It isn’t my intention to try to speak for Oregoncoug, but rather to give my understanding of his most recent post and previous attitudes regarding the subject of religion and the state.

OC’s belief in continuity of the tradition of a unified Europe (and perhaps beyond) only seemingly conflicts with AS’s more revolutionary and universalist – indeed more Aryan – vision of the future. I think that the main differentiation to be made is that of time frame. I would see OC’s vision as more suitable for immediate implementation, whereas AS’s is more utopian. To avoid confusion, it would perhaps be best to link the modern compromises with its significance in attaining the long-term aims of Aryanism.

The state is by no means the abode of the elite. The elite merely preside over it. The state must embody the masses for it to be popular, which is a requirement of an Aryanist State. While the elite must be constantly leading the masses closer towards Arya, it must do so at a comfortable pace. This means that there is an important place for tradition in a modern manifestation of an Aryanist State. This is what I believe OC may mean when he reference’s Casel’s notion that Christianity is the fulfilment of Greco-Roman antiquity.

The stale Roman pantheon was replaced by the ascendant Christian cult. This “replacement” should be seen more as a “progression”, as Christianity gave new life to Rome to overcome barbarity and unite all nations under a universalist Empire. Indeed, Hitler dismissed those petty nationalists who despised Charlemagne for the slaughter of members of their race; instead acknowledging his ‘Westernisation’ of Germany.

The strength of the Third Reich lay in part in its “rootedness”. The West today can be pulled in opposite directions with ease after every election, as it lacks these roots which would give it the fortitude to at least resist degeneration. This rootedness was made possible by the Reich’s absorption of nationalism – amongst other non-Aryan sentiments and attitudes – into its state cult. Nationalism was impossible to reject in Germany during the 1920s-30s. While nationalism is largely dead in the West, it has been replaced by other popular sentiments; all of which will require the same inclusion (at least superficially) into state ideology and religion.

Interestingly, the new film “Inception” explains the need for tradition (albeit in a different context) in popular government. People cannot be told new ideas. They must be suggested to them subtly, so that their adoption (or even their formulation) is perceived to have come from that individual.

Therefore, it is most important that Arya be the ideal which dominates matters of state and the ambitions of the elite. However, the state cult for the masses must – if it is to be populist – combine Aryanism with an ever-Aryanising tradition.

The ideal Aryanist state leadership structure – at least in its infancy – is relatively rare in history. As we have only written a limited amount on leadership and government, I think it is important to develop this further. I will compare Augustan Rome and Hitlerian Germany for the commonalities which highlight the characteristics of Aryanist political leadership. The comparisons are not perfect, especially since the quantity and quality of records from the latter period surpass that of the former considerably. Nevertheless, the comparison should assist in comparing the basic outlines of Aryanist with non-Aryanist leadership.

Aryanist governance requires a visionary leader who guides the state and thus the destiny of that realm over which he has power. The use of ‘guide’ is important, as it reveals the difference between a leader and merely an administrator. Quite obviously there is great difference between ‘Fuehrer’ and ‘President’, with the latter tending much more towards the managerial notion of libertarian governance. Thus, it isn’t the role of the Aryanist leader to personally formulate policy or to bother himself with its implementation and micromanaging. Obviously this has historical significance; in terms of the misperceptions of Hitler as either the ‘sort-of-dictator’ of the Structuralists, or as the omniscient devil of popular culture (to whom anything involving Germany between 1933-45 can be directly attributed).

Rather, Aryanist leadership derives from authority. Giorgio Agamben has gone into considerable depth on the link between the Roman auctoritas and the National Socialist Fuehrertum, as well as Weber’s “Charismatic authority”. Essentially, for those unaware of the Roman political and cultural text, auctoritas is ‘authority’ and potestas is actual ‘power’. An important example from Weber would be the comparison with the auctoritas of a figure like Christ or Gandhi, compared with the potestas of, for example, a legislator.

After firmly establishing himself as the dominant force in Rome through successive consulships, Caesar Augustus abandoned this post and became the princeps (first citizen). Essentially, his leadership was enabled only by his ability to “make people do what he wanted, just by being who he was”. While still maintaining executive powers (imperium), Augustus’ power derived fundamentally from his authority as the central leader of Rome.

