Warlock Asylum International News

Art, History, Music, Politics, and Spirituality For The Modern Alchemist – circulation in over 129 countries

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

“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 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 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.”

29 thoughts on “Origin Of The Racist Term “Proto-Indo-European”

  1. This is the most retarded article I have ever read. Hitler didn’t invented Aryan to be applied to an ethnic group, that was there long before he was around.

    Racism is the belief that ALL races are different. The modern usage is the result of wide spread stupidity.

    The only reason you even believe anything in this article is because we are indoctrinated since birth into this sentiment. The whole idea that the achievements of Egypt and Sumer are being repressed by racist scholars is absolutely ridiculous, it’s the same as saying that environmentalism is being treated in the same way as Communism was during the Red Scare.
    People who don’t know about the achievements of these two great civilizations are people who are too stupid to open a book and read about it.

    Proto-Indo-European is another term for Indo-European, which is a group of languages and their ethnicities:
    Indic (Sanskrit and descendants), Iranian, Anatolian, Armenian, Hellenic, Albanian, Italic (Latin and romance languages), Celtic, Tocharian, Germanic (English, German, Dutch, Gothic, and Scandinavian), Baltic, and Slavic.

    It is well known that the Greeks and Egyptians influenced each other, both civilizations are treated pretty equally. So is Sumer.

    In saying that the New Age Movement is getting racist because it’s watering down the culture makes you look stupid. It waters down the rituals etc. because New Agers are stupid.

    1. Warlock Asylum says:

      If all you can do is resort to name calling, then you are truly lost. Have a great and wonderful day.

  2. Agreed. You should stick to writing on things that you have an actual understanding of, and leave the politics to others. Your impulse to want to discredit any type of racial terminology for indigenous Europeans, no matter where it moves, as well as shift the credit for the West to Africa, isn’t lessening racism but just an attempt to remove value from one race and shift it to other races. You aren’t fighting racism, per se, only advocating for the elevation of other races. Where is your critique of the racial category of “Semitic”, to go hand-in-hand with your critique of it’s counterpart ‘Aryan’ or Proto-Indo-European? What a hypocritical double standard. Just where is the identity of indegenous Europeans supposed to find a home? Attempting to poltiically dispossess a people or race of their identity is a severe violation of human rights.

    Perhaps you should instead focus on the accomplishments of sub Saharan Africans and Egyptians within the continent of Africa, instead of attempting to shift credit for Europe to the indigenous races of said continent. How much material would be avilable for you to focus on there? It is true that few cultures evoloved in a vaccuum, but your article’s thesis is based on such historically distant roots, in comparison with the evoliution of Europe since that time, that the only statement that can be rationally uttered in response to the high price of your claim for historical compensation is “big deal”. Furthermore, you never elaborate on the relative impact of the influence of “certain indigenous groups”, only stating that it exists. This is a rhetorical illusion, as the relative degree impact is everything. Just saying that something “had impact” is meaningless, especially when asking us to follow your racist devaulation of european identity and accomplishment, as a philosophy.

    1. Warlock Asylum says:

      Thanks for your comment Daniel and I do understand your reason for concern. This article was not written to offend anyone ,but it should be kept in mind that the Proto-Indo-European language is theoretical. This is openly admitted by scholars in the field. so my question to you and for anyone else reading this material, is why traced the origin of words in reference sources today to Proto-Indo-European, when in fact this language is not even proven to exist? Then we discover that the guy who came up with this “brilliant” idea, did so based on the fact that he couldn’t accept that Sanskrit was more complex in structure than the Greek language. So now he has to reason that their “must have been an older European language” more complex than Sanskrit. What was the basis of his reasoning? No one talks about that. Now you mean to tell me that you can’t see what was behind the reasoning of all of this?!! Especially when “the swarthy” people who spoke Sanskrit were looked upon as inferior, so now you are just going to make up a language…

      Nice try, but your argument is too emotional. You have only listed points that appeal to those who have sentimental ideas of history. It would be nice for you and your comrades to complete a rebuttal that is based on sound principal. it would even be more remarkable to see such written by a scholar of non-European descent. Until this time such reasoning and debate remains buried beneath the clouds of dust. It’s surprising to see that someone with the name Daniel follow along with such Nazi ideologies. Stay blessed.

