For many years now, people from the developed West have generally viewed India as a backward, uncivilized, poor and godforsaken place. Being an Indian myself, I do not believe that this common assessment of the state of things in India is completely incorrect. In fact, any unbiased, rational person would not paint a rosy picture of modern India. However, I believe that it would be quite extreme to say that this deplorable state of things shows that Indian society and people are inept and unenterprising by nature. This paints a very simplistic and stereotypical picture of the current problems of my country.
If one truly wishes to understand the present appalling conditions in India, he must take a look at India’s history. But before diving straight into this subject, let me attempt to explain the very idea of what India is (and is not).
What India Really Is
For several decades now, the idea that India is a nation with thousands of years of golden history has become entrenched in the minds of most Indians, and even some westerners. This is, however, completely false. India is not, and has never been, a nation, rather it is something much broader—it is an entire civilization.
The name India is derived from the Greek Indica, which itself borrows from the Persian word Hindu, which had nothing to do with the Hindu religion, but rather, it referred to a geographical entity. The Persians used the word Hindu while referring to the River Indus, which was known to the Vedic inhabitants of the time as Sindhu; since the Persians had trouble pronouncing the word Sindhu, they corrupted the word to Hindu.
Thus, simply put, the term India, and later many similar terms, such as the Persian Hindustan (land of the Hindus), the Arabic Hind, were not meant to refer to the entirety of the Indian sub-continent, but rather only to the land around the Indus river, and some of the countries beyond it. This was essentially what can be called the Indo-Aryan or Indo-Gangetic civilization. It is the very root of what India is.
India’s history nominally begins with the study of the Indus Valley Civilization, but its real history, of which the modern Indian civilization is a continuation, begins much later, with the arrival of the Vedic Aryan tribes.
Genesis Of The Indo-Aryan Civilization
The Vedic Aryans were tribes which are originally thought to have belonged to someplace in modern-day Iran and/or Central Asia. These people began their migrations (yes, there was not one Aryan migration, but rather, a wave of successive migrations), into the Indian sub-continent some time around 1500 BC, displacing, subjugating and sometimes even assimilating the native Dravidians and some primitive tribes as they kept expanding their realms.
This period marks the first time that the native Indian people were subjugated and mastered by a foreign people, whose culture and traditions gradually became dominant. But this was not to be the last time that the native nations and tribes of India would be subjugated by a foreign people; this would in fact become a pattern that kept on repeating again and again. One might even argue that most of Indian history has been filled with bloodshed, conquest and subjugation.
But does this mean that all which students across the world learn about the history of the Indian civilization is wide of the mark and completely fictitious? No, to say so would be naïve and ignorant. India does in fact have a very rich history; for centuries, beginning in the classical period of Indian history, lasting till the 14th-15th century AD, the nations of the Indian sub-continent together made the strongest economic power on earth, and were responsible for a great number of impressive inventions and innovations which changed the course of human history.
Indian Marvels
Throughout the world, India is famous for its ancient and medieval monuments, from the likes of the Taj Mahal and the Qutb Minar, to the Badrinath and Jagannath Temples. It is also well known for its marvelous ancient literature such as the Hindu Epic Mahabharata and the widely read and much appreciated sex guide, Kama Sutra.
India had one of the earliest universities of the world, Taxila or Takshashila, known for imparting education in the fields of medicine and law, now situated in modern-day Pakistan. The invention of the number zero is also attributed to philosophers and mathematicians in Ancient India, and Indians throughout history have made immense contributions to the field of mathematics.
All of these facts point out that throughout much of its history, India was inhabited by a great civilization with economic, scientific and cultural prowess that was unparalleled throughout the rest of the world, with perhaps the exception of China. But now let me go back to the first point that I mentioned earlier: Indian history is filled with the horrors of bloodshed, conquest and subjugation; the Vedic Aryans subdued the Dravidians, then they fought amongt themselves, killed and subjugated each other, then they were invaded by the Greeks and Persians, and after them the Indo-Greeks, then the Nomadic Kushans, then the Scythians and Huns, then the Arabs, then the Muslim Turks came in and established themselves, then the Chagatai Mughals conquered the sub-continent and established the Mughal Empire, then the Afghan tribes kept attacking and invading, then the Persians were at it again, and so on and so forth. You see what I’m talking about?
Thus It becomes a very pertinent question to ask why the Indian civilization has seen this repeated pattern of destruction if it was truly so glorious and magnificent throughout much of its history. The answer is quite simple: change in the very nature of Indian people, polity and society.
A History Of Greed And Complacence
When the Vedic Aryans first came in, they were a virtuous and warlike people, leading a simple yet hard life. After they had settled in the Indian sub-continent and established their mighty kingdoms and a more sophisticated economy, their society began to change rapidly. The people began to become complacent, they became self-centered and greedy, the idea of loyalty to the tribe was lost, material wealth became increasingly important, and, one might even argue, began to be worshiped.
This radical transformation continued, but there were further changes in the Post-Vedic Period. New religions and cults came up, with the Buddhists and the Jains becoming very dominant; both these new faiths gained many followers throughout the Mauryan Empire. Buddhism was supposed to promote tolerance and pacifism, but what it ended up doing when it became the dominant religion was instead creating intolerance and hatred.
