Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Yogi_G]

I read that the "white" skin is a mutation/disease (just like the Chinese eyes and the bald head) which happened only some 3000-4000 years back. Europeans were SDRE just like us before that.

[devesh]

I think it's much older than that. those who migrated out of Africa eventually made their way to Europe and there gradually, the cold gradually changed the tone to lighter colors. I think it took some 40000 years for the dark skin to make way to the "white" skin. this is the major heartache of White racists and neo-Nazis. they repeat over and over that it tokk 40000 years to attain the "pristine" status, and all that is being diluted within a few generations in the name of inter-racial marriage. this is their biggest paranoia. add to that modern culture's obsession with color/tanning (in the West), they really feel that "white pride" is being flushed down the drain.

[RajeshA]

AGENDA

Unfortunately or fortunately, the best way to prove history is to repeat it. When Pakis are scattered westward (by force rather than just Canadian vijja) and the region comes under Indian suzerainty, then the world will have to shut up and accept that such a thing could have happened before.

At the moment, what I notice is that most Indians who speak about the virtues of Indian Civilization, are actually fighting a rearguard action for equality and respect from the West and some are still doing this with respect to Islam.

However civilizations built on domination of the other are not going to give respect or equality to us because we ask for it. There is actually no concept of equality among cultures or civilizations. The only equality one reaches with the other is if one has fought the other to a standstill and neither party has any more energy to pursue the war. That is the only equality one can speak of. Otherwise the motive always remains conquest and domination.

So if India hopes to get equality and respect, then we should aim for total domination - of all of them - Western, Sinic and Islamic civilizations. Unless we aim for complete domination, we will get neither respect nor equality. Equality is never dispensed to the other as charity.

So all our strategies of discussion and our rhetoric which "demand" equality and respect from the other, should henceforth be shunned and stopped.

The singular goal should be DOMINATION.

Now domination happens from two directions - from the past and from the future. Our military, technological, economic, cultural and political domination of the others may be some time in coming. Even on all engines running it may take a few decades.

But the work for domination from the past can be started right now.

The West has built its historical narrative either on its Judeo-Christian "roots" or on top of Greek and Roman Civilization. It has additionally been boosted by Colonial Romanticism, Racial Aesthetics, Archaeological and Cultural Conservation, Re-imagined Historical Fiction, Euro-Centric Scientificism, etc.

The West is constantly feeding its common history with tales of grandeur through old towns spread over Europe, paintings by the masters, sculptures, classical music, etc. and an effort is made to marry Europe's Christian roots with Greek-inspired rationalism.

What we need to do is to divert Western Civilization's search for historical grandeur to a different source and origin. The desired narrative should be that Western Civilization is part of the Indian Civilization. That is a much more ambitious narrative than saying

• Western Civilization and Indian Civilization have same values, (undesired), and thus natural allies or
• Western Civilization is influenced by India, or
• Western Civilization is a sister civilization to that of India, or
• Western Civilization is based on Indian Civilization

Our ambitious stance should be to ultimately completely destroy the Western identity. How do we go about doing it? Stay tuned!

[Yogi_G]

I think it's much older than that. those who migrated out of Africa eventually made their way to Europe and there gradually, the cold gradually changed the tone to lighter colors. I think it took some 40000 years for the dark skin to make way to the "white" skin. this is the major heartache of White racists and neo-Nazis. they repeat over and over that it tokk 40000 years to attain the "pristine" status, and all that is being diluted within a few generations in the name of inter-racial marriage. this is their biggest paranoia. add to that modern culture's obsession with color/tanning (in the West), they really feel that "white pride" is being flushed down the drain.

Ok I just google some more and found that it happened sometime between 6000-12000 years. I never understood what white exceptionalism is about and what they have to be proud about. In terms of being pioneers they were far behind the great civilizations like Indians, Chinese, Egyptians etc etc, parts of the white lands still housed hunter gatherers while these civilizations had long moved on to farming. Worse, the UKStan area got to farming only in 4000 BC, some 4000 years later than the Indians and others, it was emigrating middle easterners who brought farming to them. Only around 800-700 BC did they start having a semblance of large civilizational empire and until then were no-shows. Then after the Roman empire there was this lull they had for about 1200 years, once number system came into Europe you see them start to innovate. In the 10000 year old history of man, the whites probably occupy the last place overall. If 400 years of dominance is enough to convince them of exceptionalism then what should the Indians and Chinese make of themselves who dominated mankind for thousands of years?

The only reason they need an Aryan identity is to escape their dark unenviable legacy of Germannic tribes, Gauls etc.

[ManishH]

One funny thing about invasion theories:

As long as India is shown to be a cul-de-sac, it doesn't really matter where the geographical origin is. It can be Anatolia, Caspian, Urals.

One thing most striking to me about out-of-india scenarios:

As long as India is the point of origin, it doesn't really matter if the hypothetical migration took place 90kya, 10kya or any other time whatsoever. As long as the theory says "out of india", it is just fine.

[RajeshA]

AGENDA

Although this issue does not technically belong here, but as part of the Agenda to define the dominating narrative in the West, we would have to respond to the question of racial difference.

The Aryan Invasion Theory tells that the Aryans came from outside India. Europeans have through their domination of academics defined that the Aryans were invariably fair-skinned, and the Germans went on to say, they were tall, white, blond and had blue eyes. Then they sprinkled the Indians with their "superior" white genes and some of us started looking somewhat more fair than the other Indians.

If however the Out of India Theory has to take hold, the racial question needs to be resolved.