  3. i would have to agree with you, Brother Warlock. it seems that you struck a tender nerve with this one. why is it that people take a scholarly approach as an personal affront to themselves, when they form their shallow opinion without even trying to realize, nor understand, your unique approach to these matters. the facts are the facts. this is a vast subject, and there is room for scholarly debate, but emotional hissy fits need to be kept within the realm of simpletons…not here, in this place. Cheers and Blessings


    1. Warlock Asylum says:

      Thank you brother Kingu. Your comments are very much appreciated. I came upon this information upon accident and make no mistake about it, I do not believe in the superiority of any race. personally, i look at it as Jinn, Jinn-progeny, and man. The seed of the Jinn can be found in any race.

      It just bothered me that when I was looking up the word necro, in trying to find its origin, i was referred to the Proto-Indo-European language. i decided to researched this language and see that it is still a theory. Knowing thatthe Greeks spent some time in Eygptian studies, it would seem that this word “necro,” which comes from the Greek Nek, is more probable to refer to the vulture goddess Nekbet than to some theoretical language that may have never existed.

      I wrote this article in order to illustrate that not everyone agrees with these theory and that it is for a fact a theory that is being propagated in accredited reference material.

      I must also say that this is strong evidence that oday’s scholarship is not all factual as it would like us to believe, but manipulated by the same forces that supports Christian mythology. in other words, while science has found much evidence in ancient artifacts of some very amazing things, any ideas that predate the supposed time of Adam’s creation are never put in the educational system as fact.

      it is quite amazing how many attacks I have received based on articles such as these, but everyone is supposed to accept what they are being told. Simon had it right when he wrote in Gates of the Necronomicon that science today is just another religion.

      stay blessed

  4. yes in these days of this age all races, customs, and languages are grouped together and given a stereotypical name. It is just their way to keep the world divided and teach the children of today how to hate something different than them when in fact we are all one and the same. When the world puts aside its petty lil groupings and its childish acts then we will see true oneness amongst the masses.

    1. Warlock Asylum says:

      Thank you so much for your thoughts brother Etluzini!

  5. Mildly amused says:

    I completely agree with the author on this one…I have read another article on the web which says that PIE(Proto indo-european ) is nothing but fiction and similarities between Indic and European languages mean that the similarities allude to something deeper….the evolution of language itself.

    But sadly as in this article the majority of the comments were hostile, supported with shoddy reasoning.
    One gentleman claimed that as modern romance languages( Spanish,French) evolved from vulgar Latin,Germanic languages from ancient Norse… should have Sanskrit,Latin and Greek evolved from PIE.He failed to notice that Europe and India are continents apart.Vulgar Latin and ancient Norse were European and the languages they gave rise to were European ,which is believable.But a European language giving rise to Sanskrit is not possible because…

    1. Communication and travel weren’t as advanced as they are now so the diffusion and adoption of foreign languages that now we see today(Eg English) wasn’t possible in that time.
    2. Native Indians had their own advanced culture and language( Indus-valley civilisation) . So why would they suddenly start speaking in an alien and foreign tongue of people less advanced than themselves.

    As for the Aryan invasion theory it’s already been debunked….those skeletons , bearing cuts on the bones, found near mounds in harrapa could also indicate that local intracene warfare took place at that time, not a foreign invasion and rig veda could also have been composed by people of indus valley for all we know not some barbarians from pontic steppes.

    The problem in subject like this( Ancient History) is that we have little data and many questions.So it is only natural that people begin make their own theories influenced by their world view.That’s the reason why we have a euro-centric history today.Even the rational sciences were not spared of such ‘myths’ for Eg The Lumniferous Ether.It took a Genius(Einstein) to debunk it.Hopefully one day a genius will reveal the truth to us in this matter.

  6. In contrast to the more aggressive criticisms above, I’m actually very sympathetic to this on some level. For one, I regard it as very obvious that the Greeks, for example, and the Romans, were influenced early on by Semitic Asians and Egyptians from Africa. This is clear from the Alphabet itself, a Canaanite invention, to numerous Greek deities, certain rituals, and in myth the identifying of certain places as culturally significant being outside of Europe (and Europa being a Semitic princes kidnapped in myth, even Europe’s name is Asiatic in origin)

    But it’s possible to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just because racist motives may exist on the part of some scholars does not render invalid all of their theories. There is a massive amount of linguistic scholarship involved in reconstructions and historical linguistics, and much of it has tried to shed the earlier racist assumptions of scholarship.

