’s use of “white-nationalism” and the “Christian-Identity-Sect” in his political activism.

    Also, Rosenberg spoke negatively about ethnocentric behavior and mannerisms, especially when committed by whites, so you have either misinterpreted what he said about “blacks” by mistake, or you are intentionally spewing falsehoods.

  11. Gallery Guy says:

    @Schutzmann F1

    For your other question, read my recent response to kek.

  12. @Hypnotix
    I get what you’re saying with the “white” identity” being made by those who then self-identified as “white” and then “black identity” being given to those whom the wished to separate from. HOWEVER, don’t we want to get away from colonial terms? So “blacks” should NOT identify as blacks since they should STOP using colonial era identities.

    Just as we don’t identify as “nazis,” which is what Jews and ZCs and PCs call us, but rather we use our own (and historically more accurate) identity of “National Socialists” and also “Aryanists.”

  13. Hypnotix says:

    Strategically as well it would indeed probably be better if they did not use the category “whites” created at all, but my point right now was simply that those who do self-identify as “blacks” are not our enemies, but our allies.

  14. Gallery Guy says:

    @Hypnotix

    “Strategically as well it would indeed probably be better if they did not use the category “whites” created at all, but my point right now was simply that those who do self-identify as “blacks” are not our enemies, but our allies”

    Tread carefully tho. Louis Farrakhan and other members of the “Nation of Islam” gleefully admitted that they had a role in the assassination of Malcolm X. And I think even Allen West (a Congo type) considers himself “black”.

  15. Gallery Guy says:

    @Hypnotix

    I know “black” individuals who literally parade their ethnicity for sole attention while hanging out with known “white” racists in order to be ‘cool’!

    There’s really nothing noble about that.

  16. White raven says:

    Why did Hitler consider Slavic people to be Untermenschen? And saying about them ‘As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them as we see fit, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitants and civilising them, goes straight off into a concentration camp!’

  17. Gallery Guy says:

    @White raven

    “Why did Hitler consider Slavic people to be Untermenschen? And saying about them ‘As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them as we see fit, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitants and civilising them, goes straight off into a concentration camp!’”

    It is best to view Hitler with an idealistic eye while still understanding nature; and, with that said, it’s not good to view the entire “T.T.” as the absolute truth because TT could have easily been corrupted from the start of its establishment (it’s much like the gospels in the “New Testament”; there are some truth among corruptions of texts which have now been established for the public to see). That text you posted in particular comes off as corruption of words that Hitler probably did say. (It doesn’t help that TT also has a lot of translation issues itself, much like the translation issues you would see between the Tanakh and the “New Testament” in English and the Tanakh and “New Testament” in Koine Greek).

  18. Gallery Guy says:

    @White raven

    Also, when and where did Hitler explicitly refer to all Slavs as “Untermenschen”?

  19. White raven says:

    Doesn’t matter where he referred to them. Generalplan Ost was implemented to force Slavs out of Slavic nations for Germanic Lebensraum

  20. Gallery Guy says:

    @white Raven

    “Doesn’t matter where he referred to them. Generalplan Ost was implemented to force Slavs out of Slavic nations for Germanic Lebensraum”.

    Actually, it does matter as to where Hitler explicitly referred to Slavs as Untermenschen. If you can’t show me where he made that explicit reference, then I can safely presume that he didn’t say that. (Side note, you were the one who brought it up in the first place, so you should do the rational thing and prove your point beyond a reasonable doubt.)

    Also, Generalplan Ost was spearheaded by Himmler, who reportedly said decent things on Slavs. But, regardless, Himmler was deemed a traitor by Hitler. And even if Hitler supported such a plan, it was only as much as to retaliate against the Polish government for their pro-French policies. (His views on Poland are well documented his final, political testimony).

  21. White raven says:

    It’s still obvious that the National Socialists hated Slavs as part of their belief in Pan-Germanism, look at Odilo Globocnik only in the SS due to Germanisation which the NatSocialists found more desirable.

    Even if Hitler didn’t say the actual word ‘untermenschen’ he still hated them regardless, and forbade relations with them in Nuremberg laws.

    He even quoted they were a people who ‘felt the need of a master’.

    If Himmler said good things on Slavs, why weren’t more ethnic Slavs non Germanised in the Allgemeine SS?

    Also, the original National Socialists viewed Aryanism more racially than we do, that’s why they gave Honorary Aryan title, which is meaningless as it is bestowed on people and not based on hereditary qualities which is more desirable. If Hitler and Himmler saw a sub-Saharan African today being part of our Aryanist movement, they wouldn’t view them as Aryan or racially Aryan, they may give them the title of Honorary Aryan or still be considered not on the level of the Germanic type.

