Foundations of the True Left

“Wasn’t my party, at the time of which I’m speaking, composed of 90 per cent of left-wing elements?” – Adolf Hitler

Rightism promotes defending only the interests of one’s own. Leftism promotes opposing those who do so.

An easily observable difference between the False Left (sometimes known as the liberal left) and the True Left (sometimes known as the radical left) is that only the latter is willing to hold Jews to the same standard of moral condemnation that it holds Gentiles, whereas the former commendably despises Gentile racism but is willfully blind to Jewish racism towards non-Jews out of fear of being called ”anti-Semite”. The timely emergence of the 21st century True Left is owed to a great extent to the post-9/11 anti-Zionist movement, and it is perfectly sensible that determined, unrelenting criticism of Jewish behaviour remains a key feature of all present-day True Left ideologies, of which Aryanism counts itself as one.

Meanwhile, Jew-aware rightists consider it a higher priority to complain about non-issues such as TV shows featuring interethnic and/or same-gender couples.

External link: Britain’s New Racism (ZC attack on Jeremy Corbyn)

Throughout the last decade, we have seen a gradual but consistent shift among leftists towards increased willingness to discuss Jewry, Judaism and Zionism, and to criticize punishment for so-called “Holocaust Denial” by states which claim to support free speech. However, there has been much transitional confusion, such as the tendency to call Jews “ZioNazis”! For one of the most effective means by which post-WWII Zionists have buried National Socialism from those who need it most is by falsely classifying it as a right-wing ideology. Many leftists who know no better than to believe this classification have thus tended to automatically dismiss it out of (justified) contempt for right-wing ideas in general. In so doing, they not only prevent themselves from understanding what WWII was really about (and hence how present-day events are a continuation of it), but also cut themselves off from an ideology that many of them could find extremely admirable if only they took the time to learn about it with an open mind.

By far the worst kind of anti-Zionist propaganda

An essential task of our movement is to restore the truth that authentic National Socialism is a left-wing ideology. This was demonstrated as early as shortly after Hitler’s arrest and imprisonment in 1923 following the failed Munich Beer Hall Putsch, when right-leaning NSDAP supporters steadily defected to rival parties such as the far-right DVFP, whereas left-leaning supporters remained loyal to Hitler. Moreover, the failed 20th July Plot to assassinate Hitler in 1944 was devised mostly by former members of the far-right DNVP/DNF (predecessor to the present-day far-right NPD), whereas leftist Otto Remer not only foiled the plot but remained loyal to Hitler’s anti-colonialist vision even after WWII, arming the FLN for combat against France in the Algerian War (the same war in which far-rightists Jean-Marie Le Pen (Gentile) and Dominique Venner (Gentile) fought on the side of France). This showed once and for all which side was truly dedicated to National Socialism as a higher ideal. Similarly, the admiration for Hitler by figures such as John F. Kennedy (who was assassinated when he began trying to free the US from Jewish domination and to limit the power of Israel, and who also enforced school desegregation, created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and called for the Civil Rights Act of 1964) makes little sense to those who insist that National Socialism was a right-wing ideology, but makes perfect sense to those who understand it as a left-wing ideology.

“According to the idea of the NSDAP, we are the German Left. Nothing is more hateful to us than the right-wing national bloc.” – Joseph Goebbels

National Socialist Germany ordered the media to ignore the writings of Oswald Spengler even though they were highly complimentary towards Germany, because Spengler’s vision of Germany as a bulwark of Western civilization was incompatible with Hitler’s vision for Germany as the birthplace of a completely new civilization. Authentic National Socialists are arguably the most merciless critics of Western civilization that the world has ever seen. In Hitler’s own words: “The wealth of Great Britain is the result less of a perfect commercial organization than of the capitalist exploitation of the three hundred and fifty million Indian slaves. … That’s the strength of the English: to allow the natives to live whilst they exploit them to the uttermost.” And Joseph Goebbels on the same topic: “Their empire was built through war, oppression, concentration camps, starvation and blood. …  We have some friendly advice for London. Do not shout so loudly. You are not alone. The whole world is laughing itself to death at pious talk of morality coming from those who reek of blood.” The Beatles, roundly condemned by post-WWII rightists as underminers of traditional Western values, found a sympathetic listener in Rudolf Hess from his lifelong solitary confinement inside Spandau Prison: “The youth of today are protesting for many reasons and they want to be heard. One way of being heard is through their music. I do enjoy the Beatles however; their music has a definite beat and in many ways their music is good music.” (In fact, the only element of the 1960s youth culture that Hess ever criticized was its drug use.) Reciprocally, National Socialist symbols were adopted by some post-WWII leftist counterculture groups to signify their contempt for traditional Western society.

