No. You have this ass backwards. You are Aryan. The rest of us are just white guys.

One can be both. We use 'Aryan' in the title, because titles are formal, but 'white' in the text, because the text is ordinary discourse, albeit far wittier and more informed than what you'll find in the controlled media.

Here's a question for you, Fade. A Mexican who entered illegally in 1990 and was naturalized last year is today an American, with rights equalling -- actually exceeding -- your own. Do you accept this person as a fellow American? Do you feel more kinship with him, your adventitious fellow, than with us, your racial kin? Do you believe that America is a fundamentally about blood and soil, or a potentially universal "idea" nation?

Why do you call it The Aryan Alternative, Alex? Wouldn't it make more sense to call it The American Alternative?

As much as it hurts to say it Fade, you do have a point. The word "Aryan" has gone the way of the swastika, in that the Jew controlled media has set the tone of how Whites will react to that word.

I kind of like "The Real American Alternative".

As much as it hurts to say it Fade, you do have a point. The word "Aryan" has gone the way of the swastika, in that the Jew controlled media has set the tone of how Whites will react to that word.

I kind of like "The Real American Alternative".

They've done the same thing with 'white': ie, white trash. You can't beat the people who own the media. Best face them directly. Try to cover yourself or pretend, they'll smell you out every time. It's like facing a prevailing wind. Face it and stride directly through it.

Also, keep in mind two things:

1) subtitle:

The Aryan Alternative
Uncensored news for Whites...and freethinkers of any stripe

2) international distribution

Point is, Aryans worlwide face the same threat from the same source. Whether or not America exists, and there was a time it didn't, and there will come a time it won't, we remain Aryans.

They've done the same thing with 'white': ie, white trash. You can't beat the people who own the media. Best face them directly. Try to cover yourself or pretend, they'll smell you out every time. It's like facing a prevailing wind. Face it and stride directly through it.

Also, keep in mind two things:

1) subtitle:

The Aryan Alternative
Uncensored news for Whites...and freethinkers of any stripe

2) international distribution

Point is, Aryans worlwide face the same threat from the same source. Whether or not America exists, and there was a time it didn't, and there will come a time it won't, we remain Aryans.

Then we could custom tailor for the countries we will be distributing in...

The REAL European Alternative... The REAL Canadian Alternative, and so forth.

Just trying to help.

Ah, fade is a 'guy.' No, boy, we're White men, also known as Aryans. You, however, are a girl.

I don't know many white Americans who think of themselves as "Aryans." Do you?

I don't know many white Americans who think of themselves as "Aryans." Do you?

Many whites in multi-culti America don't even think of themselves as white, but yet "members of the human family", or some other liberal garbage like that

Many whites in multi-culti America don't even think of themselves as white, but yet "members of the human family", or some other liberal garbage like that

Its funny you should say that as I recently saw an official form with a line put through the ethnicity section and the words "member of the human species" put there instead-a typical new ager and also a Jewess.

What's wrong with 'Vanguard News'? Most people have never even heard the word Aryan. Those who have heard it, probably think it's a tribe of indians. And where I'm from (south Florida), when people see the word "alternative" they think it has something to do with queers. You know, like "alternative lifestyles."

Again, what's wrong with Vanguard News?

Its funny you should say that as I recently saw an official form with a line put through the ethnicity section and the words "member of the human species" put there instead-a typical new ager and also a Jewess.

I wouldn't doubt that sometime soon ALL official forms will have an option like this included. I have been recently seeing a lot of forms with the option "prefer not to say" LOL.

One can be both.

Its possible. Sure. There are a few white people in America who think of themselves as Aryans but they are few and far between.

We use 'Aryan' in the title, because titles are formal, but 'white' in the text, because the text is ordinary discourse, albeit far wittier and more informed than what you'll find in the controlled media.

I really don't see why you are doing this.

1.) White Americans do not think of themselves as being Aryans.
2.) They have never thought of themselves as being Aryans.
3.) They do identify themselves as whites.
4.) They have always done so.

Thus it makes more sense to address them in terms of categories they already identify with.

Here's a question for you, Fade. A Mexican who entered illegally in 1990 and was naturalized last year is today an American, with rights equalling -- actually exceeding -- your own.

I would make a distinction. I would say that the Mexican is a U.S. citizen but I would deny that the Mexican is an American. Its a mistake to concede our nationality to anyone. We should present ourselves to the public as the real Americans.

Do you accept this person as a fellow American?

No. I would instead make the argument that nonwhites are U.S. citizens but they are not Americans. A nonwhite might be a member of the U.S. state but that does not make him a member of the American nation.

Do you feel more kinship with him, your adventitious fellow, than with us, your racial kin?

No. That is because I make a distinction between state and nation which you are ignoring. Throughout most of our history, white and American have been the same thing.