If there were no migrations from outside India into India bringing with it "fairer" genes, then we have to accept that the "fairer skin" among Indians is just as native to India as the "darker" skin, and in fact genetically we cover a spectrum of many skin colors.

But the Europeans are whites, so how can they have started speaking languages derived from Sanskrit, an Indian language from the Indian Subcontinent?

Of course we Indians made our contribution in the development of European languages. It happened because we mixed with the European and indeed Eurasian populations. It is not the Whites who made North Indians fairer, but the other way round. It was the Indians, who made Europeans darker.

The Greeks and Italians are much darker than Northern Europeans. That is because genetically we had our major presence among the Greek and South Europeans. Before the advent of "dark" Aryans into the European tribes, Europeans used to be much fairer. It is we who made them darker.

Whereas our influence among the more whiter skinned Europeans was more cerebral with Indians becoming a part of their knowledge elite, Indian influence among the South European tribes was both demographic and cerebral, with Indians intermarrying with Europeans.

We speak of a time-period between 4000 and 2500 years ago.

Skin Color Superiority

Now much of European superiority is built upon their "white skin". In this context we hear of "the burden of the white man" to civilize the others.

Until and unless we destroy the myth of white superiority, their claims would be acknowledged and we Indians would in deference to their claimed superiority allow them to dictate the narrative, which almost always has been scornful of people of color, and to continue white supremacy.

At some very deep level we Indians seem to have bought the crap that white skin generally means something superior and exudes beauty, much more than a somewhat more darker skin. I don't know whether we can cure it, but we need to at least develop the rhetoric which gives Indians as well the confidence that Indians are just as aesthetically appealing as say whites. We need to develop the necessary rhetoric.

As rational human beings, we know skin color is simply one manifestation of nature with allows no claim on superiority or inferiority. Despite this awareness we still need to have the necessary rhetoric to support those the egos of those Indians and to respond to such attacks by white supremacists.

The rhetoric we develop could be something on the lines of:
"Pale people are not blessed by the Sun, neither by the burning Passion of its Fire nor by the enlightening Knowledge of its Light!"Ⓒ , or

"Pale people are people of the Shadows! Indians are the children of the Sun"Ⓒ

As said, we need to win in every theater in order to claim domination and thus offer equality from a dominating position so that the others may also agree to it.

[RajeshA]

One funny thing about invasion theories:

As long as India is shown to be a cul-de-sac, it doesn't really matter where the geographical origin is. It can be Anatolia, Caspian, Urals.

Very true!

One thing most striking to me about out-of-india scenarios:

As long as India is the point of origin, it doesn't really matter if the hypothetical migration took place 90kya, 10kya or any other time whatsoever. As long as the theory says "out of india", it is just fine.

Here I think it should matter!

I think we should strive to show that it was not just Indian people who migrated out, but rather it was Indian Civilization that found its ways outside. Any theories of migration of Indian people in the last 5000-7000 years are good!

[member_22872]

It is AIT supporters claim that even though non-black populations might have had their origin in India before 10000 years, after that migrations/invasions into India did take place, hence AIT stands.
Even though Oppenheimer's book shows that no genetic migration into India took place in the last 10000 years on a grand scale.
So I guess just placing non-black population origin in India is important as AIT theorists are placing their bets on non-Indian origin of Vedas, even Sarasvati river's origin outside India. If we are complacent about the veracity of the origin, AIT will be here to stay.

[RajeshA]

AGENDA


It was at the time of 'Renaissance' (late 14th century) that Western Europe, especially Italy started taking renewed interest in the literary and philosophical genius of the Greeks. With time, the Renaissance movement spread throughout Europe. On its heels also came the 'Age of Enlightenment'.

To a large extent, the Western Civilization sources much of its literary, philosophical and scientific underpinnings on the Greek Civilization. At the time of Renaissance, a balancing act was attempted to form a singular narrative out of Judeo-Christian and Greek narratives. To say the least, it was a disharmonious narrative, but the disharmony itself allowed a lively dialogue within the Western Civilization further enriching it, the dialogue itself helping the Church to emphasize its position and thus occupying one pole of the dialogue.

Later on when the civilization was christened as Western Civilization, it claimed for itself its Judeo-Christian past and through the dialogue, appropriated for itself Greek Civilization itself, for without the Greek Civilization it would be poor in mind, without the Judeo-Christian Civilization it would be poor in faith, and without the dialogue between the two it would be poor in its own centrality.

However today the Europeans are much more open to acknowledging their pre-Christian past and the various faiths and gods all over Europe - Ásatrú, Forn Siðr, Odinism, Theodism, Urglaawe, Druids, Suomenusko, etc.

In order to swallow the Western Civilization, or at least its pre-Christian history, Indian Civilizations would have to credibly show that we are in fact the origin of much of that what makes Europe or have at least considerably influenced it.

1. European Languages - (Slavic, Germanic, Latin, Greek, Celtic)
2. Ancient European Faiths (Hellenism, Roman, Celtic Druids, Nordic pantheon
3. Mathematics, Astronomy, Medicine, Metallurgy, Sciences (both through Greeks and through Arabs)
4. Trading Partner
5. Abraham's origins, Jesus's inspiration

We need to convince the West that all of the above have their roots in the Indian Civilization. This is a massive project, and would require collaboration between Indians and Westerners. But there may be many willing to help.

• Mystic Christians
• Paganism Revivalists in Europe
• Greek Hellenists
• Secular Jews
• Science Historians
• 'Learned' Arabs

[Yogi_G]

Looks like there is already some amount of thought on the concept of the "Indic race", some thoughts...

