Critique this Amren article: What We Call Ourselves

[jimmy smith]

What We Call Ourselves (Original link has pictures with text)

John Ingram, American Renaissance, August 2009

One of the difficulties we have as a movement is that racially conscious whites do not have a satisfactory name. The general public likes to have handy categories into which it can put movements and ideas, and because we do not have a commonly accepted label for ourselves, people have little choice but to use the names chosen for us by our enemies. These are, of course, the usual epithets, such as “racist,” “white supremacist,” and “hate-monger.”

The trouble, as Jared Taylor pointed out in these pages long ago (see “The Racial Revolution,” AR, May 1999), is that what we think about race was so taken for granted by previous generations that they never needed a word for it. Virtually all white Americans, prominent or otherwise, from George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower never had to label their views about race because, to them, they were as natural and normal as breathing.

It was the culture that changed—not the facts about race—and what had been basic common sense for centuries suddenly became known by a slew of ugly names. The word “racist,” for example, wasn’t invented until the 1930s and didn’t become common in the United States until the 1960s. No one would have dreamed of saying Abraham Lincoln had immoral views about race, much less that he was a “racist.” Yesterday’s common sense is now today’s crime, and we have yet to find a generally accepted term that could displace the dishonest formulations others have tried to pin on us.

It is possible to imagine a comparable situation in a collectivist future in which people with children are required to join group-rearing camps where adults must treat all children equally. Parents who care more about their own children or just want to spend more time with them are shunned and called names: “kin-supremacists,” “familists,” “kinder-phobes,” “haters.” What word would these “kin-supremacists” come up with to refer to people who love their own children more than the children of strangers? They would face the same problem we do because no previous generation ever had to invent a word to describe people with normal, healthy feelings.

The media’s insistence on the term “white supremacist” for anyone who departs from multiracial dogma is especially annoying. It evokes—as it is meant to—whip-cracking slave drivers, lynch mobs, and Jim Crow, and only maliciousness or ignorance explains its current use. I have spoken to editors who admitted they haven’t considered why they use the term—only that they have done so in the past, and keep doing so out of habit.

The media invariably call a criminal with swastika tattoos a “white supremacist,” especially if he barks “white power” while being arraigned. Even then, what does the term really mean? Does any white person in America really want to rule over people of other races, as the term “white supremacist” suggests? People who shout “white power” mostly just want to get away from non-whites.

Of course, by reserving the term “white supremacist” for anyone who dissents from racial orthodoxy, the left tries to give the impression that readers of American Renaissance are all dying to tattoo themselves, march around in jackboots, and beat up immigrants, but manage barely to restrain themselves through a colossal act of will that could fail at any time. The clear implication is that people who study racial differences in IQ or care about the survival of whites and their culture are morally no different from thugs who chain blacks to pickup trucks and drag them to death.

This kind of treatment is especially odious in that groups like La Raza and the NAACP get the beatific label of “civil rights” groups. Any white organization that copied the goals and tactics of La Raza perfectly but substituted “white” for “Hispanic” would be nothing more than a band of hate-mongers.

So, how should we refer to ourselves?

First, we can never accept being called “racists.” Ten years ago, Sam Francis wrote in this magazine that “racism” is a “term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose” (see “The Origins of Racism,” AR, May 1999). Nothing has changed since then.

Over the years, various names have been proposed: white nationalist, white separatist, race realist, racial preservationist, “racialist” (instead of “racist”), racially conscious white person, and modifiers such as “pro-white” and “racially conscious.”

These are not awful terms, but they have shortcomings. “White nationalist” and “white separatist” are bold, but rattle too menacingly to gain widespread acceptance. The words “nationalism” or “separatism” have a coercive or even violent ring. Basque, Kurdish, Tamil, and other nationalists have been known to throw bombs. “Separatism” could almost be construed as ethnic cleansing through house-to-house raids, even if an actual white separatist has something gradual, peaceful, and voluntary in mind.

Both separation and nationalism ultimately suggest redrawing boundaries, and that is unsettling to many. For those with the means and the mettle—and an opportunity to explain what they really mean—perhaps these are acceptable terms, but for us wage-earners in the suburbs they are too provocative.

I like “racialist,” though the addition of one syllable to “racist” isn’t likely to change many minds, and most people have no idea what the difference is. In Britain, the two terms are reportedly interchangeable.

“Racially conscious white person” is nice but cumbersome, though I do appreciate the left-fake of “conscious.” I recall hearing a black public official say she thought “racially conscious” simply meant anti-racist, that having a “consciousness” of race meant understanding how wonderful black people are, and how evil whites are. In any case, liberals love consciousness—of the sorrows of the poor, of the plight of the whales, of the agonies of AIDS carriers—so the idea of white consciousness confuses them, but it is hard to work the concept into a crisp, useful term.

Some on our side have suggested abandoning “white” for “European-American” or “Euro-American” but most American whites, for better or worse, don’t think of themselves as “European.” A European is a snooty fellow named Pierre who wears a beret. At the same time, hyphenation is an awkward concession to the left and, at worst, the term can sound like a euphemism: an equivalent of “African-American” for whites who aren’t willing to admit they are white.

“Pro-white” would have some potential if it could work its way into the debate as did the terms the antagonists in the abortion debate managed to promote. “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” cleverly stake out a “pro” rather than “anti” position, but it took millions of dollars and supporters to get those terms into circulation. “Pro-choice,” especially, is a tour de force; it means nothing at all, but had enough media behind it to replace the more sinister “pro-abortion.”

“Pro-white” has the advantage of meaning exactly what it says, but in today’s climate it would instantly be turned into a weapon, with the implication that the only way anyone could be pro-white was by being anti-black and anti-everything-else. This puts it in the same potentially menacing category as “white nationalist” and “white separatist.”

This leaves us is with “race realist.” It is a good term, and American Renaissance has made some progress in promoting it, but it has shortcomings. First, it has to be explained, since it has no obvious meaning. Second, and perhaps worse, it is clearly a term invented by its own proponents. No hostile or even neutral party calls other people “realist,” or “objective,” or “virtuous,” or any other positive thing, and when people give themselves names like that it strikes outsiders as a pose.

Ayn Rand claimed that she and her followers were Objectivists. That name says nothing about what she thought except that she thought highly of herself. Likewise, American socialists and loonies of various stripes like to call themselves Progressives, a name that would provoke much snickering if the press were not so partisan. Merely calling yourself “progressive” does not mean your policies would bring progress, and claiming to be a realist—even if you are—means nothing to those who disagree.

The worst examples of this kind of inflated self-naming are the various Muslim groups that call themselves, in effect, The Earthly Executors of God’s Will. “Race realist” is nothing like that, of course, but it is not a term our enemies would ever adopt nor one that even the merely curious are likely to accept. We will never be more than “so-called” or “self-proclaimed” race realists to any but our friends.