    With respect how do you explain the incredible similarities between European languages, like Lithuanian, or Old Slavonic, or Ancient Greek, and What we know of Asian languages like Persian, or more anciently old Avestan Persian or other Iranian languages like Skythian or Tochairan, and the Indian languages like Sanskrit and the pre-Sanskrit Vedic dialects, and as the related Pakrit dialects of old India that exist?

    On the face of it so many cognates exist that they have to have a genetic relationship, establishing what that relationship is may be problematic and beset with biases and assumptions, many of which were racist historically, but a familial relationship seems apparent on the very face.

    So too are other influences, such as the presence in Ancient Greek of non “European” words, some quite ancient.

    But when you look at the fact that they all cluster together as being very closely related, and other languages cluster together with far less in common, and the fact that all of these languages have cognates and resemble each other to a far closer degree than they resemble languages like Amharic and G’eez in ethiopia, or Coptic or Ancient Egyptian, or Berber Tamazight, or Classical Arabic, or Hebrew, or Ugraitic, or Babylonian-Assyrian old Akkadian, and so on, all of whom resemble each other to an incredible degree, just as the European and Asian tongues further above resemble each other to an incredible degree, then it’s reasonable to presume some relationship.

    This is an honest question not a rhetorical move, I’m very skeptical of reconstructed “proto” languages, whether it’s “proto Indo-Aryan” or “Indo-European” or “proto-Semitic” but it is clear on the face of things, just comparing the vocabularies of these tongues that some cluster closer to each other as being more closely related.

    As for Communication and travel not being as advanced, we know that tribes and entire nations could move incredible distances in antiquity. The Alans, for example, are an Iranian tribe. Then moved from Asia into Europe in very recent times, encountered the Romans, mixed and mingled with Germans and Celts, then moved back. Celts moved into Asia Minor and settled in Galacia, as for the Scythians they ranged practically into Central Asia rubbing up to China all the way into Europe, and were well known to the Greeks.

    The ancients got around, since the culture and mythos of the Sumerians are a major focus of this blog, consider the fact that the Summerians were importing tin from Cornwall. This was at the very dawn of recorded civilization. This means that people from Mesopotamia and people from the British Isles interacted and had some common mode of communication, trade, and trade routes to traverse.

    The ancients got around, not like we do today of course, but people did travel, move, exchange ideas, and in some cases like the Huns or Alans or Turks or Mongols, or in the Middle East Arabs or Amorites or Hiksos and Hebrews , entire nations moved around.

  7. I agree that academic linguistics should be severely criticized and looked at from numerous perspectives, given a well document history (the books mentioned above are good there are a few other good ones on the construction of the Aryan Myth in the British and Germans that are worth reading.

    And I think one of the main areas of criticism is the assumption of actual flesh and blood genetic correspondences to certain tongues and dialects and that actual people and races formed communities in some prehistoric urheimat.

    People of all sorts of genetics speak “semitic” or “afro-asiatic” languages , so to with “indo-european” ones today. The racist myth is presuming some sort of mighty unified tribe or race or family that originally spoke it. Even if some “proto” language existed from which, let’s argue, Sanskrit Persian Celtic and Greek, for example, evolved out of – there is no proof whatsoever that the earliest speakers would have been one genetically unified community or race.

    Quick example, Armenians and modern Assyrians seem genetically very closely related, both on the level of actual DNA analysis and also physically, in observed phenotypes.

    Armenians spoke Armenian, a very, very, ancient “Indo-European” languages from time immemorial.

    Assyrians today speak a “semitic” tongue that is a descendent of ancient Akkadian

    Greek, while having many resemblances to Latin languages, or even more closely to Armenian, or more distantly to German, also has many many words that a very plausible argument (see Martin Bernal’s Black Athena) could relate to Ancient Egyptian on one hand and Canaanite Semitic dialects on the other hand, this clearly suggesting very ancient influence from both cultures and civilizations (something ironically enough Greek authors admit, in discussing their interactions with Phoneticians or Egyptians)

    I’m opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, criticizing is one thing, because all “proto” languages are completely hypothetical reconstructions and every single historical linguist would admit this, but even if you get rid of the proto reconstruction you still are faced with the fact that the languages presumed, by these linguists, to have descended from this made up prototype still, in their very oldest phases, resemble each other incredibly.

