Sunday, January 07, 2007

Welcome All Aryans (and white people also).

I’ve just looked at my stats out of vague curiosity and seen that a couple of recent visitors have been referred from this URL: http://www.panaryan.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6137

The string "Aryan" sort of leapt out at me so I decided to take a look and I saw that I’ve been linked to from within this forum. The particular linked post is a video clip musical attack against Islam titled Musical Interlude of no particular importance. Taking a quick look at this forum reveals the following welcoming message from the folks over at the Pan Aryan Alliance:

"Friends & Allies Friends and allies of the white race, nationalists of the other races who wish to work together to pursue common interests and to fight against the common enemies. Please read the FAQ for important information."


Now, I’ve been likened lots of times to a white supremacist when I criticise Islam (despite the fact that I have never revealed my own ethnicity). I’ve been accused of being racist for attacking Islam more times than I can remember (despite the fact that Islam is an ideology and not a race). So now that I am being linked to from a forum on a White Supremacist site I’d like to state something again that I have stated many times before. Race has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion about Islam.

I am not a racist.

It has been my experience that there are very many essentially decent people with very many essentially stupid ideas that fail to conform to reality. So, although it may seem unusual for me not to leap into a tirade of abuse against visitors from the Pan Aryan Alliance, I’m not going to. Can I say "being a racist doesn’t make somebody a bad person" and get away with it? I doubt it, but I’m saying it anyway. Being a racist is a bad personality trait and racism is certainly a belief that does not gel with our scientific understanding of the human body, brain and mind. Racism is also undoubtedly one of those unclean catch all phrases polluted by myriad factors other than that for which it claims to be the central guide (race). For example, am I racist if I don’t trust people as much when I’m in South Africa as I do when I’m in Japan? Well, I’d say not. There are learned cultural influencers acting upon a persons behaviour at all times. I am more likely to be a victim of violent crime in Johannesburg than I am in Tokyo as the cultures in the two cities are different with regards to that particular behaviour. Do I attribute that to differences in skin colour?

Of course I do not.

I attribute it to different social conditions due to different social attitudes, which are dynamic, highly dependent upon a very large number of other dynamic factors and no more permanent than the morning dew. I think a lot of people are racist because they forget how barbaric their own ancestors were. I think a lot of people are racist because they don’t fully understand what a thin sliver of infrastructure enhancing recent history separates them from the non-physical attributes that they attribute to others based purely on appearance.

So instead of attacking and insulting I’d like to invite visitors from the Pan Aryan Alliance (PAA) and everybody else to discuss your views here and justify them. I’ll attempt to do the same with my view that race is a term that the vast majority of scientific opinion agrees has little or no taxonomic value or significance, in that race is determined by a selective set of visually obvious physical (and to some degree cultural) markers that have no correlation to any observed psychological attributes. In other words, the colour of someone’s skin has absolutely fuck all to do with the functioning of their mind – people are people.

I’d like to start it off by attacking a precept required to be racist – a strong ethnic identity. It is impossible for one to be racist against others unless one first defines their own race. Now, the people over at PAA have obviously already done so by defining themselves as Aryan. So what does Aryan actually mean? Let’s take a look.

It turns out that Aryan is actually a word describing the ancient Indo-Iranian and Indo-European peoples who lived in what are now Iran, Afghanistan and India. In fact, one of the things that surprised me when I lived in India and started learning Hindi was that there are words that are virtually identical in Spanish and Hindi (coming from Sanskrit, a pure Aryan language) despite the fact that these are not modern words. In fact, the vast array of languages in India’s past and present are distinguished as being Aryan (e.g. Hindi) or non-Aryan (Dravidian and Kol influenced languages eg. Munda) because the Aryan languages share origins with Zend, Persian, Greek Latin, Celtic, Teutonic and Slavonic whilst so called non-Aryan languages do not. In Sanskrit the word Aryan actually means spiritual and has no physical or materialistic connotations or meanings whatsoever. European Aryan languages have been criticised as being not truly Aryan due to the materialistic focus of the languages being incompatible with the spiritual focus of Sanskrit. I tend not to agree with that, but it is interesting to note the degree to which the debate is taken when considering Aryan languages to distance the classification from having any suggestion of physicality. It certianly has never meant "white", that much at least is certain.

It shouldn’t surprise modern misusers of the word Aryan that it actually has its roots in India and the history of the Vedas. After all, the most famous Aryan symbol of all time shares an ancient Indian history. I am speaking of course of the Swastika.



The Swastika continues to be a very common sight in India today that has absolutely nothing at all to do with National Socialism. The symbol itself is the oldest known symbol, predating the Ankh. It has been recorded throughout history in many cultures including in China, Japan, India, Southern Europe and even by Native American cultures. This should not surprise anybody that is familiar with the strong law of small numbers.

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Gardner 1980, Guy 1988ab, Guy 1990 - The first strong law of small numbers.



I’ll explain.

Have you ever sat down to design a symbol and found that all the good ones are already taken? If not, try it now.

A good symbol will generally be simple, involving a small number of lines or simple shapes. These sorts of symbols are easier for us to remember and recognise. After all, our brains are designed to work with small numbers also. However, if all you work with is small numbers then the number of options you can come up with becomes limited. If you look at the car grille badges of the cars you pass each day you’ll see what I mean very quickly.