Brown and Yellow man's burden

[Agnimitra]

I've been reading this Indian's blog for the past few days, ever since someone posted the link in GDF. I found this 2009 article on genetic evidence which he thinks supports the Aryan migration and overlay over Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic, with the "higher" caste showing more Euro genes and lower ones more Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian genes.

Some excerpts below. Comments from pundits?

A note on some recent work on India genetics

When presented in a principle component analysis with Chinese and Europeans the Indians, the first and second eigenvectors separates the 3 populations. But most Indians show an interesting “^” distribution of relationships to the other two populations falling along two lines pointing towards Chinese and Europeans respectively. Along the line pointing towards the Europeans are distributed the all varNa, most avarNa and some niShAda populations. There is some correlation between caste rank and north Indian location and the closeness to the Europeans. Thus the kashmIrian brAhmaNa-s are closest to the Europeans in this sample, followed, northern vaishya-s, kAyastha-s and south Indian shUdra-s. Towards the other end of this line are south Indian avarNa-s, northern and southern tribals such a bhilla and che~nchu-s. Some exception features are seen in the halakki tribal farmers of the karnATa lands. About half the individuals are relatively close to Europeans (roughly to the extant of southern shUdra-s), while the other half are only as close as other tribals such as bhilla-s and che~nchu-s are to Europeans. Further, the southern vaishya is farther from the Europeans than southern shUdra-s such as kamma-s or velama-s. On the other line, very close to the Chinese are the Tibeto-Burman speaking Ao Naga and Nyshi tribes. Closer to the main Indian populations, but on the “Chinese line” are the Austro-Asiatic speaking santhAl and khAria. At the point of intersection of the two lines are the kuruMba tribes. However, there are others who are in the angle in between these two lines — these are the tribes such as the sahAriya and tharu and the satnAmI people. When the lATa sample from HapMap was added to the results of this work it was found that a subset of them was located on the line pointing to the Europeans, overlapping with north Indian vaishya and kashmIrian brAhmaNa-s. However, another subset of lATa-s showed a peculiar descent and could be the gurjara.

The former British spy Patterson and Price develop a method to analyze the populations as a combination of tree-like branching from a common ancestor and admixture. Based on this they model the evolution of Hindus as one of admixture of an “Ancestral South Indian” population that is closer to the Andamanese Onge and an “Ancestral North Indian” population that is closer to Western Eurasian. While this is base model their own data suggests that things were more complex. My interpretation of it is thus: The term Ancestral South Indian is an unfortunate one because it is clear they were all over India at one point, given that there is some admixture of them even in the kashmIrian brAmaNa-s. So they are better termed the proto-Indians. Their genetic contribution is particular strong in the kurumba, the che~nchu and bhilla tribes and several southern avarNa populations. They are more distantly related to the exclusion of all other groups to the Onge of the Andamans. So the proto-Indians appear to represent a very early wave of Homo sapiens emanating from Africa and moving into the sub-continent and all the way to Andamans where they go isolated for at least 25,000 years. It would be interesting in this context to investigate the vedda-s of shrI lankA. At some point early Austro-Asiatic speakers appeared to have moved into India from the East and admixed with the proto-Indians giving rise to tribes such as Kharia and Santhal. Much latter the eastern Tibeto-Burmans appear to have invaded in northeastern parts of the country probably in several distinct waves. These together constitute the line connecting the Indian populations with the Chinese. On the other side as we have discussed here before multiple times Western Eurasians started entering India through the northwest. There might have some early invasions of this population that mated with the proto-Indians contributing the Western Eurasian ancestry perhaps even in the Neolithic. Archaeology suggests that the IVC/SSVC and associated chalcolithic spread was one major contributor of Western Eurasian genes, while linguistics points to the spread of Indo-Aryan languages and culture as a major contributor. After the entry of the Western Eurasian peoples, there appears to have been further admixture between them and the already established Austro-Asiatic-proto-Indian tribal admixture (e.g. in North Indian groups like saharia, tharu and satnAmI).

However, interestingly, the relationship between the archaeological attested Western Eurasian intrusion (SSVC/IVC) and the linguistic one (Indo-Aryan) still remains somewhat unclear. Nevertheless, the case for the intrusion of western Eurasian genes is now rather strong based this new data, along the lines of the arguments we have earlier presented here (e.g. there is clearly no evidence for the proto-Indian population to have dispersed into Western/Central Eurasia which would be required for the “Out of India” theories). A study of Indo-Aryan tradition shows that they clearly originated in northern climes outside India. This, combined with the constantly streaming genetic data on Indians indicates that most parsimoniously the Indo-Aryan language and tradition that defines India (bhArata) was actually carried along with the “genes” by the invading western Eurasian contribution to India. This puts to death the Talagerian fantasies (shared by many confused Hindus) of out of India movements of Indo-European. It also largely crushes the language teacher model of certain indologists, like a notorious German from Harvard, wherein the Indo-Aryan language but not genes are contributed to the proto-Indians. The study of vedic argues against Dravidian being a substratum to Old Indo-Aryan. The genetic data argues against Austro-Asiatic having been a substratum. This incidentally kills another hypothesis of the same Harvard Hindu hater. This leaves us with little room with respect to the language of SSVC/IVC and associated chalcolithic cultures — it was either indeed the distinctive language X or Indo-Aryan. The Dravidians only much later entered the Indo-Aryan cultural complex in Southern India as the wave of Aryanization spread southwards.

