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.
@Hashtali:
“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?”
Certainly not! What else is interesting to me about those links is that we never practiced hazing in any of the platoons or military companies I was ever associated with. Never realized that until I saw the link here, odd. On another note, the U.S. Armed Forces are saturated with Freemasonry. Don’t think I’ve ever shared that with anyone here before.
What book is that you are\were reading Hashtali?
@Hashtali: Never-mind, got it.
@Hashtali
“the events described would have happened long after the Capsians came into the picture.”
This is what I think.
“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 that too. It all goes back to Kevin MacDonald’s long-winded academic dissertation proposing that monogamy is a uniquely Western phenomenon. Of course Hitler destroyed this notion in just three sentences:
“These people are shocked at the idea that a Turk may have four legitimate wives, but they admit that the Prussian Princes had forty, and often more, mistresses in the course of their lives. Such hypocrisy drives me to fury. The Prussian Prince, as he gets bored with his successive mistresses, can pack them off like bits of refuse of no importance, and we have here among us blackguards who regard them as men of honour.” – Adolf Hitler
http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-islam/
“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.”
Feminist arguments rely heavily on ideas from democracy and human “rights”, so mainstream feminism (which really began with the women’s suffrage movement) is still a Western movement.
@AS
“I’ve seen them do that too. It all goes back to Kevin MacDonald’s long-winded academic dissertation proposing that monogamy is a uniquely Western phenomenon. Of course Hitler destroyed this notion in just three sentences:”
Nor are the general population’s “romantic” conceptions that much more idealistic than that of the princes; there is little devoted to individuals and more to self-satisfaction.
“Feminist arguments rely heavily on ideas from democracy and human “rights”, so mainstream feminism (which really began with the women’s suffrage movement) is still a Western movement.”
I agree that the intellectual framework of mainstream feminism is Western. But could the emotional inspiration of many mainstream feminists be anti-Western, and simply be limited intellectually by Western tradition? Or do you think we would be trying to find similarities where none exist if we were to believe that?
@NW
“On another note, the U.S. Armed Forces are saturated with Freemasonry. Don’t think I’ve ever shared that with anyone here before.”
Could you elaborate on this?
@Hashtali:
Unless things have changed with in the last 13 years, one could drive onto any U.S. army base today (if one had access) and drive through the parking lots taking note of all the Masonic emblems on vehicles, would be the easiest way still. Affiliation certainly is not a secret. At the time I served I was not any where near the understanding I am today, but oddly enough I did take note of all the symbols around me even then.
@NW
“What else is interesting to me about those links is that we never practiced hazing in any of the platoons or military companies I was ever associated with.”
This would fit with my observation about the US being gradually de-Westernized since the 1960s, so that hazing has become less common. The question is whether we consider de-Westernization to be a good thing. I have no doubt that it is (the reduction in hazing being just one of many examples showing how), and this position is what we need to represent with absolute confidence, in order to counter the rightists who keep repeating over and over that de-Westernization is the worst thing in world history.
@Hashtali
“I agree that the intellectual framework of mainstream feminism is Western. But could the emotional inspiration of many mainstream feminists be anti-Western, and simply be limited intellectually by Western tradition? Or do you think we would be trying to find similarities where none exist if we were to believe that?”
I believe feminism is fundamentally anti-patriarchical. Feminists raised in Western countries may therefore give a superficial impression of being anti-Western, since the patriarchy that they grew up under happened to be a Western one. However, this is not to be misinterpreted as feminism being fundamentally anti-Western. It is clearly not the case that feminism is emotionally inspired by anti-Western sentiments, because we see that most feminists raised in non-Western countries are overtly and strongly pro-Western. The only model which accounts for this is anti-patriarchy, since the patriarchies that these feminists grew up under happened to be non-Western ones. So what we are seeing in each case are feminists opposing whichever patriarchy they themselves happened to grow up under.
This also explains why many feminists (the more casual ones) often have positively optimistic feelings towards men from other traditional cultures than their own: these men are perceived as being from outside the patriarchy that they grew up under, and therefore can be viewed as challengers to it, and hence as allies or even rescuers of the feminists themselves.
In contrast, the more hardcore feminists do not feel this way, but instead – somewhat more consistently – oppose ALL patriarchies, instead often preferring matriarchy.
The casual feminist is basically a daughter of a cruel father who thus seeks salvation in a man whom her father would not approve of her being with. The hardcore feminist is basically a daughter of a cruel father who thus distrusts men in general.
The Aryanist message to the casual feminist is that we agree that any man who self-identifies with the patriarchy that she grew up under is surely evil, but this does not mean that any man from outside this patriarchy is automatically good, since such a man could well self-identify with a different patriarchy. Therefore instead of placing her trust in foreign traditions, she would be better off placing her trust in anti-traditionalists (foreign or local) ie. us.
The Aryanist message to the hardcore feminist is that we agree that all patriarchies are evil, but not all men are patriarchists, therefore she is overgeneralizing in her distrust of men. Furthermore, matriarchy is no better than patriarchy. Therefore, instead of placing her trust in women as a group, she would be better off placing her trust in those (male or female) who are simultaneously anti-patriarchists and anti-matriarchists ie. us.
What do you think?
Well, you can’t say it much better than that. Fitting song for this post:
Ms. Lauryn Hill – Consumerism (Official Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH8dKDPm0sw
From the Last Will and Testament of Adolf Hitler: “Germany should never make common cause with the colonizing nations and should always abstain from supporting them in their colonial aspirations. What we want, is a Monroe doctrine in Europe. `Europe for the Europeans!’ a doctrine, the corollary of which should be that Europeans refrain from meddling in the affairs of other continents.” Doesn’t sound like a call to integrate non-Whites into Europe to me.
Ok, I’ll admit I’m not so well-educated in the classics, but in response to the claim that “By no coincidence, Romans preferred Hector over Achilles as a literary hero: Hector not only disdained Achilles’ intoxication with fame…”, I did a very small amount of research in Wikipedia on Hector and found this: Hector “prays aloud to Zeus that his son might be chief after him, become *more glorious in battle than he*, and to bring home the blood of his enemies and make Hector’s wife, his mother, *proud*”–sounds like vainglory, no higher purpose there!
@AS
“It is clearly not the case that feminism is emotionally inspired by anti-Western sentiments, because we see that most feminists raised in non-Western countries are overtly and strongly pro-Western.”
There are also feminists raised in non-Western countries who are deeply anti-Western. Here is an example of a paganist one that I’ve recently come across:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva
I wouldn’t be surprised if there are feminists who are anti-Western in a more National Socialist sense. As for whether or not most feminists raised in non-Western countries are overtly and strongly pro-Western, you might be right, though I’ll admit I don’t know them well enough to say. On a more fundamental level than percentages of feminists adhering to specific views is how people define “feminism”. I believe we can appeal to some feminists by defining the term to mean a movement for social justice as it applies to gender relations. Our movement repudiates gender identities (of which patriarchy and matriarchy are a part), which we can argue is the pinnacle of feminist aspirations (as defined in the previous sentence) because any gender identities lead to the exploitation of people both as individuals (forced to conform to an identity not of their choosing) and as a group (in so far as gender identities lead to gender hierarchies and unempathetic relations). Any “feminist” who argues for matriarchy or emphasizes a female identity would thus not be a true feminist.
I think your arguments to both “casual” and “hardcore” feminists could be incorporated into this.
@Hmmm
“Doesn’t sound like a call to integrate non-Whites into Europe to me.”
The Monroe Doctrine had absolutely nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with sovereignty of post-colonial New World nations. (That was the theory anyway.) Hitler was basically arguing that European nations should be sovereign and should likewise put an end to their colonialism. Nothing in here implies he was against integrating “non-whites” into Europe. (I’ll admit he’s not calling for it within that specific quote, but that’s because he was talking about a different topic.)