Something similar is true with Hitler, who was called ‘leader’, as opposed to the embodiments of potestas – President and Chancellor. This allowed Hitler to set Germany along a National Socialist path, while at the same time playing almost no rule in administration. He primarily relied upon the willingness of the bureaucracy and people to “work towards the Fuehrer” – interpreting his desires and innovating and administering the practicalities of its implementation.

The benefits of this form of leadership are perhaps less evident to those accustomed to modern, Western politics, than the drawbacks. With the latter comes the obvious problem of interpretation; with considerable power falling to a chaotic network of competing individuals who may misinterpret the words of the leader, thus resulting in unintended policies. Similarly, the lack of explicit instruction can prevent the desired policies from being implemented. This is why both leaders also possessed executive power (essentially absolute power) to intervene where required.

However, the benefits are immense for an Aryanist state. The leader is able to avoid micromanaging the territories under his control, and instead devote himself to the role of a leader – that is, forming, developing and communicating a vision for the rest to follow. Additionally, it allows for the development of a real leadership in possession of the initiative which the modern state lacks. I fear that a proper appreciation of the significance of this alone is incredibly difficult for those of us who have never witnessed in our lifetimes the potential of personal leadership, as opposed to the continuity of unchanging democratic governments.

Nevertheless, the reason I started with the qualification “at least in its infancy” is because I believe that this form of government is the most applicable for our age. In the west, it should be able to bind the mainstream parties into a coalition under the authority of an Aryan leader. The delegation of tasks from the leader downwards will also lead to what we now call “grassroots activism” which will most rapidly and properly communicate Aryanism from the top downwards, quickly becoming culturally and socially engrained.

I sought with this post only to develop further on an Aryanist state leadership. This is by no means extensive, conclusive nor authoritative. I suspect that this topic will require further elaboration in the future.

When Netanyahu assumed office it was fairly evident to all that Israeli policy and attitude would strengthen. It was thought by many that this increased strength would be exerted both diplomatically and militarily, primarily against the Palestinians and Iran. Thus, for a number of reasons, the new government was feared by anti-Zionists.

This illustrates the two streams of anti-Zionism that are bound together only by similar rhetoric and by the sheer weakness of our position. Those who feared the new government did so because of the increased likelihood of war with Iran as well as because over sensitivities of the suffering of the Palestinians. Not wanting the situation to worsen, these anti-Zionists essentially preferred the status-quo to that which they had predicted for the future.

However, the other stream saw the stronger government as simply less restrained. Lacking the acumen that has made Jewry the disproportionately powerful force that it has proven to be, Netanyahu’s government provided an opportunity for the enemy to make the mistakes; and for anti-Zionists to respond, shifting the initiative from Israel and Jewry to the anti-Zionist movement. This stream accepts that the masses are more profoundly affected by an Intifada than a prolonged siege. After all, the 9 deaths of the Gaza flotilla raid were far more newsworthy in the eyes of the masses than the lengthy Gaza siege that it brought to light. Not only would a cessation of this violence be undesirable for propaganda purposes, but it would likely cause a major split in the anti-Zionist movement between the two streams mentioned. Is a cessation of violence issue, or is it merely a symptom of a much greater problem, transcending even Israel’s existence?

The difference between the two streams is fundamentally whether squeamishness over the physical sufferings of Israeli’s victims or ‘principle’ is the fundamental component of anti-Zionism. If you would consider it a solution for Israel to end the siege permanently, be more inclusive of the Palestinians and to cease targeting civilians, then you belong to the first stream of anti-Zionism.

Trying their best

However, America and Israel have demonstrated tremendous cooperation in managing this bad hand. Obama couldn’t risk his progressive reputation by openly supporting the repressive measures of Israel; which would certainly be preferred by the more brutish government in Israel. Additionally, Netanyahu couldn’t justify a revolutionary policy towards the Palestinians and the region when he was elected almost solely on a reactionary, security platform. However, it would be next to impossible for Israel to hold themselves back, which has been proven by their chaotic actions.

