Here is a refugee-themed Flash game:
http://www.playagainstallodds.ca/
As we are National Socialists, ignore the pro-democracy “War and Conflict 1″, and start playing directly from “War and Conflict 2″ onwards, though I personally think it’s the other two chapters “Border Country” and “A New Life” which are the most relevant.
We have talked for years about setting up a subdivision focusing on producing Aryanist Flash games but have yet to get round to it due to lack of volunteers with both the required skills and the dedication to apply them. It’s one thing to link to existing games which happen to be relevant, but it would be much better if we could produce our own games. We have so much content that could be turned into games, from the prehistoric/mythical settings of the Aryan Diffusion series to Third Reich settings to present-day anti-Zionist settings. One simple idea would be a defence/upgrade game based on protecting asylum centres from arson and other far-right terrorist attacks and establishing order within the asylum centres. If done well, it could inspire more people to consider organizing into paramilitary groups to do the same in real-life. If anyone reading this is interested in producing this or other Flash games for our movement (or, of course, interested in starting a paramilitary group), please contact us at once:
Re: the origins of western civilization
Has anyone here read “Ishmael” and “The Story of O” by Daniel Quinn? The basic premise from the website:
“Ishmael’s paradigm of history is startlingly different from the one wired into our cultural consciousness. For Ishmael, our agricultural revolution was not a technological event but a moral one, a rebellion against an ethical structure inherent in the community of life since its foundation four billion years ago. Having escaped the restraints of this ethical structure, humankind made itself a global tyrant, wielding deadly force over all other species while lacking the wisdom to make its tyranny a beneficial one or even a sustainable one.”
So, in this view, the rise of western civilization in the neolithic era, from hunter/gatherers to an agrarian society is basically a BAD thing. Although I would probably argue that focusing on AGRI-culture (non-Aryan), rather than PERMA-culture (Aryan) is where it went wrong.
Anyway, I would be interested to hear the opinion of others who have read these books. Many people in the paleo/primitivist circles site these books as a major influence.
@Amalek:
Checkout: Jared Diamond: The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race: https://michaelgreenwell.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race/
Jared Diamond is rabidly anit-Neolithic, but NOT from a moral or ethical perspective.
An excellent refutation to the Paleo\Primitive thesis has been written by James H.S. McGregor. I have yet to read his book, but I have heard several interviews with him, and he blows Jared diamond’s thesis out of the water.
Back to the Garden: Nature and the Mediterranean World from Prehistory to the Present. http://envhis.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/4/832.extract
@Christian Reuter
Thanks for the info. I’ve added “Back to the Garden” to my reading list. This certainly supports what I said re: agriculture vs. permaculture:
“Traditional agriculture in the ancient Mediterranean mimicked the key traits of naturally occurring ecosystems. It was diverse, complex, self-regulating, and resilient.”
Regarding Jared Diamond… no surprises there. He is, after all, a Jew.
@Licuis Rhine
Fine by me. What kind of game would you like to make?
@AS
Is there any existing defense/upgrade game you think would be worth emulating?
Agriculture comes from “ager” (field) + “culture” (which means cultivation in Latin). Even more strongly, we could say agriculture is a culture revolving around field cultivation.
Perma-culture wishes to sustain a certain way of life permanently. This is a survivalist attitude-we are not interested in permanent existence for the sake of permanent existence. Ironically, this sustainable “permanent-culture” is exactly the attitude that Paleolithic hunter-gatherers (and modern primitive survivalists) hold. Hunters were in a permanent state of equilibrium with their environment, content with the “circle of life” and endless cycle of birth and death.
While they wish for civilization to return to a permanently “sustainable” level of exploitation, we wish for the exploitation to end as quickly as possible. For us, agriculture is only a means to an end.
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/survivalism-vs-militarism/
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/naturalism-vs-idealism/
http://aryanism.net/culture/environmentalism/
Western Civilization formed after Gentile hunters adopted farming (since it is more efficient than hunting). These non-Aryans who adopted farming never underwent the noble biological and spiritual revolution which affected the Neolithic Aryans who first formed agricultural civilizations.
http://aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/
“So, in this view, the rise of western civilization in the neolithic era, from hunter/gatherers to an agrarian society is basically a BAD thing.”
I agree with Quinn that the Neolithic era was a moral revolution and the formation of Western Civilization & world-wide adoption of agriculture and abandonment of hunting amongst Gentiles resulted in the world becoming worse. However, this is because IMMORAL tribalists, who never underwent a moral change after adopting farming, started breeding out of control-NOT because farming culture is inherently “unethical”. Our series of articles on Aryan Diffusion prove that civilization only started to get worse after hunter and herder TRIBALISTS were introduced to farming practices.
(Also, the (non-Aryan) Western Civilization did not start in the Neolithic era!)
http://aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/aryan-diffusion-part-6/
I’m not very familiar with Quinn, but he calls his ideology “New Tribalism”. I am not surprised. Low-tech survivalists like him recognize that tribalists are biologically and spiritually incompatible with civilization. What they fail to recognize is that the ills of Western Civilization were created by high-tech tribalists who lusted after machinery which could be employed to further the selfish interests of their tribe.
http://aryanism.net/politics/technology/
@Magnus
“Is there any existing defense/upgrade game you think would be worth emulating?”
When I suggested an asylum centre protection game in the original post, I was thinking something along the lines of Elona Shooter:
http://www.kongregate.com/games/noanoa/elona-shooter
but only in the sense of a game with two phases: 1) a combat phase; 2) an AP-based interaction/upgrade phase. Our version of 2) would involve interacting with the refugees between battles (which is where we put in the information on the real-life refugee crisis that we want players to hear about) and receiving upgrades from them. Our version of 1), on the other hand, need not be a shooter. It could be tower-defence (boring gameplay), turn-based battlefield strategy (fun gameplay but probably a lot of work programming), or even a card battle (fun gameplay and probably less work programming, but will require a lot of good ideas for all the cards).
@John Johnson
Thanks for the education. Yeah, I caught that “New Tribalism” on Quinn’s site as well.
I’m still working my way through the “Aryan Diffusion” series. That is a monumental piece of work!
I would like to know your opinion on these sources:
“The Aryans (also Indo-Germans, Japhetiten) are one of the three branches of the Caucasian (white race), they are divided into the western (European), that is the German, Roman, Greek, Slav, Lett, Celt [ and] Albanesen, and the eastern (Asiatic) Aryans, that is the Indian (Hindu) and Iranian (Persian, Afghan, Armenian, Georgian, Kurd). Non-Aryans are Therefore: 1. the members of two other races, namely the Mongolian (yellow) and the Negroid (black) races; 2. the members of the two other branches of the Caucasian race, namely the Semites (Jews, Arabs) and Hamites (Berbers). The Finns and the Hungarians belong to the Mongoloid race ; but it is hardly the intention of the law to treat them as non-Aryans. THUS… the non-Jewish members of the European Volk are Aryans … ”
This is supposedly the official definition of the term “Aryan” in Third Reich given by a man named Albert Gorter for the use of Aryan Certificate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate
Another source that supposedly defines the term Aryan for use of Ahnenpass ( “ancestors passport”), provides yet another definition which basically reduces this term to the “white race”:
“Arischer Abstammung (deutschblütig) ist demnach derjenige Mensch, der frei von einem, vom deutschen Volke aus gesehen, fremdrassigen Blutseinschlage ist. Als fremd gilt hier vor allem das Blut der auch im europäischen Siedlungsraume lebenden Juden und Zigeuner, das der asiatischen und afrikanischen Rassen und der Ureinwohner Australiens und Amerikas (Indianer), während z.B. ein Engländer oder Schwede, ein Franzose oder Tscheche, ein Pole oder Italiener, wenn er selbst frei von solchen, auch ihm fremden Blutseinschlägen ist, als verwandt, also als arisch gelten muß, mag er nun in seiner Heimat oder in Ostasien oder in Amerika wohnen oder mag er Bürger der U.S.A. oder eines südamerikanischen Freistaates sein.”
which can be roughly translated as:
“Aryan is thus the one man who looked free from, the German people, strange racial impact is blood. Deemed to be a stranger here, especially the blood of the living room and in the European settlement of Jews and Gypsies, the Asian and African breeds, and the aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), while, for example, a Swede or an Englishman, a Frenchman or Czech, a Pole or Italian, if he is free of such, even that is foreign blood strikes, when used, must therefore be considered severally liable, he may now live in his home, in East Asia or in America or he likes a U.S. citizen or a South American Free State be.”
Source: Cornelia Schmitz-Berning, Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus (in German). Walter de Gruyter. p. 61″
It is a bit strange, because we know (from other sources) that the term “Aryan” was widely used also in relation to the (for emample) Germans of African origin, Germans of Jewish descent, who rejected their Jewishness (such as Erhard Milch), Arabs, Japanese, Native Americans (Sioux), Jesus, and even to some animals. Thus, in practice its meaning was obviously wider than the definitions in the above sources. Here, this term was basically reduced to ethnicity, completely deprived of his deeper, romantic and moral meaning. I see no other explanation of this sources as that described in the section “On Modern Abuse of the Term” Aryan”" here: http://aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/aryan-diffusion-roundup/
What do you think?
@Magnus
I would love to make a game surrounding a theme of the Aryans saving humanity from degeneracy. I wouldn’t be so sure as to how big the game should be (i.e. Against all odds [small] vs. Fallout 3 [massive] ), but if we got enough people on this, we could definitely separate our concerns and operate efficiently. I am thinking that the map/point-of-view would start out in black-and-white and get progressively more colourful the farther the main character went along in the story.
Or another idea, enter the character, and the world is full of people that praise themselves - that is, individually - as Gods. As such, all people (or Gods) are blind and oblivious to all the others. Then, during the opening cut-scene, the main character is awoken by a burst of sunlight through the clouds. The deep and thunderous voice of the Sun shocks the main character into motionlessness, as the Sun tells the main character of his plans while simultaneously integrating himself with the main character, giving him the Power of the Light. After that, the main character could have thunderbolt abilities and such.
@Amalek
“I’m still working my way through the “Aryan Diffusion” series. That is a monumental piece of work!”
Hopefully you see the potential for games based on its content. Not just video games either; one of our earliest ideas was use it to develop a campaign setting for tabletop role-playing (Dungeons & Dragons, etc.).