Now let us look at some political aspects in the form of the reactions to the paper. The most remarkable reaction was the set of interviews given by the Indian authors of the paper. One of them remarked: “There was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.”; “…genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society”. Another remarked: “When you look at the origin of the Indian population, the Onges in the Andaman Islands are dated to about 65,000 years ago, and the European population is dated to 40,000 years ago. So the question of Europeans coming to India does not arise. The ancestral North Indians must have given rise to the European population.” Now one wonders how they are saying something exactly opposite to what they say in the paper. In the paper it is mentioned that the mlechCha Reich wrote the paper, but how is it that the deshI authors who gave him the samples kept quiet if they interpreted the result in a diametrically opposite way!

Next on some Indian internet fora that I visit I noticed that many had berserk. There were the usual brahmadviS-s who were hurling venom on the foreign and North Indian brAhmaNa-s forgetting all the while that the paper had suggested that even they might be up to half Western Eurasiatic in their origins. Yet other assorted Hindus well crying conspiracy and invoking assorted specters ranging from Talageri to the old dead Germans like mokShamUla to their modern counterparts haunting the rooms of Harvard and Columbia. They insisted that the Aryan invasion was dead and OIT was destined for a long life, not realizing that their much cherished OIT had just been blown to smithereens. Others posing as geneticists and statisticians claimed that they had already established AIT to be false that this new data was of no consequence — little did they realize that this new data was merely confirm what was already clear from other analysis. Finally, in the British tabloid a geneticist of Indian origin Aravinda Chakravarti was invited to write a commentary on the article. Putting on the pretensions of a historian he wrote: “The idea and shape of modern India was an invention of its twentieth-century political leaders, who crafted citizenship defined by civic and universalist, rather than ethnic or religious, criteria precisely because that citizenship is so diverse.” Little did he realize that it was hard to find a modicum of meaning in that sentence. The shape and the idea of India modern or ancient was not an invention of its leaders. They were merely lucky inheritors of a tradition forged upon a distinctive geography by Indo-Aryan culture, by the vehicle of Sanskrit and its vulgar prAkR^ita sisters. Then Chakarvarti goes on to quote Nehru who talks of “invisible threads” holding together the wildly diverse Indians. It is hardly surprising that to the progressive chAchA these threads were invisible or perhaps he was just too coy like his dynastic successors to state that this thread was the dharma. What the genetics has shown is that there is another such thread binding a large subset of the Hindus and this is one of shared genes. The Chakravarti informs us that: “… Austro-Asiatic speakers arrived in India about 60,000 years ago. They were dispersed and driven into smaller enclaves with the arrival of the Dravidian speakers around 3000 BCE. The latter people were themselves driven south with the arrival of the Indo-European speakers in about 1500BC.” One wonders what qualifies Chakravarti to write such nonsensical commentaries in the tabloid. As a geneticist he is certainly conversant of divergence rates. He probably realizes that this also applies to languages. How come Austro-Asiatic arriving at 60000 hardly shows the divergence commensurate with that age. He bothers not to inform himself about the linguistic substratum in old Indo-Aryan, the nature of Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian peoples and even archaeology but dishes out the above statements like facts.

In conclusion, all we can do is to just repeat what we said earlier. The Indian scientists, the Hindu thinkers and intellectuals appear to be clueless about their own past and how to handle the picture emerging from such studies. Denial and ignorance seem to be the only strategies they have offered such far. Is it any surprise if the mlechCha-s overrun the Hindus sheltered behind such defenses?

[member_22872]

Carl ji,

Not an expert at all, but would have been great if the author of the blog posted the reference to the paper and his source is bit dated at least around 2009. But, I don't know how he/she jumped to conclude:

..On the other side as we have discussed here before multiple times Western Eurasians started entering India through the northwest. There might have some early invasions of this population that mated with the proto-Indians contributing the Western Eurasian ancestry perhaps even in the Neolithic.

The article he commented on suggests there is admixture, but doesn't point to the direction. The conclusion he reached is his own, not sure how he reached the conclusion, would be great to read on what basis he reaches the above conclusion.

[svinayak]

AGENDA

What we need to do is to divert Western Civilization's search for historical grandeur to a different source and origin. The desired narrative should be that Western Civilization is part of the Indian Civilization. That is a much more ambitious narrative than saying

• Western Civilization and Indian Civilization have same values, (undesired), and thus natural allies or
• Western Civilization is influenced by India, or
• Western Civilization is a sister civilization to that of India, or
• Western Civilization is based on Indian Civilization

Our ambitious stance should be to ultimately completely destroy the Western identity. How do we go about doing it? Stay tuned!

This is actually a good one and seems the right strategy.
The reason they took all the languages from India and said it was Indo European was to prevent this strategy.

Once we prove that there is no Indo European languages and Indian languages have a separate history this will be proven.

[svinayak]

It is AIT supporters claim that even though non-black populations might have had their origin in India before 10000 years, after that migrations/invasions into India did take place, hence AIT stands.
Even though Oppenheimer's book shows that no genetic migration into India took place in the last 10000 years on a grand scale.
So I guess just placing non-black population origin in India is important as AIT theorists are placing their bets on non-Indian origin of Vedas, even Sarasvati river's origin outside India. If we are complacent about the veracity of the origin, AIT will be here to stay.

If this is what they want to use to prove that AIT stands then the date of Rig Veda and all Indian languages start and begin atleat 10000 year before today.

But they dont want to give credit to Indian vedas anything before 2000BC

[member_22872]

Acharya ji, there is no way, but to take them head on and prove them in a logical manner more like mathematics with rigor, else, this AIT wont die.

