True Left
Politics => Questions & Debates => Topic started by: antizion on May 25, 2026, 04:51:30 pm
-
"To be fair, this may mostly be due to economic reasons. I have been observing (with disgust) the increase in meat consumption in "New China" as their economy rises:"
I previously also highlighted the phenotypical differences between diaspora and non diaspora Indians, which I attributed to the former's greater meat consumption, and which is praised nonstop by Eurocentric "looksmaxers".
-
"Do you remember this Vice article lumping us in with WNs?"
Yes. ::)
"most non-Western countries don't eat meat every single day the way Westerners do. Because of that, there's a sort of de-facto Vegetarianism."
To be fair, this may mostly be due to economic reasons. I have been observing (with disgust) the increase in meat consumption in "New China" as their economy rises:
(https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8yG0N6HnOy8g/d22ab1b5-0803-4e7f-5c28-e21212422800/w=1620)
The peak does not appear to have been reached yet.....
-
"Totally. Even within the Aryanist movement were members who had made rightist presumptions about the movement that I never intended (e.g. presuming that being anti-Jewish meant being homophobic, despite Judaism literally being the origin of homophobia). And this is not even to mention the confusion over the meaning of "Aryan". Even after the Aryan Diffusion series was published, some still presumed it was a series about prehistoric "white" migrations worldwide!"
I would have been banging my head against the wall. Its one thing for WN randos to make these presumptions, but when journalists do it its even more lazy. Do you remember this Vice article lumping us in with WNs?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-so-many-white-supremacists-are-into-veganism/
"Take Aryanism.net, for example. Among all the articles devoted to the history, philosophy, and politics of white nationalism, the site has a full page dedicated to veganism. Littered with quotes from Hitler, Hess, Devi, and Joseph Goebbels, the anonymous author(s) claim that veganism is “a hallmark of an authentic National Socialist,” and “a sign of genuine empathy and a level of nobility beyond presently popular norms.” It’s not enough to be vegan, however. Like Devi, the webpage is adamant that Aryans should be vegan for ethical reasons, and not simply for health or vanity."
This was infuriating.
"Some even thought that I was merely a WN opposed to violence against "non-whites" currently alive, and that the reason why I talked about state control over reproduction every day was because my plan was to prohibit all "non-whites" from reproducing while allowing "whites" to reproduce, thus still ending up with the world that WNs want. The possibility that I would if anything first prohibit "whites" from reproducing never occurred to them in their wildest dreams..... until I finally started saying it explicitly."
I think they were too dumb to read the "REFUGEES WELCOME" banner right there on the blog. I have no other explanation.
"And when they at last understood this, some reacted by trying to turn my own values against my own strategy, such as arguing that if I wanted a vegan world (which indeed I do), I should want a "white" world since (according to them) only "whites" care about veganism. WTF?!"
Saying "whites" are the only ones who believe in Veganism is just plain ignorant. Even if a "non-white" country is empirically measured to have a low amount of Vegans, the fact is that most non-Western countries don't eat meat every single day the way Westerners do. Because of that, there's a sort of de-facto Vegetarianism.
"More broadly, I suspect that a major reason why many back then liked exposing the disproportionate Jewish influence on Western history was that they saw it as a way to shift blame for the horrors of the colonial era away from "whites" as a whole onto Jews only, when actually the point of the narrative was to include Jews among "whites" (and thus oppressors) contrary to the image of Jewish victimhood ("Holocaust survivors") that Jews have preferred."
I always say Jews have thrived in "white" countries for a reason. "Whites" are willing culprits to their crimes, especially "white" Evangelical Judeochristians:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/09/christian-zionism-evangelicals-israel-trump-foreign-policy/
-
"people didn't feel like they were Aryanist, or a part of a tangible Counterculture. Too many felt like WN adjacent watered-down Rightists, and I think that's a reason why the project slipped. Does that make sense?"
Totally. Even within the Aryanist movement were members who had made rightist presumptions about the movement that I never intended (e.g. presuming that being anti-Jewish meant being homophobic, despite Judaism literally being the origin of homophobia). And this is not even to mention the confusion over the meaning of "Aryan". Even after the Aryan Diffusion series was published, some still presumed it was a series about prehistoric "white" migrations worldwide!
Some even thought that I was merely a WN opposed to violence against "non-whites" currently alive, and that the reason why I talked about state control over reproduction every day was because my plan was to prohibit all "non-whites" from reproducing while allowing "whites" to reproduce, thus still ending up with the world that WNs want. The possibility that I would if anything first prohibit "whites" from reproducing never occurred to them in their wildest dreams..... until I finally started saying it explicitly.
And when they at last understood this, some reacted by trying to turn my own values against my own strategy, such as arguing that if I wanted a vegan world (which indeed I do), I should want a "white" world since (according to them) only "whites" care about veganism. WTF?!
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/hitler-the-face-of-anti-tribalism/msg28854/#msg28854
Germany was found to have the highest percentage of vegetarians (7.8 million, 10%) and vegans (900,000, 1.1%) in the modern West.
