Well, the past couple of weeks have certainly been interesting. The Arab Revolutions were initially touted as an all-encompassing, democratic overthrow of long-entrenched autocratic leaders; which would stop at nothing, nowhere and at no government in the region. However, it would soon seem to all change with Libya; and Gaddafi’s surprising skill at holding on to power, only aided by the shift of international attention towards Japan. And now, with the UN and Co. finally reaching the point of decision-making, future support for the rebels may turn this into a stalemate or civil war.

For Gaddafi, the UN’s approval of airstrikes may have come as a surprise. It seems that his strategy was to, at a steady pace, remove the rebels from the west, proceeding eastwards, allowing each of his victories to dent their morale and allow for further, increasingly easy, victories in the east. Indeed, some public American and Western support for the rebels would have probably aided him more than the rebels. With the current ‘coalition’ mobilising, the major problem for Gaddafi is taking Benghazi before intervention arrives. Failing this, the rebellion – with foreign support – is likely to swell and gain stronger leadership. If this occurs, the rebels will either rapidly remove Gaddafi (if the support is substantial); but I think more likely, the support will allow the rebels to create a stalemate and secure the east for themselves.

And if Gaddafi survives in this stalemate or defeats the rebels, he will be forced to continue moving away from his support for counter-terrorism and practical pro-Western policy. This will mean also about-facing in regard to Islamists; unless he wants to do the impossible at stand against both the West and its only regional enemy. This will mean we’ll see something akin to Syria, where secular governments endorse (and are endorsed by) Islamists. And this is where there is relevance for us: an anti-Western, pro-Islamist dictator is to be endorsed; especially if this takes him into concert with Iran.

But then again, Gaddafi is aged and it will really depend on the succession as to Libya’s long-term future if Gaddafi defeats the rebels. It still seems awhile off before anything of historical significance happens in the region; as the power struggles in Tunisia and Egypt are yet to be decided, the minor protests in the other Arab states are petering out, and Iran is still waiting to see if it has any new opportunities. And Israel seems to be in no way fearful; as it escalates settlement in Palestine, despite a lot of claims that it fears for its very existence.

The purpose of this article is to illuminate the role of nationalism and nation-states generally from a Western context. I’ve decided to write this article based on a request and also due to nationalism’s continuing legacy in the form of governments around the world and the attitudes of people; but crucially, due to its misassociation with National Socialism and Aryanism.

Everyone in the West was taught sometime during their history classes that nationalism emerged from the French Revolution. And I believe it is the history of nationalism from this emergence to the end of WWII which demonstrates the points I have aimed to make in this article. Prior to 1789, ethnic-based conflict and rebellion was rather rare; as all the major European states were collection of various groups with differing identities (think of the growth of France from before Philip II Augustus to Louis XIV and how they all become ‘French’). Indeed, all the concerns of minorities and ethnicities were not present in the states where they would be after 1789.

These issues led to major failures during WWII for those states which had significant minorities (particularly Austria-Hungary). And, as we know, the self-determination concerns of Wilson during WWI led to the break-up of the empires of the defeated; creating the new (and often historically unprecedented) states of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, and a handful of other minor states. And, of course, within these states there was further nationalisms which strived for exertion (Poland: Germans; Lithuanians; Belorussians; Ukrainians; Czechs, Czechoslovakia: Slovakians from Czech-dominated state; Germans, Yugoslavia: Croats; Slovenes; Germans; and Muslims in a Serb-dominated state, Hungary: Germans; Slovaks, Romania: Hungarians; Germans, etc.). These exertions would, far from unifying Europeans, divide them further and further until the territorial state of Europe is what it is today.

It wouldn’t be until the end of WWII that a solution would be adopted for the problem of competing nationalisms within the American and Soviet spheres of influence. It would be the expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe, particularly Poland and Czechoslovakia, which created mostly nationally-homogenous states. But more importantly, the final phase of homogenisation was through national governments which ignored regional and cultural identities within their borders; and through the education system, superimposed the core culture over all its territories (akin to geographically-focused assimilation). This is why nationalism as a potent force in Europe has faded; and the states of Europe almost always possess only their native population and recent immigrants.

The appeal and relevance of nationalism has suffered its final blow with the adoption of the multicultural state in the West. And it is this new stage of the West’s population-migration history which is most relevant to us. Now nationalism has two contradictory demands: the assimilation of immigrants into the core culture; and the segregation or expulsion of the immigrants. White Nationalisms reveal their importance now, as they advocate that all ‘White nations’ adopt the latter, essentially attempting to unify the various European nations against Muslims and other immigrants. However, their future dreams expose what we have always stated about all nationalisms, which is that the nation is a non-Aryan identity.