The plethora of Israeli positions on the Jewish settlements demonstrates that they are on the back-foot. They are seemingly adjusting their policies based on international pressure, while also pleasing Israeli opinion. The rift between Obama and Israel is again illustrated as he has been forced to publicly call for the cessation of further settlement construction.

The Gaza siege too has had to be relaxed as a result of the Gaza flotilla raid. The raid was incredibly embarrassing and proves with clarity the nature of Netanyahu and his government’s aggressive nature. The relaxation of the blockade is another humiliating rout of Netanyahu, if not Israel.

Where Israel has been most successful at preventing major loss of ground is with Iran’s nuclear programme. However, this hasn’t been due to any efforts of Netanyahu at all, but due to the take-over of the Iranian nuclear concerns by international institutions seemingly removed from Israel’s stained reputation. Additionally, Netanyahu’s constant likening of Iran to Nazi Germany proves that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel on Israel’s diplomatic offensive against Iran.

Finally, while negotiations; if begun, will not surprisingly progressive, Obama has also been forced to pressure Tel Aviv into negotiations with the Palestinians.

An important shift

In their retreat, Israel has lost the capability to dictate terms to its enemies. In the past, it has always been successful in remaining the aggressor while entering into negotiations as the victim, so that it seemed Hamas (or whichever entity) was the aggressor, as all Israeli aggression became responses to ‘Hamas rockets’ (a.k.a. IDF false flags). Israel is being routed.

Response

The rift being created between Israel and America is perhaps the most significant of these developments. It is my belief that this should be the focus of our propaganda. All anti-Zionists should cease grouping Obama in Israel’s camp, and instead urge that he and America cease supporting Israel. Netanyahu will not be able to restrain Israeli desires for a reversal of this recent trend through unprecedented diplomatic and military aggression. If Israel is separated from America, they will stand no chance diplomatically and will, hopefully, permanently ruin their reputation as a “democratic bulwark against Islamofascism”.

As the year begins, there is no doubt that the US will attempt to reverse its loss of international influence over the last decade. The desired resurgence would have been best immediately upon Obama’s election, amongst the fervour felt more by the rest of the world than the American people themselves, which made it much easier to amend the errors of Bush’s administration. Despite discussion that Obama has done little that he has promised, this attitude is still prevalent. For this reason, 2010 will likely be a year of unprecedented expansionism. If we are ever to see a renewal of policies against Iran, Syria and Venezuela, then it is likely to occur this year.

Germán runs a good blog and YouTube channel on the situation in Iran which gives much insight into the claims and counter-claims of Iran and the USA, revolving around the protests of the last election and the nuclear programme. His blog gives politico-historical insights into US-Iranian relations and I suggest that his blog be used in educating anyone on the issues regarding Iran.

It seems that it is now or never for America. Obama’s administration will most likely be the final burst of virility experienced by America, and there should be no illusions as to whether this is realised by Jewry. While the financial crisis did weaken the US severely, the significance of the subsequent recession is in terms of the declining sustainability of America as world hegemon. With mounting debt, dissent and a largely unproductive population, only Obama’s ability to inspire the masses will possibly see America retain its position as a world power for the short and medium terms. Evidence of his success in inspiring an American advance can be seen with continuing high military spending, the success in recruitment for a new troop surge, as well the recent “Haiti expedition”.

Therefore, if Obama and the US do opt for expansion, as all signs seem to be indicating, then this will be a vital focus for propaganda efforts. Most likely, US expansionism will coincide with a more aggressive Israeli foreign policy. It should go without saying that propaganda regarding the Palestinians should be stepped-up; but also that of Lebanon, Syria, and more importantly, Iran. The failure so far of America and Israel in dealing with Iran can be partially attributed to the ability of activists in distributing propaganda. By increasing our propaganda efforts, any advances on Iran will be made much more difficult and costly for America and Israel.

We are taking suggestions for PDFs. If there is anything not featured there which you think is relevant, contact us with all the details you can (include the PDF if possible). Also, if you notice any broken links, or broken PDFs, notify us.

Browse Library!