    1. Warlock Asylum says:

      KJS said: “I’m opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, criticizing is one thing, because all “proto” languages are completely hypothetical reconstructions and every single historical linguist would admit this, but even if you get rid of the proto reconstruction you still are faced with the fact that the languages presumed, by these linguists, to have descended from this made up prototype still, in their very oldest phases, resemble each other incredibly.”

      @KJS…I don’t have a problem with any theory for the origin of language. It does seem to stem from a common source. However, to make a theory of such is one thing, then to promote this theory in reference books as if it existed is a whole other dynamic because you are now teaching theoretical knowledge as actual fact. Additionally, this “theory” of a Proto-Indo-European language, and its origins, is the same hypothesis that Hitler used to fuel his ideas on race. So why is this “language” being quoted as the source of origin for words in languages that exist today, and being used in reference material like dictionaries and etc?

  8. which is the whole problem, especially here in the US. they shove theory and conjecture down the throats of our children as means of committing Genocide against the Natives of this land. this “nation” is very young, on historical terms. greater civiliztions have been wiped out for their transgressions against the spirits…we see the record of this all over the world..these places dormant for millenia while science tries to explain what happened to the people that dwelled there. these places were destroyed for crossing the line…The Gods will not sit idly by forever, watching this all transpire. when we start to come against what the DinGir have lain down as the base of humanity, which we are now, retribution will be swift. the clock is ticking no matter how much arguing and backbiting we do. it will change nothing. this civilization will go the way of the ancients that transgressed before. isn’t is awe inspiring to see the remnants of the ancients, like Macchu Piccu, the Indus valley, Egypt, Gobekle Tepe, and others just being discovered? while we bask in the glory of these ancient places, we need to figure out why such a mighty people could be wiped out and many left hardly any record of what or why, save structures. the scientific community uses Hypothesis and theory to explain these things. archeaologists change their tune every time they find another artifact that debunks their claims….and it changes the whole picture. the real question is what did these people do to anger the DinGir and bring about this Cataclysm upon them. finally, at the PowWow for my people just this last month, and Elder told me that the Great Serpent, UKTENA, is stirring. and she is not happy. remind you of anything else you have learned? Peace unto You All.

    – Kingu

  9. The problem that your critics have with your article is that you make too many assumptions without the proper basis of provable fact. Lincoln’s assertions are not fact, as people make unsupported assertions in books for many reasons. You then go on to become overly emotional and even group one fairly reasoned responder in with Nazis. I saw nothing in his response that was ideologically Nazi, other than he saw evidence of an unbalanced and non-objective view which may have seemed Nazi to you merely because he was defending Euro-centric writing, and your emotion noticeably ramps up as you progress in response. Are defenders of Afro-centrism also Nazi? This is not an emotional question, but one that is meant to clarify your political rhetoric. Your article provides for an interesting theory that may still yet be validated with further evidence, but making the jump that the term Proto-Indo-European was invented to substitute for Nazi terminology is unsupported and I can see how that might offend some.

    Second, you omit context for evaluating linguistic anthropology. That’s likely because you aren’t trained in it. Therefore, you have no knowledge base with which to directly criticize the claims of those who would promote the possibility of a proto-Indo-European dead language. Their claims may be similar to the claims of evolutionary anthropologists who often rightly hypothesize for undiscovered species based on the fossil record. Your sole methodology is to rely on the assertions of other authors, without providing their supporting facts, which is an imperfect method to say the least. This is especially true given your fierce assertions and overly emotional hypothesis.