During the reign of Emperor Ashoka of the Maruyan Empire, the state propagated the ideology/philosophy of Dhamma or Dharma , which means a path of virtue and tolerance. In its initial stage, the state authorities were not exceedingly zealous and fanatical while trying to enforce this ideology, but with time, the Dhamma policy of the Mauryan Empire was shoved down its people’s throats by force. The Mauryans established a special class of officers called the Dhamma-Mahamattas who were responsible for imposing the policy of Dhamma upon the public.
In the medieval period, the most notable rulers of India were from the Mughal Dynasty. It would not be far-fetched to say that most Mughal rulers were essentially despots. Many among the Mughal elite (even some of the Mughal rulers) were addicted to opium, wine and sex. Even though during much of the Mughal period, per capita incomes in India were on par with European levels, the Mughal elite enjoyed a much more luxurious life than their counterparts in Europe. The Mughals’ love of luxury was supported by crippling taxes on the general population; any revolts by the native population were put down swiftly and violently.
With each passing generation, the Mughals became less and less interested in maintaining the frontiers of their empire, safeguarding the interests of the public, encouraging science and education, boosting development, etc, and more interested in fulfilling their own desires for luxury and comfort. The Mughals continued their wasteful expenditure by building grand palaces and tombs throughout much of their Empire, spending the money they had extorted out of the population on economically useless structures.
The common people were not much better too in this period. People were obsessed with material wealth, and social hierarchies had become extremely rigid with a great amount of discrimination against those belonging to the lower levels in the traditional Hindu caste strata; unlike in the Mauryan period, heterodox sects propagating beliefs against the caste system had become significantly weaker. Also, the people of this period were much more narrow minded and the Indian civilization was more instrumental in maintaining popular superstitions and savage customs than providing the world with elegant prose or any new inventions.
Parallels With The Modern West
The West today is in a dominant position that is quite similar (but with notable differences) to the position which India has occupied throughout multiple phases of its history. The Western countries together make up a majority of the world’s GDP, their culture dominates the globe, and the West is scientifically and technologically superior to the rest of the world.
But the people of the West, just like the Indians of the “Golden” periods of Indian history, have become greedy, selfish, narrow minded, ignorant and complacent. The entire West has been overtaken by consumerist madness. Human virtues have taken a back seat in the pursuit of material gain. The basic bonds of family and community suffer as people become increasingly insular and unsociable. Each government is more despotic than the last.
Most major countries of the Western world, including France, Germany, Italy and to an extent, the United States, have steadily declining fertility rates. As the native population ages, foreign labor is imported to sustain the fledgling economies of these fledgling states. The mainstream media, instead of urging the native people to save their communities, spew disgusting socialist and feminist propaganda, furthering the destruction of the nations of the West.
It is rather amusing for an observer like me in the East to see the West tie a noose round its own neck by continuing with firm faith on its current path of assured self-destruction. It is astounding to see that the United States continues to spend trillions of dollars on its depraved welfare programs and over-extended military every single year even as it goes further and further into debt, while at the same time, most traditional values disappear from American society. The scenario is very similar across the rest of the Western world.
The West may not necessarily be destroyed by nomadic hordes and barbarian enemies in the future, but it will certainly be destroyed from within because Western society has fundamentally changed for the worse, just as so many Indian kingdoms and empires were destroyed from within due to the vices of their people, both the rulers and the ruled.
Read More: With First World Problems Like Feminism, The West Doesn’t Need Enemies
Great article. Excellent points, Sir.
Your comparison of India and the US are right on, especially the point about how the dominant religion became corrupt and oppressive, just like christianity has become today.
I agree that the US will be destroyed from within, just like Abraham Lincoln predicted.
Due to my profession, I come in contact with a lot of Indian people, and they are always polite and friendly, I like them.
When I hear people bash India, I remind them that Indians are decent, civilized people, just like us, and that India is the largest english speaking nation on earth.
“Due to my profession, I come in contact with a lot of Indian people, and they are always polite and friendly, I like them.”
I concur. Nice, well educated, and on top of it they dress well. 🙂
Just as a counterpoint: as a result of my profession, I also come into contact with large numbers of Indians on a daily basis, and my experience has been almost uniformly negative. They lie, cheat, and fabricate whenever possible, and they seem to be much more concerned with obtaining the material benefits of the West than they are with developing the competencies required to obtain those benefits honestly. (I should mention that they have all been perfectly courteous in my interactions with them, but that means very little when such behavior is accompanied by abject dishonesty.)
There have been a few notable exceptions, Indians who are both honest and skilled, and I like those Indians very much. I should also mention that what I described above seems limited to the current (less than 35 years old or so) generation of Indians. When I have dealt with the older generation of Indians, they have been courteous, yes, but also highly skilled and impeccably ethical.
Doesn’t the manosphere recommend everyone to read the 48 laws of power to juke the system in their favor? There’s no mention of honesty.
