For one thing, I actually like the latter.
http://aryanism.net/politics/foundations-of-the-true-left/western-civilization-must-die/
Thank you Miecz for providing three of the pictures for this page.
A lot of people claim to criticize “Western civilization” these days, but then direct their criticism towards what is not actually Western civilization. This causes a lot of confusion, which I hope this page clears up. It should be noted in particular that our definition of Western civilization is very similar to the ZC definition (of course, ZC is pro-Western whereas we are anti-Western). Miecz’s table shows this clearly:
http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/historical-perspectives.jpg
BS, in contrast, is increasingly falling apart by refusing to admit that Judaism is part of Western civilization. PC and BS are two sides of the same perspective, so if PC makes no sense, BS can make no sense either.
It goes without saying that we absolutely disagree with the PC narrative that Islam is part of Western civilization. Instead, we consider Islam to be the statist successor to the Roman Empire, and hence as statists side with both*. This is a consistent position, and in fact the National Socialist position. On the other hand, those who complain about the historical Islamic rule in Europe should on the same grounds complain about the historical Roman rule in Europe also, but they don’t, because they have double-standards.
(* Also, the Muslim rulers treated the Cathars better than the Judeo-Christian rulers did, but that’s a separate point.)
I would also like to use this chance to promote JJ’s essay currently posted over at the True Left blog:
https://trueleftblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/the-south-will-rise-again-but-as-america-not-dixie/
JJ dissects US history along almost exactly the same faultlines that I here try to draw attention to. Please (especially our American commenters!) offer him feedback and help get more discussion going over at the True Left blog.
Blown away so far, and I’ve only scanned over it as of yet. Will take many more reads to fully internalize it I suspect. Excellent work!
“I contend that we [the English] are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence… Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.” – Cecil Rhodes
Bill Clinton is the Rhodes scholar who implemented NAFTA, which has destroyed countless Mexican lives.
Music has been condemned strongly in the Qur’aan and Hadeeth.
Narrated Abu Malik Al-Ashari:
Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “Some people of my Ummah will drink wine, calling it by other than its real name. Merriment will be made for them through the playing of musical instruments and the singing of songstresses. Allah will cleave the earth under them and turn others into apes and swines.” [Ibn Ma'jah Vol.5 Hadeeth No.4020]
Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) also states: “Like water grows weeds, music makes hypocrisy grow in the heart.” (Bayhaqi vol.10 pg.222)
Conclusion: The many rationalizations made by musicians and listeners, is part of the Western connection between reason, logic, virtue and happiness. A process whereby non-Aryan views can gain a foothold and spread spiritual contamination.
Music is haraam because it celebrates whims, vice and dysfunctionally displaying emotions; contaminated thinking, fit only for those ignoble and diseased in their hearts.
Non-Aryans may learn many languages and become fluent in them, but they only ever communicate the same sickness.
@Handschar https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/23/fa/9f/23fa9f5bec59537f49018d85f96446d9.jpg
Be as pious as you want but remember that there is no compulsion of religion.
Great article by JJ on TTL! I believe the comment feature may be turned off, however?
^ Never mind, user malfunction.
hi just wondering, are u guys cool with bahais? at 1st i was attracted to them because of the teachings on unity (non tribalism???), but i have heard from some sources that they are zionist and side w the jews??? the racial & gender equality thing seems cool, but wouldn’t want to support them if they are working for/with jews. (their hq is in haifa guarded by idf???) im muslim btw. lots of muslims persecute bahais. would u persecute bahais???
@tandembuddy: First I’ve heard of them. Interesting symbol. Obviously we disagree with them that Jesus and Mohammad were ‘Abrahamic’, and that Judaism is a religion worthy of acceptance as a universalist religious doctrine.
“would u persecute bahais”
Disagreement alone is no grounds for persecution of anyone. From what I have read so far they are not tribalist, or racist, but universalists.
I’d be more worried about these issues at this point:
http://aryanism.net/politics/population-and-demographics/
http://aryanism.net/culture/environmentalism/
http://aryanism.net/politics/geopolitics/preventing-world-war-iii/
@tandembuddy
“are u guys cool with bahais?”
Thank you very much for your question. Bahai has been added to the Religion page on the main site under ‘Religions to be Terminated’:
http://aryanism.net/religion/
In other words, we are not cool with Bahai. We just have more dangerous enemies to deal with first. We will get round to Bahai eventually.
“at 1st i was attracted to them because of the teachings on unity (non tribalism???)”
Humanism is still tribalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_the_unity_of_humanity
“i have heard from some sources that they are zionist and side w the jews???”
This is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_accusations_against_the_Baha%27i_Faith#Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.ADs_as_agents_of_international_Zionism
After all, they are fans of Noah, Abraham and Moses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_the_unity_of_religion#Unity_of_the_prophets
“the racial & gender equality thing seems cool,”
No, we are opposed to egalitarianism. Obviously we oppose prejudice, but we oppose prejudice not because we believe in equality, but because we treat individuals as individuals.
“im muslim btw. lots of muslims persecute bahais. would u persecute bahais???”
I consider an ordinary Bahai follower to be no worse than an ordinary Judeo-Christianity follower, so I would first give them a chance to leave Bahai. Those who refuse would become our enemies.
