Afrikan Swastika

From the Volta to the Congo to the Nile, from scarification to gold weights to hieroglyphics, the swastika has been used throughout Afriqa for a long time…

When you see hear the word “swastika or see this symbol


what are the first words that come to your mind?




“Blonde hair and blue eyes.”

Then where would you guess these come from?

gold dust weights akan goldweight ashanti ashanti goldweight

An educated guess would be India.  But no, they are all from Africa.  That’s right Sub-Saharan, “Black” A-F-R-I-C-A.  They are gold dust weights used by the Ashanti, to be more precise.

No, not this Ashanti…


These Ashanti:


The ones who make kinte cloth…


They are also called Akan. The Akan occupy a large part of West Africa including parts of Ghana and the Ivory Coast and include many sub-ethnic groups such as the Baule and the Asante (Ashanti). [1]  The Akan were producing them to weigh gold dust which was their currency, thus the name ‘gold weights’.  When used on the gold weight, the swastika was a symbol of currency, expressing power, money, wealth and integrity.  The idea and the implementation of gold-based currency came from the Akan people of modern-day Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. [5]


The swastika is also one of the Akan people’s famous Adinkra symbols.  Look at number 12 below:

adinkra symbol

According to one source, the swastika is referred to by the Akan as a monkey’s foot. [1]  Another source says it is called Kode Emower Ewa (‘talons of the eagle’), represents devotion and service and is shaved on the back of the heads of the Queen Mother’s servants. [2]  Still another source names it Nkotimsefuopua, claiming similarly that certain attendants on the Queen Mother who dressed their hair in this fashion. [3]

The Asante also weave the swastika into their cloth.  See the top left corner below:

adinkra cloth
Another Adinkra swastika?

The above is a kinte cloth symbol called Apremo-Canon.  It is a symbol of resistance against foreign domination, and superior military strategy.  This motif represents  the superior military strategy with which Akan nations such as the Asante and Akwamu defeated the West Asians who had superior arms. [6]

But how could this be?  How did Africans learn about the swastika?

If your idea of swastika is the symbol of a Nordic (tall, blonde, blue-eyed) race who conquered India from the north before invading West Asia  (“Europe”), that’s a good question.

The idea is not to decouple the swastika symbol and the Aryans.  Rather, one must decouple the Aryan from Nordic, and race from ethnicity.

No signs of a Nordic Aryan invasion here...
No signs of a Nordic Aryan invasion here…

Arya means pure or good in Sanskrit. In the holy Vedas the good people were called Arya.[2]

So “Arya” means, in short, “noble”.  It appears to be an adjective, and can not refer to a group of people.  If it is a noun, it translates to “nobility”  Either way, it refers to the CHARACTER, NOT the APPEARANCE of certain people.  Note: The word “Aryan” does not appear.

So how did the word Aryan come into existence, and how did it become associated with a blonde, blue-eyed master race?

Fredrich Max Muller, a staunch German nationalist and Christian missionary, was Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford labored for years translating the Vedas into English.
In 1851 Muller wrote his first article in English wherein he used the word “Aryan” for the first time in the sense of a race.

Max Muller’s good friend and fellow Indologist Paul then popularized the word “Aryan” in France. Soon many Christian scholars were seized upon by the theory of Aryan race. In 1859 Swiss linguist Adolph Pictet wrote that the Aryan race was the

“…one destined by Providence to reign one day supreme over the entire earth . . . They were the race of Aryans. …”

The notion of “Aryan” had become, in a few short years, the emblem of European manifest destiny over the world, a signet coined in the language of scholarship which gave Europeans a racial and religious mantle of superiority.[4]

But the people weren’t fooled. Initially

 all attempts to correlate the Aryan language to Aryan race were not only unsuccessful but also absurd”. Even at that time many academics opposed the Aryan invasion theory.[4]

So if Aryan refers to a race, it is not a race in the way we usually think of it.  “Race” to us means people with the same skin color, culture and language.  That is actually ethnicity, though.  Ethnicity means related identity, but race means similar qualities.  And the people with noble character (‘arya’) can be found all over the world.  Maybe they use the same symbols to recognize each other:

Map Showing Distribution of the Swastika -
Map Showing Distribution of the Swastika –

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


[1] “Nine Cast Brass Gold Dust Weights, Akan People, Ghana, 16th-18th centuries”.  Michael Blackman, LTD.  Retrieved 10.12.2014 from

[2] “Adinkra:  Kode Emower Ewa”.  Retrieved 10.12.2014 from

[3] R. S. Rattray, Religion and Art in Ashanti (Oxford, 1927), 265.  Retrieved 10.12.2014 from

