How was it possible, being so young, that we could have been in possession of such knowledge and secrets?

And I again have to think of the memory of the blood, of the Eternal Return and the invisible guides who lead us from somewhere beyond. Miguel Serrano One of the most effective masks of civilizational degeneration has been the rapid increase in the quantity of scientific research over the last few centuries. It is often cited as evidence of progress that the people of the modern era know so many things that the people of earlier eras did not. Actually, that such a claim is even taken seriously is evidence of how low modern thinking has intellectually sunken. The vast majority of people alive today do not have the ability to understand the technical language of a scientific research paper. As such, they do not know its conclusions; rather, they merely trust the source. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that the general society of today knows more than the general society of an earlier era. It is more accurate to simply say that they place their trust in different sources.

Alex Jones, professional confuser The telling measure is how much the experts know. And the difference between most of the past and the last few centuries comes down to the difference in the type of knowledge that the experts are dealing with. We distinguish between empirical knowledge, derived from observation, and rational knowledge, derived from logic. The Conspiracy of Fact Lucky are those who have the happy knack of being able to forget most of what they have been taught. Adolf Hitler While empirical knowledge has always existed, the empirical knowledge in ancient times was based on trivial observations that anyone could make. This contrasts starkly with modern empirical knowledge, which is based on observations typically requiring exorbitant setups, including everything from particle accelerators and space probes to simulation ecosystems and global questionnaires, with the vast quantities of data processed by supercomputers running specialized software. Empirical science is defined as conclusions verified by evidence from repeatable experimentation, so I ask: how practically feasible is it for every expert in every generation to repeat those experiments that supposedly produced certain conclusions? For each expert would have to build all their own equipment, program all their own software, and do all their own data collection in order to properly repeat the experiment. This virtually never occurs in reality, and not only because experts lack the skills involved to do all of the above from scratch. Experiments are expensive, meaning that whoever controls the money controls which experiments get done, and hence which conclusions everyone else - lacking the funds to repeat

the experiment - must either assume to be valid or else be called unscientific. Is this science? Or plutocracy? Can a 9/11 sceptic get funding to build a life-size replica of the World Trade Centre to see if flying aeroplanes into two buildings will cause three buildings to fall? And the Holocaust sceptic is in many countries forbidden by law from investigating the allegations of Holocaust asserters. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want. Protocols of Zion

And, for the sake of argument, let us assume that an expert exists who possesses both the full range of skills and the vast financial means (not to mention the personal ignobility necessary to perform procedures such as animal testing) to repeat any scientific experiment he wishes. How many experiments would he actually get through in his lifetime? It is clear that he will at best be able to test a tiny fraction of the official compendium of empirical knowledge. This is the truth of empirical knowledge in reality: even the experts do not, on the whole, really know its conclusions. Empiricism, being fundamentally materialist, reduces expert and non-expert alike to source-trusting intellectual slaves. The situation is even worse in the media, be it mainstream or alternative. Due to overpopulation and unnecessary social complexity, we live in a world of factual excess, meaning that there are far more facts available than we can process even if we did nothing else 24/7. This means that, at any given time, we are aware of only a tiny fraction of the forthcoming facts of news. As such, those who wish to deceive us can use a wholly factual presentation to do so, simply by reporting some facts and omitting others. Nothing they report need be false for the overall picture to be misleading. For example, by feeding us only stories of chaos and incompetence in a particular place or by a particular denominational group, they can instill correspondingly negative prejudices towards that place or group. This is how ZC propaganda has encouraged its audience to look down on so-called Third World countries and peoples (and forget that almost all the damage done to the world over the last several centuries was done by the so-called First World countries and peoples). The literate millions are rapidly becoming intellectually more lazy and therefore more credulous than ever and not less so; more easily deceived, more liable to be led like sheep without even the shadow of a protest, provided the nonsense one wishes them to swallow be presented to them in printed form and made to appear scientific. It is, we repeat, by far easier to enslave a literate people than an illiterate one, strange as this may seem at first sight. And the enslavement is more likely to be lasting. Savitri Devi The Superiority of Truth

