It's always amused me how die-hard post-modernists will suddenly declare that certain words can only have one meaning throughout all of space and time. That historians from 100 years ago were WRONG in a philosophically absolute way to agree amongst themselves to define 'aryan' as anything different from how it is currently defined by academia. As if terms of art within disciplines can be vetoed by outsiders.
===
The perfect example of your contention that Aryans did not intermix are the Kalash people, who inhabit 3 valleys in northern Pakistan. From Grok:
They are a window into our past, but likely won't last out the century.
===
When it comes to defining who is "us" I always remember what David Lane of the 14 Words said: "Any man that looks White, acts White, and fights White I'll call my brother."
===
"A vastly better and greater world awaits.. we need only to collectively wake, stand, plant our feet, and work together as an extended family, to manifest it into reality.
It begins with a shift in collective consciousness.. and this begins with us."
Beautifully put. I'd add that these beginnings have to be local. Too many people want a magic bullet, and when they realize they aren't going to win the global struggle by themselves, revert to nagging and/or accusing everyone around them of being cowards for not doing what that person is also not doing.
Do what you can around you, build up group resiliency and networks where you can discuss solutions to local problems.
Words do change over time, but when we’re talking about history or genetics we still have to tie a term to the evidence. Ārya was not a floating label that anyone could redefine. It was the self-description of Indo-Iranian tribes living between Iran and northern India about 3,500 years ago. By then, the peoples of Europe had already formed a distinct population for more than a millennium. Turning Aryan into a synonym for “European” or “White” simply detaches the word from its actual historical and linguistic context.
Regarding the Kalash, the data behind that image you shared are often misread. Ancient-DNA studies (Haak 2015; Narasimhan 2019; Ayub 2015) show the Kalash as an isolated Indo-Aryan mountain population, not “pure Europeans.” Their ancestry is roughly 20–25 percent Steppe MLBA (Sintashta-derived) and about 75 percent Indus-periphery plus Iranian-farmer. That mixture defines the ancient Indo-Aryan peoples who actually called themselves Ārya. In other words, the Kalash are one of the few living groups that can be described, in a limited sense, as descendants of the original Indo-Aryans—but they are South-Central Asian Indo-Aryans, not Europeans and not “proto-white.” Their lighter complexions come from ancient steppe input and isolation, not from being an ancestral European remnant. “West Eurasian” in those charts simply refers to the western half of Eurasia, a macro-group that also includes Iranians, North Africans, and many South Asians; it does not mean European descent.
On the David Lane quote—“any man who looks White, acts White, and fights White”—the issue isn’t sentiment but precision. Physical appearance and ancestry are different things. Genome-wide data consistently show large-scale, objectively measurable population clusters—European, East Asian, sub-Saharan African, Native American, and so on. Someone can look similar to members of another group and still be genetically distant; that’s why scientists rely on the data, not appearance. For example some Georgians can easily pass as White, but are nowhere near Whites genetically and are far less close to Whites than Askenazi Jews are.
To summarize clearly:
Aryan = historical Indo-Iranian ethnonym, never a European one.
The Kalash = Indo-Aryan South-Central Asians descended from the real Ārya, not from Europeans.
“West Eurasian” ≠ European.
Appearance ≠ ancestry.
So yes, the Kalash are Indo-Aryan in origin, but that has nothing to do with Europeans or modern Whites. The two groups share distant steppe roots yet diverged thousands of years before anyone first used the word Ārya. Equating them today isn’t reclaiming history—it’s rewriting it.
Make a valid argument rather than lying and calling me something I'm not, worse than some antifa faggot crying that anyone who says something they don't like is a Nazi. At least they're just making an ideological claim.
You're literally claiming I'm a completely different genetic population.
Explain why what I said is actually wrong and don't lie about me again.
The assumption wasn’t even based on your belief system echoing theirs, but checking your feed and quickly seeing that you’re highlighting almost exclusively known Jewish individuals.. calm down, buddy - and you’re in no position to make demands. If I guessed incorrectly, happy to take it back.. but I can’t rescind the rest.
The point of view you’re espousing really does feel tedious, at this point.. especially because I’ve never heard a genuinely compelling argument, merely an endless regurgitation of the most dishonest and manipulative modern swill of a sort that’d have been laughed out of the room before academia became occupied territory.
If you’d like to know where I disagree with the chatGPT you’ve pasted, please refer to the article I just posted.
As a side note, I've been following your work for years. I'm not just butting in out of nowhere. Here's a directory listing from my computer of a bunch of your videos I backed up in case you got kicked off whatever platform because I found your videos to be very valuable.
I backed these up almost 5 years ago.
2020-12-09 A Different Social Media Platform
2020-12-09 A Last Message to the West_ #NCCC
2020-12-09 A New Channel is Born
2020-12-09 An Update, Announcement, and Question
2020-12-09 A Short Journey Through Time - The Western Aesthetic
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 1 - Setting the Stage
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 2 - The Scythians and Their Kin
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 3 - Hellenic Greece, Troy, and the real 'Game of Thrones'
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 4 2 - The Germanic Peoples_ The Goths, Justice and Order
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 4 3 - The Germanic Peoples_ The End of the Goths
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 4 - The Germanic Peoples_ A Root and its Branches
2020-12-09 IPOC Episode #1 On the Importance of Pulling Back
2020-12-09 Language Is The Battlefield
2020-12-09 Never Forget
2020-12-09 No More Sidelines
2020-12-09 Notre Dame, Fire
2020-12-09 Our Fifth Column
2020-12-09 Our Fight Against the Malevolent Hatred of the 'Eternal Rebel'
2020-12-09 Potential YouTube Solution - The Universal Video-Catalog
2020-12-09 Reject The Black Pill
2020-12-09 Rudyard Kipling - 'If'
2020-12-09 The War on the Masculine and Feminine
2020-12-09 Waking to the Lie of Globalism
2020-12-09 Why I've decided to begin creating content
2020-12-09 YouTube - Sprinting Towards Obsolescence
In fact, as I looked around on my computer I found 4 separate such backups. Two around 8GB (the list above), one around 12GB, one around 19GB, as listed below:
2022-03-20 A Call for New Culture Creators
2022-03-20 A Call for New 'Revolutionaries'
2022-03-20 No Words - A Journey Through Sculptural Mastery Across the Ages
2022-03-20 The Secret History - Underground Dungeons, Murder, Demonic Visions and the Death of the Roman Empire
2022-03-21 A Last Message to the West_ #NCCC
2022-03-21 Henry Wadsworth Longfellow - 'Psalm of Life'
2022-03-21 Marcus Aurelius - Meditations
2022-03-21 Potential YouTube Solution - The Universal Video-Catalog
2022-03-21 The Launch of 'The Phoenix Project'
2022-03-21 Thoughts
2022-03-22 A Different Social Media Platform
2022-03-22 A New Channel is Born
2022-03-22 An Update, Announcement, and Question
2022-03-22 A Short Journey Through Time - The Western Aesthetic
2022-03-22 IPOC Episode #1 On the Importance of Pulling Back
2022-03-22 Language Is The Battlefield
2022-03-22 Never Forget
2022-03-22 No More Sidelines
2022-03-22 Notre Dame, Fire
2022-03-22 Our Fifth Column
2022-03-22 Our Fight Against the Malevolent Hatred of the 'Eternal Rebel'
2022-03-22 Reject The Black Pill
2022-03-22 Rudyard Kipling - 'If'
2022-03-22 The War on the Masculine and Feminine
2022-03-22 Waking to the Lie of Globalism
2022-03-22 Why I've decided to begin creating content
2022-03-22 YouTube - Sprinting Towards Obsolescence
2022-12-26 Alexander The Great - Lion Amongst Men
2022-12-26 A Modestly Priced Weapon - Our Controlled Press.mp4
2022-12-26 Asha Logos - A call for parallel institutions-h264-720p.mp4
2022-12-26 Obstacles Along the Way
2022-12-26 Our Subverted History
2022-12-26 Pandora's Box; Riots, Protests and Madness - Degenerative Chaos on Parade.mp4
2022-12-26 The Bolshevik Revolution - Darkness Descends.mp4
2022-12-26 The French Revolution_ Blood in the Streets of Paris
2022-12-26 The Launch of 'The Phoenix Project'.mp4
I'm just pointing out that I'm not just rolling in here trying to piss in your cheerios like some ignorant troll. I've been following your work and used to repeatedly refer to you as one of the greatest voices in our movement (you and Way of the World I often mentioned together. Similar styles and content.) I was saving archives of your material because I found it so valuable and inspirational.
But in the years since then I've done a lot more research on human population genetics and our actual origins and first fell out with Robert Sepehr a couple years ago as it became clear he was a complete quack spouting clearly false claims (claiming the Tarim Basin mummies were White, making all kinds of false and anachronistic claims, and then going off the deep end into crap about Atlantis etc.) And this was all long before I found out he was a Jew.
This issue with calling Whites "Aryans" has been a developing pet peeve of mine for a couple years now, due solely to my own research revealing how completely wrong it actually is. Not because I wouldn't like it to be true, but because I know beyond any reasonable doubt now that it's just not true.
Which article? The one I'm responding to that's full of objectively wrong claims? Or some other one that you think has more valid evidence?
Because, I repeat, Whites do not descend from Aryans AT ALL. ZERO. NONE. And I've explained why and can provide a number of mainsteam peer reviewed studies that clearly explain what their sources of DNA are, the methodology, show other studies from other labs confirming the same general findings, etc.
Both Aryans and Europeans having some common ancestry with the steppe pastoralists does not make Whites Aryan, as the steppe peoples themselves were not Aryans. Again, as I've explained.
Again, Whites existed in our present form well over a thousand years before the Aryans formed. The Aryans DID NOT EXIST before that admixture at the end of the steppe migration many centuries after Whites already existed in our present form.
So you tell me, Asha. How do we descend from a group that didn't even exist until more than a thousand years after we already did?
Show me genetic studies on ancient DNA from the past 20 years, on autosomal genetics, that prove me wrong. Because I think you know I can show you plenty from many different independent labs all showing that you're completely wrong.
Whites are not Aryan at all.
