The True Left is emerging

As we promised it would:

At the turn of the 21st century, 48 percent of liberal Democrats sided with Israel, compared to just 18 percent with the Palestinians. Over the decade-and-a-half since, the margin has narrowed at times, but even a year or so ago Israel still enjoyed more sympathy from this cohort, by 39 points to 21.

This year for the first time the trend lines crossed, and now more liberal Democrats sympathize with the Palestinians, by 40 points to 33.

Another 10 percent of liberal Democrats said they sympathize with neither party, seven percent said they sympathized with both, and 10 percent selected “don’t know.”

Democrats described as conservative or moderate continue to sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians by a sizeable margin – 53 points to 19.

The percentage of conservative Republicans sympathizing more with Israel than the Palestinians is greater than ever over the past 15 years of Pew polling – 79 points to 4 – while moderate or liberal Republicans also sympathize more with Israel by a big margin, 65 points to 13.

This shift in culture on the American left has already, under the Obama administration, manifested itself in policy. In early 2009, the president chose to re-join the UN Human Rights Council, a virulently anti-Israel body. The president famously wanted to put “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, which led to flotillas trying to break the legal blockade of terrorist-controlled Gaza and a green light from the U.S. for European countries to begin their own boycott efforts. In the summer of 2014, during Israel’s war with Hamas, the administration closed Ben Gurion Airport to American air travel—an unnecessary move so outrageous that then-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg personally flew to Tel Aviv to show it was safe. During the war with Hamas, the president also personally intervened to stop a shipment of Hellfire missiles to Israel. And then, of course, there’s the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran.

Through it all, President Obama has been generally careful (except for the time he was caught on mic complaining about Mr. Netanyahu to then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy) to frame his policies as being somehow pro-Israel. But the far left no longer pretends to be pro-Israel and unashamedly opposes American support for the Jewish state. They are ascendant in their party. At some point, the façade was going to crumble.

merely defeating an anti-Israel Democrat platform will not change the underlying cultural current on the American left. Approving an anti-Israel Democratic platform will be the starkest evidence to date that the left is abandoning the Jewish state.

Previous coverage on this topic:

So, while due to the Trump effect the GOP may be transforming into the Racist & Islamophobic Party, there is no reason why more pressure from our side cannot likewise and within the foreseeable future turn the Democratic Party into the Anti-Zionist Party.

And remember, at least on this issue, demographics are on our side:

Now you know the real reason why Trump wants to build a wall on the southern US border.

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

85 Responses to The True Left is emerging

  1. @AS:

    Fair enough. Lazy comment to begin with.

  2. Joan says:

    Jo Cox might might not have been a true leftist, but I cannot silence before her barbaric murder.
    Far right terrorists took the life of a Labour MP, mother of two children, who had done nothing wrong except work for her own community.
    And now far right useful idiots instead of grieving about this sad event, say this was “a conspiracy to prevent Britain from getting out of the EU”.

  3. HvP says:

    This is a bit off-topic, but I thought you guys might like to see The Occidental Observer’s cold-eyed analysis of how Jews are manipulating UKIP and the Leave campaign in general, plus acknowledgement of the way Corbyn has antagonized them (despite the fact that TOO obviously has no love of Corbyn’s racial policies). “You don’t have to have any time for the likes of Corbyn to see how astonishing it is: A clearly manufactured crisis is being used to drive a legitimately elected party leader out of office. It is nothing short of a mini coup d’etat and unprecedented in British politics.”, etc.

  4. Hypnotix says:

    I was wondering.

    In the False Left/True Left dichotomy, where would communism be? And I realise it is traditionally placed at the far-left, but, given that it is, in essence, class-based tribalism, would it not, in fact, be more accurate to place it at the right, together with the other forms of tribalism?

  5. AS says:


    “In the False Left/True Left dichotomy, where would communism be?”

    False Left. It is egalitarian, progressivist, utopian, atheist, believes that people are “blank slates”, and so on.