Obviously, a name should have some connection to beliefs or goals. I say “obviously,” though some might argue that subterfuge is better. Why name yourself at all and give your opponents a target? Because it is very useful to have a label that both we and our opponents can live with and that accurately conveys our views. At the same time, our goals and positions are entirely legitimate. We have nothing to hide, and should describe ourselves accurately.

We have disagreements among ourselves, of course, but there are probably a few points on which all can agree, and it is vital to prevent gross misconception of our goals. Our central position is that the races are different. They are not equivalent and replaceable, and whites are uniquely harmed by this myth.

It is important also that we not shy away from the racial aspect of our positions.

We oppose affirmative action, for example, not especially because it casts suspicion on the legitimate accomplishments of some minorities, but because it is unfair to whites. We oppose unchecked immigration, not because we want to see everyone wait in line, but because it displaces whites. We oppose high taxing and spending, perhaps because we believe in fiscal discipline and free markets, but also because they are largely a transfer of wealth from whites to non-whites. And we want “law and order,” not only because any society must have rules, but also because the disorder often comes from non-whites and we rightly deplore it.

We seek true freedom of association, not forced involvement with other groups. Third-World immigration, “civil rights” laws, and school busing are examples of coercion we oppose. Put differently, we want to be left alone. These are worthy, legitimate, necessary goals, and in a sane world would raise no objections at all.

The left senses the racial element in these positions, of course. That is why, when tax protesters put on their “Tea Parties” last April 15, opponents insisted that their motives could not be purely financial and warned that the gatherings were “racist.” As usual, so-called conservatives shrieked that they were not “racist” at all, and the white cause made no progress.

A better name for us, and the willingness of more whites to accept it, would put an end to this silly game of Whack-A-Mole. To the list of names others have suggested, I propose one I think is better: “white advocate.” This term, along with “white advocacy,” has a number of advantages.

First, it does away with the dissembling inherent in words like “conservative” or “patriot.” Indeed, a “white advocate” could be otherwise a liberal, and have little sympathy for the militarism or flag-waving that are often called patriotism. Second, the term puts “the W word” right where it belongs. No one is misled. Third, it does not have a frightening ring. It suggests a person who speaks up for whites by pointing out injustices done to them, and formulating policies necessary to correct them. Fourth, it is flexible. It does not suggest any specific policy goal, thus leaving room for internal disagreement, and permitting shifts in strategy according to circumstances. A white advocate may wish to repeal all anti-discrimination laws or may simply object when whites are called “rednecks.”

The term “white advocate” has the final advantage of laying the foundation for more accurate descriptions of other groups. The NAACP and MALDEF are not “civil rights” organizations. No one reads about their activities and assumes that they are trying to secure rights for all Americans. They are, respectively, black advocacy and Hispanic advocacy groups, and we should have no objection to their using a variant of the term we use for ourselves. Where there is advocacy there is inevitably conflict. By accurately classifying these so-called “civil rights” groups we make it clear that the interests of blacks and Hispanics will sometimes conflict with those of whites—and that whites have interests of their own that must be protected.

Toward the end of his excellent documentary, “A Conversation on Race” (see “Racy Talk,” AR, Feb. 2009), filmmaker Craig Bodeker laments that whites are allowed only two stances on race: total indifference to it or cruel, bloodthirsty “racism.” Anyone who even hints that whites may have group rights is condemned to the latter category.

Mr. Bodeker is right, and if whites are headed anywhere but to oblivion, this false dichotomy must be destroyed. Whites face an array of serious problems that the media, culture, and politics insist on ignoring. Those who seek justice for whites deserve a name equal to the moral stature and dignity of their cause.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/08/what_we_call_ou.php

How about:

Nigger-obsessed conservatives
Philosemitism and IQ charts

Taking this awful article apart can help explain the difference between race realists or "white advocates" and real white nationalism.

[Alex Linder]

White nationalists - we want a white nation. White advocate is fine but its more for specific uses or instances. It doesn't work for the thing overall because it hints that we're sticking up for whites in the accepted 'civil rights' pattern. No. We don't want equal rights with coons and wetbacks and kikes, we want a nation of ourselves, with them on the outside. That simple and uncompromising.

[diabloblanco92]

What We Call Ourselves (Original link has pictures with text)

John Ingram, American Renaissance, August 2009

One of the difficulties we have as a movement is that racially conscious whites do not have a satisfactory name. The general public likes to have handy categories into which it can put movements and ideas, and because we do not have a commonly accepted label for ourselves, people have little choice but to use the names chosen for us by our enemies. These are, of course, the usual epithets, such as “racist,” “white supremacist,” and “hate-monger.”

The trouble, as Jared Taylor pointed out in these pages long ago (see “The Racial Revolution,” AR, May 1999), is that what we think about race was so taken for granted by previous generations that they never needed a word for it. Virtually all white Americans, prominent or otherwise, from George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower never had to label their views about race because, to them, they were as natural and normal as breathing.

It was the culture that changed—not the facts about race—and what had been basic common sense for centuries suddenly became known by a slew of ugly names. The word “racist,” for example, wasn’t invented until the 1930s and didn’t become common in the United States until the 1960s. No one would have dreamed of saying Abraham Lincoln had immoral views about race, much less that he was a “racist.” Yesterday’s common sense is now today’s crime, and we have yet to find a generally accepted term that could displace the dishonest formulations others have tried to pin on us.

It is possible to imagine a comparable situation in a collectivist future in which people with children are required to join group-rearing camps where adults must treat all children equally. Parents who care more about their own children or just want to spend more time with them are shunned and called names: “kin-supremacists,” “familists,” “kinder-phobes,” “haters.” What word would these “kin-supremacists” come up with to refer to people who love their own children more than the children of strangers? They would face the same problem we do because no previous generation ever had to invent a word to describe people with normal, healthy feelings.

The media’s insistence on the term “white supremacist” for anyone who departs from multiracial dogma is especially annoying. It evokes—as it is meant to—whip-cracking slave drivers, lynch mobs, and Jim Crow, and only maliciousness or ignorance explains its current use. I have spoken to editors who admitted they haven’t considered why they use the term—only that they have done so in the past, and keep doing so out of habit.

The media invariably call a criminal with swastika tattoos a “white supremacist,” especially if he barks “white power” while being arraigned. Even then, what does the term really mean? Does any white person in America really want to rule over people of other races, as the term “white supremacist” suggests? People who shout “white power” mostly just want to get away from non-whites.