Stop making a childish melodramatic show of how tired you claim to be and PROVE ME WRONG with ACTION, not emotional theatrics without any evidence. Or at the very least directly quote something I said and then explain DIRECTLY why that statement is factually false and what evidence you base your claim on.
Now what some outdated book before DNA was even discovered where they ignorantly assumed objectively WRONG things.
But something from the modern era where we could actually test and confirm or refute claims.
For example how the Khazarian hypothesis was at least plausible up until the past 20 years, because we simply didn't have enough genetic data to say one way or the other. But now we do and we know that it's completely false and that Jews, while heavily admixed during the diaspora, undeniably do all descend from the Levant. Especially since the past 5 years of the Southern Arc and related studies where we now have over 800 ancient DNA genomes ranging over thousands of years in that region to show ancient Canaanite DNA, the Aegean pulse for around 200 years after the "Sea Peoples" invaded, the Israelite DNA, regional differences between for example Lebanese vs Arab vs Palestine etc.
If all you're doing is quoting from books from 50 or 100 years ago, you're intentionally ignoring all that new data that allows us to actually objectively critically assess those old hypotheses and determine whether or not they are true.
The same goes for century old claims about Aryans.
We know beyond any doubt now that the premise is COMPLETELY false. We've known it was most likely false since around 1880, but with the advent of modern genomics and the explosion of ancient DNA studies, now we have a much clearer picture of who was where at what time, who moved where, who mixed with whom to create which new populations, etc.
And those facts absolutely destroy the Aryan myth completely.
Now, again, if you have ACTUAL BETTER EVIDENCE, THEN PROVIDE IT.
Don't sit here pretending to yawn about how tedious you find rehashing your outdated invalid arguments.
Address what I've actually said and explain to me SPECIFICALLY what I said that was false, don't just say "you're wrong." Say "your statement of X is wrong because my information from book Y or genetic study Z contradict that claim and I believe my evidence is better for A, B, and C reasons."
You're not a stupid person. You understand what I'm saying. I've been following your work for years now.
Respond in the manner in which I believe you are actually capable if you put your mind to it and don't try to weasel out of an uncomfortable situation.
And please understand that the reason I'm pressuring you the way I am is because intelligent people can be clever about wriggling out of having to directly address things that make them uncomfortable. Fallacious reasoning, red herrings, personal anecdotes, ad hominems, equivocation, etc... and often they don't even realize it's what they're doing. They face information that triggers cognitive dissonance and their unconscious response is to get emotional, or spit out cliche arguments that aren't actually valid, but which were convincing to them, to try to change the subject, etc... anything to avoid having to directly address in detail the information that triggered that emotional response. To have to reconcile the facts being presented with their existing worldview.
Again, I know you're intelligent enough to understand exactly what I'm saying. Now I hope that you will respond in the manner which, while potentially being much less comfortable for you, will be the one that actually facilitates a productive dialog between us.
(And to be clear, all of that was written by me, not an AI. I'm at home on my desktop and able to actually type now.)
I’m not genetically nor religiously Jewish. Asserting someone is any time they disagree with you is the mark of a stupid mind. Stop doing it unless you’re actually stupid.
Now directly address what I said and explain directly and in detail why it’s actually false.
Don’t just assert it’s false without doing anything to actually prove it.
We are taught to look for purity in history. To elevate one people, one lineage, one so-called “Aryan” or “chosen” group as inherently superior. It is a story that feels tidy, simple, and comforting: a hierarchy of humans, one at the top, the rest somewhere below. But the more closely you examine the past, the more that narrative collapses. The truth is not tidy, and the systems that tell us history know this.
History is structural. It selects what is written, who is praised, and which names are remembered. It favors some peoples while fragmenting others. Civilizations that do not fit neatly into modern categories — nomads, semi-nomads, or culturally braided societies — are minimized, erased, or reclassified. They exist only as footnotes, curiosities, or scattered labels: Saka here, Sarmatian there, Alans somewhere else. And yet, across continents and centuries, these people shared language, trade, law, and values. They were more than a single city, more than a static empire. They were a living continuum.
The Scythians are the perfect example. Praised by Greeks, Persians, and Romans for justice, honor, and restraint, they were spread across Eurasia and intermingled with countless cultures. They were admired and feared, it structural, not accidental. Their story is not about identity in today’s understanding , nor about belonging to one “group”. It is about trust, morality, and how human communities sustain themselves — lessons that do not respect borders or rigid classifications.
When someone clings to the idea of superiority or any singular lineage, the point they are missing is the system itself.
It is not about the people, the genetics, or the labels. It is about how history has been recorded, taught, and reproduced — a structure that chooses who matters and who is erased.
This pattern repeats across every culture, every empire, every era. The so-called purity is a mirage a look over here.
What endures is connection, adaptability, and the braided flow of human life.
The real question is not “Were the Scythians this ir that or “Who were the Aryans?” The question is
Why has the telling of history been designed to privilege certain narratives while obscuring others?
Why is this particular time about the people outside the “cities” now t the bureaucratic individuals but the
People spoke so highly about that lived to their most pure understanding of humanity and how they wanted to deal within their system and outside and what kind of humans we have the potential to be
That question, when asked honestly, is more uncomfortable than any claim of lineage. And it is far more revealing.
Civilization was never about a single people. It was never about purity. It was always about patterns: trust, honor, collaboration, resilience. And those patterns continue to shape the world — whether history records them, misnames them, or ignores them
If you erase the cosmic backing of our heritage you inevitably wind up back at, “Welp, looks like your ancestors never existed. Sorry bud, trust the science!”.
Wny are you bald faced lying? I've literally spelled out at exceptional length on this very page the real world history of our people going back thousands of years.
Really enjoy your writings Asha. It’s a breath of fresh air in these challenging times. I sat in the car today discussing with my wife why keeping America European is so important. She had the typical female drivel of we are a “melting pot” and it’s great to have so many different ethnicities here and I had to subtly point out that the “melting pot” term was created by subversive Jews launching their Kalergi plan and our founders created a nation that was meant for European stock and not the abomination we see today. She agreed that Japan should stay Japan but the young populace has been so brainwashed into thinking Europe cannot stay Europe and America America. Anyways, you articulate much clearer the blood and spiritual bond we hold with our European brothers and I just want to say how much I admire your work. May God bless you 🫡
It's your responsibility to set that woman straight, you can't have such a vast difference of opinion on such an important topic with the woman who will mother your children.
What are your thoughts on the European farmers? They have been characterized as swarthy, matriarchal, etc. But friends who are into this stuff have been telling me that testing shows they were largely blonde/blue-eyed in the North, actually moreso than the Indo-European samples. What do you make of this? I believe sun cross and swatsika imagery was prevalent in Europe before the Steppe migrations too, so they may have had a solar religion, counter to Gimbutas and company. Either way, they're a large component of the European genome even if we know relatively little of their culture/religion
I tend to agree, many large pockets (at minimum) of the farmer subsets aren't what they're being presented to be.. and the facial reconstructions, especially, are among my biggest pet peeves - nearly *always* a swarthy brown figure with darker eyes, darker hair, a vacant expression.. as if the phenotypes of today literally didn't exist anywhere on earth a few thousand years ago, but appeared magically in recent times.
This problem goes well beyond the depiction of the early farmers.
In any case, the more data we have the more intertwined these peoples seem to be with their steppe cousins.. the language, the sun crosses, the shared customs and shared genetic heritage all seem to tell a clear tale.
I strongly believe the modern labeling framework serves to fracture a people that had singular origins.. and that this is a powerful net-negative, with regard to historical *clarity*.
I've been mining the Nart Sagas, out of the Caucasus region at around the time the glaciers finally began to recede enough for the Yamnaya to get around the Upper Caucasus Mountains, for inspiration for my latest fantasy novel, and its interesting how the Sagas, which predate the founding of Greece, contain all the seed-tales of the greatest myths of both the Western and Iranian world. Prometheus, for one ... the titans ... even Celtic myths.
Great article, equally as needed in our age. Regarding linguistic similarities, the Norwegian word Herre, denoting not only a man, but more so a distingueshed and refined gentleman, always stood out for me as very similar to Harya/Arya. A slight sound change and it is practically the same word. I wonder if there is a definite conncection.
For Aryans, 'high time' means epic time, and a return to the temporal mean will mean just that. Epic time. It is not here yet, but it approaches. Your article is very timely. Meaning pushes up from below. In the body, from the blood. In the wider world, from the land. The most meaningful times are ahead of us.
I appreciate the time and research you give to publish your thoughts. I'm one of the few of your followers who contributes to your writing. I have encouraged others to do the same.
I am noticing a pattern in your work, a theme that you return to often and this article a good example.
You do want to unify people in a common struggle but the definition of who the people are, is elusive. This time you are making a connection to the Aryans but I don't think this is a feasible cause.
Not only has the concept of the Aryans vanished from public discourse, it's not present in the vocabulary of nationalist organisations and hardly ever mentioned, even on x.com. Nobody says "I am an Aryan!"
"The one tie that binds most Europeans to one another (and) most Americans"... is entirely the product of a spiritual evolution in the logos of European people but making a case for that objective truth, is also difficult, because of a tiny faction of larping pagans who operate in the same way as Trans Rights Activists, bridling for an opportunity to destroy any sort of unity.
I get it. Some of them say based things and appear to be rational but the hatred instilled in them by decades of propaganda, is never far away.
The choice is always the same, logos or chaos. People should choose wisely but we both know they won't!
Arya is a Sanskrit term mentioned in the Vedas, which are followed by Hindus in India. It is first used in the Vedas to refer to someone who follows Vedic rituals, performs yajnas, worships Surya Devta, and lives his life as per Dharmashastras. If you claim to be an Arya, I have a few questions for you:
Do you perform daily Sandhya to your ancestors?
Have you undergone Yajnopavita Samskara (initiation ritual necessary for Aryas)?
Do you perform the yajnas that have to be performed by Aryas?
Do you know your gotra and pravara (terms for identifying one's ancestral lineage from the Vedic Arya rishis/sages)?
Is your ancestor’s gotra mentioned in the Vedas?
do you know your shakha of the Vedas that your ancestors have passed down through thousands of years?
