Aryans were the Destroyers of Indian Civilization.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Even if there was one, they would have gotten absorbed into the indigenous population that already comprised of light skinned people.

So i guess the dark people from the south magically appeared on a land filled with light skinned people? lol

Nobody got pushed anywhere! From what I've read, Indian literature contain NO records exist of invasions and migration...

Why would it contain any information? the country is under north Indian rule for over 2000s yr, the authors were all north Indians.

No such thing happening. Tamil is not ''fading'' away.

* Lets see, in 2009 there a mass genocide of Tamils by Sri Lankan military.("collateral damage") Look up Sri Lanka's killing fields.

*Indian's south Indian movie industry of recent era is full of "light skinned" actors that are of North Indian descent.
Looking at a movie from 1970's has much different casts than movie from 2014.

*The literature is confined into Tamil Nadu alone.

candlestick
OP ,I don't trust you.I don't believe a advanced civilization(and good at science) could destroyed by a group of relatively backward people .

It never happened. The ''aryan invasion'' theory claims that groups of warlike invaders not only overpowered the more advanced ''natives''...and drove all of them to the south....but that they also settled down and produced Indian culture. If they were so brilliant why didn't they create this culture in their own lands?

candlestick
OP ,I don't trust you.I don't believe a advanced civilization(and good at science) could destroyed by a group of relatively backward people .

Because all advanced people are belligerent and war like? lol Some share the land than fight over it.

Tho i can understand where you get your Idea from, our current era''s mindset is exactly how you described.

And the Aryan are no backwards people.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


No, the Aryan Invasion theory is about "European White" coming to India and spreading the knowledge, which was proposed by early euro-centric historians.

Which is a myth.

The Aryan on the other hand are not native and are settlers came from the indus valley.

@luciddream....
So i guess the dark people from the south magically appeared on a land filled with light skinned people? lol

BOTH light skinned and dark skinned folks existed there as a result of prehistoric migrations. Skin color gets lighter as one moves away from the equator. ..

Why would it contain any information? the country is under north Indian rule for over 2000s yr, the authors were all north Indians.

Thats a weak argument. At least the darker people would have retained some records of being invaded and booted out of their homeland in the north. There is no evidence.

* Lets see, in 2009 there a mass genocide of Tamils by Sri Lankan military.("collateral damage") Look up Sri Lanka's killing fields.

*Indian's south Indian movie industry of recent era is full of "light skinned" actors that are of North Indian descent.
Looking at a movie from 1970's has much different casts than movie from 2014.

*The literature is confined into Tamil Nadu alone.

The lankan tamils suffered genocide by Sinhalese lankans...who themselves resemble dravidians racially. Has nothihg to do with the subject at hand. As for light skinned actors...its a known fact that south indians have a ''thing'' for lighter skin. Which is why ''fairness creams'' have a huge market in south india. Besides, bollywood dominates the indian film industry so thats why south indian movies mimic them in terms of cast. Besides, there are south indians who are as fair (or fairer) than north indians. Light skinned actresses like Aishwarya Rai and Shilpa Shetty are both Tulu speaking south indians who have made it big in the north. Parallely, a dark skinned north indian actor (dont remember his name...he usually plays the role of villains) is quite popular in south indian cinema.

Who Brought The Mayans To Mexico?
or
Were the ancient Turks, Akkads (Sumerians) and Dravidians (Tamils) the parents of Mexico and Meso-America?

viewzone2.com...

columbus did not make a "mistake" when he called the amerindians..."Indians"

THE SUMERIANS WERE TURKS.
Many people find it difficult to accept that even the Akkad or Sumerians were Turkish. The Akkads (Sumerians) were Phoenicians. known also as Kads, Khatti, etc., Originally, they were a Turkish (Kur, Tur, Tul, Tol, etc.) people from what our Bible calls Eden, the Akkadian word for the Steppes (Central Asia). Before the Great Flood, the Steppes or Eden was regarded as an earthly paradise. However, when the Great Flood inundated what are now the Altai, Tannu (Tiva, Teva, or Tuva), and Khakassia Turkish republics, the survivors had to build their civilization all over again. Many fled to what is now India, becoming Indians themselves, joining the eastern part of the Northern and southern hemisphere as a single nation.

