the zoroastrianism, that you simps and coping saying that they were not the ones who created judaism, called the scythians and other steppeniggers "xrafastras" (vermin-like-men) who harry the herds and don't raise cows. they did not accept the way of life that the vedic and avestan people preferred, and stayed largely nomadic instead of semi-nomadic. no wonder the persians called him barbarians. modern indians are descendants of the aasi mixed with iran_n of the bmac (bactria-margiana archaeological complex) who founded the indus valley/harapean civilization and were called dasyu/asuras by the aryans/vedics, although the iranians were also indo-aryan and this caused the deva-asura split after the battle of the ten kings (which was won by king sudas, which means "good dasyu" was an ally of the aryan bharatas), with zoroastrianism demonizing the daevas, their ancient iranian priests, the angras (who come from the angirasas, sons of the wise angiras/agni, who was the author of the atharvaveda, the veda of magical formulas, which is why the zoroastrian priests were called magi) and considered varuna (asura-medhira, the king of asuras) as the supreme god ahura-mazda. zorostrianism is clearly an anti-aryan tradition. vendidad even says that angra/ahriman's forces come from the north. the fire temples preceded sintashta's incursions into the bmac, and the gathas are highly critical of the steppe aryans, hence why they grew more among the iran_n people. just as the torah is highly critical of the canaanites (since judaism was created by the persians during the babylonian captivity), the gathas are highly critical of the aryans, which arguably makes them anti-aryan religion, as nietzsche rightly observed. some could claim that zoroastrianism was born out of resentment, which is a valid criticism, especially considering that its rigid dualistic worldview is philosophically untenable.
Brazil