@AM
“I would like to know your opinion on these sources:”
The Ariernachweis was used for the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. The person in charge of this was Wilhelm Frick, whom we already acknowledge in the FAQ:
The attempt by racist Wilhelm Frick in 1935 to “expand” the Nuremberg Laws to apply to other ethnic minorities resulted in his gradual removal from positions of authority from 1936 onwards. As a matter of fact, a circular was issued in 1936 to all NSDAP Gauleiters explicitly ordering employment protection of Germans of ethnic African ancestry to ensure the Nuremberg Laws would not be abused to discriminate against innocent people.
http://aryanism.net/about/faq/
Assuming (reasonably) that the statement by Gorter was approved by Frick, this would mean that the countermanding circular in 1936 can be taken as a canonical refutation of Gorter’s statement.
And certainly by the time WWII began, Gorter’s statement was invalid, or else there would have been no need for so much worry about sorting (for example) the non-Jewish Polish population into categories (under Gorter’s definition they would all be Aryan).
If the other statement pertains to the Ahnenpass, then since the Ahnenpass is one particular type of Ariernachweis, the conclusions above apply to it also.
@Folks:
Happy Sunday! Great song: The Blacks Seeds - One By One
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EX071nd7bw
Here is another great song, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prZSp1Q-NHc
North Korea makes a lot of great songs. Tell me what you think.
Here’s a game called “Cleansing of the Temple” created by the late Nicholas Johnson, author of The Big Dead Place a non-fiction book about life at the McMurdo weather station in Antartica.
http://www.stencyl.com/game/play/11993
@CharlesKrafft
Jesus should have a whip not a hexagram launcher.
No. Jesus should have a lightsaber! A lightsaber is more effective than a whip. You can’t kill someone with a whip.
“Why must we invest in warp drive?” if I explained to you, you wouldn’t believe me anyway. The only reason we would need warp drive, is to travel to other star systems but, since you are against that, there is no point in telling you.
“As soon as we start settling other areas of space, you can be sure that non-terrestrial countries will start competing with terrestrial countries. This will in turn give an incentive to create even more complicated machinery to make this competition all the easier and more destructive. If humanity will be then like it is now, I bet future Aryanists will be saying “We told you.”, while non-Aryans will be trying to convince us about the merits of travel to other universes…”
That could be a possiblity but, considering the prohibiting costs of waging war in space, I doubt that any nation would risk that. There is even an international treaty that prohibits nations to claim any territory, on celestial objects.
“That’s a rather limited definition of “sentient”, a word synonymous with conscious or anything to that effect. So long as you don’t believe the ability to “make progress, technologically, socially and politically” is necessary for a being to be conscious, the point can be dropped. (It should be mentioned, though, that all animals live in societies with their own particular technological, social, and political developments.)”
I guess I’ve watch too much Star Trek and Star Wars. In Star Trek and Star Wars, when ever they describe a species as sentient, that species is often humanoid, and is capable of speech and in most cases, able to construct or, pilot starships. On the other hand, non-sentient species are animals. If animals have languages, why can’t we learn how to read, write and speak them? I apologize if sentient is the wrong word I used to descried a species capable of speech, and creating or operating technology.
“Our focus is nobility rather than intelligence, so I don’t think there’s anything blames-worthy either way.”
Well, animals lack nobility because, they aren’t able to comprehend nobility or, any other high concepts due to their lack of intelligence. In fact, animals could be the definition of gentile because, an animal only cares about it’s own survival, and the continuation of it’s species. Animals act primarily on survivalist instincts and, their only mission is, to reproduce as much as possible! This sounds like the opposite of Aryan! The only mission animals have in which, they are willing sacrifice their own life for is, solely for reproduction. Aryanists wouldn’t sacrifice their own lives just to reproduce but, animals do not know of any higher purpose. Animals are also very tribalist and, usually only care about their own species. Wild animals react to humans the same way, the far-right reacts to Muslims! Most of the animals that are friendly towards humans are domesticated, which means they had to be with humans since birth to be companions with humans. Maybe because, they believe they are one of them? This may or may not be the case though. But even some domesticated dogs act tribalist, believing that it, and it’s owner is it’s own tribe and, would react aggressive to people outside of that “tribe”. Maybe someone could befriend a wild animal but, it would take a lot of time and patients and wondering the wilderness. It could take a very long time to gain the animal’s trust to get anywhere near it. Most humans do not have the patients for this so, they rather spend money to purchase an already domesticated animal that they can conveniently bring home with them. In contrast, meeting other human beings, even if they are from the other side of the world, is much easier. The irony is, North Korean people are friendlier to Americans than, wild foxes are to humans and, foxes do not have extensive propaganda to tell them to fear humans. I find this a sad reality where, we cannot simply meet an animal and have a conversation with them like, we would another person.
“If the only way an animal will be your friend is through force, then leave it alone. If a human does not wish to be your friend, are you going to force that person to satisfy your desire?”
I have no desire to enslave an animal for any reason, I just want them to be my companions but, wild animals would want nothing to do with me because, I am human. Wild animals assume that everything wants to kill them, and then their survivalist instincts kick in and, they will either flee or attack. It seems the only for animals to be companions is, for them to be domesticated. I do not believe animals even understand the concept of enslavement, as long as their life isn’t being threatened and there is no physical harm being done to them, they are happy.
Hitler had a dog for a pet but, for that dog to have become Hitler’s companion, it’s decendents would of had to been domesticated. A wild dog would of not of wanted anything to do with Hitler or, any human for that matter. So, domestication must not be considered enslavment if even Hitler himself owned a dog. The dog would be happy as long as it’s life is not threaten. A dog is only concerned with it’s surival but, it does not have to be concerned about it’s survial if it is someone’s pet. An animal in the wild would have to fend for itself, and there would be a constant danger but, an animal is better off being domesticated, than being in the wild as long that animal is not domesticated to be slaughtered for food or, for labour. What is more noble, to keep an animal as a pet or, to let fend for itself in the wild?
I do not wish to elsave animals but, I also do not want to be isolated from them because of their natural fears. I wish animals would intergrate with humans by their own choosing rather then, through domestication. It would be more convient that way, we wouldn’t have to pay money to own a pet. Are humans the only species with a desire to befriend other species? Animals don’t appear to want to interact with us unless, they are domesticated or tame. I am not even sure if aniamls can love humans or, they just see their human companions as mearly a source of food.
I may have miss used the word sentient but, what I meant by, there are millions of species but, only one is sentient, I meant only humans are capable of intelligent conversations and, creating civilizations, nations, governments and invent technologies and improve on those things. Humans make progress over time, even if that progress is not positive but, animals are the same since they been on this planet. The only changes animals had made is, evolutionary but, that does not require their own involvment. Animals do not seek improvement. This is why I find animals rather uninteresting compared with, extraterriestrial intelligent alien races. This doesn’t mean I don’t like animals and don’t care about them but, I wish that animals could do what humans can.
I still love animals and care about them as much as an Aryan would. I hate it when people act like an animal’s life is worthless compared to a human life. I hate when people say that, Hitler was evil for rounding up millions of human beings in concentration camps to slaughter them but, they then do the same to animals!
“And it was a fair explanation, but I don’t see what it has to do with space travel.”
It was about resources. My point is, Germany lost because, it lacked the territory for the resources which, the enemy had in abundance. Britain had many colonies that, Germany lacked and hence, more access to resources to support their war effort. A space faring nation is likely to have more resources, than a non-space faring nation. A space faring nation would also have a distinct advantages over non-space faring nation, such as, spy satellites and ballistic missiles. Satellites in the future may even be equipped with weapons for orbital bombardment. There is no way a nation with absolutely no space technology, could defend against that! If you consider a military technology ignoble, you have to be prepared to counter it, even if it means developing that technology yourself.
“We are not advocating stupid and unnecessary deaths. What we see as stupid and unnecessary, never mind cruel, is continuing life indefinitely for the heck of it.”
It sounds like you don’t care if every sentient being dies because, they didn’t choose to be born anyway. What is the point of sacrificing your own life if not, to save the lives of others? Do Aryans all just want to die in a way they consider noble? Maybe we didn’t chose to born but, we can make the choice of, weather we want to live or not. There is also a difference between living, just for living, and living for reason and a cause, like Aryanism. The way I see it, is the longer someone lives, the more missions they can accomplish. A person can also just waste his life and, live for nothing but for sake of living.
“If military technology permits humans to kill in ways they could not without it, then it is machinery. This applies to drones and robots (with or without AI), which are killing machines meant to involve no personal harm to their user (which would not have been possible without machinery), but it also extends to other military technology like nukes, explosives, and so on.
Actually, AS pointed out on the Aryan Diffusion page that “The Turanian image of the ideal warrior is a horse archer who never misses a single shot and at the same time evades every shot aimed at him. The Aryan image of the ideal warrior is a duellist willing to take a fatal wound in order to deliver his own killing blow upon his opponent.” I remember always being indifferent, at best, to ranged weaponry, but in contrast liking melee weapons. Since the post is about video games, I’ve only used bows and arrows for RPG missions only if absolutely necessary (and often I wouldn’t take the missions in the first place), and then would switch back immediately to swords, axes, hammers, and so on. The point of the former is to maximize range and victims while limiting danger to oneself; the latter simply permit skill to play a more important role than physiology in combat. (The domestication of the horse for warfare can also be considered an example of mechanization. Imagine how much Genghis Khan would have (not) been able to conquer had he not had that advantage over his enemies.) But, of course, I do not recommend returning to sword combat when our enemies have drones.”
Military technology that allows humans to kill in ways they couldn’t, is essentially every modern weapon, even those used by National Socialist Germany during World War II. Combat has always evolving in attempts to for nations to gain advantages over their enemies. I don’t see nothing wrong with drones and robots for warfare, in fact, I believe it is a great idea because, with robots and drones you will have more soldiers left to fight because less of them would be killed. Keep in mind that, wars will not be fought entirely with robots and drones and, still will be fought with mostly human soldiers. Even anti-Zionist countries are developing drones, and they don’t see any reason for them to stop. Drones and robots would allow armies to take less casualties, and have more soldiers left to fight. Also, drones and robots would allow for precision strikes and cause less collateral damage. Had the Allies used drones during World War II, they would of striked their intended targets with surgical precision, rather than indiscriminately bombing everything with heavy bombers. Even National Socialist Germany had developed drones, and guided weapons like the V-1 and the V-2, the Goliath and the Wasserfall remote controlled rocket. With A.I war robots, you wouldn’t have be concerned about them being cowards or traitors. They would be more reliable than, human soldiers and, unlike humans they would never disobey orders or act disloyal. I even propose that, National Socialists build war robots to make up for their small numbers. You may vehemently oppose this but, with a small number of Aryanists, it may be your only option. It would take a miracle to get large number of supporters and you can’t always count on miracles.