[svinayak]

Yes, You are right. This is the bed rock of the europan history and this identity.
This was meant only for the europeans and to explain their origin and language away from the Hebrew version before AIT evolved in 1860s.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7447100/The-A ... an-History

The Aryan Invasion Theory - European History
Why does AIT model still persist? Why do indologists not reconsider the fundamental premise of their theory? Though they have retracted the Aryan Invasion and have been forced t... (More)


This will not go away.
Indians and Indian history got meshed into this because India was colonized and was still colonial client state.
After Independence there is no govt effort to fix this and get the history of Indian civilization correct.

[Agnimitra]

In these genetic studies, Kashmiri Brahmanas are being cited as being at the "upper" end of the varNa hierarchy, with vanavAsins at the other end. Based on this they say that the Euro-Iranic gene pool was the engine of Indo-Aryan culture that penetrated downwards. Questions:

1. How true is this? In classical Sanskrit works I recall reading that Kashmiris were often used for comic effect due to their improper use or pronunciation of Sanskrit.

2. Were Kashmiri Brahmanas always of a more Iranic race, or has there been constant interbreeding with the tides of Iranic and Turkic migrations/invasions? So even if the famed Saraswat Brahmanas were from the Kashmir area, is it probable they were originally genetically less Iranic than the sample used for the study today?

I think such genetic data assumes a static varNa-jAti picture of the dynamics of Indic society. The movements of different jAtis during political-economic upheavals (such as invasions or migrations), and the regeneration of varNas amongst conquered or assimilative territories is not factored in at all. Seems rather silly and simplistic to me.

[svinayak]

[member_22872]

[The punjabi, sindhi, pashtun hybrid blood is no doubt a recent mixing from centuries of religious conquests. Arguably, indian blood existed in full form as long as afghanistan borders. The mixing is a proof that caucasians have been invading indian lands and diluting indian genes into vulnerability..

Could you please explain how is that? what makes the admixing direction from west to east, what if I say it is east to west, how do you counter that?

[svinayak]

The mixing is a proof that caucasians have been invading indian lands and diluting indian genes into vulnerability..

This is false.
2000 years of history does change the genes much.

[member_22872]

I apologize, I am not sure if I can post from IF, but doing so, because it is relevant, admins kindly pardon me:

To a question dhu from IF replies:

>>4. DNA studies (by Openheimer or any one else) have NOT revealed any genetic migration from India to Europe (or vice versa) in the last 10,000 years.>>


Not true. Figure 1.3 on page 135 of (Oppenheimer's book real eve) derives euro mtdna lines J and T1 from the Near East at dates a few thousand years after 10K BP. All these lines had originally come out of india. Also the route taken by gypsies into the balkan heartland for Europe is the prototype for indian migration via the Mideast conduit. Again, the value of Oppenheimer is the overarching pattern he proves for east to west transmission.

[Theo_Fidel]

The native indians on americas too have been going through large scale mixing. The ongoing dilution will no doubt endanger the native genes into extinction(maybe another 3-5 centuries at most?

Actually gene studies suggest the exact opposite.

The Hispanics are now almost completely Native American blood from ancient Maya & Aztec lines. Over the past century they have outbred and completely flooded and overrun Mexico. It is hard to believe that at one time Mexico was a 'White' European dominant nation. Gradually the Hispanic/Maya flood has now crossed the border and in 150 years North America is expected to be minority white again. The SDRE Mexican look is a Maya trait not Spanish European.

Something similar is happening in South America as well where the Andes Indians are now increasingly out growing the European low fertility groups.
----------------------------------------------

European claimed lines in India are very very old and have been in India for a long time. I'm talking 20,000 years plus old or older and remarkably stable meaning ongoing migration was quite limited. It is possible that European population was cut down and isolated during the ice age. This has then become the basis of European genetics. Question is where they came from before the ice-age.

[ramana]

India?

[Theo_Fidel]

Key would finding exactly what destroyed the Meluha civilization. It is the absence of a definitive answer that allows Genetic AIT to step in.

Not dissimilar to the myth of Atlantist. The lack of info about Atlantis allows Europeans to imagine themselves as descendent from gods.

Note that per mythology when Atlantis was destroyed, the Atlateans moved through Europe and spread their enlightenment. When Meluha was destroyed the people apparently immediately returned to barbarism and thuggery. One was a myth and the other was real but see the different treatments.

[Yogi_G]

Atlantis is an analogue to AIT in terms of the agenda to have an ancestry which predates all else. Reality suggests otherwise.

The Hispanics I have met are in no way "Mayan/Aztec" in thinking. All of them look up to the Spanish/white man and in a sense are true Pakis, having completely disowned their religion and way of life for an alien one. What good are a bunch of zombie Hispanics with some 20-30% white Spanish genes who speak only Espanol, pray to Jesus and bow to the white man? They are hardly Aztecs/Mayans, they are pretty much like the Pakis and Iranians.

[Murugan]

^ + 1

[Murugan]

When Meluha was destroyed the people apparently immediately returned to barbarism and thuggery. One was a myth and the other was real but see the different treatments.

If we are still struggling to find out whether AIT or OIT, how the above has been established as real or a myth and by which authority, academy etc.

Tamarind brought to India 7000 years ago

Who brought it and how it is established. Autochory, Allochory, Wind, Water, Dispersal by animals, Dispersal by Humans or Aryans? It would be interesting to know. And how and where that is recorded?

[shiv]

Atlantis is an analogue to AIT in terms of the agenda to have an ancestry which predates all else. Reality suggests otherwise.