Furthermore, the central claim of modern nationalists in the West that they can cooperate over the long-term with other nationalists is untenable. Over long enough a period, conflict between nationalists is certain; as their loyalties towards their own nation’s interests overrides their concern for promoting nationalism overseas. This is true of the competing nationalisms and pan-Nationalisms of Europe – despite the WWII solution of border territories discussed above. Still, pan-Germanists and pan-Slavists divide Europe (and themselves) along dissimilar lines. Pan-Germanism demands control over territories which aren’t populated by Germans anymore (Sudetenland, Prussia, Silesia, etc.) and the pan-Slavists naturally refuse this and demand land populated by Germans in order to extend their control further into Central Europe. Within this, too, different Slavs argue over which territories are Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, etc., in a never-ending tug-of-war. And, of course, the same is true internationally; with the well known cases of Kashmir, Kosovo, the Caucasus, and most of sub-Saharan Africa. Miecz Elizejski summarised this situation with a concision that I’ve found unsurpassable: “They don’t just point out division, but argue where the division should be!”.

I think the appeal of nationalism is very much in the degree of comfort derived from the concept. As I stated above, this is because of the nation-state existing in the minds of the people (and only there), and the tribalist appeal of national identity; the return to which is merely reactionary. In a progressive understanding of non-Aryan identity, nationalism should be seen merely as the 18^th century’s expansion of identity from the religious identities which preceded. Similarly, from nationalism came a humanism with the end of WWII and the hegemony of the UN. It would seem that this century will expand its current humanism into a sentient-being identity, or more likely some sort of pan-mammal identity if uninterrupted. It is inevitable that the nation-state will disappear and be replaced by world government. Only one thing concerns us: whether a Zionist or an Aryanist will head that government.

Finally, the record and words of Hitler prove National Socialism’s rejection of nationalism. In the late-20s, every German party opposed Italy’s policies towards the Germans of South Tyrol – only Hitler and the NSDAP disposed of claims over the territory. Hitler also rejected the demands of nationalists to return Alsace-Lorraine. Despite the tremendous demands of the entirety of German society to protect the Germans of Poland, Hitler was prepared to renounce German claims on western Poland in order to improve relations, overcoming historic German-Polish rivalry.

Therefore, that nationalism was alien to the spirit of Hitler and his and National Socialism’s record should establish the roots of Aryanism in opposition to any expression of nation-based tribalism. But most importantly, the focus of nationalism in the present day – as a dividing force, with unity at most as an afterthought pursued out of necessity – is entirely foreign to Aryanism’s demand for unification of all against not just a common enemy, but towards a common and noble future.

I will preface this article by saying that my attention to Gaddafi himself has never been strong. However, in terms of the wider Middle Eastern and Muslim worlds – which I believe, anyhow, is where Libya and Gaddafi’s actual importance can be seen – I am able to comment.

I think the reality of Gaddafi’s leadership (I don’t think his power is ideological enough for it to be considered a regime) is alien to Aryanism. He is certainly not a fully-integrated, democratic pawn of the UN. However, while a dictator with a revolutionary and ideological background, his leadership in recent years has been that merely of an aged and moderated despot. I would attribute this to his concerns of succession; hoping to gain world recognition to legitimise his own rule, in order to pass it on to whoever he pleases without the intervention of the major powers. Therefore, I think examining Gaddafi’s leadership of Libya should be done in light of his struggle to maintain power.

In the region, the power of Arab socialism and its related ideologies, as well as its major regional parties (Ba’ath) has faded after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. With Nasser and Saddam gone, only Syria remains; with Libya somewhat affiliated. Hence, the increasingly important role in the region of Islamist parties; which are now cooperating with the Arab socialists (despite previously being enemies); especially in Syria, where the leadership is adopting or being adopted by Iran through its support of Hezbollah. While Ba’athist Syria will likely stand for much longer, due to the competency of al-Assad and its proximity to Iran, Lebanon and Israel; Libya – under Gaddafi – has been surrounded by Algeria and Egypt, respectively with compliant and very obedient, pro-US leaderships.