  22. Gallery Guy says:

    “It’s still obvious that the National Socialists hated Slavs as part of their belief in Pan-Germanism, look at Odilo Globocnik only in the SS due to Germanisation which the NatSocialists found more desirable.”

    Ok, Hitler hated Slavs as a collective group of people (but didn’t hate indivual Slavs). He also hated the “white-race” in general, just like how George Lincoln Rockwell couldn’t stand most American.

    Also, Hitler was not a pan-Germanism. He negotiated with Mussolini over the German minority there, only invaded Poland due to its pro-French policies, and openly admired Schopenhauer who chastised pan-Germanism.

    Finally, you’re statement on Globocnik proves my points aforementioned.

    “Even if Hitler didn’t say the actual word ‘untermenschen’ he still hated them regardless, and forbade relations with them in Nuremberg laws”

    Okay, you’re the one who brought up the term in the first place; not me. Don’t bring up terms if you can’t even provide an explicit statement from Hitler.

    Finally, the Nuremberg Laws only applied to Jews. Non-Jews of any ethnicity were allowed to have relationships with any other non-Jew in Germany, provided that such relationship didn’t create prejudice against Hitler’s rule.

    “He even quoted they were a people who ‘felt the need of a master’.”

    Hitler said a lot of negative things about white people in general, especially in their colonial activities. Do you want me to list them for you?

    “If Himmler said good things on Slavs, why weren’t more ethnic Slavs non Germanised in the Allgemeine SS?”

    Hitler declared Himmler to be a traitor so I don’t ultimately care what Himmler did nor did not do.

    “Also, the original National Socialists viewed Aryanism more racially than we do, that’s why they gave Honorary Aryan title, which is meaningless as it is bestowed on people and not based on hereditary qualities which is more desirable. If Hitler and Himmler saw a sub-Saharan African today being part of our Aryanist movement, they wouldn’t view them as Aryan or racially Aryan, they may give them the title of Honorary Aryan or still be considered not on the level of the Germanic type”.

    Honorary Aryan status is mostly a superficial term, especially since Hitler encouraged inter-ethnic relationships at times.

    Finally, Hitler sacked Wilhelm Frick, one of his ministers, from power and influence when Frick tried to explicitly tried to apply the Nuremberg laws on “Negroes, Gypsies and their Bastards”; he allowed “blacks” into aryan-only establishments; criticized “white” treatment of “blacks” in “Africa”; and openly admired “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, President Lincoln to a point, and Schopenhauer (who criticized discrimination on the basis of ethnicity).

  23. Gallery Guy says:

    @white Raven

    “Whereas it was a standard practice of mainstream Western media of the time to disparagingly portray ”black” people as subhuman apes, Hitler made a point of not only rejecting this view but moreover turning the negative stereotypes back on their creators. For example, two of the most common colonial-era negative stereotypes about “black” people were that they are unhygeinic and superstitious. To the first, Hitler retorted: “In the state of nature, negroes are very clean. To a missionary, the smell of dirt is agreeable. From this point of view, they themselves are the dirtiest swine of all. They have a horror of water.” To the second, Hitler retorted: “A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.” “-the main site

  24. Gallery Guy says:

    @white Raven

    Before you mention Mein Kempf, I’m gonna show you a quote by George Lincoln Rockwell when he explained to Savitri Devi on his political approach for National Socialism, which included ethnocentric behavior and mannerisms:

    “Dear Savitri

    Thank you for your inspiring letter of July 12.

    You simply must try to understand the almost unbelievable difficulties I face in working here with Americans. Perhaps many Europeans are evil and vicious “Democrats” and even “Communists.” Unfortunately, most of my fellow Americans do not have the honor to be even such ideological criminals—they are just plain ignorant and often unbelievably dumb.

    Europeans simply have no comprehension of the political ignorance of the majority of Americans. It is also true what you write about various religious matters. (For obvious reasons I cannot commit to writing, all the various things involved here.)

    But surely you recognize that Hitler was very careful not to offend in this direction in Mein Kampf or anywhere else in public, and I must be ten times more careful here in America.

    As you yourself write, nothing is of any use unless we WIN POWER! I am dedicating my life and everything of comfort and pleasure in the world to that one end, and do not hesitate to adapt propaganda to the task at hand. Surely you will, understand that I am running for Governor here and prospects look excellent.

    Can you imagine the uproar all over the world if a Nazi is elected Governor of Virginia? What a blow to the enemy and what a huge burst of energy it will bring to our side!