Alex Jones is undoubtedly the leader of the “truth movement”. The truth movement, covering 9/11 to fractional-reserve banking, is inclusive of almost every alternative outlook there can be on any subject. For this reason, Alex Jones stands as the most important figurehead and is representative of these alternative opinions. There is no denying that we should make a strong attempt at targeting the truth movement in a broad sense, due to the similarities in basic beliefs. Alex Jones himself must eventually be targeted, which will be the topic of this post.

As has been mentioned in previous posts, namely “Aryanism’s Future” and “Building a Movement”, Aryanism as a revolutionary movement must become the only option for the masses seeking an alternative to the current status-quo. At the moment, of course, Aryanism is only a fraction of the alternative movement, with the bulk of people finding their alternative in the truth movement, irrespective of their favourite leader (David Icke, Alex Jones, etc.). However, with Aryanism’s expansion as a movement, there will necessarily be an absorption of other “alternativists” in order to come closer towards our goal of dominance of the alternative. To accomplish this requires that the Aryanist movement either absorbs or opposes other alternatives. The case for both will be briefly discussed in terms of Alex Jones, but is applicable on all levels; even on a person-to-person basis as one person will generally have influence and authority over other people.

Absorbing the truth movement will be one of the most difficult actions which a revolutionary movement must undertake. Alex Jones is the self-styled leader of all dissent, as is fitting for either an agent or a fool. Alex Jones has shown a large degree of resistance to identifying the “Elitists”, especially steering clear of criticism of Zionism. His unwillingness to expose International Jewry has been proven to be due to his intimate relationship with his supposed enemy. However, to a revolutionary movement this is largely irrelevant as long as Alex Jones remains the figurehead of the truth movement. Whether or not this remains the case is dependent upon the decisions the Aryanist movement takes: whether to absorb the truth movement; or oppose it.

Absorbing the truth movement would require Alex Jones being subordinated to the leader of the Aryanist movement, otherwise Aryanism would be absorbed by the truth movement. Total absorption would cause the truth movement as a whole to be Aryanised (similar to the NSDAP’s absorption of the Nationalists). Absorbing the truth movement would obviously require Jones’ personal acceptance of this subordination and of Aryanism. This is highly unlikely since he has already spoken ill of anti-Zionism and would probably continue to do so with the popularising of anti-Zionism. If we believe he is an agent, it is likely that his rhetoric against anti-Zionism would increase with its popularisation, making absorption impossible. If, however, he continues to avoid the subject, absorption would prove quite easy. On top of this is the consideration of Alex Jones the figurehead. Due to his popularity, it is unlikely that the masses that follow him religiously would eagerly replace him with the leader of an Aryanist movement. Therefore, it seems overall that Alex Jones could be absorbed, at least fully.

Opposing the truth movement is troublesome since it would mean the ostracism of a large number of people with whom we have little disagreements. Not only would this created a large and more unified bloc that will constantly oppose Aryanism but it will constantly drain our recruits, some of which will inevitably be drawn to Alex Jones. This division could be deadly if Alex Jones is able to improve his propaganda (through extra funds and exposure), which seems likely due to his connections with Jewry. This blunder could have significant repercussions on the image of Aryanism as a revolutionary movement with momentum. Therefore, opposition would; at best, result in a constant threat to an Aryanist movement, and at worst, would undermine the movement’s drive towards dominating alternatives and cause its decline.

Therefore, it seems that neither will solve this dilemma. The situation will undoubtedly change by the time this becomes an issue. The movement’s decision should be based upon lifting Aryanism to the position of the sole alternative to the status-quo. This goal should be kept in mind for all matters of political persuasion and conversion. At the moment, the best option would appear to be making Alex Jones an affiliate of the broader Aryanist movement. Therefore, while he would still remain the leader of the truth movement; he would, in some way, be subordinate to the Aryanist movement.

With the votes being cast for the general elections in Japan, we should reflect on Aryanism in respect to this nation. Being one of the few countries which still has most of the requirements for an Aryanist State, Japan should be of particular interest.

While the results of the elections will not at all be surprising, the nature of Japanese politics should be the basis of our understanding of Japan and how Aryanism should be introduced there. The nature of Japanese politics is reflected by the continuity of government and the large degree of loyalty the people have for the government and leaders they elect. For the past half a century, Japan has been ruled almost exclusively by the Liberal Democratic Party. While a “Liberal Democratic” party, it is, by Western standards, rather conservative. This is generally the case for most Japanese parties considering Japan is the only country which has modernized (twice) without becoming thoroughly Americanized.

