Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 07, 2025, 02:18:59 am »

Quote
the true religion of Israel is fulfilled in Orthodox Christianity, not Judaism.

If so, then since the true religion of Israel is our enemy, the Orthodox Church is our enemy.

Quote
Orthodoxy is the continuation and fulfillment of what God was doing with Israel in the Old Testament when
6:41
properly understood we see that the church is Israel

I am happy to believe this. This is why I support Operation Gaddafi.

For reference:

Posted by: Anti-Yahweh
« on: December 07, 2025, 02:00:22 am »

Judaism is NOT What You Think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3AaXw09WQA

The channel is pro-Eastern Orthodox, but broken clock hands point correctly twice a day.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: June 23, 2025, 05:00:04 pm »

According to his narrative, Britain had good rulers until the 1800s. In reality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Origins_(1497%E2%80%931583)

Quote
In 1562, Elizabeth I encouraged the privateers John Hawkins and Francis Drake to engage in slave-raiding attacks against Spanish and Portuguese ships off the coast of West Africa[14] with the aim of establishing an Atlantic slave trade. This effort was rebuffed and later, as the Anglo-Spanish Wars intensified, Elizabeth I gave her blessing to further privateering raids against Spanish ports in the Americas and shipping that was returning across the Atlantic, laden with treasure from the New World.[15] At the same time, influential writers such as Richard Hakluyt and John Dee (who was the first to use the term "British Empire")[16] were beginning to press for the establishment of England's own empire.
...
The British Empire began to take shape during the early 17th century, with the English settlement of North America and the smaller islands of the Caribbean, and the establishment of joint-stock companies, most notably the East India Company, to administer colonies and overseas trade.
...
rising costs soon led English traders to embrace the use of imported African slaves.[35] The enormous wealth generated by slave-produced sugar made Barbados the most successful colony in the Americas,[36] and one of the most densely populated places in the world.[34] This boom led to the spread of sugar cultivation across the Caribbean, financed the development of non-plantation colonies in North America, and accelerated the growth of the Atlantic slave trade, particularly the triangular trade of slaves, sugar and provisions between Africa, the West Indies and Europe.[37]
...
In 1655, England annexed the island of Jamaica from the Spanish, and in 1666 succeeded in colonising the Bahamas.[39] In 1670, Charles II incorporated by royal charter the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC), granting it a monopoly on the fur trade in the area known as Rupert's Land, which would later form a large proportion of the Dominion of Canada.
...
Two years later, the Royal African Company was granted a monopoly on the supply of slaves to the British colonies in the Caribbean.[41] The company would transport more slaves across the Atlantic than any other, and significantly grew England's share of the trade, from 33 per cent in 1673 to 74 per cent in 1683.[42] The removal of this monopoly between 1688 and 1712 allowed independent British slave traders to thrive, leading to a rapid escalation in the number of slaves transported.[43] British ships carried a third of all slaves shipped across the Atlantic—approximately 3.5 million Africans[44]
...
To facilitate the shipment of slaves, forts were established on the coast of West Africa, such as James Island, Accra and Bunce Island. In the British Caribbean, the percentage of the population of African descent rose from 25 per cent in 1650 to around 80 per cent in 1780, and in the Thirteen Colonies from 10 per cent to 40 per cent over the same period (the majority in the southern colonies).[46] The transatlantic slave trade played a pervasive role in British economic life, and became a major economic mainstay for western port cities.[47] Ships registered in Bristol, Liverpool and London were responsible for the bulk of British slave trading.[48] For the transported, harsh and unhygienic conditions on the slaving ships and poor diets meant that the average mortality rate during the Middle Passage was one in seven.[49]
...
In 1778, Joseph Banks, Cook's botanist on the voyage, presented evidence to the government on the suitability of Botany Bay for the establishment of a penal settlement, and in 1787 the first shipment of convicts set sail, arriving in 1788.[83] Unusually, Australia was claimed through proclamation. Indigenous Australians were considered too uncivilised to require treaties,[84] and colonisation brought disease and violence that together with the deliberate dispossession of land and culture were devastating to these peoples.[85]
...
The East India Company fought a series of Anglo-Mysore wars in Southern India with the Sultanate of Mysore under Hyder Ali and then Tipu Sultan. Defeats in the First Anglo-Mysore war and stalemate in the Second were followed by victories in the Third and the Fourth.[92] Following Tipu Sultan's death in the fourth war in the Siege of Seringapatam (1799), the kingdom became a protectorate of the company.[92]

