# Why do White Supremacists use the word Aryan?



## Kane (Jan 22, 2005)

http://aryan-nations.org/

Not only are White Supremacists idiots but they are damn rude. I found this site one day and I decided to peak in not knowing that it was a white supremacists (well I had a feeling it was). When I decided to debate with these guys on the forum they have (http://aryan-nations.org/forum/), about the true definition of Aryan man they were rude. Yet they kept coming back to the statement that Aryan means "the perfect white man" when in actuality most Aryans in the world are not white at all. People from India and Iran make up the majority population of the Aryans in the world, are not usually considered "white". 

I even gave them Aryan definition dictionary.com and Word IQ encyclopedia;

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Aryan

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Aryan

They still didn't listen. They instead just deleted my posts, typical Nazis.

I kept debating with them this time about the definition of "white race". Since it is a White Supremacists Organization I asked why they are against Jews and Slavic people. I mean most Jews and Slavish are white so shouldn't they be welcomed in the group as well? They yet further deleted my posts and paid no attention anymore.

Are these White Supremacists on crack or are all White Supremacists just PLAIN IDIOTS! No offense to any white people, this is directed to White Supremacists not white people.

Thoughts?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 22, 2005)

I vote "Idiots".  You can't argue with them, their minds (what there is of them) are made up.  Don't confuse them with facts.


----------



## GAB (Jan 22, 2005)

Hi,

The Aryan Brotherhood, or rather the AB's. Are one rough and ruthless group.

Part of the white supremacist groups that are really tied together.

I would not push their buttons to much...

Best go pick on someone else.

Regards, Gary


----------



## Baytor (Jan 22, 2005)

I think that they associate "Aryan" with germanic and nordic heritage.  They often use nordic runes as symbols nowdays.  The jerks keep taking cool symbols and twisting them. 
The anti defamation leauge has a pretty good list of various hate groups if anyone wants to do research on them.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America

The Southern Poverty Law Center also tracks hate groups in America.


----------



## Bester (Jan 23, 2005)

So, we're going to ban Germany now too?
  Or Runes? Man that'll piss off the pagans.
 I pause to await the arrival of one of our learned experts in bannable and hated symbols to arrive and spill his knowledge unto us. :barf:


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 23, 2005)

Well for what it's worth, I live in a Nordic country, and not everyone here is pale skinned, blonde haired and blue eyed.

I for one am black haired, brown eyed, and with a slightly latin looking complection... (pigmentation is funny like that)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 23, 2005)

Sigh. Please show us where anybody called for banning anything, or even so much as suggested banning.

Please explain why it's terribly unreasonable to check up, from time to time, on the various nut groups--including the Nazis. 

These symbols, by the way, a) aren't that cool; b) are--like all such symbols--really just more-or-less necessary toys.


----------



## TonyM. (Jan 23, 2005)

They're idiots that are too mocus to realize their ancesters came from india.


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 23, 2005)

-Not quite understanding the last post, could you explain what you wrote? Just curious. And if we think about the typical Nazis, remember the swastika symbol they used, or are still using in some cases? That was a symbol of, I think some old sun god, or perhaps something in Egyptian mythology. In other words, something taken from somewhere else, and used/changed to fit the nefarious schemes/lifestyles. Effin' losers. I hate racist people.


A---)


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 23, 2005)

you can't compromise with those people.  by going to their forums and challenging their word usage, you might as well just go to their house and piss in their living room.  these of all people are not one's known to compromise and come to terms with.


----------



## bignick (Jan 23, 2005)

The swastika is a Buhddist symbol and it can still be seen in places like the taekwondo form Ilyeo, where the shape of the pattern forms a swastika...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 23, 2005)

*Why do White Supremacists use the word Aryan? *

Well, umm, lemme think... wait don't tell me... umm...  :idea: They're arseholes! 

As a rule I don't associate freely with these guys. A couple of my friends "converted" and I don't hang out with them anymore. Mainly because they moved into the realm of "dangerous individuals". These guys are so screwed up that if even talking positively about any race except white they'll "mark-you" and find a reason for beating the crap out of you. 
They're so screwed up and so concieted. It's sad. IQ points drop when they start shaving their heads and wear engineering boots.  No better than the Klan all they actually do is show the worse side of caucasians/whites. Ah, but wait... look at THIS definition ...  


> Caucasians 1. Anthropology. Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to *brown *skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. No longer in scientific use. See Usage Note at race1.
> 2. Of or relating to the Caucasus region or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
> 3. Of or relating to a group of three language families spoken in the region of the Caucasus mountains, including Chechen, Abkhaz, and the Kartvelian languages.


