So none of these identities qualify as Aryan (Teuton, Slav, Nord, Celtic, Roman, Saxon)?
Depends what you mean by the word. Back when the volkish movements started using that word in the 1930s, no one really knew where the Europeans had come from or what their origin was. One of the theories was that they had come from somewhere around Iran and that the proto-iranic people (like the Scythians) were the original Europeans. So they borrowed the Iranian native term for themselves (Aryan) and started using that.
Following world war 2 the idea that europeans had a common origin in Asia became (((unfashionable))) and the term Aryan got dropped in academic circles. Of course later in the 80s and 90s when genetic testing became available it was hard to deny the truth. Academics needed a term to refer to these people who colonised Europe, but Aryan was politically loaded and inaccurate, so they started calling them PIE (proto-indo-europeans).
Nowadays they're likely to be called "Yamna" or "Yamnaya" after one of the earliest known sites where PIE culture and remains can be found.
How would the great chancellor describe how to identify a true Aryan?
I remember reading him once describing the Aryan peoples as extinct, but as partly descendant of aryans, the german people had a duty to preserve their own stock.
Heavily paraphrased of course, the party used Aryan differently in different contexts, sometimes it meant simply "european". Sometimes all aryan descendants could join in on the fun. Sometimes it was purely political (honorable aryan etc). Sometimes it refered to a mythical proto-european man (hyperborean).
I think it's important to remember that "white" is simply a fashionable term we use currently, and that our genetic stock has been called many names and divided up in many different ways. For hundreds of years, "christian" was a term reserved for whites, as there were no other kind. closely related non-whites had their own monikers, eg gypsy, jew, saracen etc. A common strategy for race deniers is to dig into the semantics around racial terms, so this shit gets a muddled quickly, and translated sources end up misleading.
TakingNames response makes a lot of sense. I'm wary of the way hitler is deified, expecially given the ease so many contradictory opinions are assigned to him, but this one broadly makes sense to me.
(post is archived)