    I hope you will write more often as I am very grateful to receive your inspiring letters!

    Heil Hitler!
    Lincoln Rockwell
    Commander
    WUNS”

  25. White raven says:

    Hitler never encouraged interethnic marriage, that is ludicrous,the Rassenschande laws were there to keep German blood pure from interracial marriage

    He said in Mein Kampf: “Peoples which bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence” (Mein Kampf, Chap. 11).

    “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe” (Mein Kampf, Chap. 8).

    “Blood sin and desecration of the race are the original sin in this world and the end of a humanity which surrenders to it” (Mein Kampf, Chap. 10). Hitler here refers to the fact that through Cain mongrelization entered into the world, as is taught in the book of Genesis.

    There is no way in gods earth that Hitler encouraged interethnic mixing, National Socialism is mainly about racial purity, this is what the Schutzstaffel heavily believed in.

  26. Hypnotix says:

    @White raven

    “Hitler never encouraged interethnic marriage, that is ludicrous”
    “the Rassenschande laws”

    Nowhere do the Nuremberg Laws – the legal equivalent of the concept you refer to – mention anyone aside from Jews as being prohibited from reproducing with Germans. In fact, a number of officials in NS Germany were sacked for trying to enforce the Nuremberg Laws against non-Jewish ethnic minorities.

    “He said in Mein Kampf”

    Mein Kampf was written with the aim of – to put it bluntly – making the NSDAP popular enough with the masses to win a democratic election. The racist masses of the 1930s were, unfortunately, the masses to whom Hitler had to say whatever it might take to get them to vote NSDAP, and it is this which accounts for the few bigoted statements that can be found in Mein Kampf, as well as why (as Otto Wagener recalled) Hitler in later years wanted it removed from circulation.

    http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-nazism/

    “National Socialism is mainly about racial purity, this is what the Schutzstaffel heavily believed in.”

    We agree: racial – not ethnic – purity. Specifically, it is about restoring the Aryan race to the pure and uncorrupted state it was in at the time of the Neolithic Revolution.

  27. White raven says:

    A supplementary decree issued on 26 November 1935 extended the law to “Gypsies, Negroes, and their bastards.

    Also non Aryans could not be considered for the Ahnenpass.

    Africans were not considered part of the Aryan race, Africans could not join.the Sturmabteilung

  28. Gallery Guy says:

    @white Raven

    “Hitler never encouraged interethnic marriage, that is ludicrous,the Rassenschande laws were there to keep German blood pure from interracial marriage”

    Hitler personally arranged the marriage between Franz Wimmer-Lamquet and Princess Tamilla.

    “He said in Mein Kampf: “Peoples which bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence” (Mein Kampf, Chap. 11).
    “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe” (Mein Kampf, Chap. 8).
    “Blood sin and desecration of the race are the original sin in this world and the end of a humanity which surrenders to it” (Mein Kampf, Chap. 10). Hitler here refers to the fact that through Cain mongrelization entered into the world, as is taught in the book of Genesis.”

    Hitler put too much stock into providence which is why he lost the war. He had ideals but he confused luck in his early days for providence due to a overly positive mind. Nature was never in favor of Hitler from the beginning.

    And, as George Lincoln Rockwell put it, Mein Kampf was just propaganda; it was book to help he made to help himself get out of prison.

    “There is no way in gods earth that Hitler encouraged interethnic mixing, National Socialism is mainly about racial purity, this is what the Schutzstaffel heavily believed in.”

    Great, go worship Yahweh or whatever God you worship. Hitler personally encouraged inter-ethnic marriages and bashed the “white-race” a lot.

    “A supplementary decree issued on 26 November 1935 extended the law to “Gypsies, Negroes, and their bastards.
    Also non Aryans could not be considered for the Ahnenpass.
    Africans were not considered part of the Aryan race, Africans could not join.the Sturmabteilung”

    The decree was established by Wilhelm Frick, a minister under Hitler’s rule, and was quickly sacked from power and influence by Hitler after he established that decree. It never came into execution.

  29. Gallery Guy says:

    @white Raven

    If you honestly believe and support everything you said about Hitler and his rule, you’re better off converting Judaism rather than worshipping Hitler due to the fact that you’re status of being a Jew would at least make more rational sense.

  30. Gallery Guy says:

    @white Raven

    Also, the SA was disempowered after Hitler sacked Rohm, which was before WW2. It should be noted that the SA at the time of Rohm’s command was very pro-homosexual.

