So now that the new blogs are off to an enthusiastic start, I must once again remind our allied bloggers of the importance of streamlined vocabulary. This is what distinguishes our propaganda from those of other groups: the rigour of our words. Any time I notice faults in this area, I will point them out. I also welcome criticism from you towards my use of words. Never have I claimed that my own use of words is perfect; what I am saying is that this is what all of us need to work on.

I am reading this post:

http://delendaestziobot.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/gentiles-fall-for-oliver-stones-cunning-ploy/

Naive Gentiles whom Jews Call “Goyim”

As I explained in my previous post, “Gentile” and “Goy” are distinct concepts. In fact, Gentiles have their own Goys. Also, naivety has nothing to do with whether or someone is a Goy. A Goy is anyone whose oppression is deemed acceptable amongst the oppressors. That is all the term means. It describes status, not characteristics.

Aryan Nobleman

This is repetition. “Aryan” means “noble”, therefore does not need another “noble” following it. The construction “Aryan Nobleman” might mislead readers to assume that “Aryan” means something other than “noble” (which is why only BS Gentiles call themselves “Aryan Noblemen”.) If you wish to exalt Hitler’s superiority, I suggest the term “Arhat” (Foe Destroyer) as given in the Glossary expressly for this purpose.

Also, a more general point is the need to distinguish between “Aryan” and “Aryanist”. Not all Aryans are Aryanists; there are plenty of people who live their own lives nobly, but who do not discuss politics - these are Aryans but not Aryanists. Using “Aryanist” when appropriate allows an extra level of precision.

Moving on:

http://delendaestziobot.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/we-aryans-are-a-folk/

one nation need not suffer for the sake of another, one folk need not hinder the development of another folk!

While I fully support the sentiment against oppression, I refer to this page on the main site:

http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/tribalism-vs-universalism/

A key lie concering tribalism told by all nationalists, who are just tribalists seeking respectability (note that National Socialists are not nationalists, but folkists), is: “We can be for our own people without being against other people.” In a world of finite resources, it should be obvious why this is absolutely impossible.

We must be careful not to inadvertently repeat the nationalist lie. The only thing that will prevent one group from oppressing another in a world of finite resources is if every group agrees to decrease its own population so as to reduce their demand for resources faster than the rate at which resources are running out. Any group that claims to have no intent of oppressing others, yet does not: 1) reduce its population by controlling reproduction, and 2) demand that all other groups do the same, is LYING.

In other words, mere absence of a plan to oppress others in the process of collective self-preservation is not folkism. Folkism is the awareness that as long as collective self-preservation is valued as an end in itself, and not as the means to a moral purpose, we WILL END UP oppressing others sooner or later, whether we planned it or not. This is because life itself is war, and the only way to avoid war between groups is to divert the war against the evil within all groups. Unity Through Nobility necessarily means Unity Against Ignobility. (Starting with Jews and Gentiles.)

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 25th, 2010 at 7:07 am and is filed under Aryan Sanctuary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.