A demographic that relies solely on fraud and theft, and that solely for their own benefit, constitute a parasite class and should be eliminated from social participation, else society itself will surely suffer. You can veil yourself in silly pretensions of being some dark triad mastermind all you want, but at the end of the day, real social masterminds like Machiavelli and Kautilya recognized this inevitability and made it explicit.
I’m just saying if deception is amoral, isn’t it hypocritical to say it’s not okay when Indians do it? I guess what you’re really complaining about it is that they aren’t very good at concealing what they’re up to.
Given that your fundamental method of discussion is to put words in my mouth, and given that your apparent obtuseness is so spectacular that I cannot determine whether you are simply trolling, I see no need to continue with you.
I forget who it was, but someone said that as the vice of England is hypocrisy, so the vice of India is suspicion.
Christianity is oppressive? Aside from opposing 5% of the pop from marrying I thought it had been neutered whoch contributed to the decline of communities and tradition.
“communities and tradition” is part of India’s checkered past and is common in the 3rd world and dark ages. Countries like India are trying to get away from such things to modernize. Say community, think tribe / clan, and what comes to mind, but a backward society
I also think it was a good article, and what you said about the corruption of the religion and tradition is especially true:
The primary reason India was doomed was due to the population getting too complacent. Keep in mind that India was the richest country in the world during the early Middle Ages. (“according to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book Contours of the world economy, 1–2030 AD: essays in macro-economic history, India had the world’s largest economy during the years 1 AD and 1000 AD”). There was a reason why all the Europeans wanted to form new trade routes to it.
Specifically, the warriors of the caste system (the kshatriyas) became too complacent. As the article alluded too, the excess wealth got to their heads. Then Buddhism came along starting around 500 BC and completely FUCKED up the system. With Buddhism’s over-focus on peace and non-materialism, the warriors, the kshatriyas all started to abandon their duty as protectors and started to become monastic monks. In essence, they went from alpha to beta. With this imbalance of power, new forces naturally started coming in to loot and plunder the entire region, since there were no strong forces to protect it.
Along came Islam. And the first Muslim conquerors into the subcontinent did nothing except loot, plunder, rape, pillage, and murder everything that stood in their way. And with a majority of the warriors who were supposed to stop them off meditating in caves instead of fighting on the battlefield, the conquerors had a pretty easy time of it.
Although several Hindu based resistance movements formed like the Maratha empire, it was ultimately too late for India to return to its former glory. After the Mughals solidified their control of much of India, Hindus became complacent again and used to the idea of living their life under the Mughal emperor of Delhi. By the time the British and Portuguese arrived in the 1600’s, India had been reduced to a rabble of local princes and rulers bickering among each other. The British expertly used divide and conquer to bribe and buy over these corrupt princes, in whom the noble ancient ideas and morals of the Kshatriya dharma were long dead. India was then literally ruled by gigantic corporation, the British East India Company, then eventually annexed by the British Empire and became known as the “jewel in the British Crown” due to the lucrative resources of tea, gold, diamonds, indigo, cloth, etc. They continued the policy of Muslims by indiscriminately looting the country by force. Here’s just one example:
“Since the Middle Ages, Indian textiles such as muslin were revered around the world and were produced at a cost that the British and Europeans could not compete with. So once the British ruled India they did what they couldn’t do in a freely competitive environment. They forcefully shut down the competition. In the early 19th century, the East India Company (EIC), had cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal[citation needed] in order to destroy the indigenous weaving industry in favor of British textile imports (some anecdotal accounts say the thumbs of the weavers of Dacca were removed).[citation needed] Twenty weavers’ families from Murshidabad and Nadia in Bengal had then fled to Awadh (to the British: Oudh; corresponding to modern-day Uttar Pradesh), whose nawab resettled them in the town of Mahua Dabar. The refugees taught weaving to their offspring and Mahua Darbar became a weaving town of 5,000 people. In March–April 1857 when Zaffar Ali, a young man whose grandfather had migrated from Bengal, spotted a British boat coming down the Manorama (a tributary of the Ghagra on which Mahua Darbar was set). Local people intercepted the boat and killed the British soldiers by beheading – Lt T.E. Lindsay, Lt W.H. Thomas, Lt G.L. Caulty, Sgt Edwards and privates A.F. English and T.J. Richie. The British had their revenge – on June 20 that year, the British 12th Irregular Horse Cavalry surrounded the town, slaughtered hundreds and set all the houses on fire. On the colonial revenue records, the area was subsequently marked gair chiragi (non-revenue land).”
After the Independence Movement that ended with India’s freedom in 1947 (making it a very young country) it was faced with immense problems. The British (whether they knew of the consequences or not) split the country in two before they left, Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, which resulted in 14 million displaced refugees (an insanely high number) and hundreds of thousands dead in religious fueled riots on both sides. Coming out of this bloody and tumultuous history, India seems to be on a shaky road to modernization.
So my point of this post was to show that the decline of India happened for slightly different reasons than what the author wrote about, I think the corruption of the ruling class as well as the rise of Buddhism left the entire country wide open to be fucked by foreign powers. But I do definitely agree with the author in that the West’s loss of identity as a society and loss of traditional values seems to be doing nothing but inviting disaster.