Do you know what vama and pada are (terms for identifying linkages to Vedic scripture)?
do you follow the Dharmashastras and study the Vedangas (associated texts with each Veda)?
Do you study the Upanishads? Are your ancestors mentioned in the Upanishads?
Can you even pronounce a single Vedic verse correctly?
If not, then you ain't an Arya or Aryan, as per the Vedic scriptures themselves.
It's funny that you can't even read the Vedic corpus in its original language and have to rely on English to read a translated version, yet you make a claim of your “Aryan heritage”—complete BS.
You would fall under the category of Chandala, not Arya.
You cannot claim a culture without having any continuity to it or any adherence to its central tenets.
What “Aryan” Actually Means – and Why It Has Nothing to Do With Europeans
The word Ārya (later Airya, Ariya) appears only in early Indo-Iranian sources—the Rig Veda in north India and the Avesta in ancient Iran. In those texts it is a self-description used by Indo-Iranian-speaking tribes who lived between the southern Urals, Central Asia, and northern India about 3,500 years ago. It meant roughly “our people” or “noble,” not “white race.” No European group ever used this word for itself, and it doesn’t appear in any European language family outside Indo-Iranian.
1. The real population timeline
Western hunter-gatherers occupied Europe after the Ice Age. They were dark-skinned and dark-haired.
Anatolian early farmers arrived from the Near East after 8000 BCE. They were lighter-skinned but still part of the broader Middle-Eastern continuum.
Around 3000 BCE, Yamnaya-derived herders from the steppe entered Europe, bringing Indo-European languages and new genes.
When these three groups mixed—hunter-gatherer, farmer, and steppe—they produced a new, genetically distinct population: the ancestors of modern Europeans. That blend had fully taken shape by about 2500 BCE, centuries before anyone in Asia ever called themselves Ārya.
Every modern European population carries all three strands. Even the most “steppe-heavy” peoples, such as Lithuanians and Estonians, are no more than roughly half steppe-derived; the rest comes from early farmers and hunter-gatherers. None of the three source populations by itself looked or clustered genetically like modern Europeans—whiteness in the modern sense arose only from their mixture.
2. The separate Indo-Iranian (Aryan) formation
After Europeans had already taken their shape, some steppe groups migrated southeast into Central Asia. Between about 2000 and 1500 BCE they mixed with Bactria-Margiana (BMAC) peoples and Indus-periphery populations that already carried Iranian-related and South-Asian ancestry. Out of this fusion came the Indo-Iranians—the people who composed the Rig Veda and the Avesta—and this is where the word Ārya first appears.
From then on, Ārya referred only to those Indo-Iranian communities. Modern DNA shows no significant gene flow from them back into Europe. Europeans and Indo-Iranians share older steppe roots, but Europeans do not descend from the people who actually called themselves Ārya. Their histories diverged more than a millennium earlier.
3. Linguistic and historical misstatements
Several popular internet claims repeat long-discredited ideas:
False etymologies:
German Ehre (“honor”) and Greek aristós (“best”) do not come from Ārya. Ehre continues a Proto-Germanic root meaning “honor, respect,” and aristós comes from a Greek base meaning “excellent.” Comparative linguistics has never linked these to the Indo-Iranian word.
Invented “race-purity” laws:
Quotations supposedly from the Visigothic Code banning marriages between Goths and Romans are fabricated. The real law code, compiled in 654 CE, abolished the distinction and allowed intermarriage. Nothing in European legal history mentions “Aryan blood.”
Misread Vedic color passages:
The Rig Veda’s poetic contrasts between “bright” and “dark” enemies describe ritual or moral opposition, not skin-color categories.
4. The Scythian confusion
Another recurring myth merges “Aryans,” “Scythians,” and “Europeans” into one race.
In reality, the Scythians were an Iron-Age cultural network (≈ 900 – 300 BCE) spanning thousands of miles from the Black Sea to Mongolia—over a thousand years after the Indo-Iranian migrations. Ancient-DNA results show that “Scythian” burials contain every imaginable mixture:
* western groups mostly European-steppe,
* central groups heavily Central-Asian,
* eastern groups largely East-Eurasian.
“Scythian” described a shared nomadic horse culture, not a single ethnicity, and certainly not the origin of Europeans or of the Indo-Iranian “Aryans.”
5. What the evidence leaves us with
All credible archaeology, linguistics, and genetics line up on the same timeline:
Region / Culture - Date (approx.) - Identity & Relevance
* Yamnaya / Steppe - EMBA 3300–2600 BCE - Common steppe source for both Europe and later Indo-Iranian regions
* Corded Ware / Bell Beaker (Europe) - 2900–2300 BCE - Formation of the European population—pre-Aryan
* Sintashta / Andronovo (Urals–Central Asia) - 2100–1700 BCE - Proto-Indo-Iranian—pre-Ārya, linguistic ancestor only
* Indo-Aryan & Iranian cultures - 1800–1200 BCE - Historical Ārya peoples—no genetic return to Europe
Europe and the Indo-Iranian world are related only through that remote steppe background. Once the “Aryans” appear in history, their line is already separate.
6. Why accuracy matters
Myths that turn Aryan into a pan-European racial title or that equate Europeans with Scythians come from nineteenth-century romantic nationalism and were discredited even before World War II. Ancient-DNA research has since confirmed they’re biologically impossible. Repeating them today only replaces real European prehistory—fascinating in its own right—with pseudoscience.
This is atrocious.. I’m pleased that my piece here stands as such an obvious disproving of what you’ve just copied and pasted here, as does the overwhelming majority of pre-war European scholarship.
I’m curious, did you just ask AI to spew forth the modern corrupted-academia counter argument to what I’ve posted? This reads like a summary of all of the misinformation I’ve been grappling with on this topic for much of my life.
Follow up question - I’m curious as to why you’d want to fracture this broader people family, divorce them from their larger roots, and pretend modern Europeans have no connection to the world outside the bounds of modern Europe.. the entirety of our history and migrations shows these ideas to be completely absurd, and you’d have trouble finding a single scholar prior to the world wars that bought into this worldview/conception. Almost without exception, that saw the linguistic and cultural and genetic connections, and were enamored with them.. you seem to want to obscure or deny them at any cost - I’m curious as to why, or what specific thinkers led you down this path?
Why on Earth did you just call me Jewish? I'm majority Dutch with the remainder being English and German. 100% European, not Jewish.
Stuck to the facts at hand, to which I'll respond further when I'm not at work in my phone, dictating through ChatGPT.
But in the meantime it's obvious that a major part of your problem is relying on books written when people didn't have the evidence to prove issues one way or another, which we do now have.
Extensive ancient DNA samples are a great example of this and something I personally work with and have confirmed.
So if your pet narrative requires you to deny modern science to cling to provably false beliefs, that's faith, not evidence supported objective fact or objective truth.
Me pointing this out in no way divides our people or undermines White identity. It instead bases it on defensible objective fact, rather than complete horseshit of the same variety as Robert Sepehr (an actual Jew) has been pushing on our community.
As I said, I'll respond further later when I'm home.
And don't lie about me again like a coward looking for an excuse to avoid dealing with what I've said.
after a brief scan of your feed, I saw Cofnas' unfortunate face staring back at me, along with several other Jewish sources.. I guesstimated (perhaps wrongly, fair enough).
Regardless, I couldn't disagree with your argument any more strongly, here.. you speak of 'pet theories', ironically - this sounds like projection.
The spread of the language and genetics of this small family is absolutely undeniable, and each stage is clearly traceable.. what you laid out in your initial post was essentially my starting point (and the starting point of anyone who reads a wikipedia article on these topics), but a starting point I've long since moved a great distance from.. to hear it again, presented in all seriousness and presumably with a straight face, as if it's some unassailable counter-argument, almost felt like parody at first.
I'd love to hear you try to defend it, and specifically contradict each of my points (and the bulk of European and American pre-war scholarship. This word was chosen as a descriptor for very good reasons.. reasons that go far beyond the language tree.
I appreciate you admitting the use of ChatGPT, at the very least.. I'd love to hear your *own* opinions, soon.
This is such a big question that it's difficult for me to provide many answers - especially in this format - right now.
I have the highest possible love and respect for Jesus Christ, I regularly read or listen to his words, and I don't consider him a lineal genetic/cultural ancestor of those who call themselves 'Jews' today, and so many books of the bible provide such a wealth of wisdom.
The table of nations has always intrigued, and it correlates with many other sources, so I've never been able to dismiss it. I don't think we've yet solved the mystery of the lost tribes, and I think this may be purposeful and by design.. and I do think those squatting on the territory and referring to themselves as the 'chosen' are indeed the 'people of the lie', and a miscegenated band of deceivers and thieves. I think they've donned this mask for selfish and malevolent reasons, and obviously to great effect.
No sensible person could look at their international presence and see a 'light unto the nations'.
With regard to the real meat of what you've asked, it'll have to wait until I can properly address it in a creative work in which I can speak to the entire context.. to help this make sense to those ears who've dug a bit less deeply than yourself, here.
On the specific historical question about the “Lost Ten Tribes”:
When the Assyrian Empire conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BCE (around 722 BCE), most of the population of the ten northern tribes was deported, scattered, or absorbed into surrounding peoples. Over the following generations those tribes ceased to exist as distinct entities. The one exception is the Samaritans, who preserved a version of Israelite religion and identity in Samaria and survive to this day in small numbers.
Some northerners also moved south into the Kingdom of Judah and were partially integrated into Judean society. By the time of the Babylonian conquest of Judah about 150 years later, the term Jew (from Judah) had already broadened, and when the exiles returned, “Jew” gradually came to mean the remaining Israelites as a whole, not only members of the tribe of Judah.
As for Jesus, the New Testament genealogies explicitly trace his lineage to David and the tribe of Judah, so by the Bible’s own record he was literally from the tribe that gave its name to “Jew.” That’s not a theological statement—just the historical position of the text.
To add one final clarification: theories such as British Israelism or Christian Identity, which claim that the Lost Tribes became the ancestors of modern Europeans, are completely unsupported by archaeology, linguistics, or genetics. Modern population-genetic studies show no Israelite or Levantine ancestry in early European populations that could fit such a scenario. The “Lost Tribes” vanished through assimilation in the Near East, not migration to Europe.