The East India Company fought three Anglo-Maratha Wars with the Maratha Confederacy. The First Anglo-Maratha War ended in 1782 with a restoration of the pre-war status quo.[93] The Second and Third Anglo-Maratha wars resulted in British victories.[94] After the surrender of Peshwa Bajirao II in 1818, the East India Company acquired control of a large majority of the Indian subcontinent.[95]

Posted by: Not At Home
« on: June 23, 2025, 06:08:02 am »

Child: Mom! Let's go get some Anti-Zionism!
Mother: But we have anti-zionism at home!

anti-zionism at home:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/357OUblBYgQ?si=ULQdmA9tmFD5sJt4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=357OUblBYgQ
Posted by: antizion
« on: April 06, 2025, 01:29:12 pm »

Quote from: antihellenistic on November 02, 2023, 12:49:23 am




The replies on twitter are interesting. Expected, but interesting.

The_Hellenist genuinely believes that IQ test scores is importantly, and hence also holds prejudice towards "whites" with low IQ test scores.
Yet his followers replying to him, rather than agreeing with him, tries to defend "whites" with low IQ tests scores.
If IQ test scores were so important, then it shouldn't matter where it comes from?
This exposes that racists identitarians only talk about IQ test scores is because it makes their ethnicities look good (except when it makes Jews look good).

Just like the topic of Ideology vs Pseudoideology in the main site:
https://aryanism.net/philosophy/ideology-vs-pseudoideology/

> “Whatever quality in which I excel over others is a good quality. Whatever quality in which others excel over me is a bad quality.”
Posted by: rp
« on: December 06, 2024, 09:40:15 pm »

https://x.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/1799317976942104992?t=f9jqmYOZaDkenkvBxCNSVw&s=19
Quote
the difference America admitted our evils and gave natives monthly money

Israel still lies and denies its crimes and is currently committing them
Quote
Don’t forget….

Did it give them their land back? Shields is another ethnocentrist bigot who wants you to think that Jews are the only group capable of ethnotribalism, and that Gentile tribes are not as bad as Jews.
Posted by: rp
« on: December 03, 2024, 06:53:30 pm »

"Which countries are their own countries?"
They would probably do the "White separatist" meme in countries like the US, where Amerindians/"Black" descendants of the original slaves are allowed to stay (but still segregated") while other "non Whites" should be deported, whereas for Europe, they would say that all "non Whites" should be deported. Of course, these positions are thoroughly anti Hitlerist as you demonstrated above.
Posted by: rp
« on: December 03, 2024, 06:46:46 pm »

"During OWNP and Monarchist Party times, JAM officially declared that America should be multiethnic, and in private discussions expressed that "non-whites" from former British colonies deserved to live in Britain. I do not know what he believes now"

I suppose then that it was VK Clark's view, not necessarily JAM's.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 03, 2024, 05:08:46 pm »

"doing the old "self determination for all peoples""

This is just a sugarcoated way of saying "whites" get to categorize everyone and decide where each category gets to live. In other words, "whites" actually rule the whole world and run it like a zoo.

""Hitler supported "non Whites" in their own countries!""

Which countries are their own countries?

Firstly, it is known that Hitler supported Amerindians taking back America from "white" rule, so Hitler did not consider America to belong to "whites". This can logically be extended to all lands stolen by "whites" during the colonial era, contrary to the WN position that "whites" get to keep all their stolen lands.