I'm of Irish/Norwegian descent... that's about as white as you can get in a lot of places. But I still dont' see myself as genetically, racially, intelliectually, superior than someone from Kenya, Cambodia, Israel, or anywhere else for that matter. It's sooo stupid to have that mentality that it's unreal. Sigh.

It's all  :bs:


----------



## Kane (Jan 23, 2005)

Many believe that the swastika was first used by Vedic people back in the Aryan invasion. It was also used a lot by Hindus but it seems to have appeared in many cultures including in Buddhism as Bignick said.

I bet those White Supremacists think that it is some symbol made by Germanic Aryans. They really need to read a history book.


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 23, 2005)

-I wonder who brought the symbol into play during the rise of the Nazi party? Was it Hitler? I seem to recall him having an obsession with mythical/mystical things...

A---)


----------



## bignick (Jan 23, 2005)

The Nazi swastika is a mirror image of the Buhhdist symbol I believe.  



> Swastika
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> The swastika is an ancient symbol.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bester (Jan 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sigh. Please show us where anybody called for banning anything, or even so much as suggested banning.


 You.
 Repeatedly.
 In Various Threads.



> Please explain why it's terribly unreasonable to check up, from time to time, on the various nut groups--including the Nazis.


 Why? That was not my argument.



> These symbols, by the way, a) aren't that cool; b) are--like all such symbols--really just more-or-less necessary toys.


 These symbols are often:
 A) Misused religious symbols
 B) Misused nationalistic symbols
 C) Mean something other than what various hate groups think.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 24, 2005)

No actual examples, eh? Just hallucinations?

Sorry, but without reiterating an extended previous discussion, it isn't accurate to believe that words mean whatever we wish them to mean. They have histories; they have material existences in actual cultures. Regrettably, some words and images have meanings that we cannot erase or ignore.

Wagner's music, for example, carries a certain charge of Nazism and anti-semitism--not simply because good old Adolf said it did, but because Wagner's own statements and history and reception said it did, and does.

To forget this genuinely is to erase the reality of history and of culture--which we pointy-head scholarly types avoid at all costs. 

One repeats: you have no examples of my asking for bans on anything--though, just today, there is an example of my telling another poster, "enough with the anti-Semitic remarks."


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> No actual examples, eh? Just hallucinations?
> 
> Sorry, but without reiterating an extended previous discussion, it isn't accurate to believe that words mean whatever we wish them to mean. They have histories; they have material existences in actual cultures. Regrettably, some words and images have meanings that we cannot erase or ignore.
> 
> ...


And yet people listen to Wagner on a regular basis (or so I'm told - he's a bit heavy-handed for me) because of the beauty of his music and many have no idea what his political agenda was. I suppose *one* could make the same argument for continued use of symbols which some people connect with evil. Does*one* rule out listening to beautiful music, reading tracts poisonous to many minds at one time, or having items with symbols of hate in their lives? 

I did find the thread and pertinent posts to which you refer above.  Too bad that people need to resort to hurling epithets at a perceived enemy.  Many thanks to you, HHJH, Bester, and the others who spoke up and willingly stepped into the fray. :asian:


----------



## Bester (Jan 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> No actual examples, eh? Just hallucinations?


 Sigh.
 Any thread revolving around religious symbols, racial relations, or related where you added your opinion to the mix will readily show what I am saying.
 Your continued endorsement of the elimination of confederate history, your continued misbelief there is no bias against white-males in hiring practices (despite the 1st hand experiences of many here), your ignorance of 3,000 years history over 1 symbol misused by a 1 balled lunatic, and so on, and so on.  Your own pompous opinionated words in a dozen plus threads here damn you sir.  I simply do not have time to dig, quote, cross reference and otherwise play your little games. Some of us, have lives outside of the Internet.



> Sorry, but without reiterating an extended previous discussion, it isn't accurate to believe that words mean whatever we wish them to mean. They have histories; they have material existences in actual cultures. Regrettably, some words and images have meanings that we cannot erase or ignore.


 Don't ignore.  Repair.  You argued in another thread that 1 flag will always mean racism, while another with a longer history of racism doesn't. You choose what to believe and not believe there.  Others, some of those much more experienced than you, disagree.  Just because they haven't been published in the "New England Journal of Official History", with a DNA drip on file does not mean they are any less right, than you or I.



> Wagner's music, for example, carries a certain charge of Nazism and anti-semitism--not simply because good old Adolf said it did, but because Wagner's own statements and history and reception said it did, and does.


 So, should it be banned, or can we listen to it and enjoy it for what it is, music?  I often enjoy certain Soviet Army marches, because they have a pleasing sound to me.  Doesn't mean I'm going to go tatoo a bird splat on my head and scream for Glastnost.



