Out of India Theory and Aryan Conquest theory are BOTH wrong

http://www.Sun-Wheel-Magick.com http://www.Thunderwizard.com The Aryan conquest theory and the controversial "Out of India" theory are both wrong. Both of these opposite theories are operating from faulty, outdated and disproven assumptions about the origins of the Indo-European language. A third option is now emerging based on the "Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm" which says that the first Indo-Europeans originated in Africa over 50,000 years ago. So, the first Indo-Europeans did not emerge in Asia, Anatolia, India or Europe. They came from Africa. After migrating out Africa, their ethnicities and DNA changed slowly over tens of thousands of years, but the IE languages survived relatively intact. Therefore, race is no longer a factor in this discussion. Indian scholars need not invert the Aryan migration theory in order to defend their ethnic connection to the Aryans. While I sympathize with the motivations of those who argue in favor of the Out of India theory, I must say that I believe they are operating from an understandable unconscious emotional agenda to combat the incorrect racist assumption in the now outdated Aryan Conquest Theory. The British colonizers were operating from an inaccurate assumption that since the language of Sanskrit is similar to European languages, then they also believed falsely that the Aryans must have shared a common ethnicity with the British. The "out of India" proponents have also adopted this faulty assumption that the IE languages have an ethnic connection, but they have simply turned this argument on it's head. The foundational premise is incorrect, therefore the whole discussion needs to be re-analyzed. Since the PCP proves that Aryans were only one of many tribes descended from an earlier proto Indo-European language and culture originating in paleolithic Africa, then the race of the Aryans is meaningless to this discussion. This also means that the Western Europeans by the time of the Vedic Aryans were a completely separate ethnic group from the Aryans although their languages still reflected a common paleolithic origin. But once we discard the old assumptions that say that the Indo-European language originated either in central Asia, Anatolia or India. And instead adopt adopt the logical conclusions in favor of the PCP which has proven that the IE languages originated from paleolithic Africa, then there is no longer any need for Vedic scholars to argue about the racial origins of the Aryans. The point becomes altogether moot. Once we discard ALL of the racial arguments surrounding the Aryans, the Vedic Indians/Hindus can proudly accept the historical, Vedic and archeological evidence which clearly shows that the Aryans migrated to India from Anatolia about 4,000 years ago. They spoke a different language than the indigenous Dravidians, but the Aryans were NOT ethnically related to western Europeans. Any shared origins between the Aryans and British were from their common 50,000 year old paleolithic African ancestors who were dark skinned. If there were any racial differences between the Aryans and the indigenous Dravidians, this has nothing whatsoever do with the race of the British colonizers. Whatever perceived similarities between the Aryans and western Europeans ( if they existed) would have been purely coincidental based on climactic factors over a 40,000 year period. Their DNA would still have been completely different from one another... So, based on the PCP, modern Hindu Indians can be proud of their central Asian/Anatolian origins without having to combat the false racist assumptions of the British... I hope that clears up some of the questions I have been receiving.... -~-~~-~~~-~~-~- NEW online Course in Master Shamanism! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms31bEmXqUE -~-~~-~~~-~~-~-