Its amazing how lacking in logic men are. The people most devoid of logic are the professors. Adolf Hitler Rational knowledge is different. It is based not on evidence, but on proof. Thus, whereas empirical conclusions can only ever be demonstrated to be false (via contrary evidence), rational conclusions can be demonstrated to be true (via rigorous proof). Only rational knowledge is genuine knowledge in a positive sense, and this has been well known by epistemologists from every ancient civilization. The only genuine science is formal science, such as mathematics, whose conclusions can simply be followed through step by step for logical consistency, without the mediation of materialism beyond the stationery on which the proof is written. In this sphere of knowledge, experts really can know the knowledge presented by other experts because it is purely a matter of reiterating the reasoning. (In an Aryanist society, only formal scientists would be referred to as scientists. Those currently called empirical scientists would be referred to as technology theorists.)

Rationalism can be applied to discredit dubious empirical claims, while rational truths are themselves invulnerable to empirical attack. This makes rationalism the best weapon against empiricism. The 9/11 sceptic has no need to rebuild the World Trade Centre and demolish it again when he can demonstrate how the official story cannot be true. And the Holocaust sceptic is not rattled by people who demand that he prove the Holocaust did not happen, because he knows rationally that it is impossible to prove a negative (can someone prove that Daleks did not fight in WWII?), in other words it is not up to him to prove that the so-called Holocaust did not happen, but for Holocaust asserters to prove that it did happen! But since it is illegal for anyone to independently investigate the Holocaust in Germany where it is alleged to have occurred, it is in fact impossible to prove that it happened. Therefore nobody needs to believe them. Even more importantly, it must be rationalism, not empiricism, that is the basis for all ideological thinking. Any ideology dependent on empiricism is subject to devaluation at any time by new empirical results. Ideology must be based solely on truths that are true for all time, which only rationalism is able and will ever be able to supply. In current times we face the threat of Zionist academics who seek to invade even subjects such as morality with empirical science. Should they succeed in convincing the world to believe that answers to such subjects can be determined empirically, then Jews controlling empiricism by controlling money - will have given themselves fiat over moral rectitude, opposition to which will become unscientific. To prevent this, we must restore the authority of rationalism, the first and most fundamental gate towards the Aryan triumph of the spiritual over the material.

They will not fool us.

Tribalism vs Universalism
Selfishness is manifested in many different ways. It can find expression in that mere lust for personal enjoyment, which characterises the shameless voluptuary; or in the misers insatiable greed for gold; or in the individual ambition of the seeker of honours and position; or in the family ambition of the man who is ready to sacrifice every interest in the world to the welfare and happiness of his wife and children. But it can also be brought out in the exaltation of a mans tribe or country above all others just because it happens to be the tribe or country of that particular man. Men in Time only know what is their own and what is not. Savitri Devi Few individuals throughout history have lived up to the ideal of universal compassion, but at least the ideal itself used to be outwardly admirable in ideological discourse. A clear sign of collapsing civilization and descent to barbarism is when tribalism is not only practiced (as it has always been by the vast majority), but actually promoted by reactionary movements as more admirable than universalism. Judaism has always preached tribalism against non-Jews, hence our certainty that Jews are a morally inferior group. And all humanist philosophies, of Gentile as well as Jewish origin, have preached tribalism against non-humans, leaving us no honest option but to consider most historical humans morally inferior also. But whereas Jews tried in the past to prevent nonJews from reading the Talmud, fearing non-Jews would find the content abhorrent, today more and more organized Gentiles are reading the Talmud and applying its principles to benefit their own tribes. Whereas some past humanists were at least willing to admit their moral callousness compared to universalists, the present trend is for universalists (or even anti-racist humanists) to be ridiculed as oversensitive bleeding hearts. Jews for their part are all too happy to encourage the rise of Gentile tribes via promotion of Zionist Correctness (ZC). The more non-Jews openly and shamelessly behave as Jews themselves behave and indeed we see emboldened Gentiles now asking such questions as What is wrong with racism? - the more difficult it becomes for us to criticize Jewish tribalism as a specifically Jewish phenomenon. It is crucial that tribalism, including but not limited to racism, be put back in its place as an attitude of inferiority if revolution is to be positive. As Hitler said: Whoever doesnt become

sickened and nauseated upon making a closer acquaintance with the Talmud can put himself on display in a circus side show. This is the foremost spiritual challenge of our time, and of our movement in particular: to defend and promote universalism more strongly than ever even as our enemies attempt to remove it from social consciousness.