Do you believe that America is a fundamentally about blood and soil, or a potentially universal "idea" nation?

Race was an essential aspect of the American identity for centuries. This notion that America is a "universal" nation is a recent act of revisionism. I would drive home that fact. I would hit it again and again.

Well you have to remember that Fade believes that we will somehow save the entire race by worshipping and rallying around typical white Americans AS THEY ARE TODAY! Racialism as Fade sees it means accepting American's lack of idealism, love of hip-hop, and lack of morals as it is and accept anything that makes them happy.

Hold on a second, J.P. Let met me get out my tape recorder.

Rewind. Presses play.

"I agree with his claim that the average American associates NS and its symbols with a slough of negative things, but the average American is a complete idiot who often isn't even worth the cost of the bullet he should be shot with. So we should not bend over to accomodate their incorrect perception of history(though there are many young Americans who are not even sure who we fought in WW2)."
-- J.P. Slovjanski

We would be better off today if we spent less time talking about Adolf Hitler and more time talking about the pilgrims, puritans, and the pioneers.

I wouldn't doubt that sometime soon ALL official forms will have an option like this included. I have been recently seeing a lot of forms with the option "prefer not to say" LOL.

Yeah that is beacuse there is no legal requirement to provide the information.
Often the term "white" is used but this is not broken down into sub categories which tends to inflame those whites with strong ties to their particular ethnic group.Although that is starting to change and white sub ethnic categories are starting to appear.

Some of my research:

I said in the Time To Face Reality thread that I wanted to spend more time in the future talking about about other subjects. Anyway, I will spend some time in this thread posting some excerpts about the people we used to be. I will use the The Fall of Anglo-America thread to post information about how we came to be who we are today.

The Rise of Anglo-America

"Imagine, my dear friend, if you can, a society formed of all the nations of the world . . . people having different languages, beliefs, opinions: in a word, a society without roots, without memories, without prejudices, without routines, without common ideas, without a national character, yet a hundred times happier than our own."
--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Alexis de Tocqueville's optimistic description of the new American Republic in the 1830s has been uncritically accepted by most scholars. American or otherwise, ever since. Recent examples include Seymour Martin Lipset ("The First New Nation"), Wilbur Zelinsky ("American nationalism has been international in character from the outset") and Liah Greenfeld ("the Ideal Nation") (Zelinsky 1988: 115; Greenfeld 1992: 438). Are these authors, Tocqueville among them, correct in viewing the Uited States as a cosmopolitan civilization based on eighteenth-century liberalism? This chapter argues that they are not. It does so in two unique ways. First, it brings together the disparate historical literature on American Anglo-Saxonism and white Protestant "nativism." Second, it casts this material, which necessarily spans the history of the United States itself, within the purview of recent theories of nationalism.

Ethnicity describes the set of sentiments and actions related to a sense of identification with an ethnic group, or ethnie -- a comunity that believes itself to be of shared ancestry (Francis 1976: 6; Eriksen 1993: 12; A. Smith 1991: 21). Dominant ethnicity refers to the social action of an ethnic community that is politically, economically, or culturally dominant within a nation-state (Doane 1997: 326). Often, the dominant ethnic group furnished the "core" myths, symbols, memories, and homeland maps that gae birth to the modern nation (Smith 1991: 39). In this chapter, I attempt to locate the origin of America's Anglo-Protestant ethnic core, framing the U.S. case within a more general model. The mytho-symbolic cores of ethnic groups are typically created through a break with the parent stock (fission) or through the melting together of the myths of several groups (fusion) (Horowitz 1985: 64-70; Connor 1994: 214-216). Once in place, ethnic groups usually maintain these cores, policing symbolic boundries while admitting new members. New entrants assimilate into the core, transmuting into co-ethnics over time (Barth 1969: 20-25; Francis 1976: 28-31, 93-94).

The "American" ethnic group, for example, emerged through fission from an English Protestant parent stock and used methods of dominant conformity to accrete diverse immigrant populations to its mytho-symbolic core while maintaining ethnic boundries. Similar processes were at work in this era among new groups like the Taiwanese, Afrikaners, Anatolian Turks, and Ulster Protestants. What complicates this otherwise simple picture is (1) the reflexivity of American society represented by its high standard of recordkeeping and (2) the nature of American liberalism, which occasionally presented itself in the form of cosmopolitan rhetoric.

The latter should not lead us to believe that Americans saw themselves as a liberal cosmopolitan civilization. On the contrary, for Americans, liberalism served as a symbolic border guard reinforcing their sense of particularity. The notion that a cosmopolitan idea can be used for particularistic purposes should not come as a surprise, for, as John Armstrong shows, ethnogenesis was nowhere more prevalent than along the medieval border between Christianity and Islam. These two universal ideas formed the boundry symbols that distinguish Christian ethnies like the Croats and Spaniards from Islamic groups like the Bosnian Muslims and Berbers (Armstrong 1982: 54-92). In this respect, The American ethnic's liberalism was a universalist idea that distinguished it from illiberal ethnies both on its southern and northern borders and in Europe.

