True Left

When can we finally expect articles to appear on aryanism.net? I think we all deserve a clear answer, especially since this "revision" has been going on for more than 3 years.

Schopenhauer was true gnostic:

At age seventeen, without any advanced schooling, I was as overwhelmed by the wretchedness of life as the Buddha in his youth when he saw illness, old age, pain, and death. Soon enough, the truth, proclaimed loudly and clearly by the world, overcame the Jewish dogmas that I had also been indoctrinated with, and the result for me was that this world cannot be the work of an all-good being but rather of a devil who had brought creatures into existence in order to gloat over the sight of their anguish.

Source: R.L. Wicks, The Oxford Handbook of Schopenhauer, Oxford University Press, p. 98.

What’s the opinion here, concerning vaccination?

I do not intend to vaccinate against Covid because I oppose the torture and exploitation of animals in laboratories as part of vaccine testing. This is my main reason why I will not do that. Otherwise, I would probably get vaccinated.

However, the injustice of the current situation makes me furious, because everything seems to indicate that it was (sub)humans (namely: meat-eaters) that caused the pandemic, because some guy in Wuhan ate a bat infected with the virus. And now (sub)humas are infecting animals (by violence, wihout their consent) with the virus in laboratories in order to test a vaccine for a pandemic caused by meat-eaters through their barbaric practices of eating other sentient beings. F*** humans and f*** their stupid vaccine obtained by such barbaric methods.

Hello fellow Aryanists, after a long time of reading the forum, I finally decided to register  But to the point...

Recently, on my blog, I have a quite interesting discussion with a falangist who accused us (Aryanists) of ignorance and was clearly outraged that in the article "National Socialism and Fascism" on Anet we call falangism the far right and that we say that it is an Islamophobic and racist ideology. I will summarize his arguments:

1. He argues that falangism is a radical ideology (which is neither right-wing nor far-right) and the ideologists of falangism, José Antonio and Ramiro Ledesma, clearly distanced their movement from the left-right dichotomy.
2. He argues that Spanish falangism was neither racist nor Islamophobic. Falangism (in which racial theories were practically vague) included both the Spaniards, Latinos and the Muslim population of Spanish Morocco, and the members of the Falange Española included all of the above-mentioned ethnic groups.
3. He claims that falangism spread the universalist idea of ​​hispanidad, which emphasized the need for unity and cooperation between the Spanish-speaking countries regardless of ethnic differences.
4. He argues that apart from Spain, falangism currently occurs only in Latin America, and there are also some sympathizers of falangism in the Philippines. It is therefore absurd to call European neo-fascist far-rightists collectively "falangists."
5. He claims that the modern falangists are anti-Zionists, support a free Palestine and that they are not Islamophobes.
6. He argues that original falangism, unlike Fracoism, is not a conservative ideology, as we can read on Wikipedia. He argues that the falangists competed strongly with the Carlist camp, promoted syndicalism in the economy, and in the cultural sphere they had strong influence in surrealism for example. He claims that in the social context falangists also wanted to strongly improve the social status of women in society.
7. He argues that falangism has nothing to do with Francoism. They differed in their approach to the Catholic Church (phalagism was secularist, Francoism was extremely clerical), their approach to economy (falangists were national syndicalists, Franco from the 1950s supported liberal economy) or systemic issues (falangists were syndicalists, i.e. they advocated the domination of workers councils that formed committees from which in turn higher instances of power were choosed; Franco did not do that)
8. He claims that Franco was never an ideological falangist (but a national Catholic), he was only politically involved with this movement. Finally, he claims that most of the modern falangists clearly distance themselves from the Franco regime that persecuted ideological falangists.

The question is, do you think that, as Aryanists, we should revise our approach to falangism, not equate it with Francoism and generally treat it similarly to fascism, that is, as a movement that has its flaws but can be a potential ally? Perhaps it would be better to call racist neo-fascists not falangists, but simply neo-fascists or identitarians. Yeah, I don't like their symbol (yoke and arrows) due to its anti-Islamic references and conotation with the Reconquista and Ferdinand II and Isabella, two Islamophobes, but apart from that in many ways they seemed to be similar to Degrelle's Rexists or Fascists and not to Francoists. Or am I missing something?