https://youtu.be/43ZbQKrJTJE?si=LMVODNqSb9rshT3KVideo Comment:
I hadn't planned on this being the subject matter of part 8.2 in this series.. but after stumbling upon 'The Scythian Empire', and recognizing not just vindication and confirmation of much of what I've believed to be true, but additional elaboration and some impressive new insights, I pushed much of what I'd originally planned to discuss to the next installment, and felt the need to speak to this first.
The broader implications to our understanding of history here are massive.
Pinned Comment:
Pinned by Asha Logos
@ashalogos9221
2 days ago
To summarize:
I've come to believe, quite strongly over time, that there existed a highly mobile and highly proficient population subset, which has been alternately labeled 'Royal Scythian', 'Arya/Aryan', or a handful of other names by various scholars and historians, that wielded immense power and shaping influence across a millennia or more - whose lineage cultivated the most immense and widespread power and influence, stretching at various times from the furthest west in Europe to the furthest easternmost point of Asia, and whose most direct lineal descendants can be found today in modern Europe, and her modern offshoots. I believe the very concept of 'royalty' and sacred Kingship stems exclusively from this subset, and has left it's lasting mark across the majority of the world.
I've also come to believe that the traces of this immense power and influence have been increasingly and aggressively obscured in modern texts - to the extent that it appears to be a purposeful effort, at some level. There's perhaps no subject matter in which I've sensed more deeply strange unfairness in modern academic circles, more bias and blatant inaccuracy, than in that of the 'Arya', and the related concepts discussed in this video.
By whom, and to what end, represent questions we won't get into in this video.
That said, I'm perhaps a bit hard on modern academia as a whole, here, so I'd like to make clear:
I certainly don't believe that every last individual in these spheres is a conscious subversive, or willfully and knowingly dishonest. In fact, I think several are likely well-meaning and genuine. There's simply an academic and scholarly structure currently in place that only allows certain types of people with certain ideological leanings through the door in the first place - in the current atmosphere, if you disagree, you're not being 'scholarly' at all, by definition. Scholarly 'legitimacy' and aptitude is now directly equivalent to how fully one is willing to embrace the current conventional notions.. which means those with dissenting opinions are effectively and organically shut out.
Over time, this only further exacerbates the problem, of course.
Modern scholarship seems willing to make use of any conceivable conceptual framework - pottery types, burial traditions, artistic styles, etc - except the one framework that seems to most effectively make sense of the past, and connect the dots and answer the outstanding questions that have baffled so many for so long. I'd contend the fracturing of this larger people family into countless shards (Andronovo, Srubnaya, Corded Ware, Yamnaya, etc) is only helpful if we're also willing to first recognize the powerful ties that bind, and thus not 'miss the forest for the trees'.
Credit and appreciation to Christopher Beckwith for an intriguing book well written - and I hope my so heavily quoting it isn't an unwelcome change of pace in these videos - though I'd like to make the point that the core conclusions here are entirely my own, and that his excellent work was only used to help build (solidify) this larger context picture. I'm not certain of his broader views on these many topics, and wouldn't want to misrepresent them.
Lastly, I feel the need to comment once more on just how muddled and disorienting the language in these realms has become. 'Scythian' has devolved from a descriptor of an ethnic family described as the 'oldest people in the world' in the first written histories, with the closest ties to the 'Hyperboreans', used to reference a massive people family north of Greece and Persia and India, and then being widely used as a universal term for the ancestors of European mankind - to a narrow and niche descriptor of small bands of heavily mixed steppe populations who came to occupy the area post 300-400 AD, with little connection to modern Europe, somehow.. all in the span of just a handful of decades, post WW2. No matter what one may wish to LABEL them, my hope is that we begin to recognize the 'Occam's razor' likelihood of a singular population whose offshoots would go on to heavily influence (and often rule, loosely and non-tyrannically) the majority of the ancient world, at various points in time.
I'd suggest that only through this lens does history begin to make
sense, add up, cohere.
I grew up believing, as I'm sure many of you did, that European peoples essentially milled about in the forests of NW Europe, superstitious and primitive (and creating a wide range of 'gods' accordingly), while the rest of the world made history around them. I can't stress enough how profoundly and obviously dishonest this narrative is. I hope these works might play some part in rectifying these modern judgment errors and manipulative storylines - I've come to believe they're purposeful, borderline insidious, and ultimately serve the purpose of robbing us of our history, and a genuine understanding of ourselves and our ancestors.
A very sincere thank you, to those who support.. and a Merry Christmas and Happy Yule to all.
I hope you're well.