I'll have to respond to the foreign settler-colonial invader Jews mass murdering and stealing the land from the indigenous Palestinians later. (Ironically the Palestinians are far more directly descended from the ancient Israelites than any modern Jews are today. That's not just my opinion. That's the proven fact of every major mainstream peer reviewed genetics study on the region in the past 20 years.)
a portion of this people family entered India and Iran (among other places) and proactive retained the designation ‘Arya’, but their cultural and genetic cousins who pushed into other territories were no less family merely because they called themselves (or were called) by different names. This is an issue of blood and biology, not semantics or overly technical wordplay.
They didn't "retain" the name. It was never used as a self descriptor before then, and never used as a word at all by the steppe people as a whole.
Further, the people with the most steppe ancestry are the Balto-Slavs. Not the Scandinavians or Germanics.
The inverse of the pseudo-scientific Nazi beliefs that were known to be false decades before the Nazis adopted them.
If you want to claim that the steppe people as a whole were the Aryans, which is objectively false to be clear, it would mean that the Germans were well down the list of peoples with "Aryan" ancestry, and the Slavs they called untermenschen and sub-human and only worthy of slavery or genocide were in fact provably the most Aryan of all.
Again, wrong about the term, but if we're going with the false claim hypothetically, it would still paint the Nazis as ridiculously wrong and inverting reality, even while also considering East Asians as honorary Aryans.
Show me a Nazi today who would admit that the Slavs are the most Aryan people of all.
Much better to just admit the truth and form our identity on the facts. We are a 5,000 year old people with a profoundly great history. Why cling to objectively false myths and lies to try to create greatness when we don't need to?
It's a cool word, but it doesn't belong to us and never has. And there's no honest means of shoehorning it into the facts as they are proven beyond doubt today without creating absurd contradictions and actually undermining our own actual identity as Whites.
Aryan is strictly an Indo-Iranian word, that's undeniable. No other branch of IE referred to themselves as "Aryan" as a group identifier. If the IEs who invaded Europe called themselves by another name, than use that other name as a endonym. I get it. Aryan is a cool word with an edgy history with its use by the Nazis, but they didn't consider all IEs to be "Aryan," only Germanics. Call yourself Germanic, Nordic, Tuetonic, hell even "Hyperborean," but Aryan? It's ridiculous & cringe for a people who have only a tenuous relation to Indo-Iranians to use OUR endonym to refer to themselves; nevermind to deny the REAL Aryans of our identity in order to larp as the ancient Steppe warriors who are only half of your current genome at most. That'd be like me, an Aryan trying to claim to be Germanic because we share ancestry in the CWC. It's absurd, yet that's what whites do with the term Aryan. You don't claim your maternal cousin's name because you share blood with him. You identify with your patrilineage, which is how Aryans & other IEs defined themselves by.
Oh, the gatekeeping intensifies—now it's "our endonym" as if Indo-Iranians own the PIE lexicon like some tribal trademark. "Aryan" isn't "strictly Indo-Iranian"; it's a direct reflex of the Proto-Indo-European h₂eryós ("noble, honorable one"), the self-designation of the Yamnaya steppe warriors who birthed the entire family around 4500–2500 BCE in Eastern Europe. That root didn't vanish when branches diverged; it echoed across the tree: Celtic aire (noble freeman, per Old Irish glosses), Italic ar-yos (linked to Roman ari- in priestly titles), and Germanic ehro/jarl (earl, noble leader, as in Beowulf's heroic ethos). Even Balto-Slavic preserves it in words like Lithuanian erelis (eagle, symbol of nobility). Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1959, pp. 50–52) reconstructs this shared etymology, and Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989, pp. 282–285) ties it to the PIE elite's self-view as the "noble" conquerors spreading from the steppe homeland—not some South Asian invention.
Your "invaders of Europe" (Corded Ware folk) did carry that identity; they just adapted the term to local tongues while imposing the same patrilineal R1a/R1b steppe lineages that define Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic men today (Underhill et al., European Journal of Human Genetics, 2015). Indo-Iranians (Sintashta/Andronovo) were merely the eastern branch, exporting that same blood eastward where it got watered down to 20–40% Yamnaya purity by BMAC and AASI admixture (Narasimhan et al., Science, 2019). Modern Europeans? We're rocking 40–70% of that undiluted steppe genome, making us the patrilineal heirs, not tenuous cousins. Nazis reclaimed "Aryan" for the Nordic-Germanic core because they recognized the steppe vanguard's legacy in us—the builders of Europe—not in diluted fringes LARPing as "real Aryans" under Islamic boot.
It's not "cringe" to honor the source; it's absurd for a mixed offshoot to deny the European cradle its due, like a distant nephew claiming the family estate. If patrilineage rules, the steppe daddies point straight to the white continent. So, what's your actual evidence that h₂eryós was Indo-Iranian-exclusive, beyond modern ego?
"The German word Ehre, closely related to the Dutch eer (which means honor), is also a derivative of Aryan, and generally conveys the notion of honorable conduct - which is regarded as atypical of the Arya."
Footnote 10, is it really supposed to read "atypical"?
---
Iarl and Iarmun(d) as is noted as possible Swedish derivatives of the original Aryan lives on in modern Swedish as Jarl and Germund. The former is both a name (man's) and an old title. The title meant "noble man, steward for the king" and similar, and is where English got Earl from.
Germund is a Viking-era male name that has become uncommon, and means "protector from spears" or "protector wielding a spear"; i.e. it means a guardsman.
There's also a now disused word, Herul, referring to a pre-Viking Era people in the south of Sweden, that has a semi-mythical status due to there not being an certain finds singling them out as a group distinct from others. The name is thought to be a derivative from the same root that leads to Aryan. A dialectal form lives on in central Sweden and parts of Finland (I think? A Finn would know better.) in the form of Hemul, a word that means "Guardian" or "Watchman", now only used in place-names.
---
Something that may indeed point to the Aryans of old hailing from somewhere north and west of India and China is the sad fact that the CCP strictly regulates access to dig sites, and only approves ecusrions and findings that are in line with party dogma on the pre-history of China. According to them, all other races learned the ways of civilisation from the Han Chinese, and so nothing that contradicts this is allowed to surface. It's no stretch of the imagination to understand that this means the party makes sure anything that is found that contradicts dogma is destroyed.
---
That there's something in the meaning of word Aryan - Noble Man of Honour - you need only look at the other major racial groups and how they have acted when left to their own devices, or allowed to live among "White people" to use the modern Americanism.
Racial (or genetical as the politically acceptable term is) archeology could be used to answer a lot of questions.
It is to me very telling that the truths are known or suspected to be anti-narrative, in that genetic archeology is used as little as possible, and then always with lots and lots of caveats and preambles.
I was referring to the Germanic words claimed by the original commenter. Ancient words that have only been used to refer to individuals doesn't give whites the right to use the word "Aryan" in the way that us real Aryans do. What I said still stands. Only Indo-Iranians are Aryan.
Ah, the classic shitskin gatekeeping ploy—claiming "Aryan" as an Indo-Iranian exclusive while ignoring its deeper Proto-Indo-European roots. That Germanic "words claimed by the original commenter" (like Old Norse jarl or Irish aire, both from PIE h₂eryós meaning "noble" or "freeman") aren't some late invention; they're direct descendants of the same linguistic stock that birthed arya in Sanskrit and Avestan. The term wasn't coined in India or Iran—it emerged among the Yamnaya steppe folk in Eastern Europe around 3000 BCE, the cradle of all Indo-Europeans, including your so-called "real Aryans." Linguists like Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989) and Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1959) trace this root across the family tree, from Hittite hassus (king) to Slavic gospodь (lord). It's not "only for individuals"; it denoted the noble warrior class that defined the entire PIE ethnogenesis.
Your Indo-Iranians (Sintashta/Andronovo descendants) were just one branch that migrated south and mixed heavily with Central Asians and South Asians—diluting that original steppe purity to 20-40% Yamnaya ancestry by the time they hit the Indus (Narasimhan et al., Science, 2019). Modern Europeans, by contrast, carry 40-70% of that same undiluted European steppe blood, making us the rightful stewards of the Aryan legacy, not some admixed offshoot playing cultural LARP. If "us real Aryans" means a tiny, Islam-threatened remnant in Pakistan, that's a sad downgrade from the conquering elite who built Europe. Whites don't "appropriate"—we are the source. What's your evidence for excluding the European core from the term?
I can't thank you enough for writing such research based articles. We the true Aryans in India are fighting a similar battle of obscured history. A history deliberately hidden by the modern historians either in the name of protecting the unity of the country by not highlighting (or hiding in true words) the achievements of one of the truest Aryan branch that is Jats/Jaats/Jutt/Getea/Gutium/Goths in Indian subcontinent. Our people are now waking up to the fact of this intellectual theft and are now doing their own research and rewriting their history which the mainstream continue to deny even in the face of hard facts staring them in the eyes. Thank you once again for reinvigorating the spirit of kinship, loyalty and honour.
It's always amused me how die-hard post-modernists will suddenly declare that certain words can only have one meaning throughout all of space and time. That historians from 100 years ago were WRONG in a philosophically absolute way to agree amongst themselves to define 'aryan' as anything different from how it is currently defined by academia. As if terms of art within disciplines can be vetoed by outsiders.
===
The perfect example of your contention that Aryans did not intermix are the Kalash people, who inhabit 3 valleys in northern Pakistan. From Grok:
https://i.ibb.co/8yt4kKx/Kalash.jpg
They are a window into our past, but likely won't last out the century.
===
When it comes to defining who is "us" I always remember what David Lane of the 14 Words said: "Any man that looks White, acts White, and fights White I'll call my brother."
===
"A vastly better and greater world awaits.. we need only to collectively wake, stand, plant our feet, and work together as an extended family, to manifest it into reality.
It begins with a shift in collective consciousness.. and this begins with us."
Beautifully put. I'd add that these beginnings have to be local. Too many people want a magic bullet, and when they realize they aren't going to win the global struggle by themselves, revert to nagging and/or accusing everyone around them of being cowards for not doing what that person is also not doing.