[4] Kenyatta, Ekowa.  “The Swastika”.  The Stewart Synopsis.  Retrieved 10.12.2014 from

[5] “Swastika Symbol on Akan gold”.  Retrieved 11.12.2014 from

[6] “Kente Cloth:  Ghana’s Ashanti Cultural Heritage to the World’s Fashion Civilization”.  Kwekudee- Trip Down Memory Lane.  3.12.2012.  Retrieved 11.12.2014 from


76 thoughts on “Afrikan Swastika

  1. hey Blacks, Swastika came from 10,000 yrs ago from the Ukraine to India, first mention in Vedas. Hitler used it to conquer Europe. He did not use any African symbol. White men brought swastika to Africa, to Egypt by Romans, to Congo by the Belgians. Its not your word.

    • “Hitler used it to conquer Europe.”

      Hitler fought on the losing side of World War I, and died or disappeared after losing World War II. He never conquered West Asia (“Europe”).

      “to Congo by the Belgians”
      Of course, you have documentation for this…

      “Its not your word.”
      It’s not yours either, unless you speak Sanskrit, which, of course, you don’t…

    • No one said it was our word we are saying the symbol was something we used……… Ask yourself where did civilization begin??????? All things have came and been stolen from somewhere.

    • Listen uneducated. White make was still crawling around on all fours in the caves of the caucuses mountains while the Afrikans already had the symbols…. I know it’s a very hard pill to swallow but knuckle up and swallow because everything Western civilization has fooled the world into thinking they provided, was given to the entire world by AFRIKANS… White man only exists because of the cold climate which trapped you and your beastly ancestors in the mountains of Europe. That is where you savages came from and your race has bought death and destruction everywhere you have landed on the planet… Educate yourself and don’t die IGNORANT…

    • u better read and watch more about Ethiopian lalibela church. now its considered as one of the eight wonders of z world.

    • Except the word swastika is SANSKRIT i.e from the INDUS valley near INDIA…There is no word in any European language for it . Also the Ukrainian SUN WHEEL is not the swastika.

      You know the swastika when you have seen it.And since the swastika EXISTED on EGYPTIAN temples long before the Romans even existed you need to get your timeline correct…

      AFRICA and ASIA used it first ..Because that where ARYANS come from.Every respected anthropologist accepts that the East Africans,middle easterns,some Asians are ARYANS.And some West Africans who migrated.

      i.e IRAN which means the land of the ARYANS..its even mentioned in the bible for goodness sake.

  2. The Indo-Aryan Swastika has been represented as the sun wheel and a term of goodluck or well being in Indo-Aryan religion even up to today. Our religion, culture and customs used the swastikas as a powerful symbol in every facet of life. The Indo-European people and its ancient tribes revered this symbol for thousands of years and is the oldest symbol in the world. and is still in use in Indian culture and religion and business life.Non Indo-European and Blacks have no claim on the swastika except for commercial and decorative as we have seen on these gold pieces and cloth and on native American decorations. The swastika was used to conquer Europe and it is the only Indian symbol used to do so. None other not even one by Blacks. To you and others the swastika is only pattern for your decorative desires but for Indians and other Indo-European people it is sacred in their life and culture. Their houses and dwelling areas have these symbols for culture and religious purposes since thousands of years ago. So you and others can use the swastika but it don’t have a meaning in your lives. It was not in classical Egypt’s history because Greece ,an IE nation possessed it in their civilization and it was only brought to Egypt by the Romans. And for your information the swastika is 10,000 years old found carved on a mammoth’s ivory in the Southern Ukraine and brought to India by the Aryans and worshipped since then in Vedic religion now known as Hiinduism.

    • The Indo-Aryan Swastika has been represented as the sun wheel and a term of goodluck or well being in Indo-Aryan religion even up to today….

      The swastika is an Indus Valley symbol, not Indo-“Aryan”. (The Indus Valley is modern Pakistan, of course). The invading hordes were impostors to the term Arya, and also the use of the swastika. In short, they stole the culture they invaded because theirs was insufficient (a recurring theme throughout history):

      The question was settled by the unearthing of swastikas from Indus Valley sites, which originated as Neolithic farm sites. This confirmed once and for all that Aryan presence in India began long before even the most generous estimate of when the Vedics could have started arriving.