Also, I doubt very much the protests in Libya would have been as well-supported if it weren’t for its coverage internationally. Certainly there are many disgruntled with Gaddafi who would protest, especially with the protests across the Arab world. However, I think this has been aided by US diplomatic support for Egypt’s protestors. Additionally, the reality of the magnitude of the protests – and their importance as a threat to Gaddafi – is without a doubt magnified beyond reality. This is probably a reactive measure from the US, which is their attempt to maintain the image of the Arab world’s protests as truly democratic expressions, by highlighting the protests in enemy states such as Libya and Iran, and drowning out those in Jordan and elsewhere. This has taken the form of widely broadcasting Iran’s support for the protests, but its ‘crackdown’ on ‘its own’ protests. The same is true of Libya, with a lot of attention placed on Gaddafi’s fiery and militant rhetoric against the protests.

In ‘On Egypt’ I wrote about how protests never topple governments. I think the Gaddafi’s response to the protests (direct confrontation) demonstrates one of two options available to leaders with major protests: either that or ‘waiting it out’ (as is best done in the West where protests never equate to anything). Since directly confronting protestors has damaged his reputation, I doubt he will resign; especially after the sanctions, he call for a war crimes inquiry as well as calls for his resignation.

Hence, I don’t think any of us should support Gaddafi or the protestors specifically. The only reasonable response to the entirety of the Arab world’s protests is to warn that America is very much ‘on top of’ the events, and whoever comes out of all of this in power in each state will, from the very beginning, or after awhile in the world of international and regional politics, be serving American (and Zionist) ends. The media coverage is also suggestive of this; as, in each country, the apparent successes of the protestors has been followed by non-coverage of who actually replaces the leadership (or, indeed, who isn’t replaced).

This also poses the problem of foreign policy. We have to recognise that we don’t and cannot have one as a movement. The enemy possesses far greater means and experience. From this, we should learn to not encourage geopolitical goals that we would be inclined to encourage (e.g. the destruction of Israel). Towards this end, Islamists coming to power in the Middle East would seem favourable. However, this is a mistake (which I have mentioned previously more generally), since even a confederation of Muslim and Arab powers could not defeat Israel militarily or diplomatically. At best it would inspire more populist insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at worst (more likely), an ‘Islamist Uprising’ will be used by Israel to justify its own regional goals. Of course the promotion of Aryanism as an ideology should be our primary goal and interaction with Arabs and Muslims; however, in terms of foreign policy, the existence of Israel is perhaps one of our greatest weapons in mobilising the Arabs and Muslims. Therefore, what I mean to discourage is placing hope in ‘the work being done for us’; with the enemy’s mistakes leading to their own downfall. The only way to win this battle is to exploit their mistakes ourselves, which we cannot do from an impotent position.

Finally, my immediate suggestions would again be to develop contacts with Arabs and Muslims and to encourage a sort of third positionism; and, where possible, Aryanism itself.

Assassins vs Abstergo

The game series “Assassin’s Creed” has run for three games with a fourth to follow sometime this year. It has an overall theme that may be interpreted; although, I believe simply interpreted, as something akin to anti-Zionism, which I will comment on in this article.

All of the games are set in the modern world, although slightly in the future; around the date 2012, intentionally used for its apocalyptic connotations. You play as the American Desmond Miles, who is kidnapped by Abstergo Industries (Abstergo, the Latin for “I cleanse”). The corporate and ‘everywhere-but-nowhere’ image of this group characterises it as a cabal aiming at world domination. However, it is the historic basis of the game which has interested so many, as – like The Da Vinci Code – it fuses history, modernity, fact and fiction fluidly. Abstergo Industries is revealed as a front organisation for the descendants of the Knights Templar; and Desmond Miles, a descendant of a prominent member of the Assassin Order.

Anyhow, Desmond is kidnapped by Abstergo Industries and placed into a machine (the “animus”) which allows him to essentially relive the experiences of his ancestors. In the first game, he lives, and you play, as the Assassin “Altaïr” during the Third Crusade in the Holy Land. In the second and third games (when Desmond has been rescued by the remaining members of the Assassin Order) you play as a more recent descendant of Desmond, Ezio Auditore in Renaissance Italy. In each game, it is your task to assassinate Knights Templar for the good of the Assassin Order and humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mYlPTYkvGw (embedding disabled)

The plot which runs throughout each game involves an enormous amount of mythological and Biblical allusion, with an increasing focus on retrieving the “Pieces of Eden”, scenes of Adam and Eve as “The Truth” and “Those Who Came Before”. The game incorporates much which reminds us of Dan Brown, with the Knights Templar using the Crusades as cover for their search for Holy Grail/Pieces of Eden. There are multiple pieces of Eden, which have given power to their holders throughout history; being held by the likes Napoleon, Washington, Gandhi, Edison, Tesla, Churchill and Hitler.