External link: Surf Nazi History

The truth is that if anyone deserves to lead the currently scattered forces of the True Left, we do. But to have any chance of doing so, we must proudly declare that we are leftists, and prove our declaration through practical action by mounting an anti-rightist offensive far more devastating than anything the False Left is capable of. Only then will other leftists see that, if the defeat of right-wing ideas is what matters to them, then we are the ones to follow.

We are the good guys!

Deconstructing the False Left

“Today there seems to be only one absolute thing: relativism.” – Joseph Goebbels

The False Left refers to the Freemasonic Left, a post-Renaissance Zionist creation introduced for a solely pragmatic objective: to overthrow monarchism worldwide and institute in all countries some form of democratic rule (which hands over control of these countries to international banking and finance). It is false both sentimentally in that it was not a product of sincere idealism, and rationally in that its premises are unsupportable.

Freemasonry is symbolized by the square and compasses, in line with their conception of leftism as a progressive endeavour, and their conception of the “Supreme Being” as the “Great Architect of the Universe” (in our eyes, the Devil).

By now, the main work of the False Left has been done, as democracy has already become an internationally widespread phenomenon. While it continues to apply its pro-democracy agenda onto those few countries around the world that still heroically maintain autocratic states, in the countries where democratic states have already been established the False Left has little to do except offer intentionally weak PC opposition to right-wing ideas, thereby help set up the ZC backlash that is the next stage of the Zionist agenda to cement the authority of popular opinion that is the basis of democracy (how many times have we heard ZCs and BSs complain about the “unelected rulers” in the EU, or that “we were never given a vote” on this or that policy?).

“The chief goal of the Jew was the victory of democracy. … This institution harmonises best with his purposes; for thus the personal element is eliminated and in its place we have the dunder-headed majority, inefficiency and, last but by no means least, knavery.” – Adolf Hitler

Most leftists today base their thinking on False Left foundations because they know of no other foundations that accomodate their emotions. However, the structural weakness of such foundations means that adherents of left-wing ideologies generally lack inspiration. Unlike right-wing ideologies which motivate its adherents to action somewhat more easily by peddling either fear or hubris (or both), left-wing ideologies rely solely on conscience and idealism for motivation, therefore False Left foundations are largely responsible for the low ideological intensity among many leftists today.

1) Relativism

This is the idea that value judgements are subjective and therefore cannot be absolute.

2) Egalitarianism

Consequential to relativism, this is the idea that, in absence of absolute values, there can be no valid standards for determining value inequality between people, so that all people should be considered equal.

3) “Rights”

Consequential to egalitarianism, this is the idea that relationships between equal people must be relationships based on non-infringement of the pre-defined equal ”rights” of any person.

4) Hedonism

Consequential to “rights”, this is the idea that, given that the “rights” of everyone must be observed by everyone else, there can be no goal beyond acquisition of pleasure (including proxies for pleasure such as various kinds of achievement) via the range of actions permissible within the framework of “rights”, since all other goals have the potential to lead to infringement of the “rights” of at least some people.

Democracy then follows from this as a utilitarian argument: if all people are equal, then all people have a “right” to vote according to their wishes, but the wishes of the many outweigh the wishes of the few in priority, as going with the former produces pleasure for a greater number and displeasure for a smaller number.

To destroy the False Left, it suffices to assert absolutism instead of relativism. This is easily done by pointing out the relativist’s paradox: if subjectivity is supreme, then relativism too is a subjective conclusion, so why believe in relativism absolutely? The relativist’s own conviction in relativism shows that he himself does not consider subjectivity to be a barrier to his conclusion. In which case, non-relativists surely need not consider subjectivity a barrier to their conclusions either.