“I did a very small amount of research in Wikipedia on Hector and found this: Hector “prays aloud to Zeus that his son might be chief after him, become *more glorious in battle than he*, and to bring home the blood of his enemies and make Hector’s wife, his mother, *proud*”–sounds like vainglory, no higher purpose there!”
Not exactly. Hector wanted for his son to be better than him, which would as a result bring greater glory than Hector received, but the glory itself wasn’t Hector’s focus (I would recommend reading the Illiad to get the full picture). Hector was the champion and defender of Troy, and he wished for his son to be the same but even better. The nickname his son received from the Trojans, Astyanax, is telling, as it means “defender of the city”. Whether the good and power of the city/state – a worthy value to Romans and fascists – is a worthy goal to us is another matter; but it’s not the same as winning glory.
@Hashtali:
In regards to Vandana Shiva, have yet to listen to any of these myself, but I’ll link them encase you are unaware:
https://kpfa.org/event/vandana-shiva/
https://kpfa.org/player/?audio=84766
https://kpfa.org/episode/making-contact-january-8-2016/
https://kpfa.org/episode/106904/
On another note. Could have sworn there was an ‘Aryan Fitness’ blog post around here some where, but perhaps I am mistaken? Does anyone have any familiarity with the fighting styles of; Arnis, Eskrima, Kali?
When we hear the cliché, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun-fight”, we should keep in mind the following: “Americans were first exposed to Arnis during the Philippine–American War in events such as the Balangiga massacre where most of an American company was hacked to death or seriously injured by bolo-wielding guerillas in Balangiga, Eastern Samar—and in battles in Mindanao, where an American serviceman was decapitated by a Moro warrior even after he emptied his .38 Long Colt caliber revolver into his opponent. That and similar events led to the request and the development of the Colt M1911 pistol and the .45 ACP cartridge by Col. John T. Thompson, Louis La Garde and John Browning which had more stopping power…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnis
Captain Cook learned a similar lesson we could suggest.
The psychological and demoralizing effect on enemy unit from such an act, especially if they are made up of survivalists, is far greater than anything that could come out of the barrel of a firearm.
@Hmmm:
We should always differentiate between where people start, and where they end up. I do disagree with quite a few things Hitler expresses in Mein Kampf, yet even there we can clearly see that Hitler has the foundations of an anti-Colonialist\anti-Western trend of thought.
“It would better accord with noble human aspirations if our two Christian denominations would cease to bother the negroes with their preaching, which the negroes do not want and do not understand. It would be better if they left this work alone, and if, in its stead, they tried to teach people in Europe, kindly and seriously, that it is much more pleasing to God if a couple that is not of healthy stock were to show loving kindness to some poor orphan and become a father and mother to him, rather than give life to a sickly child that will be a cause of suffering and unhappiness to all.” – pg. 289
@Hmmm
“From the Last Will and Testament of Adolf Hitler: “Germany should never make common cause with the colonizing nations and should always abstain from supporting them in their colonial aspirations. What we want, is a Monroe doctrine in Europe. `Europe for the Europeans!’ a doctrine, the corollary of which should be that Europeans refrain from meddling in the affairs of other continents.””
We agree with this.
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/monrodoc.shtml
the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .
…
with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States
Just as the Monroe Doctrine viewed colonization of any part of the New World as hostility towards the US, and therefore was welcomed by New World anti-colonialists such as Simon Bolivar, in the same spirit Hitler sided with Old World anti-colonialists:
“Never, at any price, should we have put our money on France and against the peoples subjected to her yoke. On the contrary, we should have helped them to achieve their liberty and, if necessary, should have goaded them into doing so. There was nothing to stop us in 1940 from making a gesture of this sort in the Near East and in North Africa. … Our ‘gentlemen’ obviously preferred to maintain cordial relations with distinguished Frenchmen, rather than with a lot of hirsute revolutionaries, with a chorus of musical comedy officers, whose one idea was to cheat us, rather than with the Arabs, who would have been loyal partners for us.” – Adolf Hitler
“Had we been on our own, we could have emancipated the Muslim countries dominated by France; and that would have had enormous repercussions in the Near East, dominated by Britain, and in Egypt. … All Islam vibrated at the news of our victories. The Egyptians, the Iraqis and the whole of the Near East were all ready to rise in revolt. Just think what we could have done to help them, even to incite them, as would have been both our duty and in our own interest!” – Adolf Hitler
Individuals loyal to Hitler continued this activism in Egypt etc. even after National Socialist Germany had fallen.
http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-islam/
As for us, we have opposed NATO involvement in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, invasion of Libya, and ongoing destabilization of Syria. If that is not pro-Monroe Doctrine, I have no idea what is.
“Doesn’t sound like a call to integrate non-Whites into Europe to me.”
That is because you are illiterate. The Monroe Doctrine nowhere opposes integration of “non-whites” into the US (the term “non-white”, or for that matter the term “white”, do not appear even once in the entire text!), therefore a European equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine would similarly nowhere oppose the integration of “non-whites” into Europe. Moreover, it was the colonial powers that came up with the “white”/”non-white” dichotomy in the first place, therefore a doctrine that, in Hitler’s words, “should never make common cause with the colonizing nations” would reject the “white”/”non-white” dichotomy altogether. This is what we do.
“Europe for Europeans” means precisely that: those who prefer European rule should go and live in Europe. For example, Saddam Hussein should have remained dictator in Iraq; there should have been no NATO initiative to topple him. Anyone in Iraq who was anti-Saddam or who missed British colonial rule should simply have moved to the UK. The same is true of Syria today: Assad should stay in power, and anyone in Syria who doesn’t like him or who miss French colonial rule should simply move to France. And so on.
In fact, it was the pro-colonialists who were frightened of “non-white” immigration into Europe, which is one reason why they fought to keep the colonies. Jean-Marie Le Pen and Dominique Venner, for example, predicted (accurately) that if Algeria became independent, many Algerians would soon miss French rule and thus seek to migrate to France, which they didn’t want because these people were “non-whites”, hence they were wiling to fight against the FLN in the Algerian War in order to keep Algeria under French rule. Meanwhile, Otto Remer – true to Hitler’s quote above – supported the FLN.
http://aryanism.net/politics/foundations-of-the-true-left/
“I did a very small amount of research in Wikipedia on Hector and found this: Hector “prays aloud to Zeus that his son might be chief after him, become *more glorious in battle than he*, and to bring home the blood of his enemies and make Hector’s wife, his mother, *proud*”–sounds like vainglory, no higher purpose there!”
That is because you are still illiterate. Your quote is from the Iliad, which is Greek. In our page, we are discussing how ROMANS viewed Hector. It is consistent in mainstream Roman narratives of the Trojan War to consider Achilles as the bad guy in contrast to Hector, in divergence with mainstream Greek narratives which consider both to be respectable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles#Achilles_in_Roman_and_medieval_literature
The Roman view of Hector is seen in, for example, the Aeneid:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/virgil-the-aeneid-dryden-trans
’T was in the dead of night, when sleep repairs
Our bodies worn with toils, our minds with cares,
When Hector’s ghost before my sight appears:
A bloody shroud he seem’d, and bath’d in tears;
Such as he was, when, by Pelides slain,
Thessalian coursers dragg’d him o’er the plain.
Swoln were his feet, as when the thongs were thrust
Thro’ the bor’d holes; his body black with dust;
Unlike that Hector who return’d from toils
Of war, triumphant, in Æacian spoils,
Or him who made the fainting Greeks retire,
And launch’d against their navy Phrygian fire.
His hair and beard stood stiffen’d with his gore;
And all the wounds he for his country bore
Now stream’d afresh, and with new purple ran.
I wept to see the visionary man,
…
And, groaning from the bottom of his breast,
This warning in these mournful words express’d:
‘O goddess-born! escape, by timely flight,
The flames and horrors of this fatal night.
The foes already have possess’d the wall;
Troy nods from high, and totters to her fall.