Obviously, it is implied that the pieces of Eden can either be used for “good” or for “evil”. Similarly, many of the world’s most renowned figures were Templars, and their deaths are attributed to the work of the Assassin Order. And it is the admirable role of the Assassin Order in destroying these pieces of Eden, so that none may ever use them again to enslave and control humanity, as “Those Who Came Before” had, and as the Templars wish to do.

Parting the Red Sea

Then, the games add layers of popular conspiracy theory to the game. Such notions as backing both sides of wars (Stalin and Hitler were both Templars), debt slavery and revolution (with the installation of dictators in Iran and South America, as well as the IMF and World Bank as covers for Abstergo, responsible for subjecting Chile and Argentina) and socialising negative externalities (bank bail-outs), the Rothschild-Rockefeller hegemony, the New World Order, etc., are all weaved into the war between Abstergo Industries and the modern-day Asassins. And it is the origins of this war and the respective belligerents which I will now focus on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eekvvtojcoE (embedding disabled)

Interestingly, the Templars are traced back to Cain, who killed Abel to steal his Piece of Eden. The Templars’ original aim was for “a world at peace with itself”, but soon decided to resort to using the Pieces of Eden to impose this peace – an obvious connection that we can make with Boromir. The Crusades gave the Knights Templar the ability to incorporate West and East, Crusader and Saracen. However, they were almost annihilated by the Assassins and only regained their power during the Renaissance, linked to the Black Nobility; and spread across Europe in the Church and nobility. This is the common theme, as the establishment is generally characterised as infiltrated or dominated by the Templars.

In contrast, the Assassins are characterised, and increasingly so as time progresses, as rebels; with their sanctuary showcasing statues of the great leaders of the world whose deaths they were responsible for. It is this contrast which I found most depressing, as it prevents them from being interpreted as Aryans. Indeed, from their very beginnings, the basis of the Order – the so called “Assassin’s Creed” – is as follows: “Nothing is true, everything is permitted”. Comparatively, it can at least be said that the Knights Templar were originally idealistic; but, out of pragmatism, decided to take short-cuts. This amoralism becomes more evident during the plot involving Desmond in the modern world, where the purpose of the Order is rarely alluded to. Similarly, the reason they are fighting Abstergo isn’t ever stated. There only seems to be this rebellious implication that Desmond (and the player) must fight Abstergo because they are in control. These anarchic, rebellious and lone-wolf tendencies source from the nature of the Order itself; as it only uses assassination to prevent the Templars from progressing in their plans, rather than aiming to lead humanity. This is perhaps because they believe in nothing particularly, but are all united in their disbelief of the aims and methods of the Templars. The rebellious character of the Order is emphasised by their choice of allies: mercenaries; thieves; and courtesans. It is also the list of its members that further characterises the Order as merely a “roadblock”, priding itself on Brutus’ assassination of Julius Caesar and the assassinations of other visionaries Alexander the Great, Cesare Borgia and Adolf Hitler.

It’s difficult to say where it will go, and whether the series will ever end; as it is perfect for an endless succession of sub-plots of the overall theme, just in different time periods and countries. Despite being an excellent game, in terms of originality and research, it is very much a game of our times; confusing modern sentiments with what could have been a timeless message. I think the importance of this game is in showing us that even if the masses overthrow the elite; without an ideology at all, they will lack any vision of their own, and the world will likely be worse than it was previously – thus, the case if the coming revolutions are led by Gentiles. However, with an ideology; and that being most pure in form in Aryanism, – if I may quote 300 – will “usher in a future brighter than anything we could imagine”.

In this short article, I’d just like to communicate a message of caution which AS only really hinted at in his post ‘a video while we wait’.

The point which I found most crucial to understanding the recent protests in the Muslim world was AS’s statement that protestors have no control over who replaces those they want to depose, while comparing the ‘revolutions’ of Tunisia (which were mass protests but resulted in further disillusionment) and Lebanon (which was organised and incredibly effective).