Secondly, it is known that Hitler opposed discrimination against "non-white" Germans in Germany. Thus he considered "non-white" Germans (ancestrally from former German colonies) in Germany to be in their own country. This can logically be extended to all origin countries of all the Western colonial powers, contrary to the WN position that these should be "white".

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/hitler-the-face-of-anti-tribalism/msg27892/#msg27892

Thirdly, there exist "white" countries which did not have colonies, such as Poland (which is not to say that it did not try to get some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_attempts_by_Poland ). Hitler directly invaded Poland. Had the Third Reich won WWII, "non-white" Reich citizens would have been among those able to live in Poland afterwards if they wanted to, whereas they had been unable to do so before. Thus Hitler had no interest in keeping Poland "white", contrary to the WN position.

Finally, if Hitler did not support "non-whites" being in "Europe", then why did he prefer Charles Martel to lose, and why did he praise Andalus and disparage the Reconquista?

"what JAM based his ideology on"

During OWNP and Monarchist Party times, JAM officially declared that America should be multiethnic, and in private discussions expressed that "non-whites" from former British colonies deserved to live in Britain. I do not know what he believes now.

"I would prefer they abandon this and acknowledge (as many of the more literate identitarians are doing) that Hitler was an anti racist, and that it is in their interest to support Zionism/the Allied Powers. "

I agree.

"Of course this approach will also end up strengthening Identitarianism as it will give them a more coherent ideology, and I don't want that either."

An incoherent ideology is more dangerous in that, even after defeating it, the narrative of what was actually being defeated can be distorted again. Last time, Himmler and other racists in the NSDAP was what allowed the Allies to portray Jews as victims of racism, leading to all the subsequent confusion that we have had to deal with ever since. Do we want to go through all this again?
Posted by: rp
« on: December 03, 2024, 02:36:21 pm »

The following tweet demonstrates the mentality of the documentary maker:
https://x.com/Onetimeoff1837/status/1861972915924689095?t=k81z-hHQuLj7omoUkw20GA&s=19
Quote
There is a difference between caring about your own very much and hating others. Hitler may have been racist against non-Germans. That doesn't mean he hated them. His hatred appears to be reserved for a very specific group and that group only.

This is an annoying POV that is beginning to take hold in WN circles. That Hitler was "racist" but still cared about "non Whites". Now that information about Jesse Owens and Hitler's collaboration with the "third world" is coming out, they will attempt to reconcile their racism with "pro Hitler" sentiments by doing the old "self determination for all peoples" meme ("Hitler supported "non Whites" in their own countries!". Even David Duke was doing this). This what I believe VK Clark was promoting, and what JAM based his ideology on.

I would prefer they abandon this and acknowledge (as many of the more literate identitarians are doing) that Hitler was an anti racist, and that it is in their interest to support Zionism/the Allied Powers. Of course this approach will also end up strengthening Identitarianism as it will give them a more coherent ideology, and I don't want that either. What are your thoughts on how to deal with this?
Posted by: rp
« on: December 03, 2024, 12:10:01 pm »

Another BS "documentary" from BS Gentile Stew Peters:
https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/status/1861952893068427508
Posted by: rp
« on: November 30, 2024, 12:04:13 pm »

I recall you mentioning on one of the Aryanism.net pages that the battle lines will no longer be between Aryans, Jews, and Gentiles, but simply between Aryans and non Aryans. I see this becoming truer each day, as now it is not even worth the effort to distinguish between Jews and Gentiles.
Posted by: rp
« on: November 29, 2024, 08:57:40 pm »

More example of BS thinking:
https://x.com/realstewpeters/status/1845951183623434295
Quote
Don’t be fooled, goy!

Columbus is a jewish trick.

Posted by: rp
« on: November 29, 2024, 12:14:14 pm »

Perhaps these individuals can be useful cannon fodder against Jews, similar to Robert Bowers.
Posted by: rp
« on: November 28, 2024, 09:39:19 pm »

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1214646003061584&vanity=adlorg
One of the "White" speakers explicitly makes a call for unity in this video. Perhaps he in sincere, but "Whiteness" itself is a dividing identity.