I would be happy to collaborate with Muslims against Bahais, but I want to make sure that Muslims oppose Bahais for the correct reasons. Some Muslims oppose Bahais while at the same time supporting ideas similar to Bahai that exist within present-day Islam. This is ridiculous and unacceptable. The first thing that Muslims who oppose Bahais should do is oppose the same ideas existing within present-day Islam, and even more importantly demonstrate superior ethical behaviour compared to Bahais.
If this is something you are interested in, please send in a contact form:
http://aryanism.net/about/contact/
I understand u. yeah, Muslims should not uphold Ibrahim if they are going to persecute bahais. doesn’t make sense. can I ask what would the -mohammedan- religion would look like under ur reforms? I appreciate the discipline of fasting and daily prayer but the prayers don’t need to be so ritualized [in my opinion] or have it taught that u cannot be a true or good Muslim if u don’t pray exactly right. obviously I don’t like the treatment of women in some Islamic cultures… male AND female circumcision BANNED!!! and I like the warrior spirit… What do u guys think?
@tandembuddy
“can I ask what would the -mohammedan- religion would look like under ur reforms?”
Vegan for a start. I was actually talking to Isaac about this recently, so I’ll just repost what I said to him:
I have personally converted a number of individual Muslims to at least vegetarianism (and in some cases veganism) using solely Mohammedan arguments. For example, the simple fact that vegetables are automatically halal whereas meat etc. at best require a Basmala ritual to make it artificially halal is a strong argument that a superior Mohammedan diet is a meatless diet, and that the Basmala is best interpreted as a wartime compromise, especially when considering Mohammed’s otherwise numerous examples of kindness towards animals. Moreoever, I have argued that in modern society most Muslims who eat meat do not personally witness the Basmala, but rely on trust in halal food labelling. Therefore there always exists a possibility that the meat they are eating is not halal without them knowing so, and hence the only way they can be absolutely sure that they are eating halal is to refrain from meat altogether. In fact, I got along with my Muslim classmates when I was in school for the reason that both they and I ate the vegetarian option during school lunches (because back in those days a halal meat option was unavailable).
“I appreciate the discipline of fasting and daily prayer but the prayers don’t need to be so ritualized [in my opinion] or have it taught that u cannot be a true or good Muslim if u don’t pray exactly right.”
Of course when large numbers of people are praying together it is practical to standardize the format, but private prayer could be left to the individual to choose a format which best suits himself.
“obviously I don’t like the treatment of women in some Islamic cultures…”
What is important here is to note that this a feature of historical Bedouin cultures even predating Mohammed, so it is inaccurate to call these “Islamic cultures”. Mohammed himself despised Bedouinism, as we have mentioned on the main site. Therefore we need to remove all the pre-Islamic Bedouin elements from what is currently considered to be “Islam” in order to even begin to recover authentic Mohammedanism.
“male AND female circumcision BANNED!!!”
Ethically, we are only against FORCED circumcision. Voluntary circumcision is not an ethical problem. Mohammed never criticized circumcision itself; he only repeatedly condemned parental tyranny towards children (which obviously includes parents forcing children to be circumcized).
“and I like the warrior spirit…”
I am glad to hear this.
Tandembuddy, I would like to offer my two cents. I caution against being too quick to judge Baha’is harshly and to heap persecution upon them.
For one thing, I do not think that the political accusations leveled against the Baha’i Faith hold up under scrutiny.
1) They are accused of Zionism because their holiest shrines (such as the resting place of their founder Baha’u'llah) and the Baha’i World Center are located in present-day Israel. But that is due to the fact that Baha’u'llah was banished from Persia by the Shah to Akka, Syria, which has now become part of Israel. He was held in captivity there, and that is where he later died. Thus, he is buried in Akka. Baha’u'llah simply continued his ministry in the place where he and his family had been banished. His son and successor, Abdul-Baha, was buried in Haifa in 1921, which was then Palestine. The remains of Baha’u'llah’s forerunner, the Bab, to were moved Haifa (Palestine) in 1909 to save them from desecration. Israel was formed decades later. Neither Baha’u'llah, nor Abdul-Baha, nor the Bab can help that the locations in which they were buried (Syria, Palestine) later became the territory of Israel.
Regarding for the Baha’i World Center, as the Wikipedia article linked by AS states, “Since the Iranian revolution there have been accusations that the Bahá’ís support Israel because they send fund contributions to the Bahá’í World Centre which is located in northern Israel. The donations are used in the Bahá’í World Centre for upkeep of the Bahá’í properties, as well as the administration of the worldwide Bahá’í community.” The article points out that Muslims are praised for sending money to Israel for the upkeep of their shrines, while Baha’is are criticized for doing the same.
The Baha’i Faith’s holiest shrine (that of the founder Baha’u'llah) is located in Israel because the Persian Shah banished Baha’u'llah to Akka, where he later died, and Akka became part of Israel more than 50 years after his death (which Baha’u'llah himself had nothing to do with). Baha’u'llah simply continued his ministry in the area where he had been banished, as did his successor. That area later became part of Israel, and none of the Baha’is enshrined there seem to have had anything to do with that.