      …brought to India by the Aryans and worshipped since then in Vedic religion now known as Hiinduism

      Not only did the northern hordes, who were later to steal the name Arya, NOT bring the swastika, they didn’t even know what it was. That’s why they gave it a name that basically means “good luck charm”:

      The Vedics stole the swastika from the pre-existing Indus Valley civilization. The word “swastika” (coined by the Vedics) simply means “lucky object”, indicating that the Vedics had no comprehension of its true meaning. Moreover, the word is absent from the earliest Rigvedic Sanskrit altogether, indicating that the Vedics only began using it after some time in India. (It is possible that Hitler was aware of this, hence preferring to call the symbol “hakenkreuz” instead.)


      The swastika was used to conquer Europe and it is the only Indian symbol used to do so.

      Sorry, who conquered West Asia (“Europe”), and when? The only military force to use the swastika in West Asia was NSDAP Germany, and they lost, as I (and the rest of the world) recall.

      Dude, I’m sorry, but no one’s gonna take a history lesson from someone who believes Germany conquered West Asia (“Europe”). You should go to the first available website and read up on WWII, nevermind the steppe hordes who stole the name Arya, and how that turned into the notion of a pale master race.

      In short, go back to your shoeshine box, you ain’t ready for the big leagues…

    • They just found an African civilization in which scientists have dated to be 200,000 years old. African gold, African diamonds, African oil, and African history was hijacked by Eropeans and is still being white washed today. (White people even introduced a white lion to the original Lions of Africa). And yes have stole and still is stealing anything of value, Including symbols and religion. Truth is Most Eropeans were a race of Slavs which is where the word slave originated, in Greece they called Slavs, Slaves. So when you use our symbols whether you like it or not you are actually admitting to your crime against the African people because proof that it belonged to us is older then 10,000 years.

  3. The swastika is first mentioned in the Rigveda and is a Indian Sanskrit word not African
    When the Aryans came into India the IVC was a thing of the past and their 600 seals are undeciphered. They produced no language so how could the swastika be an IVC word?
    The swastika is 12,000 yrs old first found carved on a mammoth tooth in the Ukraine in Southern Russia, the place where the Indians came from(you wouldn’t believe that) and their DNA proves that( you wouldn’ t want to believe that. Africans don’t have Russian blood.) Martin Bernal’s book ‘Black Athena’ is a falsified treatise of Classical Greek civiiization. If Egypt was the progenitor and originator of ancient Greek civilization, Egypt would have had the swastika from its beginning not from the times of the Romans. Besides the swastika is an IE word not found in the language of the Egypt but in the Indo-European language of Sanskrit which is the mother of all the European languages. So, Black guy go back to Black history month you have a lot to learn about the swastika which is part of my religion and language and culture. Others use it for a fad.

    • “The concept of race theory developed simultaneously with the rise of anthropology. Once having isolated the various human races as a theorem, Western scholars could not resist to place their own “Caucasian” race above the others. Soon “race” was mistaken for or identified as ethnic group, nation and language. History was reduced to a number of races each holding the power for a certain period of time until they lost it to another, stronger one that had “more energy”. In blatant misunderstanding, Darwin’s theory of evolution was transferred to everything that seemed to be subject of development in some way, be it races, nations, ethnics, or even social or economic circumstances…

      …The fair-haired, blue-eyed Aryan settling in Northern Europe and being of superior status due to his genetically pure race was the product of many intellectual influences, e.g. the establishment of the Indo-European Philology to name only one. Leon Poliakov showed that the roots of such caricature reach far back into the past and that the desire to have ancestors as illustrious and grand as possible can be found with all European peoples. The Romans believed their ancestors to origin from Troy, while the medieval Spanish aristocracy put emphasis on their superior Visigothic blood which not only made them different from their subjects but also put them above them. The French continue to become chronic schizophrenics as soon as they are to decide whether they are descendants either of Vercingetorix and the Gauls (Celts) or of Charles The Great (Charlemagne) and the Franks (a germanic tribe). Some English seemingly not satisfied with their mix of Briton, Anglo-Saxonian, Viking and Norman predecessors still found it necessary to have one lost tribe of Israel driven to their coasts in order to make sure they have even older and religiously more important ancestors.

      …it was Theodor Poesche who popularized the idea that the Aryans originally came from Central or Northern Europe respectively. Looking for the Urheimat he used means like the frequency of albinism (!) and so the Aryans found a home in the swampy areas of Eastern Europe.” (

      It’s all made up, dude. Once West Asians invented the concept of race, they realized they were a bastard race according to their own definition, so instead of admitting their pseudosciences were bogus, they used them further to invent a new mythology.

      Stick to Stormfront until your ready for some real research.

    • “If Egypt was the progenitor and originator of ancient Greek civilization, Egypt would have had the swastika from its beginning not from the times of the Romans”

      ‘If’, right?