Enough is paid to Priam’s royal name,
More than enough to duty and to fame.
If by a mortal hand my father’s throne
Could be defended, ’t was by mine alone.
Now Troy to thee commends her future state,
And gives her gods companions of thy fate:
From their assistance happier walls expect,
Which, wand’ring long, at last thou shalt erect.
Here, even Priam is considered to be too concerned with fame, and Hector a victim of this, but this is visible only to those (e.g. Aeneas) who can see the spirit world, whereas those who cannot see the spirit world would remember him exactly as your quote from the Iliad would suggest. Virgil is basically declaring that he understands Hector more deeply than Homer ever did.
The Roman view is echoed in some later works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector#In_literature
In William Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida, Hector’s death is used to mark the conclusion of the play. His nobility is shown in stark contrast to the deceit and pridefulness of the Greeks, especially Achilles.
In David Gemmell’s Troy trilogy Hektor is seen as a man of peace and would rather breed his horses than go to war but is forced by King Priam to fight for the Hittite empire against the Egytians at the Battle of Kadesh and other conflicts.
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_(film)
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0e/cb/f6/0ecbf61b3b55e8975e29afba21c9312f.jpg
In less than a year it will be illegal to migrate to the Mid East to participate in defensive jihaad or not. All Muslims entering the West will be interned to concentration camps and the bombs will fall on muslim countries.
Europe and America does know about Syrian children being smashed up by bombs, they enjoy it. Europe and America is almost entirely “Zionist correct”. Due to political correctness “multiculturalism” instigating backlash against muslims (what it was designed to do) the West is shouting “let’s be like Israel!”
Just like when Anglo-Jewry spread fake-German racist master race propaganda to make the world hate Germans, they are doing the same thing against Muslims. The West will cheer and throw parties as the bombs drop. Just like they laughed at the bombs dropping on Germany’s “evil Aryan Nazis”.
Demographic replacement will not shift the West’s moral convictions before Zionist correct backlash legitimizes all out war against Muslims.
@Handschar: It’s more about Arabs in general than it is about Muslims, as Islam is one of the most ethnically diverse monotheistic religions in existence today. The Muslim faith also happens to be the fastest growing monotheistic religion presently.
“In less than a year it will be illegal to migrate to the Mid East to participate in defensive jihaad or not.”
That is why the establishment needs a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump.
Out of curiosity, why would one fight for IS, over let us say Hezbollah, or Hamas?
Hezbollah, let us not forget, defeated the Israeli military in 2006.
Interesting side note: Jeremy Corbyn refuses to denounce terrorist ‘friends’ Hamas and Hezbollah http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/01/jeremy-corbyn-under-pressure-to-denounce-friends-hamas-and-hezbo/
With a Clinton or Trump presidential victory, the chance of Americans revolting is also a possibility, hence the militarization and ‘Israelization’ of many western countries police forces in preparation of such an event. Perhaps this time around Americans will finally put down the protest signs and do the right thing for once. That is also certainly a possibility.
Which makes Hollywood’s latest Marvel hero movie timely, ‘Captain America: Civil War – Divided We Fall’. (One just can’t make this shit up, even if they wanted to)
The real question being, why should anyone want to unite with a bunch of; racist, murderous, xenophobic thugs in the first place?
Digressing. What you are describing is the beginnings of WWIII. Perhaps why America is quickly adapting its nuclear arsenal so that they can dial-up or down the payload, and making their ICBM’s undetectable by radar, the ‘east pacific pivot’, etc.
It all goes to shit in the end Handschar, one way or another, hence why this site is primarily focused on what comes after.
@Handschar:
Civilizations rise and civilizations fall. The sooner this one falls, the better.
@Folks:
Appreciate the add of Michael Jackson at the bottom of the ‘preventing WWIII’ page, nicely done!
Good song for this post also:
Michael Jackson – Earth Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAi3VTSdTxU
@Handschar
“Demographic replacement will not shift the West’s moral convictions before Zionist correct backlash legitimizes all out war against Muslims.”
This is why we need paramilitary organization. This is what I suggest you concentrate on.
https://trueleftblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/putting-the-w-back-into-sjw/
https://trueleftblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/the-identitarian-miscalculation/
(Please feel welcome to continue the discussion over at these posts.)
At the very minimum, every potential target of the ZC backlash in the West needs to own a legal firearm (preferably a rifle) if possible. This (as I have been saying for years) should be a movement in itself: simply getting leftists as well-armed as rightists. Anyone interested in specializing in this issue should send in a contact form:
http://aryanism.net/about/contact/
As far as the gun issue, I was wondering about putting an edited version of my article on the True Left site?
http://www.australianfreedomparty.org/gun-control-vs-gun-liberty
Premise: NS isn’t necessarily Left or Right but Radical Centrist ideology unifying people under the banner of honor-based moral authority.
Conscience in the Third Reich was elevated to an ethos of high moral purpose wherein the Aryan race justified a crackdown upon those doing abusive, dishonorable and ignoble things, ethnicity, religion, irrelevant. The groups Aryans opposed were self-identifying, by malicious acts of tribalism and self-interest.
It turned out to be people practicing Judaism and other self-interested individuals and groups who were producing pornography, running prostitution networks, drug cartels, perjurious newspapers, usury and extortion.
Of course the Anglo-Jewish Press manufactures propaganda full of malicious accusations and perjurious allegations with the intent to pit each respective group of non-Jews against each other – that is, perverting the course of justice on the tribal scale.
Most of the fighting on the Aryan side will be moralitarians i.e., authentic National Socialists and fundamentalists, who hate dishonorable people infinitely more than we love life. The retributive force of SS martyrdom was feared as much as the kamikaze and the mujahideen.
Sadly, although Palestine’s children often display heroism what Palestine is doing does not objectively constitute jihaad. IS criticizes Hamas for being strategically incompetent but they themselves are being disrupted by Israeli-Western forces.
Britain and America used the same propaganda tactics against Germans whereby the Anglo-Jewish Press disseminated waves of racially prejudiced and insulting material on behalf of Germans. In this we see the real racism is instigation and slander with the intent to provoke violence against a target group.
Premise: the Yinon “Greater Israel” Plan is 1980s defunct military intelligence. Islamic strategists have had 36 yrs to prepare countermeasures. Anglo-Jewry is discrediting IS’ legitimacy with propaganda aimed at demoralizing prospective jihadists and at the same time giving the rightwing a morale boost about Israel triumphing over Islam, maintaining the West’s aura of invincibility.
On top of this, even though no Muslim in his right mind condones attacks on Western soil because it only legitimizes more air-strikes and oppression of Muslims in general. Under Western law someone can be sentenced to life in prison for going to Syria to fight (if they return to the West). Muslims who sympathize with children dying in Syria are being monitored by Scotland Yard. It’s got to the point where anyone who objects to children being smashed up by bombs is two steps away from being identified as a political dissident to be interned to prison.
Anglo-Jewry does not want unification between Hizbullah, Hamas, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and al-Qaeda and especially does not want mass immigration of anti-Zionists from Europe into the Mid East.
Hamas was removed from the list of terrorist organizations so the Gaza Strip remains the only possible location for Aryans to fight injustice.
I see no reason to object to Israel using its Samson Option against the world’s capital of promiscuity and vice if the few Aryans existing in Europe, who stoically suffer democracy have left, to die a martyrs death fighting a dishonorable enemy, in close proximity.
@Handschar
“Premise: NS isn’t necessarily Left or Right but Radical Centrist ideology”
Wrong.
“unifying people under the banner of honor-based moral authority.”
This is leftism, in contrast to rightism which uses identity as its banner.
“Conscience in the Third Reich was elevated to an ethos of high moral purpose wherein the Aryan race justified a crackdown upon those doing abusive, dishonorable and ignoble things, ethnicity, religion, irrelevant. The groups Aryans opposed were self-identifying, by malicious acts of tribalism and self-interest.”
