Origin Of The Racist Term “Proto-Indo-European”

“History Is A Lie Agreed Upon” – Napoleon Bonaparte

Over the past few decades, it seems that there has been a rising sense of racism in the so-called New Age Movement. I must say that while the “New Age Movement” seems to promote itself as a “bright” alternative to paganism, shamanism, and etc, it is actually the Left-Hand Path that embraces the true origins of certain indigenous rites and the legacy of the cultures where these sciences originate. While I’m sure that there may be some incidents of racism within Left-Hand Path groups, my personal experience has been that the majority of LHPers are sensible individuals, who are open to people of all races and cultures and willing embrace occult practices that originate with indigenous people. On the opposite side of the coin, we have the so-called “New Age Movement,” which absorbs some of the magical and occult practices of indigenous people, but must first water-down these rites by “bleaching” some of the depictions of the gods and goddesses of a said path. Some of this was touched on in a previous article, entitled, The Arra Sign, which can be accessed at the following link:


The reader is also encouraged to view the following link s well:


I was inspired to write this post during my recent research into the word “necro,” when I came across the following link:


“derived from the Greek word nekros, νεκρς (corpse; dead (literally or figuratively; also as noun)) …derived from the Proto-Indo-European root “nek“

The information cited above seems to imply that the Greek word nekros is a derivative of the Proto-Indo-European term nek. I was curious to find out the meaning of this Proto-Indo-European language, as I am aware that the Greek civilization was heavily influenced by both Egypt and Babylon. The following website goes into this in great detail http://www.philipcoppens.com/egyptgreece.html

“Schools still teach that the Western civilisation is a child of Greece. Until a few decades ago, many schools did not mention the cultural achievements of Egypt or Sumer – and many schools in Europe still pay no attention to the Inca’s, Toltecs, etc. But when it comes to the Greek and Egyptian civilisations, it was made painfully clear that the Egyptian civilisation was “primitive” when compared to the cultural and specifically philosophical achievements of the Greeks. ..This situation is now slowly beginning to change, though the chasm between the Greek and Egyptian culture remains. Though geographically both countries are close to each other, and whereas many Greeks would later travel to Egypt, it is assumed that the Egyptians, a civilisation that predates the Greek civilisation by two millennia, never used that time to sail in the opposite direction. Though the ancient Egyptians had seaworthy boats – e.g. the funerary boat in the boatpit on the Gizeh plateau – the status quo is that they never sailed the Mediterranean Seas to Greece.”

Many anthropologists and scholars try to hide the fact that Greece and Rome were heavily influenced by ancient indigenous cultures. Some have even created alternative theories to hide this truth. Common sense would dictate that ancient man was well aware of the origins of the languages that they spoke and how they were related to other languages. The history of the Rosetta Stone is one example of this http://www.king-tut.org.uk/ancient-egypt/rosetta-stone.htm. Still, I wanted to know more about the Proto-Indo-European language that some linguists were connecting the origins of Greek terminology. My search began with some information I found in a Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language which states:

As there is no direct evidence of Proto-Indo-European language, all knowledge of the language is derived by reconstruction from later languages using linguistic techniques such as the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction. Relationships to other language families, including the Uralic languages, have been proposed though all such suggestions remain controversial….Indo-European studies began with Sir William Jones making and propagating the observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and Latin. In The Sanscrit Language (1786) he suggested that all three languages had a common root, and that indeed they may all be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to Persian..”

I began to see some deceit in the academic world. Many encyclopedias and scholars are noting that the origins of certain terms in Greek and other languages are attributed to Proto-Indo-European, which doesn’t even exist! It is a theory that a few people made up, and they use this term to hide the true origin of certain words in the European language family, as it would give way to how much influence certain indigenous cultures had in Europe. We can see this as the article continues:

“The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.”

The statement above was made by Sir William Jones concerning the Sanscrit language and its structure being more advanced than the Greek or Latin languages. However, instead of Jones giving credence to the complexities found in the Sanscrit language, he finds a need to say that all these languages come from the same source in order to avoid admitting how sophisticated some ethnic languages are.

Despite the fact that Sir William Jones has no proof that a Proto-Indo-European existed, he is still able to label the source of these languages as such I am not the only one who was able to see this form of racism in the making. Ellen Preckler and Rik Pinxten made the following observation in a book entitled; Racism in Metropolitan Areas, Volume 3, page 76:

Even the Aryan myth, so rightly discredited as racist by its centrality for Nazi ideology and the Holocaust, did have a complicated earlier history, for it originated, with late-eighteenth century Orientalist scholars like William Jones..”

Bruce Lincoln in the book, Theorizing Myth makes the following observation on page 94:

“First, the hypothesis for which Sir William Jones is most famous had deep antecedents and was always problematic. Most immediately, Jones was influenced by Jacob Bryant’s bibliocentric attempt to trace all world mythology back to Ham and all right religion to Shem….A more critical genealogy of the discourse need not minimize his gifts nor impeach his motives while treating Sir William’s genius, stature, and organizational and promotional talents as crucial factors that helped legitimate an enterprise in which various chauvinism (racists, nationalist, anti-Semitic, colonists, and imperialist) were-and remained-implicit. It is not hard to reemploy the story in the genres of tragedy and horror,…by following the discourse’s nineteenth and twentieth-century peregrinations, when Bryant’s Amonians and Jones’ “Hindu Race” acquired the name “Ayrans.” ….Since the atrocities of the Nazis in the Second World War, the term “Aryan” has virtually disappeared from polite conversation…Scholars who wish to pursue the discourse while marking their distance from its savory aspects now use the term “(Proto-) Indo-European,” also a coinage of the nineteenth century.”

From Lincoln’s observations, we can see that Proto-Indo-European is a phrase that actually is used to replace Hitler’s understanding of what the term aryan means. Aside from Hitler’s definition of the term Aryan comes from the Sanscrit Arya, which means noble or spiritual. Any association of the term Aryan with an ethnic group or “race” is entirely based on Hitler’s use of the term. It is due to the merging of anthropology and racism that many have lost the link of how ancient societies connected thousands of years ago. Now what became of my research and trying to find the origins of the Greek term nekros? It seems to have come from the Egyptian goddess Nekhbet, upon which we find the following

“In Egyptian mythology, Nekhbet (also spelled Nechbet, and Nekhebit) was an early predynastic local goddess who was the patron of the city of Nekheb, her name meaning of Nekheb. Ultimately, she became the patron of Upper Egypt and one of the two patron deities for all of Ancient Egypt when it was unified…She was seen as a goddess who had chosen to adopt the city, and consequently depicted as the Egyptian white vulture, a creature that the Egyptians thought only existed as females (not knowing that, lacking sexual dimorphism, the males are identical). They were presumed to be reproducing via parthenogenesis…Egypt’s oldest oracle was the shrine of Nekhbet at Nekheb, the original necropolis or city of the dead. It was the companion city to Nekhen, the religious and political capital of Upper Egypt at the end of the Predynastic period (c. 3200–3100 BC) and probably, also during the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3100–2686 BC). The original settlement on the Nekhen site dates from Naqada I or the late Badarian cultures. At its height, from about 3400 BC, Nekhen had at least 5,000 and possibly as many as 10,000 inhabitants…The priestesses of Nekhbet were called muu (mothers) and wore robes of Egyptian vulture feathers.”