      Well, the following is from pre-dynastic Egypt, the period dating from 6000 BCE-3100 BCE. That predates Rome and Greece. Call it what you want:

      Pre-dynastic Egyptian Swastika

  4. You know Black guy China produced Ghengis Khan, Greece, Alexander the Great, India, Ghandi the Great, Russia, Peter the Great, Germany,Fredrick the Great and Hitler, France, Charles the Great,Spain, El Cid. Africa? none,non,nahein, nein,ninguno

  5. Your history is very poor isn’t it? The IVC is not Aryan. I think you should stay with your Black history month. Or perhaps, better yet see if you can ride a horse in the streets of the Indus. You can be sure you won’t find a horse but you will certainly find a jackass. But I will direct you where you can find the latest discoveries of the Indo-Aryan homeland. See Arkaim and the Sintashta and Petrovka cultures south of the Urals mountains in Southern Russia and there you will find something interesting. Did you know that the rivers Danube, Don, Dnieper, Dniester and the Volga are all of Indo-Iranian? You are surprised aren’t you? Perhaps, you should read the book” The Horse, the Wheel and Language” by David Anthony. It would definitely increased your world of the Indo-Aryans. And remember i’m a descendant of the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians and us were one people at the time the Vedas was written. So I know what I am talking about.

    • Congratulations, you’re my blog’s first troll!

      Um, I think everyone reading this blog knows an “Indo-European” language, i.e. English, and that would include me, as I’m, well, the writer… I’m an “IE” language teacher, in fact…

      Your “IE” language proficiency doesn’t seem so good, by the way. You have lots of mistakes in punctuation and subject-verb agreement. Sorry, I don’t tutor…

      I will give you this free lesson, though:

      “some Western scholars are beginning to reject the Aryan invasion or any outside origin for Hindu civilization.

      Current archeological data do not support the existence of an Indo- Aryan or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural development from prehistoric to historic periods. The early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of indigenous society. The Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic data were used to validate the concept, that in turn was used to interpret archeological and anthropological data.

      In other words, Vedic literature was interpreted on the assumption that there was an Aryan invasion. Then archeological evidence was interpreted by the same assumption. And both interpretations were then used to justify each other. It is nothing but a tautology, an exercise in circular thinking that only proves that if assuming something is true, it is found to be true!

      Further excavations discovered horses not only in Indus Valley sites but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of the horse has thus been proven for the whole range of ancient Indian history. Evidence of the wheel, and an Indus seal showing a spoked wheel as used in chariots, has also been found, suggesting the usage of chariots.

      Moreover, the whole idea of nomads with chariots has been challenged. Chariots are not the vehicles of nomads. Their usage occurred only in ancient urban cultures with much flat land, of which the river plain of north India was the most suitable. Chariots are totally unsuitable for crossing mountains and deserts, as the so-called Aryan invasion required.

      That the Vedic culture used iron – and must hence date later than the introduction of iron around 1500 BC – revolves around the meaning of the Vedic term ‘ayas’, interpreted as iron. ‘Ayas’ in other Indo–European languages like Latin or German usually means copper, bronze or ore generally, not specially iron. There is no reason to insist that in such earlier Vedic times, ‘ayas’ meant iron, particularly since other metals are not mentioned in the ‘Rig Veda’ (except gold that is much more commonly referred to than ayas). Moreover, the ‘Atharva Veda’ and ‘Yajur Veda’ speak of different colors of ‘ayas’(such as red and black), showing that it was a generic term. Hence it is clear that ‘ayas’ generally meant metal and not specifically iron.

      Moreover, the enemies of the Vedic people in the ‘Rig Veda’ also use ayas, even for making their cities, as do the Vedic people themselves. Hence there is nothing in Vedic literature to show that either the Vedic culture was an iron-based culture or that their enemies were not.

      Further excavation revealed that the Indus Valley culture was not destroyed by outside invasion, but according to internal causes and, most likely, floods. Most recently a new set of cities has been found in India (like the Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka sites by S.R. Rao and the National Institute of Oceanography in India), which are intermediate between those of the Indus culture and later ancient India as visited by the Greeks. This may eliminate the so-called ‘dark age’ following the presumed Aryan invasion, and shows a continuous urban occupation in India back to the beginning of the Indus culture.

      The Indus Valley culture had a form of writing, as evidenced by numerous seals found in the ruins. It was also assumed to be non-Vedic and probably Dravidian, though this was never proved. Now it has been shown that the majority of the late Indus signs are identical with those of later Hindu Brahmi, and that there is an organic development between the two scripts. Prevalent models now suggest an Indo-European base for that language.”