    “given that it is, in essence, class-based tribalism, would it not, in fact, be more accurate to place it at the right, together with the other forms of tribalism?”

    No, because tribalism is not what makes an ideology rightist. A positive evaluation of Western civilization is what makes an ideology rightist: (first paragraph)

    Non-rightist tribalists are mostly paganists.

    In the following paragraph I do state that Marx has something in common with neocons, but since neocons are only one faction of rightists, this cannot be considered a general rightist position. Besides, Marx only wanted capitalism to spread so that it could then be overthrown, whereas a sincere neocon would want it to spread and last.

  6. Numinous_Sun says:


    I remember you said you wanted something simple as the logo for the True Left. What do you think of something like this, simple, sword and runic like, and distinguishable?

  7. AS says:


    “What do you think of something like this”

    You have nailed it! Everyone, start putting this symbol on all promotional graphics etc. at once! You yourself in particular, NS, this symbol needs to be on your YouTube, your Twitter, and so on! Make people see it and think of you!

    It also looks like a hashtag, which means it can be easily incorporated into terminology that the True Left seeks to mark as its own.

  8. Numinous_Sun says:


    I’m currently writing the page for, “What is the True Left and Why is it Needed?”, and was contemplating using a couple quotes by Cato. Specifically, the one about usury, and this one: “Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.” — Cato the Wise

    Cato was anti-Hellenist, but is considered “conservative”. I also chose ‘Cato the Wise’ intentionally over some of his other aliases. What are your thoughts on both?

  9. Numinous_Sun says:


    What do you think of using Lord Acton’s quote about democracy: “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

    It is a shame that it’s such a good quote compared to some of the other things Lord Acton has said…

  10. AS says:


    Cato and Acton are not True Leftists, so to quote them positively (and especially to call Cato “Wise” or to acknowledge Acton as a “Lord”!) would risk readers wrongly assuming that we regard them with sympathy, and hence potentially creating confusion over what a True Leftist is supposed to be like. If you must quote them, it would be a good idea to also spend a paragraph immediately following the quote slamming them, just to leave readers in no doubt that they are not on our side.

    Quotes such as this one:

    >“Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.”

    should not appear on the True Left site at all, as it is impossible to tell whether the speaker is a leftist or a rightist from the quote alone, so that the quote does not help to clarify the left-vs-right conflict. In general, quotes that should appear on the True Left site are quotes whose leftness/rightness is self-evident.

    Acton’s quote about democracy suffers from the same problem.

  11. NuminousSun says:

    Lucifer and Freemasonry, question:

    Obviously there is quite a bit of deception going on in regards to Freemasonry. Somethings not adding up for me:“Léo Taxil (1854–1907) claimed that Freemasonry is associated with worshipping Lucifer. In what is known as the Taxil hoax, he alleged that leading Freemason Albert Pike had addressed “The 23 Supreme Confederated Councils of the world” (an invention of Taxil), instructing them that Lucifer was God, and was in opposition to the evil god Adonai.”

    The first question obviously becomes; if Freemasons are against Adonai, then why did Freemasonry not see an ally in Hitler, simply because he was not democratic?

    Then we have this:

    Which indicates that Freemasonry is Judaism basically…

    Then this:
    A Shriner Freemason admits to worshiping Lucifer

  12. NuminousSun says:

    Speaking of dueling to death, I tried to watch one of the most disgusting documentaries I’ve seen in a while the other night, but I only made it through about 15 minutes or so, that documentary being, “Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press”. It can be found on Netflix. My blood boiled…

    None of those filthy, ugly inside and out, disgustingly degenerate “reporters” would ever dare open their mouths if they did not believe they have a state to hide behind, once they make people disgusted with their slanderous “free press”. We can be thankful they got sued, in the least, even though I am no fan of most of the people that got slandered by them in that film either.

    In an honour based society, where dueling with deadly weapons is permitted, I bet all of those “reporters” would scurry off back into the shadows from which they came like the true COWARDS they are!

