Making Iran Great Again

Comments on internet published pieces are seldom areas of profound insight, however they do provide a window to at least one group of readership. Whether that group is 10% of readership or substantially more, any piece of writing addressing the race of Iranians – which is undoubtedly and of no ethnographic question as Caucasian – there is an almost inevitable regurgitation of misinformation and argumentative commentary on questioning Iranian racial credentials. While many Iranians and non-Iranians alike assign the same reaction as an article on France provoking “French aren’t white” comments – certain individuals feel the need to disprove the often absurd and often completely fictional claims of conjecture littering comments.

The “White race” is a contemporary term for descendants of Indo-Europeans, believed to originate in and around the Black and Caspian sea regions. Three hundred years ago, Indo-European was a term synonymous with the word Aryan used to describe this group and the language families they brought across the Eurasian steppes and to the majority of Europe. In fact the word Iranian and Aryan were used interchangeably in 19th century literature on ethnography and linguistics. The term “Caucasian” is related to this concept in that the white descendants of the above identified group were believed to originate in the Caucasus mountains. Joseph Meyer famously created one of the first maps indicating the distribution and ethnicities of these peoples which he clearly labeled groups “Arier.”

The Ariosophy movement that influenced theorists of the Third Reich, known widely for the Thule Society, g ave the association of Nordic identity with the Aryan. These concepts in literature are less than 150 years old. After the fall of the Third Reich, a deliberate effort was created to make not only the German political theory that fueled the regime, but all philosophies related to it previously as chauvinistic and absurd as possible. Western historians emphasized and encouraged the association of the word Aryan, frequently presented in quotes to imply a fiction, with the Nordic phenotypes of light hair and light eyes. As a direct appeal to superficial identification of race by phenotype, and a greater insecurity of the vast majority of Whites who have either brown hair or brown eyes (as dominant genes), an intentional campaign of illegitimacy was put forth to forever profane the word Aryan from glory ever again. The various camps and groups which encouraged this doctrine should be self-evident to the reader. Contrary to popular and accepted historical accounts, Aryans were not by any means restricted to Northern Europe or the Nordic phenotype and Iran on multiple occasions in the Third Reich was identified as an unsurprisingly Aryan nation.

The inevitable backlash of “white nationalism” that grew in North America and Europe intentionally appropriated the Nordic phenotypical ideal, and gladly adopted the term in celebration of Nordicism to propel a defense of the very subject of historical attack. Both sides of this campaign delivered into the psyche of the 20th and 21st century the associative mechanism of not only the term Aryan but the motivations and character of any individual invoking such a provocative and discomfort inducing subject.
In contrast, for literally two thousand years the word Aryan was a definitive and synonymous term for not only Iranians but any number of descendants of Iranian-speaking tribes inhabiting Eurasia and Eastern Europe, most directly the Scythians. In 20th century Iran, there was nothing chauvinistic, nationalistic or racialist about the word Aryan, as it was the commonly known and accepted name of Iranian ancestors. It is then no surprise that to this day, Iranians, and descendants of Iranian immigrants who chose not to live under the barbarism of Iran’s present regime, identify with both its historical and often 20th century ideological associations.

To finally address a baseless attack, is the assertion that whatever Iranians may have been at one point in history, they can no longer be considered the same people – which we can prove simply by looking at them and seeing how dissimilar they look to a typical Swedish citizen. The logical shortcomings almost seem too obvious to warrant explanation. Firstly, the presupposition that a “true” Aryan typified Nordic phenotypes creates a false point of reference. While Nordic Europeans have historical and cultural links to the Indo-Europeans, there is nothing to indicate that the more Nordic in appearance a people, the closer they are as a direct descendent of the Indo-Europeans or Proto-Indo-Europeans. In and around the time when Darius the Great famously declared and inscribed himself to be “an Aryan, having Aryan lineage,” we see innumerable depictions of Iranians on stone, artwork and pottery – all of which look remarkably similar to present day Iranians.

Geographically, the Iranian plateau sits a latitude more south than any other nation in the European continent. For this physical reason alone, it would be nearly inexplicable if Iranians did not have darker features than Europeans living in northern climates.

Lastly, the Persians were one of several ethnic groups that made up Greater Iran. There is absolutely nothing to indicate the Persians were any more or less Aryan than the other groups, namely the Medes, Parthians or any number of Scythians that populated the Caucasus or Eurasian steppes. A false comparison of Persians vs non-Persians has become further noise in the signal, largely the work of misinformed forum users and millennials who have propagated this fabrication. This has resulted in assigning an incorrect veneration of the Persian Iranian against the non-Persian Iranian, and absurd claims of “Iranians were Persians once…” Anyone remotely familiar with Iranian history can tell you Iranians always called their nation Iran. During the Third Reich, overtures were made by Germany celebrating Aryan lineage of Iran and the synonymous adjectives Iranian and Aryan as further persuasion to join the Axis Powers. The British Empire then deliberately referred to Iran as Persia to distance this connection. Any further disassociation between Persians and Iranians in the contemporary era is the work of individuals who read more forums than books.

What matters for Iranian racial identity is not “acceptance” into European nationalist communities. At the present time, European, North American and Australian communities are fighting massive waves of immigration from countries where Islam is the dominant religion. Rightly so, these nationalist communities are fearful for their culture and demographic fabric being threatened by a religious group that is historically notorious for integrating poorly in foreign lands. On the contrary, they seek to convert the lands in which they occupy to their own backward way of life.

Through great tragedy, Iran is in the category of these nations. Similar to Albania and Bosnia, even if racial awareness is achieved by other nations on shared ancestral origins, the defensive mechanism to assign Iranians to the out-group will be predictable. This is not unlike the historical reflex of Western and Central Europeans towards individuals from Slavic speaking countries one hundred years prior.

the Iranian Renaissance may be the contemporary cultural movement with the most revolutionary geopolitical significance for the future of the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.

It’s hard to think of a worthier focus of attention for European identitarians.

are the non-whites what you would call goy? Sounds like it the way you talk

neocons pray for the death of Israel? the Neo-con claim that Iran does is just war hoopla. Jews want a global empire and need to destroy the place to get it

Maybe the complainers should look up what Aryan actually means.