This is leftism, in contrast to rightism which actively promotes tribalism and self-interest.
“Most of the fighting on the Aryan side will be moralitarians i.e., authentic National Socialists and fundamentalists, who hate dishonorable people infinitely more than we love life.”
This is leftism, in contrast to rightism which hates merely those who pose a threat to the life of one’s own tribe.
Using RY’s terminology is one of the fastest ways to let us know not to take you seriously.
I don’t know much about politics, but from wikipedia:
>The “radical” in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.[3] The “centrism” refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion.[4] Thus one radical centrist text defines radical centrism as “idealism without illusions”.[5][nb 1]
I could see how people could assume that Aryanism is a radical centrist ideology, based on how this page describes its objectives:
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/naturalism-vs-idealism/
http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/grid.png
I.E. accomplishing ideal goals with natural methods. However, I also see how Aryanism would repel rightists and attract leftists, the former being uninterested in abstract ideals so much as prosperity for their in-group.
@Coyotl
“The “radical” in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.”
This part is not the problem. This is precisely why we gladly accept the term “radical left” for our movement:
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/conservatism-liberalism-radicalism/
“The “centrism” refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion.[4] Thus one radical centrist text defines radical centrism as “idealism without illusions”.”
This part is the problem. Left and right refer to difference in AIMS. Your quote attempts to redefine left and right to refer to mere difference in BALANCE between lofty aims and successful accomplishment, as if leftists and rightists fundamentally travel in the same direction. Your quote caricatures “leftism” as visionary but impractical, and “rightism” as practical but visionless, and then proposes “centrism” as combining the best of both sides. This is a notion that presumes a purely economic conception of politics, with “left” referring to communism and “right” to capitalism.
The important thing to recognize is that this notion is solely modernist. For most of history and almost all of pre-modern history, in contrast, left and right has referred to the much more fundamental sides of MORAL DUALISM. This is also what we are returning to today. Centrism in moral dualism is simply amorality, which is why we will never accept “centrist” as a description for ourselves. Rightism in moral dualism is traditionalism; leftism in moral dualism is anti-traditional absolutism. When we call ourselves True Left, we mean we are leftists in this true, multi-millenial conflict between left and right that has independently arisen in ancient cultures all over the world:
In ancient China, it was the Mohist left as opposed to the Confucianist right. In ancient India, it was the Sramanist left as opposed to the Brahmanist right. In ancient Persia, it was the Manichaean left as opposed to the Avestan right. In ancient Palestine, it was (as Dietrich Eckart mentions above) the Nazarene left as opposed to the Abrahamic right. In ancient Egypt, it was the Atenist left as opposed to the Amunist right. In ancient Greece, it was the Pythagorean left as opposed to the Hellenic right (extending into the Platonist left as opposed to the Aristotelian right). And so on.
http://aryanism.net/politics/foundations-of-the-true-left/
Those who believe that left and right are merely about economics will claim that left and right did not exist in medieval and earlier times. Such people are not worth wasting our time talking to. The only people whom we are addressing are those able to clearly discern leftist and rightist currents in ancient history. Our job is to defend the superiority of the leftist currents. Those who try to confuse the terminology by invoking “centrism” are making our job more difficult. A movement that describes itself as either “leftist” or “rightist” provides an immediate impression of its aims, which is what the terms are designed to do. They are the ideological equivalent of combat uniforms. In contrast, a movement that describes itself as “centrist” tells its audience absolutely nothing about what its aims are, which makes it about as useful as going into battle butt naked (which is how I imagine RY in my mind every time he leaves a comment here).
@AS
Thanks for clearing that up.
@AS – I’m also very glad for the clarity in what you’ve written above. At times, I’ve even used this centrist title for my position based on my misunderstanding as per above, that communism vs capitalist, and that we were a third position. I’ve also had the mistaken thing of visionary vs realist without vision, and that we were a position that combined the two. So I’m glad for the clarity in what you wrote above.
Currently, I’m personally delving into understanding a True Left Christianity, based on the original life and teachings of Jesus, as opposed to the current paradigm of Pauline Christianity (Judaeo-Christianity). It is certainly not an easy thing to uncover from the rubble.
In case anyone missed it the first time around:
War Against All Puerto Ricans: Revolution and Terror in America’s Colony
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGZE86Yqz0o&feature=youtu.be
War Against All Puerto Ricans
https://waragainstallpuertoricans.com/
@Hashtali
In response to your recent comment over at the other post:
“I would argue that Giant (i.e. Gentile) blood memory to some extent has more to do with the West than Pelasgian (i.e. Turanian) blood memory”
recently our enemies over at TOO have argued – in my opinion quite strongly – for the opposite, based on the Iliad (note the dripping Turan-worship – my bold):
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/05/a-review-of-the-mighty-dead-why-homer-matters-by-adam-nicolson-part-1
The author views the Trojan Wars as an unconscious metaphor for the clash of the civilizations that resulted from the arrival of the Indo-Europeans in the eastern Mediterranean. Instead of the meeting of Achilles and Hector, “it is a deathly confrontation of two ways of understanding the world.” The language of the Iliad symbolizes this clash: words like “city,” “battlements,” “walls,” and “gates” are juxtaposed against the “flatlands,” the “open plain” and the “pedion,” over which Achilles runs like “a being radiant with horror, bringing evil and pain to men.”[xiii] For the author no two worlds could be more different than “the grasslands of the steppes north of the Black Sea [the Indo-European homeland] and the craggy broken boundaries of the Mediterranean.”[xiv] This dialectical tension between steppe and city-dweller is reflected in a key Homeric theme: the Greeks’ deep “distrust of the potential for unmanliness in the city, whose beauties and order are nevertheless deeply desirable.”[xv]
…
He asserts that: “Only in reference to Indo-European aristocratic berserkers … can we speak in Hegelian terms of a fight to the death for the sake of pure prestige.”[xxi] Prestige-motivated fighting pervades both Homeric epics. In the Iliad the first fighting does not begin until 2,380 lines into the story, but thereafter the blood flows, increasingly, with an increasing intensity and savagery, until, as Nicolson notes, “the climax comes in the crazed berserker frenzy of Achilles’s grief-fuelled rampage through the Trojans. The culmination is the death of Hector, when steppe-man finally meets and kills the man of the city.”[xxii]
…
Achilles, the “city destroyer” who is the ultimate symbol of an Indo-European warrior elite that was “ferociously male in its focus, with male gods and a cultivation of violence, with no great attention paid to dwellings or public buildings, but a fascination with weaponry, speed and violence.”[xxv] Even in the world of the Iliad, Achilles’ homeland in Thessaly is further north than that of any other character. For Nicolson, “Achilles carries a pre-southern, pre-urban, pre-complicated world of purity and integrity within him.”[xxvi]
The willingness of Achilles to defy the authority of King Agamemnon is certainly illustrative of Duchesne’s culture of “aristocratic egalitarianism” where a leader is regarded as a “first among equals.” It is only natural, therefore, that Achilles “cannot tolerate the overarching kingliness of Agamemnon.”[xxvii] When Odysseus intercedes between Agamemnon and Achilles he suppresses the former’s injunction for Achilles to “submit himself to me, since I am so much more kingly,” because he knows that “the steppe consciousness of Achilles will not accept an overking.”[xxviii]
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/05/a-review-of-the-mighty-dead-by-adam-nicolson-part-2
the classical Greeks were baffled by Homer’s dislike of fish which they regarded as the ultimate delicacy. They couldn’t comprehend why Homer’s heroes ate beef when they were so often located next to prime fishing spots. For Nicolson, this contempt for fish was “likely a steppe land inheritance, from the time when a large herd of meaty animals was one of the identifying marks of a king or hero.”[v]
The heroes of the Indo-European warrior world were men whose individuality was commemorated in large single burials, often under prominent mounds called “kurgans” on highly visible places among grazing grounds cleared for their herds. Meat mattered in this warrior world, largely as a symbol of portable wealth when alive, and for feasting when dead and cooked.