2) Baha’is have been accused of being agents of the Shah. However, as the Wikipedia article correctly points out, “the Bahá’í community in Iran was the victim of the Shah’s regime”. The Shah’s government shut down Baha’i schools, worked with the clergy to spread hateful propaganda in Iranian media “which led to widespread mob violence against Bahá’ís”, and probably “collaborated with Islamic groups throughout the 1960s and 1970s in harassing Bahá’ís”. Baha’is still suffer intense persecution in Iran, where over 200 Baha’is have been killed or executed, hundreds more tortured and/or wrongfully imprisoned, and tens of thousands have lost jobs and access to education, due to systematic persecution as a matter of government policy. For example, currently there are 80 Baha’is in prison, all on false charges. The list includes all seven Iranian Baha’i leaders, who are serving wrongful 20-year sentences for allegedly “disturbing national security,” “spreading propaganda against the regime,” and “engaging in espionage.” (Was sending money for the upkeep of Baha’i shrines in Haifa or Akka their “espionage”, I wonder?)
3) Baha’i are accused of having ties to Freemasonry. On this, I will let the linked Wikipedia article speak for itself: “Specific accusations connecting the Bahá’í Faith to Freemasonry often include an assertion that Dr. Dhabih Qurban, who was a well-known Bahá’í, was also a freemason. This assertion is based on an Iranian book publishing documents related to Freemasonry in the country; that book states that in specific pages of Fazel Mazandarani’s book on the Bahá’í Faith there are statements that Dr. Dhabih Qurban is a Freemason, but in fact Freemasony is not mentioned in the pages of the referenced Bahá’í book. Furthermore, the Iranian book that is the source of the accusation includes a discussion between the Grand Master of the Great Lodge in Iran, and the Grand Master notes that ‘no Bahá’ís have become masons and this is repeated by others present with no-one disagreeing.’
The teachings of the Baha’i Faith expressly forbid membership in secret societies. Shoghi Effendi, the head of the Bahá’í Faith in the first half of the 20th century, asked all Bahá’ís to remove their memberships from all secret societies, including the Freemasons…” So there you go.
Furthermore, I do not agree with the implication that the Baha’i Faith is humanistic. Abdul-Baha said in 1996, “[T]o blessed animals the utmost kindness must be shown, the more the better…[I]t is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and where the animal spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by animal and man. Man hath not grasped this truth, however, and he believeth that physical sensations are confined to human beings, wherefore is he unjust to the animals, and cruel. And yet in truth, what difference is there when it cometh to physical sensations? The feelings are one and the same, whether ye inflict pain on man or on beast. There is no difference here whatever. And indeed ye do worse to harm an animal, for man hath a language, he can lodge a complaint, he can cry out and moan; if injured he can have recourse to the authorities and these will protect him from his aggressor. But the hapless beast is mute, able neither to express its hurt nor take its case to the authorities … Therefore it is essential that ye show forth the utmost consideration to the animal, and that ye be even kinder to him than to your fellow man. Train your children from their earliest days to be infinitely tender and loving to animals. If an animal be sick, let them try to heal it, if it be hungry, let them feed it, if thirsty, let them quench its thirst, if weary, let them see that it rests.”
And when, in 1979, he was asked, “”What will be the food of the future?” Abdul-Baha replied, “Fruit and grains. The time will come when meat will no longer be eaten.”
It is undeniably true that the Baha’i Faith is not compatible with Aryanism and would need to be terminated. But are Baha’is worthy of persecution, especially at such a time as this? Are they deserving of all the accusations leveled against them, almost exclusively by Muslims? I would say no, and advise that one’s time and energy would be better directed elsewhere. Those are my thoughts.
“I have personally converted a number of individual Muslims to at least vegetarianism (and in some cases veganism) using solely Mohammedan arguments. For example, the simple fact that vegetables are automatically halal whereas meat etc. at best require a Basmala ritual to make it artificially halal is a strong argument that a superior Mohammedan diet is a meatless diet, and that the Basmala is best interpreted as a wartime compromise, especially when considering Mohammed’s otherwise numerous examples of kindness towards animals. Moreoever, I have argued that in modern society most Muslims who eat meat do not personally witness the Basmala, but rely on trust in halal food labelling. Therefore there always exists a possibility that the meat they are eating is not halal without them knowing so, and hence the only way they can be absolutely sure that they are eating halal is to refrain from meat altogether.”
Sounds like the Essene Rabbi Gabriel Cousens’s method of converting observant Jews to veganism if he cannot convince them to follow the Essene path, as we have discussed. And as you said at the time, “the fewer innocent victims, the better”.
Interesting! (turning them into garden fertilizer might be a little over the top)
It’s catching on…
Velaphi Khumalo says: blacks must ‘treat whites like Hitler treated Jews’
http://connect.citizen.co.za/38845/reactions-velaphi-khumalos-blacks-must-treat-whites-like-hitler-treated-jews/
Someone should reach out to Velaphi, comrade, we already have lists, lol!
“Of course when large numbers of people are praying together it is practical to standardize the format” I agree with this but there are so many minute details and regulations that could be eliminated, especially for women. my wife deals w this the most. when we go to masjid she is told that if she doesn’t fold her hands a certain way, have her knees a certain distance apart ect, that her prayers will not be heard. or a few strands of hair showing. and in some places she can show her hands and feet, in others only feet, and others neither.
I see the practical benefit of wudu as well, but again people do not need to be told that their prayers “will not ascend to heaven” if they haven’t ritually cleaned themselves.
& based on some comments I read on the previous blog post, I’m guessing the prayers would not be directed at creator but at gnostic God?
@tandembuddy
“I agree with this but there are so many minute details and regulations that could be eliminated, especially for women. my wife deals w this the most. when we go to masjid she is told that if she doesn’t fold her hands a certain way, have her knees a certain distance apart ect, that her prayers will not be heard.”