...
the Africa/Middle East region (of which Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates were surveyed), has 16% vegetarians and 6% vegans, making it the second-most vegetarian region after Asia.[65]
...
the Asia-Pacific region has the highest share of vegetarians (19%) and vegans (9%).[65]
More broadly, I suspect that a major reason why many back then liked exposing the disproportionate Jewish influence on Western history was that they saw it as a way to shift blame for the horrors of the colonial era away from "whites" as a whole onto Jews only, when actually the point of the narrative was to include Jews among "whites" (and thus oppressors) contrary to the image of Jewish victimhood ("Holocaust survivors") that Jews have preferred.
-
"The OWNP was ended by JAM replacing it with the Monarchist Party, which had a similar ideology but without references to National Socialism, thinking it would be better optics for a primarily American viewership. It made little difference. WNs continued to criticize us relentlessly, and unfortunately too many anti-Zionists listened to the critics. Worse, JAM himself eventually started to listen to the critics, placating them by adding implicit Islamophobia, reworked it into a racial theory that claimed general Semitic (Arab as well as Jewish) racial inferiority:"
Give pinky, lose a hand. A shame that someone as bold and blunt as JAM didn't have the constitution to not play kiss-up to people who hated him. If you ask me, there felt like a cultural void in those times. As in, people didn't feel like they were Aryanist, or a part of a tangible Counterculture. Too many felt like WN adjacent watered-down Rightists, and I think that's a reason why the project slipped. Does that make sense?
"Basically he was sacrificing other issues hoping to retain at least rejection of hostility towards "blacks" among his viewers, which looking back was probably his main concern the whole time. Of course he failed (as I predicted). This was roughly when he and I ceased private correspondence.
Within the past few years there was a similar group called New Frontier that was theoretically non-racist, but its politics and general vibe was so Right-wing that it took exactly three and a half seconds for its membership to become de facto WNs. Group spirit and esprit d'corps are core. Groups that don't have their own are vulnerable to subversion.
https://youtu.be/fjrPpzNeNZ0?list=RDfjrPpzNeNZ0
-
"What started and ended the OWNP?"
The OWNP was started by those among post-9/11 anti-Zionists who rejected the notion of allowing WNs into the movement. The others thought it was a good idea to do so, either believing that letting in WNs would cause them to become more moderate, or believing that anti-Zionists needed to convert into WNs ourselves! JAM condemned the latter view and was dubious about the former, therefore set up the OWNP to gather the like-minded.
The OWNP was ended by JAM replacing it with the Monarchist Party, which had a similar ideology but without references to National Socialism, thinking it would be better optics for a primarily American viewership. It made little difference. WNs continued to criticize us relentlessly, and unfortunately too many anti-Zionists listened to the critics. Worse, JAM himself eventually started to listen to the critics, placating them by adding implicit Islamophobia, reworked it into a racial theory that claimed general Semitic (Arab as well as Jewish) racial inferiority:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-psychological-decolonization-323/msg28156/#msg28156
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-psychological-decolonization-323/msg28528/#msg28528
as well as adding implicit patriarchy:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-psychological-decolonization-323/msg2457/#msg2457
Basically he was sacrificing other issues hoping to retain at least rejection of hostility towards "blacks" among his viewers, which looking back was probably his main concern the whole time. Of course he failed (as I predicted). This was roughly when he and I ceased private correspondence.
-
"One idea back then was that the current government apparatus could still continue to operate in returned lands, with the main difference being that taxes from those lands would be payable to the indigenous owners, who could then decide whether or not to allocate tax funding to public projects proposed by the governments, in effect giving the indigenous owners the final say over what projects do or do not go ahead."
Not gonna lie, this is actually pretty smart in that its a simple solution that would easily fix a complicated problem with enough time. The forest doesn't necessarily have to be razed; just flow the Sunlight toward the more beautiful ecologies in them, allowing them to eventually dominate the entire ecosystem.
"As far as I remember, they never joined the OWNP. They criticized it as outsiders, discouraging others from joining."
Tell me a story. What started and ended the OWNP? You're really the only archivist of this bittersweet and hopeful project, so that makes you the prime bard extraordinaire. All I've heard is that it was something to do with Rightists.
-
"regain more land in timely manner."
One idea back then was that the current government apparatus could still continue to operate in returned lands, with the main difference being that taxes from those lands would be payable to the indigenous owners, who could then decide whether or not to allocate tax funding to public projects proposed by the governments, in effect giving the indigenous owners the final say over what projects do or do not go ahead.
"proliferation of latent Boromir Syndrome Rightists in the OWNP"
As far as I remember, they never joined the OWNP. They criticized it as outsiders, discouraging others from joining.
-
As early as the OWNP days, one item in the manifesto explicitly stated that vast quantities of US territory would be returned to the descendants of their pre-colonial owners. As soon as the manifesto was released, this very item came under attack from supposed rightist "anti-Zionists". This event was what prompted me to coin the term "Boromir Syndrome" to begin with.