  31. White raven says:

    It’s funny because there is no quotes that Hitler has made which says that interethnic marriages were fine, an African going out with a German was extremely rare in the National Socialist state.

    Also Lincoln Rockwell, was heavily against race mixing as well, why do you think he and his whole group and the group in its existence today shout white power?

  32. White raven says:

    Also authentic National Socialists such as Goebbels wanted the blood to pure as well

  33. unsub says:

    I find it interesting that this site claims that National Socialist Germany had a clear understanding of what it means to be an Aryan, considering all the facts to the contrary.

    “But the Church has built walls where none should exist, for example those between Germans of varying confessions. And it has torn down walls that nature established by blessing marriages between Aryans and Jews, Negroes and Mongols. It took millions of valuable people from their god-ordained roles in the people’s community and put them in monasteries or the priesthood. Its doctrines are responsible for the fall of races, peoples and cultures.” -

    “The equality of all citizens, regardless of race, led to the mixing of Europeans with Jews, Negro, Mongols, and so on, resulting in the decay and decline of the Aryan race.” -

    “The Triumph of Racial Thinking:

    The new scientific understanding of the importance of blood for the existence of the German people and its culture did not win without a struggle. Our people’s thinking was misled by the forces of the Church, Liberalism, Bolshevism, and Jewry. Only the victory of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist worldview enabled the German people to think racially. The worldview appeals to the Nordic blood inheritance of each German. We have it to thank for the enormous progress of our people after 1933, and for the unprecedented triumphs of its army in building a new order in Europe and the world. Destroying Jewry will remove the final cause that led to the decline and fall of Europe and its culture.” -

    “The other peoples of Europe too, above all our allies, are recognizing the importance of racial thinking. A racial manifesto of leading Italian scientists in Fascist Italy on 14 July 1938 affirmed racial thinking clearly. The seventh of ten points is:

    “It is time for Italians to openly affirm racial thinking. Italian racial policy must be Italian in nature, and follow the Aryan-Nordic model.”

    Point 8 said:

    “It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the Mediterranean peoples of Europe on the one side and the Oriental and African peoples on the other.”

    Point 9 said:

    “The Jews are of non-Italian blood.”

    Point 10 added:

    “The pure European physical and spiritual traits of the Italians may not be altered. The pure European character of the Italians will be changed by mixing with any other non-European race, which is the carrier of a culture other than the ancient Aryan culture.”

    — Der Reichsführer SS/SS-Hauptamt, Rassenpolitik (Berlin, 1943).

    Just taking these simple facts into consideration I believe that the argument that National Socialist Germany was of Aryan character is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous!

  34. Kirmine says:

    @White raven

    National Socialism was a constantly evolving vision. In the beginning, they didn’t even use the word “Aryan”. Whites, blacks and every other ethnic cluster mean nothing; “white” does not necessarily imply “quality”, because it is possible to find many “white” individuals of poor quality.
    “Aryan”, in itself, implies quality, and there can never be an Aryan individual of poor quality, as Hitler would agree.

    Moreover, Hitler already spoke highly of specific (Aryan) populations he found in other ethnic groups. An example that comes to mind is how he praised the Africans who raised their children on fruits and vegetables instead of milk. Our idea is, then, that the Aryan race is not exclusive to one specific ethnicity. We want to leave the world in the hands of the most noble race. Whether this race is “white”, “black”, or a mixture of all is logically irrelevant.

    So Aryanism is the logical conclusion, or at least the latest significant development, of the ideals first developed by Hitler and later expanded by people like Miguel Serrano and David Myatt.

  35. unsub says:

    How do Aryanist’s from this site reconcile the page on ‘multi-ethnic society’ with the following literature from official “Nazi Racial Teaching Guidelines”? Seems you “Aryanist’s” are really grabbing at straws….

    “We have already spoken about one racial mixing. That had to do with the racial development of the German people. May we also speak of it as bastardization? If we look into the face of the German people, peering deeply into its spiritual life, we are absolutely convinced that the joining of these six races into one whole people was not a bastardization. Their genetic traits joined in a wonderful and harmonious way to form the German people, from which our German culture sprang.

    We speak of bastardization in the case of a mixed race (Mischlinge) that develops from fundamentally different races or racial mixtures, as, for example, one between Europeans and Negroes, Europeans and Asians, Europeans and Indians, Europeans and Jews, etc. Such mixed race individuals carry the contradictory traits of both races, resulting in a confusion. Bastards are unhappy people. A bastard of European and Negroid descent has some of the characteristics of the white race, and some characteristics of the black race. He unsuited both for the jungles and hot sun of the south, but also for the north. Two souls live and compete within the breast of the bastard. He never finds peace and a harmonious, balanced life. The hard laws of blood force him to live a life of racial confusion and fragmentation….”