from the above

i did an extensive thread containing this subject here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

hopefully this helps your thread


as to dummies taking out advanced civilizations?
iraq, the cradle of civilization comes to mind...and im not talking about ancient history either,
so tv versions are avaliable

@luciddream...
No, the Aryan Invasion theory is about "European White" coming to India and spreading the knowledge, which was proposed by early euro-centric historians.

Which is a myth.

The Aryan on the other hand are not native and are settlers came from the indus valley.

The light skinned aryans were not ''settlers'' as a result of an invasion. They were already settled in that region as a result of migration during pre-historic times....and so were part of the racial make up of that place now known as North India. Any ''light skinned'' invader would have fought his own kind...they were different only by culture...not race.

luciddream

candlestick
OP ,I don't trust you.I don't believe a advanced civilization(and good at science) could destroyed by a group of relatively backward people .

Because all advanced people are belligerent and war like? lol Some share the land than fight over it.

Tho i can understand where you get your Idea from, our current era''s mindset is exactly how you described.

And the Aryan are no backwards people.

edit on 4/10/2014 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

Not must be ,but at least advanced people should know how to use their technology to defense/fight back.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

The lankan tamils suffered genocide by Sinhalese lankans...who themselves resemble dravidians racially

Tho the singhala is a Indo-Aryan branch of language. The civil war was mostly because of the language than the skin colour, they are pretty much identical.

its a known fact that south Indians have a ''thing'' for lighter skin

its more of a media "thing" than a south Indian thing. Its what is "better" according to our current social outlook/pressure.

Look at the cast of Mexican soaps, tho the majority of the south American Mexicans are tan skinned, they only portray the light skinned as actors.

It is common everywhere in this era. Light skin is better than dark skinned, its engraved into many.

In a clash of civilizations, the superior militarily survives. Same with clashes in the animal kingdom, though their clashes are of a herd or pride nature.

Peoples who have been colonized by the White Race are very fortunate when compared to peoples who were subdued by the likes of Shaka Zulu, Ghengis Khan, Pol Pot, the Jewish bolsheviks, the Aztecs, and the Arabs.

The peoples colonized by Whites at least usually survive to tell their story.

A complete study of DNA and haplogroups in India has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that ALL "Aryan Invasion theories" are a bust.

There is no indication that whites or "Nordic types" ever invaded India although the DNA investigation found some indication that around 20,000 BC, some Caucasian types may have migrated into India during the coldest part of the last Ice Age. Those people were simply absorbed into Indian society.

"Aryan" is not a racial type, but means "noble" and was used to describe RELIGIOUS rather than racial concepts.

The Rig Veda, Mahabharata and Ramayana as well as other Hindu texts DO NOT speak of any sort of "Aryan Invasion." Those texts do indeed speak of wars, but these are internal CIVIL WARS between the various tribes indigenous to India.

There are quite literally thousands & thousands of Hindu web sites today that COMPLETELY refute any and all notions of the Aryan Invasion theory, and they provide extremely solid evidence to that effect. It's a fairly easy topic to research these days.

In fact, Konig is the only Hindu person I have ever read that seems to still believe that an Aryan Invasion ever took place. The Aryan Invasion Theory was first purposed by Europeans during the time when India was colonized by England. It was proposed by Euro-Centric whites who read the Vedic tales and couldn't believe that the Vedic people of India ever had such a fabulous history. The theory has been proven completely wrong.

However in my estimation, the Dravidian people are completely justified in pointing out that India has a long history of rather racist views against the dark skinned Dravidians. Various comments in the Rig Veda that were attributed to Indra certainly suggest that he was violently racist against the Dravidian people. That being said, Indra's linage is also outlined in the Rig and he comes from the same basic Vedic Indian stock that makes up all of India's non-Dravidian population.

sk0rpi0n

@luciddream...
No, the Aryan Invasion theory is about "European White" coming to India and spreading the knowledge, which was proposed by early euro-centric historians.