The Hispanics I have met are in no way "Mayan/Aztec" in thinking. All of them look up to the Spanish/white man and in a sense are true Pakis, having completely disowned their religion and way of life for an alien one. What good are a bunch of zombie Hispanics with some 20-30% white Spanish genes who speak only Espanol, pray to Jesus and bow to the white man? They are hardly Aztecs/Mayans, they are pretty much like the Pakis and Iranians.

Ramana introduced the term "fractal recursivity" on this forum. If you Google, the first two papers for that expression are pdfs of studies done on South Americans.
http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/pro ... dronis.pdf
http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/pro ... essing.pdf

Lingustic fractal recursivity is a form of dhimmitude and admiration for a "greater" outside power. As South Americans found that speaking Spanish and converting to become Catholic gave them economic and social advantages, they started looking down upon native speakers of their own languages as "inferior people"

This has happened to a small extent in India. The brown Sahibs and boxwallahs - the first-gen first class macaulayputras were exactly that. But please don't imagine that you and I have escaped. Any Indian who receives an education in English has this same disease to a greater or lesser extent. The worst cases are dubbed by us as "DIE" but most of us are usually in denial from cognitive dissonance when the same attitudes about Indians that we inadvertently reveal are pointed out. The problem is not so much with the "other" guy. It's in us too. As long as we can learn to recognize it we can stand confidently on our own feet by knowing who we are and why we talk and look and think like we do.

[svinayak]

But the EJ are creating a new version in India. This is known as lifestyle change

[Yogi_G]

But the EJ are creating a new version in India. This is known as lifestyle change

The pull of the Indian civilization is so strong that even the most die-hard EJs and Mullahs have not been able to generate a monolithic identity in xtianity and Islam respectively across the length and breadth of India. By this I mean the belief that the foreign ideology only is true and the customs/religion/way of life of ancestors is wrong and kafir/satanic.

Per my rough calculation about 20% of Indian Muslims and Xtians are not truly Paki in mentality. You will find Muslim communities in India who believe in both the Dasavatara and in Muhammad. You will find Xtians who have such names as Saravana Emmanuel.

But then there are the Aurangzebs and the Xaviers too.

If the Indic influence works overtime theories like Out of India can quickly grain ground and spread far and wide.

[Yogi_G]

Atlantis is an analogue to AIT in terms of the agenda to have an ancestry which predates all else. Reality suggests otherwise.

The Hispanics I have met are in no way "Mayan/Aztec" in thinking. All of them look up to the Spanish/white man and in a sense are true Pakis, having completely disowned their religion and way of life for an alien one. What good are a bunch of zombie Hispanics with some 20-30% white Spanish genes who speak only Espanol, pray to Jesus and bow to the white man? They are hardly Aztecs/Mayans, they are pretty much like the Pakis and Iranians.

Ramana introduced the term "fractal recursivity" on this forum. If you Google, the first two papers for that expression are pdfs of studies done on South Americans.
http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/pro ... dronis.pdf
http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/pro ... essing.pdf

Lingustic fractal recursivity is a form of dhimmitude and admiration for a "greater" outside power. As South Americans found that speaking Spanish and converting to become Catholic gave them economic and social advantages, they started looking down upon native speakers of their own languages as "inferior people"

This has happened to a small extent in India. The brown Sahibs and boxwallahs - the first-gen first class macaulayputras were exactly that. But please don't imagine that you and I have escaped. Any Indian who receives an education in English has this same disease to a greater or lesser extent. The worst cases are dubbed by us as "DIE" but most of us are usually in denial from cognitive dissonance when the same attitudes about Indians that we inadvertently reveal are pointed out. The problem is not so much with the "other" guy. It's in us too. As long as we can learn to recognize it we can stand confidently on our own feet by knowing who we are and why we talk and look and think like we do.

Siva sir, one another reality we refuse to face is that our civilizational nation will not have the same demographic profile it does today in about 300-400 years. The sub-continent already has an Abrahammic majority now for the first time in the last 2000 years. Most Indians think that we will continue to be the entity we are forever. Suitably aided by a p-sec media and govt.

As to foreign influences in our daily life, we have in our scriptures "Let good thoughts come to us from all sides", so there is nothing wrong in our adopting good things from outside as long as it does not erode our identity. Now contrast that to the Abrahammic thinking that "we are doing well because of our religion", the South Korean economic success is owed by many people due to the massive conversions there. I have heard many Indian Muslims say that the Arabs are rich because Mohammed was born among them. I am currently typing in English because there is no good link language in India which is widely acceptable. It is our civilizational flaw that we have discarded Sanskrit and adopted a foreign barbarian lanugage which many claim is a descendant of the Sanskrit language itself.

All said and done, the only civilization which has retained most of its original traits and characteristics is India and there is no doutbing it. The only other contender is China but they have gone far too deep into the road of communist de-culturalization to be able to come back for good.

No matter how many new theories we come up with Out of India or the Indian Uhreimacht, the cold fact staring us that 10-15 generations down the line our descendants will not be Indic in nature. They will be what the Pakis and Hispanics today are. As someone who is actively involved in anti-conversion efforts I have long realized that the odds against us are insurmountable.

[RajeshA]

AGENDA

If the Indic influence works overtime theories like Out of India can quickly grain ground and spread far and wide.

The Out-of-India Theory has potentially a big effect on Abrahamics in the Indian Subcontinent.

Pakis are especially fond of spewing hatred both towards Brahmins as well as "low caste" Indians, whom they refer to as "Bhangees". However the Dalit identity finds a lot of resonance among the Pakis, and they try to show respect towards those Indians who identify themselves thus.