Once relativism topples, its derivatives are bound to topple with it. As soon as absolute standards are set, the inequality of people according to such standards will be exposed, the notion of “rights” will no longer make sense, and possibilities outside of hedonism will emerge. More practically, leftists will be instantly freed from the paradox of having to support democratic principles on the one hand and condemn majority opinion on the other when majority opinion happens to be right-wing. Instead, they will come to accept that genuine leftism is always anti-democratic – being as it is always based on the vision of the rare, idealistic few - and take new pride in this.

The real battle in the wake of the collapse of the False Left status-quo is the battle over what standards to set as the absolute. It is this issue that sets right – variously called “New Right”, “Dissident Right”, “Alternative Right”, etc. – and left – True Left – in fundamental enmity.

Charles Xavier vs Erik Lehnsherr

Reconstructing the True Left

“The New Testament broke away from the Old as you once released yourself from the world. And as you are freed from your past delusions, so did Jesus Christ reject his Jewishness.” – Dietrich Eckart

The True Left is a much older force in the world, and could be called the pan-Gnostic Left. From the Aryanist perspective, it is simply the insuppressible rebellion of Aryan blood memory against Jewish or Gentile tradition throughout history. David Myatt described it as “bifurcation of civilization”, which must sooner or later occur in any civilization inherently capable of ethical self-critique. In ancient China, it was the Mohist left as opposed to the Confucianist right. In ancient India, it was the Sramanist left as opposed to the Brahmanist right. In ancient Persia, it was the Manichaean left as opposed to the Avestan right. In ancient Palestine, it was (as Dietrich Eckart mentions above) the Nazarene left as opposed to the Abrahamic right. In ancient Egypt, it was the Atenist left as opposed to the Amunist right. In ancient Greece, it was the Pythagorean left as opposed to the Hellenic right (extending into the Platonist left as opposed to the Aristotelian right). And so on. All Mohammed was trying to do was to unify the True Left of the ancient world in a hurry; his failure and the butchering of his teachings led people to misunderstand that he had created a “new” religion. With the onset of the medieval era, the True Left was virtually wiped out, or at best relegated to esoteric schools such as Catharism, Sufism and Zen. Carl Jung implicitly counted Schopenhauer among this camp, describing him thusly: “He was the first to speak of the suffering of the world, which visibly and glaringly surrounds us, and of confusion, passion, evil — all those things which the [other philosophers] hardly seemed to notice and always tried to resolve into all-embracing harmony and comprehensiblility. Here at last was a philosopher who had the courage to see that all was not for the best in the fundaments of the universe.” From the rise of the False Left until WWII, the True Left made only one brief, spectacular political reappearance in National Socialist Germany, which viewed itself as the ideological heir to the Cathar legacy, as Miguel Serrano points out: “Otto Rahn gave a conference to the SS, in Dortmund, in the “Dietrich Eckart” Club, about his new idea of Lucifer, reading several paragraphs from his work in preparation, “Luzifers Hofgesind.” He relates his quest for the Gral in the land of the Albigensians and presents Lucifer as the Light Bearer, Luci-Bel, as the Cathar Pure called him. Therefore Rahn declared himself a follower of Lucifer and against the Vatican Rome bureaucrats and their Judaism of Jehovah.” Today, with the political stakes higher than ever they have been at any point in history, we are ready to reappear again.

Gnostic-friendly sects through the ages have often used sun symbols, including but not limited to the swastika, to represent our conception of leftism as a transcendent endeavour.

The True Left is, in essence, the setting of morality and tradition in mutual opposition. Compared to the False Left, which is a soft rejection of tradition by means of skepticism towards the claim of tradition to absolutism, the True Left is a hard rejection of tradition by means of a competing claim towards absolutism. While the False Left ties itself in knots with such garbage as “a tolerant society should not tolerate tolerance for intolerance”, the True Left simply says that evil should not be tolerated, and that tradition has proven to be evil. In Hitler’s words: “A general worldview will never share its place with something else. Therefore it can never agree to collaborate in any order of things that it condemns. On the contrary it feels obliged to employ every means in fighting against the old order and the whole world of ideas belonging to that order and prepare the way for its destruction.”

