Whiteness is not a real identity – it’s an assumption of a real identity that has taken on a physical form. It is a reaction to the perceived ‘other’ – and is used as a juxtapose to all different skin tones. Therefore, as ‘Whiteness’ is a false construct of dominance (designed for the use by one group over all others) – then it follows that the ‘White Supremacy’ premised upon ‘Whiteness’ has no legitimacy. The European Lumpen Proletariat does not have to uphold (or defend) an abstract concept that has no bearing in reality. If the false construct of ‘Whiteness’ is abolished – then the corrosive and destructive ideology of the ‘White Supremacy’ movement will come crashing down as there is nothing to sustain its structure. Whiteness is proverbial iron statue precariously held up by clay feet. This is an interesting analogy as ‘White’ Nationalists often cite the Bible – it is the Bible that offers an explanation as to ‘why’ White Supremacy appears strong – but this is an illusion of profound substance. That with no firm foundation will always struggle to exist – and is destined to be washed away by the tide of history.
Black, of course, is a legitimate skin tone that has cast a long shadow over a a substantial period of world history! Whether a shadow or out – being ‘Black’ has the singular merit of being exactly the same! Its consistency does not change. As White people do not exist in reality – ‘Black’ is the naturally dominant expression of skin pigmentation. Although ‘White’ people do not exist – this does not mean that the people who think they ‘White’ do not exist. The people who think they are ‘White’ definitely do exist – but their skin tone is ‘Pink’ (the colour associated with Gay Pride) and not ‘White’. The supposed ‘White Genocide’ the far-right keep harping-on about is happening, must happen and definitely will happen – but probably not in the manner most White Supremacists might think. As pink-skinned Europeans stop believing in the false construct of ‘Whiteness’ – ‘Whiteness’ will naturally die-out. Is this the ‘genocide’ they fear? A genocide premised upon the ideal of self-knowledge. This inevitable ‘White Genocide’ is the product of the discarding of Eurocentric ignorance.
What will replace ‘White Supremacy’? The problem is that no one is likely to shiver at the term ‘Pink Supremacy’ – except for a few attentive gays who might be lurking in the (Black) shadows! And yet ‘Pink’ is exactly the same skin-tone of all Europeans who imagine themselves to be ‘White’ – together with a few odd people who write in the Persian language on Telegram (those ‘Iranians’ who think they are brown-skinned ‘Aryans’)! Hitler sat and spoke to the (brown-skinned and genetically unrelated) Tibetans whilst in search of the origins of the ‘Aryan’ super race! There is a rather ‘loose’ affiliation between the North Indians, the Iranians and the ‘Aryans’! To this essentially ‘linguistic’ association – the Irish can be added. What is referred to as ‘Ireland’ in English is ‘Eire’ in Irish Gaelic. It is said that ‘Eire’ is a transliteration of ‘Aryan’. All these people are said to share an ancient language – but not necessarily a culture or skin-colour.
When measured against modern genetic, cultural and linguistic knowledge – it is obvious that Hitler’s ramblings were about ‘race’ and ‘identity’ were profoundly incorrect. The Sanskrit term ‘Aryan’ refers to a ‘noble’ person of ‘good education’ and ‘wise’ accomplishment associated with Brahmanical high caste. In North India such people may possess a ‘fairer’ complexion in accordance with migrating incomers – but with Southern India (where this caste system also exists) – high caste Hindus are just as likely to possess beautiful (jet) ‘Black’ or dark ‘Brown’ complexions – and still be referred to as being ‘Aryan’! This demonstrates that the Sanskrit term ‘Aryan’ does NOT refer to skin-colour alone as a mark of excellence. To be an ‘’Aryan’ is just as much about the accumulation of knowledge and wisdom as it is about birth.