…
According to the author: “Homer is full of half-buried memories like this of that northern past which hint at a non-Mediterranean world, far from water, far from cities, land-locked, dominated by an enormous sky, horse-rich, focused on flocks and herds and the meat they provide, violent, noble and heroic. This steppe-world is the place from which Achilles comes. It is not the Homeric foreground, because Homer is inconceivable without sailing ships, cities and the sea — without everything that is bound up with the name of “Troy”: civilization, the sea-borne raid, the connection to the east — but that other northern place lurks as a kind of murmured ancestral layer, a sub-conscious.[vii]“
I mostly agree with this analysis: Achilles strikes me intuitively as Pelasgian (whereas the closest to the Giant type in the Iliad would probably be Ajax). Since we also discuss Achilles in our page, I thought I would post this here for reference. What do you think? Remember, Pelasgians themselves are Giant-Turanian mixes, not pure Turanians, so perhaps that Giant part is what you are sensing.
They also mention Beowulf, just as we do. This suits us fine: the more openly the far-right claims Achilles and Beowulf into its mythology, the more easily we can claim Hector and Arthur into ours.
@AS
I didn’t realize this would get so long, but here we go:
“recently our enemies over at TOO have argued – in my opinion quite strongly – for the opposite, based on the Iliad (note the dripping Turan-worship – my bold):”
Upon closer consideration, I think the argument that Turanian blood memory plays a bigger role in WC than Giant blood memory is valid, though right now I see one limitation and one point that needs further elaboration (to be discussed below).
“The willingness of Achilles to defy the authority of King Agamemnon is certainly illustrative of Duchesne’s culture of “aristocratic egalitarianism” where a leader is regarded as a “first among equals.” It is only natural, therefore, that Achilles “cannot tolerate the overarching kingliness of Agamemnon.””
I wonder if this is similar to what the barons behind the Magna Carta were thinking.
“I mostly agree with this analysis: Achilles strikes me intuitively as Pelasgian (whereas the closest to the Giant type in the Iliad would probably be Ajax). Since we also discuss Achilles in our page, I thought I would post this here for reference. What do you think?”
Since the basis of WC is a fame-driven psychology, we should find in what environment such a psychology would thrive. I think earning fame is valuable universally in so far as it confers reproductive advantages: a person who is more famous has a larger number of potential mates. However, I think that a fame-driven psychology (and not just fame itself) might have been evolutionarily most advantageous in a pastoral society, so I agree with you (though I will still make the case for some significant Giant influences on WC soon). I’ll analyze this psychology from the perspective of agricultural, hunter-gatherer, and pastoral societies to create an argument for this (and I’m curious to see what everybody else thinks of it).
Within the originalfarming societies, waging war to acquire the land of others (as a constant phenomenon, not just in time of crisis) would have been disadvantageous. New land did not necessarily mean more wealth. Actually, it meant more time and labor invested in tending one’s land (since one now had more fields); it also meant that neither field would have been tended to sufficiently, which could be disastrous in terms of yields and the ability to survive. A culture favoring war to acquire the land of others would have therefore been ridiculous; in these circumstances, there would be little hope of gaining fame through war, so there would have been little selective pressure to produce somebody like Achilles.
We could also talk of fame in terms of a farmer gaining renown in his village (and perhaps beyond) for his skill in producing yields of higher quality and quantity. The economic and thus reproductive advantages of such an individual are obvious. However, I would argue that the psychology which confers such skill is not one that is fame-driven, but one that is self-reliant, diligent, and empathetic to the plants and animals one works with; this is so because of the nature of the work itself. In other words, while the more famous farmer would have likely been the one more successful in reproducing, the hereditary psychological traits (and accompanying culture) passed on are not fame-driven, but self-reliant, diligent, and empathetic. (This would also explain why autarky makes sense to Aryans intuitively.)
Within hunter-gatherer societies, fame from victory in war with other tribes over resources (namely prey and hunting territory (and women)) or from being a better hunter than other members of one’s tribe would have been advantageous to reproduction. One would simply be removing competition over the same resource while not also necessarily causing that resource to diminish. A fame-driven psychology could, unlike in the original farming societies, function well and prove advantageous. That being said, I think the advantage would be marginal. Being a better hunter than the next guy is advantageous, but over-hunting could also destroy prey populations and lead to both the individual hunter and the tribe’s destruction. (We saw this in Aryan Diffusion Part 7 with the introduction of bow-and-arrow technology in the Mississipi area, as well as in more recent history with the destruction of buffalo populations, among plenty of other cases.) Hunter-gatherer groups actually ostracize members who kill “too much” (this is probably why rightists view prudence and long-term thinking as admirable in themselves). Therefore an aggressive individual who wants to be famous is not that much more advantaged by his psychology than an individual who is simply aggressive, and the former may in fact be disadvantaged. (The desire to not over-kill might also provide a racial basis for the concern non-Aryan environmentalists have for sustainability.)
Within herding societies, a fame-driven psychology can grant advantages in competition with others over the same resource, cattle, simply because one would be economically advantaged to have more cattle (and therefore more likely to reproduce than one who has less). The desire for fame reaches its peak satisfaction in the pan-Turanian cultural phenomenon of cattle-raiding (in which women can also be “acquired” as a bonus). The amount of fame one acquires is proportional to the amount of cattle one acquires in such a raid. (I don’t think the psychology of cattle-raiders, who are proud of and made famous through the number of cattle they acquire, is too different from that of Achilles in battle.) This fame also translates to earning a higher social rank (formally or not), and of course one becomes wealthier by having a larger herd, meaning being successful in cattle-raids also has reproductive advantages.* To quote from the TOO article, “a large herd of meaty animals was one of the identifying marks of a king or hero”.
(*Remember when we talked in private about the remarkable absence of a Turanian culture in pre-Columbian Americans and the continuation of this absence in the same groups even after Columbus? Interestingly enough, the groups in which the horse became a central cultural element actually engaged in similar Turanian raids, but primarily for horses instead of for cattle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiowa#Transportation_and_Habitation
See the second paragraph. The social hierarchy based on successful horse-raids is actually more concretely graded than discussed in the article, but I don’t have the data on me right now.)
Can one raid “too much” or acquire “too many” cattle? In other words, did herders originally face the same problems as hunters in overusing resources? To a great extent, no. The domestication of cattle enables herdsmen to determine supply (at least to a greater extent than a hunter determines supply of prey), and lactose tolerance means nutrition doesn’t necessarily reduce supply of food since the cattle doesn’t necessarily have to be killed (and generations of breeding for cattle with high milk yields also means that calves aren’t disadvantaged as much, so they too can survive and be used later). Also, if cattle overgraze, one can in theory always move elsewhere, as large expenses of grassland permit and as herders have often done historically. In other words, enlarging one’s herds doesn’t necessarily have economic disadvantages, meaning that a fame-driven psychology is highly advantageous and will thus be passed on hereditarily and selected for over generations in a Turanian society.
Thus a fame-driven psychology would have been the most evolutionarily valuable in a Turanian society. The limitation of this explanation is that it would imply that all societies with significant Turanian influence would either develop along similar lines as the West on their own or at least have Western-like cultural currents somewhere in the mix. Why then did the West develop the way it did? I don’t think it’s just the mix of Aristotelianism and Judaism with Turanian blood memory, because all these things also existed in Islamic societies even prior to colonialism. Could it be the influence of Giant blood memory? Perhaps. Could it be particular environmental, economic, and/or political developments? Maybe, though I’ll admit I haven’t developed an argument for this yet. What do you think?
“Remember, Pelasgians themselves are Giant-Turanian mixes, not pure Turanians, so perhaps that Giant part is what you are sensing.”