  6. Get back to me when you find a horse at the Indus or when you find a swastika in Egypt’s early dynastic history. Because it appears that you don’t comprehend the facts of Indo-European history.

  7. Say Black guy what is the major difference between the Indus Civilization and the Aryan civilization of India?

  8. Say Black guy, you’re just rehashing Indian revisionist trash which is not recognized outside India. You know why because Russian DNA has been found in 98% of Indian Brahmins and that didn’t come from inside India

    • Dude, Russian DNA??? Russians are mongol Slavic half breeds, there were no Russians in India in its ancient past you moron. Get educated man.

  9. Dude, for the last time, the steppe hordes were not “white” (pale-skinned, colored-eyed), they were not a technologically advanced “master race”, and they weren’t even charioteers.

    See this article here:

    And read this:

    “[Aryan] was an ethnic designation in the sense that it refers to a linguistic group. Since nobody speaks the PIE language anymore, it is no longer an ethnic designation. It had a racial connotation to it, in the sense that say all of a sudden New York City became a world superpower and went around conquering everywhere, we won’t be able to say New Yorkers are whites or blacks or Chinese that are conquering other races. However, back in those days, people in a geographical area were more or less related to each other by common ancestors not too far back, especially in harsh sparsely populated areas like the steppe of Central Asia. But then again, these Aryan ancestors of both Europeans, Indians and other Central Asians didn’t give 2 $#!+s about who they were screwing. P— was p—- to them. So when they saw this in NW part of Indian subcontinent:

    She got the d, and when they saw this:

    She got done too. There was no one drop rule in either direction, all they cared for is that their offspring would continue being the elite caste in society. Men were father’s sons back in those days, they weren’t rejected for being born of a woman that is not the same ethnicity as the man, because women never belonged to any ethnic group back in those days. My grandfather was explaining to me that there is no such thing as a female Brahmin, she would simply be the daughter or husband of a Brahmin LOL.”

  10. It’s not your history, dude, let it go. Speaking a “Indo-European” language doesn’t make you the same ethnicity or “race” as the central Asian steppe nomads any more than speaking French makes a Senegalese Wolof ethnically Frankish.

    This is your history, in the words of the great German thinker Schopenhauer: “There is no such thing as a white race, much as this is talked of, but every white man is a faded or bleached one.” ( Dorsey, George. Why We Behave Like Human Beings, pp. 44-45; quoted in Jackson, John G. “Ethiopia and the Origin of Civilization” (1939); Retrieved 17.12.2014 from

    You’re just branches of other races, light-skinned versions of everybody else. That’s nothing to be ashamed of, but you want to be special so you keep forcing yourself into illogical, pseudoscientific failed rationales.

    Why don’t you have peace? Because you won’t accept what you must: the truth. And the truth is you can’t hide from the truth ’cause the truth is all there is…

    Choose peace. And peace upon those who follow the guidance…

  11. You and your people have peace. Until I tell them that whites and Indians are of the same Caucasoid stock, with the same thin lips , fine featured noses etc. Like Russians with the same DNA like the Brahmins, Then, Blacks go into a tantrum

    • Yes, that must be why Native Americans, South Asians and West Asians (“Europeans”) have always gotten along so well, isn’t it, because they’re all brothers, one and the same? This is beneath even pseudoscience. I take it back: you actually could learn something from a place like Stormfront. Bad as it is it would be a step up from this nonsense

      As for “my people”, we are those who refuse to accept oppression, from others or ourselves. As such, we do not have single ethnicity or color. We are not Black (because nobody is) and between your comments and mine, who’s been having a tantrum? (Are you displaying what they call “white angst”?)

  12. I’m not talking out of air, I experienced In my lifetime that Black people do go into a tantrum when they find out that Indians are descended on the most part, from white Nordic people. The historical and textual evidence proves that from the oldest religious texts in the world. The Rig Vedas.

    • If they were descended “on the most part” by pale Nordic people, then they would look “on the most part” like pale Nordic people, which, aside from some Mongoloid features, is largely untrue.

      The Native North Americans have largely been wiped out, but those who remain, even the full-blooded ones, look about as Nordic as me. In Central and South America, there are many more natives around, and lemme tell you buddy, Quechuas don’t look Norwegian…

      And if by Indian, you mean India, maybe you should go there. I’ve spent a lot of time in the Indus River Valley, which is in modern-day Pakistan, and it’s far more Dravidian and even Australoid or Negroid than anything. Even the people with pale skin, light eyes, and light hair don’t look Nordic. So how could they be “mostly” Nordic? Where is this Nordic India that you speak of? Orbiting the Schwarze Sonne? Because there’s no Nordic India, or Indians, on this planet…

      And like I told you, the steppe nomads (as opposed to the many other invaders) who invaded India from the north via central Asia were not Nordic. It’s in the link in an earlier comment.