Within Early Buddhism, the Sanskrit ‘Arya’ (plural) and -‘Aryan’ (singular) is written in Pali as ‘Ayya’ and ‘Arahat’ respectively. Although high caste Hindus in North India may associate their (inner) spiritual status with the outside of their body – it is clear that this association cannot be made in the South of India. As the Buddha rejected the agency of caste, instead he advised that the term ‘Ayya’ should be associated only with the fruits of correct meditational self-cultivation! A new inner orientation is expressed through an external body (regardless of its outer skin-colour) which exhibits correct discipline and behaviour! The concept of Aryan supremacy, however, is a provable myth – as the early Aryan invaders of North India were undoubtedly ‘barbarians’. The true Aryan identity is premised upon a paradox. The irony is that the Aryans only became associated with advanced culture when they settled in North India and started accepting the existing Indian cultural norms over their own – a process that inevitably involved ‘race-mixing’:
‘According to the archaeological evidence Aryan people entered India at about the time of the collapse of the Indian civilisation (about 1,700 BCE). In fact, they were probably barbarian invaders who conquered the Indus people and destroyed their cities. These Aryans spoke an early form of Sanskrit, called ‘Vedic’ after the earliest extant Indian texts (the Veda) which can at present be read. The earliest of these Vedic texts of the Aryans were perhaps composed two or three centuries after the conquest. This conquest is vaguely remembered in the Veda: the god Indra destroyed the citadels of the enemy (which presumably were the cities and smaller settlements of the Indus people), he released the cattle (because the Aryans were still nomadic herdsman, and no doubt disapproved of cattle being shut in fields by the settled villagers) and he released the rivers (which had been dammed and channelled for irrigation purposes by the settled agriculturalists). Their traditions then was that they had restored the natural freedom of the universe.
Civilisation thus suffered a temporary eclipse at the hands of these barbarian nomads. Very soon, however, the barbarians began to follow the ways of the people they had conquered: they settled permanently in villages and eventually in cities, they kept their cattle in fields (though perhaps Indian cattle have ever since enjoyed a freedom of movement not paralleled elsewhere) and they harnessed the rivers for irrigations. When it came to the interpretation of the ancient texts it proved possible to forget the historical background and supply instead a mythological meaning connecting Indra with the Monsson.’
AK Warder: Indian Buddhism, Motilal, (2000), Pages 16-17
Warder goes on to explain that the history of early India (which included Afghanistan and explains the name ‘Hindukush’) is encoded not only in the ancient Vedic texts – but also in the latter ‘Puranas’ (c. 9th century CE). The Puranas were compiled around 800-years after the Aryan invasion (c. 1,700 CE) and present a much-revised and reworked history of ancient India. This gives the impression that the Aryan rulers had always been in India from the very beginning and that no invasion had taken place. This interpretation has led some Indian scholars to state that an ‘Aryan invasion’ is a Eurocentric myth compiled by Western imperialists who attempted to give a ‘White’ historical origination to the ancient (and ‘superior’) culture of early India. The ‘Invasion’ hypothesis derives from the objective study of the extant (available) archaeology. This body of evidence in India has been increased through new discoveries over the years and the idea that a violent incursion occurred does seem to be supported. This does not mean that the Aryans were ‘European’ or ‘White’ and so this part of any ‘racist’ interpretation must be recognised as incorrect and abandoned. Whoever these people were – they were not West or North Europeans.
I know of one study of a Northwest Indian family who carry the surname ‘Bulsara’ (they are originally from the ‘Walasara’ area of Gujarat State). The ‘Memory Man’ or Brahmin Priest in charge of remembering the history of every known generation of the clans he is responsible for, (these men are trained from a young age by a Master and are taught exclusively by word of mouth), states that the ‘Bulsara’ family in question are of the Khatri (Warrior and King) Caste and originated in the area of what is now considered Southern Lithuania. DNA tests of this clan has apparently demonstrated a genetic link to this area. Obviously, the Vikings had not yet arrived in Eastern Europe around 1,700 BCE – and would not do so for around another 2,000 years! Whoever these people were who migrated into India as ‘Aryans’ – they were NOT Western or Northern Europeans. This proves that the idea that the ‘Aryans’ were ‘Europeans’ is a myth. They may well have been some type of Central Asian with a typical ‘light’ complexion routinely found in the Far East – although examples of these indigenous people still exist within Eastern Russia (a collection of different people who look ‘Chinese’).
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 