At the very least, the "reservations" in the US could easily have their borders significantly expanded, as a start. And it goes without saying that the original lands of each respective indigenous nation should be returned to them as well, even if the nation already has land allotted to them in a region where they don't originally come from. Namely, lands that belonged to these nations before they were expelled through the Trail of Tears:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
Again, these re-established legacy "reservations" can begin with a modest size due to practical and ceremonial restraints, and regain more land in timely manner.
It should be noted that we have no problem with empires which actually would put additional territory to better use:
I propose that it won't be issue for indigenous nations that go Vegan today to have their lands returned to them, even if they historically were not Vegan. But given the proliferation of latent Boromir Syndrome Rightists in the OWNP, how would you gauge the quality of the rest of the OWNP manifesto in retrospect?
-
Some Zionist arguments can actually be used against BS types. For example, many Zionists accurately argue that what Israel is doing to Palestinians etc. is no worse than what was done by colonial-era "whites" to various indigenous peoples, so anyone calling for Israeli territory to be given back to Palestinians etc. should similarly call for territory in the US, Australia, Russia, etc. to be given back in order to be consistent. No BS does so, obviously. But this is precisely what we have always called for:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/russia-the-last-colonial-empire/msg13916/#msg13916
As early as the OWNP days, one item in the manifesto explicitly stated that vast quantities of US territory would be returned to the descendants of their pre-colonial owners. As soon as the manifesto was released, this very item came under attack from supposed rightist "anti-Zionists". This event was what prompted me to coin the term "Boromir Syndrome" to begin with.
Their main argument is that "whites" put the territory to better use (serving Western civilization) than the indigenous would have done (serving non-Western civilizations) had they been allowed to keep it. This is of course identical to the attitude of Israelis:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftists-against-progressivism/msg25940/#msg25940
so the BS position is still inconsistent (if Western civilization is what they value, they should support Israel). But the False Left position (which admires Western machines, Western aesthetics, etc. while condemning Western colonialism) is even less consistent. The True Left position, on the other hand, is to reject that the territory was put to better use, which requires us criticizing Western civilization as a whole:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-a-health-hazard/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/
It should be noted that we have no problem with empires which actually would put additional territory to better use:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-folkish-imperialism/
a hypothetical vegan country would be justified in invading all non-vegan countries for the sake of eradicating cruelty to animals, and so on.
We merely disagree on what is meant by "better":
In contrast, wishing to bring progress to additional territories is an invalid reason for invasion. A non-industrial country does not prevent an industrial country from successful industry, therefore the industrial country is unjustified in invading the non-industrial country. A non-compulsory-schooling country does not prevent a compulsory-schooling country from successful compulsory schooling, therefore the compulsory-schooling country is unjustified in invading the non-compulsory-schooling country. And so on. (In fact it is the other way round: the non-industrial/non-compulsory-schooling/etc. countries should invade the industrial/compulsory-schooling/etc. countries in order to eradicate industry/compulsory schooling/etc.!)
In general, let X be an idea. If X is something that can succeed only if everyone practices it, invasion to impose X is justified. Whereas if X is something that can succeed with merely a fraction of people practicing it, invasion to spread X is unjustified (but invasion of practitioners by non-practitioners to eradicate X is justified!).
Most fundamentally, consider reproduction. Reproducers are not justified in invading non-reproducers, because reproduction will succeed so long as some people reproduce (irrespective of the remainder not reproducing). On the other hand, non-reproducers are justified in invading reproducers, because non-reproduction will only succeed if everyone refrains from reproducing simultaneously.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/Pvm0Jd9J/bs-rise.png)
More and more rightoids are disliking Israel.
The Zionist Jew in the last reply said that he hates immigrants, yet Gentile rightoids still don't get it. ::)
-
"they're stealing & corrupting our talking points."
They're actually stealing False Left talking points, not ours. For example, in your posted tweet MTG says:
we are now a nation divided between those who want to fight wars for Israel and those who just want peace and to be able to afford our bills and health insurance
Our position, in contrast, is that we want to fight wars against Israel, even if it means less money for domestic projects. So no, there are three camps:
1) Zionist interventionism;
2) non-interventionism;
3) anti-Zionist interventionism.
We need to constantly emphasize that True Leftism is about 3), not 2).
Also, rightist criticism of Israel is not criticism of Israel for being an ethnostate, as they themselves want ethnostates for non-Jewish "whites". We, in contrast, not only criticize Israel for being an ethnostate, but for we criticize all ethnostates simultaneously.
We need to constantly emphasize policy similarity (e.g. on immigration) between rightist critics of Israel and Israel itself.
-
Something I've noticed is that the far-right is becoming more critical of Israel, superficially of-course.
Antizionism is a left-wing thing, and they're stealing & corrupting our talking points.
I hate how BS-Gentiles are outvoicing authentic anti-zionism.
(I feel promoting Boromir Syndrome is a Zionist ploy to silence anti-zionist.)
How do we combat this?
Example of a BS-type pretending to promote unity (note this person used to harass Rashida Tlaib):
(https://i.ibb.co/4gdNZ26K/rdh0nf6jswng1.webp)