Now, about nuclear weapons. Wasn’t National Socialist Germany attempting to build a nuclear bomb during World War II? Every anti-Zionist nation is developing nuclear weapons. So, you against the use of explosives, one of the most commonly used weapons of any modern conflict that even National Socialist Germany had used extensively? So you want warfare to go back to what is was before gunpowder was invented? You have to kidding me! I would always prefer a gun over any melee weapon and, I would always prefer being a war vehicle, like a tank, over being on foot using a hand weapon! I believe that a gun is a quick and effective to kill someone, and is less gory and more humane than, ancient melee weapons. I don’t like ancient weapons because, they kill people in very painful and gory ways. I prefer weapons that cause the person it is used on less pain and, doesn’t result in a gory death. I would also prefer using a laser weapon over using a gun because, a laser leaves no blood splatters like gun does and, the person dies in an instant with no gory mess. I would prefer a laser with a stun setting so, I am not forced to kill my combatant. However, if I had to kill, I would prefer the laser to instantly vaporize the person quick and painlessly but, this would require an extremely powerful laser. If a laser cannot do this, it could still kill a person quick and painlessly without a bloody mess.
It is not necessarily true that a ranged weapons allow no harm to the user. Many soldiers had died, just as if they used a melee weapon, when they had ranged weapons. Soldiers die whether they have ranged weapons or, melee weapons.
I believe the ideal warrior should be brave and willing to take a wound but, he should attempt to avoid any blows that come at him because, an injured warrior cannot fight as well but, a warrior should not be afraid to get hit or even die from that hit. A brave warrior shouldn’t reckless, he has to be calculating but, he does not fear if he gets hit or even dies. No matter how well planned his strategy is, there is always the possibility of him being wounded or killed but, he should still attempt to avoid it while, still being able to fight and defeat his enemy. Why does a warrior have to be a duelist? A duel is more like a lethal sporting event. Real fights do not take the form of a dual. Do you think a police officer duels with a criminal? Do you think a soldier duels against one enemy soldiers? Real combat is actually more random than a duel. Real combat could be 2 vs 1, 5 vs 3, or 18 vs 15. Duels are always arranged in way so, it is 1 vs 1 and, no one else is to get involved. Real combat is not arranged this way. I rather be a soldier than a duelist. I rather die in battle with the real enemy in actually combat. Both a duelist and a soldier are equally willing to die but, the real fight takes the form of a battle or, a war, not a duel. The real fights between right and wrong occurs on the battlefield.
Most of the games I play take place during World War II or, in the future near or far. I even played some Star Wars games but, even though Star Wars has a lot of futuristic weaponry, there are melee weapons such as, lightsabers and electrostaffs or pikes. Well, they are based off ancient melee weapons but, with a futuristic twist. Can Jedi be considered Aryan or not? It looks like your opinion on weapons is similar to the Jedi’s. The Jedi prefer to use a lightsaber, which requires more skill, over using a blaster. But, of course the military prefers weapons that require less skill to use because, they don’t want to take to much time to train their soldiers.
Didn’t Germany’s Blitzkrieg take the form of a highly mechanized military? I am pretty sure it did. That is what allow Germany to conquer so many nations in a sort period of time. For a military to be successful, it has to be highly mechanized. The Polish lost very quickly because, their military lacked mechanization. Imagine how much Hitler would of not been able to conquer with out a mechanized military and the extensive use of tanks.
“If we give you two thumbs-up to satisfy yourself, once you’ve created technology for immortality and gone through all the potential riches of the universe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk), you’ll be bored once again and want to either find new universes or create them. Do you not see how your desire enslaves you and whomever you drag into this with you?”
So what? Humans are always curious, and will always desire to know more and discover more. If it wasn’t for this, we wouldn’t be where we are now. This website and the device used to make it and, type on it would not exist if it wasn’t for human curiosity and the desire to learn more. We would not even be typing here, even Aryanism would not of existed if not for human curiosity and desire to know more. If humans didn’t desire to know anything, nobody would even be reading your website. You would be the one enslaving people by not allowing them to leave the confines of the Earth! If you wish to not enslave people. If you are truly against enslavement, then you should allow people to leave Earth by their own choosing! How can I be enslaved because, I want to know more about the universe and venture out of the solar system? No body is telling me to leave the solar system, and nobody is forcing me too either. I made that decision on my own. How can making my own decision possibly be enslavement? Enslavement is when someone or, a group exploits people for their own personal gain. Nobody can be enslaved by their own thoughts and decisions. People can only be enslaved by others. People who are truly enslaved are not allowed to go as they please and, are severely restricted of knowledge. I wouldn’t be able to get rid of my desires to travel beyond the solar system, even if I wanted to. There is just so much wonder in the universe to ignore it! Therefore, if humans never had desires, Communism would of worked perfectly without being a totalitarian dictatorship and it would never have collapsed. Human nature of desire is what caused Communism to collapse. I don’t really believe that economic problems themselves lead to the Communism’s collapse because, there would be really no reason to abandon Communism for them. A nation can experience economic decline no matter what form of politics it has.
“If you want to fight on our side simply because you have nothing better to do, please don’t bother. That’s not what our movement is based on.”
I didn’t say that was the only reason I am interested in Aryanism. If that was the case, I would just consider joining the U.S Army instead of looking for Aryanism. I would not even care about politics. My point is, a person who is dissatisfied or bored with his life, is more willing to die for a cause, whatever they cause may be, than a person who is satisfied with his life and enjoys, who would rather do everything he can to preserve his life so he can live another day to enjoy his life. A person chooses to fight for a cause because, he genuinely believes in that cause not because he is bored and just wants to fight. If someone just wanted to fight, be a soldier and disregard his own life, he would just join the national army of his nation and not care at all about politics or causes. If I didn’t care about any cause and just wanted to be a soldier, I would just consider joining the U.S Army and would have nothing to do with this website. I actually would prefer the U.S Air force but, if there would be war between Russia and America, I would rather be in the Russian Air Force because, America would definitely support Israel, while on the other hand, Russia would be supporting anti-Zionist Iran. Russia is also less democratic.
“A whole section is dedicated, quite explicitly, to the topic here:
http://aryanism.net/politics/population-and-demographics/”
I thought that article explains that, Aryanists are against only space colonization but, not space exploration. I will go read it again.
“Thank you for openly declaring it. If you want to work with us (and I’ve told you in the past how you can help) because you can broadly sympathize with us (and not just because you’re bored), we will treat you like an ally. However, under a government of our own, you would have no authority to carry out your space-travel plans. Your call.”
I usually sympathize with anyone who is anti-Zionist, anti-Capitalism and anti-democracy. Although I might be anti-Communist but, Communism seems to also have common enemies with me and National Socialists, which is also Zionism, Capitalism, and democracy. Sure, not all Communists are anti-Zionists but, a lot of them are and the Maki, the Israeli Communist party actually opposed the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union may have recognized Israel but, that didn’t mean they were friends. I do believe in the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is why I also sympathize with Communist China. China is a very powerful country with a strong economy and, also powerful very powerful military. China’s strength continues grow and, could challenge the United States, which Israel’s most powerful ally. To stand up to Israel, you have to also be able to stand up to the United States. China also supports anti-Zionist nations such as, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. I believe that, sometimes you have to ally with one enemy to fight the other.
The problem with me is that, I feel alienated from anti-Zionists because, I would always be disagreeing with them on many subject and issues. For example. I am a atheist and I am not spiritual at all. That alone already alienates me from most anti-Zionists! Is almost like, the only common ground I have with Anti-Zionists I have is, who the enemy is. I therefore like North Korea the most because, they do not have a religion but instead, in it’s place is a cult of personality of their leader. Well, at least they worship someone who is real. When comes to Aryanism I agree with a lot things like, animal welfare and population control but, I disagree with it’s views on technology and space travel. Maybe I would just have to carry out my plans to go into space in a different country.
“And we must convince them not to.”
Really? What makes you believe they will even listen? Even the UN and the United States told them, countless of times to not develop nuclear weapons, but that doesn’t stop them. What makes you believe it would be any different, if an Aryan nation demanded that the non-Aryan nations abandon their space programes, that they would listen? If an Aryan were to form, it would probably a small, impoverished nation that would become isolated like North Korea. Even if Aryans take over the U.S, which I find highly unlikely, the non-Aryan nations still wouldn’t listen to Aryan America to abandon their space programs. It would probably be like today but, instead of America demanding they abandon their nuclear weapons programs, it will be Aryan America demanding they abandon their space programs. Besides, the non-Aryan anti-Zionist nations would be so proud of their achievements into space to throw it all away. This would probably cause tension between anti-Zionist nations after the defeat of Zionism. Countries like, North Korea, would not like to be told what to do by a foreign power. If the Aryan nation turns against North Korea for having a space program, the North Koreans would probably label Aryans as turn coats in a back water anti-machine and anti-technology society. North Korea is not going to let Aryans tell them what to do!
“Can you explain to me what exactly we are fighting for? If you can, it should become clear why we are not interested in prolonging our existence here.”
Aryans fight against Zionism, for nobility and against all forms of enslavement. That last part sounds like, Aryanists don’t care if the world gets destroyed and everybody dies, as long as nobility is retained. Isn’t part of nobility is, sacrificing your own life so that others may prolong their own? What if others want to prolong their own life? It would be enslavement to tell someone how long they should live. Luckily, we have millions of years for you or, who ever runs the planet by then to change their mind about traveling into space to escape the planet.
“That’s why we need to stop them while still on Earth! Creating technology for space travel would make this scenario infinitely more likely.”
And what if you fail? You would need to have a backup plan. To succeed, you need to be prepared for failure. We will fight the Zionists across the galaxy if we have to! If the Zionists defeat us on Earth, maybe we would have to leave, and prepare to come back to Earth and liberate from the Zionists. This would make a great Aryan video game idea!
We actually agree to this, as AS mentioned on the Technology page.
What?! You want to get ride of aircraft?! Aircraft are one of my favorite vehicles and I aspire to become a pilot. I also have flight simulators. I don’t want to give up on aircraft for any reason! There is also a practical need for aircraft because, without aircraft travel around the world would take, days, weeks, or even months! Logistics would be servery restricted! A jet plane only take about a few hours to cross the Atlantic while, a ship would take weeks, or months. A plane is meant to transport cargo and passengers at much faster speeds, then any land or sea vehicles by, leaving the ground which causes friction that greatly reduces speed. There are also less obstacles in the air. So, there is a very necessary and practical need for aircraft. I have a very strong passion for aircraft! Besides, would you really want to wait days and weeks to get to your destination that could be cut down to a few hours by air? Would you prefer Maglev over aircraft?