1) Dualism

“This war was a religious war, finally one sees that clearly. A war between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, Christ and Antichrist.” – Dietrich Eckart 

This is the idea that absolute Good and Evil exist as oppositional cosmic forces, and that cosmic conclusion consists of the final destruction of Evil by Good. The National Socialist proposition of a “Thousand-Year Reich” that would have occurred had Hitler but won WWII is a nod to millenialism – the belief that, even after the defeat of Zion, a further thousand years of diligent administration may be required before all extant problems are solved and the world can safely end.

(Right-wing ideologies, in contrast, believe merely in identitarianism (ie. “us vs them”), which is not dualism, as identitarians of different identities are automatically enemies despite equivalent beliefs.)

2) Quality

“On this battlefield on which we find ourselves we must search for our fellows, those who have thrown themselves into the same combat … Only among those comrades can we be understood.” – Miguel Serrano

Consequential to dualism, this is the idea that people should be judged by their quality of character, measured against the heroic archetype in the dualist conflict. A good person is one judged to be a net asset against Evil; among two people, the superior person is the one judged to be a greater net asset against Evil. Aryanism reflects this idea in its motto - UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY - and in setting the Arhat as the heroic archetype and Aryans as the knights who aspire towards this archetype.

We do not believe in equality. We believe rightists are (genetically) inferior quality people compared to leftists.

(Right-wing ideologies, in contrast, believe merely in supremacy, which is not quality, as it is based not on moral but on expedient standards, which means for example that a strong person belonging to the in-group is viewed as an asset, while a similarly strong person belonging to the out-group is viewed as a threat.)

3) Duties

“All evening long I read the simplest and greatest sermon that has ever been given to mankind: The Sermon on the Mount! ‘Blessed are they who suffer persecution for the sake of justice, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven’!” - Joseph Goebbels

Consequential to quality, this is the idea – coined by the OWNP as the “Christic Principle” - that the more superior a person, the greater his duties to combat Evil. Strength, far from entitling one to oppress the weak, obliges one to actively help the weak who are victims of oppression by stronger others. This, of course, is the basis of our anti-Zionism.

(Right-wing ideologies, in contrast, believe merely in responsibilities, which are not duties, since responsibilities are owed to predecessors who handed down power to oneself and to heirs to whom one’s predecessors expected one to hand down power in turn, whereas duties are owed to those subject to the effects of one’s power. For example, rightists talk about their responsibility to keep lands (Israel, America, etc.) which their ancestors conquered and from which they drove out the existing inhabitants in favour of their own progeny, whereas we talk about our duty to enable the homecoming of the displaced.)

4) Struggle

“I myself thank Providence … not for preserving me – my life consists only of worry and work for my people – I thank him only for allowing me to continue to bear this burden of worry.” – Adolf Hitler

Consequential to duties, we experience life as struggle in relation to our mission. We live seriously and urgently, taking recreational activities merely as therapeutic breaks between our efforts. We constantly look forward to the day when no further efforts are needed as our mission is finally complete, and we hope this day can arrive as soon as possible. But until this day comes, we will withstand any hardship thrown at us.

(Right-wing ideologies, in contrast, view life as enjoyment, which is why they want to keep it going generation after generation with no foreseeable ending in sight. In this they share a hedonistic root with False Left ideologies; the only difference is that the False Left recommends or promises extraneous sources of pleasure to leftists (who, unlike rightists, intuitively do not find life enjoyable in itself) thereby diverting them from joining the path of struggle.)

