Identity: Census request for specific ethnic labels helps galvanize
those of Aryan descent who reject Blending influences.

by H. Millard (c) 2001

Movement Embraces Indigenous Past
"Jack Riley was happy to oblige when the U.S. government requested that he be specific about his race and ethnicity in the 2000 census. Riley marked "Irish" for his ethnicity and "Aryan" for race in his questionnaire. But he prefers another option: shedding what he calls his "Blender slave identity" altogether and instead embracing his indigenous past."  

Thus begins an article written by Antonio Olivo, in the Los Angeles Times on January 2. Of course, the above version has a few changes, because it wasn't really about white people at all. You probably already guessed that. Olivo actually wrote it as follows:


Movement Embraces Indigenous Past
Identity: Census request for specific ethnic labels helps galvanize
those of Latin American descent who reject historic European influences.

By ANTONIO OLIVO, Times Staff Writer

Jesus Rivera was happy to oblige when the U.S. government requested that he be specific about his race and ethnicity in the 2000 census. Rivera marked "Mexican" for his ethnicity and "Native American" for race in his questionnaire. But he prefers another option: shedding what he calls his "European slave identity" altogether and instead embracing his indigenous past.  

The article above--the one without my changes--then goes on to tell about a movement composed of Mexicans who are rejecting their European blood in
favor of their Indian blood. Many are giving up their European names and
taking Indian ones in their place, just as many blacks have given up European names in favor of African or Muslim names.

Rather than being opposed to such identity movements, many whites believe
that they should encourage them. However, they also believe that whites should not only encourage them for non-whites but also for their fellow whites.

What would an article in the Los Angeles Times, about whites who sought
their natural identity look like? Well, it would probably not be written by someone friendly to whites much as the first paragraph, from the real article, above was written by someone friendly to those in that non-white movement. The reality is that most articles--that would appear in the Los Angeles Times and similar newspapers, at least-- about whites seeking their natural identity would probably be written by those who hate whites.

Whites seeking their natural identity would be called white racists, white
supremacists and white separatists. You'd read about the Holocaust. You'd
read about dragging deaths. You'd read about anything that would demonize
whites and keep them from finding their true identity. You know it. I know it.
We all know it (at least if we're white and have any reasonable amount of consciousness about the subject).

Whites are not supposed to call themselves Aryans. When they do, they're
called names. This leaves them with no real identity, and those who hate
whites know it. Lacking a proper symbol in the form of a group name such
as Aryan, whites often fail to see themselves as part of a distinct group
on the one hand and as part of an amorphous grouping that includes people
with white skin who are not really part of the same group as


So, just what does Aryan actually mean today (yes, I know all about the ancient Aryans, etc., but we're talking about here and now and in a European human context)? In simplest terms, "Aryan" is an easy way of saying "a non-Jewish white person of European descent." Each word in that definition is an element of the definition and must exist for one to be an Aryan. Thus, an Aryan, as we use the term, is a) a non-Jewish b) white c) person d) of European descent.

Now, there are those who hate whites who say that there's no such thing as an Aryan or that the term can only mean the people of ancient India or that it only refers to a language group. To this we must say: Nonsense. We've defined the term above. We know, for example that there are non-Jewish white people of European descent. We can call them Aryans, if we so choose. Actually, we could call them anything we want, because there's nothing magical with the term Aryan. However, if we were trying to come up with one word that defines and has meaning for a distinct human type, which distinguishes it from all other human types, "Aryan" seems to be a logical possibility, as we've defined the term. However, should anyone really want to have a term with some historical significance and which might eliminate some of the confusion over the use of this term in India, then maybe a different spelling of the term, such as "Arian" or "Arion" might be appropriate.

If we try to call these non-Jewish white people "Europeans" then we include people who are born in Europe who are not Aryans. If we call them "white-Europeans" we're also including people who don't fit the title. And, what about those Aryans who are born in places such as the U.S.? Do we call them Europeans? Well, we can and sometimes do call them European-Americans, but the term is not inclusive enough, because it includes non-Aryans.

Switch now from this identity crisis, and it is a crisis, that is helping to
keep non-Jewish white people subjugated and on the verge of extinction,
to a January 6, column appearing in the Los Angeles Times:
"He Now Says Yes to Once-Denied Identity," by Agustin Gurza.

In this column, Gurza, who writes often on Latino and Indian identity issues, writes of a man named Humberto Caspa who is an Aymara Indian from Boliva who now lives in California. It seems, according to Gurza, that Caspa used to be embarrassed by his own mother who was a full-blooded Aymara. And, "[Caspa] in his attempt to break out of his social caste, betrayed his own blood." In the U.S., however, Caspa found acceptance for the first time. Gurza writes that Caspa said that people would say to Caspa: "Wonderful man, you're indigenous." Huh? Good grief! One can just imagine the usual neurotic aracial white cat-ladies-sans-cats running up to this guy and gushing about how wonderful it is that he's indigenous. In fact, these neurotics will gush that it's wonderful that every non-white person they can find is wonderful. Their view of their fellow whites is not usually as gushy, however. Why? Well, because in their smarmy form of racism, the only people who aren't allowed to have any race or ethnicity are their fellow whites, who are supposed to be above such "racism." In this view, whites must be sort of neutral drones with no identity other than human," and whatever national identity their surnames might reveal. Thus, it's okay for whites to say that they're Irish, or English, or French or any other national designation, but they must never mine deeper to the blood level,
and say that they are Aryan.

Gurza goes on to tell readers that Caspa "internalized the prejudice, succumbed to the need to negate his own race. 'Querer no ser,' as he put it in Spanish,
or 'to want not to be who you are.' That's racism at its most successful,
making its victims detest themselves."

It must be obvious to any right thinking white person with even a modicum of white consciousness that if we substitute "white" for "Indian" in either of the above columns that the essential facts indicating that a people has been robbed
of its natural identity are the same.

So, if whites are robbed of their natural identity and if Indians are robbed of theirs and if, as we have read in other columns, that blacks, Asians and various
other distinct groups have all been denied their identities, who is doing the denying? Although, those pushing for Indian identity will say that it is whites who are the evil identity deniers, and although in a narrow context, some whites have, in fact, been identity deniers, the real answer is not so easily found.
No matter where on the planet distinct peoples are found, if they are in a minority, the majority will either try to wipe them out through killing or will try to assimilate them into the larger culture. That's the way it's always been, but this isn't even just a human trait it's found throughout nature.

So, what's to be done to prevent such identity denying and assimilation?
Each people that considers itself a distinct people must demand its identity.
This they must do by demanding to be allowed to use their own language and symbols, and to be allowed to follow their own religious and social norms.
To be a distinct people, one must demand it. It won't be given to any people.

Now, when we see non-Aryans ( non-non-Jewish white people of European
descent, remember) deny Aryans the use of flags and symbols such as the
ancient swastika, then we see being done to Aryans what the Indians say
was done to them.

Will we see some people come up to Aryans and say, "Wonderful man.
You're an Aryan"? Don't hold your breath. A lot more de-programming of
aracial white people needs to take place before we reach a point where there
is a critical mass of whites starting to see themselves as a distinct people and
who will then reject the haters who are keeping them full of self loathing and subjugated as identiless drones. But, when that critical mass is reached,
you can expect whites to start showing the boldness that they once exhibited instead of the current all too common introspection that has made many whites
as tame and docile as domesticated animals. When the critical mass is reached, you can expect to see calls for white self-determination and freedom from the silent oppression and genocide that is now common.
#  #  #