Although the symbol of liberalism reinforced American ethnic particularlism, the underlying theoretical conflict between liberalism and ethnicity should not be overlooked. There was this tension in American culture that gave serious consideration to both liberal principles and ethnic boundry defense and furiously tried to marry the two. In the next chapter, I focus on this dualism by presenting a less selective analysis of the writings of the authors who are often used as exemplars of America's cosmopolitan exceptionalism.

The American Revolution

Important as they are, none of the pre-Revolutionary integration movements was as significant as what followed. The American Revolution of 1776-1783 quite simply changed the American colonist's terms of reference. The Revolution, however, did not emerge ex nihilio but rather had roots in the colonists' sense of "British-American" self-consciousness (Kaufmann 2002). The Proclamation Acts of 1763 and 1774 were particularly incendiary for they erected barriers to what the colonists (now known as "Americans") perceived as their destiny of Anglo-Protestant, millenial, westward expansion. The Proclamation Acts were seen as part of a British Grand Design which was rumored to include the installation of an Anglican bishop and the eradication of American liberties. "A barefaced attempt against the success of the Protestant religion," was how the Pennsylvania Packet described the legislative events of 1774 (Hastings 1997: 75).

Upon its success, the Revolution began to be woven into a new American ethnohistory in which a nation of small-farming Davids had vanquished the Imperial Goliath. A Russian observer noticed that every American home contained a likeness of George Washington that was worshiped like Orthodox icons were in his homeland (Zelinsky 1988: 32). Meanwhile, chronclers like Yale president Timothy Dwight, Jonathan Edwards's grandson, saw Washington as a latter-day Joshua leading his flock into the Promised Land (O'Brien 1988: 30).

Many would agree that an American sense of community had developed, complete with heroic mythology, but mot would label this a civil national process rather than an ethnic one. Yet from the outset, the words and actions of Americans indicate that a growing sense of American ethnicity flowed alongside the civic rhetoric. An ethnic response grew out of a sense of isolation that Oscar Handlin calls "the horror." This rootless condition was occasioned by the colonists' incessant migration, coupled with an existential meaninglessness they encountered while living in alien surroundings (Handlin 1957: 130). Anthony Smith and Regis Debray draw our attention to this phenomenon more generally, noting the ways in which people seek to achieve a measure of this-worldly immortality though identification with an ancestral community rooted in land and kinship (A. Smith 1986: 175). The result is ethnogenesis.

Rogers M. Smith has dubbed this respoens "Ascriptive Americanism." The French and Indian wars of the 1750s and early 1760s had driven home the differences between the English-speaking, Protestant American colonists and their nonwhite, Catholic/pagan, and French/Indian speaking "other." Furthermore, the Proclamation Acts had stymied what the Anglo-Protestant colonists deemed to be their providential mission to settle the Catholic-occupied trans-Allegheny West. Accordingly, Smith holds that many Americans were unaware of liberal rights theories and were only persuaded to revolt by the religious and cultural arguments that designated them a chosen, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant people (R. Smith 1997: 72-86; 1995: 237-239). For Alexander Hamilton, the Quebec Act of 1774, which retained the laws and customs of the French in Canada (despite the presence of thousands of British Protestant residents), reflected the fact that British monarchists and French Catholics were united in their support for hierarchy and tyranny against the republican Americans:

This act [Quebec Act] makes effectual provision not only for the protection, but for the permanent support of Popery . . . What can speak in plainer language, the corruption of the British Parliament, than its act; which . . . makes such ample provision for the popish religion, and leaves the protestant, in such disadvantageous situation that he is like to have no other subjects in this part of his domain [Canada], than Roman catholics; who, by reason of their implicit devotion to their priests, and their superlative reverence they bear to those, who countenance and favour their religion, will be the voluntary instruments of ambition; and will be ready, at all times, to second the oppressive designs of administration against the other parts of the empire. (Hamilton [1768-1778] 1961: 170, 175)

A sense of divine election is common to many ethnic groups, especially Protestant groups, and it appears that the Americans were no exception (O'Brien 1988: 59-61; Moorhead 1994: 165; Armstrong 1982: 81-90; Hastings 1997: 74). It is also significant that a set of symbolic border guards (what Anthony Smith calls cultural markers) were being used to distinguish the "Americans" from surrounding populations. The Americans were considered to be white, in contrast to the Natives and the black slaves; they were Protestant and English (in speech and surname), unlike the "papist" French and Spanish; and they were liberal democrats, in contrast to the British.