      The truth is, that pale-skinned people, as in the Schopenhauer quote, are just lighter-skinned versions of other peoples. Some west Asians (“Europeans”) have the same ancestors as some Native Americans. The West Asians, therefore, are just pale-skinned (albino) versions of their cousins. It’s that simple.

      Here’s a thought: why don’t you stop focusing on skin color?

      “Under close scrutiny, the division into races according to the colour of skin turns out to be quite the crudest and most obvious method, since there are noticeably inheritable characteristic racial differences among people of identically coloured skins.”

      Ethnic relatedness matters less than qualitative similarity. You will find that even among your own ethnicity, you only get along with people who share your ideals and characteristics. You will also find that you get along better with people outside your ethnicity with whom you share ideals and characteristics than with people within your ethnicity whom you otherwise differ from.

  13. Question, What is the difference between the Aryan civilization and the Indus Civilization? Think you can answer this one?

    • They are one and the same. The marauders who the Indus River Valley (Pakistan) from the north (who wrote the Vedas) were not Aryan, they stole the term:

      “Indus Valley civilization only began to be archeologically discovered in the 1920s. Prior, it was presumed by Western academia that the swastika, and hence Aryan blood, was brought to India by the Vedics – a misconception reinforced by the Vedics enthusiastically calling themselves ”Aryans” in the Rigveda, which Western academia accepted at face value. Iranian racial theorists, on the other hand, had always disputed this claim, since it was well known to them that the Vedics were nomadic herders prior to settling in India. The Rigveda referred to the enemies of the Vedics as the “Dasyu”, yet in Iran it was the “Dahyu” (cognate with “Dasyu”) who were considered Aryan on account of being a settled people, as opposed to the nomadic Turanians – including the Vedics”

      “So, while the lores of both sides recall a Deva vs Asura war, each lore calls its own side Aryan and the opposing side non-Aryan. One side had to be lying, but which? The question was settled by the unearthing of swastikas from Indus Valley sites, which originated as Neolithic farm sites. This confirmed once and for all that Aryan presence in India began long before even the most generous estimate of when the Vedics could have started arriving. Concurrently, clay figurines of similar age have shown that ‘yoga-like’ physical exercises were practiced by the Indus people, and were certainly not introduced by the Vedics who have traditionally taken credit for it. The same applies to technologies such as canal irrigation and drainage systems, which we now know predated the earliest Vedics by thousands of years despite the Vedics traditionally taking credit for it. Ayurvedic medicine too is mostly a plagiarism of Siddha medicine from the Indus Valley era, but which inverts the elemental profiles for childhood and old age, suggesting either remarkably distinct physiology or otherwise a completely different definition of health. In short, Zoroaster was telling the truth: the Vedics were the impostors.

      “The Brahmins who called themselves ârya in India, were no more aware of the real origin of this name and its connection with agricultural labour, than the artist who now speaks of his art as a divine inspiration suspects that the word which he uses was originally applicable only to so primitive an art as that of ploughing.” – Max Mueller”

      Long story short: Aryan = Indus

  14. Question, “What was the name of India during the flourishing period of the Indus Valley Civilization?”

    • If you are referring to the geographical area now part of the modern day Republic of India that was NOT part of the Indus Valley civilization, then I don’t know. The name of the geographical area covered by the Republic of India that WAS part of the Indus Valley civilization (basically parts of Indian Punjab) is also unknown to me. Different periods of that civilization have been named most famously Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. Its self-designation is likely unknown as its script has yet to be deciphered.

      Interestingly “Skeletal remains at Harappan sites belonged to proto-Australoid, Mongoloid, Mediterranean and Alpine.” No Nordic or Ukrainian phenotypes mentioned…

        • Is that the name of an actual book, or is this a failed attempt at having a source? Does this book- if it is one- have an author? A publisher? Do you have it in your possession? Have you actually ever read it, or are you you just “quoting” what you were told that it says?

  15. The ancient names of Ireland is Eire or Iran, Iran , Eire or Arya ,India, Arya or Aryavarta, Afghanistan, Arriana. Want to know more?

  16. There was no civilization in India until the IVC came along. They vanished, then came the Aryans and named India. They brought the horse, the chariot, the swastika, cremation, seven steps around the marriage fire, horse mythology, Indra, Sanskrit and most important the horse sacrifice and sati and copulation with the horse during the sacrifice.