Of course, by reserving the term “white supremacist” for anyone who dissents from racial orthodoxy, the left tries to give the impression that readers of American Renaissance are all dying to tattoo themselves, march around in jackboots, and beat up immigrants, but manage barely to restrain themselves through a colossal act of will that could fail at any time. The clear implication is that people who study racial differences in IQ or care about the survival of whites and their culture are morally no different from thugs who chain blacks to pickup trucks and drag them to death.

This kind of treatment is especially odious in that groups like La Raza and the NAACP get the beatific label of “civil rights” groups. Any white organization that copied the goals and tactics of La Raza perfectly but substituted “white” for “Hispanic” would be nothing more than a band of hate-mongers.

So, how should we refer to ourselves?

First, we can never accept being called “racists.” Ten years ago, Sam Francis wrote in this magazine that “racism” is a “term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose” (see “The Origins of Racism,” AR, May 1999). Nothing has changed since then.

Over the years, various names have been proposed: white nationalist, white separatist, race realist, racial preservationist, “racialist” (instead of “racist”), racially conscious white person, and modifiers such as “pro-white” and “racially conscious.”

These are not awful terms, but they have shortcomings. “White nationalist” and “white separatist” are bold, but rattle too menacingly to gain widespread acceptance. The words “nationalism” or “separatism” have a coercive or even violent ring. Basque, Kurdish, Tamil, and other nationalists have been known to throw bombs. “Separatism” could almost be construed as ethnic cleansing through house-to-house raids, even if an actual white separatist has something gradual, peaceful, and voluntary in mind.

Both separation and nationalism ultimately suggest redrawing boundaries, and that is unsettling to many. For those with the means and the mettle—and an opportunity to explain what they really mean—perhaps these are acceptable terms, but for us wage-earners in the suburbs they are too provocative.

I like “racialist,” though the addition of one syllable to “racist” isn’t likely to change many minds, and most people have no idea what the difference is. In Britain, the two terms are reportedly interchangeable.

“Racially conscious white person” is nice but cumbersome, though I do appreciate the left-fake of “conscious.” I recall hearing a black public official say she thought “racially conscious” simply meant anti-racist, that having a “consciousness” of race meant understanding how wonderful black people are, and how evil whites are. In any case, liberals love consciousness—of the sorrows of the poor, of the plight of the whales, of the agonies of AIDS carriers—so the idea of white consciousness confuses them, but it is hard to work the concept into a crisp, useful term.

Some on our side have suggested abandoning “white” for “European-American” or “Euro-American” but most American whites, for better or worse, don’t think of themselves as “European.” A European is a snooty fellow named Pierre who wears a beret. At the same time, hyphenation is an awkward concession to the left and, at worst, the term can sound like a euphemism: an equivalent of “African-American” for whites who aren’t willing to admit they are white.

“Pro-white” would have some potential if it could work its way into the debate as did the terms the antagonists in the abortion debate managed to promote. “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” cleverly stake out a “pro” rather than “anti” position, but it took millions of dollars and supporters to get those terms into circulation. “Pro-choice,” especially, is a tour de force; it means nothing at all, but had enough media behind it to replace the more sinister “pro-abortion.”

“Pro-white” has the advantage of meaning exactly what it says, but in today’s climate it would instantly be turned into a weapon, with the implication that the only way anyone could be pro-white was by being anti-black and anti-everything-else. This puts it in the same potentially menacing category as “white nationalist” and “white separatist.”

This leaves us is with “race realist.” It is a good term, and American Renaissance has made some progress in promoting it, but it has shortcomings. First, it has to be explained, since it has no obvious meaning. Second, and perhaps worse, it is clearly a term invented by its own proponents. No hostile or even neutral party calls other people “realist,” or “objective,” or “virtuous,” or any other positive thing, and when people give themselves names like that it strikes outsiders as a pose.

Ayn Rand claimed that she and her followers were Objectivists. That name says nothing about what she thought except that she thought highly of herself. Likewise, American socialists and loonies of various stripes like to call themselves Progressives, a name that would provoke much snickering if the press were not so partisan. Merely calling yourself “progressive” does not mean your policies would bring progress, and claiming to be a realist—even if you are—means nothing to those who disagree.

The worst examples of this kind of inflated self-naming are the various Muslim groups that call themselves, in effect, The Earthly Executors of God’s Will. “Race realist” is nothing like that, of course, but it is not a term our enemies would ever adopt nor one that even the merely curious are likely to accept. We will never be more than “so-called” or “self-proclaimed” race realists to any but our friends.

Obviously, a name should have some connection to beliefs or goals. I say “obviously,” though some might argue that subterfuge is better. Why name yourself at all and give your opponents a target? Because it is very useful to have a label that both we and our opponents can live with and that accurately conveys our views. At the same time, our goals and positions are entirely legitimate. We have nothing to hide, and should describe ourselves accurately.

We have disagreements among ourselves, of course, but there are probably a few points on which all can agree, and it is vital to prevent gross misconception of our goals. Our central position is that the races are different. They are not equivalent and replaceable, and whites are uniquely harmed by this myth.

It is important also that we not shy away from the racial aspect of our positions.

We oppose affirmative action, for example, not especially because it casts suspicion on the legitimate accomplishments of some minorities, but because it is unfair to whites. We oppose unchecked immigration, not because we want to see everyone wait in line, but because it displaces whites. We oppose high taxing and spending, perhaps because we believe in fiscal discipline and free markets, but also because they are largely a transfer of wealth from whites to non-whites. And we want “law and order,” not only because any society must have rules, but also because the disorder often comes from non-whites and we rightly deplore it.

We seek true freedom of association, not forced involvement with other groups. Third-World immigration, “civil rights” laws, and school busing are examples of coercion we oppose. Put differently, we want to be left alone. These are worthy, legitimate, necessary goals, and in a sane world would raise no objections at all.

The left senses the racial element in these positions, of course. That is why, when tax protesters put on their “Tea Parties” last April 15, opponents insisted that their motives could not be purely financial and warned that the gatherings were “racist.” As usual, so-called conservatives shrieked that they were not “racist” at all, and the white cause made no progress.

A better name for us, and the willingness of more whites to accept it, would put an end to this silly game of Whack-A-Mole. To the list of names others have suggested, I propose one I think is better: “white advocate.” This term, along with “white advocacy,” has a number of advantages.

First, it does away with the dissembling inherent in words like “conservative” or “patriot.” Indeed, a “white advocate” could be otherwise a liberal, and have little sympathy for the militarism or flag-waving that are often called patriotism. Second, the term puts “the W word” right where it belongs. No one is misled. Third, it does not have a frightening ring. It suggests a person who speaks up for whites by pointing out injustices done to them, and formulating policies necessary to correct them. Fourth, it is flexible. It does not suggest any specific policy goal, thus leaving room for internal disagreement, and permitting shifts in strategy according to circumstances. A white advocate may wish to repeal all anti-discrimination laws or may simply object when whites are called “rednecks.”