    Where is the non-Aryan versus Aryan argument that this site clings too in the above paragraph?

    “Negro bastards in France. During the World War our soldiers fought not only against French, Belgians, English, and Americans, but also against “Blacks” from Africa. France set the Blacks against the Whites. After the war, these Africans stood with their bayonets along the upper Rhine (Maxau, Kehl) and in the Rhineland.

    Just as France saw no shame in using Blacks to destroy the German people, so, too, it was not ashamed to give its racial inheritance to Negroes. Many thousands of bastards are the accursed result of racial defilement. From year to year France became increasingly Negroized. A third of the French Foreign Legion is colored, and during war that rises to 60% or 70%! We see Negro policemen and colored officers in French cities. France gives civil rights to Negroes. Negroes can become civil servants and judges. There was even a Negro who became a state secretary and vice president of parliament! The French Minister of Colonists said in a speech: “In creating a new French race, we are striving for the equality of humanity and international morality!”

    “Black” against “White” in America. Particularly during the 19th century, many Europeans emigrated to America and became masters of the New World. During the decades of the 20th century, in the age of liberalism and of “making everyone equal,” masses of Negroes were also allowed to immigrate and work in the armaments industry. Today, the USA is near racial collapse. Several statistics to prove the point:”

    — Karl Bareth and Alfred Vogel, Erblehre und Rassenkunde für die Grund- und Hauptschule 2nd edition (Bühl-Baden: Verlag Konkordia, 1937).

  36. Gallery Guy says:

    @white Raven

    “It’s funny because there is no quotes that Hitler has made which says that interethnic marriages were fine”.

    He literally arranged an inter-ethnic marriage like I said before. I don’t need a quote when I’m just stating his actions.

    “An African going out with a German was extremely rare in the National Socialist state.”

    Great, you just proved my point that Hitler never banned inter-ethnic relationships.

    “Also Lincoln Rockwell, was heavily against race mixing as well, why do you think he and his whole group and the group in its existence today shout white power?”

    “While some communication occurred between the esoteric Hitlerists and a few honest leaders of neo-Nazi groups shortly after WWII, it quickly became apparent (to the dismay of both parties) that bloc-conversion of neo-Nazis to authentic National Socialists was not feasible, for the very reason that the vast majority of those attracted by Nazism had exactly the wrong type of personality for National Socialism.

    “Dear Savitri, … You simply must try to understand the almost unbelievable difficulties I face in working here with Americans … they are just plain ignorant and often unbelievably dumb.” – George Lincoln Rockwell

    “I am forced to walk a careful line between what I should like to say and what the enemy would like to hear me say. Unless I deliberately sound at least halfway like a raving illiterate with three loose screws, such an interview would never be printed. This is another thing that most people fail to understand about my “Nazi” technique.” – George Lincoln Rockwell

    “Without ammunition, even the greatest general on earth would lose a war. And if the people who have a monopoly on the ammunition require me to say “abracadabra” three times every morning in order to get enough bullets to annihilate the enemy, then, by God, I will say “abracadabra” not three times, but nine times and most enthusiastically, regardless of whether it is nonsense, lies, or what it may be. Once we have achieved power, it is an entirely different matter.” – George Lincoln Rockwell

    [George Lincoln Rockwell was a] National Socialist who pretended to be a neo-Nazi in order to more easily get numerical support against Jewish power. Result: Zionist agents saw through the ruse and assassinated him so that he would be replaced by his followers [like William Luther Pierce], who are actual neo-Nazis. (The same thing happened to Malcolm X who had around the same time also revealed his rejection of racism.)”.

    That is all from the main site.

    The first quote, made in private, by Rockwell was in response to Savitri Devi, a National Socialist that Rockwell heavily admired, when she asked him why he was empasizing so much on the “white-race” and “Christian-identity” sect instead of the Aryan race. The whole quote includes Rockwell stating that perhaps many Europeans are evil and viscous democrats and even communists but that most Americans unfortunately don’t even have that honor to be such ideological criminals; they, to Rockwell, are just plain ignorant and often unbelievably dumb. He even later goes on to say that he has to be careful in public conduct like Hitler was when making Mein Kempf and his other public acts.

    The second quote, made in private again to the same person aforementioned, was further elaboration to Savitri Devi.

    The third quote was even much more further elaboration of why he came off as such a racist, and was made in public.