The reason protestors have no control over their destiny is because of the nature of their activism. Mass protests are easy to defeat for any political officeholder, especially a government with an ideology (such as Iran). A ruler is suffering a temporary staining of his image (Deng Xiaoping is known for unleashing Chinese growth, not for Tiananmen Square) and a hit to the budget’s revenues. In contrast, the masses are foregoing the very incomes they need to survive. It should be obvious that the ruler has enough room to simply wait for the protests to die down. When protests do succeed, it is because the ruler caves in to external pressures or personal concerns (he may want to emigrate or go into exile), or seeks to appease the protestors, but return or place friends in power. The latter is what happened in Tunisia (where the new government is essentially the same) and what I suspect is happening in Egypt (where power is likely to remain in the hands of the army). As such, I think it’s important to realise that Mubarak gave up power, he wasn’t deposed at all.

The only power the masses have is as the much maligned mob: to forcefully occupy government buildings and physically remove the politicians from them (as happened, more or less, in 1789). A variation of this is where the mob has an authority to which it looks, and calls upon once it has physically removed the previous ruler and his officials (the most recent example would be Iran’s Islamic Revolution, whose guerillas defeated the Shah’s remaining forces and called upon Ayatollah Khomeini).

In terms of Egypt, what the masses ‘want’ is largely irrelevant. They emulated the typical Western protest and have no control over their destiny. The government is likely to remain in the hands of the army, with perhaps some inclusion of various elements in small enough numbers and large enough diversity that they are politically irrelevant. I can’t imagine that in the short term the Muslim Brotherhood will take a major stake in the government, let alone come to lead it. About the only encouraging sign is that these protests seemed to have occurred without being expected and orchestrated by Israel or the US. This; however, doesn’t mean that Israel won’t be able to quickly react and benefit greatly from it. After all, Israel’s calls for greater international and American diplomatic support with Iran have been hampered by the global perception that Israel has no regional matches; with American assurances and positive relations with many regional neighbours (notably Egypt and Jordan). More than any other one concern, the media has focused on what the Egyptian protests will mean for Israel’s security; which suggests Israel can easily profit from this turn of events by characterising the Muslim world-wide protests as threatening its existence, and respond militarily; or at the very least, regain the full sanctity of its image in the West.

Whatever is happening and whatever is planned, there isn’t much we can do from the West. I would suggest that we all network with more Arabs and Muslims and try to recruit them to blog with us as well. It is a shame we haven’t been able to introduce Aryanism to the region, as it will prove much more receptive than any part of the world; with a large youth population, embedded anti-Zionism and a certain religiosity, morality and solidarity that isn’t found elsewhere.

The Venus Project and its associated front, the Zeitgeist movement, I will be referring to collectively as just ‘Zeitgeist’. Admirable in its idealism and vision for the future, it is nevertheless thoroughly Gentile in its philosophical core. At most, Aryanism will take from Zeitgeist its technical aspects – namely, its solutions to economic management and its city planning. The reason for this limitation is rooted in what Zeitgeist sees as its goal, which will be discussed in this article.

The latest film released by Zeitgeist is the third addition to a series many of us are familiar with. The first was largely irrelevant New-Ageism, the second had a good section on fractional reserve banking, and (I thought) an interesting solution with the introduction of Jacques Fresco. The third re-treads ground it has previously covered for the most part. However, in it, the goal of all their planning and rationale is explicitly stated for the first time.

This cyclical goal is a comfortable refuge for the relativist masses, most of whom would disagree with the goal; and almost all of whom would interpret the notion of a goal as tyrannical. This speaks volumes of the masses, as a large section of those who viewed the second Zeitgeist film criticised it for being utopian, preferring the ambiguity of facing on the problems and posing no solution than a solution which doesn’t happen to identically match their personal ideology.

However, I don’t believe their stated goal is merely tactical, due to their primary focus: sustainability. Mentioned countless times throughout the film, the worldview of Zeitgeist could be summarised as follows: The world is using its resources too rapidly to ensure its survival; and our sustainable system will ensure that the species survives and survives comfortably. The amorality of this is clear; it is simply Gentile preservationism, covered in glossy wrapping for a neo-hippie audience.

This philosophical core results in a number of systems which, by themselves, would reveal Zeitgeist’s amorality and Gentilism. The reference to non-human life as resources (and its humanism), the focus on material wellbeing, the negation of ethics, and its fatalistic subservience to nature. Interestingly, on this last point, they even refer to nature as a dictatorship; and implore us to do as they have done: don’t resist it because you won’t win.