Do what you can around you, build up group resiliency and networks where you can discuss solutions to local problems.
Words do change over time, but when we’re talking about history or genetics we still have to tie a term to the evidence. Ārya was not a floating label that anyone could redefine. It was the self-description of Indo-Iranian tribes living between Iran and northern India about 3,500 years ago. By then, the peoples of Europe had already formed a distinct population for more than a millennium. Turning Aryan into a synonym for “European” or “White” simply detaches the word from its actual historical and linguistic context.
Regarding the Kalash, the data behind that image you shared are often misread. Ancient-DNA studies (Haak 2015; Narasimhan 2019; Ayub 2015) show the Kalash as an isolated Indo-Aryan mountain population, not “pure Europeans.” Their ancestry is roughly 20–25 percent Steppe MLBA (Sintashta-derived) and about 75 percent Indus-periphery plus Iranian-farmer. That mixture defines the ancient Indo-Aryan peoples who actually called themselves Ārya. In other words, the Kalash are one of the few living groups that can be described, in a limited sense, as descendants of the original Indo-Aryans—but they are South-Central Asian Indo-Aryans, not Europeans and not “proto-white.” Their lighter complexions come from ancient steppe input and isolation, not from being an ancestral European remnant. “West Eurasian” in those charts simply refers to the western half of Eurasia, a macro-group that also includes Iranians, North Africans, and many South Asians; it does not mean European descent.
On the David Lane quote—“any man who looks White, acts White, and fights White”—the issue isn’t sentiment but precision. Physical appearance and ancestry are different things. Genome-wide data consistently show large-scale, objectively measurable population clusters—European, East Asian, sub-Saharan African, Native American, and so on. Someone can look similar to members of another group and still be genetically distant; that’s why scientists rely on the data, not appearance. For example some Georgians can easily pass as White, but are nowhere near Whites genetically and are far less close to Whites than Askenazi Jews are.
To summarize clearly:
Aryan = historical Indo-Iranian ethnonym, never a European one.
The Kalash = Indo-Aryan South-Central Asians descended from the real Ārya, not from Europeans.
“West Eurasian” ≠ European.
Appearance ≠ ancestry.
So yes, the Kalash are Indo-Aryan in origin, but that has nothing to do with Europeans or modern Whites. The two groups share distant steppe roots yet diverged thousands of years before anyone first used the word Ārya. Equating them today isn’t reclaiming history—it’s rewriting it.
Still wrong, jewboy.
Make a valid argument rather than lying and calling me something I'm not, worse than some antifa faggot crying that anyone who says something they don't like is a Nazi. At least they're just making an ideological claim.
You're literally claiming I'm a completely different genetic population.
Explain why what I said is actually wrong and don't lie about me again.
The assumption wasn’t even based on your belief system echoing theirs, but checking your feed and quickly seeing that you’re highlighting almost exclusively known Jewish individuals.. calm down, buddy - and you’re in no position to make demands. If I guessed incorrectly, happy to take it back.. but I can’t rescind the rest.
The point of view you’re espousing really does feel tedious, at this point.. especially because I’ve never heard a genuinely compelling argument, merely an endless regurgitation of the most dishonest and manipulative modern swill of a sort that’d have been laughed out of the room before academia became occupied territory.
If you’d like to know where I disagree with the chatGPT you’ve pasted, please refer to the article I just posted.
I misread your reply being to me, instead of Zorost - but most of it still stands.
As a side note, I've been following your work for years. I'm not just butting in out of nowhere. Here's a directory listing from my computer of a bunch of your videos I backed up in case you got kicked off whatever platform because I found your videos to be very valuable.
I backed these up almost 5 years ago.
2020-12-09 A Different Social Media Platform
2020-12-09 A Last Message to the West_ #NCCC
2020-12-09 A New Channel is Born
2020-12-09 An Update, Announcement, and Question
2020-12-09 A Short Journey Through Time - The Western Aesthetic
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 1 - Setting the Stage
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 2 - The Scythians and Their Kin
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 3 - Hellenic Greece, Troy, and the real 'Game of Thrones'
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 4 2 - The Germanic Peoples_ The Goths, Justice and Order
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 4 3 - The Germanic Peoples_ The End of the Goths
2020-12-09 Conspiracy_ Our Subverted History, Part 4 - The Germanic Peoples_ A Root and its Branches
2020-12-09 IPOC Episode #1 On the Importance of Pulling Back
2020-12-09 Language Is The Battlefield
2020-12-09 Never Forget
2020-12-09 No More Sidelines
2020-12-09 Notre Dame, Fire
2020-12-09 Our Fifth Column
2020-12-09 Our Fight Against the Malevolent Hatred of the 'Eternal Rebel'
2020-12-09 Potential YouTube Solution - The Universal Video-Catalog
2020-12-09 Reject The Black Pill
2020-12-09 Rudyard Kipling - 'If'
2020-12-09 The War on the Masculine and Feminine
2020-12-09 Waking to the Lie of Globalism
2020-12-09 Why I've decided to begin creating content
2020-12-09 YouTube - Sprinting Towards Obsolescence
In fact, as I looked around on my computer I found 4 separate such backups. Two around 8GB (the list above), one around 12GB, one around 19GB, as listed below:
2022-03-20 A Call for New Culture Creators
2022-03-20 A Call for New 'Revolutionaries'
2022-03-20 No Words - A Journey Through Sculptural Mastery Across the Ages
2022-03-20 The Secret History - Underground Dungeons, Murder, Demonic Visions and the Death of the Roman Empire
2022-03-21 A Last Message to the West_ #NCCC
2022-03-21 Henry Wadsworth Longfellow - 'Psalm of Life'
2022-03-21 Marcus Aurelius - Meditations
2022-03-21 Potential YouTube Solution - The Universal Video-Catalog
2022-03-21 The Launch of 'The Phoenix Project'
2022-03-21 Thoughts
2022-03-22 A Different Social Media Platform
2022-03-22 A New Channel is Born
2022-03-22 An Update, Announcement, and Question
2022-03-22 A Short Journey Through Time - The Western Aesthetic
2022-03-22 IPOC Episode #1 On the Importance of Pulling Back
2022-03-22 Language Is The Battlefield
2022-03-22 Never Forget
2022-03-22 No More Sidelines
2022-03-22 Notre Dame, Fire
2022-03-22 Our Fifth Column
2022-03-22 Our Fight Against the Malevolent Hatred of the 'Eternal Rebel'
2022-03-22 Reject The Black Pill
2022-03-22 Rudyard Kipling - 'If'
2022-03-22 The War on the Masculine and Feminine
2022-03-22 Waking to the Lie of Globalism
2022-03-22 Why I've decided to begin creating content
2022-03-22 YouTube - Sprinting Towards Obsolescence
2022-12-26 Alexander The Great - Lion Amongst Men
2022-12-26 A Modestly Priced Weapon - Our Controlled Press.mp4
2022-12-26 Asha Logos - A call for parallel institutions-h264-720p.mp4
2022-12-26 Obstacles Along the Way
2022-12-26 Our Subverted History
2022-12-26 Pandora's Box; Riots, Protests and Madness - Degenerative Chaos on Parade.mp4
2022-12-26 The Bolshevik Revolution - Darkness Descends.mp4
2022-12-26 The French Revolution_ Blood in the Streets of Paris
2022-12-26 The Launch of 'The Phoenix Project'.mp4
I'm just pointing out that I'm not just rolling in here trying to piss in your cheerios like some ignorant troll. I've been following your work and used to repeatedly refer to you as one of the greatest voices in our movement (you and Way of the World I often mentioned together. Similar styles and content.) I was saving archives of your material because I found it so valuable and inspirational.
But in the years since then I've done a lot more research on human population genetics and our actual origins and first fell out with Robert Sepehr a couple years ago as it became clear he was a complete quack spouting clearly false claims (claiming the Tarim Basin mummies were White, making all kinds of false and anachronistic claims, and then going off the deep end into crap about Atlantis etc.) And this was all long before I found out he was a Jew.
This issue with calling Whites "Aryans" has been a developing pet peeve of mine for a couple years now, due solely to my own research revealing how completely wrong it actually is. Not because I wouldn't like it to be true, but because I know beyond any reasonable doubt now that it's just not true.
Which article? The one I'm responding to that's full of objectively wrong claims? Or some other one that you think has more valid evidence?
Because, I repeat, Whites do not descend from Aryans AT ALL. ZERO. NONE. And I've explained why and can provide a number of mainsteam peer reviewed studies that clearly explain what their sources of DNA are, the methodology, show other studies from other labs confirming the same general findings, etc.
Both Aryans and Europeans having some common ancestry with the steppe pastoralists does not make Whites Aryan, as the steppe peoples themselves were not Aryans. Again, as I've explained.
Again, Whites existed in our present form well over a thousand years before the Aryans formed. The Aryans DID NOT EXIST before that admixture at the end of the steppe migration many centuries after Whites already existed in our present form.
So you tell me, Asha. How do we descend from a group that didn't even exist until more than a thousand years after we already did?
Show me genetic studies on ancient DNA from the past 20 years, on autosomal genetics, that prove me wrong. Because I think you know I can show you plenty from many different independent labs all showing that you're completely wrong.
Whites are not Aryan at all.
Stop making a childish melodramatic show of how tired you claim to be and PROVE ME WRONG with ACTION, not emotional theatrics without any evidence. Or at the very least directly quote something I said and then explain DIRECTLY why that statement is factually false and what evidence you base your claim on.
Now what some outdated book before DNA was even discovered where they ignorantly assumed objectively WRONG things.
But something from the modern era where we could actually test and confirm or refute claims.
For example how the Khazarian hypothesis was at least plausible up until the past 20 years, because we simply didn't have enough genetic data to say one way or the other. But now we do and we know that it's completely false and that Jews, while heavily admixed during the diaspora, undeniably do all descend from the Levant. Especially since the past 5 years of the Southern Arc and related studies where we now have over 800 ancient DNA genomes ranging over thousands of years in that region to show ancient Canaanite DNA, the Aegean pulse for around 200 years after the "Sea Peoples" invaded, the Israelite DNA, regional differences between for example Lebanese vs Arab vs Palestine etc.