“Hitler never learned to drive a car and looked on Mussolini with suspicion for being able to fly an airplane.”
I have a strong passion for driving vehicles, especially trains and airplanes. Does this mean I’m more of a Fascist than a National Socialist? Did Hitler also looked on his Luftwaffe Marshal Göring with suspicion for being able to fly an airplane and also looked on all his Luftwaffe pilots for being able to play airplanes? Did Hitler also looked on his own rocket scientists with suspicion?
“As we’ve said before countless times, we must first defeat the non-Aryans, and only then can we safely get rid of machinery.” I doubt an Aryan nation could defeat all the non-Aryans, even if is the most powerful nation on Earth. The United States it’s the most powerful nation on Earth but, even it hasn’t defeat all it’s enemies and even if it tried to, there would be serious repercussions against it. Remember the last time an Aryan nation tried to defeat all non-Aryan nations? It didn’t end well for that Aryan nation. If I were Hitler, I would declare war on the Soviet Union until I defeated Britain, and I wouldn’t declare war on the United States until I defeated the Soviet Union. It is a bad idea to fight all your enemies at once! Make peace with some enemies so you focus on fighting the enemy you are currently fighting, or make peace to give you time to prepare to fight an enemy. The Muslims claimed they would eliminate all non-believers but, that never happened. Note, I do not believe that all Muslims want to eliminate all non-believers. Communists claimed there would be a global revolution to turn the world Communist and eliminate all the capitalists. That never happened either. The world will always have conflicting ideologies and nations. You cannot eliminate an ideology, you can only minimize it. Even after the United States supposedly defeated Communism after the Cold War, there is still China which a very strong Communist state. So, Aryanists are ok with useing machinery to combat their enemies?
“Actually, Juche is fascist: http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-fascism/”
This is Aryanism’s explanation of the difference between Fascism and National Socialism.
“Fascism: If we work together, we will have the power to achieve any goal we want. (“It is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history. It matters little who wins. To make a people great it is necessary to send them to battle even if you have to kick them in the pants. That is what I shall do.” – Benito Mussolini)”
“National Socialism: This is our goal. The only way to achieve it is to work together. ( “They are inspired by the feeling that they have a mission to fulfill, and we might just as well egg them on a little.” – Adolf Hitler)”
North Korea has a goal, like National Socialism. Their goal is to unify the Korean peninsula and rid it of the American Imperialists. I think Belarus or, Russia are Fascist though, they would deny it and place the title on their western enemies. Russia and Belarus are sort of a pseudo-democratic Fascist governments. Russia’s attitude is more like, if we work together, we can accomplish any goal. Russia doesn’t really have a defined goal. I think many African nation are Fascist, despite having a democratic system, but it is mostly due to corruption. corruption can ruin any political ideology.
“Let’s focus on making our positions as clear as possible and then winning.”
Good luck with that, but it might still split into different political factions if it spreads all over the world. Every ideology that I know of, eventually splits into many variations. Even an Aryan nation might change it’s policies to suit the different situations, just like the Soviet Union’s de-Stalinfacation, the Sino-Soviet spit, China’s reforms. Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao were all Communists but, they had different ideas on Communism should be run. Communism never even happened the way Marx had envisioned, and the same would happen if National Socialism takes place again in a country. Marx envisioned Communism should be a stateless nation but, this is impossible so and instead, Communist nations in fact had a strong state with strict control over it’s citizens. National Socialism in the future, may not even form the same way you envision it. Marx envisioned Communism to be stateless, Lenin and other Communist leaders didn’t create a stateless nation. If Communist leaders could meet Marx, they would probably disagree with each other. Lenin could not form a stateless nation because, it is impossible because the people need a guild. My point is, National Socialism may not be what this website envisions it but, it might stick to the basic ideas and concepts of it. As long as it’s not racist and it is anti-Zionist, it should be fine. Various leaders and nations would apply National Socialism in various ways while, maintaining the main idea and concept of it. Certain policies would also very for country to country even if, they have the same ideology. You can’t really change that, it is inevitable for any ideology.
“That does not mean I am preparing to fend off a potential polar bear invasion, nor that I would take anybody seriously should they recommend it.”
But, unlike a polar bear invasion, a nuclear war is still more possible. I now assume that a National Socialist state would not prepare for a threat unless, there is proof that such a threat exists. Besides, even though an alien invasion is more likely than polar invasion because, polar bears are lack the intellectual ability to plan invasions, no nation is actually preparing for an alien invasion. The problem with this is, by the time there is proof of an alien threat, it might be too late. The fact that there are many stars and planets just like our own, and the fact that we exist is irrefutable that aliens must also exist. Please put two and two together! How would an Aryanist state react if, aliens came to Earth or, if aliens were discovered by a non-Aryan nation?
“I’ll let somebody else answer that. I’ve never had a chance to watch Star Trek (a guy I know convinced me to watch the 2013 one, which I simply didn’t find that interesting; but I don’t know how similar it is to the old ones) and I don’t remember the last time I saw Star Wars (which I’ve only seen once).”
Not even Star Trek fans liked the new Star Trek movies because, they lacked the intellectual element that the older series possessed. New Star Trek movies are just eye candy, special effects and action scenes. The older Star Trek series had more intellectual substance and wasn’t just eye candy and action. Old Star Trek was more about philosophy, science and morals. Star Trek is about the human struggle to progress away from primitive, tribalist tendencies. The United Federation of Planets is a multi-planetary government that, unites humans with other sentient species and I am pretty sure that racism is nearly non-existent in the Federation. On the other hand, the Federation’s enemies, like the Klingon Empire and the Romulan Empire are gentiles that believe their species is better than other species. Only gentiles would name their nation after their tribal group! In contrast, the Federation is not called the Human Federation of Planets which means they do not exclude non-human species. The Federation respects and protects non human sentient species. On a Klingon or Romulan vessel, there is no diversity, just Klingons on vessel and just Romulans on a Romulan vessel. In contrast this the Federation crews have, not just ethnic diversity but, other species in cooperation with humans. The United Federation of Planets unites many species to a common goal of peace and exploration. The only problem with the Federation is, they are a democracy. The Vulcans seem to follow logic and dispose of emotions because, they believed they were enslaved and deceived by their own emotions. I guess you could consider Vulcans the most Aryan characters of Star Trek, just replace logic with nobility. The Klingons have the warrior attitude of an Aryan, they consider a high honor to die in battle, but they are still gentiles.
The Federation of Planets may not be ideally Aryan but, it is more noble than the other civilizations in Star Trek. Before the Federation was formed, the United Earth emerged after two devastating conflicts, the Eugenetic Wars and World War III. The Eugentic Wars occurred following the creation of genetically enhanced humans. These humans, lead by Khan Noonien Singh, believed that his race is superior to other humans and that they should be enslaved. Khan was like the ultimate gentile. After the Eugenic Wars, genetic engineering was banned. Then there was World War III, which lasted from 2026 to 2053 and lead to the deaths of millions of people. World War III was fought between the United States and the Eastern Coalition. After these destructive wars, humanity finally decided to give up their primitive tribalist and gentile ways and unite the Earth, with help from the Vulcans. But, wouldn’t Aryanists be against globalization? Aryans are for unity and against tribalist division but, they are also against globalization. Do you mind explaining this?
Check out these National Socialist Star Trek starship designs.
http://kavinveldar.deviantart.com/art/Wolfsrudel-Class-Attack-Ships-227472307
http://kavinveldar.deviantart.com/art/Nazi-Raumwaffe-Class-Cruiser-217579451
http://kavinveldar.deviantart.com/art/TRV-Bismarck-1701-217630468
http://kavinveldar.deviantart.com/art/TRV-Fatherland-217764983
http://kavinveldar.deviantart.com/art/Nazi-Heimlichkeit-Class-244613561
http://kavinveldar.deviantart.com/art/Raum-Kraft-Class-Starship-245734289
I thought Aryan Star Trek would be an interesting idea but now, it seems that Aryanists are against space travel. It is a shame because, I allways envisioned National Socialist Germany with spacecaft and, I think Swastikas decorated starships well. It is also unfortunate that, the creators of fiction that involved National Socialist Germany, always try to cater to ZC, either because they believe it or, just want to make more money. It would be very difficult to make a movie or, a TV series that show National Socialists in a positive light due to ZC brainwashing. It would be very difficult to get the funding needed for a good science fiction move or, TV series because, it wouldn’t be popular for the Zionist brainwashed masses if the TV series or movie show National Socialists in a postive light and, portray Jews and negative. Even if National Socialists found a way to make lots a money, they would probably rather spend on something important like, supporting a paramilitary.
“That all depends on how much more willing people are to work seriously rather than they are to occasionally post on the blog asking us why we don’t support space travel when we’ve already discussed it on the main site. Well, are you?”
Well, you are still going to need a backup plan incase things don’t go as as plan. I want to support your movment despite, having a few disagreements but, I don’t know what to do because I am only 17. I know National Socialists favor youth but, there is simply nothing I can do because, I don’t even have my own money. Maybe I can actually contribute when I am an adult and have control over my own life, and I can support myself. I don’t even have much control over my own lifestyle. You and this website never really explain in depth why is space travel is adverse. It just says we, we don’t like machinery because, is makes life more complicated. So what if makes life more complicated? Simple life sounds mudane to me and I don’t like mudane. Sure space travel might be dangerous but, without taking risks, we wouldn’t get anywhere.
“In a nutshell: Instead of using what we already have to simplify life with the ultimate goal of transcendence, we are using up our existence for the sake of expansion. The former frees us; the latter prolongs our imprisonment and enslaves us if we become enthusiastic about it.”
I don’t quite understand the part about transcendence. Is it a form of immortality? To transcendent from your human form to another so, you somehow exist forever without existing in the physical form? Can you explain to me how that work exactly? If transcendence is possible, I am pretty sure that even non-Aryans would be able to do it too. How would Aryanists achieve transcendence if they wouldn’t permit the use of technology that allow transcending because, they would consider it machinery? Death is not transcending, you just become a rotting corpse that ceases to function as a living and think human being. I am going to assume you are spiritual, but I do not believe in spirits, Gods, afterlife, or a spirit realm of any sort until I am provided solid proof or evidence that proves such things exist.
“It does, as AS addressed on the Technology page.”
That would be a foolish and insane to get ride of aircraft. Consider the time it takes for airliner to cross an ocean, it only takes a few hours while, an ocean going vessel could take a week or two. Also, I love aircraft and I want to become a pilot and I am not giving it up for anything.