In response to Ha’aretz’s “The Daughter as De-Demonizer“

The article demonstrates three things I think are worth expanding upon. Firstly, that the far-right is well-and-truly allowing itself to be absorbed into Zion. Secondly, that this is part of a shift of anti-Zionism from right to left on the political spectrum. And thirdly, that nationalism is not to be promoted alongside Aryanism.

The European far-right have recently experienced surging popularity due to the their anti-immigration appeal. This article only deals with France, but the case is true elsewhere: Britain with the BNP (and EDL); but most infamously with the Netherlands and Geert Wilders, also covered without condemnation by The Occidental Observer (here and here). In each case, and as this article shows also for the French, the far-right is purging itself of its ‘anti-Semitic roots’, and in most cases this is accompanied by a pro-Zionist platform. They hope to unite with the Zionists against immigrants, viewing an alliance between themselves and Zion as too powerful to defeat. The rationale of this course of action illustrates perfectly why nationalism and far-right politics is not to be supported as an Aryanist platform: when asked her opinion on “several of [her] senior colleagues on the European far right [visiting] Israel recently, invited by the settlers and groups on the Israeli far right”, Marine Le Pen replied “the shared concern about radical Islam explains the relationship”. It is this alliance that the far-right intend to use to improve their legitimacy amongst the Zionist-political establishment (both Jewish and Gentile); thus removing the only obstacle to the appeal of their populist agenda.

While the far-right has arguably been more accommodative of National Socialism than the left, we have seen the recent protests against Israel have been overwhelmingly made by leftists. The article reveals this shift as recognised by Jews as well, as the “Jewish philosopher Alain Finkielkraut has said in the past that, although he has ‘not a drop of sympathy for the far right in France,’ what worries him is actually the far left, ‘where today they are recruiting the new anti-Semites’. It continues, with Finkielkraut observing that “the anti-Semitism of the far right is finished”. This shift is undoubtedly planned, as Zion plans to let loose all the concerns that they have suppressed these past decades.

The current austerity programs being implemented in Europe are at the core of a lessening of moderate/centrist political hegemony which has prevailed recently, and the moderate socialism it is influenced by. While it differs from country to country, there is an increasingly public expression of the belief of the masses that the policies of their respective nations have failed (besides merely blaming the banks). This is largely a result of the waning of the perception of progression (mostly determined by economic growth), causing Europeans to turn inwards, as the frustrations of ethnic-Europeans come to the surface. Essentially, the patriotic tribalism promoted by the political establishment for decades included these ethnic-Europeans and immigrants against ‘the others’. Recently this even came to include all of the EU’s population in the minds of some. However, as the pie shrinks due to a depressed economic situation, this tribalism will turn nationalistic, as the ethnic-Europeans compete against the immigrants for greater political, social, cultural and economic dominance. This is natural for any tribalistic group, but will be magnified by the Zionists.

As I previously alluded above, it is only the moderate left (and also the moderate right) thats appeal is fading. In most countries across Europe there is a shift towards either end of the political spectrum. It seems to me that this is the beginning of a left-right rivalry that will characterise Aryanism’s future in Europe; as the left’s receptiveness will be used by a Zionist-establishment and the far-right to divide the masses.

The European nationalisms promoted by White Nationalists and their more mainstream brethren are also revealed to be rooted in a miss-understanding of nationalism. We have all said before that ‘nationalism means love of your own, not hatred of others’ is a logic fallacy wherever resources are limited, or even perceived to be so. This perception is the case in Europe, and is causing ethnic-Europeans to not only turn against the immigrants in their countries, but also against other Europeans. The seeds of this were sown following WWII, with a Germany expected to be France’s continental vassal and everyone’s punching-bag and scapegoat. However, now that it is the core of Europe economically, the nationalistic fears of Europeans are returning, with Marine Le Pen stating: “I compared the situation today to 1940 because, first of all, we are now under German monetary control”. This is also the natural result of any promotion of tribalism and has always confused White Nationalists and others in the Baltic states (with their passionate relationships with Russia).

This is particularly disappointing, as diplomatic and cultural pressure (no doubt rooted in The Holocaust) will be placed on Germany as soon as the European nations see that they don’t absolutely need Germany; this being the country that is most likely to avoid internal race-clashes, with Merkel’s announcement that “multiculturalism has failed” and her call for more intense government pushes for assimilation likely to solve the problem of racial and cultural self-segregation (itself a factor in causing hostilities).

This article is a review of the film “Titus” – a modern interpretation of Shakespeare’s “Titus Andronicus”. However, I will not be covering the plot, characters or any scenes; as I wish to focus on something which has not yet been addressed, and which I think this film is particularly effective at illustrating.