I am still sensing a Giant part, and for the democracy-related reason I mentioned in an earlier comment. More recently, though, I’ve been considering that there might be two independent (but not mutually exclusive) mainstream anti-monarchic philosophies: constitutionalism and democratism. The two might be the product of Turanian and Gentile blood respectively, and the mix of the two races within the Pelasgian would explain why constitutionalism and democratism are so thoroughly mixed in the West.
Constitutionalists (in which I include traditionalists and all those who seek to limit a king’s power) argue that power corrupts, but their focus solely on the absolute power (usually of a king) shows that what they’re actually concerned about is a higher power challenging their own (or their favored slavemaster’s) within their sphere of influence (as you pointed out is true for anarchists, for example). But this doesn’t mean they are necessarily democrats, because absolute power in the hands of the majority/masses could still threaten their own power. I think this attitude is similar to what the TOO article was saying about “aristocratic egalitarianism”. Also, I’ve noticed that whenever I bring up my disdain for democracy and support for aristocracy to a relative who I increasingly believe is Turanian, he always misses the point and arrogantly says something about “the masses being herds needing to be led”. But this guy is also opposed to absolute monarchy. (I don’t think he’s ideologically consistent enough to say what he prefers instead, but his Catholicism combined with his comment about herds indicates what alternatives he favors intuitively.)
Democrats, on the other hand, are fully for giving power to the majority/masses. Democratic socialists, communists, and some variants of the far-right are good examples of this collectivist tendency (though they usually define majority/masses differently). Their anti-monarchism might have to do in part with what I was saying earlier about anti-Aryan Giant blood memory. However, more broadly, I think a Gentile blood memory is attuned to a hunter-gatherer society whose economy does not permit, as they put it, social stratification. Power in hunter-gatherer societies is indeed usually not concentrated in individuals and more collectivized. (Note that Marxists believe hunter-gatherers were/are essentially primitive communists. Also, JJ, remember what we were talking about in private about Deep Green Resistance and other egalitarians who see hunter-gatherer societies as some pristine havens of egalitarianism? I think this is where it might come from.)
Most people usually hold some combination of the two philosophies. I would guess the West’s ability to combine the two so thoroughly is a testament to Pelasgians being a mixed Turanian-Giant group.
“They also mention Beowulf, just as we do. This suits us fine: the more openly the far-right claims Achilles and Beowulf into its mythology, the more easily we can claim Hector and Arthur into ours.”
I’m glad to claim both Hector and Arthur as our own. Since you brought up on the page itself that Romans also favored Hector, what’s your view of Romans (at least those of the imperial period) and fascists more broadly in racial terms?
“didn’t realize this would get so long, but here we go:”
Don’t worry, just reply to my email when you have time.
“I think the advantage would be marginal. Being a better hunter than the next guy is advantageous, but over-hunting could also destroy prey populations and lead to both the individual hunter and the tribe’s destruction”
Your logic is valid, but a hunter’s fame is usually achieved not by hunting a large number of prey, but by taking on especially challenging hunts (trophyism), therefore a hunter who wanted to be famous would likely not be a hunter who over-hunted, but instead one who would attempt difficult feats of hunting such as killing a mammoth or a whale by himself, or something along those lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-game_hunting
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Hippo_Trophy-2.jpg/800px-Hippo_Trophy-2.jpg
“Thus a fame-driven psychology would have been the most evolutionarily valuable in a Turanian society. The limitation of this explanation is that it would imply that all societies with significant Turanian influence would either develop along similar lines as the West on their own or at least have Western-like cultural currents somewhere in the mix. Why then did the West develop the way it did? I don’t think it’s just the mix of Aristotelianism and Judaism with Turanian blood memory, because all these things also existed in Islamic societies even prior to colonialism. Could it be the influence of Giant blood memory? Perhaps. Could it be particular environmental, economic, and/or political developments? Maybe, though I’ll admit I haven’t developed an argument for this yet. What do you think?”
Giant blood definitely plays a part; the hard part is untangling which elements come from it. One way to proceed might involve comparing the least Turanized parts of Europe with the most Turanized parts; the cultural differences might yield some clues. Another way would be to simply compare individuals today who self-identify with Giants (e.g. Paleolithic diet supporters) vs those who self-identify with Turanians (e.g. those who boast about their lactose tolerance), and compare them.
Don’t forget that Turanians also hunted for recreation and prestige. Only Jacob was known for not hunting at all.
“the mix of the two races within the Pelasgian would explain why constitutionalism and democratism are so thoroughly mixed in the West.”
“I would guess the West’s ability to combine the two so thoroughly is a testament to Pelasgians being a mixed Turanian-Giant group.”
Remember, the Pelasgians are not the only Giant-Turanian mix we are dealing with; the Vanir are also a Giant-Turanian mix.
“Since you brought up on the page itself that Romans also favored Hector, what’s your view of Romans (at least those of the imperial period) and fascists more broadly in racial terms?”
We already know that Romans are a mix of Saturnian (Ilus’ expedition), late Trojan (Aeneas’ expedition), Pelasgian, Giant and Capsian. The Julians were descended from Aeneas himself, so since it was they who started the Empire off (I include Augustus as a Julian, albeit by matrilineal descent), we are looking at late Trojan influence.
Remember, however, that these late Trojans (unlike the Aesir or the New Trojans) were themselves already mixed with some Dardanian (Pelasgian) blood, which could account for the philosophical deficiency in the Roman Empire, and hence in fascism. This is why, although we can appreciate some of the organizational/practical elements of the Roman Empire, I believe that a future pro-Roman movement must be infused with Saturnian blood memory in order to achieve deeper significance. (Mussolini himself reminds me of the later, sub-competent Roman emperors….)
@AS
“Don’t worry, just reply to my email when you have time.”
Thanks. I’m trying to finish recreating the economy and environment article. If it’s not done by the end of this week either, I’ll get back to your email and send that separately when it’s done.
“Your logic is valid, but a hunter’s fame is usually achieved not by hunting a large number of prey, but by taking on especially challenging hunts (trophyism), therefore a hunter who wanted to be famous would likely not be a hunter who over-hunted, but instead one who would attempt difficult feats of hunting such as killing a mammoth or a whale by himself, or something along those lines.”
Ah, that’s also true. I agree that if somebody were to succeed alone, the fame and other advantages would be huge. But attempting to kill challenging prey by oneself would be extremely dangerous and in most cases suicidal (especially with primitive technology); attempts to kill big game after the first success might even undo the first success if a person got killed. It’s quite likely that a tribe consisting of people with a tendency to kill big game on their own would be decimated or at least lose its best hunters faster than it could replenish them. This means a successful fame-driven individual would have huge immediate reproductive advantages, but his psychology might be evolutionarily disadvantageous and be selected against over time. This is probably why big game was usually hunted in groups, showing a collectivist tendency; in contrast, Achilles wanted to stand out even from his fellow Myrmidons. (Within Turanian societies, cattle-raiding was be an ordinary part of life, and among some groups (if my memory is correct) participation in a cattle raid was even a rite of passage into manhood. This means that cattle-raiding was not as dangerous as individuals going on big-game hunts.)
“Giant blood definitely plays a part; the hard part is untangling which elements come from it. One way to proceed might involve comparing the least Turanized parts of Europe with the most Turanized parts; the cultural differences might yield some clues.”
It might be best to go by topographies (for example, forested areas have more Gentiles, hills, mountains, and steppe more Turanians, and rivers more Aryans) than by country or region. The problem with going by region is that the places with relatively little Turanization also have more Aryan influence. For example, those from the south of Italy seem to have low lactose tolerance, but that’s where we would also expect Saturnian and even Athenian blood. (And then there’s the problem of Capsians….)
“Another way would be to simply compare individuals today who self-identify with Giants (e.g. Paleolithic diet supporters) vs those who self-identify with Turanians (e.g. those who boast about their lactose tolerance), and compare them.”