    If you also listen to Rockwell he wanted to give “blacks” a place separate from “whites” in order for them to live a better life, which was to be established by the United States government. William Luther Pierce, however, wanted “blacks” to live separately but didn’t think it was the duties of “whites” to care so much. Eventually tho, Rockwell was murdered after he was showing his true, noble self to the public both on purpose and maybe by accident, too.

    Unfortunately today, we don’t have a Rockwell. The situation with Neo-Nazis went from bad to worse, and we are probably better off with countering them hands-on with paramilitary organizations.

    “Also authentic National Socialists such as Goebbels wanted the blood to pure as well.”

    Goebbels explicitly gave aryan status to Native Americans. So, for Hitler and Goebbels, they cared more about quality than ethnicity in terms of the constitution of a ‘race’.

    @unsub

    You are quoting people that had little to nothing to do with the establishment of Hitler’s rule. Hitler rejected Gunther and other “racial scientists” due to extensive emphasis on ethnicity; and Madison Grant rejected Hitler!

  37. unsub says:

    @GG:

    “You are quoting people that had little to nothing to do with the establishment of Hitler’s rule. Hitler rejected Gunther and other “racial scientists” due to extensive emphasis on ethnicity; and Madison Grant rejected Hitler!”

    Irrelevant point. What I quoted was LITERALLY taught in the Third Reich. Clearly Hitler himself had little problem with it, did he?

  38. John Johnson says:

    @White raven

    “Why did Hitler consider Slavic people to be Untermenschen?”

    “Untermensch” was, pre-Hollywood, used as an insult against communists and the low biological quality of those who accept communist rule:

    The leading Nazi attributing the concept of the East-European “under man” to Stoddard is Alfred Rosenberg who, referring to Russian communists, wrote in his Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts (1930) that “this is the kind of human being that Lothrop Stoddard has called the ‘under man.’” ["...den Lothrop Stoddard als 'Untermenschen' bezeichnete."][10] Quoting Stoddard: “The Under-Man – the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives”.

    In a speech in 1927 to the Bavarian regional parliament, the Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher, publisher of Der Stürmer, used the term Untermensch referring to the communists of the German Bavarian Soviet Republic

    In the pamphlet “The SS as an Anti-Bolshevist Fighting Organization“, published in 1936, Himmler wrote:

    We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish-Bolshevistic revolution of subhumans be able to be kindled either from within or through emissaries from without.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch

    (I recommend everyone save a copy of this wiki page to their archives before it is changed, since it is remarkably free from the Hollywood interpretation of “untermensch”)

    “And saying about them…”

    He likely considered the majority of them to be of such low biological quality (i.e. infused with such high amounts of Turanian and Gentile blood) that it would be utterly futile to attempt to Aryanize them.

    In his speech “Weltgefahr des Bolschewismus” (“World danger of Bolshevism“) in 1936, Joseph Goebbels said that “subhumans exist in every people as a leavening agent”.

    If you want to talk about things from a 1930-40s physical anthropology angle, the USSR was mostly populated by the “Alpine race,” which was considered to be descended from the Turanian steppes (and therefore racially similar to Jews/Khazars/other herders). So it should not be surprising that he would rather have the east populated by individuals with higher levels of Aryan blood to begin with, than attempt to transmute Turanians into Aryans.

    Of course, considering Germany was at war with the (predominately Slavic) USSR, Poland, and Yugoslavia, it shouldn’t be surprising that wartime propaganda sometimes cast a broad net while describing who was an “untermensch”.

  39. Gallery Guy says:

    @unsub

    “Irrelevant point. What I quoted was LITERALLY taught in the Third Reich. Clearly Hitler himself had little problem with it, did he?”

    Hitler had to make compromise with the people he was dealing with (Himmler being the most notable one).

    The third Reich should not be absolutely worshipped due to that reason and others, and even Hitler stated that in his final, political testimony, in which he also chastised how terrible the white race is, and how Japan and China are superior to Germany in terms of its culture and history. Hitler also even explicitly praised Islam over Christianity (much like Malcolm X).

  40. Kirmine says:

    @unsub

    And yet none of that was written by Hitler. For what came directly from him, read this article: http://aryanism.net/politics/white-nationalists/
    This paragraph is of particular interest:

    ‘When Hitler did (on the rare occasion) use the term “white”, it was usually with a negative connotation directed at the colonial powers, for example: “The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world – materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis.” The same is true of such as Alfred Rosenberg, for example: “The white race has dishonoured itself. It has disintegrated an entire culture and precipitated a just rebellion against itself.” It was on this account that National Socialist Germany was so highly regarded among non-Western countries of the time. Perhaps the clearest demonstration that Hitler did not consider Germans to be “white” comes from his discussing Japan’s WWII activities, when he first states: “The Japanese are occupying all the islands, one after the other. They will get hold of Australia, too. The white race will disappear from those regions.” but then goes on to say: “Thanks to the Germans whom the Japanese will employ in the archipelago, we’ll have excellent outlets in those regions.”’