The film itself is a clever fusion of Roman and classical aesthetics with modern aesthetics, particularly minimalism. In this article I suggest that a similar usage of public imagery – of modernised traditional authority – should be the basis of the public aesthetics of an Aryanist State. Evidently, in many nations the combination of the West’s Greco-Roman heritage with today’s internationally-applicable aesthetics is irrelevant and would require a different traditional basis.

This combination was ever-present in National Socialist Germany. From the adoption of the Roman salute to the re-emergence of classical architecture, these defining marks of the regime’s aesthetics reflect the classical component of its public aesthetics. This component was reinvigorated for the age with modern modifications and innovations of the so-called technocratic regime.

While not strictly in terms of National Socialist Germany, this combination has made its way into a number of films, including ‘Equilibrium’ as well as ‘Titus’, which have both showcased classical architecture prominently (e.g. the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana). Additionally, the uniforms are distinctly drawn both from Rome and the modern day (and in some cases, the future).

The film also includes degenerate imagery, which I have not included here. However, I would suggest for those interested that they watch the film to learn what contrasts between the aesthetics of the more Aryan characters and the aesthetics of the non-Aryan characters.

The reviews that I will suggest, I think would perhaps be the most important for a general understanding of the Aryan spirit. The complexity of them will require more than a month, so there is no deadline for them. For this reason, AS may wish to add to this post the things that he had in mind for this month.

The first review would be of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. This may require collaboration, as I think it would be best to focus not only on the three-way conflict, but on the characters, plot and key scenes, as well as anything else of significance. This is especially important as we are using quite a lot of LOTR analogies.

The second is a review of The Matrix film trilogy. This I think will be particularly beneficial if it were written from an anti-Zionist perspective, although any Aryanist focus on certain scenes is welcome.

———-

(AS below this line)

With all these reviews that Elysium would like done, instead of having Miecz do it all, how about we make November a ‘Movie Month’ and everyone do a movie review each? That would allow us to cover it more quickly.

The Matrix film trilogy

Note that the Matrix story is actually supposed to be a continuation of the Terminator story (as revealed by Sophia Stewart, the true author of both stories), so I suggest we cover Terminator 1 & 2 first (3 & 4 are non-canonical, therefore can be ignored). Also, if whoever wants to do this project has not listened to the Sophia Stewart 2009 interview, let me know and I will email you the 207MB file.

What I was originally going to delegate Miecz was a review of the Dune video games, with emphasis on the three-way conflict. But Miecz should feel free to tackle the projects in whatever sequence he prefers. Anyway, here are three videos to kick it off:

Remind you of any three groups we talk about all the time?

Let me congratulate Delendaestziobot on doing a great job hanging Kevin MacDonald out to dry. I would like you to try a new counterpropaganda technique I have been thinking about. A number of our enemies (including MacDonald) use what is commonly known as the “Heavy Book Argument” (please add this to your Rhetoric for Propagandists study). Basically, they’ve written a book, so they just tell everyone who tries to refute them to read the book, as though the book will surely answer their query. I understand that it is not worth our limited time to refute an entire book. But I think that if we can undermine the first chapter (or even the introduction) of whatever book is thrown at us so thoroughly that there is no way the subsequent text can possibly make sense, we could deal with enemies like these. If they send a tank at us, we don’t build a tank of our own to fight it, we build an anti-tank missile. If they write 300 pages, we attack the first 30 pages so ruthlessly that readers will feel stupid reading the other 270. This would be an example of asymmetric propaganda warfare, a tactical concept I am developing. That’s the theory, at least. I would like you to test it out on an enemy book of your choice when you have time.

OC hasn’t been posting, so I’ll assume he’s still working on the Platonism article.

The USA has been for the past half century and remains the primary vehicle of Zionist power. A significant proportion of Zionist power – particularly its direct military, economic and political power – is tied up in the USA. Thus, any attempt to extradite a state from Zionism must necessarily include an extradition American power and influence. However, this depends on an awareness and the will to extricate the state from Zionist power – a characteristic almost solely of an Aryanist State.

While following the collapse of the USSR, the world became unipolar overnight; since then, Russia has re-emerged, alongside China (amongst others) as counterweights to American power. Russia, perhaps due to its history, is at the moment far more prepared – although less able – to oppose American hegemony. China, on the other hand, possesses an enormous stock of political, economic and military power with which it could undoubtedly remove the US from all of East-Asia.