Indeed, Karachi was a Hindu majority city for 1200 years or more, right up until one night in 1947 when muslims killed them all.
I have an entire branch of my family who used to live in Punjab (my grandfather’s brother, his wife, and their four kids). They were all never seen again after that fateful night, most likely all killed in the violence.
Christianity has become oppressive? What dimension are you in, where Christians in the USA oppress people?
Christianity has become corrupt, though. I will give you that. Liberal Christian denominations and Reformed Jews make up the whitest, most elitist segment of our population, and they organize effectively to get congregation members elected at all levels of government, and to use power in the local government to benefit themselves in many ways. Most examples of corruption in local government has a network behind it- one linked to a liberal church and/or temple. It happens all the time in my city. They wield massive amounts of power.
If you go to any evangelical church, you will see a lot of blue collars, a few health care workers, and no politicians. They do not organize at all to create political leverage.
“I agree that the US will be destroyed from within, just like Abraham Lincoln predicted.”
Abraham Lincoln’s reign of terror established federal dominance at the point of a gun (fiat currency, income taxes, Federal military dominating the states, etc.) in America and that is a main factor in its destruction.
The government school fairy tales about Lincoln are just that.
Never forget that the USA has only ever had one real enemy, one nation whose entire purpose was to destroy the United States and annexe its territory, and that enemy was the Confederacy.
WRONG! The Confederacy only wanted the Feds out of their land.
They didn’t want to control the rest of the states from Washington, D.C.
The government schools lie to us and it a “Civil War”.
A civil war is a war to control the central government.
The Confederacy NEVER wanted to control the central government…they wanted to leave the central government…just like the first American Revolution.
What’s so civilized about the U.S.? India never warred against the entirety of the planet like the CIA and the military continues to do.
Thank you. I always wanted to know about history of India but did not know where to start.
“Most major countries of the Western world, including France, Germany, Italy and to an extent, the United States, have steadily declining fertility rates”
No nostalgia for the British Raj? UK fertility rates are dire too you know.
Actually interesting history, despite or perhaps because of what it doesn’t cover
Indians are not that bad as immigrants, compared to Pakis that is… Pakis are a bunch of rapists. It is sickening.
There is a stark difference between the two countries. I can befriend Indians but I have been told(along with years of personal experience) that Pakistanis “don’t think their better, they KNOW their better.” They have enormous amounts of pride, but none of them want to go back to even visit (don’t blame them). I don’t want to group people together, but I generally avoid them if they have Paki parents… There worse then Arabs at times.
It is really hard to understand what the pakistanis are actually proud of.
Pakistan looks more like a cheap muslim replica of India. A place best avoided.
Check this out. Their under the impression that they decended from Arabs. I’m not sure how to check that as fact, but they look down upon Indian and Bengali people.
I’m from an Indo/Pakistani background born in England and I disagree with Sim Orange in that they don’t want to visit their country. Mirroring Chris Rock’s classical comedy on ‘black people and niggas’; there are two classes of Pakistani’s.
The ones which you speak of and I am surrounded by are like the black ‘nigga’ counterparts: prideful for no valid reason, extremely unintelligent, barbaric and downright disgusting.
The other class which I do agree with Sim Orange are the more Westernised, they hate their country because it holds no value or eminence – these people can be generally tolerable but usually just are like the rest of the ignorant Western society.
Concluding, there is one thing which gives Pakistani’s these negative traits: Islam. To anyone who disagrees, I am from an Islamic family (not severely strict) and of course, many of my extended family are decent people who just want to provide for their family but a considerable amount are as described above; these people almost hypocritically unwaveringly believe in their religion and largely do not follow it.
”these people almost hypocritically unwaveringly believe in their religion and largely do not follow it.”
Seems no religion is immune from those freeloaders.
The underlying cognitive dissonance of hardline Pakistanis is that they look down on the “infidel” Hindus and think themselves superior but at the same time they know that all their ancestors were Hindu and that they share their DNA. Little bit of a dilemna there.
I was under the impression that it was about skin tone, but it seems it goes deeper then that. Apparently Pashtun people discriminate against Paki’s? What fuckery.
Remember that Pakistan is still butthurt that in 1971, half of their country split off to become Bangladesh.
Bangladeshis are poor, but also better behaved and humble by Muslim standards.
Yeah it might be a little about skin tone. But most Northern Indians also have similar skin tone to Pakistanis, which is on average lighter than the average Indian.
Now the Pashtuns are from the Pakistan Afghanistan border region, and they don’t like the Pakistani central government because a lot of their “anti-insurgent” operations end up blowing up tiny villages in the mountains that the Pashtuns live in.
As you said quite precisely, what fuckery indeed.
Well I’m not an expert (I’m West Indian). They are very humble, but they (Bangladeshis) often tell me that their country is very corrupt and their women (in the US!) are big sluts. That being said, I had a few friends from there.
Experience serves me to agree. Bengali’s in my vicinity are much more advanced as they get better jobs (doctors, lawyers etc.) compared to the Pakistani’s who sell drugs or settle for mediocrity.