Pakis are constantly working on several narratives in parallel with many conflicting scenarios.
a) Pakis are Aryans
b) There were Aryan invasions where Brahmins came from Central Asia and subjugated the native Dalits.
c) One cannot heap enough hate onto Brahmins
c) Islam entered South Asia and liberated many Dalits from the oppression of Brahmins.

So Pakis are at the same time pushing up their pedigree, heaping scorn onto Brahmins for allegedly having a 'high' pedigree, and considering themselves as liberators of oppressed castes, to whom they wish to keep some distance.

Whatever nonsense they say, they always use the Aryan Invasion Theory to buttress up their narratives.

Just imagine what would be the effect of the following realizations by Pakis:

1. Indians have the oldest civilization,
2. Indians were the most advanced people before the Islamic invasions,
3. Indians gave the Europeans their languages,
4. Indians gave the Europeans their pagan faiths,
5. Indians gave the Europeans their scientific knowledge,
6. Europeans have some Indian blood

If the West starts accepting Indian OIT position, the Pakis will have to bear with increased European deference to Indians, whereas Pakis themselves are shunned for being radical Islamists.

All that may become untenable for them.

It would be like the current situation only many times worse.

[Yogi_G]

Pakis are strongly influenced by the Haimitic theory as well, given that they ape the Arabs and the Arabs believe in the Hamitic theory as does most of the west as well (politically incorrect it is though). We would need to analyze how the Out of India theory can either destroy or augment the Hamitic theory as per our Chankian necessity.

[shiv]

Pakis are strongly influenced by the Haimitic theory as well, given that they ape the Arabs and the Arabs believe in the Hamitic theory as does most of the west as well (politically incorrect it is though). We would need to analyze how the Out of India theory can either destroy or augment the Hamitic theory as per our Chankian necessity.

I think that connecting an out of India hypothesis with the Hamitic thing is a mistake. No connection must be made. The Hamitic hypothesis is plain bullshit and the out of India thing at least has a chance of being right in many areas. So if any part is not proven, it will be taken as "proof" of the Hamitic theory. So please do not connect the two together.

[ManishH]

Is there a version of out-of-india theory that somehow shows that Chinese civilization too derives from Indian culture (I mean pre-Buddhist) ? After all, if the languages of Europe can be derived out of Sanskrit, why not Mandarin too.

What is it about Muslim and Christian theologies that makes people want to find out-of-india origins for them. And not for Chinese culture ? After all, strategically, China is just as important a target for this practice.

My personal take is that Indians do this as an expression of anger about colonial rule by Muslim and Christian nations in recent past. Then there is a set of Indians who either reside in the West or have spent a considerable period of time under a western society that still retains a discriminatory outlook towards Indians. It's a form of backlash.

Whereas China neither ruled over us; nor do significant number of Indians reside in China and face discrimination over there.

[ramana]

Shiv, Thanks for remembering the term.

I think the ancient Greeks(~600BC) were emerging from the shadows of the Egyptian civilization and facing the threat from Persian Empire. The Greek Citiy states were vassal states to Asia Minor powers like Troy, Persia etc. It was in that environment that Plato talks about some ancient Egyptian temple priests who told Solon about Atlantis civilization which was by modern definition an utopia. So Plato and his disciples latch on to the Atlantis hypothesis to claim a glorious past to which they need to strive to get out of the then Middle Eastern mess. Recall only a few centuries(~1500BC) before the tribal Greeks had set up on the Minonan civilization and destoryed it!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

The Timaeus begins with an introduction, followed by an account of the creations and structure of the universe and ancient civilizations. In the introduction, Socrates muses about the perfect society, described in Plato's Republic (c. 380 BC), and wonders if he and his guests might recollect a story which exemplifies such a society. Critias mentions an allegedly historical tale that would make the perfect example, and follows by describing Atlantis as is recorded in the Critias. In his account, ancient Athens seems to represent the "perfect society" and Atlantis its opponent, representing the very antithesis of the "perfect" traits described in the Republic.

According to Critias, the Hellenic gods of old divided the land so that each god might own a lot; Poseidon was appropriately, and to his liking, bequeathed the island of Atlantis. The island was larger than Ancient Libya and Asia Minor combined,[4][5] but it afterwards was sunk by an earthquake and became an impassable mud shoal, inhibiting travel to any part of the ocean. The Egyptians, Plato asserted, described Atlantis as an island comprising mostly mountains in the northern portions and along the shore, and encompassing a great plain of an oblong shape in the south "extending in one direction three thousand stadia [about 555 km; 345 mi], but across the center inland it was two thousand stadia [about 370 km; 230 mi]." Fifty stadia [9 km; 6 mi] from the coast was a mountain that was low on all sides...broke it off all round about[6]... the central island itself was five stades in diameter [about 0.92 km; 0.57 mi].[7]

In Plato's myth, Poseidon fell in love with Cleito, the daughter of Evenor and Leucippe, who bore him five pairs of male twins. The eldest of these, Atlas, was made rightful king of the entire island and the ocean (called the Atlantic Ocean in his honor), and was given the mountain of his birth and the surrounding area as his fiefdom. Atlas's twin Gadeirus, or Eumelus in Greek, was given the extremity of the island towards the pillars of Hercules.[8] The other four pairs of twins—Ampheres and Evaemon, Mneseus and Autochthon, Elasippus and Mestor, and Azaes and Diaprepes—were also given "rule over many men, and a large territory."

So it was first use of a version of fractal recursivity by the Greek philosophers to claim a glorious past instead of the barbaric tribes that destroyed the Minoans.