Jewish tribal manual

Gentile tribal manuals Ignoble Altruism It may seem surprising that such a small minority possesses such great power. The Jews do not enjoy economic success because they are more intelligent than non-Jews, but rather because they follow a different moral code. Joseph Goebbels The argument in favour of tribalism proposes that the practical function of altruism (and hence the reason it naturally evolved) is to enable cooperation, which results in a cooperating in-group gaining survival advantages over a non-cooperating out-group. According to this argument, it follows that any altruism involving no out-group at all is unnatural, and betrays the very gainfulness of altruism. In order to upkeep this gainfulness, the tribalists tell us, some group must fill the role of Goy. The unhesitating Aryan reaction is that we refuse to be slaves to Nature, therefore merely knowing that tribalism is a product of natural selection does not give it moral validity in our eyes, but only stresses the need for National Socialism to replace natural selection as the primary evolutionary mechanism. We are not Jews or Gentiles; we will never accept ignoble fitness. As Savitri Devi put it, If man really wishes to be a superior species, he has to give up the habit of acting as the inferior ones do. Tribalism, when it occurs among a numerically smaller in-group, is known and intuitively despised as nepotism or simply favouritism. It does not become less despicable when practiced by a numerically larger in-group, regardless of Jews and Gentiles who describe it as assertion of group interests as if that makes it sound better. (We encourage use of the terms ethnotribalism, ethnonepotism or ethnofavouritism when concise clarification on the meaning of racism is demanded.) Nepotism, in fact, is the most formidable protection imaginable: the protection of the ego. Adolf Hitler Tribalists living among universalists in a society will indeed - sooner or later - end up in all the positions of control, as they will ensure that every such position acquired by a member of their own tribe never leaves the hands of the tribe thereafter. This is sometimes known as the Jewish

problem. Of course such a situation cannot and should not be tolerated. But does this mean that therefore everyone else should also form tribes and see who is best at being tribal? No, it means that the universalists need to identify the tribalists and get rid of them. This is the true message of National Socialism: that tribalism is an inferior mode of behaviour, and its adherents inferior people, not to be imitated but to be thoroughly removed from society by all countries who wish to cultivate nobility of blood. German history is not rich in great statesmen. But where one has appeared, he mostly had something to say and give not only to his own people, but to the world. Joseph Goebbels If a few people cheat to gain an advantage over non-cheaters, should we all start cheating, or should we get rid of the cheaters? Tribalism is cheating, nothing more and nothing less. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if Jesus instructed his disciples to become moneychangers in order to compete with the Jewish money-changers at usury and hopefully outperform them. Fortunately, he did not do so, but stormed the temple with a whip and drove the moneychangers out.

Aryans need no manual for universalism; it is in our blood. The Big Lie They should have recognized and followed the profound truth that the lack of the necessities of life has always been a source of conflict between peoples. Adolf Hitler A key lie concering tribalism told by present-day racists seeking respectability 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 absolute nonsense. Ethnonationalists (note that authentic National Socialists are not ethnonationalists, but folkish nationalists) would have us believe that geographical separatism is the answer. Yet their stance on foreign policy after separation is to make decisions based on whatever is good for our own people. So what happens when resources become insufficient? Proceeding logically from their stance, they will plunder whatever they need from whomever they can overpower, because they have already defined their own people as automatically more important than their Goy victims. To see ethnonationalist foreign policy in action, we need look no further than Israeli treatment of Palestinians, or the words of Yaacov Perrin (Jew): One million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail.

Were doing whats good for Israel! Whats the problem? External link: Raid Gaza

It would be delusional to believe that only Jews are capable of such attitudes, as history is replete with non-Jews behaving in exactly the same way. The oppression of countless Native American societies by Anglo, Spanish and other colonial era settlers, for example, was no less brutal than that of the Palestinians by Israeli settlers, while the worst massacres committed by Jews against the Ukrainians and the Armenians or the worst tortures masterminded by Jews in communist gulags cannot even begin to compare in either scale or cruelty with the daily routines of abbatoirs, dairy/egg/fur/silk factories and vivisection labs worldwide, all economically supported by ordinary humans. The only reliable way to 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 its demand for resources faster than the rate at which resources are running out. All groups which refuse to enter into such an agreement are implicit tribes, and must be treated as such. Mere absence of a premeditated plan to oppress others in the process of collective self-preservation is not good enough. As long as collective self-preservation is valued as an end in itself which is the essence of tribalism - rather than purely as the means to a noble purpose, a group will end up oppressing others sooner or later, whether it planned to do so or not. So now when a Jew or Gentile asks What is so bad about just wanting to survive? in response to their disgusting behaviour, you know how to answer them.