A Majority of Pashtuns are themselves Pakistanis. Pakistan has the most Pashtuns in the world, come again?
Then why do Pashtuns use the term “Muhajir” as a derogatory term for a non Pashtun. I can understand why you have a biased view, but this is all from actual occurrences. Every culture has fucked up ways…
Muhajir means migrant and in Pakistan is used as a self identifier by communities who migrated from India during the split. It is not something Pashtuns made up and if they are using it then it is probably in reference to somebody from that background. The only time it is used negatively is when used on Afghan refugees.
No bias involved what is incorrect is incorrect simple as that.
I am friends with two families. One arab muslims, the other armenians. Both tell me not to trust Pakistanis
Hold up you ass fuckers are just butt hurt that we Pakistanis are natural Alpha males that fuck all your white woman. As for Hindustan I would say Pakistan is going to nuke those vegetarians back to the stone age but India can’t get any worse. …
spoken like a true homeboy.
Alright bro, your internet time is up, back to the mountain caves.
Alpha males who can’ even keep their own children from being butchered in class (Even in army school). Alpha males who got their asses handed to then in ’62, ’71 and ’99.
Also we have a bigger nuclear arsenal than you, not a few sticks of Uranium slapped together.
Plus you just happened to be a country that is such a bitch to another country that they can conduct military ops on your soil without even informing you.
Its you fags who are bottom of the barrel.
I am curious about the author’s perspective on sexual dynamics in Indian culture throughout history. I admire Hindu philosophy and religious mythology, but it seems hard to reconcile with some of the crazy and primitive behavior towards women that one hears about in the news. For a culture that seems to understand male/female dynamics in a metaphysical sense, why is there so much practical failure?
In a nation of 1.2 billion people, atrocities against women (but even more against men) of course occur. In small villages there are still some widows that are expected to commit ritualistic suicide on a burning pyre – maybe a couple of hundred per year.
Rapes of course occur but, contrary to what you would infer from the western media, the rape rate in India is actually lower than most western nations. I should add that there is controversy on how such statistics are collected, most notably in Europe – in Sweden everything is apparently rape. Plus there is the feeling that rape is under reported in all countries. I don’t know if that is true but even if true – there is a high percentage of false rape allegations that balance out all those supposed unreported rapes. But again, other than a few highly publicized cases, India is hardly the rape-frenzy that CNN and their ilk has smeared the nation to be. The western elites desperately want feminism to spread in India, and all across Asia.
If anything, India has a problem with being gynocentric. It is a nation filled with white knight, beta men who worship women – especially mothers.
The only area where I really feel the nation fails with regards to women is that there is a sub-culture of groping women on trains – mostly by the millions upon millions of sex-starved lower class men. The middles class and upper classes are vehemently against such behavior but it is difficult to police and eradicate.
If we are talking about Indians in western countries, they run their families as families should be run. Traditional values across the board. The man is in charge and gets served by the wife. The wife dotes upon the children and is expected to cook, clean and attend to everyone’s needs. The husband in turn supports, protects and shelters the wife. I grew up in and around such families and for the most part everyone was happy. Of course the latest generation of western-bred Indian women are going the feminist route, at least from what I can gather on field reports here on ROK!
ya i wikied those rape stats and india per capita is on par with canada and greece. but of course the local feminsts manipulated the data to make ut look bigger. india needs the red pill bad. hate to see them turn into sweden and dominate us when they get rich. then again feminism will run them broke and old before they devolop.
liberals dont care about ethnic people. they say they want them to have their culture but then they convert their kids and telk them their parents are oppressive and backwards. so that theyd destriy themselves. they also like to play us as victims only to somehow empower us with their fucked up ideaology. they are play chess with us
“If we are talking about Indians in western countries, they run their
families as families should be run. Traditional values across the board.
The man is in charge and gets served by the wife. The wife dotes upon
the children and is expected to cook, clean and attend to everyone’s
needs. The husband in turn supports, protects and shelters the wife. I
grew up in and around such families and for the most part everyone was
happy. Of course the latest generation of western-bred Indian women are
going the feminist route, at least from what I can gather from field
reports here on ROK!”
I’m Indian and I can attest to this. Men are very much in charge and the wife is expected to cook, clean and look after children.
Western raised Indian women are a complete other story. Matt Forney’s article was correct in many ways despite it being over the top clickbait. Western raised Indian women for the most part.. are the utter worst. They combine the worst aspects of Western females and Western culture (sluttery .. especially with white men, materialism, obsession with status and weath) with the worst aspects of INdian culture, i.e, wanted to be treated like Princesses and doted on by men. Indian Western women for the most part also haven’t been taught or trained to be cook or clean. .because they tend to be spoiled by the parents in the West. Most of them do end up married though to some Indian beta schmuck after whoring around big time with white men in their 20s. Usually the way it works is that once they get to their late 20s or early 30s, there is so much pressure in Indian culture for women to get married that the woman is encouraged and pushed towards some sort of semi-arranged marriage, i.e, one family knowing another family has a single available Indian schmuck desperate for pussy and probably a virgin. Once they get married, these Indian women continue to whore around with other men on the side.. they’re usually career women and are fucking white men from the office and at work… while the Indian beta husband has no clue and getting no sex from his wife. It’s a sad, pathetic state of affairs and I would strongly discourage any Indian man in the West from marrying a Western-bred Indian female.
