Within our movement and its associated or affiliated branches there is an overriding and fanatical anti-Communism. This being so, instead of distancing oneself from Capitalism many amongst us adopt it as the axis upon which the world operates; while, at the same time, we dissociate ourselves from the negative aspects of Capitalism. We refer to Capitalism and “the West” as if they were the messengers of the correct worldview and judge everything based on its principles and theories that are incorrectly considered fact. This disease is greatest in economic theory and philosophy.

While we associated the economic theories adopted by Communist, more precisely Bolshevist, regimes with the ill-effects it had on its subjects as in the case of Stalinist Russia, our anti-Capitalism is somewhat limited to a bourgeois form of class-warfare. We see far fewer “atrocities” committed by the Capitalist states throughout history and thus our anti-Capitalism is weakened and suffers from a moderate tone. This is a false perception. Our anti-Capitalism and anti-Communism must be primarily, if not solely, based on principle. The effects of both systems should only be employed for propaganda purposes, of which we mustn’t indulge.

Capitalism and Communism both have roots in the same fatalist, materialist and identifiably Jewish spirit. On that principle alone we should not adopt Communist or Capitalist economic theories – for they are both theories that do not have Aryan roots. To adopt them entirely or partially is the acceptance of materialist principles that should not plague Aryanism. While our own economic theories may contain elements found in either Capitalist or Communist economics it does not symbolise an acceptance of Jewish principles unless they are derived from such worldviews and theories.

Therefore, we should not associate with Conservatives who preach laissez-faire Capitalism as in the case of Ron Paul or any espousing the gospel of the gold-standard. This must be the case with any preachers of Capitalist or Communist thought, no matter to what degree. Our economic theories should derive solely from Aryan sources without consideration to whether they coincide with Capitalist or Communist theories. For this, we must use history as our guide.

Capitalism and Communism must be considered as two sides of the same coin. Both are fatalist, materialist and classist. It should go without saying that based merely on principle – that Capitalism and Communism are notably anti-Aryan – their exclusion from our worldview and economic theories is a priority.

This article will be open-ended as I hope that others will be able to comment or write their own articles in response.

Is Julius Evola an Aryanist? Is Traditionalism, as espoused by Evola, Aryanism? Should Evola’s works be incorporated into Aryanism?

These questions are hard to answer in a definite manner because, although overall Evola’s Traditionalism is similar, there are many omissions and contradictions on Evola’s part if he were describing the common forms of Aryanism.

Aryanism is usually expressed in a form of Socialism with a dismissive attitude towards the caste system or to any ?traditionalist? form of social hierarchy. In Revolt Against the Modern World, Evola presents the caste system, particularly the ascetic, virile and warrior upper caste, to be the fundamental aspect of creating and maintaining a Traditionalist society. An obvious comparison to a commonly accepted form of Aryanism would be the Schutzstaffel and Waffen-SS as an almost exact emulation of this warrior caste.

Another belief held amongst Aryanists, particularly those of the past, is that there once existed a pure Aryan race and civilisation, which after numerous disasters was destroyed and dispersed, with the race losing its purity by intermingling with the peoples of the earth. This belief is identical to Evola’s, except that Evola does not explicitly use the word Aryan. He also explains the various ages (Doctrines of the Four Ages) associated with the fall of this civilisation and the popular myths associated with them, most notable of which is Atlantis.

Increasingly it appears that Evola is an Aryanist who calls himself a Traditionalist, or perhaps vice-versa.

Modern Aryanists also take liberalised views on common ideological issues of which include: women; culture; nationalism; economics; science; and the masses. It is common to see an unwillingness to discuss such uncomfortable topics in depth. This is where Traditionalism and Aryanism have far-reaching contradictions. Evola, in Revolt Against the Modern World, dictates the Traditionalist stance on most of the above-mentioned. However, Aryanism does not know what it believes and thus the inclusion of Julius Evola into Aryanism becomes very much a matter of personal opinion.