> To forget this genuinely is to erase the reality of history and of culture--which we pointy-head scholarly types avoid at all costs.


 Neither I nor anyone else here to my knowledge has ever said "FORGET".  For all the gods sake man, 12 Million+ dead at the Nazis hands, 20+ million at Stalins hands, and the list goes on.  I have friends who lost family, 1 has the scars from those damninable camps still.  I never want that memory forgotten, lest we fall too easily into that evil again.



> One repeats: you have no examples of my asking for bans on anything--though, just today, there is an example of my telling another poster, "enough with the anti-Semitic remarks."


 I saw that, and agree with you there.
 I do however disagree.  You did ask for bans of symbols. Maybe not directly, but by your aproval of those who would tear down monuments, blast figures off mountains, or otherwise bury half of the past, to prop up the history of the victor. You once declared the swastika uncleansable, that it should be abandoned.  That the blood of a decade of hell should also obliterate 3 millenia of positive meaning.  

 A symbol can mean many things to many people. You have no control over what it means individually, and to some symbols once tainted, can not ever be washed clear of the blood spilt. 

 There is a difference between the flag the klan waves, and the flag that flys over our capital.
 The capital flag is bigger.  
 They are otherwise identical in appearence, yet, they mean different things.

 "Not-Da-One", You may wish to check this link for that argument though.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/klan-flag.html

 Regarding the dumbasses originally posted about, it's really simple.
 They think that if they say it often enough, it will be true.
 That somehow, they can make "Aryan" = blond hair, blue eyed nazi wetdreams, rather than what it real means.  I have yet to meet anyone who truely believes their crap that has any real intelegence. Too often, they are simply stupid. The type that will keep touching the stove, and not quite understand "Hot".


----------



## Blind (Jan 25, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> I have yet to meet anyone who truely believes their crap that has any real intelegence. Too often, they are simply stupid. The type that will keep touching the stove, and not quite understand "Hot".


As far as things go in the states on this issue I am not really qualified to comment I havn't spent enough time there, but in general the above would appear to be very true in regard to people who believe that their skin colour somehow makes them better.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

There are some things, Bester, that are beyond individual repair--because their histories and meanings were not constructed by individuals.

Again, one sees that you have no evidence of my calling for banning anything--you have conjecture, thoughts about what you think somebody else thinks. And you have claims that what other people write makes them, "fellow travellers," of those who wish to expunge some of our history's uglier remnants. Sorry, quite the contrary. Should we start claiming that because you discuss Nazis, you are one? Same logic.

As for the claims about, "your own pompous words," etc. etc, yada yada, coupled with the attempt to assert that as somebody with real stuff to do, you Just Have Better Fish To Fry, well, fry away. However, it is noteworthy that anonymous posters...oh, never mind.

Skip the personal nonsense, since you wouldn't know me from Adam. Just argue the ideas; provide support for your claims. Otherwise, it looks like you just plain can't.

What remains interesting about this thread isn't its notes about the out-and-out Aryan Brotherhood loons. It's the suggstions about the ways that some not-all-that-different ideas and fantasies about histories are tangled up with all of our--repeat repeat OUR--ideas and ways of living.

For example, "Lord of the Rings," (much as one loves the books and movies) has always had, if you but look, some fairly nasty and anti-democratic ideas about races and destinies.


----------



## Bester (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry "Not-Da-Wan", A read through of the majority of your posts on those subjects will illustrate my points easily. I do not need to quote, reference, etc.  Do a search here in The Study, for posts made by "rmcrobertson", and read the ones dealing with those topics I referred to. It will be clear.  Say what you wish, your own bigotry and prejudices shine clearly. 

As to my identity, maybe I simply don't wish to fail your class this year Doc. LOL!!!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 26, 2005)

Ah. So you can't support your ideas.


----------



## redfang (Jan 28, 2005)

It was stated that the majority of Aryan people living in the world today are in India and Iran.  This is true, but they originally came via Europe.  Going way back to roughly 2000BC, there was what we now call the Indo-Aryan invasion.  This was waves, spread out over a few hundred years as far as we can tell, of warlike, uncivilized peoples coming out of europe invading into parts of India mostly.  They'd come into an area, dig in start intermarrying and such.  The area was home to civilizations that were already fairly old, but the Indo-Aryans were more aggresive and had better weapons.  In a short period of time they were politically powerful.  With the intermarriages, the Indo Aryans lost some of their pale european features, but were still much lighter than the native peoples.  Indian class system was starting up around here, and early linguistic examples of racism built into language first appeared.  i.e. terms like 'dark = evil, and light being associated with good.


----------



## RRouuselot (Jan 28, 2005)

I think they were getting the idea from this:

*aryan* One of the three As of metahistory,         the other two being Aquarius and Atlantis. 