I believe that your wife (and everyone else) should be able to freely choose to pray either in private or in public. But as long as there is no compulsion to pray in public, I totally support upholding details and regulations among those who do choose to pray in public. Did you not just say that you like the warrior spirit? Why do armies demand all soldiers to wear their uniforms in a precise way, and make their beds in a precise way, and salute in a precise way, and so on? It is to cultivate military discipline. The same is required in martial arts clubs. This is the real reason for the minute details in Islamic prayer, which a warrior would immediately recognize.
(At present, discipline is severely lacking among leftists. We need to bring it back, and soon, if we are eventually to stand a chance in combat.)
“I’m guessing the prayers would not be directed at creator but at gnostic God?”
You are correct. As a matter of fact, none of the standard words in any of the rakah mention anything about a creator, so nothing would need to be changed. (It is incredible how few people notice this.)
I’m glad to be hearing a conversation about Islam and how things would be adjusted to a more purer non-Jewish influenced form. Currently I’ve been reading the Quran and find it interesting how it seems to reference many characters from the Tanakh. I was wondering though if he was just relating to the surrounding culture and imbuing commonly known stories with different values?
Of course, you’ve made the point that the Quran in its present form was compiled quite a long time later. So maybe it was all spurious in its references to these characters (such as Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc). On the other hand, I wondered if he was taking these stories and recasting them in a more universalist way, similar to how Jesus took “love your neighbour” which had been written in the Torah but in an exclusive, tribalist sense, and then he took it and turned it around by the question, “Who was the neighbour to the man who fell on the road?” in the parable, known as the Good Samaritan. Anyway, I am quite interested in understanding how these religions could be de-Zionised and how this would actually express their original forms restored.
Finished reading it now, I have a couple observations to make.
“(Judaism – via Judeo-Christianity – supplements this with the notion of constitutionalism: that laws are not codification of a monarch’s will, but rather that the monarch too(!) is subordinate to laws which come from Yahweh (e.g. the Ten Commandments (an early example of a constitution)”
I don’t remember seeing the question addressed on the main site, but what is our position on the political side of Islam, in particular the notion of the Khilafah? From what I know there are a lot of good aspects to it, but there is also the same issue outlined in the quote above.
From what I understand the caliph’s duty regarding legislation is to merely “translate” the divine law (sharia) into human laws. The scholars I read/heard say that the only source of legislation is sharia, not the caliph, and every law that the caliph makes must be based on Quran or Sunnah, because “[Quran 6:38] We did not leave anything out of this book.”
Maybe the issue is that I only read the opinion of those we call Koranists?
I think I found a small error:
“This line of was already present in various narrower guises within pre-Socratic thought”
Maybe it was supposed to be “this line of thinking/reasoning”?
@MS
“what is our position on the political side of Islam, in particular the notion of the Khilafah?”
Of course we oppose shura:
In the early Islamic Caliphate, the head of state, the Caliph, had a position based on the notion of a successor to Muhammad’s political authority, who, according to Sunnis, were ideally elected by the people or their representatives,[7] as was the case for the election of Abu Bakr,Umar bin Alkhattab, Uthman … The legislative power of the Caliph (or later, the Sultan) was always restricted by the scholarly class, the ulama, a group regarded as the guardians of the law. Since the law came from the legal scholars, this prevented the Caliph from dictating legal results. Laws were decided based on the ijma (consensus) of the Ummah (community), which was most often represented by the legal scholars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy#Sunni_viewpoint
Hence we agree with Shiites that the first three “caliphs” were fake and that Ali was Mohammed’s successor:
According to the Shia understanding, Muhammad named as his successor (as leader, with Muhammad being the final prophet), his son-in-law and cousin Ali. Therefore, the first three of the four elected “Rightly Guided” Caliphs recognized by Sunnis (‘Ali being the fourth), are considered usurpers, notwithstanding their having been “elected” through some sort of conciliar deliberation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy#Shia_viewpoint
“The scholars I read/heard say that the only source of legislation is sharia, not the caliph”
Were they Sunnis?
“every law that the caliph makes must be based on Quran or Sunnah, because “[Quran 6:38] We did not leave anything out of this book.””
Being Ali fans, we believe that the real Koran (Ali’s copy) was burned and that the current version is Uthman’s forgery:
The Koran was not compiled until several decades after Mohammed’s death, making it impossible to tell how much or how little of its content came from Mohammed himself. Of particular suspicion is that Ali’s personal manuscript – submitted only six months after Mohammed’s death, thus likely the most accurate version – was immediately rejected, and burned following the release of the ‘official’ Uthmanic version. (Some claim that Ali kept a second, secret text (the Jamia) of Mohammed’s teachings, which will reappear to the world during the end times.) Furthermore, the Gospel of Barnabas, in which Jesus predicts Mohammed’s coming, at the same time contains obvious contradictions with the Uthmanic Koran, so if the Gospel of Barnabas is authentic (as many anti-Zionist Muslim leaders (e.g. Muammar Gaddafi) believe it to be, since if it were a later pro-Islamic fabrication for the sake of validating Mohammed’s prophethood it could have been fabricated to agree completely with the Uthmanic Koran) then the Uthmanic Koran cannot be. Today, Zionist agents – including crypto-Jewish converts such as the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia – deliberately emphasize crude passages in the Uthmanic Koran
http://aryanism.net/religion/mohammedanism/
Since Uthman was a fake “caliph”, obviously the Uthmanic Koran cannot be accepted either.