“Primitive behaviors towards women” as opposed to Western mangina white knighting and allowing Tyrone to pork your wife and seed her? Perhaps you should take yourself to Jezebel, not here. Real “misogynistic” Indian men know how to treat women, that means NOT putting her on a pedestal.
The reason for practical failure is because Western feminism is brainwashing Indian women, and unlike crying whiteboys, Indian men are actually doing something about it.
The people may be limp and childishly selfish but the government doesn’t help improve things. I suppose many of our elite believe the people will turn against them if they try to fix anything and, worse in their view, that they’ll lose power if they do.
Interesting article. I like how you held up India as a mirror for the West to look into. It’s especially poignant when one remembers that Alexander the Great was undone when he gave up a fierce “barbarian’s” honor for the allure of becoming an eastern god king.
Any recommendations on books to get started on Indian history, ancient through present?
Thank you for the brief history lesson on India. It is a place everyone knows about but few understand its history. To me India has always seemed a place of polar opposites, a nation/culture of wealth in the upper strata and abject poverty for the remaining 90-95%. It is no wonder the upper 5% often flee the overwhelming poverty of India to enjoy their wealth abroad…9 times out of 10 moving to the West (where opulence, luxury and comfort are always in high demand as the author describes).
I think India, among other current and former cultures provides as excellent looking glass into America’s and the West’s very possible future. Our “middle class”, as we call it, is shrinking by the day. Most former members of that caste are finding their skid into the lower class as a result. Upward mobility soon to be among our favorite fairy tales here.
CA is a great example. There is a bevy of wealth in the coastal cities (LA, SF, SD) but the remainder of the state is a wasteland of ghettos, immigrant barrios and ghost towns. The population is constantly being balkanized at the behest of the state govt in Sacramento. The metropolitan areas are spending themselves into oblivion. The white citizens are abstaining from marriage and childbirth. Meanwhile, the illiterate and often illegal aliens imported into the state are having litters of kids. I often hear the joke that when the DMV is done issuing newly arrived illegals their ID cards, they’re issued aprons and baby strollers. You’re more likely to find those items than an ID with them at all times. Eventually, the tax base will correct itself and whatever wealth remains will have to live within guarded compounds ala South Africa.
And you know what they say, as goes CA…so goes the country.
Much like the Mughals, we’ll only have ourselves to blame.
It’s Ironic that a huge chunk of California, in between San Fag and Washington State, is remarkably Sane, and desperately desires to NOT be part of California anymore.
Indian history is the failure of Indians not to mass murder all invaders like the Russians did all those times. Indians are still weak due to lack of alpha traits, the sooner they change and not to hesitate to destroy all threats, they can survive.
True dat.
Hinduism, despite all its contradictions, is pacifist at its core, “Everyone interprets God in their own way…Let others be” whereas Christianity and Islam have been philosophies of conversion and subjegation, “You are either with us, or against us”
Hinduism only seems to be pacifist towards other religions, it sure found a way to subjugate all the poor low castes within its own religion perfectly fine.
Christianity at its core is pacifist and tends to return to its pacifistic nature. Christianity started with Christ and the New Testament so it is not valid to quote the bloodier parts of the tribal scriptures of the ancient Hebrews known as the Torah or Old Testament. The New Testament is about loving your enemy, forgivness, redemption.
Holly war or Jihaad to expand a religion is entirely an Islamic concept. Hundreds of years of Jihaad and forced conversion by Islam against the west lead to a valid and necesary response known as the crusades and the inquisition. The muslims started it.
The concept of Just War (not Holly a War) argued by St Augustine required that it prevent a far greater physical evil and that it never be preemtive. This is only reasoning by Augustine, not Holly scripture as in the Koran.
That’s a revisionist myth cooked up in the shadow of the War on Terror by westerners tired of liberal guilt, and bigoted right-wing Christians who don’t like the notion that any Muslim anywhere might ever have had a legitimate grievance against any Christian.
Every recorded action undertaken by the participants of the First Crusade and every textual primary source left by them show that the objective of the whole venture was to secure control of Christian holy sites and make them safe for pilgrims. Not to keep Europe safe from Islamic conquest.
The reason that claim is not true is that we know requests for assistance against incessant islamic attacks came from the Byzantine emporer and that Crusader Knights of Europe responded. The first crusade was in 1195: hundreds of years after Jihaads against the Norther Coast of the Mediteranean began and parts of Europe became conquered.
Furthermore the moral justifications may have been religious the military justifications were typically strategic. There were two classes of people involved, competent military professionals, the religious ideological elite. (No counting the peasants crusade). The crusades worked when directed by the Knights, they failed when run by priests. See Rodney Starks “Gods Battalions”
The re conquest of Spain was in the nature of a crusade as was the Norman recovery of Sicilly.
It’s hard to rationalise your claim that muslims had legitimate gripes against the Christians they conquered, suppressed and taxed with “dhimitude” laws, discriminate against and subjected their women to enslavement. Sure, the muslims had leg image gripes, Thsts why I’m called Rationalise this.