If all you're doing is quoting from books from 50 or 100 years ago, you're intentionally ignoring all that new data that allows us to actually objectively critically assess those old hypotheses and determine whether or not they are true.
The same goes for century old claims about Aryans.
We know beyond any doubt now that the premise is COMPLETELY false. We've known it was most likely false since around 1880, but with the advent of modern genomics and the explosion of ancient DNA studies, now we have a much clearer picture of who was where at what time, who moved where, who mixed with whom to create which new populations, etc.
And those facts absolutely destroy the Aryan myth completely.
Now, again, if you have ACTUAL BETTER EVIDENCE, THEN PROVIDE IT.
Don't sit here pretending to yawn about how tedious you find rehashing your outdated invalid arguments.
Address what I've actually said and explain to me SPECIFICALLY what I said that was false, don't just say "you're wrong." Say "your statement of X is wrong because my information from book Y or genetic study Z contradict that claim and I believe my evidence is better for A, B, and C reasons."
You're not a stupid person. You understand what I'm saying. I've been following your work for years now.
Respond in the manner in which I believe you are actually capable if you put your mind to it and don't try to weasel out of an uncomfortable situation.
And please understand that the reason I'm pressuring you the way I am is because intelligent people can be clever about wriggling out of having to directly address things that make them uncomfortable. Fallacious reasoning, red herrings, personal anecdotes, ad hominems, equivocation, etc... and often they don't even realize it's what they're doing. They face information that triggers cognitive dissonance and their unconscious response is to get emotional, or spit out cliche arguments that aren't actually valid, but which were convincing to them, to try to change the subject, etc... anything to avoid having to directly address in detail the information that triggered that emotional response. To have to reconcile the facts being presented with their existing worldview.
Again, I know you're intelligent enough to understand exactly what I'm saying. Now I hope that you will respond in the manner which, while potentially being much less comfortable for you, will be the one that actually facilitates a productive dialog between us.
(And to be clear, all of that was written by me, not an AI. I'm at home on my desktop and able to actually type now.)
Valid arguments are to counter valid arguments. You post AI-slop regurgitating Progressive nonsense.
Are you claiming to not be jewish? Neither religious nor ethnic?
I’m not genetically nor religiously Jewish. Asserting someone is any time they disagree with you is the mark of a stupid mind. Stop doing it unless you’re actually stupid.
Now directly address what I said and explain directly and in detail why it’s actually false.
Don’t just assert it’s false without doing anything to actually prove it.
We are taught to look for purity in history. To elevate one people, one lineage, one so-called “Aryan” or “chosen” group as inherently superior. It is a story that feels tidy, simple, and comforting: a hierarchy of humans, one at the top, the rest somewhere below. But the more closely you examine the past, the more that narrative collapses. The truth is not tidy, and the systems that tell us history know this.
History is structural. It selects what is written, who is praised, and which names are remembered. It favors some peoples while fragmenting others. Civilizations that do not fit neatly into modern categories — nomads, semi-nomads, or culturally braided societies — are minimized, erased, or reclassified. They exist only as footnotes, curiosities, or scattered labels: Saka here, Sarmatian there, Alans somewhere else. And yet, across continents and centuries, these people shared language, trade, law, and values. They were more than a single city, more than a static empire. They were a living continuum.
The Scythians are the perfect example. Praised by Greeks, Persians, and Romans for justice, honor, and restraint, they were spread across Eurasia and intermingled with countless cultures. They were admired and feared, it structural, not accidental. Their story is not about identity in today’s understanding , nor about belonging to one “group”. It is about trust, morality, and how human communities sustain themselves — lessons that do not respect borders or rigid classifications.
When someone clings to the idea of superiority or any singular lineage, the point they are missing is the system itself.
It is not about the people, the genetics, or the labels. It is about how history has been recorded, taught, and reproduced — a structure that chooses who matters and who is erased.
This pattern repeats across every culture, every empire, every era. The so-called purity is a mirage a look over here.
What endures is connection, adaptability, and the braided flow of human life.
The real question is not “Were the Scythians this ir that or “Who were the Aryans?” The question is
Why has the telling of history been designed to privilege certain narratives while obscuring others?
Why is this particular time about the people outside the “cities” now t the bureaucratic individuals but the
People spoke so highly about that lived to their most pure understanding of humanity and how they wanted to deal within their system and outside and what kind of humans we have the potential to be
That question, when asked honestly, is more uncomfortable than any claim of lineage. And it is far more revealing.
Civilization was never about a single people. It was never about purity. It was always about patterns: trust, honor, collaboration, resilience. And those patterns continue to shape the world — whether history records them, misnames them, or ignores them
Calling someone a jew for talking about archaeo-genetics… winning strategy lmao
Metaphysics and cosmic memory are allowed, just like listening to country + western music.
You confuse subjective tastes with objective claims.
If you erase the cosmic backing of our heritage you inevitably wind up back at, “Welp, looks like your ancestors never existed. Sorry bud, trust the science!”.
Wny are you bald faced lying? I've literally spelled out at exceptional length on this very page the real world history of our people going back thousands of years.
https://substack.com/@biopolitical/note/c-165202764?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=5i54qo
https://substack.com/@biopolitical/note/c-165212066?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=5i54qo
https://substack.com/@biopolitical/note/c-165196805?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=5i54qo
Shut up, liar.
Really enjoy your writings Asha. It’s a breath of fresh air in these challenging times. I sat in the car today discussing with my wife why keeping America European is so important. She had the typical female drivel of we are a “melting pot” and it’s great to have so many different ethnicities here and I had to subtly point out that the “melting pot” term was created by subversive Jews launching their Kalergi plan and our founders created a nation that was meant for European stock and not the abomination we see today. She agreed that Japan should stay Japan but the young populace has been so brainwashed into thinking Europe cannot stay Europe and America America. Anyways, you articulate much clearer the blood and spiritual bond we hold with our European brothers and I just want to say how much I admire your work. May God bless you 🫡
It's your responsibility to set that woman straight, you can't have such a vast difference of opinion on such an important topic with the woman who will mother your children.
So lovely and powerful. Thank you.
What are your thoughts on the European farmers? They have been characterized as swarthy, matriarchal, etc. But friends who are into this stuff have been telling me that testing shows they were largely blonde/blue-eyed in the North, actually moreso than the Indo-European samples. What do you make of this? I believe sun cross and swatsika imagery was prevalent in Europe before the Steppe migrations too, so they may have had a solar religion, counter to Gimbutas and company. Either way, they're a large component of the European genome even if we know relatively little of their culture/religion
I tend to agree, many large pockets (at minimum) of the farmer subsets aren't what they're being presented to be.. and the facial reconstructions, especially, are among my biggest pet peeves - nearly *always* a swarthy brown figure with darker eyes, darker hair, a vacant expression.. as if the phenotypes of today literally didn't exist anywhere on earth a few thousand years ago, but appeared magically in recent times.
This problem goes well beyond the depiction of the early farmers.
In any case, the more data we have the more intertwined these peoples seem to be with their steppe cousins.. the language, the sun crosses, the shared customs and shared genetic heritage all seem to tell a clear tale.
I strongly believe the modern labeling framework serves to fracture a people that had singular origins.. and that this is a powerful net-negative, with regard to historical *clarity*.
Much appreciated
I've been mining the Nart Sagas, out of the Caucasus region at around the time the glaciers finally began to recede enough for the Yamnaya to get around the Upper Caucasus Mountains, for inspiration for my latest fantasy novel, and its interesting how the Sagas, which predate the founding of Greece, contain all the seed-tales of the greatest myths of both the Western and Iranian world. Prometheus, for one ... the titans ... even Celtic myths.
Great article, equally as needed in our age. Regarding linguistic similarities, the Norwegian word Herre, denoting not only a man, but more so a distingueshed and refined gentleman, always stood out for me as very similar to Harya/Arya. A slight sound change and it is practically the same word. I wonder if there is a definite conncection.
For Aryans, 'high time' means epic time, and a return to the temporal mean will mean just that. Epic time. It is not here yet, but it approaches. Your article is very timely. Meaning pushes up from below. In the body, from the blood. In the wider world, from the land. The most meaningful times are ahead of us.
This was a great post, thank you.
I appreciate the time and research you give to publish your thoughts. I'm one of the few of your followers who contributes to your writing. I have encouraged others to do the same.
I am noticing a pattern in your work, a theme that you return to often and this article a good example.
You do want to unify people in a common struggle but the definition of who the people are, is elusive. This time you are making a connection to the Aryans but I don't think this is a feasible cause.
Not only has the concept of the Aryans vanished from public discourse, it's not present in the vocabulary of nationalist organisations and hardly ever mentioned, even on x.com. Nobody says "I am an Aryan!"
"The one tie that binds most Europeans to one another (and) most Americans"... is entirely the product of a spiritual evolution in the logos of European people but making a case for that objective truth, is also difficult, because of a tiny faction of larping pagans who operate in the same way as Trans Rights Activists, bridling for an opportunity to destroy any sort of unity.
I get it. Some of them say based things and appear to be rational but the hatred instilled in them by decades of propaganda, is never far away.
The choice is always the same, logos or chaos. People should choose wisely but we both know they won't!
Arya is a Sanskrit term mentioned in the Vedas, which are followed by Hindus in India. It is first used in the Vedas to refer to someone who follows Vedic rituals, performs yajnas, worships Surya Devta, and lives his life as per Dharmashastras. If you claim to be an Arya, I have a few questions for you:
Do you perform daily Sandhya to your ancestors?
Have you undergone Yajnopavita Samskara (initiation ritual necessary for Aryas)?
Do you perform the yajnas that have to be performed by Aryas?
Do you know your gotra and pravara (terms for identifying one's ancestral lineage from the Vedic Arya rishis/sages)?
Is your ancestor’s gotra mentioned in the Vedas?
do you know your shakha of the Vedas that your ancestors have passed down through thousands of years?