We believe that a true caliph would attempt to restore the Jamia, and the one who succeeds in this will hence reveal himself as the Mahdi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jamia
Anyone who is interested in doing this should send in a contact form:
http://aryanism.net/about/contact/
“Maybe the issue is that I only read the opinion of those we call Koranists?”
Probably.
“I think I found a small error:”
Corrected. Thanks!
“totally support upholding details and regulations among those who do choose to pray in public. Did you not just say that you like the warrior spirit? Why do armies demand all soldiers to wear their uniforms in a precise way, and make their beds in a precise way, and salute in a precise way, and so on? It is to cultivate military discipline. The same is required in martial arts clubs. This is the real reason for the minute details in Islamic prayer, which a warrior would immediately recognize.”
standardized public prayer is fine. telling my wife that her prayers will not ascend to heaven because she is dressing provocatively (by showing hands, feet, hair) or “assuming the posture of a harlot” by spreading her knees a bit too far for people’s tastes (yes this has actually happened) is offensive. as long as we could change the reasoning for this enforced standardized format to be specifically for the purpose of military discipline rather than some weird type of woman shaming, I would support this. the woman shaming is probably just a Bedouin remnant anyway.
btw, would there still be prostration involved? does gnostic God get bowed to?
I am reminded of a Christian friend who is actually gnostic but joined a Catholic convent because she was so attracted to the monastic lifestyle of poverty, chastity, service and strict discipline. I feel as if she and others like her would be very attracted to the RESTORED, de-judaized version of Mohammedanism!
When you find god, you will know. Perhaps god finds you, not sure how that works exactly. Either way, you will never be the same again. My prayers were always from the heart with no particular format or custom. One day I received a tap on my shoulder so-to-speak, and completely fell out of myself. I haven’t prayed since.
I my self am not gnostic but am researching it because I always thought it was strange to praise a deity who supposedly created this hell – WHOOPs I mean, this world. I think it is time for me to get back in touch with my Christian friend.
I have no idea what type of experience you are talking about but that is certainly interesting. I’ve never had anything like it…….
would children be required to train militarily? I’m guessing not, just strongly encouraged?????
Would like to see more mohammedan monasteries as well. Sufi style.& an end to the supposed “requirement” that men must marry & have children.
Check this out !
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVTmkhSg3Vy5bFGKULLyl76dTlxItVwCA
Thanks Fred! Keep up the good work, appreciate the enthusiasm. Love the Lego viking, nice touch.
You might enjoy this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTYA8n-tw8Y&index=15&list=PL59BkbGWaE6yg7bpJ3b2-GuaXEDsKW3AZ
What are your (anyone part of the Aryanist movement or very knolegeable person in the Aryanist movement) toughts on this guy: E.Micheal Jones have any of you heared of him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Michael_Jones http://www.culturewars.com/
http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/J/Jo/Jones_Eugene_Michael_-_The_Jewish_Revolutionary_Spirit_and_Its_Impact_on_World_History.pdf
@Fred: “Jones has denied accusations of antisemitism and says that any form of racism is against his Catholic faith.[4] He has stated publicly that he considers modern Judaism to be a wicked ideology, but he condemns criticism of Jews based upon race.[5] In February 2008, a complaint of antisemitism from the Southern Poverty Law Center made the School of Architecture at The Catholic University of America cancel a lecture series in which Jones was scheduled to speak. In an interview with The Washington Times, Jones said that he rejected racism in all of its forms, as is consistent with Catholic teaching,[4] and responded to the cancellation in an article in Culture Wars.[6]“
If he were truly anti-racist, as he claims, then he would be anti-Jewish.
RASCISM
“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” – Deuteronomy 7:6
Jones is a Catholic, which is the most prevalent form of Judeo-Christianity. Always be suspicious of anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, yet accepts the Old Testament (Hebrew Torah) as divinely inspired. Anyone who is incapable of seeing the filth with in those books is incapable of anything godly. Jones has already accepted the Jewish worldview as his own.
USURY
“Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.” – Deuteronomy 23:19
“Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to POSSESS it.” – Deuteronomy 23:20
MISOGYNY
“Only unblemished males are to be killed and offered to God. Females don’t even make good burnt offerings.” – Leviticus 1:3, 10
“She shall be unclean. Women are dirty and sinful after childbirth, so God prescribes rituals for their purification. (And baby girls make them twice as sinful and dirty as baby boys do.)” – Leviticus 12:1-5
ANIMAL SACRIFICE(with misogyny thrown in as a bonus)
“If any one of the common people sin through ignorance … then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
If a common person sins through ignorance, then kill a female goat. (More important people must kill male goats.)” – Leviticus 4:27-28
Those are just a few examples, of many…
Jones practically is a Jew, and lacks the wherewithal to realize it.
Made a video for my Party which I thought would be appreciated by all here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeIk-NAuVGg
@NW So the catholic church are basically crypto Jews? Jews pretendenting to be non jewish and at the same time denouncing there own jewish tribe? Sothese Crypto Jews are bascically controlling western Civilization?
@ Isaac Wakeman
Nice vid!