“We understand the meaning of the Hadith: … “The dunya is but a prison for the believer and yet [seems] Paradise for a kaffir.” Hence, we are eager to escape from this prison … just as we understand that the “peace” which the kuffar write and talk about and which they make their goal (or claim to make their goal) is not the peace which we desire. … Rather, the peace we know … is the eternal, perfect, peace of Jannah.” – David Myatt

Our True Left criticism of various False Left concepts must never be confused with right-wing criticism of the same ideas. For example, rightists are critical of the notion of “rights” because they want to oppress those weaker than themselves without being condemned for it. We are also critical of the notion of “rights”, but for the opposite reason: not because we want to oppress others, but because we want to emphasize that mere aloof condemnation of oppression as an abstract ”transgression of rights” is not going to stop the oppression; only a personal feeling of duty that motivates us to take practical action against the oppression can stop the opression. We (unlike rightists) agree with the False Left that oppression is wrong, but see that the False Left has formulated this idea in such the weakest way for encouraging practical opposition to oppression.

The contrast between False Left and True Left extends to their and our preferred methods of activism. The False Left appeals to establishment institutions for help, whereas the True Left (which long ago figured out that Zionist establishment institutions care not in the least about what they pretend to care about) emphasizes taking matters into our own hands wherever possible.

External link: Anonymous Targets Israel by Taking Down Hundreds of Websites and Leaking Emails and Passwords

“The primary duty of all National Socialists is to change the world. National Socialism means revolution: the overthrow of the existing System and its replacement with a National-Socialist society. Revolution means struggle: it means war. It means certain tactics have to be employed, and a great revolutionary movement organised which is primarily composed of those prepared to fight, prepared to get their hands dirty and perhaps spill some blood.” – David Myatt

The False Left is most famous for its advocacy for so-called “foreign aid” in the form of massive transfers of money to poor countries. This money is supposed to lift these countries out of poverty, but most of it often ends up in the private pockets of Jews corrupt middle-men, with little if any actually spent to ameliorate the conditions of the hungry and homeless. (We are not here talking about foreign aid to Israel, which is spent most constructively in building some of the deadliest weapons ever invented that Israel will eventually use against us if we do not unite against it. Nor are we talking about “foreign aid” from Israel in the form of vaccines and other drugs designed to destroy immune systems or otherwise poison their consumers.) The True Left, on the other hand, genuinely wishes to help the poor as opposed to merely pretend to be doing so. Instead of sending money, we would rather directly send labour to poor countries: volunteer/charity-sponsored workers to personally build infrastructure or otherwise personally participate in local projects, in Hitler’s words: “Money is nothing; production is what counts.”  The only guarantee that help is being provided is to be the hands-on providers of help ourselves.

The correct way to provide foreign aid

In response to far-right gang violence, the False Left blathers on about “human rights”, goes on feel-good street protests carrying cardboard signs, and writes useless reports begging the government, the UN and other Zionist groups to do something. Meanwhile, the True Left is busy organizing local neighbourhood patrols and street protection groups to respond directly to far-right aggression. Unlike the False Left which deludes itself that far-right gangs are merely “unenlightened” and can be reformed through PC “sensitivity training” and “diversity seminars”, the True Left views far-right gangs as incorrigible barbarians who must be fought with an army of our own and shown no mercy.

“Terror cannot be overcome by the weapons of the mind but only by counter-terror. … The reputation of our hall-guard squads should stamp us as a political fighting force and not as a debating society. And it was extraordinary how eagerly these boys of the War generation responded to this order. They had indeed good reason for being bitterly disappointed and indignant at the miserable milksop methods employed by the bourgeoise.” – Adolf Hitler

One of the best reflections of this difference emerges in stances towards firearm ownership. Rightists are known for their support of the liberty to own firearms. The False Left reacts by trying to ban firearms. The True Left, on the other hand, demands that firearm ownership be compulsory. When firearm ownership is legally permitted but not legally mandated, rightists naturally end up being better-armed than leftists. Precisely because we admire the fact that leftists are unlikely to enjoy firearms for their own sake the way rightists do, we demand that firearm ownership be a duty of citizenship, so that the people who least enjoy firearms (and hence most worthy of being entrusted with firearms) are as well-armed as those who most enjoy firearms (and hence least worthy of being entrusted them).