    • “copulation with the horse during the sacrifice”

      And you’re going out of your way to “claim kin” with them?

      You can have ’em, dude…

      • Now you have contempt and laughter in your reply. You fail to understand that the Aryans or Indo-Europeans are a different entity to the IVC. The IVC never ruled the whole of India. The Aryans did and they adopted some cultural and religious aspects of the IVC. Now that you know some history of India , you mock it. That is the thing that makes me angry with Blacks and those who indulge in this behavior. But that is my history and I would never forsake my ancestral home.

        • Bestiality and necrophilia? Who couldn’t laugh? Who wouldn’t be disgusted? And I don’t care who does it. So “keep it real” then and revive these practices. It has nothing to do with skin color: I say the same thing to Kemet (“Egypt”)-obsessed Afro-centrists who, apparently (hopefully?), aren’t ready to revive sibling marriages.

          The steppe nomads (called hyksos in other tongues) who co-opted the name Aryan for themselves are not the first or last horde to rule the whole of southern Asia, including modern India. The Mongols (“Moghuls”) and Brits are posterior to them, and the Dravidians (also Druids) preceded them and ruled an even broader area, apparently much of west Asia (“Europe”).

          And understand this: the Iranians (Aryans) and the steppe nomads were NEVER the same people:

          “…in ancient Iran, which formally established the distinction between the Aryan (ie. settled, agricultural) way of life and the Turanian (ie. nomadic, pastoral) way of life, as demonstrated in the Shahnameh. The ancient Iranians used these not as linguistic terms (evidence being that, while the PIE-derivative-speaking Iranians described themselves as Aryan, many populations that they described as Turanian were also PIE-derivative-speakers e.g. Scythians (meaning “archers”)), but as cultural and hence geographic terms: the arable region to the south was referred to as Iran (meaning “Aryan territory”); the pastoral region to the north was referred to as “Turan” (meaning “Turanian territory”).”

          Nor were “Aryan” and Proto-Indo-“European”/Indo-“European” ever synonymous, until modern west Asian academic attempts to invent history:

          “The contemporary confusion between the racial term “Aryan” and the linguistic term “PIE” (“proto-Indo-European”) was entirely created by late 18th century Western academia, and is even worse than that between the racial term “Jew” and the linguistic term “Semite”. There is no doubt that the word ”Aryan” (at least in the form it appears in classical-era texts) is a PIE-derivative language word, in the same way that the word ”Pygmy” is a Greek language word. But no more does the latter imply that Greek-speakers equate to Pygmies than should the former imply that PIE-derivative-speakers equate to Aryans. The correct way to figure out what kind of people each word describes is to look at the etymology of the word, not the language of the word, in each case.

          Given that farming well predates PIE, the earliest racial Aryans were surely not PIE-speakers. Rather, some (not all) early PIE-derivative-speakers adopted the farming lifestyle from Aryans as they encountered and intermarried with them, following which they began describing themselves as “Aryan” – on account of lifestyle and blood, not on account of language. This was the case in ancient Iran, which formally established the distinction between the Aryan (ie. settled, agricultural) way of life and the Turanian (ie. nomadic, pastoral) way of life, as demonstrated in the Shahnameh. The ancient Iranians used these not as linguistic terms (evidence being that, while the PIE-derivative-speaking Iranians described themselves as Aryan, many populations that they described as Turanian were also PIE-derivative-speakers e.g. Scythians (meaning “archers”)), but as cultural and hence geographic terms: the arable region to the south was referred to as Iran (meaning “Aryan territory”); the pastoral region to the north was referred to as “Turan” (meaning “Turanian territory”).”

          The nomads/hordes of the Asian steppe were NOT Aryans. The PIE speakers were NOT Aryans. And if you’re “white”, you’re neither a descendant of the PIE speakers or the steppe nomads (erroneously identified as Aryans), so it doesn’t matter anyway.

          IT’S NOT YOUR HISTORY. You’re not Aryan. Just be happy with what you are, and happy with what they were.

    • ” then came the Aryans and named India”
      India is an anglicized version of “Hind”. The steppe hordes to the north of Pakistan, after miraculously crossing the Himalayas in chariots, definitely did not speak English, nor did they call themselves Aryans until they co-opted (stole) the word from the Indus Valley.

      And there were already horses in the Indus Valley, as in many parts of the world.

      Long story short, you can’t be a horde of central Asian steppe nomads and a superior civilization and culture at the same time. They were more akin to Mongols (in every sense) than to Elamites and Persians.