By the way has anyone ever heard of this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz3Tzua9A_guVvE5n4sjgEg
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEcwK0b7fqJxqY6dMPgjP5A
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm4ytvQMbvXWG7aVJdWmbKQ
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUNrrx_6ngczNY5WIUx8JWA
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHxw9HqDrQz_L_uBX79_UrQ
What do you thinks of Intergralists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integralism
@Isaac: You’re going to have to memorize that and speak it from the heart, especially if you are going to use the word ‘heart’ in the speech. Your voice should also be louder than the music. Good music choice, and good speech. I felt what you were saying, but what you said must come from the heart. Say it like you mean it, and I will certainly believe you! (I already do, you just need to express it better) Who is the musician for the piece that you chose?
@Fred: “So the catholic church are basically crypto Jews? Jews pretendenting to be non jewish and at the same time denouncing there own jewish tribe?”
They are not pretending, they do not have the capacity to see it themselves.
“Sothese Crypto Jews are bascically controlling western Civilization?”
Western Civilization is built largely upon Judeo-Christian values. That is why the ‘Christians for Israel’ movement flourishes in America, for example.
http://www.c4israel.org/c4i/
Netanyahu’s son did not win the national ‘Talmud’ quiz, he won the national ‘Bible’ quiz. http://www.haaretz.com/netanyahu-s-son-avner-wins-national-bible-quiz-1.264860
“What do you thinks of Intergralists?”
“Integralism defends social differentiation and hierarchy…”
The ‘True Left\National Socialist’ opts for a ‘horizontal’ power structure over hierarchical, and opts to recognize individual differentiation over social differentiation.
>”… Helen’s choice to be Trojan despite her Achaean ethnic background…”
HELENE WAS LAKEDAEMONIAN, NOT AKHAIAN.
@Noble – I could definitely try to speak it again. People seem to have had mostly a positive response though (maybe because Australians aren’t taken in so much by performance). People have commented they can hear the confident assurance and honesty in my presentation.
I have made a version where the music level was taken down. It is actually called “Fingal’s March” and speaks of a military battle between the Irish and the Danes. Felt inspiring to me. Anyway here is the link to the adjusted version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo30Pc-65xE
@Isaac: “…People seem to have had mostly a positive response though (maybe because Australians aren’t taken in so much by performance). People have commented they can hear the confident assurance and honesty in my presentation.”
If my response came across as negative, it was not intended to.
Not so much negative, but just interesting to see how it seems that maybe different people have different ideas about what would be appealing. That’s all. I’m definitely going to try to put more passion into things in the future. But I’m actually quite glad to be home-grown and for people to know that and trust in it. Obviously, its “horses for courses” as they say.
@Isaac: Fair enough. I did enjoy it. You still haven’t told me who the musician of the piece you used is?
It is Maggie Sansone – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Sansone
Mostly I just like the feel of this tune, march-like and determined, but folkish style.
“If he were truly anti-racist, as he claims, then he would be anti-Jewish.”
To be fair, exceedingly few authentic anti-racists and anti-Zionists have the courage attack the biological root of Jewish tribalism as we do.
Jones seems to not care for the concept of race (he has criticized the concept of “whiteness” and people such as David Duke who promote ethno-biological tribalism), as well as deny that Jews’ ignobility stems from any biological origin. He is also a traditionalist Catholic and friends with Kevin MacDonald. It’s funny that he doesn’t seem to realize the founder of the Catholic Church (Paul) was a Jew… Interestingly, he is anti-Enlightenment and seems to view Muslims as allies against the ‘anti-traditional moral decadence’ of homosexuality, feminism, etc.
AS, do you think this is enough to qualify him for the BS list?
–
“The ‘True Left\National Socialist’ opts for a ‘horizontal’ power structure over hierarchical,”
An autocratic power structure is by definition hierarchical–the leader has supreme authority and there is a clear chain of command. A “horizontal” structure is egalitarianism. A National Socialist society would of course have no ‘class’ hierarchy, however.
You might be misremembering this quote?
“Nobility will no longer be a feature of a caste constituting a horizontal social layer, but will pass vertically through all the ranks of the folk.” – Alfred Rosenberg
“Western Civilization is built largely upon Judeo-Christian values. That is why the ‘Christians for Israel’ movement flourishes in America, for example.”
I think Judeo-Christianity in America comes largely from Protestantism, rather than Catholicism.
Catholicism obviously has its flaws, but one interesting thing to note is that they have been ‘officially’ opposed to Freemasonry since 1738 (Pope Francis has even said the “Masonic lobby” is an issue to him). It’s likely no coincidence that the Protestant-dominated US has been a hotbed of masonry for centuries.
@JJ
“Jones seems to not care for the concept of race (he has criticized the concept of “whiteness” and people such as David Duke who promote ethno-biological tribalism), as well as deny that Jews’ ignobility stems from any biological origin. He is also a traditionalist Catholic and friends with Kevin MacDonald.”
This sounds strange, since MacDonald promotes “white” tribalism and posits that Jewish tribalism has a biological origin, both positions which you say Jones opposes.
“AS, do you think this is enough to qualify him for the BS list?”
His positions seem too internally contradictory for classification at present.
“An autocratic power structure is by definition hierarchical–the leader has supreme authority and there is a clear chain of command.”