Which is a myth.

The Aryan on the other hand are not native and are settlers came from the indus valley.

The light skinned aryans were not ''settlers'' as a result of an invasion. They were already settled in that region as a result of migration during pre-historic times....and so were part of the racial make up of that place now known as North India. Any ''light skinned'' invader would have fought his own kind...they were different only by culture...not race.

War was glorified in the ancient Vedic texts. The Brahmins always attempted to justify these wars by giving some sort of profound, spiritual reason that ultimately demonized the losers of any said war, but when push comes to shove the ONLY way a Vedic king could ever expand his territorial rule was through war.

And war they did! The whole dang thing all boils down to the fact that the Vedic people ran their society according to the infamous "Laws of Manu." According to those laws, war was a "winner takes all" proposition.

IMO, chapter seven, verse 96 of the Laws of Manu is the REAL REASON that war was glorified in ancient India. It reads:

96. Chariots and horses, elephants, parasols, money, grain, cattle, women, all sorts of (marketable) goods and valueless metals belong to him who takes them (singly) conquering (the possessor).

Source: www.sacred-texts.com...

The winning side had the option of either allowing the people of the losing side to stay on providing they were subservient to the new king in the winner's circle, or the new king could choose to drive the people on the loser's side out of his new territory.

IMO the entire Middle East was populated by "fallen Aryans" or people who had lost during one of India's countless wars and had been driven out of their homes by the new king.

It was brutal, but It's just the way things were done back in those days.

Unfortunately, the losers brought the same concepts about war with them, and the Near and Middle East has been at war ever since.

IT ALL LEADS BACK TO INDIA AND THE LAWS OF MANU.

The Aryans weren't from Europe, they came from Iran. And while they were Caucasiods, they were not Nordics. They were more closely related to the Persians. The Nordic Aryan is a Nazi myth.

The Aryans did invade India, and bring the Caste system. But they were not illiterate savagaes. They had the Vedas.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The Aryans weren't from Europe, they came from Iran. And while they were Caucasiods, they were not Nordics. They were more closely related to the Persians. The Nordic Aryan is a Nazi myth.

The Aryans did invade India, and bring the Caste system. But they were not illiterate savagaes. They had the Vedas.

I disagree. Yes, the Persians and Elamite kingdoms of ancient Iran were indeed "Aryan", but they were originally from an Asura tribe in ancient India called the "Druhyus."

The Druhyus and also the tribe of Anu were originally driven out of India at the end of "The War of Sudas" which was also called "The Battle of the Ten Kings." This war took place very, very early on and is described in the Rig Veda. Both the losing and winning side in that war were Aryans, and each side was devoted to Indra. Indra had to choose which side was to win, and he chose the side of Sudas.

All of India during the age of Indra were "Aryan." Aryan is the word that describes the early Vedic society prior to the age when it officially became "Hindu."

In antiquity, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan were officially under Vedic rule. Today, we may see these areas as Elam (Iran) and the Indus Valley culture, but these distinctions did not necessarily exist per se during the early Aryan era.

The Iranians, (like the Assyrians, Akkadians and Sumerians) were primarily an Asura people, and so was a large part of the population of ancient India. The Asuras were basically lunar tribes and devoted to Lunar Vedic deities (like Shiva and Ahura Mazda who was a renamed version of Varuna), whereas the Deavas represented the solar tribes & were devoted to solar deities.

The Asuras (lunar brotherhood) and the Deavas (solar brotherhood) fought bitter violent wars with one another for thousands and thousands of years, but they were ALL "Aryan" people.

That being said, the Brahman priesthood referred to Aryans who had lost wars and were subsequently driven out of India proper as "fallen Aryans." To this very day, the Brahmin priesthood thinks of the people of the Near and Middle East as fallen Aryans.

I would add that Europeans did not invent slavery.