    Third, your phrasing is hyperbolic form an anthropological perspective, which is also the root of some of the offended responses given. If Sanskrit is the root of the European languages, then a tribe may have taken the Sanskrit language with them to Europe tens of thousands of years before it evolved into what we know as proto-European languages. Those people that evolved into European whites may have been those ‘swarthy’ people of which you speak. However, possibly tens of millenia between when that language possibly first entered the European land mass and the development of what we know as ‘Europe’ may have passed, which would completely invalidate phrasing that lays credit with swarthy peoples for the development of Europe solely due to such distant and (unproven) linguistic anthropology. I’m not saying that your anthropological assertions aren’t true necessarily, but I am saying that you don’t have the evidence for it and your eagerness to shift value, as Daniel put it, lacks objectivity and balance. It’s also clear that your labeling of Daniel as ‘Nazi’ only for defending his sense of European identity, and implying that he has confederates in some type of political association to that end, illustrates a fairly negative view towards any type of defense of European identity. That seems fairly racist to me. His point was about your eagerness to shift value based on unproven assertions, not the defense of the theory that you linked to the Nazi straw man and ad-hominem. Your appeal to pricipled writing, given that display, is quite ironic.

    1. Warlock Asylum says:

      @Jon..I understand you perspective. But you are again missing the point! My main concern has nothing to do with all this race stuff, I gave up that religion years ago. What my point here is, why is the academic world using a “theory” in reference books? Let’s say this “Proto-Indo-European” language did exist, then why was it written about in ancient times. To say that such a language did exist is one thing, but to claim it was the origin of a world of language is another. Coupled with the idea that, in recent years, the theoretical foundation for such a language originated with the same ideology that was used as a basis to build a Nazi agenda. That’s like someone taking an ideology from some racist black group and then using it as a foundation to build up an acadeic schedule and begin promoting such in reference material. Think about it Jon!

  10. I just wanted to point out that the reconstructed PIE language is theoretical in basically the same sense that evolution is. That is, all the best evidence and analysis supports some version of a PIE mother-language. Its probably also worth noting the racist origins and uses of the biological theory of evolution. Nineteenth century academia was generally awash in racism, and I seriously doubt any discipline is free of its taint.

    There is definitely good reason to critique the aryan-invasion hypothesis of the origins of indo-european languages, but I would suggest that the best way to do this is examining alternative theories rather than just saying “this is racist bullshit”. Here’s a link to a page which promotes the Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm, which I believe may revolutionize our understanding of the development of language and culture.

    1. Warlock Asylum says:

      Thanks for your comment Lomaz. I replied to your comment earlier. here is a link that goes into Operation Paperclip more thoroughly:

  11. One further comment… I noticed some really poor understanding of historical linguistics, not only in your post, but also in many of the comments. There’s a wealth of information available online about the scientific process used to reconstruct languages, so I won’t go into details, but I do feel the need to point out that it is a scientific process which, while open to debate on the particulars of any given question, is based on the evaluation of and analysis of solid evidence.

    There are many analogies between the evolution of languages and the evolution of biological organisms, and I sincerely hope that no one commenting here would deny that evolution by natural selection is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of living organisms. Asserting that, as one commenter did, PIE is a flawed theory because Sanskrit could not have come from Greek or vice versa is exactly equivalent to saying that evolution is flawed because we could not have come from monkeys. No scientist would make these assertions. Rather, in each case there is a common ancestor, now extinct, which developed along divergent evolutionary pathways into distinct daughter species/languages.

    Please don’t be the linguistic equivalent of Ken Ham.

    1. Warlock Asylum says:

      Actually there are a lot of scientists that make assertions against evolution and natural selection. Science puts itself out as the study of facts, but its really the study of ideas that has the best funding. These things are widespread in thought because they are backed by the government for whatever purposes, and that’s fine. it is in this process that we are able to come to a better understanding of things.

      However, all of these things are still theories, and putting it out in material and reference books as facts is an erroneous attempt to gather agreement among the masses to make this theory popular opinion, and as this idea becomes popular it is perceived as true by the generations that follow.

      Its not htat we are trying to be critical of the process of how PIE came into being, if there was even such a thing. But, we no the differences between making instruments to prove something rather than studying what exists. There is a big difference.

      What many don’t understand is the effect that Operation Paperclip has on modern science. Please do your homework, and I am saying this with love.

      Stay blessed.

  12. yep…if you want something gone into thoroughly, Levenda would be your guy. hope all of my N. American and European friends have weathered this brutal winter well. Peace!

    – Kingu





  14. mårten sås says:

    You’re completely wrong. Do you also deny that the Germanic or Slavic languages exist, because the common ancestor of both of the families is not written down?