    Even if any of what you quoted was true, National Socialist Germany found allies almost exclusively on non-”white” countries and people. How do you explain that?

  41. Gallery Guy says:

    @Kirmine

    Hitler also went directly to war with white countries and not non-white countries in any direct manner.

  42. John Johnson says:

    @unsub
    “I find it interesting that this site claims that National Socialist Germany had a clear understanding of what it means to be an Aryan, considering all the facts to the contrary.”

    Looking at pieces of propaganda and rhetoric in isolation may give an unclear picture as to how National Socialists understood race, but when studied as a whole, the trajectory is quite clear. They were headed towards a consistent presentation of race as a measurement of ethical quality, and not merely ethnicity, ancestry, or anthropometric measurements.

    “Even at the close of this first period, in 1930, when Rosenberg’s Mythos appeared, his use of the word “Nordic” was strictly qualified by this pronouncement: “nothing would be more superficial than to measure a man’s worth by his physical appearance (with a centimeter rule and cephalic indices). A far more accurate measure of worth is conduct.” (4)

    Guenther was to be specifically rejected. While recognizing the fact that his books had served to stimulate inquiry into the intricate problems of race, the pernicious aspects of the “Nordic hypothesis” were decried. …
    The first clear statement on official reorientation had come from Hitler himself only seven months after he came to power, at the 1933 Nuremberg Parteitag. Hitler said: “We do not conclude from a man’s physical type his ability, but rather from his achievements his race.” (94) Thus achievements, not physical type, were to be the measure of worth.

    This principle advanced by Hitler entered the basic texts on anthropology and heredity, and by 1935 the last phase in the development of National Socialist race theory was well under way. Thieme repeats Hitler’s principle and adds “the men who bear the qualities of heroism, strength of will, a readiness to sacrifice and faith have played a decisive role in deciding Germany’s destiny, and they shall continue to do so even if they are not all tall, blond or blue-eyed.” (95)

    Eichenauer goes so far as to inform his readers that the amount of Nordic blood an individual possesses means nothing (spielt keine Rolle) in the Nordic scheme of things because “it has often enough been the case that men of extremely mixed race (stark gemischter Rasse) have conceived and more powerfully grasped these notions than the predominantly Nordic.” (96)

    Goebbels is identified quite candidly as a Nordic – Mediterranean (97) restored to first class citizenship. In mid-1936 the National socialistische Korrespondenz stated with clarity and authority: “From his deeds one can recognize the Nordic man – not from the length of his nose and the colour of his eyes.” (98)

    It was in this last phase that National Socialist race theory was cut off. Of this last phase all to little is known outside the immediate intellectual circle which fostered it.

    Upon the cessation of hostilities the work of half a decade was scattered or destroyed – to leave only the tragic-comic image of the Nordicism of Guenther and his followers, to appear and reappear as the popular misconception of the National Socialist theory of history.

    Actually the elements of a far more profound theory are to be discerned in the few surviving books that mark the last dynamic phase of development of a concept of race free of the encumbrances of a hysterical Nordicism. (108)

    As early as 1933 the first elements are to be found in Merkenschlager (109) – later some appear in von Eickstedt, (110) and still later in Gross. (111)” -A. James Gregor, National Socialism and Race (1958)
    http://dienekes.awardspace.com/texts/natsoc/

    National Socialists had to steer public opinion away from both Nordicism (made extremely popular by Guenther and others), as well as more traditional Western notions of the “white race” being the chosen people. Given their meteoric rise and entanglement in a war for half of their time in power, I think much of the sloppiness regarding their terminology on race can be excused.

  43. Gallery Guy says:

    @JJ

    Didn’t Hitler wanted to explicitly critique Rosenberg’s “Myth” but decided against it in order to avoid offending the ‘wrong’ people?

  44. AS says:

    @Hypnotix

    “BLM movement can do plenty to make us hate it, yet so far has not.”

    Indeed it has done much the opposite:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/blm-bds-allied/

    If BLM really consisted of “black racists”, why would they care about Palestine?