“I cannot see what possible pleasure can be derived from shooting. Think of the tremendous ceremony that accompanies the slaughter of a deer! And the hare is shot, not sitting, but on the run, to make his end more spectacular. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would do well to turn its attention to the sportsmen themselves. … I have never fired at a hare in my life. I am neither poacher nor sportsman.” – Adolf Hitler

If protest signs really worked, armies would equip their troops with protest signs instead of firearms.

Whereas the False Left is about creating ”equality”, the True Left is about destroying oppression. Whereas the False Left is about upholding “rights”, the True Left is about ending violence. Whereas the False Left is about “progress”, the True Left is about reversion to an uncorrupt condition. In every aspect the False Left reveals its tendency towards expansion and advancement, which in itself is a right-wing attitude, thereby exposing its falsehood. The False Left is thus precisely what its name suggests: an ugly pretence at leftism developed solely for pragmatic deployment by scheming Freemasons with no capacity for genuine idealism at all. This is in contrast to True Left, which is characterized by its tendency towards reduction and purification, thereby standing elementally opposed to the right-wing mindset, necessarily including the mindset of the False Left also.

Rightists have sneakily duped into their camp many people disillusioned with the drudgery of the present-day world and who seek answers in myth and ancient history by crudely associating leftism with modernity and deceptively presenting rightism as the only camp that offers connection with the past. To counter this, the True Left must distinguish itself from the False Left by heavily emphasizing that we too offer a connection with the past – merely not (unlike the rightists) with the traditional past which we justly abhor. The past which inspires us is the romantic past of chances missed, of paths untaken, of the long intellectual legacy of anti-tradition that dates back to ancient times.

“The old images of the human past have faded, the outlines of leading personalities are distorted, their inner driving forces falsely interpreted, their whole nature for the most part totally misjudged. A youthful life force—which also knows itself to be age old—is impelled toward form; an ideology, a world view, has been born and, strong of will, begins to contend with old forms, ancient sacred practices, and outworn standards.” – Alfred Rosenberg

“National-Socialism … values only that which is in accord with what is honourable, civilized and which can be used to further our evolution. A lot of what occurred in the past – a lot of traditions, and certain ways of thinking – were actually wrong; contrary to what is reasonable and honourable. What is honourable and necessary in our past must be found, understood and valued. What is not, must be rejected.” – David Myatt

Properly understood, this makes the romantic a more devout opponent of the traditionalist than the progressivist, for whereas to the progressivist the victory of tradition means merely a temporary setback along the path of progress (which he believes is inevitable in the long-term), to the romantic each victory of tradition is a possibly permanent weakening of world memory of the romantic past.

Aryanism and the True Left

“We are not at first able to create this religion of the future, because we are still only isolated, lonely ones.” – Alfred Rosenberg

If you are out there, join us!

The relationship between Aryanism and the True Left is that of a solution to a problem. The purpose of the True Left is to establish agreement on what problems we are trying to solve, and the purpose of Aryanism is to propose a way to solve them.

Strictly speaking, one need not be an Aryanist to share the outlook of the True Left. For example, one could in theory be a True Leftist who believes that our goals can be achieved entirely through education. However, based on frank assessment of the spiritual level of most people (even most intellectuals), and considering the consistent pattern of failure of education-only noble movements attempted in the past, it is hard not to conclude that Aryanism and National Socialism constitute probably the only realistic hope towards achieving our goals. As such, our message to leftists is simple: give up downplaying the importance of genetics to society, and instead absorb this powerful weapon into the leftist discourse by positing a genetic explanation for the ignobility of tradition and a genetic prerequisite for profound revolution.

“Suddenly — how and why is not explained — a conflict broke out against one section of these tribes, their gods and goddesses, their concepts of law, their political pretensions. No mention is made of the new factor in this upheaval, or if it is mentioned, it is without any inquiry into its real nature. The academic world falls back on the threadbare ‘development of humanity’ cliche, which apparently rose up in the service of ennoblement. … Since this version of a sudden, almost magical, leap toward a higher spiritual level and superior forms of social organization eventually became discredited, even newer interpreters of history invented the theory known as ‘cyclic culture’. This new doctrine was just as vacuous as the theory of universal development … Out of the blue one day, a cultural revolution drops magically upon Indians, Persians, Chinese, or Romans, and effects a total transformation of human creatures who had previously embraced different mores. We are told of a kind of vegetablelike growth, the blossoming and decaying of mystical cycles, until the proselytisers of the morphology of history, faced with the strongest criticism, finally mumble at the end of the second or third volume something about blood and blood relationships.” – Alfred Rosenberg