    Now, also ask yourself if you decide to try and watch it, how many of those “reporters” are Jewish? It becomes apparent very quickly…

    What a bunch of disgusting degenerates!

  13. AS says:


    “Obviously there is quite a bit of deception going on in regards to Freemasonry. Somethings not adding up for me:“Léo Taxil (1854–1907) claimed that Freemasonry is associated with worshipping Lucifer.”

    It is not necessarily deception. It is wholly possible that the Freemasons sincerely believed that they worshipped Lucifer, but merely misunderstood what he represents. From the Freemasonic perspective, as anti-monarchists they were hostile to monarchs’ claim of divine appointment, so they could easily have jumped to the conclusion that Lucifer, an enemy of the divine order, was an anti-monarchist.

    “The first question obviously becomes; if Freemasons are against Adonai, then why did Freemasonry not see an ally in Hitler, simply because he was not democratic?”

    Yes. In their eyes, Hitler would also have been an implicit worshipper of Adonai by the mere fact that he was a monarchist. To them, all monarchists are bad. They do not acknowledge the distinction between traditional monarchism (which we agree is bad) and anti-traditional monarchism (which we support). This is why they are False Leftists. The divine order is traditionalism, not monarchism. To be an enemy of the divine order is to be anti-traditionalist, not anti-monarchist.

    From the Aryanist perspective, tradition (Paleolithic onwards) long predates monarchy (a product of the Neolithic Revolution). The first true monarchs (Golden Age Aryans) were anti-traditionalist monarchs (banned sacrifices etc.). Ambitious non-Aryans, recognizing the practical efficiency of monarchism but also the undiminished popularity of traditionalism among the non-Aryan masses, offered themselves as traditionalist monarchs, thus successfully displacing the Aryan monarchs. This is what the Fall of Lucifer represents. Therefore the notion that Lucifer could be anti-monarchist is absurd; he in fact appointed all the anti-traditionalist monarchs no less than the Demiurge/DEVil(hence “DIVine”, remember?) appointed all the traditionalist monarchs.

    We will eventually have to take back Lucifer’s name from the Freemasons. But Freemasonry is not what you should be worrying about at this time. It is not to Freemasonry that young people today are flocking in droves. Your immediate enemy is the Alt-Right. This is what your study time should be spent on.

  14. NuminousSun says:


    Thanks for the input about Freemasonry, makes a lot of sense.

    “It is not to Freemasonry that young people today are flocking in droves. Your immediate enemy is the Alt-Right. This is what your study time should be spent on.”

    You’re right, many are flocking to the false left though, which is what I’m currently writing about; the false left and democracy, etc.

  15. Gallery Guy says:

    Might be off-topic, but I’ve noticed a movement on social media by “leftis” (using therm very loosely here) to make cheating on your significant other (such as adultery) a form of rape. I’m against ‘cheating’ in general, but that comes off as rather unnecessary and improper.

  16. Gallery Guy says:


  17. NuminousSun says:


    I actually have a problem with using the word ‘cheating’ to describe and extramarital affair in the first place. To use the word cheating in that regard assumes that marriage is a game, and that the highest aspirations of all people is to have as many sexual relationships as possible, therefore only a contract of sworn loyalty to another person can prevent “cheating”.

    To swear loyalty to someone, only to later break that loyalty is dishonorable; unless of course the other person has shown themselves to be unworthy of loyalty first.

    In ancient times people took their own honor more seriously, and would rather have died themselves than to break it, often choosing to end their own lives if they lost it.

    Trying to make “cheating” synonymous to rape only further confuses matters.

  18. Gallery Guy says:


    Fair enough. I once watched this episode of “Law & Order: SVU” (season 18, episode 3) where a man was charged with rape because he decieved a woman about his identity. After watching that episode, it seems to me that certain individuals today just don’t care about empathy, honor and loyalty unless it’s about ‘sex’, which then prompts them to declare ‘sex crimes’ in certain, sexual situations while hypocritically ignoring the whole issue of apathy, dishonorable behavior and mannerisms, and disloyalty

  19. Gallery Guy says:


    Also, the “Law & Order” order franchise is run by Dick Wolf (Jew).