Do you know what vama and pada are (terms for identifying linkages to Vedic scripture)?
do you follow the Dharmashastras and study the Vedangas (associated texts with each Veda)?
Do you study the Upanishads? Are your ancestors mentioned in the Upanishads?
Can you even pronounce a single Vedic verse correctly?
If not, then you ain't an Arya or Aryan, as per the Vedic scriptures themselves.
It's funny that you can't even read the Vedic corpus in its original language and have to rely on English to read a translated version, yet you make a claim of your “Aryan heritage”—complete BS.
You would fall under the category of Chandala, not Arya.
You cannot claim a culture without having any continuity to it or any adherence to its central tenets.
What “Aryan” Actually Means – and Why It Has Nothing to Do With Europeans
The word Ārya (later Airya, Ariya) appears only in early Indo-Iranian sources—the Rig Veda in north India and the Avesta in ancient Iran. In those texts it is a self-description used by Indo-Iranian-speaking tribes who lived between the southern Urals, Central Asia, and northern India about 3,500 years ago. It meant roughly “our people” or “noble,” not “white race.” No European group ever used this word for itself, and it doesn’t appear in any European language family outside Indo-Iranian.
1. The real population timeline
Western hunter-gatherers occupied Europe after the Ice Age. They were dark-skinned and dark-haired.
Anatolian early farmers arrived from the Near East after 8000 BCE. They were lighter-skinned but still part of the broader Middle-Eastern continuum.
Around 3000 BCE, Yamnaya-derived herders from the steppe entered Europe, bringing Indo-European languages and new genes.
When these three groups mixed—hunter-gatherer, farmer, and steppe—they produced a new, genetically distinct population: the ancestors of modern Europeans. That blend had fully taken shape by about 2500 BCE, centuries before anyone in Asia ever called themselves Ārya.
Every modern European population carries all three strands. Even the most “steppe-heavy” peoples, such as Lithuanians and Estonians, are no more than roughly half steppe-derived; the rest comes from early farmers and hunter-gatherers. None of the three source populations by itself looked or clustered genetically like modern Europeans—whiteness in the modern sense arose only from their mixture.
2. The separate Indo-Iranian (Aryan) formation
After Europeans had already taken their shape, some steppe groups migrated southeast into Central Asia. Between about 2000 and 1500 BCE they mixed with Bactria-Margiana (BMAC) peoples and Indus-periphery populations that already carried Iranian-related and South-Asian ancestry. Out of this fusion came the Indo-Iranians—the people who composed the Rig Veda and the Avesta—and this is where the word Ārya first appears.
From then on, Ārya referred only to those Indo-Iranian communities. Modern DNA shows no significant gene flow from them back into Europe. Europeans and Indo-Iranians share older steppe roots, but Europeans do not descend from the people who actually called themselves Ārya. Their histories diverged more than a millennium earlier.
3. Linguistic and historical misstatements
Several popular internet claims repeat long-discredited ideas:
False etymologies:
German Ehre (“honor”) and Greek aristós (“best”) do not come from Ārya. Ehre continues a Proto-Germanic root meaning “honor, respect,” and aristós comes from a Greek base meaning “excellent.” Comparative linguistics has never linked these to the Indo-Iranian word.
Invented “race-purity” laws:
Quotations supposedly from the Visigothic Code banning marriages between Goths and Romans are fabricated. The real law code, compiled in 654 CE, abolished the distinction and allowed intermarriage. Nothing in European legal history mentions “Aryan blood.”
Misread Vedic color passages:
The Rig Veda’s poetic contrasts between “bright” and “dark” enemies describe ritual or moral opposition, not skin-color categories.
4. The Scythian confusion
Another recurring myth merges “Aryans,” “Scythians,” and “Europeans” into one race.
In reality, the Scythians were an Iron-Age cultural network (≈ 900 – 300 BCE) spanning thousands of miles from the Black Sea to Mongolia—over a thousand years after the Indo-Iranian migrations. Ancient-DNA results show that “Scythian” burials contain every imaginable mixture:
* western groups mostly European-steppe,
* central groups heavily Central-Asian,
* eastern groups largely East-Eurasian.
“Scythian” described a shared nomadic horse culture, not a single ethnicity, and certainly not the origin of Europeans or of the Indo-Iranian “Aryans.”
5. What the evidence leaves us with
All credible archaeology, linguistics, and genetics line up on the same timeline:
Region / Culture - Date (approx.) - Identity & Relevance
* Yamnaya / Steppe - EMBA 3300–2600 BCE - Common steppe source for both Europe and later Indo-Iranian regions
* Corded Ware / Bell Beaker (Europe) - 2900–2300 BCE - Formation of the European population—pre-Aryan
* Sintashta / Andronovo (Urals–Central Asia) - 2100–1700 BCE - Proto-Indo-Iranian—pre-Ārya, linguistic ancestor only
* Indo-Aryan & Iranian cultures - 1800–1200 BCE - Historical Ārya peoples—no genetic return to Europe
Europe and the Indo-Iranian world are related only through that remote steppe background. Once the “Aryans” appear in history, their line is already separate.
6. Why accuracy matters
Myths that turn Aryan into a pan-European racial title or that equate Europeans with Scythians come from nineteenth-century romantic nationalism and were discredited even before World War II. Ancient-DNA research has since confirmed they’re biologically impossible. Repeating them today only replaces real European prehistory—fascinating in its own right—with pseudoscience.
---
Summary:
* Ārya = Indo-Iranian self-name (≈ 1500 BCE onward).
* Europeans formed earlier from hunter-gatherer + farmer + steppe mixtures inside Europe.
* No European group descends from the historical “Aryans.”
* Scythians were a later, mixed cultural federation, not the “Aryan race.”
* Claims linking European words or laws to “Aryan” roots are demonstrably false.
This is atrocious.. I’m pleased that my piece here stands as such an obvious disproving of what you’ve just copied and pasted here, as does the overwhelming majority of pre-war European scholarship.
I’m curious, did you just ask AI to spew forth the modern corrupted-academia counter argument to what I’ve posted? This reads like a summary of all of the misinformation I’ve been grappling with on this topic for much of my life.
Follow up question - I’m curious as to why you’d want to fracture this broader people family, divorce them from their larger roots, and pretend modern Europeans have no connection to the world outside the bounds of modern Europe.. the entirety of our history and migrations shows these ideas to be completely absurd, and you’d have trouble finding a single scholar prior to the world wars that bought into this worldview/conception. Almost without exception, that saw the linguistic and cultural and genetic connections, and were enamored with them.. you seem to want to obscure or deny them at any cost - I’m curious as to why, or what specific thinkers led you down this path?
(I just realized you’re Jewish - feel free to ignore those now-irrelevant questions!)
Why on Earth did you just call me Jewish? I'm majority Dutch with the remainder being English and German. 100% European, not Jewish.
Stuck to the facts at hand, to which I'll respond further when I'm not at work in my phone, dictating through ChatGPT.
But in the meantime it's obvious that a major part of your problem is relying on books written when people didn't have the evidence to prove issues one way or another, which we do now have.
Extensive ancient DNA samples are a great example of this and something I personally work with and have confirmed.
So if your pet narrative requires you to deny modern science to cling to provably false beliefs, that's faith, not evidence supported objective fact or objective truth.
Me pointing this out in no way divides our people or undermines White identity. It instead bases it on defensible objective fact, rather than complete horseshit of the same variety as Robert Sepehr (an actual Jew) has been pushing on our community.
As I said, I'll respond further later when I'm home.
And don't lie about me again like a coward looking for an excuse to avoid dealing with what I've said.
after a brief scan of your feed, I saw Cofnas' unfortunate face staring back at me, along with several other Jewish sources.. I guesstimated (perhaps wrongly, fair enough).
Regardless, I couldn't disagree with your argument any more strongly, here.. you speak of 'pet theories', ironically - this sounds like projection.
The spread of the language and genetics of this small family is absolutely undeniable, and each stage is clearly traceable.. what you laid out in your initial post was essentially my starting point (and the starting point of anyone who reads a wikipedia article on these topics), but a starting point I've long since moved a great distance from.. to hear it again, presented in all seriousness and presumably with a straight face, as if it's some unassailable counter-argument, almost felt like parody at first.
I'd love to hear you try to defend it, and specifically contradict each of my points (and the bulk of European and American pre-war scholarship. This word was chosen as a descriptor for very good reasons.. reasons that go far beyond the language tree.
I appreciate you admitting the use of ChatGPT, at the very least.. I'd love to hear your *own* opinions, soon.
Then show me a credible genetic study from the last 20 years on autosomal DNA that supports your claims.
Let's cut the bullshit. Show your objective evidence that trumps the genetic evidence I have proving you wrong.
This is such a big question that it's difficult for me to provide many answers - especially in this format - right now.
I have the highest possible love and respect for Jesus Christ, I regularly read or listen to his words, and I don't consider him a lineal genetic/cultural ancestor of those who call themselves 'Jews' today, and so many books of the bible provide such a wealth of wisdom.
The table of nations has always intrigued, and it correlates with many other sources, so I've never been able to dismiss it. I don't think we've yet solved the mystery of the lost tribes, and I think this may be purposeful and by design.. and I do think those squatting on the territory and referring to themselves as the 'chosen' are indeed the 'people of the lie', and a miscegenated band of deceivers and thieves. I think they've donned this mask for selfish and malevolent reasons, and obviously to great effect.
No sensible person could look at their international presence and see a 'light unto the nations'.
With regard to the real meat of what you've asked, it'll have to wait until I can properly address it in a creative work in which I can speak to the entire context.. to help this make sense to those ears who've dug a bit less deeply than yourself, here.
On the specific historical question about the “Lost Ten Tribes”:
When the Assyrian Empire conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BCE (around 722 BCE), most of the population of the ten northern tribes was deported, scattered, or absorbed into surrounding peoples. Over the following generations those tribes ceased to exist as distinct entities. The one exception is the Samaritans, who preserved a version of Israelite religion and identity in Samaria and survive to this day in small numbers.
Some northerners also moved south into the Kingdom of Judah and were partially integrated into Judean society. By the time of the Babylonian conquest of Judah about 150 years later, the term Jew (from Judah) had already broadened, and when the exiles returned, “Jew” gradually came to mean the remaining Israelites as a whole, not only members of the tribe of Judah.