           The word aryan is a cue charged with momentous implications, especially         when capitalized. In _Arktos_ (Basic         Reading) Jocelyn Godwin explains how the term Aryan was introduced around 1820 by speculative historians who were pondering the origin of the diversity of human races. Some Romantic philosophers of the time, such as Friedrich von Schlegel [1767 * 1845] were deeply affected by Sanskrit religious texts that were just then coming to be read in the West, and they saw in the ancient Indian culture a kind of apex of humanity. Schlegel theorized that the ancient Hindus belonged to a root-race originally united with the Nordic or Scandinavian peoples. He called this Indian-Nordic mix Aryan. (Godwin, 38ff) Quite soon other myth-making historians took up the clue. With a few decades Aryan came to indicate a master race that had existed in primordial times and may have established a lost civilization in the region of the North Pole. 

           The belief in a master race was promoted by Gobineaus tract _On         the Inequality of Human Races_, published in 1853. The author, a French diplomat, endorsed the belief in the natural superiority of the White Man and warned that the purity of the bloodline had been tainted by centuries of mixed marriage. This belief later became a central factor in Nazi political theory. It remains to this day a cherished and violently defended principle of self-styled Aryan brotherhoods such as the Aryan Nations of Utah in the USA. 

 In parallel with the emergence of Nazi racial ideology, another concept of Aryan was developing. In Theosophy, the spiritual movement founded by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky in 1875, Aryan was the name given to a lineage of super-evolved human beings who were believed to oversee and guide the human race. Theosophists argued that the word derives from the Sanskrit _arya_, noble, advanced. The Aryan Masters of Blavatsky were the Mahatmas, great spirits who represent the evolutional avant-garde of the human species. Collectively, they are called the Great White Brotherhood. In the teachings of theosophy, these benevolent spiritual guides are selflessly dedicated to serve humanity, quite unlike Nazis megalomaniacs intent upon imposing upon the world the ideology of a Master Race. Rarely has a term been charged with such diametrically conflicting beliefs as Aryan.

 -------------------------------

   Here is how stupid some people areHitler was trying to promote Aryans as a master race to eventually take over the world..according to him Aryans have blue eyes and blond hairHitler had neither.


----------



## Kane (Jan 29, 2005)

redfang said:
			
		

> It was stated that the majority of Aryan people living in the world today are in India and Iran. This is true, but they originally came via Europe. Going way back to roughly 2000BC, there was what we now call the Indo-Aryan invasion. This was waves, spread out over a few hundred years as far as we can tell, of warlike, uncivilized peoples coming out of europe invading into parts of India mostly. They'd come into an area, dig in start intermarrying and such. The area was home to civilizations that were already fairly old, but the Indo-Aryans were more aggresive and had better weapons. In a short period of time they were politically powerful. With the intermarriages, the Indo Aryans lost some of their pale european features, but were still much lighter than the native peoples. Indian class system was starting up around here, and early linguistic examples of racism built into language first appeared. i.e. terms like 'dark = evil, and light being associated with good.


 
Actually I have read that Aryans originated either from Persia (Iran) or a little more Northern Asia. So the first Aryans did not come from Europe.

Another irony about Nazis version of the perfect Aryan is that they thought that the ideal Nazi was blonde haired and blue eyes. When in fact the ideal Aryan (I am basing this off the first Aryans) have black hair and any eyes. They did have lighter skin than let's say than many Indians but it wasn't as pale as A person of Nordic roots.

While debating with the so call Aryan Nations, the Nazi I was debating with said that India had failed with their caste system and that is why they are all darker. This however is also a contradiction to whether on he is Aryan. For one it is believed that Aryans that migrated to Europe mixed with the natives "white" people of the region thus acquiring blonde hair and blue eyes. 

Furthermore there is even a possibility that European Aryans actually mixed with Neanderthals, because some Anthropologists argue that Neanderthals may have actually been living even up to 4,000 years ago. So basically that would mean European Aryans are much further away than Aryans from let's say, India. Since the original Aryans were pure Homo Sapiens, which would mean the Aryans of Europe would be MUCH further than any other race to Aryan.

The more you think about it, White Supremacists that use "Aryan" are even more dumber than any other Anti-Semitic group.


----------



## Baytor (Jan 29, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> The more you think about it, White Supremacists that use "Aryan" are even more dumber than any other Anti-Semitic group.


No.  They are all equally foolish.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 29, 2005)

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> I think they were getting the idea from this:
> 
> *aryan* One of the three As of metahistory, the other two being Aquarius and Atlantis.
> 
> ...


Interesting.  What would Hitler have made of me?  I have blue eyes and blonde hair...  

Thank you for an informative post.


----------