  20. NuminousSun says:


    Interesting observation. Not something I’ve given much thought really. What do you make of it all?

  21. Gallery Guy says:


    We desperately need to being back honor-based dueling for serious matters while squashing trifling matters of ego. (This woman in college once complained to me about how a guy groped her at a nightclub without even asking her at first, while she was dancing rather sexually next to him. She said the man violated her body by doing that, but I made the argument that she lacked any empathy and honor towards him when she was dancing next to him without even asking first).

  22. Gallery Guy says:


    Also, when I mean ‘groped’, I mean he lightly grabbed her buttocks with his hands.

  23. NuminousSun says:


    Interesting, I’ll have to give that one some thought when I get the time.

    Just off the top:

    Currently I’m picturing a boxing referee complaining that his honor was violated when he accidentally caught one of the boxer’s left hook. If the referee punched the boxer back because of the accidental punch that landed on him, would that be permissible? Much like the referee, I suspect that the man who was standing on the dance floor had some prior knowledge of what he was getting himself into; before he got in the ring. Groping someone could be considered an act of initiated violence, however. Should boxer’s also prepare themselves to duck the occasional sucker punch from a referee?

  24. NuminousSun says:

    Probably a really bad analogy actually…

    I’ll let someone else answer that one, just not in the mind state to think on other matters currently, sorry.

  25. Gallery Guy says:


    From what I can tell from the story, the guy was alone drinking his alcoholic beverage next to the bar when the woman came up to him and started to dance in a sexual manner. In a work setting, that’d be considered ‘sexual harassment’ (or at least in the USA).

    I also consider violence to be apathy towards a person’s will regardless of the setting. The English jurist William Blackstone once described rape as something a man commits that violates a woman’s will through the use of force. I’d say that ‘rape’ is an act anyone commit against anyone else tho

  26. Gallery Guy says:


    Also remember tho that Hitler used to squash trifling matters of ego among his own party members. If he didn’t, Hess may have then been seriously wounded in a duel.

  27. Gallery Guy says:


    Violence, done in retaliation, is violation of an individual’s will, but justifiable for empathy and honor’s sake tho.

  28. NuminousSun says:

    But why call it rape? Doesn’t that further confuse people who have already taken on the current definition of rape as being a sexual violence? Guess all I’m saying really is why do we need so many different words to describe different forms of violence? Violence is violence, it’s either initiated, or retaliatory, right?

    If he was sitting at a bar minding his own business, then it certainly changes the scenario. By walking over to him and dancing provocatively, she opened her self up to what ever provocation she may have provoked. Don’t start none, won’t be none. She most likely had no idea who she was dancing in front of. At-least now she knows there’s gropers out there….

    Lastly, I must say my previous analogy did make me laugh though. Going to have to save that one for later and try and paste it into a different scenario somewhere down the road, lol!

  29. Gallery Guy says:


    On your point about rape and violence, I agree. I just hate how Blackstone’s definition of rape limits victims as ‘women’ only, and ‘men’ as the perpetrators. I also hate initiated violence, much like yourself.

    Also, the dancer is an example of somebody who ultimately doesn’t care about honor and empathy. I got to know her personally and she isn’t someone I’m too fond of.

  30. NuminousSun says:

    Indeed, had he just lost his wife and was speaking to his bar-tending friend about it, things may have turned out even worse for her; considering her lack of empathy at that point.

  31. NuminousSun says:

    I guess the same could be said for people who try and force conversation. Family members are particularly good at that. That has bothered me as far back as I can remember now that I think on it.

  32. Amaleq says:


    Thanks for the link.

  33. So now it’s the new year. What activism have any of you got planned?

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>