According to Critias, 9,000 years before his lifetime a war took place between those outside the Pillars of Hercules at the Strait of Gibraltar and those who dwelt within them. The Atlanteans had conquered the parts of Libya within the Pillars of Hercules as far as Egypt and the European continent as far as Tyrrhenia, and subjected its people to slavery. The Athenians led an alliance of resistors against the Atlantean empire, and as the alliance disintegrated, prevailed alone against the empire, liberating the occupied lands.

See how Atlantis resembles Minoan civilization of Crete! Its an island too but in Atlantic Ocean and not the Mediterreanean Sea. Crete also suffered a massive earthquake which destoryed its city and made it vulnerable to Greek tribes that finished it off.

Reading further:

During the late 19th century, ideas about the legendary nature of Atlantis were combined with stories of other lost continents such as Mu and Lemuria. The esoteric text Oera Linda, published in 1872, mentions it under the name Atland (the name used by Olaus Rudbeck). The book claims that it was submerged in 2193 BC, the same year that 19th century almanacs, following traditional Biblical chronology, gave for Noah's flood.[35] Helena Blavatsky wrote in The Secret Doctrine (1888) that the Atlanteans were cultural heroes (contrary to Plato who describes them mainly as a military threat), and are the fourth "Root Race", succeeded by the "Aryan race". Furthermore, she expressed the belief that it was Homer before Plato who first wrote of Atlantis.[36] Theosophists believe the civilization of Atlantis reached its peak between 1,000,000 and 900,000 years ago but destroyed itself through internal warfare brought about by the inhabitants' dangerous use of magical powers. William Scott-Elliot in The Story of Atlantis (1896) elaborated on Blavatsky's account, claiming that Atlantis eventually split into two linked islands, one called Daitya, and the other Ruta, which was later reduced to a final remnant called Poseidonis.[37] Scott-Elliot's information came from the clairvoyant Charles Webster Leadbeater. Rudolf Steiner wrote of the cultural evolution of Atlantis[38] in much the same vein. Edgar Cayce first mentioned Atlantis in 1923,[39] and later suggested that it was originally a continent-sized region extending from the Azores to the Bahamas, holding an ancient, highly evolved civilization which had ships and aircraft powered by a mysterious form of energy crystal. He also predicted that parts of Atlantis would rise in 1968 or 1969. The Bimini Road, a submerged rock formation of large rectangular stones just off North Bimini Island in the Bahamas, was claimed by Robert Ferro and Michael Grumley[40] to be evidence of the lost civilization. Edgar Cayce and others have often described Atlantis using techniques associated with Psychic archaeology.

According to Herodotus (c. 430 BC), a Phoenician expedition had circumnavigated Africa at the behest of Pharaoh Necho, sailing south down the Red Sea and Indian Ocean and northwards in the Atlantic, re-entering the Mediterranean Sea through the Pillars of Hercules. His description of northwest Africa makes it very clear that he located the Pillars of Hercules precisely where they are located today. Nevertheless, a supposed belief that they had been placed at the Strait of Sicily prior to Eratosthenes has been cited in some Atlantis theories.

Bingo links to Aryan Invasion theory and Nazi supremacy ideas!!!

ManishH, Early China State evolved in the plains north of the Himalayas: Kashgar area. Until the British came there were trade routes via Kashgar even till a few hudnred years ago. During the Tang dynasty period there was great influence of Indic memes on China. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was to erase Indic memes in rural China. Mao and his Commies are like Islamis jihadis in China. They are trying to deracinate the Chinese and remove their old memes.

I was told even the name Chin has something to do with India.

[RajeshA]

ManishH ji,

the Western and Islamic Civilizations, just like Dharmic Civilization are based on faith and the divine. Beside the ethnic, the tribal contours of these civilizations, ideology plays a strong role.

While there is some truth to the saying that "nations do not have permanent friends, they only have permanent interests", in the case of ideology-based groups, one nurtures the hope that if one can dictate their ideological narrative, one can influence their attitude towards India.

With China it is more an issue of geo-politics.

[Theo_Fidel]

Atlantis is an analogue to AIT in terms of the agenda to have an ancestry which predates all else. Reality suggests otherwise.

The Hispanics I have met are in no way "Mayan/Aztec" in thinking. All of them look up to the Spanish/white man and in a sense are true Pakis, having completely disowned their religion and way of life for an alien one. What good are a bunch of zombie Hispanics with some 20-30% white Spanish genes who speak only Espanol, pray to Jesus and bow to the white man? They are hardly Aztecs/Mayans, they are pretty much like the Pakis and Iranians.

Yes this is possible. I was only pointing out the genetic flow taking place.
Strong established genetic lines overwhelm intruders over time.

Cultural issues are another matter.

[ramana]

Pakis are strongly influenced by the Haimitic theory as well, given that they ape the Arabs and the Arabs believe in the Hamitic theory as does most of the west as well (politically incorrect it is though). We would need to analyze how the Out of India theory can either destroy or augment the Hamitic theory as per our Chankian necessity.

Yogi_G, In Judaism there is supposed to be covenant with God that makes the Jews superior to the non-believers. So all of them are equal.

Yet they had to face the reality that there are skin and color differences among people. So they came up with the Noah and his three sons (Shem, Ham and Japheth) cock and bull story to justify racism and unequal treatment of humans even when they are believers. So Hamatic theory is a way to justify their top dog position.

Its at basic level an animal instinct of the dominance of the powerful you see in animal packs/tribes.

[ramana]

This is a perfect example of one version of "fractal recursivity" in action. Western Europeans upon contact with India found out that their founding principles based on Noah's three sons is weak and they needed to get a better foundation. hence they made up the AIT theory just as the Atlantis theory was given prominence in ancient Greece.