The term “white advocate” has the final advantage of laying the foundation for more accurate descriptions of other groups. The NAACP and MALDEF are not “civil rights” organizations. No one reads about their activities and assumes that they are trying to secure rights for all Americans. They are, respectively, black advocacy and Hispanic advocacy groups, and we should have no objection to their using a variant of the term we use for ourselves. Where there is advocacy there is inevitably conflict. By accurately classifying these so-called “civil rights” groups we make it clear that the interests of blacks and Hispanics will sometimes conflict with those of whites—and that whites have interests of their own that must be protected.

Toward the end of his excellent documentary, “A Conversation on Race” (see “Racy Talk,” AR, Feb. 2009), filmmaker Craig Bodeker laments that whites are allowed only two stances on race: total indifference to it or cruel, bloodthirsty “racism.” Anyone who even hints that whites may have group rights is condemned to the latter category.

Mr. Bodeker is right, and if whites are headed anywhere but to oblivion, this false dichotomy must be destroyed. Whites face an array of serious problems that the media, culture, and politics insist on ignoring. Those who seek justice for whites deserve a name equal to the moral stature and dignity of their cause.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/08/what_we_call_ou.php

How about:

Nigger-obsessed conservatives
Philosemitism and IQ charts



Taking this awful article apart can help explain the difference between race realists or "white advocates" and real white nationalism.

Too dry, too weak, too much like some bespectaled guy at a Planning Board meeting, too much like the "Weak White guy" image NWO is saddling us with. We are not losing some of our women to racemixing because we are too primal and brutish.....we are losing them BECAUSE WE ARE NOT PRIMAL AND BRUTISH ENOUGH
"Moral stature and dignity" without ferocity only cause you to be the other guy's meal. No one ever went to the barricades for "realism" or "advocacy".......this is the language of the bureacratic decay that is destroying us

[Rick Ronsavelle]

Instead of WHIG, WHOAG- White Haters of all Gooks.

[notmenomore]

White nationalists - we want a white nation. White advocate is fine but its more for specific uses or instances. It doesn't work for the thing overall because it hints that we're sticking up for whites in the accepted 'civil rights' pattern. No. We don't want equal rights with coons and wetbacks and kikes, we want a nation of ourselves, with them on the outside. That simple and uncompromising.


Exactly.

As expected from AMREN, we have a lengthy blather that never seems to get around to the word "jew". That's because AMREN says that jews are "White". (Hell, this wimp doesn't have enough of a sack to capitalize "White"!) Once the juden are held to be "White" (something they never do amongst themselves), the entire exercise becomes a mere waste of time...

[Alex Linder]

Exactly.

As expected from AMREN, we have a lengthy blather that never seems to get around to the word "jew". That's because AMREN says that jews are "White". (Hell, this wimp doesn't have enough of a sack to capitalize "White"!) Once the juden are held to be "White" (something they never do amongst themselves), the entire exercise becomes a mere waste of time...

It's not just that you're patting yourself on the back when you use praise-adjectives to describe yourself -- objective, realist, etc -- it's that you're acting as though you're an official instead of a side. Whites need to stand up for Whites. They don't need to act like noblesse oblige while pleading for equality - a stance perfectly embodied in P.T. Taylor's defensive pose while being punked out by the ARA fags. Being adult and mature doesn't win fights. Punches or shots win fights. We are White. We have to protect our own. Niggers and mexcrement and ashkescuzzies don't care about equality or fairness or any other of these hobgoblins making whites neurotic. They just want more cake. Just admit it's a fight and...fight.

[Alex Linder]

[This is from New America in comments on VNN, and I think it's one good solution.]

How To Counterpunch:

Substitute the term “racist,” which the Jews love for you to use - it identifies you to them, and identifies you as having succumbed to THEIR Terms and Definitions - with Covington’s powerful formulation, the Racially Conscious Community.”

Covington nailed this one with full marks.

“Racist,’ you will note, is the singular - you, alone. Divided from your Racial Kinfolk, you are easily conquered by the Jews, who are ruthlessly united with their Racial Kinfolk.

“Racially Conscious Community” links you with Your Race, on Your terms - intellectually Aware of you Place in your Race, and emotionally committed to supporting the Race in both the microcosm of Family, and the macrocosm of Culture, with Race acting as a Living Bridge between Family and Culture.

YOU then have control of your Mind, and access to more Power, and more effectiveness, than ever before.

The Jews, being parasites, simply scream as they stand in The Light, and scream, “Make it stop! It burnses us! It burnses us!”

[Igor Alexander]

P.T. Taylor's

Is this a reference to P.T. Barnum? LOL.

[Alex Linder]

Is this a reference to P.T. Barnum? LOL.

No. I wouldn't say he's much of a showman, although it does fit from the sucker end.

P.T., in his case, stands for polished turd.

[Igor Alexander]

“White nationalist” and “white separatist” are bold, but rattle too menacingly to gain widespread acceptance.

I don't think white nationalist is so bad. It's the term I'm sticking to.

Both separation and nationalism ultimately suggest redrawing boundaries, and that is unsettling to many.

So? Let them be unsettled. I find the prospect of a Muslim Europe, a Mexamerica, or a Canada where the third official language is Chinese unsettling.

As long as jews control our media, they're always going to portray us negatively, even if we choose to call ourselves "cute cuddly teddy bears who wouldn't hurt a fly."

[Igor Alexander]

Another reason to use the word nationalist is that it opens up the door to calling anyone who opposes us "globalists," "one worlders," "traitors," etc.

Being seen as a globalist isn't going to win you any points at a time when many North Americans are pissed off about free trade agreements that were signed behind closed doors and many Europeans are questioning the legitimacy of the EU.

[Igor Alexander]

...if the press were not so partisan.

Bingo. Call yourself whatever you want and it won't make much difference as long as your enemies control the press.

[Igor Alexander]

“Race realist” is nothing like that, of course, but it is not a term our enemies would ever adopt nor one that even the merely curious are likely to accept.

Why the preoccupation over whether our enemies adopt our terms? They won't. They already have terms for us: racist, nazi, bigot, white supremacist, etc. They're not going to start calling us what we ask them to call us.

A better topic would be "what should we be calling our enemies?"

[Igor Alexander]

To the list of names others have suggested, I propose one I think is better: “white advocate.”

"White advocate"? Too passive. It's a pussy term.

[Mike Parker]

Those who seek justice for whites deserve a name equal to the moral stature and dignity of their cause.

Are we seeking justice? Justice has meaning only within a people who have a common idea of justice. AmRen's plea for justice is described in that putrid quote Starr loves. Jared Taylor politely asks the Jews to be consistent. It turns out that neither consistency nor politeness plays much of a role in the Jewish idea of justice. Jewish justice means Jewish exceptionalism. The Jews' justice is to be unjust to everyone else.