As a people, they did not traditionally practice in slavery, which is mainly a middle east obsession.

Pre-Catholic/Christian Europe was essentially democratic, and primarily rural, and did not care about building large cities or even empires.

When Rome invaded Gaul, the Gauls had to elect a king to lead them in war.

When it came to technology, they were every bit Romes equal. They just weren't obsessed with building empires.

Christianity, and repeat attempts by Islam to conquer Europe forced Europeans to go on the offensive.

So you might want to look closer to home for the history behind slavery and conquest.

I always find it strange that India has not got any pyramid's because everywhere Aryans went pyramids sprang up
"The anti-Whites don't want you to know about this. And the Chinese are too proud to admit the Aryan influence upon their early civilization. In time, Caucasians made contact with the Mongoloids. More recent mummies begin to show Mongoloid features. This indicates that the Whites shared their creative discoveries with the Mongoloids, before being mass murdered and blended out of existence by maurading mixed race Turkic Huns and genocidal Mongols."

mummy7.jpg
Paintings depict blue eyed Mongol Emperors!

"And yet, early Mongol Emperors retained some Aryan genes. Genghis Khan, who slaughtered many millions of Aryans and then personally raped many of their women, had green eyes and reddish hair. Even today, northern Chinese still posess traits such as height, square jaws, and in rare cases, blue eyes!"

Persian civilization was established by White tribes originating from the Caucus Mountain region of central Asia. Where do you think the term "Caucasian" comes from? These Indo-European tribes were known as the Aryans. In Farsi (Persian) Iran actually translates into "Land of the Aryan." Iran..Aryan..


i do not remember seeing many dead animals or people washing themselves in the rivers of london /rome /etc

bad aryan's

I would add that Europeans did not invent slavery.

As a people, they did not traditionally practice in slavery, which is mainly a middle east obsession.

reply to post by poet1b


I quite agree. According to the Mesopotamian texts, slavery was invented by the Sumerian god, Enki, who was revered as Ea in the Semitic tongue of the Akkadians.

The Sumerians, being the descendants of Anu's tribe who had been driven out of India at the end of the "Battle of the Ten Kings" were very likely at a loss when they first moved into ancient Iraq.

Back in India, the elites of Anu's tribe would have been either from the priestly caste or the "Kshatriya" caste of warriors, kings and princes. Beneath these two upper castes were the "Vaishya caste" of merchants and farmers, which probably included the bulk of the general populace. And beneath these three upper castes was the "Shudra" or servant class that was made to serve the needs of the three higher castes.

The evidence suggests that when the tribe of Anu was "partially driven out of India," their priests, merchants, warriors and kings were driven away, but the Shudra caste that had waited on them was evidently made to stay on in India and serve the new king.

In any event, there are several Mesopotamian texts where the Anunnaki tribe is grumbling because they have to do all the hard labor themselves. That would not have been the case had they been accompanied by the Shudras that had made their lives so comfortable back in their original home in the Punjab region of India.

So Enki/Ea concocts a plan that takes the existing human beings indigenous to the Middle East and turns them into slaves. This feat is apparently accomplished via genetic manipulation.

That genetic manipulation was used was first proposed by Zecheria Sitchin, and as much as I'd love to disagree with him on this point, I'm afraid I can't. I've read a number of the Mesopotamian "Creation of Man" texts, all translated by qualified linguists and academians, and though I personally loathe to, I have to agree with Sitchin. The texts do indeed seem to describe techniques common to present-day invitro fertilization.

Ea's goal was to produce slaves that would "serve the gods." By comparing some of the statements made in the Enuma Elish with various Hurrian texts, it becomes apparent that it was the Hurrians that first fought against the Anunnaki and tried to prevent them from entering the Middle East. They clearly fought Anu and those that followed him. And, like it or not, they lost in that effort.

After the battle was over, it was apparently the Hurrian hero, a fellow by the name of Kumarbi, (he was probably called "Kingu" in the Enuma Elish) that was held accountable. So Ea slit his throat, bled him, and his blood or DNA was evidently used to produce a race of slaves.