I think there may be some confusion involving this paragraph:
National Socialist Germany opposed the idea of rank as a proxy for prestige. This was demonstrated by the SS, which broke away from the Western military tradition of lower-ranking personnel addressing higher-ranking personnel as “Sir”, instead mandating that all personnel address one another by the rank title itself (e.g. Reinhard Heydrich would be addressed as “Obergruppenfuehrer” by SS men of all ranks, both higher and lower than himself). This encouraged a folkish as opposed to a hierarchical attitude towards leadership. Nonetheless, authentic National Socialism unreservedly exalts the superiority of absolute rule and the importance of a chain of command, and makes soldierly efficiency the hallmark of its state aesthetic.
http://aryanism.net/politics/beyond-propaganda/paramilitary/
In other words, we support a chain of command, but we oppose hierarchy in the sense of people higher up in the chain of command believing that their rank alone makes them more respectable than people lower down in the chain of command. Autocracy is characterized by a chain of command. Hierarchy is characterized by a pecking order.
When we think of hierarchical cultures, we think of features such as these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagging
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragging_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragging_in_Sri_Lanka
These represent the opposite of the National Socialist idea of chain of command based on mutual respect and understood simply as a particular form of division of labour. This is why National Socialism is not to be described as hierarchical. In fact this was what David Myatt was talking about in the quote on the Western Civilization Must Die page:
“In Western armies – and those elsewhere who have adopted Western military training and methods in imitation of the kuffar – soldiers are initially brutalized through a strict training regime. As individuals, they are conditioned through bullying and intimation by NCOs …”
See also the contrast between the Atreides and the Harkonnen styles of rule.
@JJ: “I think Judeo-Christianity in America comes largely from Protestantism, rather than Catholicism.”
Good point.
“Catholicism obviously has its flaws, but one interesting thing to note is that they have been ‘officially’ opposed to Freemasonry since 1738 (Pope Francis has even said the “Masonic lobby” is an issue to him). It’s likely no coincidence that the Protestant-dominated US has been a hotbed of masonry for centuries.”
That is interesting, was unaware. Thanks.
This is a very interesting statement by Jones: “And in America we have three ethnic groups based on three religions. In America, classically, you’re a Protestant, a Catholic, or a Jew.” http://educate-yourself.org/cn/Revolutionary-Jews-Promote-Porn-Feminism-and-Homosexual-Agenda17feb13.shtml
Makes one wonder what ethnicity Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists are…
Hell, I’m none of the above, what ethnicity does that make me?
AS: I see your point. Technically National Socialism does not fall into the Hierarchical or Horizontal dichotomy; but one could argue that if ones only true loyalty is to the mission, and not officers, generals, etc., then that power structure would more closely resemble a horizontal one?
“Horizontal organizational structure in an organization places emphasis on the collective goal of the company. Unlike the vertical organizational structure where emphasis is placed on the individual, the organizational structure emphasizes teamwork. The focus is on the processes and procedures that directly affect products rather than individual jobs.” http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-horizontal-organizational-structure-30904.html
@NW
“one could argue that if ones only true loyalty is to the mission, and not officers, generals, etc., then that power structure would more closely resemble a horizontal one?”
I fear this would only cause more confusion, as your description states:
“Unlike the vertical organizational structure where emphasis is placed on the individual”
whereas National Socialism emphasizes the individual (the leader, as discussed in the National Socialism Basics page). I understand that the way in which National Socialism emphasizes the individual is different from the way in which vertical organization in business emphasizes the individual, but under no circumstances must we give even the casual impression that National Socialism de-emphasizes the individual, lest we degenerate into communists.
More generally, it is a bad idea to transfer business organization terminology to state organization. Perhaps it would be more pertinent to talk about a hierarchical vs monarchical dichotomy, of which we support the latter.
By the way, I have added Jones to the BS List anyway.
@AS:
“I fear this would only cause more confusion, as your description states:”
Fair enough. Agreed.
“More generally, it is a bad idea to transfer business organization terminology to state organization.”
Agreed. I should have read all of this first also I now realize: http://www.anarchy.no/horizon1.html
“Even prior to formal attempts at governments voted into power by an electorate, Western mentality differed from that of the rest of the world in its lack of belief that kings were living gods (Alexander was deified by Persians and Egyptians but never really by Greeks themselves), instead implicitly believing that kings owed their position to their popularity among the governed.”
Perhaps Westerners’s contempt for kings and their unwillingness to recognize them as living gods can be traced back to the earliest contact between Giants and the Aryans originating in Byblos, as was described here:
“In fact, Aryans being on average taller than Gentiles is more common than the reverse outside of Europe. … You can imagine how it would not have been too hard for the Fuxishi to believe that Shennongshi, who were taller but more neotenous, were gods when first encountering them. On the other hand, you can imagine how the Giants … would have had a rather less deferential attitude towards the Trojans, who were on average both shorter AND more neotenous.”
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/against-all-odds/comment-page-2/#comment-170027
The Greek cultures which followed the Greek Dark Ages were by far less monarchical than the ones which preceded them. Perhaps the onset of political and economic turmoil led to more revolts by non-Aryan subjects against more Aryan aristocrats, hence laying the foundation for democracy. (This is speculative, of course. There is little evidence either way.)
Taking a more universal perspective, the explanation provided above would mean that it was Gentile non-Westerners who viewed Aryan kings as gods. What then would be the view of Aryans? Alfred Rosenberg touched on the issue in a 1934 speech at Konigsburg:
“The state concept of German man did not lead to an impersonal hierarchical officialdom, nor to a Caesar who felt himself to be God and who hovered in unapproachable remoteness; rather, the most important life standard was the personal relationship between liege lord and vassal … The relationship, felt as personal, between the German soldier and General Marshal von Hindenburg, was one of the secrets of the great success of the German army. In this also there lies the hidden reason why Germany did not collapse after the treason of November 8th, 1918, because the figure of Hindenburg, which is a mythical one even today, with all its powers of spiritual tension – powers which are perhaps unconscious – carried over into another time; a time when they could be discharged through a newer, younger nobleman, whom today we call our Fuehrer.”