Friedrich Meinecke says liberalism is a luxury states could afford once they were relatively secure against external threats. Justice is the same. Our goal is to survive and eliminate the Jew, and then we can worry about justice in an all white society.

[Alex Linder]

As long as jews control our media, they're always going to portray us negatively, even if we choose to call ourselves "cute cuddly teddy bears who wouldn't hurt a fly."

I've been making this point for a decade. There seems to be a certain type of mind in which it just won't take. A certain type cannot grasp the concept of a fucked system. A system that by nature, definition, fundamentals will not allow the White option. A system based on denying Whites whatever it is they want. A certain type cannot grasp that there is no adjustment we can make that will work. That our failure is not mechanical but intentional and systemic - it is the outcome the gobstopper machine is designed to produce. A certain mind will forever believe we just need to wear the right clothes and say the right things and all the doors will open to us. I think this is a mind in fear. It's is simply to scary to accept the depth of the System's hatred for our kind - that it is, as we say, and in fact, genocidal.

[Alex Linder]

Are we seeking justice? Justice has meaning only within a people who have a common idea of justice. AmRen's plea for justice is described in that putrid quote Starr loves. Jared Taylor politely asks the Jews to be consistent. It turns out that neither consistency nor politeness plays much of a role in the Jewish idea of justice. Jewish justice means Jewish exceptionalism. The Jews' justice is to be unjust to everyone else.

Friedrich Meinecke says liberalism is a luxury states could afford once they were relatively secure against external threats. Justice is the same. Our goal is to survive and eliminate the Jew, and then we can worry about justice in an all white society.

Taylor is a fraud, and Starr might as well be a troll, for that is the function she serves.

Anything that harps on

fairness
justice
double standards

is inherently conservative - ie, of the loser.

The jews have the power. Do you think they know not what they are doing? Of course they do. Of course they know they are screwing Whites. That's what they want to do. That's what they intend to do. That's what they do. And they're going to stop doing it because...you point it out? Because you ask them?

Basically, Starr's position, the conservative position, is that of the man who fears to see things as they are. The man who prefers make-believe to reality.

The jews hate us. They seek our genocide. They aren't interested in treating us equally. They don't want us saying anything at all. All their behavior reflects this. Only the stupid, cowardly, self-interested conservatives pretend otherwise, and that is why we need to knock them out of the way.

[Gabry Ponte]

The word Aryan also makes WN sound stupid. I have nothing in common with Indo-Iranians. Neither do Nordic Blond Europeans. But that word is always used to describe whites racially on these boards. That is why you see all these Indians and other Middle Eastern people thinking they are related to Germans. They saw Hitler using this word all the time. I don't know how many times Kurds, Persians, Afghans came up to me and proudly announced they were related to the Germans because they are Aryans.

Aryan (IPA: /ˈɛɹiən/) is an English language loanword. As the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states at the beginning of its definition, "[it] is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India."[1]

As an adaptation of the Latin Arianus, referring to Iran, 'Aryan' has "long been in English language use".[2] Its history as a loan word began in the late 1700s, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ā́rya- meaning a speaker of North Indian languages.[2] When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 1800s, the word 'Aryan' came to refer to the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.[3]

Then, in the 1830s, the term "Aryan" was adopted for speakers of Indo-European languages in general, in the unsubstantiated belief that this was an ethnic self-identifier used by the Proto-Indo-Europeans, i.e., the prehistoric speakers of Proto-Indo-European (this belief could not be substantiated since the Proto-Indo-Europeans had not yet adopted writing). This development was in turn instrumental to the development of the concept of an "Aryan race", which by the early 20th century became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians and Iranians). In Nazi Germany the classification of peoples as Aryan or not was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews.[4][n 1] This racialist interpretation engendered both the "Aryanization" programs of Nazi Germany, and – in a late 19th century British-mediated form – to a racialist reinterpretation of Indian society, texts and history. Following the end of World War II and the discovery of the genocide that the self-styled "Aryans" had caused, the word 'Aryan' ceased to have a positive meaning in general Western understanding. In colloquial modern English it is typically used to signify the Nordic racial ideal promoted by the Nazis.

In present-day India, the original ethno-linguistic signifier has been mostly lost, the denotation having been semantically replaced by other, secondary, meanings. In Iran, the original self-identifier lives on in ethnic names like "Alani", "Ir", and in the name of Iran itself.[5] In present-day academia, the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European" have made most uses of the term 'Aryan' obsolete, and 'Aryan' is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term "Indo-Aryan" to represent (speakers of) North Indian languages. Notions of an "Aryan race" only survive in the context of fascist nationalism, in which nationhood is defined by ancestry.

[Alex Linder]

Aryan's a good formal word for the white race. No one cares what a bunch of third-world duskies thinks. Iran, India are irrelevant to our cause, regardless of the term's etymology.

[andy]

I am currently using the term Aryan,for a period I was using the term white Aryan then it dawned on me to pre-fix with white was playing into the enemies hands.That some coloured and residial Aryan blood types on the Indian sub continent use the term for themselves is irrelevent in my opinion,they are not worthy of a valid opinion.
Of course once I considered the absurdity of prefixing Aryan with white other issues arise.For example America / The USA was created by Aryans not some other race,the only authentic Americans are Aryan or if you prefer white.More so than the ancient homelands countries like the US,Canada,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa are creations of the Aryans as a collective,as opposed to Aryans of a particular nationality now also made absurd by modern legally granted nationality.
If I was an American taking a stand I would refer to myself and my comrades as Americans I would let the "others" prefix their self description.

[Gabry Ponte]

Europeans are not Aryans. America was not founded by Aryans. It was founded by Nordic Vikings who crossed the sea. Aryans are Indians, Persians, and Afghans. Stop using this word. It's a farce and embarrassment. It shows that WN are ignorant and don't even know history. You will never be taken serious by using these outdated terms with false information.


The Aryan race is a concept historically influential in European culture in the period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It derives from the idea that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the larger Caucasian race. [1]

Origin of the term

The term Aryan originates with the Indo-Iranian self-designation arya, attested in the ancient texts of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, the Rigveda and the Avesta.

In the 18th century, the most ancient known Indo-European languages were those of the Indo-Iranians' ancestors. The word Aryan was adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian people, but also to native Indo-European speakers as a whole, including the Albanians, Armenians, Greeks, Latins, and Germans. It was soon recognised that Balts, Celts, and Slavs also belonged to the same group. It was argued that all of these languages originated from a common root — now known as Proto-Indo-European — spoken by an ancient people who must have been the original ancestors of the European, Iranian, and Indo-Aryan peoples. The ethnic group composed of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their modern descendants was termed the Aryans.


