Lascaux cave art

Lascaux cave art

Sunday, September 06, 2009

`Aryan`-why the `liberal` elite don`t like you to use it!

Although the traditional useage by academics of the term `Aryan` went out of fashion for political reasons after 1945 mainly due to its association with the Racial Science of the Third Reich the term has been in use by a number of writers since then and used in its traditional sense.
One of the reasons why it is rejected by the `liberal` elite[the 1968 anarchist middle class student generation] is because it is a value loaded term with great significance.
Let us examine the possible meanings now.
J.B. Mallory and D.Q. Adams in The Oxford Introduction To Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World state that the term `Aryan` or `Arya` derives from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European[PIE] term h4eros or h4eryos which has the general meaning of "member of one`s own group" which in itself is almost an admission that it is an ethnic term.
The Hittite ara- means "member of one`s own group, peer, friend". The Lycian arus means "citizens", Old Irish aire "freeman", the Avestan airya and the Sanskrit arya "faithful".
Mallory and Adams state quite clearly "The evidence suggests that the word was, at least initially, one that denoted one who belongs to the community in contrast to an outsider; a derivative of the word is found in the Hittite ara`[what is] fitting` and natta ara `not right`.
Quite deceptively they then try to almost apologise for the above statements and attempt a u-turn by saying "Although in Indo-Iranian the word takes on an ethnic meaning, there are no grounds for ascribing this semantic use to Proto-Indo-European, ie there is no evidence that the speakers of the proto-language referred to themselves explicitly as `Aryans`."
Yet one has to ask that if the Hittites and not just the Indo-Iranians used this term to define themselves and as this term has cognates in all Indo-European languages and can be traced back to a reconstructed PIE term, ie h4eros or h4eryos and as the Proto-Indo-Europeans left no manuscripts behind how can these two academics so glibly argue that they did not use this term in a self-defining sense? How can Mallory and Adams possibly make this argument? How can they possibly know? Lack of evidence in itself can never be used as evidence for a counter argument.
We also have to consider that the original Aryans in their Urheimat would have been more than likely self-contained and seperated from all other races and so had no need to define themselves as a race or ethnic group until they encountered other races and ethnic groups and this probably did not start to happen until their long and far reaching dispersal began and they started to encounter alien peoples. The term `Aryan` was however already there in their original lexicon and they began to apply new meanings to the word in the courses of their migrations.
The fact that the term has been used by speakers of Indo-European languages as far apart as India and Ireland is surely a strong indication that the dispersed Aryans took this term with them and it began to take on new shades of meaning within their own language groups and ethnicities.
In his A Sumer Aryan Dictionary Professor L. Austine Waddell states that `Aryan`, `Arya` or the Ar prefix and its cognates have the following meanings: lofty, exalted ones, loftiness, majesty fame, chiefs, governors, mistress, goddess, one who goes up, mankind, man, noble, master, lord, one of the exalted ruling race, better, stronger, braver, hero, freeman, famous, warrior, gentleman, leader, honourable, man of rank or valour, etc.
Interstingly the sign of the plough is also considered to be a sign of the Aryan and Waddell in most of his books builds a case for the Aryan as the originator of civilisation and agriculture.
Is it any wonder then that the `powers that be` do not want us to use this ancient term to define ourselves by?
And since when did the Aryans ever define themselves as `Indo-Europeans` or `Indo-Germanics`? Never! Yet these very same academics would have us use the term `Indo-European`[Indo-Germanic has likewise gone out of fashion for pc reasons!] as a self-defining term. It beggars belief!
The `liberal` elite know very well that if we reclaim this word we would as a race regain our racial pride and start to overturn their genocidal policies which are aimed at our extinction as a distinct people.


Hans said...

A very good article, however, it would be my preference to say not "liberal elite", but liberal PSEUDO-elite as it really is.

James O'Meara said...


Indeed. Guenon protested in several places about the use of 'elite' to refer to sports, art, social groups, etc. 'Elite' essentially involves a connection to a spiritual principle; I suppose the 'liberal elite' would at best be a 'pseudo-elite' but more likely an 'counter-elite,' like the Satanic counter-tradition in Reign of Quantity.

esovia said...

It's typical Nietzschean slave resentment by weak judean slave morals. Since the Jews are naturally mastered by the Aryans, they subvert the Aryans in order to survive. They preach "Oprah"-type weakness and disease as a badge of honor so that anyone of natural strength (ie Aryans)is villanized and made to look oppressive and "evil". It is the jealousy of the weak jew seeking to enslave the Aryans with himself by promoting the ideology that being weak, downtrodden, and essentially inferior is more "noble" and "righteous" that being strong-willed and superior. Liberalism is just more weak Jewry. The Aryans that have succumbed to the Jewry, especially in America, have to be reconditioned back into master morality, ie Aryanism.

esovia said...

James, yes, well said. That is precisely what they are. "Counter-elites" describe them perfectly. It is a process of subversion of their natural Aryan masters. They are the opposite of true aristos, ie slavish Jews whove managed, mainly through guilt and villainization, to subvert the natural process of nature(which installs Aryans as the elite) and institute themselves as the masters when in fact they are naturally untermensch.

Anonymous said...

"Interstingly the sign of the plough is also considered to be a sign of the Aryan and Waddell in most of his books builds a case for the Aryan as the originator of civilisation and agriculture."

Yes. Look in to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Haplogroup T as one of the female lines of the Aryans -

This mtDNA Haplogroup T is present wherever the Aryans settled, including as far east as India and Pakistan where the Aryans built the ancient high culture in the Indus Valley.

Haplogroup T is also associated with the rise of agriculture in Europe.

The book THE 10,000 YEAR EXPLOSION by Cochran and Harpending examines how agriculture spurred human evolution.