Thus, it seems that any state which seeks to oppose Zionism, has two options. Either it stands on its own or it seeks an alliance with the most appropriate of America’s emerging competitors. The former is reserved for states of considerable power – particularly in their region – such as Iran. However, for the majority of states, an alliance with a powerful neighbour is the only option. The difficulty of this can be seen in the former Soviet bloc, with some states resolutely pulled into the American sphere of influence and others remaining (or reverting) to the Russians.

The Middle East and Asia are far more complex. Due to the intensity of American intervention, Iran remains in a poor strategic position for either offence or defence. Although it has built ties with other states and organisations – most famously Syria and Hamas and Hezbollah – it requires the support of at least one other major power to even maintain the status-quo (that is, America not invading Iran). Arguably, it is most important that the situation in the Middle-East is reversed, as it has direct access to Israel – which, alongside the Anglosphere, remains the base of Zionist power. Thus, Hitler’s words remain applicable:

“It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.”

Asia, while concentrated with states opposed to America in varying degrees (Russia, China, North Korea, Myanmar, etc.) also remains complex. The not-so-dormant nationalisms of each people will no doubt erupt over any attempt to change the status-quo, as is seen with the recurring troubles over Taiwan and the recent dispute over the Senkaku Islands. While the issue should be whether each state wishes to serve Zion or not, the arising conflict (whether political, economic and military) will be confused for a dualistic battle of nationalities. Asia, and East-Asia in particular, is the perfect case-in-point for the effectiveness of divisive tactics in preserving the domination of Zion.

Readers may have noticed earlier that I used the word ‘competitor’ when referring to the emerging major powers. This implies that it is possible that these emerging powers will merely eclipse and replace the USA as the centre of Zion – something which will be decisive in determining the course of the next century. China has all the means to replace America and maintain hegemony for epochs longer than the USA has. And there are only two paths: either China becomes the new Zion to achieve this power; or it achieves it and uses it against Zion. Seemingly, which path is chosen depends on my introductory statement; namely, whether the state possesses ‘an awareness and the will to extricate the state from Zionist power’. China is the key, as it is surprisingly unwilling to assert itself as a Zionist proxy (as opposed to India, which is much more willing at the moment). Nevertheless, the same dilemma applies to each major power.

As much of the readership is European, the case for Europe is both complex and simple. The simple fact is that Europe is happy to remain alongside Zion. The complex component of the strategic situation is the means by which this is achieved and the reasons for it. While some states are directly attached to the US (Britain and, increasingly, France), others are attached to the EU (Germany most notably). Both serve Zion nonetheless. Many more options remain open to European nations. It remains possible that even minor states could stand-alone (as direct overthrow against first-world nations is difficult politically). However, it would be more ideal if either the EU is transformed into a pan-European anti-Zionist superpower, or Russia reasserts itself in Eastern and Central Europe.

However, economically, the case for strategic revolution against Zionism favours the approach of using the major powers even more. Due to the intensity of increased integration between economies (globalisation), a state of interdependence has been created. It follows naturally that in the current status-quo that any state which is opposed or at least removed from Zionism will become a political pariah. Trade sanctions or not, political exclusion will create economic exclusion. All states know that their longevity and existence depends on the state of the economy (e.g. a large motivator of domestic Chinese support is derived from sustained and rapid growth).

Furthermore, even the major powers may prove unwilling to become economic pariahs. This is particularly the case with China, which depends on the USA (although less than vice-versa) for fuelling its export-oriented growth. Without the US spending as much as it does (caused by a loss of hegemony), Chinese growth will suffer tremendously (with all the consequences as unemployment leads into social division). Thankfully, China has recognised this – particularly since 2008 – and has diversified its export-growth to include much more of the developing world (most of whom only serve Zion in minor ways and for considerable economic benefit). An alliance of Russia and China along anti-Zionist lines would undoubtedly solve the bulk of the concerns of economic exclusion from the US sphere of influence (essentially the rest of the world).

This article focuses on the short and medium term potentialities and forms of, as well as the issues associated with, an anti-Zionist alliance. In the long-term, it is important – as with all things – that this anti-Zionism transforms into Aryanism. It remains very possible that a Zionist defeat will coincide with the rise of any or all of these powers as petty Gentile rivals. This challenge; however, remains distantly in the future and must be faced pre-emptively if this century is to be an Aryanist rather than Gentile victory.