This conservatism impedes any radical parties. With the exception of the Japanese Communist Party, Japanese politics is very aristocratic in nature. For this reason, I am dubious of Aryanism taking the form of a radical and revolutionary movement in Japan. Not only is Japan rather anti-revolutionary, but it is very corporatist in nature. While the party which is likely to be elected claims to be opposed to the favourable place business takes in Japanese politics and society, it is doubtful that this tradition – which has been a characteristic of Japan since the Meiji Restoration – will be abandoned. It is therefore most likely that an Aryanist think-tank will be most effective in Japan, which attempts to influence the major political parties.

The success of this can be demonstrated by the increase in support of modifying the constitution. The “military” of Japan was an issue which was solely discussed by neo-Imperialist and other autocratic and militaristic parties, whose support was, and remains, minimal. Over the span of a decade, the belief that Japan should change its constitution to allow for a proper military (and not merely a “self-defence force”) has become popular amongst politicians of the mainstream parties. While not yet an election-deciding issue for the Japanese public, its importance is growing rapidly.

In summary, I believe the progress of Aryanism in Japan lay in its introduction to the pre-established elite of influential political and business families.

This article is posted as a response to many genuine and sincere Aryanists (and others) who believe that our economic policies should be similar to those of currently-established powers. Although not adopting a neoliberal economic perspective, they still adopt an overly “orthodox” economic outlook for an Aryanist State.

Much of this discussion as to the economics of an Aryanist State is well-founded. Information about National Socialist Germany’s economy is scarce in comparison to the data that we have today. Furthermore, the methods used by the National Socialists are “unorthodox” in the sense that it is outside of normal economic practice for all modern economies and those running them. While it isn’t necessary to devise an economic alternative in all its details, as the situation will have changed when the chance comes to implement them, considerable effort should be made to construct a solid economic philosophy and, in this article, the means by which this philosophy will be fulfilled.

The discussion mentioned above of economics comes primarily from those who have been influenced by Anarchism or its many variations. Anarchism, in either its political or economic form, is not relevant to Aryanism. The compulsion for orthodoxy and acceptability, I think, is what drives many to anarchism as it is a revolt and not revolution. An Aryanist State must necessarily be authoritarian, both politically and economically. The age of granting rights for this or that activity, group or belief must end. The current situation we find ourselves in with an unstable geopolitical climate, environmental disaster and a demographic nightmare is a direct result of the beliefs still held by Libertarians, Anarchists, Conservatives and others. The reaction to these issues by these groups confirms this, with some downplaying the issues, some providing small quick-fixes (fluorescent light bulbs, hybrid cars, education for the poor to decrease birth rates, etc.), and some even completely denying their existence or relevance. All those beliefs born in 1789 are irrelevant to Aryanism.

Aryan economics must redefine economics as it must redefine the fundamentals of existence. This does not mean that the theories accumulated by economists should be ignored, but that the bad and irrelevant separated from the good. Aryan economics must shift towards centrally planned economies that are self-sufficient (German: autarkic) in order for large scale reforms, instead of the mere influence that governments have over market economies, to take place. And unless we wish to continue the present capitalist-socialist rivalry, class-rivalry and all its implications, reforms are required. Therefore, in order to redefine economics we must redefine its purpose, namely, the “fundamental economic problem”. The purpose of the economy must be redefined in an Aryan manner as to shift the focus from consumption and profit-obsession to a socially-based efficient economy.

Most people who were educated in the West are aware of the fundamentals of economics (supply and demand). Just as the economic problem must be redefined (and thus the purpose of economics), so must an economy’s basic functioning. Modern economists enjoy faith in the “invisible hand” and the relation between supply and demand. For a theory to be exercised, its fundamentals must be well-founded, and both the fundamentals of modern economics are filled with holes if not totally irrelevant.