“You can if you create a backstory where non-Aryans have settled outer space and we have to chase them down. But make sure you understand what the truly Aryan perspective is on this matter, so you can show why such a scenario is a curse and not a blessing”
I wanted to make a video game about a National Socialist Fourth Reich fighting an interstellar war between, terrestrial and extra-terrestrial enemies. I thought of Aryans exploring the far reaches of space, to make contact with new civilizations and enlighten them of Aryanism and fight gentile aliens. I do not see how space travel would be a curse. How would Aryans respond is aliens came to Earth without any human intervention?
“The clearer it is that we are pro-American, and therefore oppose America’s subjugation by Zionists and other barbarians, the better it is for us.”
That is ironic because, America is the biggest supporter and financier of Zionism and Israel, and that may not change for a very long time. So, anti-Zionism and anti-America go hand in hand. Iran would not be saying “death to America” if American didn’t support Israel. Nearly every anti-Zionist nation and organization is therefore also anti-U.S. I’m not even sure if the United States is being subjugated by Zionist or, they are just allies with Israel for the convenience of having an ally in the middle east, to fight terrorism and defend from other Islamic threats. The U.S probably protects Jews for the same reason they protect every other religion, even if Judaism is a false religion because they believe it is a real religion. It is even in the constitution, it says no one should be discriminated due to race, religion or creed. This includes Judaism. If Israel did 9/11, then the United States would declare war on Israel but, Jewish citizens would still be treated as equal citizens, just like Muslims are even after 9/11. Muslims are discriminated by the people, not the government but, the government has no control over what people think. Zionism could be outlawed after the U.S goes to war with Israel but, people would still be allowed to be Jew as long as they claim they are not Zionist. To the Americans, Jews have just as many rights as Muslims.
I thought I had what it takes to be an Aryan and a National Socialist but, it turns I don’t. I still support your movement and I hope Zionism and democracy is defeated. anti-Zionists should be united, not divide because of minor disagreements. A lot of anti-Zionists may not agree with Ayranism either but, we all have the same enemy and we should unite to defeat that common enemy. Aryans are always going to be a small minority, even if people love them and support them. Maybe non of us can be a true Aryan but, it is something we at least try to strive for, like Jesus is for Christians. Not every Christian can act exactly like Jesus but, they attempt to. I will attempt to be as Aryan as possible without, giving up my dreams of space flight though, I can never become a true Aryan because of this. I cannot convince you to accept space travel anymore than you can convince me not to endorse it. I just cannot imagine a future without space flight. To me, the ability to become space faring represents progress while, not becoming space faring represents stagnation in a hopeless civilization that will remain a backwater. I wanted to ask for advice on how to depict Aryans in an alien invasion scenario. The likely hood of such an invasion is low but, I just wanted to know how a National Socialist state would react to such an invasion for a video game. Video games are meant for fun after all, and don’t necessarily likely and or realistic.
Thank you for replying in a more polite manor than Eric. I appreciated it. Eric sounded rather rude and hostile.
Chosun: “Wild animals react to humans the same way, the far-right reacts to Muslims! Most of the animals that are friendly towards humans are domesticated”
This is a view people get from sensationalist nature documentaries, certainly not from long experience in the wild. The vast majority of animals ignore humans entirely, or remove themselves from them. Take a walk in the forest, sit still somewhere for a time, you will see animals - count how many attack you. Probably none. There is violence in nature but it is no indiscriminate orgy of blood. That is our specialty.
Some few animals see us as prey, but this is a legitimate view: the predators have the function of balance, and we are certainly out of balance; we might be better off if we had better predators. We are not true predators as we exist now - we are simply destroyers, because predators function towards balance. Other animals yet might attack to defend their territory - and you will do the same, if they enter yours. But you could spend a lifetime in the forest, and never suffer attack from anything worse than mosquitos and deer-flies.
” I just cannot imagine a future without space flight. To me, the ability to become space faring represents progress while, not becoming space faring represents stagnation in a hopeless civilization that will remain a backwater. ”
If we cannot manage with the huge, abundant spacecraft we were already blessed with, we have no hope of being able to manage a tiny one, which will require even more skill. We are too wasteful, too greedy, too selfish and too ignoble to pull it off. If a craft (with sufficient population and a large enough gene pool to start a permaculture) from a backwater, hopeless civilization were even able to survive long enough to reach another world, it would only bring its problems with it and create, with its much smaller gene pool, its poor racial understandings, its crappy environmental practices - create an even more backwater and hopeless civilization. Wherever you go, there you are. There is no salvation in this.
“Thank you for replying in a more polite manor than Eric. I appreciated it. Eric sounded rather rude and hostile.”
No, just replying in my normal pessimistic tone, which normally sounds rude through text, I’m only stunned someone would make such materialistic clinging to such insignificant things and attempt to apply it though ideology. But I shouldn’t really care since your only one person.
@AS
Defense games, which always appeared to me to be exclusively flash phenomenon, always seemed to be random, both in the sense that they start as an overwhelming visual experience (you don’t know where to focus your attention) and in the sense that decisions never have any impact whatsoever (you can make progress without any prior thought.)
Elona shooter is orderly in the visual sense, but it is still quite meaningless mechanically, as it does not restrict mindless successes. I can finish any level without actually understanding any of the rules, and even when I fail, and do so several times in a row, I can still hit the right combination without understanding and learning from any of my previous mistakes.
Still, the above problem, which is the problem of encouraging brute force play style, can be at least hidden from the perceptual horizon of players by focusing their mind in the right direction through an improved aesthetical and presentational quality of the game. Defense games tend to be very poor in this regard as well, which is why, as a player, I never bother to take their mechanics seriously. This is why I never try to make wise decisions for their own sake, rather than for the sake of completion.
I always felt certain discomfort when trying to replicate such a design. I could never gain confidence in the value of such a design. I think that if I try I can master it, but still, I’d rather design something that is actually good, rather than something that is merely a replica of a successful product.
For this reason, I’d rather go with a turn-based tactics game in the style of, say, Fire Emblem, where you guide a team of heroes (you can say a paramilitary group, but I don’t like the word “paramilitary” as it’s too complicated and technical) in an effort to purge the world from evil. I would make the refugee situation only one of its levels. I certainly wouldn’t like to see an entire game dedicated to refugees . . . I would also set it in a fictional setting that resembles our current situation, but that does not mirror it with the precision of realism. In general, the more ideal, the better.
The other option — and one I can barely resist — is to make a turn-based strategy where you play as a dictator dealing with both domestic and foreign politics in an effort to achieve universal salvation.
This is something I would choose to work on freely of my own will, independently of your movement and any other non-idealistic concerns (e.g. commercial concern.) As I am currently unemployed, the possibility of working on these projects with the hope, but not with the plan, of commercial success is alluring. The advantage of synergy should thus become apparent.
I am, however, willing to work on any kind of project, but this would necessarily have a weaker motivation fueling it, and I would only work on it under the conviction that it is of genuine value to your movement.
I am a thorough and detail-oriented individual. I take everything seriously. So I struggle with simplistic, non-idealistic, purely materialistic work.
@Lucius Rhine:
What do you think of turn-based strategy/tactics games?
When designing games I generally do not think about how big they should be, only about how good they are. Size-related concerns are deadline concerns . . . they are commercial, survivalistic concerns.
On the other hand, I do make sure to start small and only gradually and carefully increase the complexity of design.
Fallout 3 is a first-person, real-time, visually and physically 3D game which is already a high level of complexity. I would break it down.
Even Fallout 2 is not that small.
I would suggest thinking in terms of what kind of interaction you want to convey.
@Magnus
“I certainly wouldn’t like to see an entire game dedicated to refugees . . .”
Anyone else want to take up the refugee game idea, then?
“The other option — and one I can barely resist — is to make a turn-based strategy where you play as a dictator dealing with both domestic and foreign politics in an effort to achieve universal salvation.”
I support you going with this option if it is what you personally feel most enthusiastic about. Would you consider basing it on one (or more) of the scenarios from the Aryan Diffusion series? If so, you are welcome to discuss ideas about characters, story, etc. here.
Suffering is a constant of life. It is life’s default mode and joy can only be temporary. Lack of joy equals to suffering.
Curiosity and the seeking of knowledge is just one of the things that alleviates this condition.
With death all of this ceases and if there’s heaven I would end up knowing everything there anyway.
I didn’t really come here to have long philosophical arguments with you and, cause tension. I just wanted to know how to portray Aryans in a video game that envolves an interstellar war or, alien invasion. Neither of these would happen in our lifetimes but, it’s just for fun. I assume that, a National Socialist state would wait for the aliens to land on Eath or, once the National Socialist state is aware that an alien threat exists, they begin construction of spacecaft to defend Earth but, this would require some kind of early warning system. Other contries would equiqe their spacecaft with warp drives while, the National Socialist state would not. After the conflict is over, the National Socialist state would retire their spacecaft. What do you think would the proper course of action for a National Socialist state during an alien invasion? Use their own spacecaft or, fight them on the ground?
@Magnus: “…The other option — and one I can barely resist — is to make a turn-based strategy where you play as a dictator dealing with both domestic and foreign politics in an effort to achieve universal salvation.”
I like that idea as well. I am a big ‘Total War’ fan and have played all games in that series. Do you have any experience with them? I’ve always wondered why they have never made a WWI or WWII Total War game to date?
What about a World War III Total War? Have you tried Supreme Ruler 2020? You play as the leader of a country in the 2020s.
Touching story:
“The epic journey of a refugee cat to find its family ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05K-YUezBKA
Hey this is a different angle on the game ideas, but I’ve been working on this new fantasy world from a few years back, and I was wondering if it could be shaped in a way that could incorporate our philosophy:
etheria-world.wikidot.com
AS,
Sorry for the long delay. I had, and I am still having, a rather busy private life -unfortunately — but also, I did not want to rush my response, but I guess I will have to rush it anyways.
“Would you consider basing it on one (or more) of the scenarios from the Aryan Diffusion series? If so, you are welcome to discuss ideas about characters, story, etc. here.”
I’m struggling with your Aryan Diffusion series. It’s one of the few pages I do not enjoy reading on your website. For reasons that are difficult to explain.
I need time to process all of that.
In the meantime, ideas on what a game based on one of the Aryan myths would play, feel and look like are welcome.
NW,
“I like that idea as well. I am a big ‘Total War’ fan and have played all games in that series. Do you have any experience with them? I’ve always wondered why they have never made a WWI or WWII Total War game to date?”
I am, actually, not big on strategy games. I do not like purely mechanical games that much. With that in mind, it should be safe, and correct, to assume that I haven’t played many strategy games in the past. This includes Total War, and what Chosun Fox mentioned, Supreme Ruler.