When we are dealing with small numbers there are smaller numbers of useful options and so it should be no surprise that the Swastika should have emerged independently in many different cultures. The only problem with this however, with the exception of the Native Americans, is that it did not emerge independently. Despite having become known by many different names in different parts of the world the Swastika has its origins in India, where it is known in the Sanskrit as "svastika" which literally means "to be good" and it is a common religious symbol of life and good luck, also commonly used by Buddhists. One source of amusement for western tourists in India is the number of items offered for sale to them (from handbags and t-shirts to ashtrays) brightly emblazoned with a large and cheerful swastika central to a pleasant and frequently busy patterned design. The symbol has more than 3,000 years of tradition in India and the Nazis didn’t succeed in disassociating a much loved symbol from its historically positive meaning.



So, the so-called Aryans, just like the symbol they made infamous across much of the World by association with racially motivated mass murder took both the word they use to describe their ethnicity and the symbol they march behind from, that’s right, dark skinned, brown eyed, Indians.

It should therefore follow that the Pan Aryan Alliance, if we take its name as any indicator, should be a thriving social club with an agenda of promoting European, Iranian and Indian superiority slightly preferencing darker skinned, darker eyed members for being more "Aryan" than their pale skinned, blonde haired, blue eyed colleagues.

What I’m getting at here is that of course the very idea of ethnicity is total HORSE SHIT. Our differences are largely due to geographical isolation having lead to cultural differentiation on time scales that are much too short for evolution to have had chance to cause speciation. For that matter, evolution has also failed to result in any known significant physiological difference that has any relationship to intelligence or any social aspect of our behaviour. In other words – we are all equal.

If you want to believe that you are an African American because your ancestors came more recently from African than did those of the Japanese American next to you then fine – go right ahead. But if you also think that gives you some sort of special connection to Africa or some tiny temporal slice of an ever changing and dynamic culture that means you should feel different to the Japanese American next to you then quite frankly you are deluding yourself away from reality. And in my mind you are just as guilty of unfounded racism as the Pan Aryan Alliance that think you are some sort of half-animal, subhuman scum because you happen to have an all year tan or a different texture to your hair. It’s ridiculous and means about as much to me as stating that if someone is English that means they must like to watch football and drink tea.

Most racist people are racist against perceived traits. Sometimes those perceived traits are learned as part of culture. Sometimes those perceived traits are due to differences in infrastructure and education. Most of the time however, those perceived traits don’t even exist – they are the ghosts of ignorant hatred and ignorant pride. And even those traits which are real, such as skin colour and some other minor characteristics of appearance have absolutely no connection to how our brains are wired and that is why race is widely considered to have absolutely no taxonomic value whatsoever.

Being racist is against the evidence. Being racist, white and calling yourself an Aryan is just stupid and it should be a wake up call for you to consider checking up on some facts. Maybe, if you question, you'll find your opinions begin to change. Good luck.

_

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great blog.

Interesting Arab television video debate of a an Arab secular humanist denouncing the Muslims and their violence.
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

chooseDoubt said...

Thanks. And thanks for the great link. I've seen this before but it's hard to get tired of the eloquence and accuracy with which Wafa Sultan fires shot after shot of dogma piercing rational observation across the bows of Islam. We need to hear more of her and more like her.

Anonymous said...

It’s all about money and power, that’s it. Hitler and the ones who died on the fronts were probably the only ones who actually felt they were fighting for a cause; Hitler was spun out on amphetamines and young kids were brainwashed while the SS sat back in Poland killing POLISH PEOPLE, NOT JEWS (a whole other subject together). It’s not the NSM itself that is bad, its human collectivism and the large number of humans that is bad. As long as humans get together in large numbers there will always be tyrants using the world as their own personal playground.
If you look at the patterns of civilization and how they have developed, you sort of realize how tedious and redundant existence really is, almost not even worth the effort.

Anonymous said...

the Aryan peoples weren't dark skinned at all actually. they were a group of waring peoples that migrated from Anatolia around 7000 BCE. they were white and mostly blond and had light colored eyes. ironically they went out conquering people with dark skin. the thing is that the Aryan migration spanned from Ireland to India it's not uncommon to find a blond afghan. and in northern india most people have facial traits that are similar to that of europeans. have any doubts. go to http://www.white-history.com/hwr5c.htm

btw none of what i said has to do with my being racist, its historical fact

Faisal said...

You never mentioned Pakistan where 99% of the population speaks an Indo-Iranic language.
Also "ancient indian" history is actually actually from Pakistan, not india.
Regardless of Indo-European languages that people in Asia and Europe speak, most people from Asia are not of the same genetic stock as Europeans. North indians are obsessed with being close to Europeans, but infriority complex is a curse not a blessing

Anonymous said...

what stupid people,aryan are north east indian (hindus)the swastika came from india...

Anonymous said...

the rig veda is the oldest in the sanskrit and came from india there is no aryan invasion,max muellers invasion theory was a myth and max mueller died in 1899' with that theory,aryan heritage was old and in india for longer than max mueller was even born.there is no proof anywhere else in the world of aryan artifacts it only was found in india.

Anonymous said...

the word arya came from IndiA and not Europe. the rig veda Sanskrit is found only in IndiA and there is no such thing as proto indo European as that is all rubbish. first off there is no proof as there is no evidence found anywhere else other than IndiA and most importantly there is no shared linguistics between Asia to Europe..

Anonymous said...

to Faisal Pakistan used to be IndiA stupid before being partitioned how come you fail to mention that? also Bangladesh was also part of India.muslims are foreigners to India.

Anonymous said...

what the hell is indo European?. there is no indo European race nor language.funny how white people dont seem to think ahead about their lies considering Indians never spoke English and communication would have been impossible in ancient times in India.english language first arrived to India in the 16th century way later than in indo aryan time frame.seems like whites have allot of inconsistencies and inadequacy's to their bs indo european speculation.