This usage was common in the late 19th and early 20th century. An example of an influential best-selling book that reflects this usage is the 1920 book The Outline of History by H. G. Wells.[3] In it he wrote of the accomplishments of the Aryan people, stating how they "learned methods of civilization" while "Sargon II and Sardanapalus were ruling in Assyria and fighting with Babylonia and Syria and Egypt". As such, Wells suggested that the Aryans had eventually "subjugated the whole ancient world, Semitic, Aegean and Egyptian alike".[4] In the 1944 edition of Rand McNally’s World Atlas, the Aryan race is depicted as being one of the ten major racial groupings of mankind. [5] The science fiction author Poul Anderson (1926-2001), an anti-racist Libertarian of Scandinavian ancestry, in his many novels, novellas, and short stories, consistently used the term Aryan as a synonym for Indo-Europeans. He spoke of the Aryan bird of prey which impelled those of the Aryan race to take the lead in developing interstellar travel, colonize habitable planets in other planetary systems and become leading business entrepreneurs on the newly colonized planets. [6]

The use of 'Aryan' as a synonym for 'Indo-European' or to a lesser extent for 'Indo-Iranian', is regarded today by many as obsolete and politically incorrect, but may still occasionally appear in material based on older scholarship, or written by persons accustomed to older usage, such as in a 1989 article in Scientific American by Colin Renfrew in which he uses the word 'Aryan' in its traditional meaning as a synonym for 'Indo-European'. [7]


19th century physical anthropology

In 19th century physical anthropology, represented by some as being scientific racism, the "Aryan race" was considered a subgroup of the Caucasian (or Europid) race, essentially corresponding to the speakers of Indo-European languages native to Europe, Persia and Northern India.

The original 19th century and early 20th century use of the term Aryan referred to "the early speakers of Proto-Indo European and their descendents".[8][9] Max Müller is often identified as the first writer to speak of an Aryan "race" in English. In his Lectures on the Science of Language in 1861[10] he referred to Aryans as a "race of people". At the time, the term race had the meaning of "a group of tribes or peoples, an ethnic group".[11]

When Müller's statement was interpreted to imply a biologically distinct sub-group of humanity, he soon clarified that he simply meant a line of descent, insisting that it was very dangerous to mix linguistics and anthropology. "The Science of Language and the Science of Man cannot be kept too much asunder…I must repeat what I have said many times before, it would be wrong to speak of Aryan blood as of dolichocephalic grammar".[12] He restated his opposition to this method in 1888 in his essay Biographies of words and the home of the Aryas.[10]

Müller was responding to the development of racial anthropology, and the influence of the work of Arthur de Gobineau who argued that the Indo-Europeans represented a superior branch of humanity. A number of later writers, such as the French anthropologist Vacher de Lapouge in his book L'Aryen, argued that this superior branch could be identified biologically by using the cephalic index (a measure of head shape) and other indicators. He argued that the long-headed "dolichocephalic-blond" Europeans, characteristically found in northern Europe, were natural leaders, destined to rule over more "brachiocephalic" (short headed) peoples.[13].

The division of the Caucasian race into Aryans, Semnites and Hamites is in origin linguistic, not based on physical anthropology, the division in physical anthropology being that into Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean. However, the linguistic classification of "Aryan" became closely associated, and conflated, with the classification of "Nordic".

This claim became increasingly important during the nineteenth century. In the mid 19th century, it was commonly believed that the Aryans originated in the southwestern steppes of present-day Russia. However, by the late 19th century the steppe theory of Aryan origins was challenged by the view that the Aryans originated in ancient Germany or Scandinavia, or at least that in those countries the original Aryan ethnicity had been preserved. The German origin of the Aryans was especially promoted by the archaeologist Gustaf Kossinna, who claimed that the Proto-Indo-European peoples were identical to the Corded Ware culture of Neolithic Germany. This idea was widely circulated in both intellectual and popular culture by the early twentieth century,[14] and is reflected in the concept of "Corded-Nordics" in Carleton S. Coon's 1939 The Races of Europe.

Other anthropologists contested such claims. In Germany, Rudolf Virchow launched a study of craniometry, which prompted him to denounce "Nordic mysticism" in the 1885 Anthropology Congress in Karlsruhe, while Josef Kollmann , a collaborator of Virchow, stated in the same congress that the people of Europe, be they English, German, French, and Spaniard belonged to a "mixture of various races," furthermore declaring that the "results of craniology" led to "struggle against any theory concerning the superiority of this or that European race" on others.[10]

Virchow's contribution to the debate sparked a controversy. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a strong supporter of the theory of a superior Aryan race, attacked Josef Kollmann arguments in detail. While the "Aryan race" theory remained popular, in particular in Germany, some authors defended Virchow's perspective, in particular Otto Schrader, Rudolph von Jhering and the ethnologist Robert Hartmann (1831-1893), who proposed to ban the notion of "Aryan" from anthropology.[10]


British Raj


In India, under the British Empire, the British rulers also used the idea of a distinct Aryan race in order to ally British power with the Indian caste system. It was widely claimed that the Aryans were white people who had invaded India in ancient times,[15] subordinating the darker skinned native Dravidian peoples, who were pushed to the south. Thus the foundation of Hinduism was ascribed to northern invaders who had established themselves as the dominant castes, and who were supposed to have created the sophisticated Vedic texts. Much of these theories were simply conjecture fueled by European imperialism. This styling of an Aryan invasion by British colonial fantasies of racial supremacy lies at the origin of the fact that all discussion of historical Indo-Aryan migrations or Aryan and Dravidian races remains highly controversial in India to this day, and does continue to affect political and religious debate. Some Dravidians, and supporters of the Dalit movement, most commonly Tamils, claim that the worship of Shiva is a distinct Dravidian religion going back to the Indus Civilization,[16] to be distinguished from Brahminical "Aryan" Hinduism. In contrast, the Indian nationalist Hindutva movement argues that no Aryan invasion or migration ever occurred, asserting that Vedic beliefs emerged from the Indus Valley Civilisation,[17] which pre-dated the supposed advent of the Indo-Aryans in India, and is identified as a likely candidate for a Proto-Dravidian culture.

Some Indians were also influenced by the debate about the Aryan race. The Indian nationalist V. D. Savarkar believed in the theory that an "Aryan race" migrated to India,[18] but he didn't find much value in a racialized interpretation of the "Aryan race".[19] Some Indian nationalists supported the British version of the theory because it gave them the prestige of common descent with the ruling British class.[


Occultism

These debates were addressed within the Theosophical movement founded by Helena Blavatsky and Henry Olcott at the end of the nineteenth century. This philosophy took inspiration from Indian culture, in this case, perhaps, from the Hindu reform movement the Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayananda.