I did, however, play and enjoy games such as Civilization, Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron as someone mentioned, and some real-time strategy games such as Age of Empire and Warcraft.
I put much more emphasis on aesthetics than I put on mechanics. Mechanics are important, but without strong aesthetics, it becomes rather uninteresting to me.
And this is precisely what I want to bring to an otherwise rather board-game-like genre that is strategy games.
@Magnus Anderson
>”I’m struggling with your Aryan Diffusion series. It’s one of the few pages I do not enjoy reading on your website. For reasons that are difficult to explain.”
I KNOW THE CAUSE FOR YOUR AVERSION TOWARD THE “ARYAN DIFFUSION” ARTICLES IN PARTICULAR; VIRTUALLY ALL OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS WEBZONE ADDRESS ISSUES OF THE PRESENT, AND/OR OF THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE, THUS, AS SUCH, THE PRECONCEPTION THRESHOLD IS LESSER, WHEREAS THE “ARYAN DIFFUSION” ARTICLES ADDRESS ISSUES OF MYTH, LEGEND, AND HISTORY —OF THE DISTANT PAST—, THUS, AS SUCH, THE PRECONCEPTION THRESHOLD IS GREATER.
THIS AVERSION HAS AN UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSE, WHICH IS YOUR LOSS OF NOBLE NOOS; YOU CEASED TO BE AWARE OF YOUR OWN SELF AS YOU GRADUALLY FELL INTO IMMERSION INTO THIS WORLD, BECOMING DISTRACTED BY ITS SUPERFLUITY.
I RECOMMEND THAT YOU BEGIN THE PROCESS OF EMERSION BY ABANDONING THE PRACTICE OF PLAYING VIDEOGAMES, WHICH ARE A MAJOR IMMERSIVE FACTOR.
RY,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the cause of my inability to process Aryan Diffusion series is the fact that I have significantly lost connection to my past. And the reason I did so is because I’ve been suffocated by the external stimuli, in particular, by various concerns related to the present and the future.
Though it is true that I can make certain improvements in this regard, I disagree that I am significantly detached from my true self.
Note that there is a considerable distinction between my own, individual, past and other people’s past, often called historical past. The latter is meant to support the former, not the other way. It’s irrelevant whether you are paying attention to the past, the present or the future if in each of these cases you are bypassing your own inner sense. Everything should be derived from within, not the other way around.
The reason why I have trouble reading Aryan Diffusion series has more to do with the way it is written, and possibly with the fact that it is a bit too abstract, the way most historical accounts are. I am ignoring that fact that it is a myth. A myth is supposed to inspire. Unfortunately, I find philosophical section, which is supposed to be more abstract and less inspiring, to be more inspiring and less abstract than Aryan Diffusion series is.
Video games, like art in general, are supposed to inspire, so at least from this point of view it is strange of you to suggest that I should stop playing them.
On the other hand, given that many video games are lacking in idealism, being purely about mechanics, or insufficiently developed aesthetics, your point at least makes some sense. But still, it seems superfluous as I already made it a point that I have little interest in purely mechanical games.
Finally, I spend little . . . nay, I spend almost no time playing video games.
So what is really my problem?
For the start, let’s say that I do not like names. Names are abstract. What kind of feelings can a name inspire? Perhaps I have grown incapable of finding meaning in names. In words that designate names that are used to identify identities.
What kind of feelings can words such as “Pre-Neolithic”, “Cro-Magnons”, “Pleistocene” “Giants”, “Frost Giants”, “Joetnar”, “Anatolia” and “Neanderthals” possibly inspire? Well except for the word “Giants”, that one is not that bad.
Or “Uranus”, “Kronos”, “Fertile Crescent”, “Aegean region”, “Byblos”, “King Ilus”, “Epigeius” and so on and so forth?
All of these names only have meaning insofar you know what stands behind them. They are pure symbols devoid of any inherent meaning.
How would a child react to a page that is full of words such as these, and densely so? My reactions are not positive.
It seems to me that that problem is that two separate concerns — that of historical research and that of idealism — are combined together in a way that is, dare I say, careless. It’s neither here nor there.
Paragraphs also seem to be rather disconnected, and ideas are not explored in depth, but are only touched upon briefly, then quickly forgotten to be replaced by another ones. It’s more about breadth, it seems to me.
It is my job, as a game designer, and as an idealist in general — note that I do not consider myself to be a game designer first and foremost, as I’d rather write than design video games — to inspire people. I cannot do so with terms such as “Pleistocene”. What the hell is “Pleistocene”, anyways? Do you get my point? These terms are invented for the sake of research. They are not invented for the sake of idealism.
So I need to do quite a bit of job processing the series — a job I do not consider to be pleasant — in order to try to find as much value to my work as I can.
I do trust people behind this movement, so I am willing to do it. It will take some time, that’s for sure.
I wish I could give a more detailed explanation. I cannot do so at the moment. Maybe another time.
“I am ignoring that fact that it is a myth.”
This is precisely what you are doing wrong. In the Diffusion Series, we intentionally de-emphasize things such as precise dates and try to minimize overly-academic jargon. Instead, the series is told as a narrative following the journey of mythical heroes. Indeed, the series itself would have been impossible to assemble without drawing heavily from mythology, as bones and archaeological ruins can only tell us so much of the story (which is perhaps why history textbooks are usually dull).
“A myth is supposed to inspire.”
When I read the series (especially part 7), my excitement is like that of the people who discovered Troy-and realized one of the world’s greatest myths was not merely fantasy, but reality! For thousands of years a lost civilization had been buried beneath their feet and they didn’t even realize it; today we have shown the world each continent has multiple long forgotten Aryan civilizations!
What is more inspiring than discovering Atlantis? Or decoding which populations Giants, Elves, and Trojans really correspond to? We are telling the story of real societies and people who have since been elevated to godhood or petrified as ‘culture founders’, but we are giving them new life by telling their story as individuals. We reveal the uniquely Aryan cultures they founded (which have since been heavily corrupted by ignoble influences) and examine the deeds which were so astonishing that subsequent generations viewed them as the work of gods.
“How would a child react to a page that is full of words such as these, and densely so? My reactions are not positive.”
Remembering my own experiences as a child, whenever I came across names in a history book or saw the name of a strange city from far away, I always imagined a face for each of the people (even if I could not pronounce their name!), as well as a unique personality. I would sometimes imagine myself alongside them, chatting near the pyramids or exploring old castles in villages I could not pronounce (but nevertheless I imagined each village to have its own unique charm and aesthetic).
This is another reason why the Diffusion Series is written more as a narrative than a historical textbook-the names in themselves are not enough to inspire, we must connect the names to the individual personalities behind them. The name King Ilus is boring, but King Ilus the individual-the namesake of Troy, father of Athena, mighty farmer, and alias of the mythological titan Kronos-is pretty cool in my opinion; and there is enough information to picture him as a living, breathing individual if we try.
I agree the series can be a bit ‘dense’ and a lot to take in at once, but one must look beyond the words and try to imagine these characters in our minds.
“I do not like names. Names are abstract. What kind of feelings can a name inspire? Perhaps I have grown incapable of finding meaning in names.”
Don’t worry, I feel the same way when reading Miguel Serrano.
“In words that designate names that are used to identify identities.”
I would not use the word “identities” to refer to what names denote. At least as we use them, names denote archetypes. An archeype is intended to attract those compatible with it and repel those incompatible with it. An identity, in contrast, is intended to force those inside it to conform and to keep those outside it excluded. I hope that this decreases your dislike of names.
Obviously, too many archetypes simultaneously can be confusing, and this is how I feel about Serrano’s writings. Perhaps you feel the same about the Aryan Diffusion series, and if so, please suggest specific edits I could make.
“What kind of feelings can words such as “Pre-Neolithic”, “Cro-Magnons”, “Pleistocene” “Giants”, “Frost Giants”, “Joetnar”, “Anatolia” and “Neanderthals” possibly inspire? Well except for the word “Giants”, that one is not that bad.”
Cro-Magnon, Giant, Frost Giant and Joetnar all refer to the same racial type. I use “Giant” most of the time, but I had to mention the others at least once to clarify that they are synonyms. And yes, sometimes I do use “Joetnar” when referring to Norse mythology in particular, just as I would use “Fomorian” if referring to Irish mythology in particular. It just makes it sound more local. The point is simply to remind people that there is good and bad within every ethnicity, and that this was something that has always been known (until recently).
“Or “Uranus”, “Kronos”, “Fertile Crescent”, “Aegean region”, “Byblos”, “King Ilus”, “Epigeius” and so on and so forth?”
The names of individual characters are personality archetypes within racial archetypes. Even within a racial archetype there is a quality distribution. Ilus/Kronos(/Saturn) (same person), for example, is to be imagined as the highest quality man that pure Byblos blood was capable of producing in his time. After mixing, this quality is typically lowered, so for example Odin should be imagined to be inferior to Kronos. (If a portrait artist were to draw the two, I would expect this to come through in the portraits.) Baldr might be closer to Kronos in quality, but then we can imagine how even if Kronos himself had lived in Baldr’s time, he would probably have faced the same fate as Baldr, which reflects the deterioration from Golden Age to Dark Age. Without using names, it would be much more cumbersome to talk about this.
“All of these names only have meaning insofar you know what stands behind them. They are pure symbols devoid of any inherent meaning.”
Yes, and what is true of proper nouns is also true of improper nouns such as “nobility”, “honour”, “empathy”, etc..
“How would a child react to a page that is full of words such as these, and densely so?”
For example, I first read about and fell in love with Athena at the age of 6 in my school library. However, I was never comfortable with her mainstream background. Only much later did I discover Sanchuniathon who revealed that she was in Greece before Zeus and was actually Kronos’ daughter, which cleared up the discomfort I had felt for so long. If I had been able to read Aryan Diffusion Part 6 when I was a child, not only would my discomfort have been cleared up much sooner, but I would have been fascinated by the possibility that she was not supernatural (as my teachers had taught me she was) but an actual human just like myself. No matter which heroic mythical character(s) any child out there is a fan of, I hope that the Aryan Diffusion series can enhance their love for those characters by letting them know that these characters are even closer to themselves than they might have previously believed.
“It seems to me that that problem is that two separate concerns — that of historical research and that of idealism — are combined together in a way that is, dare I say, careless. It’s neither here nor there.”
Can you say how you would rather these two concerns be combined?
“ideas are not explored in depth, but are only touched upon briefly, then quickly forgotten to be replaced by another ones. It’s more about breadth, it seems to me.”