This should work well if their thinking is consistent enough.
“Don’t forget that Turanians also hunted for recreation and prestige. Only Jacob was known for not hunting at all.”
Yes, though this would not be their prime economy, so that the selective pressure would be secondary.
“Remember, the Pelasgians are not the only Giant-Turanian mix we are dealing with; the Vanir are also a Giant-Turanian mix.”
Yes, which explains why Western Civilization thrives in the northwest of Europe also.
“We already know that Romans are a mix of Saturnian (Ilus’ expedition), late Trojan (Aeneas’ expedition), Pelasgian, Giant and Capsian. The Julians were descended from Aeneas himself, so since it was they who started the Empire off (I include Augustus as a Julian, albeit by matrilineal descent), we are looking at late Trojan influence.
Remember, however, that these late Trojans (unlike the Aesir or the New Trojans) were themselves already mixed with some Dardanian (Pelasgian) blood, which could account for the philosophical deficiency in the Roman Empire, and hence in fascism. This is why, although we can appreciate some of the organizational/practical elements of the Roman Empire, I believe that a future pro-Roman movement must be infused with Saturnian blood memory in order to achieve deeper significance. (Mussolini himself reminds me of the later, sub-competent Roman emperors….)”
This makes sense. Also, I mentioned in a private conversation with Miles Saturni a while back that it would be good to make use of the similarities between Aeneas’ expedition and today’s refugees, but doing the same thing with Saturn’s myth would work even better to stir Saturnian blood memory.
“Ah, that’s also true. I agree that if somebody were to succeed alone, the fame and other advantages would be huge. But attempting to kill challenging prey by oneself would be extremely dangerous and in most cases suicidal (especially with primitive technology); attempts to kill big game after the first success might even undo the first success if a person got killed. It’s quite likely that a tribe consisting of people with a tendency to kill big game on their own would be decimated or at least lose its best hunters faster than it could replenish them. This means a successful fame-driven individual would have huge immediate reproductive advantages, but his psychology might be evolutionarily disadvantageous and be selected against over time.”
The particular hunter might end up dead from dangerous hunts, but so long as he has more offspring than average before dying, alleles for fame-seeking would become more common in the gene pool. This means that in the next generation there will be a larger number of hunters willing to attempt dangerous hunts, and therefore less likely that ALL of them die before they as a group have more offspring than average again.
“(Within Turanian societies, cattle-raiding was be an ordinary part of life, and among some groups (if my memory is correct) participation in a cattle raid was even a rite of passage into manhood. This means that cattle-raiding was not as dangerous as individuals going on big-game hunts.)”
Yes, but I thought you were asking for a way for Giant blood to be included, which is the only reason why I brought up big-game hunting in the first place!
“The particular hunter might end up dead from dangerous hunts, but so long as he has more offspring than average before dying, alleles for fame-seeking would become more common in the gene pool. This means that in the next generation there will be a larger number of hunters willing to attempt dangerous hunts, and therefore less likely that ALL of them die before they as a group have more offspring than average again.”
Given your expertise in mythology, would you say this theory is supported by Gentile myths in Europe?
“Yes, but I thought you were asking for a way for Giant blood to be included, which is the only reason why I brought up big-game hunting in the first place!”
Thanks. I’m offering a counterpoint to see if your theory stands.
“Given your expertise in mythology, would you say this theory is supported by Gentile myths in Europe?”
The main problem is that most of these myths are very vague:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herne_the_Hunter#Pal.C3.A6olithic_origins_and_relationship_with_the_Celtic_Cernunnos
The comparatively least vague, though still messy, is Orion, whose hunting feats are closely related to his sexual pursuit of women:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(mythology)
In the broader context of the Artemis lore (speaking of which, why would Artemis be the patron of both hunting and childbirth if not because of a connection between the two?), notice how Artemis treated Orion compared with how she treated Actaeon. My guess is that Artemis was a Turanian, Actaeon was a fellow Turanian (it is stated that Actaeon’s father was a herder) but an inferior hunter, whereas Orion was a Giant but a superior hunter, which could show that even Turanian females could be impressed by Giant males as long as they were outstanding hunters (though obviously the Turanian male relatives (e.g. Apollo) didn’t like this very much!).
(Of course I myself (thankfully!) have no blood memory of any of this, so this is just pure speculation.)
“Hunter-gatherer groups actually ostracize members who kill “too much” (this is probably why rightists view prudence and long-term thinking as admirable in themselves).”
This is also why hunters (e.g. Theodore Roosevelt) are over represented in the “environmental conservation” movement. Madison Grant was also an avid conservationist.
“But this doesn’t mean they are necessarily democrats, because absolute power in the hands of the majority/masses could still threaten their own power. I think this attitude is similar to what the TOO article was saying about “aristocratic egalitarianism”.”
I agree. Madison Grant for example rejected democracy (because it would empower the ‘racially inferior’ masses), and promoted an “aristocratic” republic. He believes the original American government was an example of such a republic. (Considering only land-owning “white” males–i.e. those who made up the “aristocracy”/ruling class–could vote originally, I think he is on to something).
Perhaps this divide between democrats and ignoble “aristocrats” stems from the fact that the population of a hunting society would naturally expand up to, and then be limited by, the carrying capacity of the environment. If the entire hunting group is starving, sex is a lower priority than obtaining food, children would have poor nutrition and a higher chance of dying, and childbirth would be more risky for a malnourished/unhealthy mother. However, if there are enough resources to sustain a larger population, why not have one? The more the merrier! This would explain why Gentile societies expanded so rapidly after farming was introduced to them (and why the population continues to expand today without any foresight).
Turanians on the other hand would likely have a greater resource stockpile than hunters, and therefore would have to carefully manage their population. For example, a family might have 5 cows available to eat, but if the family (and their food requirements) expand faster than the cow’s ability to reproduce and restock the herd, the family will deplete their stockpile and starve. Hunters maintain a steady equilibrium (aiming to have neither too little or too much, as excess meat could spoil and wastefully deplete the amount of animals available to hunt!), but herders (who always seek to have a bigger herd) must be careful that the excess of their stockpile does not cause a sharp increase, then catastrophic decrease, in their population.
No doubt this careful management is why Turanians are well-suited to banking and economic jobs which involve manipulating resource stockpiles and speculation in long-term trends.
Basically it is a quantity vs [ignoble] quality strategy. WNs lament about being “outbred,” while Jewish tribal strategy works the best when they are a minority.
“the Vanir are also a Giant-Turanian mix.”
Interestingly, Grant admits the “Nordic race” is in part Turanian:
“That portion of the Nordic race which continued to inhabit south Russia and grazed their flocks of sheep and herds of horses on the grasslands were the Scythians of the Greeks and from these nomad shepherds came the Cimmerians, Persians, Sacae, Massagetae and perhaps the leaders of the Kassites, Mitanni and other early Aryan-speaking Nordic invaders of Asia. The descendants of these Nordics are scattered throughout Russia but are now submerged by the later Slavs.” -Madison Grant
“The typical British soldier is blond or red bearded and the typical sailor is always a blond. The migrating type from England is also chiefly Nordic. These facts would indicate that nomadism as well as love of war and adventure are Nordic characteristics.” -Madison Grant
“Also, JJ, remember what we were talking about in private about Deep Green Resistance and other egalitarians who see hunter-gatherer societies as some pristine havens of egalitarianism? I think this is where it might come from.”
This would also explain why identity politics has been so well accepted into current false leftist circles.
“Since you brought up on the page itself that Romans also favored Hector, what’s your view of Romans (at least those of the imperial period) and fascists more broadly in racial terms?”
Grant viewed the imperial period as vastly racially inferior to the pre-imperial, if this counts for anything:
“In the last days of the Republic, Caesar was the leader of the mob, the Plebs, which by that time had ceased to be of Roman blood. Pompey’s party represented the remnants of the old native Roman aristocracy and was defeated at Pharsalia not by Caesar’s plebian clients but by his Nordic legionaries from Gaul. Cassius and Brutus were the last successors of Pomepy and their overthrow at Philippi was the final death blow to the Republican party; with them the native Roman families disappear almost entirely.