      • See you don’t know history. India got its name from our cousins the Persians. Its not an anglicized version. If you read the Rig Vedas you’d know that the Indians and Iranians were one people until their separation. The word is Arya, or Aryavarta or Land of the Aryan. Remember the German Valhalla, its the same as Pitris, Land of the Fathers.

  17. See what I said before. You as a Black and the others don’t believe that India has such a marvelous history. You are calling these people “hordes” which historians have found to be politically incorrect. You wouldn’t like me to call the people of Africa “savages” Now, DNA cannot be disproved, cremation is an Indo-European marker, Ireland Celtic history and its Eddas is similar to the Rigvedas. Also, Ireland, India and Iran carry the same cognate in ancient names. These are some of the things you do not know and don’t want to believe.

    • Who’s distorting?

      I have read every word that you’ve written and made direct references to them in my responses. You obviously have not read what I’ve written, because your responses constantly move to other subjects. In my opinion you lack the intellectual breadth and knowledge base to write knowledgeably about these subjects for a long time, and really not at all.

      I have provided you many links to articles and quotes from books, many of which themselves contain multiple sources. Even if you had done no research before now (which is clearly the case), I’ve provided you ample opportunity. But you didn’t, or couldn’t, take it. You won’t, or can’t, read.

      Tell me, how many links have you provided in this conversation? How many sources have you quoted? I’ll save you the read since it’s beyond you: 0.

      You literally don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve done no research, not to satisfy yourself, not to make your arguments seem valid to someone who’s not convinced.

      So what do you resort to? The only thing you have: ignorance. Racial accusations. How novel.

      The only reason I’ve indulged you this far is to expose your point of view as baseless. Now anyone who reads this conversation- and there are many readers of this article- will see how weak the “white” nationalist/supremacist claims to the Aryans are.

      I thank you for that. I didn’t have to put words in anybody’s mouth by saying “The so-and-sos say this” or “The so-and-sos say that.” You said it. You argued without logic, rationale or fact, and I argued with all 3. Think: did you bring anything new, that the average reader hasn’t read before? What about me? I brought new viewpoints, WITH SOURCES, that are blowing people’s minds.

      “Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you” (Qur-an 21.8)

      It’s over. Read our conversation again. The quality of your argument (and even language) is so poor, if I were you I would just gracefully bow out. Your anonymity is all you have left to hide behind; you’ve otherwise been exposed.

      Peace upon those who follow guidance.

    • Which “black” people do you mean?


      No people’s hair is different to “THE REST” of mankind. Everybody’s hair is different to SOME of mankind….

  18. Pingback: Sun Allergy: Interstellar Origins? | knowledge of self

  19. Pingback: Interstellar Origins 3: Hidden History of the Pale Race | knowledge of self

  20. Pingback: Interstellar Origins: An Interstellar Earth | knowledge of self

  21. Pingback: Muslim Use of the Swastika | knowledge of self

  22. Pathetic, fighting over history.

    The Swastika was used here and there. So what? The people arguing love to try and claim things from the past and use their race as a tool. They hope that the creativity of the ancients will rub off on their mediocrity.

    • yes, so true, and these people are called european albions who ‘PATENTS’ EVERYTHING!! Claim, and rename it and then say that they created it….But I agree, many cultures have used the Afuraka swastika; as the germans did only they exploited it for evil…. against the indigenous black people the Falashas Holocaust who were genocide…4 million, and the euros so called jews holocaust uh, research Benjamin Freedman.

  23. #BlackLivesMatter is still so much less important than Feminism! As long as ALL women are oppressed by patriarchy why do we even worry about a very narrow oppression example – just a single race?

  24. Pingback: the oscars & the powers of white supremacy & deception – mark jacobs lives!

  25. I can see that there are a lot of dumb ass white supremacists on this blog. and btw Yusuf khan I am about to break your heart. you ask why do black people’s hair not look the same? will you are very very stupid there are African people that have straight hair not all Africans have kinky hair. we have the biggest diverse race on the planet. that comes from being human which you are NOT you people have no hue in you only African people have hue. so your not even HUMAN. we are. further more you are a kind of “man” your not a full man your half man half rhesus monkey (basically a genetic hybrid) black Africans are the alpha humans that have full human features. your people aren’t even natural or harmonious to nature. that is evident given the history of destruction on this planet caused by non Africans people. congrads to non africans for the false history on this planet to hide the fact that these genetic splices stole it from the original humans on this planet. you monsters.

  26. Pingback: Skinheads, Swastika, Reggae, Afrika – knowledge of self

  27. This post is straight fire! Taj-akoben ethers mankind. The truth is like a Lion, set it free and it will defend itself. Peace!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s