This is intentional: we want people to use their Aryan blood memory to fill in the gaps themselves. JJ explains this very well.
“What the hell is “Pleistocene”, anyways?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene
“These terms are invented for the sake of research. They are not invented for the sake of idealism.”
True, but we can transfigure them. We have already done so with the term “Neolithic”, which in every Aryanist today immediately conjures vivid visions of valley villages, cereal fields, sunlight and simple living.
“So I need to do quite a bit of job processing the series — a job I do not consider to be pleasant”
For the sake of reducing your workload, if you could decide on a particular scenario ASAP, you could then concentrate on processing only that scenario.
“In the meantime, ideas on what a game based on one of the Aryan myths would play, feel and look like are welcome.”
Earlier I suggested a card battle. Cards could include character cards (which do the fighting), habitat cards (which modify battlefield conditions), support cards (which modify character cards), etc..
Between battles there would be dialogue etc. to move forward the plot, which can be non-linear (ie. multiple routes). More and more cards would be unlocked as the plot advances. Cards would also be upgraded.
E.g.:
Athena: “Hmm, this seems like a good spot to build our capital on. There are four local settlements nearby; perhaps we could recruit them at some stage.”
Cecrops: “Help!”
Enceladus: “This will teach you what happens when you unspring our boar traps while we aren’t looking!”
Byblos infantryman: “Look, Princess! A Giant raiding party is attacking a local!”
Athena: “It’s showtime!”
Cecrops added to Player deck!
BATTLE!
(Initially, only the CECROPS character card (player side) and the ENCELADUS character card (CPU side) are in play.)
Turn 1 CPU:
CPU draws card.
CPU plays GIANT RAIDERS support card - ENCELADUS’ AP increases from 5 to 10, HP increases from 30 to 50.
CPU attacks CECROPS using ENCELADUS+GIANT RAIDERS - CECROPS HP drops from 20 to 10.
Turn 1 Player:
Player draws card.
Player plays ATHENA character card.
Player activates ATHENA Special Ability 1: Shield on CECROPS - CECROPS immune to combat damage until next turn.
Player attacks ENCELADUS using CECROPS - ENCELADUS takes 1 damage.
Turn 2 CPU:
CPU draws card.
CPU plays BOAR TRAPS habitat card - enemy has 30% chance of being immobilized for one turn during each subsequent attack
CPU attacks ATHENA using ENCELADUS+GIANT RAIDERS - Athena HP decreases from 20 to 10.
Turn 2 Player:
Player draws card.
Player plays BYBLOS INFANTRY support card - Athena’s AP increases from 90 to 100, HP increases from 10 to 30.
Player uses CECROPS Special Ability 1: Unspring Traps - BOAR TRAPS returned to CPU deck, CPU deck shuffled.
Player attacks ENCELADUS with ATHENA+BYBLOS INFANTRY - ENCELADUS HP decreases from 50 to 0.
VICTORY!
Boar Traps added to Player deck!
Enceladus: “You haven’t seen the last of us yet!” (flees)
Athena: “Who was that?”
Cecrops: “You don’t know? That was Enceladus, the leader of the Giants of Cithaeron. Even our King Actaeus fears him.”
Athena: “Would you like to be a king someday?”
CARD UPGRADES AVAILABLE
BOAR TRAPS upgrade to GIANT TRAPS (enemy has 60% chance of being immobilized for one turn during each subsequent attack), requires ATHENA, CECROPS, 2 rounds
CECROPS level up (AP increases from 1 to 5), requires ATHENA, 3 rounds)
(next round)
(and so on)
@JJ
“When I read the series (especially part 7)”
You are too modest. Without your research, there would be no Part 7.
And here I was just talking about Giants hunting boars in the previous comment, and then I see this:
http://nypost.com/2016/04/04/sarah-palin-thinks-this-dead-boar-will-get-votes-for-trump/
As you see, belief in animal sacrifice is deeply embedded in non-Aryan blood memory, like we’ve been saying all along in the Aryan Diffusion series.
Quite different from the style of leadership that I’m talking about here:
http://australianfreedomparty.org/marks-of-true-leadership/
Re: http://nypost.com/2016/04/04/sarah-palin-thinks-this-dead-boar-will-get-votes-for-trump/
Sickening.
@AS: Would love to get your opinion on this, and anyone else who so feels inclined.
How do we shift away from global Capitalism, considering that it is so entrenched at this point? I have been contemplating this for some time myself. I agree with Erik Olin Wright that a quick shift away from Capitalism would probably end in catastrophe at this point, and could only be done with a (bloody) revolution.
What Wright suggests in the following interview is quite interesting to say the least. I agree with him entirely that the best way to go about it now is to erode Capitalism slowly from with in.
Wright introduces the idea of an Unconditional Basic Income as a solution. I think I know your stance on Welfare; however, with a UBI system in place, pensions, workers compensation, labour unions, welfare, etc, would become obsolete. Furthermore; it could vitalize urban farming, the removal of unnecessary professions from the economy, and low-paying jobs that no one wants to do would become high-paying jobs. It could also create a culture were art flourishes, and give people time to focus on more important things, like transcending the material world.
Now, if we lay National Socialism on top of that, and give the state control over reproduction, it becomes an even more appealing idea…
Unconditional Basic Income
“A number of thinkers and activists on the left have embraced the notion of a basic income paid to all without means testing or a work requirement. Erik Olin Wright argues that a generous basic income would contribute to revitalizing a socialist challenge to capitalism. He also distinguishes the version of UBI that he supports from that pushed by some on the right.”
https://kpfa.org/episode/against-the-grain-april-5-2016/
@JJ
“This is precisely what you are doing wrong. In the Diffusion Series, we intentionally de-emphasize things such as precise dates and try to minimize overly-academic jargon. Instead, the series is told as a narrative following the journey of mythical heroes. Indeed, the series itself would have been impossible to assemble without drawing heavily from mythology, as bones and archaeological ruins can only tell us so much of the story (which is perhaps why history textbooks are usually dull).”
There was a misunderstanding. I didn’t mean to say I was reading it like I would read a history book. Quite the opposite in fact. I was expecting a myth, but I felt like what I got was more of a history. When I said “I am ignoring the fact that it is a myth” what I meant is that my criticism was yet to take into account this fact. Which is why, the very next sentence, takes it into account, by saying “a myth is supposed to inspire”.
“When I read the series (especially part 7), my excitement is like that of the people who discovered Troy–and realized one of the world’s greatest myths was not merely fantasy, but reality! For thousands of years a lost civilization had been buried beneath their feet and they didn’t even realize it; today we have shown the world each continent has multiple long forgotten Aryan civilizations!”
And that sounds like my reaction after doing some hard work trying to process part 6.
“I agree the series can be a bit ‘dense’ and a lot to take in at once, but one must look beyond the words and try to imagine these characters in our minds.”
Exactly. Which is what I had to do.
@AS
“I would not use the word “identities” to refer to what names denote. At least as we use them, names denote archetypes. An archeype is intended to attract those compatible with it and repel those incompatible with it. An identity, in contrast, is intended to force those inside it to conform and to keep those outside it excluded. I hope that this decreases your dislike of names.”
The only name which does not, in itself, imply an identity is “Giant”. Other words are specific, hence, they imply identities. Whether that’s what they really do is a separate concern.
I prefer self-contained names. When you say “Giant” it immediately stimulates my imagination to make numerous assumptions as to what it could possibly mean, and not only that, but it also makes it very easy for me to make a correct guess as to what it truly suggests. However, when you say “Cro-Magnon”, I am lost, and I feel like I am in a lab wearing a coat. A child might not have such issues, perhaps because they are not aware of scientific jargon, so they would attempt, to the best of their ability, to imagine what the word signifies. Still, I prefer ideal names.
I know very well who Cro-Magnons are, to be fair. I am familiar with the term. I am less so with other terms though. But more importantly, I am interested in idealism, which is about discovering perfect forms. That applies to names as well, especially if they are the entry point.
The problem I had, I guess, is the fact that the entry point of your Aryan Diffusion series seems to be names — and ones that aren’t all that interesting. Not archetypes, but names. And not interesting facts, but facts which do not seem interesting unless you heavily process them.
It is the presentation that I find problematic. Less so the actual mythology.
Many interesting facts — even the most important fact that European Aryans have descended from Trojans — appear buried. They are not easily accessible.
That said, the actual names aren’t much of a problem for me, so as long as they are not the entry point. I’d still like if I could choose ideal ones, but it’s no big deal sticking with the current ones either.
“Cro-Magnon, Giant, Frost Giant and Joetnar all refer to the same racial type. I use “Giant” most of the time, but I had to mention the others at least once to clarify that they are synonyms. And yes, sometimes I do use “Joetnar” when referring to Norse mythology in particular, just as I would use “Fomorian” if referring to Irish mythology in particular. It just makes it sound more local. The point is simply to remind people that there is good and bad within every ethnicity, and that this was something that has always been known (until recently).”
Also known as Gentiles, hunters, meatheads . . . I know what they mean. I am not bothered by these particular terms, I was just giving an example.
(A side note: I think that using barbarian as a synonymous for Giant is not a good thing because barbarians should be a broader group including both Giants and Turyans/Turanians. I think all of these people are barbarians.)
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene”
That wasn’t really a serious question.
Also note, that this was a response to RY, not to you. I did not really want to share my thoughts just yet, because they weren’t fully formed, and because incompleteness can easily lead to misunderstandings. I wasn’t exactly sure at the time what was my problem with the essay — I was pressed to make a quick decision because RY was too quick to give me an interpretation.
I will respond to the rest of your post at a later point in time.
@Magnus
“The only name which does not, in itself, imply an identity is “Giant”. Other words are specific, hence, they imply identities.”
That is not true. I do not decide on the reader’s behalf whether or not the reader as an individual belongs to the category represented by the word. Therefore that word does not imply identity, at least not in the sense that identitarians would accept (which is what I was trying to emphasize in my previous comment).
“I prefer self-contained names. When you say “Giant” it immediately stimulates my imagination to make numerous assumptions as to what it could possibly mean, and not only that, but it also makes it very easy for me to make a correct guess as to what it truly suggests.”
Sure, but only because “giant” is familiar as an improper noun/adjective. However, it is through public use that unfamiliar words become familiar in the public domain. Many improper nouns today (e.g. “vandal”) used to be proper nouns in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandal
We are trying to encourage the use of certain presently unfamiliar words among the public, and this must begin by us using them ourselves, even if it seems awkward at first.
“However, when you say “Cro-Magnon”, I am lost, and I feel like I am in a lab wearing a coat.”