    Let’s count to ten in Proto-Indo-European (left) and Gothic (right, an ATTESTED language)
    óynos, ains
    dwóh₁, twai
    tréyes, þreis
    kʷetwóres, fidwōr
    pénkʷe, fimf
    swéḱs, saihs
    septḿ̥, sibum
    oḱtṓw, ahtau
    h₁néwn̥, niun
    déḱm̥, taihun

    Tell me there is not a pattern here. And before you ask how dekm could become taihun; it’s called a sound change.
    The m at the end became an /um/ sound, and the /m/ then shifted to an /n/

    As we can also see, the /k/ has become a /h/ sound. Is this strange to you? What about the word ”shoe”? Did you know that the /sh/ in this word originally came from a /sk/? Sound changes are gradual. A /k/ sound becomes a /sh/ sound, which becomes a /h/ sound.

    Finally, the d became a t (This is a common sound change, nothing strange here), and now we have Tehun. The /e/ has then become a diphtong /ai/, and we have Taihun.

    Now, let’s count to ten in Sanskrit.


    As we can see, the K has shifted in all positions, but this is not unusual. Take the Swedish word ”köra” (to drive), pronounced ”shöra”. In Older Swedish this was pronounced with a hard /k/, but now it has shifted. Why could the same thing not happen with Sanskrit?

    I could go on further. Latin ”Caput” (word for head), and Old English ”hēafod”. (/k/->/h/, /p/->/f/ (compare Pater and Father), and /t/->/d/). And then Sanskrit ”kapā́la”, the word for ”skull”.

    But will any of this convince you? I doubt it. Prove me wrong, prove that you are not so ideologically convicted that not even logic works in convincing you.

    1. Those are some very excellent example, but thats not the point. The point is that linking something to a “theory” actually hides the history of hoe those words entered into the use of land of its nativity. So many of the words adopted by the Greeks from the Egyptians are not acknowledge. Instead the source is a theory and another valuable asset of history is lost

  15. Thomas Richardson says:

    If you would like to truly understand the subject you are writing about so that you can see how your thoughts on it are incorrect I would suggest reading In Search of the Indo-Europeans by James P. Mallory (a great introduction to the subject). Without at least a basic grasp of comparative linguistics and the historic process through which PIE was theorized your suggestions have little if any validity. I am not saying this to be mean or confrontational. You appear to have a desire to learn and the recommended book is a great place to start.

  16. Mayngbuntag says:

    Ok wtf. It’s a reconstructed proto-language, not a racist whatchamacallit. The similarities shine like candle in the night. The cognates and traces of grammar shiz are everywhere. And that isn’t the only reconstructed proto language out there. Every languagr family has a reconstructed proto-language. Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Afro-Asiatic reconstructions exist, even for the American (indigenous) languages, which have even more complicated systems than their Indo-European neighbours across the Atlantic.

    1. That’s not the point! Language reveals the history and how one word may pass into the language of another. When you make up a language you remove that history for one of your own choosing. Nice try old sport.

  17. “Proto-Indo-European” is a big word used to express literally what was before, first, precedent to “Indo-European”: the people (and their languages) of what is arguably called “Asia minor”. Now, these people separated East to populate Asia, and West to populate Europe. Proper comparative Philosophy, Archeology, History, Anthropology, Theology, Genetics and Linguistics don’t lie: what was before “Indo-European” was African. This ascertainment has long been called “Out of Africa Route”. So, basically, “Proto-Indo-European” is a big word used to avoid saying African.

    Most of modern western linguists don’t know nothing about African languages and absorbed the omnipresent paradigm of their racist predecessors who didn’t want to have anything to do with people they considered lesser, inferior — based on cultural and technological differences fueled by western imperial social standards of the period —, and whom their fathers, grand-fathers and great-grand-fathers enslaved, raped and killed for centuries. As a french polyglot following classes on African linguistics, I can tell you the root connection is so real it’s unbelievable that so-called scholars missed it.

    The last public lynching known to date is of Michael Donald, a black man from Alabama, and it was in 1981. There is a current ongoing investigation about at least five hanging deaths of black and brown people found two years ago across USA. People who think racism is some old ideology of the pas centuries don’t know nothing about the society they leave in.

    This morning I realized that “Proto-Indo-European” means African. I typed it in DuckDuckGo and your article popped first. Good job.

Leave a Reply