Blavatsky argued that humanity had descended from a series of "Root Races", naming the fifth root race (out of seven) the Aryan Race. She thought that the Aryans originally came from Atlantis and described the Aryan races with the following words:

"The Aryan races, for instance, now varying from dark brown, almost black, red-brown-yellow, down to the whitest creamy colour, are yet all of one and the same stock -- the Fifth Root-Race -- and spring from one single progenitor, (...) who is said to have lived over 18,000,000 years ago, and also 850,000 years ago -- at the time of the sinking of the last remnants of the great continent of Atlantis."[21]

Blavatsky used "Root Race" as a technical term to describe human evolution over the large time periods in her cosmology. However, she also claimed that there were modern non-Aryan peoples who were inferior to Aryans. She regularly contrasts "Aryan" with "Semitic" culture, to the detriment of the latter, asserting that Semitic peoples are an offshoot of Aryans who have become "degenerate in spirituality and perfected in materiality."[22] She also states that some peoples are "semi-animal creatures". These latter include "the Tasmanians, a portion of the Australians and a mountain tribe in China." There are also "considerable numbers of the mixed Lemuro-Atlantean peoples produced by various crossings with such semi-human stocks -- e.g., the wild men of Borneo, the Veddhas of Ceylon, classed by Prof. Flower among Aryans (!), most of the remaining Australians, Bushmen, Negritos, Andaman Islanders, etc."[23]

Despite this, Blavatsky's admirers claim that her thinking was not connected to fascist or racialist ideas, asserting that she believed in a Universal Brotherhood of humanity and wrote that "all men have spiritually and physically the same origin" and that "mankind is essentially of one and the same essence".[24] On the other hand, in The Secret Doctrine, Blavatsky states: "Verily mankind is 'of one blood,' but not of the same essence."

Blavatsky connects physical race with spiritual attributes constantly throughout her works:

"Esoteric history teaches that idols and their worship died out with the Fourth Race, until the survivors of the hybrid races of the latter (Chinamen, African Negroes, &c.) gradually brought the worship back. The Vedas countenance no idols; all the modern Hindu writings do".[25]

The intellectual difference between the Aryan and other civilized nations and such savages as the South Sea Islanders, is inexplicable on any other grounds. No amount of culture, nor generations of training amid civilization, could raise such human specimens as the Bushmen, the Veddhas of Ceylon, and some African tribes, to the same intellectual level as the Aryans, the Semites, and the Turanians so called. The 'sacred spark' is missing in them and it is they who are the only inferior races on the globe, now happily -- owing to the wise adjustment of nature which ever works in that direction -- fast dying out. Verily mankind is 'of one blood,' but not of the same essence. We are the hot-house, artificially quickened plants in nature, having in us a spark, which in them is latent".[26]
According to Blavatsky, "the MONADS of the lowest specimens of humanity (the "narrow-brained" savage South-Sea Islander, the African, the Australian) had no Karma to work out when first born as men, as their more favoured brethren in intelligence had".[27]

She also prophecies of the destruction of the racial "failures of nature" as the future "higher race" ascends:

"Thus will mankind, race after race, perform its appointed cycle-pilgrimage. Climates will, and have already begun, to change, each tropical year after the other dropping one sub-race, but only to beget another higher race on the ascending cycle; while a series of other less favoured groups -- the failures of nature -- will, like some individual men, vanish from the human family without even leaving a trace behind".[28]
It is interesting to note that the second subrace of the Fifth or Aryan root race, the Arabian, is regarded by Theosophists as one of the Aryan subraces. It is believed by Theosophists that the Arabians, although asserted in traditional Theosophy to be of Aryan (i.e., Indo-European) ancestry, adopted the Semitic language of the people around them who had migrated earlier from Atlantis (the fifth or (original) Semite subrace of the Atlantean root race). Theosophists assert that the Jews originated as an offshoot of the Arabian subrace in what is now Yemen about 30,000 BC. They migrated first to Somalia and then later to Egypt where they lived until the time of Moses. Thus, according to the teachings of Theosophy, the Jews are part of the Aryan race.



Ariosophy

Guido von List (and his followers such as Lanz von Liebenfels) later took up some of Blavatsky's ideas, mixing her ideology with nationalistic and fascist ideas; this system of thought became known as Ariosophy. It was believed in Ariosophy that the Teutonics were superior to all other peoples because according to Theosophy the Teutonics or Nordics were the most recent subrace of the Aryan root race to have evolved. [30] Such views also fed into the development of Nazi ideology. Theosophical publications such as The Aryan Path were strongly opposed to the Nazi usage, attacking racialism.

The theory of the Northern origins of the Aryans was particularly influential in Germany. It was widely believed that the "Vedic Aryans" were ethnically identical to the Goths, Vandals and other ancient Germanic peoples of the Völkerwanderung. This idea was often intertwined with anti-Semitic ideas. The distinctions between the "Aryan" and "Semitic" peoples were based on the aforementioned linguistic and ethnic history. Semitic peoples came to be seen as a foreign presence within Aryan societies, and the Semitic peoples were often pointed to as the cause of conversion and destruction of social order and values leading to culture and civilization's downfall by proto-Nazi and Nazi theorists such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Alfred Rosenberg.

According to the adherents to Ariosophy, the Aryan was a "master race" that built a civilization that dominated the world from Atlantis about ten thousand years ago. This alleged civilization declined when other parts of the world were colonized after the 8,000 BC destruction of Atlantis because the inferior races mixed with the Aryans but it left traces of their civilization in Tibet (via Buddhism), and even in Central America, South America, and Ancient Egypt. (The date of 8,000 BC for the destruction of Atlantis in Ariosophy is 2,000 years later than the date of 10,000 BC given for this event in Theosophy.) These theories affected the more esotericist strand of Nazism.

A complete, highly speculative theory of Aryan and anti-Semitic history can be found in Alfred Rosenberg's major work, The Myth of the Twentieth Century. Rosenberg's well researched account of ancient history melded with his racial speculations proved to be very effective in spreading racialism among German intellectuals in the early 20th century, especially after the first World War.

These and other ideas evolved into the Nazi use of the term "Aryan race" to refer to what they saw as being a master race of people of northern European descent. They worked to maintain the purity of this race through eugenics programs (including anti-miscegenation legislation, compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill and the mentally deficient, the execution of the institutionalized mentally ill as part of a euthanasia program).

Heinrich Himmler (the Reichsfuhrer of the SS), the person ordered by Adolf Hitler to implement the final solution (Holocaust), told his personal masseur Felix Kersten that he always carried with him a copy of the ancient Aryan scripture, the Bhagavad Gita because it relieved him of guilt about what he was doing — he felt that like the warrior Arjuna, he was simply doing his duty without attachment to his actions.[31]

Himmler was also interested in Buddhism and his institute Ahnenerbe sought to mix some traditions from Hinduism and Buddhism.[32] Himmler sent a 1939 German expedition to Tibet as part of his research into Aryan origins.