And if you dont shut up, we will call you anti-Semite! Jews can treat non-Jews any way we want as long as it is good for Jewish survival, and non-Jews should not complain! See, we are not racist at all! Selfishness is the root of tribalism, not hate (a misdirection deliberately created by PC propaganda in order to facilitate the ZC backlash). The meat-eater or the medical researcher experimenting on animals do not hate their victims, yet they do what they do, simply because they are indifferent to the plight of their victims in face of their own interests. Similarly, the Anglo settlers did not necessarily hate the Native Americans, and the Israeli settlers did not necessarily hate the Palestinians, yet they did what they did, again out of self-interest. Very few of the horrific oppressive deeds throughout history were consequences of hatred; virtually all were consequences of self-interest taken to their logical conclusion. A genuine movement against tribalism must be built on attacking the true problem of self-interest, not the PC red herring of hate. Animals are seen as mere things. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coarsing, bull-fights and horse-races and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with their heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that fails to recognise the eternal essence that exists in every living thing and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun. Arthur Schopenhauer It takes no hatred to be cruel. But, in fact, it takes much hatred towards cruelty to become seriously motivated to fight it. In the words of Joseph Goebbels: He who cannot hate the Devil cannot love God.

Opposition to tribalism is not apathetic pacifism. We understand that conflict is likely in the near future; our concern is that the conflict involves morally meaningful sides rather than a bunch of tribes all fighting for the same thing and for the same reason, namely for their own tribe because it is their own tribe. We recommend that the universalists (Aryans) of every ethnicity, religion and location oppose the tribalists all tribalists, Gentiles as well as Jews within all our denominations. While universalists may be outnumbered by tribalists in each separate denomination, we can unite as a folk across denominations in a way that tribalists (by definition) cannot, and as such are not nearly as powerless as we may seem at first glance. In the times of Zarathustra this War also existed; the enemies were the Turanians. In our time the so-called Jews." Miguel Serrano The evolutionary claim that universalists will be eliminated in favour of tribalists over time only applies if the universalists are also pacifists. We defy this claim because, by rejecting pacifism, we can choose to eliminate the tribalists first. Noble Compassion

Final solution can be effected only by means of a warm-hearted resolve on the part of those who once faced each other as opponents, but whose mutual esteem, based on a recognition of each others bravery, could become a bridge leading to the future a future which must never see any repetition of past sufferings. Adolf Hitler We promote not universal altruism, but universal compassion. Fundamentally, altruism views others as assets from which additional gain can be derived, be it increasing ones own gain at their expense (the zero-sum game, played with Goys) or increasing collective gain even at individual expense (the non-zero sum game, played with collaborators). Thus underneath all altruism - including supposedly universal altruism - is nothing more than greed. Compassion, on the other hand, views everyone as slaves to the game itself, regardless of whether they are gaining or losing. Compassion does not, therefore, attempt to help anyone increase their gain (which ultimately further increases their thrall by the game), but instead attempts to provide an alternative to the game in its entirety. When Jesus threw out the money-changers, he was not trying to give everyone else a better chance to become wealthy. Universal compassion cannot be taught. A tribalist can understand the reasoning behind universal compassion, but merely in the way that a deaf person can understand musical notation. The tribalist will not feel what the universalist feels. Conversely, a universalist need never learn to feel this way; it is impossible for him to feel otherwise. It is, however, possible for each to feign the outward behaviour of the other depending on social trends. If we are now seeing a trend towards tribalism, we are correct to feel disheartened, but we can also take hope, as the decreasing fashionability of universalism must mean that only the most ideologically dedicated universalists will heed our message and join our movement. Such tribulations will ultimately make us stronger and more ready to face our tribalist enemies.

Translator