Therefore, our own various opinions should be discarded while we dictate the Aryanist perspective on particularly women, culture and economics. Without at least a general idea of what Aryanism is in terms of such common place concerns, Aryanists will not be able to determine what is or is not part of this Weltanschauung.

It is a very popular assumption amongst “truthers”, anti-Zionists, White Nationalists and their associated groups that the right to bear arms was and remains one of the protections against tyranny. In this article I would like to point out that this assumption is not necessarily correct. It should be noted that it is up to your own judgment as to whether or not you will entertain this belief further.

The main theme of this article will be the false sense of security that the right to bear arms gives to Americans. This belief that guns are a line, or the final line, of protection against tyrannical governments is not as absolute as it may seem. For the mundane materialist, the gun may seem as his best defence against his enemy. One question; however, destroys this absolute. Why is it that Americans do not act, while those with less rights and freedoms continue their struggles year after year? Why do Americans, with their stockpile of guns and concrete bunkers, prove ineffective against their governments and enemies, while the Palestinians and Iraqi resistance prove so effective? Of course, it goes without saying that a material weapon is needed to continue struggle. However, as we can see, it is not the right to bear arms that has ever provided protection from internal enemies. What truly guarantees this is ?the will?.

While the American sits on his couch, with his Kool-Aid, watching the Superbowl, resistance is the last thing on his mind. No matter what arsenal the American has, it has proven ineffective. This is entirely because of will. Even those who are not the average ignorant American; those who claim to be part of the “resistance”, continue to beat their drums and chant, “from my cold dead hands”. We know where this ends. The man who still has fragments of his rights and freedoms, particularly the American, waits for his enemy to strike while confident of his victory. Always, this results in massacres of these “resistance fighters”. Many miles away; however, the Palestinian who barely has the funds and means to feed himself, carries his flag against the enemy. And, as we know, it is not Americans with guns, the many millions of useless, demoralised and weak-minded gun owners, who are feared by our enemies. It is the young man, grasping a stone, who is the true fighter – a man of struggle. No matter what the man of struggle must face, he continues his advance.

It should be evident to the audience that the right to bear arms means nothing. As has been demonstrated in New Orleans, the gun owner without will is not a man of struggle at all. And perhaps if Americans never had the right to bear arms they would depend more on their will than grotesque and petit-bourgeois manifestations of material intimidation and power.

Aryanism is not a movement and has arguably never been one. However, one can consider ideologies such as National Socialism as interpretations of Aryanism. The reason for Aryanism’s failure is because it is not a movement, an organisation, or an entity in any sense. More precisely, Aryanism has no definition, no common vocabulary, no parameters, very few of its own literature, as well as no hierarchy or leadership. Here lies the reason for Aryanism’s failure in either its purest form or any interpretation such as National Socialism, or to a lesser extent, Fascism.

I propose, for the near future, that Aryanism must first be defined. From this definition, all those who consider themselves Aryanists by this new definition should be brought together. With this group, those with suitable attitudes, abilities and characteristics shall form the movement’s Elite. To do this, an extensive list of definitions and vocabulary should be created in order to clarify misunderstandings and to better understand dissenting opinions. Moreover, this glossary should be used to set borders, or parameters, on what is Aryanist and what is not. From here, a leader or leaders should be chosen to form the highest level of the new hierarchy. Then, an organisation must be formed which acts as a centralised authority for Aryanists.

Once the above is accomplished suitable literature must be produced and disseminated. High-value targets should be prioritised. We should all know by now that the masses are next to worthless. We should start with integrating and converting the websites, organisations; but more importantly, those running them, into the centralised organisation. This will naturally increase exposure and sway many of the devout followers of these people towards our sphere of influence.

The most important aspect of this must be stressed. With a common vocabulary, leadership, hierarchy, centralised authority and adequate planning, the rest will come in time.