…
The abjectness of the Roman spirit under the Empire is thus to be explained by a change in race.
…
In Rome, when this change in blood was substantially complete, the state could no longer be operated under Republican forms of government and the Empire arose to take its place. At the beginning of the Empire was clothed in the garb of republicanism in deference to such Roman elements as still persisted in the Senate and among the Patricians but ultimately these external forms were discarded and the state became virtually a pure despotism.” -Madison Grant
@JJ
Sorry, I just noticed your post because I was about to post something.
“Turanians on the other hand would likely have a greater resource stockpile than hunters, and therefore would have to carefully manage their population. For example, a family might have 5 cows available to eat, but if the family (and their food requirements) expand faster than the cow’s ability to reproduce and restock the herd, the family will deplete their stockpile and starve. Hunters maintain a steady equilibrium (aiming to have neither too little or too much, as excess meat could spoil and wastefully deplete the amount of animals available to hunt!), but herders (who always seek to have a bigger herd) must be careful that the excess of their stockpile does not cause a sharp increase, then catastrophic decrease, in their population.
No doubt this careful management is why Turanians are well-suited to banking and economic jobs which involve manipulating resource stockpiles and speculation in long-term trends.”
That makes sense. Note also that pastoralists originally used their herds for meat almost exclusively. Using the herd’s milk often meant that the younger generation would be deprived of basic nutrition, which meant that a whole generation of food could be wiped out or at least that that generation would be stunted. Only when individual herd animals started producing more milk due to selective pressure over generations to cover both their young and the herder did pastoralism change.
“Interestingly, Grant admits the “Nordic race” is in part Turanian:”
What is the basis of his assertion? I want to figure out if we’re dealing with the same racial type (the Trojan) or if he’s merely referring to another type (mixed or otherwise). For example, I imagine Charles Dance to be the type he’s referring to:
http://www.charlesdance.co.uk/images/allure3.jpg
(By the way, do we have a term specifically for the Turanians of the British Isles?):
—-
I wanted to bring up some findings from a conversation I recently had with Miles Saturni. Earlier I proposed that a part of Western civilization (the proto-Aristotelian part) may have began to surface due to uprisings on the part of (largely non-Aryan) lower classes against (somewhat more Aryan) aristocrats. A video MS sent me indicates that this theory may not be limited to Greece, but that it also may extend to the group responsible for the other root of Western civilization, the Jews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CPdqhem56c (Watch from 7:35 to 10:20.)
It’s possible that the two were tied from early on in a chain reaction of revolts across the eastern Mediterranean. An article Miles Saturni sent me a while ago covers this more in-depth, from the Jewish side:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Robert_Wolfe/From_Habiru_to_Hebrews%3A_The_Roots_of_the_Jewish_Tradition/
What’s interesting about this is not just a common origin for both roots of Western civilization, but what it has to say about democratic culture in general. Democrats are point out that “elites” have “hijacked” democracy, and therefore that the faults of democracy are the creation of the elites and not of the masses. However, Hellenic and Judaic culture provide historical evidence that the masses can create ignoble cultures (and what ignobility!) on their own without the direction of elites. Their shared characteristics outlined on the main site page – characteristics which they do not share with non-democratic cultures – are indicative of mass values and not elite values (otherwise they would have shared those characteristics with non-democratic societies). It can still be argued that elites eventually did hijack the uprisings for the worse, as with Judaic priestly elite or with whatever oligarchs/tyrants were in power throughout Greece, but that such ignoble elites tend to form after almost all democratic uprisings perhaps has much to tell us about the culture created by those uprisings.
Since we mentioned big game hunting above, I might as well post this link here just for reference:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180201/Trump-defends-big-game-hunting-sons-shamed-Twitter-posing-trophy-kills-including-leopard-elephant-death-Cecil-lion.html
@Hashtali
“Using the herd’s milk often meant that the younger generation would be deprived of basic nutrition, which meant that a whole generation of food could be wiped out or at least that that generation would be stunted.”
Unfortunately, herders figured out fairly soon that only a few males from the younger generation of the herd needed to be kept alive and healthy to suffice to impregnate all the females from the younger generation, so the herders could consume the milk that would otherwise have gone to the rest of the young males without adversely affecting their meat supply. In fact, these young males were slaughtered to provide luxury meat. This was how the taste for veal, lamb, etc. (as distinct from beef, mutton, etc.) developed.
“By the way, do we have a term specifically for the Turanians of the British Isles?”
The Nemedians first settled Ireland, as mentioned in Aryan Diffusion Part 6. They are Pelasgians. It is unclear whether or not they also settled Britain in any significant number.
The later archaeological Bell-Beaker people seem to represent the main Turanian invasion of Britain. We have no canonical mythical name for them at present (I am open to suggestions!), though they should be more Vanir than Pelasgian.
“What is the basis of his assertion? I want to figure out if we’re dealing with the same racial type (the Trojan) or if he’s merely referring to another type (mixed or otherwise).”
His assertion is based more on propaganda than actual “science”. It’s essentially: Proto-Indo-European speakers=original Aryans=Nordics=founders of Western Civilization.
He likes to point out that Nordics are super tall “giants”, but the physical description doesn’t get much more detailed than ‘blond northerners’. HBDers who call themselves “Nordishists” (the cool 21st century name for Nordicists), explicitly lump all blond northern European types together. They don’t care that broad-faced and narrow-faced Scandinavians come from very different root races, all that matters is they are ethnically similar in the present era. The impression I get from Grant is that he believes the same.
“His assertion is based more on propaganda than actual “science”. It’s essentially: Proto-Indo-European speakers=original Aryans=Nordics=founders of Western Civilization.”
Ah, all right…. That’s a bit disappointing.
““Nordishists” (the cool 21st century name for Nordicists)”
I originally read “Nordishits”, which is kind of lame for them to not be able to spot.
“They don’t care that broad-faced and narrow-faced Scandinavians come from very different root races, all that matters is they are ethnically similar in the present era. The impression I get from Grant is that he believes the same.”
I find it annoying how many people believe that. When I point out the basic theory of races to people, and specifically how individuals of one ethnicity can look more like those of other ethnicities than to each other due to race, they often agree on a theoretical level. But when I put this into practice and point out similarities between specific individuals of vastly different ethnicities, the theory flies out the window….
I believe the False Left (at least in the usual form we know it today) can be traced back to Aristotle and Judeo-Christianity, albeit as a more gradual development. Aristotle’s empiricism continued through the Middle Ages in a Judeo-Christian framework, in figures as important to the development of Western theology and therefore intellectual culture as Aquinas. The existence of God was intellectually inferred from empirical observations of creation. But gradually God came to be seen as something unnecessary, added on as a biased after-thought, to the otherwise materialistic study of “reality” (which is true of that framework). Here’s one example of a modern criticism that’s not at all new:
http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-it-is-reasonable-to-ask-who-or-what-created-the-universe-but-if-the-answer-is-god-then-stephen-hawking-126-70-71.jpg
in response to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae#The_Argument_of_the_First_Cause
So the framework collapsed gradually. Absolute values (for better or worse) too collapsed because their previous ground – God – no longer was there to support them and all that was left was a universe operating as a macrocosmic machine with no purpose other than that which cause gives to effect. This materialistic empiricism is, in my opinion, what caused the denial of subjectivity and therefore value along with previous claims to objective, metaphysical standards, enabling the False Leftist framework outlined here:
http://aryanism.net/politics/foundations-of-the-true-left/
to make sense and become mainstream. The same materialistic empiricism is central to Western Civilization.
I’m hoping this helps broaden our view of the developments of Western Civilization. What do you guys think?