This relationship to the leader could also be seen in the relationships between the Atreides to the Duke. The relationship between folk and leader is immediate rather depersonalized through a tradition that hands divinity to whoever is on the throne (Alexander, for example, was not worthy of being revered as a god). This doesn’t mean the leader is mundane, however; on the contrary:
“The best of you are those who when seen are a means of God being brought to mind.” – Mohammed
@NW
“Unlike the vertical organizational structure where emphasis is placed on the individual, the organizational structure emphasizes teamwork.”
There need not be any dichotomy between the individual and teamwork. To quote from Dune:
“A leader, you see, is one of the things that distinguishes a mob from a people. He maintains the level of individuals. Too few individuals and a people reverts to a mob.” (And how do you get any teamwork done with a mob?)
@AS
May I upload a picture to the blog? It’s from a book I was recently reading and might be relevant to the overall discussion.
@NW
I should add that it’s the hierarchical organizations that deemphasize the individual by creating a formalized, abstracted, depersonalized status which by nature does not take into account the individual personality. For example, does a hierarchy based on seniority (like the ones AS linked to earlier) take into account personal differences among seniors and among juniors?
@Hashtali
“Perhaps Westerners’s contempt for kings and their unwillingness to recognize them as living gods can be traced back to the earliest contact between Giants and the Aryans originating in Byblos”
This could certainly be relevant. I certainly believe that people such as Cecrops, Janus and Gylfi were distinct from Giants. In fact, this report came out recently:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076477-mystery-invaders-conquered-europe-at-the-end-of-last-ice-age/
These studies helped confirm that Europe’s early hunter-gatherers – who arrived about 40,000 years ago – were largely replaced by farmers arriving from the Middle East about 8000 years ago. These farmers then saw an influx of pastoralists from the Eurasian steppe about 4500 years ago,
The above is what we have been saying all along. But then we have this:
The latest study suggests things were even more complicated. About 14,500 years ago, when Europe was emerging from the last ice age, the hunter-gatherers who had endured the chilly conditions were largely replaced by a different population of hunter-gatherers. Exactly where this new population came from is still unclear, but it seems likely that they came from warmer areas further south.
This is why we included the Capsian category. Since it is only a matrilineal DNA bottleneck, there might have been a pandemic (expected during changing climatic conditions) that killed large numbers of Giant females? The Giant males might then have started raiding for Capsian females?? (I always wondered why Blunderbore’s wife sided with Jack rather than her own husband in the Jack myths.)
“May I upload a picture to the blog?”
Please go ahead. (You are a blog admin!)
@AS
“This is why we included the Capsian category. Since it is only a matrilineal DNA bottleneck, there might have been a pandemic (expected during changing climatic conditions) that killed large numbers of Giant females? The Giant males might then have started raiding for Capsian females?? (I always wondered why Blunderbore’s wife sided with Jack rather than her own husband in the Jack myths.)”
It’s possible. One myth I was looking at is that of the Giantess Skadi, in particular that concerning her marriage to the fisher Njord even though she preferred the Aryan Baldr:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ska%C3%B0i#Sk.C3.A1ldskaparm.C3.A1l
She is also known as an enemy of the Giant Loki (as described in the paragraph above that in the link). Taking the two facts together, perhaps there was a hunter-gatherer population which was at odds with the Giants (Loki story, and Skadi’s being unable to stand Njord) but which was nonetheless forced to intermarry (Njord story), potentially indicating a prevalence of raiding.
However, there are problems. Skadi was well-known as a skier, meaning that wherever she came from, it probably was not from “warmer areas farther south”. (Part of the problem is that Norse myth doesn’t offer a world that could represent the Capsians homeland, so it’s possible for Capsians to be subsumed under Giants. I’ll have to look at more myths from the Mediterranean for a better picture.) Njord was also a Vanir (Turanian), so that wouldn’t exactly fit with Giant raids on Capsians, to say nothing of the presence of Aryans (in the form of Baldr) indicating that the events described would have happened long after the Capsians came into the picture.
—
Here is the picture:
http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/Industrialization-and-Gender.png
I’ve seen far-rightists point out that the West is superior because of the greater “rights” women hold in the West than in non-Western societies. I’ve seen them do something similar when it comes to environmentalism and how allegedly dedicated Westerners are to it. (Some Jewish infiltrators into veganism similarly claim Israel is superior based on it allegedly having high numbers of vegans. They, of course, ignore the overall higher consumption of meat among Israelis than among their neighbors.) Yet it was Western industrialization which worsened the conditions of women in the first place, just like it has done unprecedented damage to the living world. The conscientious rise of feminism in Western lands, just like the rise of environmentalism in those places, is a result of the unprecedented brutality of the West, making both anti-Western movements.
And, of course, Western encroachment on other lands worsened women’s conditions there too, such as by preferring men for wage labor (which was necessary after destroying pre-Western subsistence economies, in which women too had a place) and making women increasingly dependent on men. This would become especially bad in times of famine (often caused by the West). Sometimes the colonial government would provide aid to men, who were expected to distribute it to their family (of which they were made heads by Westerners). But often these men were far away from home working for wages, making it difficult to help their families even if they had wanted to.