That is not correct. The first crusade was initiated by a request for assistance by the Byzantine emporer Alexios Komnenos in 1195 to Pope Urban Ii due to Sejulk Turks occupying Anatolia. Furthermore the justification was also rooted in the abuses suffered by Christians, including crucifixion and the Return of lands once Christian. See “Gods Battallions” by “Rodney Stark”. There were also two levels of thought involved: the religious theological justifications of the church (pretty much beta males) and the Knightly classes of military men whose hade clearer objectives. We have arguments of Urbans Speech as well as Bernard’s. The Knights propensity for fighting and dislike of spiritual matters was argued to be equal to spiritual contemplation, religious worship and good deeds in term of the just war of a crusade. Jerusalem was a goal that provided a simple understandable goal. Much of the ideology and practices had evolved from assistance Knights had in reconquista of Spain.
Incorrect. Alexios Komnenos sent out his request immediately after Manzikert, and he sent it to Pope Gregory VII, not Urban II. The Pope called the Catholic world to arms, but was faced with apathy. Nobody cared about saving the Byzantine Empire. The First Crusade only started in 1095, a whole 23 years after Manzikert, and in a context where the Seljuk threat was largely over, as Alp Arslan’s empire had been divided between his sons who were at each other’s throats. The Seljuk threat to the Byzantine Empire was way greater in 1072 than in 1095, yet it was in 1095 that Catholic Europe was suddenly filled with crusading fervor.
Nothing in the actual actions of the crusaders support the notion that they were there to either save the Byzantine Empire or wider Christendom from further Islamic conquest.
If they had been in it to save the Byzantine Empire, they would have fought to roll back the losses the Empire had suffered. Yet they did very little of that, and the little they did they only did because they had run into supply problems and grudgingly had to make a deal with Alexios for logistical support in exchange for turning over every captured city in Asia Minor to the Empire. Something they stopped doing the moment they were no longer dependent on Alexios, which led to a bitter Crusader-Byzantine feud over the city of Antioch. A feud that would make the Crusader states the main enemy of the Empire afterward, not any threatening Muslim polity.
If they had been in it to cut down Islamic power to prevent any future Islamic invasions, going for Jerusalem would be an utterly pants-on-head retarded way to go about it. Palestine was a relatively poor and scarcely populated region, yet that’s where the First Crusade went, bypassing centers of Islamic power like Anatolia and Syria. It was essentially a logistically awkward deep strike, but at a low-significance target at that, and one that would be awkward to try to defend even, as many crusaders returned home afterward. If the First Crusade was an attempt to reduce overall Islamic power and reduce the risk of future Islamic invasions of Christendom, it would have been the stupidest way of achieving that goal at it ever, implying that its leaders would be chinless wonders with no clue about military matters. Which they clearly weren’t, since they were able to bring the crusade to a victorious conclusion despite the odds being against it and few outside observers expected it to succeed.
The only way to make sense of the actual, documented actions of the members of the First Crusade is to simply take their word for it that they are fighting to secure control of Christian pilgrimage sites. And, perhaps, secondarily, as an attempt to carve out private feudal domains through conquest.
Only a person is pacifist, not a religion. There *are* people who think for themselves. Maybe drowned out by the majority, though.
It’s human nature to be lazy. Large swathes of India is so insanely fertile that it could easily support massive and ever expanding populations without any of them running into resource constraints. Today, closing in on a billion and a half people live there, with rather primitive, by Western standards, agriculture.
If all you need to do to provide for yourself and your family is wake up, punch a palm tree and pick up the coconuts, and everyone else around you can do ditto, why bother with all the hard work and discipline? While all surrounding India, in the mountains, the Plateaus and on the Steppe, even basic sustenance is hard. People there get nothing for free, hence are reduced to fight hard over whatever little there is. Creating a culture of military superiority.
But noone specifically wants to live (and often die) hand to mouth and sword to sword in a cave in Tora Bora. So when word of a faraway land of infinite and varied food, ever warm weather, plump women and only lazy fatsos guarding them reach the caves, of course some of the warriors will decide to go grab their share of the spoils. Which they do, until they too become fat and lazy from such easy access to comforts.
Punching a palm tree and picking up coconuts? When the people in those mountains, plateaus and caves were still hunting game, the Indians were already using advanced agricultural methods. Now which method requires more hard work and discipline? You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The environment that requires the most work pr calorie gained, is the one that provides the greatest motivation to work hard. Nothing motivates like the fear of death and all….
“Advanced”, as longer production processes with a greater share of resources devoted to higher order production factors, agriculture is all nice and well, and could/can/have occasionally lead to militarily even stronger societies than ones where the processes are shorter and less stratified; by allowing for more resources devoted to building and training with arms, but empirically, this doesn’t happen all that often. Unless there is a constant external threat to motivate, those with the easiest access to basic sustenance, are likely to take out some of the gains from their plenty in the form of relaxation and general laziness. So that they, in the end, paradoxically end up weaker than those who never had a choice but to work for it.