    Nor is it just BDS that BLM allies with:

    http://splinternews.com/this-is-the-story-behind-the-viral-photo-of-brown-beret-1793860743

    @White raven

    “there is no quotes that Hitler has made which says that interethnic marriages were fine”

    “It’s precisely the best elements of our race who, as they lose awareness of their origin, add themselves to the ruling class of the country that has welcomed them. As for the elements of less value, they retain the characteristics of their ethnic group.” – Adolf Hitler

    “I do not doubt for a moment, despite certain people’s scepticism, that within a hundred or so years from now all the German élite will be a product of the SS—for only the SS practises racial selection. Once the conditions of the race’s purity are established, it’s of no importance whether a man is a native of one region rather than another.” – Adolf Hitler

    “We see how enormous the differences are between the ethics, the philosophy of life, the attitude toward others between the Jews and the settled peoples … They really are two completely different races. In the same way, the concept of ‘keeping the race pure’ can never be transferred from the Jewish example to, for example, the Aryan.” – Adolf Hitler

    “There is one cardinal principle. This question of the Germanisation of certain peoples must not be examined in the light of abstract ideas and theory. We must examine each particular case. The only problem is to make sure whether the offspring of any race will mingle well with the German population and will improve it, or whether, on the contrary (as is the case when Jew blood is mixed with German blood), negative results will arise.” – Adolf Hitler

    etc.

  45. SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer Daniel says:

    It seems like our view on Aryanism is different from the Third Reich version of it…

  46. SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer Daniel says:

    Plus there weren’t any African people in any of the paramilitary organisations like the Sturmabteilung

  47. Hypnotix says:

    @Daniel

    They say a picture is worth a thousand words – here’s a video compilation to avoid spamming links, complete with the iconic Panzerlied:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83b6DSdiSbI

    Also, your question has already been asked and debunked (numerous times). Read the blog comments next time.

  48. Gallery Guy says:

    @everyone

    So, all of you reading this comment probably know already that I got in a debate with unsub earlier; and, after my last comment on the blog post dedicated to Lavin Eskander, I felt like I needed to address some flaws in my arguments against unsub’s claims:

    Unsub claimed that Krause claimed that Hitler consumed dairy products and fish as a means to show that Hitler was a vegetarian (in “the contemporary* understanding of the word”) rather than a vegan, despite the obvious contradiction he made. He reasoned that this was the case due to Krause’s words in that documentary he posted, along with other statements Krause may or may not have made.

    I then claimed that Krause could not have possibly known about Hitler’s diet after that water incident (in September 1939) due to their personal relationship being compromised. While I stand by that point, I should have also mentioned that Krause only knew about Hitler’s diet because he was Hitler’s personal bodyguard who attended to Hitler a lot; and after Hitler sacked him as such a close bodyguard, he could have not possibly known about Hitler’s diet after 1941; and Krause never even claimed to have seen Hitler’s diet after that date in that documentary listed earlier.

    *
    The use of the word ‘contemporary’ by unsub makes sense when you look at it as an adjective to describe something that belongs or occurs in the present time today. If that’s not what he meant by it, then he should have at least tried to correct himself for sake of logic alone.

  49. AS says:

    @GG

    “Unsub claimed that Krause claimed that Hitler consumed dairy products and fish as a means to show that Hitler was a vegetarian (in “the contemporary* understanding of the word”)”

    Someone who consumes fish but not other (esp. land) animals would be a pescetarian:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetarianism

    I cannot count the number of times in the past when, as a preacher of veganism, I have been asked: “Fish is OK, though, right?” by primitives who just don’t get it. Hitler had a similar experience at least once:

    Magda Goebbels once said to Hitler: “I thought you ate fish, my Fuehrer? Fish isn’t meat, you know.” Hitler replied: “I suppose then, that fish, in your opinion, dear lady, is a plant!”

    http://aryanism.net/culture/veganism/

    From a racial point of view, we have postulated (mostly in private so far, though also hinted at in the Aryan Diffusion series) evolutionary differences between fishers and (land) hunters, the former being generally non-nomadic. So, in terms of blood memory, aversion to eating land animals but not sea animals could reflect dominance of the fisher lineage of Gentile blood. Conversely, but consistent with this model, a significant fraction people that I have encountered who enjoy the taste of land animals have expressed dislike for the taste of sea animals.

  50. Gallery Guy says:

    @AS

    Thank you for the additional information!

    I actually forgot about the existence of the term ‘pescetarian’.

    I also just looked up famous fishers in history and Peter and Andrew from the New Testament are said to be fishers before meeting Jesus, which doesn’t surprise me…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>