Additionally, the tendency to dismiss economics as unimportant to an Aryan State is an illusion. Those who promote this and care not whether an Aryanist State operates by a barter-system or by fiat money, are not paying enough attention to the value of economics. Economics is undeniably linked with the social, cultural and political aspects of man. Failure to associate these factors with a functioning economy will cause an abrupt end to an Aryanist State. For the pragmatic, a functioning and powerful economy will be needed at the very least to arm the state for an inevitable war.

Initially, economic growth and full employment should be the main aims of an Aryanist state. A mostly self-sufficient economy (not an export economy) with imports coming only from allies or from close neighbours to avoid the impacts of a blockade during war. Most Aryanists will be aware of the barter trade system of Germany with its neighbours which will be pursued by a modern Aryanist State in order to keep money in the country in question as well as to stop the accumulation of debt. Also, reliable credit must be created for the expansion of the economy (particularly if the Aryanist State inherits an economy contracted by recession). This credit mustn’t come from overseas, particularly America, as that necessarily leads to foreign debt and subservience to the USA. Price and wage controls will be a necessity on at least the most basic goods to prevent inflation. As you can see, the policies will be different from those of all countries today, although slightly similar to those of centrally-planned Communist countries of the past.

As most Aryanist policies will differ before and after a war is fought, as will the economic policy. Leading up to the war a focus on production, particularly of armaments must be stressed more than it will be after this war. Furthermore, the state may have to enact policies that will be repealed after the war in order to increase production or any other war priority. However, if the war is pursued in its totality and is concluded with the defeat of hostile neighbours, the freedom to reform the state and its economy will present itself now that foreign threats are less drastic. Without doubt, the first to go will be those policies which were enacted reluctantly as preparation for war. Following this will likely go the stress of full employment over productivity growth. This must be pursued gradually and with caution in order not to cause structural unemployment. Similar services like the Reichsarbeitsdienst (RAD), while already created, may have to be expanded in order to offer retraining for those made redundant by the increase in productivity following further mechanisation of industry. At this moment, one will notice the need for demographic policies to reduce the population to suit the needs of the economy, which will likely follow from the reduction of inferior births.

This represents the technicalities of an Aryanist economics policy. Much has already been discussed about its philosophy which follow the themes of agrarianism, “beauty of work”, “strength through joy”, which require no revision but should be discussed later in more depth.

Update (21st September, 2009): 1939 German Economic Policy

Pentti Linkola has been introduced in the past few months to myself and others with whom I share environmentalist convictions. Linkola is a Finnish environmentalist who has a particular interest, and as his new book demonstrates, a limitless familiarity with Finland and its flora and fauna. While Linkola’s awareness does not reach far beyond Finland, the scope demonstrated in his book definitely does. Linkola’s views are radical and his works are definitely a reprieve from the contemporary environmentalists. Linkola’s new book, “Can Life Prevail?”, is worth-reading for all Aryanists as an introduction to the particulars of European and Finnish environmentalism as well as a sufficiently radical and total solution to this problem.

Can Life Prevail? Is one of the few environmentalist books I have read. It seems that in the many years Pentti Linkola has spent immersing himself in what he believes to be the proper, natural and most healthy life; that is, a life in constant contact with nature. It is immediately noticeable that Linkola is an idealist, which is most likely why his views are so extreme. Linkola recognises that Western culture and humans themselves are the problem. Linkola is a true radicalist and wishes to truly revolutionise the lifestyle of humans, not simply for sustainability and maximum exploitation, but for the ultimate health and happiness of all life. As a taste of Linkola’s beliefs, I will quote parts of the last section of the book.

A Demographic Plan

The cornerstone of any population platform is the dismantling of the freedom of procreation, the most senseless form of individual freedom. Puzzlingly, this policy has only been implemented so far in the country with the oldest culture of the world: China.
Procreation should be licensed: on average, every woman should be allowed to bear only one child. This policy should be followed for several generations, until a sustainable population is reached. The quality of the population must in all cases be taken into account as well: procreation licences would be denied to homes deemed genetically inadequate or unsuitable for the raising of children, whereas families capable of providing a stimulating environment for children would be granted several licences.