Since the military defeat of Nazi Germany by the Allies in 1945, some neo-Nazis have expanded their concept of the Aryan race, moving from the Nazi concept that the purest Aryans were the Teutonics or Nordics of Northern Europe to the idea that the true Aryans are everyone descended from the Western or European branch of the Indo-European peoples.[citation needed] This is sometimes referred to as pan-Aryanism.[citation needed] According to Nicholas Goodrick-Clark, many neo-Nazis want to establish an autocratic state to be called the Western Imperium.[33] This proposed state would be led by a Führer-like figure, and would include all areas inhabited by the Aryan race (defined as non-Jews of European ancestry), i.e. Europe (includes all of Russia), Anglo-America, South Africa (may include Rhodesia or Zimbabwe) with its white minority, Australia, New Zealand, and southern South America (especially Chile, Argentina, southern Brazil and Uruguay.) Only those of the Aryan race would be full citizens of the state. This concept is based on the 1947 book Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics by Francis Parker Yockey.[34]


Tempelhofgesellschaft
A neo-Nazi esoteric Nazi Gnostic sect headquartered in Vienna, Austria called the Tempelhofgesellschaft, founded in the early 1990s, teaches a what it calls a form of Marcionism. They distribute pamphlets claiming that the Aryan race originally came to Atlantis from the star Aldebaran (this information is supposedly based on "ancient Sumerian manuscripts").



Hindu nationalism

Main article: Indigenous Aryans

Discussion of historical Indo-Aryan migrations or Aryan and Dravidian races has come to be highly controversial Indian political discourse in the 1990s to 2000s.

The Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) movement argues that no Aryan invasion or migration ever occurred, asserting that Vedic beliefs emerged from the Indus Valley Civilisation,[35] which pre-dated the supposed advent of the Indo-Aryans in India, and is identified as a likely candidate for a Proto-Dravidian culture.

Some Dravidians, and supporters of the Dalit movement, most commonly Tamils, claim that the worship of Shiva is a distinct Dravidian religion going back to the Indus Civilization,[36] to be distinguished from Brahminical "Aryan" Hinduism.

[Alex Linder]

Nah, I think I'll keep using it. The origins don't matter. What matters is the White race needs a formal name, and Aryan is a good one.

[cillian]

Europeans are not Aryans. America was not founded by Aryans. It was founded by Nordic Vikings who crossed the sea. Aryans are Indians, Persians, and Afghans. Stop using this word. It's a farce and embarrassment. It shows that WN are ignorant and don't even know history. You will never be taken serious by using these outdated terms with false information.

America was founded by British, who are mostly Celtic, Danish and German (Anglo Saxons), with only a bit of Scandinavian thrown in as Normans. Viking means 'Ones who come from the fjord', a reference to Scandinavian pirates. A pirate is not an ethnicity, more like a type of outlaw. Most Scandinavians were not Vikings just as most British were not pirates in the 'arr matey' sense of the word.

[Gabry Ponte]

Actually it is common knowledge that the Vikings did find North America first. Before Colombus.

[diabloblanco92]

It's not just that you're patting yourself on the back when you use praise-adjectives to describe yourself -- objective, realist, etc -- it's that you're acting as though you're an official instead of a side. Whites need to stand up for Whites. They don't need to act like noblesse oblige while pleading for equality - a stance perfectly embodied in P.T. Taylor's defensive pose while being punked out by the ARA fags. Being adult and mature doesn't win fights. Punches or shots win fights. We are White. We have to protect our own. Niggers and mexcrement and ashkescuzzies don't care about equality or fairness or any other of these hobgoblins making whites neurotic. They just want more cake. Just admit it's a fight and...fight.


Yes, they want our land, they want our neighborhoods, they want our jobs, our nations and in the end our genetics, and they want to humiliate and degrade us in the most painful way possible while doing it

[diabloblanco92]

Nah, I think I'll keep using it. The origins don't matter. What matters is the White race needs a formal name, and Aryan is a good one.


It sounds powerful and romantic....just what we need to appeal to our women and young people

Yes its not perfect as many feel it appplies only to Nordics/Germanics, but its not very hard to establish its applicability to all IE Whites or their phenotypic equivalent, though not all good WNs agree on its exact meaning

For these purposes its a term of art rather than a precise scientific definition, but thats ok, as long as we admit it

[cillian]

Actually it is common knowledge that the Vikings did find North America first. Before Colombus.

Yeah, but they also left their settlements in Canada and returned to Greenland, and there was a good 700 years between that and the puritan settlements in New England, which went on to become The USA.

[Tulpar]

Europeans are not Aryans. America was not founded by Aryans. It was founded by Nordic Vikings who crossed the sea. Aryans are Indians, Persians, and Afghans. Stop using this word. It's a farce and embarrassment. It shows that WN are ignorant and don't even know history.

You don't know history nor how it works when Whites and their culture gets assimilated and replaced and by the lower elements (aka mutts).

The mutts from India are nothing to being close to the original Aryans, the brahmins at best would be seen as being the remnants of the Aryan civilization that crumbled under the weight of it's race mixing until it's utter destruction.

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/9f/88/5286eb6709a0030ee7170110.L.jpg
"Men are generally more careful of the breed of their dogs and horses than of their children." - William Penn, Fruits of Solitude

"Aryan" was the perfect word back then and it is the perfect word now, as it does it's job at making a needed contrast between the higher unmixed caucasoids from the rest of the lower species,

[Gabry Ponte]

You don't know history nor how it works when Whites and their culture gets assimilated and replaced and by the lower elements (aka mutts).

The mutts from India are nothing to being close to the original Aryans, the brahmins at best would be seen as being the remnants of the Aryan civilization that crumbled under the weight of it's race mixing until it's utter destruction.

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/9f/88/5286eb6709a0030ee7170110.L.jpg
"Men are generally more careful of the breed of their dogs and horses than of their children." - William Penn, Fruits of Solitude

"Aryan" was the perfect word back then and it is the perfect word now, as it does it's job at making a needed contrast between the higher unmixed caucasoids from the rest of the lower species,


Aryans have nothing to do with the people living in Europe. Using the word just means you are playing in fantasyland. Just like most WN. A serious organization would drop the freak show and fake science. That is why Americans will never get anywhere. Aryans belong in the Hindu Kush and have more in common with gypsys then Germans. If you want quality membership learn to drop these sorts of references. If you want to attract the freak show white power circus then keep using words like aryan and thinking everybody is white when they are not. Europe is for Europeans...Period!