As for Jesus, the New Testament genealogies explicitly trace his lineage to David and the tribe of Judah, so by the Bible’s own record he was literally from the tribe that gave its name to “Jew.” That’s not a theological statement—just the historical position of the text.
To add one final clarification: theories such as British Israelism or Christian Identity, which claim that the Lost Tribes became the ancestors of modern Europeans, are completely unsupported by archaeology, linguistics, or genetics. Modern population-genetic studies show no Israelite or Levantine ancestry in early European populations that could fit such a scenario. The “Lost Tribes” vanished through assimilation in the Near East, not migration to Europe.
I'll have to respond to the foreign settler-colonial invader Jews mass murdering and stealing the land from the indigenous Palestinians later. (Ironically the Palestinians are far more directly descended from the ancient Israelites than any modern Jews are today. That's not just my opinion. That's the proven fact of every major mainstream peer reviewed genetics study on the region in the past 20 years.)
Everything he said is true. Only Indians & Iranians are Aryan. It's a Indo-Iranian word for Indra's sake.
Definitively incorrect..
a portion of this people family entered India and Iran (among other places) and proactive retained the designation ‘Arya’, but their cultural and genetic cousins who pushed into other territories were no less family merely because they called themselves (or were called) by different names. This is an issue of blood and biology, not semantics or overly technical wordplay.
They didn't "retain" the name. It was never used as a self descriptor before then, and never used as a word at all by the steppe people as a whole.
Further, the people with the most steppe ancestry are the Balto-Slavs. Not the Scandinavians or Germanics.
The inverse of the pseudo-scientific Nazi beliefs that were known to be false decades before the Nazis adopted them.
If you want to claim that the steppe people as a whole were the Aryans, which is objectively false to be clear, it would mean that the Germans were well down the list of peoples with "Aryan" ancestry, and the Slavs they called untermenschen and sub-human and only worthy of slavery or genocide were in fact provably the most Aryan of all.
Again, wrong about the term, but if we're going with the false claim hypothetically, it would still paint the Nazis as ridiculously wrong and inverting reality, even while also considering East Asians as honorary Aryans.
Show me a Nazi today who would admit that the Slavs are the most Aryan people of all.
Much better to just admit the truth and form our identity on the facts. We are a 5,000 year old people with a profoundly great history. Why cling to objectively false myths and lies to try to create greatness when we don't need to?
It's a cool word, but it doesn't belong to us and never has. And there's no honest means of shoehorning it into the facts as they are proven beyond doubt today without creating absurd contradictions and actually undermining our own actual identity as Whites.
Aryan is strictly an Indo-Iranian word, that's undeniable. No other branch of IE referred to themselves as "Aryan" as a group identifier. If the IEs who invaded Europe called themselves by another name, than use that other name as a endonym. I get it. Aryan is a cool word with an edgy history with its use by the Nazis, but they didn't consider all IEs to be "Aryan," only Germanics. Call yourself Germanic, Nordic, Tuetonic, hell even "Hyperborean," but Aryan? It's ridiculous & cringe for a people who have only a tenuous relation to Indo-Iranians to use OUR endonym to refer to themselves; nevermind to deny the REAL Aryans of our identity in order to larp as the ancient Steppe warriors who are only half of your current genome at most. That'd be like me, an Aryan trying to claim to be Germanic because we share ancestry in the CWC. It's absurd, yet that's what whites do with the term Aryan. You don't claim your maternal cousin's name because you share blood with him. You identify with your patrilineage, which is how Aryans & other IEs defined themselves by.
Oh, the gatekeeping intensifies—now it's "our endonym" as if Indo-Iranians own the PIE lexicon like some tribal trademark. "Aryan" isn't "strictly Indo-Iranian"; it's a direct reflex of the Proto-Indo-European h₂eryós ("noble, honorable one"), the self-designation of the Yamnaya steppe warriors who birthed the entire family around 4500–2500 BCE in Eastern Europe. That root didn't vanish when branches diverged; it echoed across the tree: Celtic aire (noble freeman, per Old Irish glosses), Italic ar-yos (linked to Roman ari- in priestly titles), and Germanic ehro/jarl (earl, noble leader, as in Beowulf's heroic ethos). Even Balto-Slavic preserves it in words like Lithuanian erelis (eagle, symbol of nobility). Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1959, pp. 50–52) reconstructs this shared etymology, and Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989, pp. 282–285) ties it to the PIE elite's self-view as the "noble" conquerors spreading from the steppe homeland—not some South Asian invention.
Your "invaders of Europe" (Corded Ware folk) did carry that identity; they just adapted the term to local tongues while imposing the same patrilineal R1a/R1b steppe lineages that define Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic men today (Underhill et al., European Journal of Human Genetics, 2015). Indo-Iranians (Sintashta/Andronovo) were merely the eastern branch, exporting that same blood eastward where it got watered down to 20–40% Yamnaya purity by BMAC and AASI admixture (Narasimhan et al., Science, 2019). Modern Europeans? We're rocking 40–70% of that undiluted steppe genome, making us the patrilineal heirs, not tenuous cousins. Nazis reclaimed "Aryan" for the Nordic-Germanic core because they recognized the steppe vanguard's legacy in us—the builders of Europe—not in diluted fringes LARPing as "real Aryans" under Islamic boot.
It's not "cringe" to honor the source; it's absurd for a mixed offshoot to deny the European cradle its due, like a distant nephew claiming the family estate. If patrilineage rules, the steppe daddies point straight to the white continent. So, what's your actual evidence that h₂eryós was Indo-Iranian-exclusive, beyond modern ego?
Precisely.
"The German word Ehre, closely related to the Dutch eer (which means honor), is also a derivative of Aryan, and generally conveys the notion of honorable conduct - which is regarded as atypical of the Arya."
Footnote 10, is it really supposed to read "atypical"?
---
Iarl and Iarmun(d) as is noted as possible Swedish derivatives of the original Aryan lives on in modern Swedish as Jarl and Germund. The former is both a name (man's) and an old title. The title meant "noble man, steward for the king" and similar, and is where English got Earl from.
Germund is a Viking-era male name that has become uncommon, and means "protector from spears" or "protector wielding a spear"; i.e. it means a guardsman.
There's also a now disused word, Herul, referring to a pre-Viking Era people in the south of Sweden, that has a semi-mythical status due to there not being an certain finds singling them out as a group distinct from others. The name is thought to be a derivative from the same root that leads to Aryan. A dialectal form lives on in central Sweden and parts of Finland (I think? A Finn would know better.) in the form of Hemul, a word that means "Guardian" or "Watchman", now only used in place-names.
---
Something that may indeed point to the Aryans of old hailing from somewhere north and west of India and China is the sad fact that the CCP strictly regulates access to dig sites, and only approves ecusrions and findings that are in line with party dogma on the pre-history of China. According to them, all other races learned the ways of civilisation from the Han Chinese, and so nothing that contradicts this is allowed to surface. It's no stretch of the imagination to understand that this means the party makes sure anything that is found that contradicts dogma is destroyed.
---
That there's something in the meaning of word Aryan - Noble Man of Honour - you need only look at the other major racial groups and how they have acted when left to their own devices, or allowed to live among "White people" to use the modern Americanism.
Racial (or genetical as the politically acceptable term is) archeology could be used to answer a lot of questions.
It is to me very telling that the truths are known or suspected to be anti-narrative, in that genetic archeology is used as little as possible, and then always with lots and lots of caveats and preambles.
---
Thank you for such a comprehensive article.
Aryan is only an Indo-Iranian word. Those words in European languages haven't been proven to be cognate to Arya.
BS, there’s the Celtic word aryos, meaning noble, which is attested in Gaulish names and inscriptions during Antiquity.
I was referring to the Germanic words claimed by the original commenter. Ancient words that have only been used to refer to individuals doesn't give whites the right to use the word "Aryan" in the way that us real Aryans do. What I said still stands. Only Indo-Iranians are Aryan.
Ah, the classic shitskin gatekeeping ploy—claiming "Aryan" as an Indo-Iranian exclusive while ignoring its deeper Proto-Indo-European roots. That Germanic "words claimed by the original commenter" (like Old Norse jarl or Irish aire, both from PIE h₂eryós meaning "noble" or "freeman") aren't some late invention; they're direct descendants of the same linguistic stock that birthed arya in Sanskrit and Avestan. The term wasn't coined in India or Iran—it emerged among the Yamnaya steppe folk in Eastern Europe around 3000 BCE, the cradle of all Indo-Europeans, including your so-called "real Aryans." Linguists like Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989) and Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1959) trace this root across the family tree, from Hittite hassus (king) to Slavic gospodь (lord). It's not "only for individuals"; it denoted the noble warrior class that defined the entire PIE ethnogenesis.
Your Indo-Iranians (Sintashta/Andronovo descendants) were just one branch that migrated south and mixed heavily with Central Asians and South Asians—diluting that original steppe purity to 20-40% Yamnaya ancestry by the time they hit the Indus (Narasimhan et al., Science, 2019). Modern Europeans, by contrast, carry 40-70% of that same undiluted European steppe blood, making us the rightful stewards of the Aryan legacy, not some admixed offshoot playing cultural LARP. If "us real Aryans" means a tiny, Islam-threatened remnant in Pakistan, that's a sad downgrade from the conquering elite who built Europe. Whites don't "appropriate"—we are the source. What's your evidence for excluding the European core from the term?
Thank you for dropping the Christian nonsense.
Great work 🙌☀️⚡️
I can't thank you enough for writing such research based articles. We the true Aryans in India are fighting a similar battle of obscured history. A history deliberately hidden by the modern historians either in the name of protecting the unity of the country by not highlighting (or hiding in true words) the achievements of one of the truest Aryan branch that is Jats/Jaats/Jutt/Getea/Gutium/Goths in Indian subcontinent. Our people are now waking up to the fact of this intellectual theft and are now doing their own research and rewriting their history which the mainstream continue to deny even in the face of hard facts staring them in the eyes. Thank you once again for reinvigorating the spirit of kinship, loyalty and honour.