Energy

Fossil fuels, including peat, will be abolished on the first day the programme is implemented. Even the production and distribution of electricity ? the harnessing of which should probably be seen as a great misfortune in the history of mankind ? will largely be brought to an end. Electricity may continue to be used as a source of energy by the media and to illuminate rooms (strict quotas would have to be set in this case); but street lights and other external lighting would be banned. Households, as well as businesses, will have to switch to manual labour.
Other power plants will be demolished. The worst kind of plants, energy dams, will be the first to go. Indeed, the waterpower has caused the third great ecocatastrophe alongside the clearing of fields and the forest economy: the faltering of our whole marine economy. The new policy will restore our waters to their natural state.

The Collection of Carbon Dioxide

The only large-scale method of removing the colossal surplus of carbon that has already been released into the atmosphere is by absorbing it with vegetation: firstly with the trees, then with bushes. In Finland, the mean volume of living trees on growing forestland now amounts of 70 cubic metres per hectare. This figure will be increased to about 400 cubic metres per hectare, which corresponds to the natural density of forests. Additionally, a significant amount of carbon is stored in fallen trees: this increases the more north the woodland is and the slower the decomposition. It will take about one hundred years to reach the suggested figure of 400 cubic metres.
Still, in order to deliver orders and announcements to the population, to maintain the media and literary culture (all of which must be preserved in order to sustain society), the production of paper will continue.
Reforesting a significant portion of field acreage is the most notable step that will be taken.

Agriculture, Industry and Wares

Farming will be organised in small units, while machines will be abolished and a major portion of the population will be made to practise light agricultural work.
Industrial manufacturing will be subject to licensing: no product will be manufactured unless there is a buyer in real need of its use.
Most businesses will come to an end. Only a handful of large corporations will be maintained: for instance, those linked to the production of equipment used for public transportation, bicycles and paper. These industries will be in the hands of the state.

Education

The school system will be cherished as the most precious aspect of society. Foreign languages will be removed from the syllabus and less mathematics will be taught. The greatest emphasis will be placed on all-round education (natural sciences, history, Finnish), sports, arts and, most importantly, civic skills (which the adult population will also be taught).

I would suggest reading this book which is a compilation of articles written by Pentti Linkola over more than a decade. Visit his fansite for more information.

The free world, the democratic world, has long been known to be a fallacy and a disguise for American economic interests. With the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Iranian elections, the true nature of America and democracies around the world is shown without a doubt to be a form of patron-client relationship.

The world media reports that Ahmadinejad “apparently”, “reportedly”, even “allegedly”, has won the Iranian elections. Over the past few weeks the media has been, as always, promoting the “student movements” which generally call for the same ill-defined reforms and freedoms as well as, conveniently, friendly relations with America. Beyond the obvious links these movements have with the CIA, an interesting relationship reveals itself during the course of elections in the “less-than-free world”.

Despite Iran being a democracy, it is subject to the close-eye of American analysts and their lapdogs. It is America’s role to protect and further democracy which causes it to justify itself as the supreme dictator of which elections are legitimate, which parties and countries stand for freedom; and ultimately, which leaders will be elected. Despite Ahmadinejad’s re-election, the media in the west has doubted the legitimacy of his victory. Of course, this was an obvious outcome since, for weeks, the western media – in combination with presenting the reformists as the next leaders of Iran without a doubt – has stated plainly that if Ahmadinejad wins the election it is most likely due to vote rigging. Of course, the countries in which vote rigging actually occurs are almost always allies of America.

This role is the same with all democracies, but particularly democracies outside of “the West”. Democracies are the clients of the American patron and in return for the meagre returns of democracy and capitalism, the patrons promise a steady supply of these scraps for their clients. This relationship is deeply ingrained within the minds of the west after decades of American global hegemony and the acceptance and praise of this status-quo. For this reason, the West as a whole casts judgement on these democracies as if they were vassals of the free-world.

This can also be seen in the case of Palestine. America, and Israel alongside it, only support one party in any Palestinian elections. This party, like all parties supported by the free world, is entirely docile and a non-threat to these powers. Thus, whenever Hamas gains votes that circumstances are considered suspect, whether the claim is vote-fraud or intimidation.

No Aryanists are under the illusion of democracy, so this is not an attempt to sway anyone towards anti-democratic positions. This article is an articulation of the problem of democracy for non-Western countries primarily, but also all countries outside of America, Britain and Israel.