The only reason why I used the term “Cro-Magnon” is to conjecture that the Giants of myth correspond to the Cro-Magnons of archaeology.
“The problem I had, I guess, is the fact that the entry point of your Aryan Diffusion series seems to be names — and ones that aren’t all that interesting.”
As JJ was trying to explain, one objective of the Aryan Diffusion series is to show readers a new way to understand those very names that they might often have heard about in the past. (Also, the more names we include, the more often people come across the page on search engines.)
“It is the presentation that I find problematic.”
Very well, but the presentation was intended to be this way, and has received much positive feedback from other readers, including those who have since volunteered to join us and contributed much to our movement. If you wish to convince us that an alternative presentation would be better, you are welcome to rewrite the same content in a presentation that you prefer and post it on a blog of your own, and if you recruit better people than we do as a result, we will learn from you. On the other hand, if your problem with our presentation is purely personal, you are welcome to ask questions if you believe that will make your processing easier.
“Also known as Gentiles, hunters”
“Gentile” refers to ALL hunter types. For example, the Fuxishi are Gentiles, but they are not Giants. One topic of future study could be to compare and contrast Gentile types from different regions. While all were hunters, the selective pressure that influenced their racial evolution would differ by the types of prey they hunted. In fact, while we have not publicly detailed our findings, we already have figured out racial differences between fishers and (land) hunters.
“(A side note: I think that using barbarian as a synonymous for Giant is not a good thing because barbarians should be a broader group including both Giants and Turyans/Turanians. I think all of these people are barbarians.)”
We have never used “barbarian” synonymously with “Giant” (if I am mistaken please point out where we have so that we can edit accordingly). We have sometimes used “barbarian” synonymously with “Gentile”. I agree that Turanians are not respectable people, but it is a recurring mythical theme that early Aryan and Turanian leaders have been occasional (albeit uneasy) allies against Gentile leaders, therefore Aryan blood memory recalls Turanians differently than it recalls Gentiles. If you require a convenient collective term for Gentiles and Turanians, “non-Aryan” will do.
“Also note, that this was a response to RY, not to you.”
I do not suggest taking RY seriously. He is a fop.
“I will respond to the rest of your post at a later point in time.”
I look forward to it.
@AS
“If you wish to convince us that an alternative presentation would be better, you are welcome to rewrite the same content in a presentation that you prefer and post it on a blog of your own, and if you recruit better people than we do as a result, we will learn from you. On the other hand, if your problem with our presentation is purely personal, you are welcome to ask questions if you believe that will make your processing easier.”
My problem is purely personal. I had no intention of sharing it with you. I only did so in response to RY, and only defensively so.
““Gentile” refers to ALL hunter types. For example, the Fuxishi are Gentiles, but they are not Giants. One topic of future study could be to compare and contrast Gentile types from different regions. While all were hunters, the selective pressure that influenced their racial evolution would differ by the types of prey they hunted. In fact, while we have not publicly detailed our findings, we already have figured out racial differences between fishers and (land) hunters.”
This was of help. I would also like to read more of it.
I didn’t know that Gentiles and Giants were two different things, though I do remember that you once said that the word Giant rather than the word Gentile is more appropriate when speaking of physical appearance (though I never understood why.)
“We have never used “barbarian” synonymously with “Giant” (if I am mistaken please point out where we have so that we can edit accordingly). We have sometimes used “barbarian” synonymously with “Gentile”.”
You probably haven’t. I just assumed that Giants were the same as Gentiles.
“I agree that Turanians are not respectable people, but it is a recurring mythical theme that early Aryan and Turanian leaders have been occasional (albeit uneasy) allies against Gentile leaders, therefore Aryan blood memory recalls Turanians differently than it recalls Gentiles. If you require a convenient collective term for Gentiles and Turanians, “non-Aryan” will do.”
So the term “barbarian” wouldn’t be an appropriate collective term? The way I understand it, the term “barbarian” simply means “uncivilized”, and both Giants and Turanians being uncivilized, it made sense to me.
It also appears to me to be that civility is one of the key distinctions between Aryans and non-Aryans.
Another term I am inclined to use is “nomad”. I like this term because it implies an inability to rest and a need to be constantly on the go. A connection can also be made between nomadic lifestyle and impulsivity (= being dominated by instinct.)
As a side note, I was looking for an antonym of “nomad”, but without much luck. “Settler” came to my mind instinctively, but the word “settler” is associated with Western colonialists who were, as it appears to me, modern nomads who did not really enjoy settled lifestyle.
@Magnus
“I didn’t know that Gentiles and Giants were two different things”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Pygmies#Short_stature
In fact, Aryans being on average taller than Gentiles is more common than the reverse outside of Europe. Here is a photo:
http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/53.jpg
You can imagine how it would not have been too hard for the Fuxishi to believe that Shennongshi, who were taller but more neotenous, were gods when first encountering them. On the other hand, you can imagine how the Giants:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Brock_Lesnar_WWE_Champion_2014.jpg/457px-Brock_Lesnar_WWE_Champion_2014.jpg
would have had a rather less deferential attitude towards the Trojans, who were on average both shorter AND more neotenous:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uJmtD742qjM/S97kpe633sI/AAAAAAAAASI/p-hwFQS-oh4/s1600/MichaelBiehn.jpg
The Giant attitude comes through even in present-day far-right propaganda:
http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/giant.jpg
(By the way, I’m showing you these photos mainly to give you some ideas about what the characters in your video game could be drawn to look like.)
“So the term “barbarian” wouldn’t be an appropriate collective term?”
In fully decontextualized use, it would be appropriate, but practical use of words is unfortunately never fully decontextualized.
“The way I understand it, the term “barbarian” simply means “uncivilized”, and both Giants and Turanians being uncivilized, it made sense to me.”
You can use it this way if you wish. There is also a difference between uncivilized and uncivilizable. Do you distinguish between those who could become civilized if introduced to it (though incapable of deriving it on their own) and those who could never be civilized? Which does “barbarian” refer to in your usage, and what word do you use to refer to the other?
“It also appears to me to be that civility is one of the key distinctions between Aryans and non-Aryans.”
See above. Nobility is the key distinction between Aryans and non-Aryans. Civility is not the same as nobility. Civility is generally the result of habitual conditioning, whereas nobility never is. A civil person may behave (especially in public) similarly to a noble person under stable social conditions with strong taboos on ignoble behaviour, but when social stability breaks down, the once-civil non-Aryan will be rapidly repossessed by his non-Aryan blood and soon cease to be even civil, whereas the Aryan will reveal himself by his nobility that does not waver in response to changing conditions.
“Another term I am inclined to use is “nomad”. I like this term because it implies an inability to rest and a need to be constantly on the go. A connection can also be made between nomadic lifestyle and impulsivity (= being dominated by instinct.)”
I have no problem with you using “nomad”, and agree with your association between nomadism and restlessness.
However, not all impulsivity is motivated by instinct, and therefore not all impulsivity is bad. (I am determined to prevent Aryanism from degenerating into Platonism.) I have always exalted fury, as well as romantic love, both of which can motivate people to extremely positive forms of impulsivity. On the other hand, not all instinct leads to impulsivity, in fact instinct often leads to cunning, which is the opposite of impulsivity. I associate nomads more with cunning than with impulsivity.
When facing cunning enemies, it is true that impulsivity can easily lead to defeat in war, and for ONLY this reason impulsivity may need to be restrained in some circumstances as a matter of wartime strategy, but we must never commit the deeper error of despising impulsivity merely because it can make us more vulnerable to manipulation, or else we are confusing strategic merits with aesthetic merits. It is those who would manipulate others’ impulsivity who need to be eliminated, NOT impulsivity itself (except that subset of impulsivity which is motivated by instinct, obviously).
“As a side note, I was looking for an antonym of “nomad”, but without much luck.”
How about “villager”?
@AS
You make fine linguistic distinctions. I do not. However, I do make fine conceptual distinctions. I belive this is because I spend a lot more time trying to model reality rather than trying to find exact words with which to communicate my models. This necessarily makes communication difficult for me, as people are likely to misunderstand me because of my not-so-strict use of words.
I make a difference between men of instinct, who are motivated internally, and men of will, who are motivated externally.
Men of instinct perceive in order to satiate a need, whereas men of will need to respond to what they perceive. In other words, the former is domination of need over perception, whereas the latter is domination of perception over need. (This also explains why the former have no problem lying to themselves: because if a lie can be used to satiate a need, they will use it.)
You have a clear definition of impulsivity. Such a concept of impulsivity is no problem for me. It simply means “a strong reaction”. A strong reaction is in itself not a problem. The problem is only when it is subordinated to need, rather than to something that is perceived (e.g. injustice.)
I also agree that instinct need not lead to strong reactions. Most rational people I know, though calm, are nonetheless dominated by instinct. They are calm because they are calculating how to satiate their needs.
A person who loses his civility the moment circumstances change betrays the fact that he is not motivated by perception, but by need. His civility, in other words, is just a means to satiate his needs, and should therefore not be considered true civility, but false/pretend civility. Most liberals I’ve met in real life are like that.
There is a clear distinction between uncivilized people who can be civilized, and uncivilized people who cannot be civilized. I do not want to confuse the two. As to how we should go about calling them, that’s not an easy one. But here’s one way to do so. Uncivilized people who can be civilized can be interpreted as mixed people, as Aryans who are struggling to overcome, or put under control, their Non-Aryan heritage. So they are civilized people with barbarian heritage, which is what makes them inconsistent. Something like werewolf syndrome. On the other hand, uncivilized people who cannot be civilized, can be interpreted as people who lack Aryan genes altogether, or at the very least, who have successfully subordinated such genes. I think the latter are very dangerous as they can be easily confused for Aryans.
“How about “villager”?”
That’s not a bad one, but I don’t like the fact that it is tied to villages. Not every settled individual is living in a village. Today we have towns, cities, etc. Though I have nothing against villages and I actually love them. (Would love to move to a village.)
Another one I came across is “resident”. I am not so sure about this one either.
Perception/need is a good conceptual distinction. However, it’s apparently not a good lignuistic one. There is nothing wrong with need, for example. Hunger is a need. However, conceptually, I would classify hunger as a perception, not a need. Conceptually accurate, however, linguistically it is mind-boggling.
When hunger becomes an addiction, rather than an accurate perception of reality, then it becomes what I call here need.
What I call need here is probably more accurately described as a nasty entanglement of perceptions.
@Magnus
What about “citizen”? A nomad cannot by definition be a citizen because he has no shared stake in any country/state. Further, a “citizen” could be a resident of a village, town or city.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.liyla.war