It's not a pretty story, is it? But that's what the texts seem to say.

So you are right. Slavery was not a European invention; it arose in the Middle East. But slavery was not the invention of those indigenous to the Middle East, it was the invention of "fallen" Vedic Aryans who invaded the land and demanded they be worshiped and served as if they were "gods."

In case you are wondering, there are also several texts and historical accounts that suggest that after several generations, Ea's genetic manipulations began to reverse themselves. Thankfully, whatever he did to the human gene pool, it may not have had a lasting effect. Or let's hope so…

reply to post by Riddles


It has been awhile since I have done any research on Sumeria, but I do remember that it is believed that the Sumerians came from someplace else, before they settled in the Persian Gulf.

Why would they have to genetically modify the people that lived in that area, before they arrived?

reply to post by Riddles


It has been awhile since I have done any research on Sumeria, but I do remember that it is believed that the Sumerians came from someplace else, before they settled in the Persian Gulf.

Why would they have to genetically modify the people that lived in that area, before they arrived?

reply to post by poet1b


Gosh, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Ea did those genetic manipulations AFTER the Anunnaki arrived in Sumer.

Here's what happened… After the Anunnaki got kicked out of India, they arrive in Iraq and find the place already populated by the indigenous Hurrians and their king, a guy by the name of Alalu. (pronounced Ah-lay-loo.)

Anu apparently came on like some poor guy newcomer into the area and begged a job from Alalu, and the king, not suspecting anything, gave him a job. But Anu was clearly a conniving liar and a sneak and obviously plotting a takeover from the get go! 'Cuz once Anu was in position and working for the Hurrian king, he begins a coup and attacks Alalu!

There was a huge fight and Alalu was driven out of kingship. Alalu flees "to the dark earth," or more specifically, a town called "Abzuwa" which appears to have been the Hurrian name for ancient town of Eridu in Sumer.

In the Babylonian version of the tale, the Hurrian Alalu actually appears to have been the original "Lord Abzu of Eridu."

Then according to the Babylonian Creation Epic (the Enuma Elish), Ea sneaks up on Alalu's family in Eridu, in some way drugs Alalu and his family in their sleep, (maybe they drugged the towns water supply?) and then Ea MURDERS Alalu while he is unconscious!

THEN Ea puts on Alalu's robes and crown and declares himself the new Lord of the Abzu!

Is that low or what?

Alalu's wife, Tiamat, (evidently a queen) is understandably furious, and she and Alalu's son, Kumarbi start this huge war with the Anunnaki. And personally, I can't say that I blame them one whit! The Anunnaki were complete a-holes who lied, connived and murdered their way into Sumer!

No wonder the tribe of Anu was driven out of India! The Hindu scholar, David Frawley, points out that the Rig Veda calls the tribe of Anu "the people of the harmful speech" and says it's not clear whether it's a reference to their language or the fact that they were considered liars & untrustworthy.

Well, I'll tell ya', there sure was nothing about what the tribe of Anu did when they first arrived in Sumer that was even remotely trustworthy! They were a bunch of lying thieves and murderers! They were horrible people!

Eventually, Ea's son, Marduk, finds a way to murder Tiamat, and then the Anunnaki capture Kumarbi, (called 'Kingu' in the Babylonian version) they blame the whole war on him, slit his throat, bleed him dry and used his blood to create a slave race for the Anunnaki.

Nice guys, huh?

Most people have probably never read the Hurrian version of the tale and to my knowledge, those texts aren't online. (At least I haven't been able to find them.) Yet they are all important, and in my estimation, without the Hurrian side of the story, it's pretty hard for anybody to figure out what really happened back then.

Reading the Sumerian and Babylonian texts is cool, but really, they only give one side of the story. I guess I'm a firm believer in the old adage that every story has two sides...

I've got a couple of different translations of the Hurrian texts in my home library. I'll try to type up some of the more important verses for you so you can read them for yourself.

Okay? Hang tight; I'll get back to you when I'm done typing…