Nevertheless, we as Aryanists should feel closer in spirit to those who agree with our aims but not our methods, than with those who agree with our methods but not our aims. Those who support our noble cultural ideal who do not see the importance of backing it up with our Aryan racial ideal can be converted or allied with; those who support a non-Aryan racial ideal (and therefore necessarily an ignoble cultural ideal) will always be our most dangerous rivals – precisely because they too seek control over genetics.

“Our opponents tell us that most of the “superior men” — great warriors, great artists, great thinkers, great rulers — from the “god-like heroes” of the Bronze Age down to the majority of the leading creative scientists of today, were and still are flesh eaters. That remark is of little weight in the present controversy. … A meat eating thinker may be a fine specimen at his level. We cannot, however, compare him with Pythagoras or with the Buddha, — or, by the way, with the greatest European leader of all times; the most misunderstood among makers of history — who belong to a higher level altogether. … In our eyes, that man alone is really the specimen of a higher species who, beyond his own welfare and beyond the welfare of man in general, looks, in the daily routine of his practical life, to the welfare of all living creatures.” – Savitri Devi

The ultimate need for National Socialism to lead the True Left is precisely to promote among leftists the moral necessity of state control over reproduction, which is by no coincidence the centrepiece of the entire Aryanist movement. The False Left’s opposition to racial idealism definitively reveals its disingenuous core: it has no real interest in solving the problems it claims to care about; its interest is in keeping these problems ever-present as bait with which to perpetually herd leftists who know no better, wasting their time, their energy and their dreams (to say nothing of their money). Meanwhile, many leftists continue to misconstrue racial idealism as an offshoot of racial identity, instead of as an alternative to it, and hence refuse to consider it.

“The evil demon of Jewry is ….. Phariseeism. It is certainly the bearer of the hope of the Messiah, but simultaneously is the guardian which prevents any Messiah from arriving … The Buddhist would be happy if around him the world fell asleep. The Pharisee would be finished if around him life did not wish to take on shape again and again, for then his life function of denial would no longer find a use.” – Alfred Rosenberg

But, thanks to the tireless outreach of our movement and allied movements, this is gradually changing. More and more young leftists every day are realizing that the False Left is a complete waste of time, and have begun to seek non-mainstream, more radical and more courageous left-wing ideologies. They will find us sooner or later. We even encounter among their discussions offhand comments such as: “All racists should be sterilized!” Within each such comment is the beginning of an echo of Hitler’s words: “The demand that it be made impossible for defective people to produce other just as defective people is a demand of clearest reason and in its systematic execution is the most humane act of mankind.” Thus within each such commenter is the soul of a potential National Socialist. Once Aryanization is understood afresh as a policy not of megalomania but of compassion, to society and above all to the unborn children themselves who never asked to be born, we will have our prophesized Last Battalion.

Soon after the founding of National Socialist Germany, Rudolf Hess emphasized that the world should not: “… confuse the Germany of today, the Germany of peace, with the Germany that was, with the Germany of pacifism.” With the same earnesty, our movement must ensure that the world does not confuse the resurgent True Left of honour and empathy with the decaying False Left of PC and apathy. The failure of the False Left  is not a failure of leftism, but a chance for the True Left to return and show itself as the only force capable of countering the rise of the far-right. The day on which the False Left is discarded can be the day on which Aryanism is mainstreamed, but only if enough people, in discarding the False Left, do not discard with it the emotions of leftism, which are idealistic, romantic and beautiful at heart. As Aryanists, our most important preparatory work as we wait for the collapse of the False Left is to keep alive these priceless emotions at all costs, for it is by these emotions alone that our ideology, and our bloodline that underlies our ideology, can be appreciated for what they are.


Further Information

Related Information