The last sentence applies in virtually every field of human endeavor. Including Game.
You can do all the mental gymnastics you want with your “motivation-drives-history” hypothesis but eventually you have to face reality. And reality, as far as history is concerned, is this: the “warm” civilizations surpassed by far the peoples from “Northern Eurasia” (whatever that means, btw). They were more developed, their militaries were mightier and they reached levels of organization and discipline your romanticized barbarians of the frozen forests and steppes never even conceived.
The question isn’t what motivates a people to work hard but who actually works hard. The idea that hunters/herders/subsistence farmers (what your Northern Eurasian mostly were) are harder workers than large scale farmers is dumbfounding and shows that you are not familiar with either way of life.
Are the Sanskrits written in an indo European language?
There is no such thing as “the Sanskrits”. Sanskrit is a single language, the root language of the Indo-Aryan subfamily of languages. Moreover, languages are not writing systems, so it makes no sense to say that something is written in an Indo-European language. Sanskrit and its child languages are generally written in various Brahmic abugidas, but there exist standardized transliteration systems such as IAST with which to write those languages in the Latin alphabet.
My apologies. I thought they were ancient books.
”Large swathes of India is so insanely fertile that it could easily
support massive and ever expanding populations without any of them
running into resource constraints. Today, closing in on a billion and a
half people live there, with rather primitive, by Western standards,
agriculture.”
R-selection at its finest. While more harsh environments breed a more K-type competitive people.
Aryan invasion is a myth and cooked up by British and their missionary force for conversion, it is already proved by microcrontial DNA analysis, Indian moved to central Asia, persia and Europe, not the other way.
Aryan invasion is not a myth. It happened. Get over it.
Central Asia and Persia never claimed Aryans ever lived there, then why should western societies push stupidity over to Indians? Max Muller was a bigot and firm believer of converting souls for harvesting using Aryan invasion. This is called Delphi method in modern media times.
Seel – you sound like an Indian who has an inferiority complex because the British from a tiny island half way across the globe managed to rule your country with twenty times the population for a few hundred years. Defeating Indian armies again and again, sometimes when the Indians had armies many times larger and the advantage of fighting on home ground.
Get over it!!
“Max Muller was a bigot”.. Sounds like beta SJW speak.
Seel you have confusing viewpoints. I agree that Max Muller was an idiot but are you serious when you say that Persia never claimed Aryans lived there? The name Iran comes from Aryānām which means (land) of the Aryans. The Sanskrit (Indian) and Avestan (Persian) scriptures talk about the region of Iran to North India being Āryāvarta meaning abode of the Aryans. The land of Northern India, Persia, and Central Asia was most likely the origin of these people.
And Arya in sanskrit means noble. Anybody can be noble you dont have to belong to a race to be noble.Ravan is adressed as arya by his wife mandothari does that mean he is from arya race. Aryavrata can also interpreted as land of the nobles
In Indian term it denotes nobility because the Aryans who migrated mixed with locals so they could no longer claim a greater racial origin. In Iran the term Aryan always held a racial connotation.
You are correct, perhaps calling a bigot a bigot is beta SJW speak. How about enemy of the Hindu Indian race? The best kind of whiteboy is a dead whiteboy. Any Indian Christian is a white worshipping cuck that doesn’t deserve to breathe.
He’s right, it is a myth. DNA analysis shows that north Indians are related to only Persians. Which makes sense since they are very close to the iranian Plateau.
Indian and Persian civilization predates Europe by over a millennia.
Some in the modern era without the basic knowledge of DNA might support debunked Aryan invasion theories due to their loyalty to British era missionaries, even now those missionaries send to India are taught to repeat lies of Aryan myths to get few prospective converts. Central Asia and Persia never claimed Aryans ever lived there, then why should western societies push stupidity over to Indians.
Superb analysis in this article. I doubt USA will be destroyed externally for a foreign power like North Korea or ISIS. Militarily, the US armed forces can still easily destroy any conventional force that attempts an invasion plus you got the fact that there’s probably more guns than people amongst the civilian population. Also, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans make it difficult for an invading force to resupply itself once it’s landed on the US territory.
More likely is the internal decline that will see the US fade away like a lame duck. With it’s internal culture and social values constantly eroded by feminism and consumerism, the country will just weaken itself that it won’t be able to influence world politics as it once was able to do. It’ll be somewhat similar to the Byzantine empire with Constantinople as a shadow of what Rome was.
When that internal decline has gone on for long enough, the US armed forces will follow suit. Having a military that costs almost as much to maintain as all the world’s other militaries combined is, well, expensive. It takes a strong economy to have a strong military (well, unless you’re Genghis Khan), and it takes a healthy society to have a strong economy in the long run. The Soviet Union had a humongous military too, but now, it has pretty much rusted away.
It’s nice to have an article from India.
Good article.
Interesting view point.
But if the West declines who will benefit the most and take over as the new West?
At the moment in my mind – unless stopped – Islam is on their way to the top. Which proves sometimes it is not necessarily the most advanced and innovative that will lead the way. Sometimes a more primitive but focused and determined culture can sweep away civilisation and take us all back to the dark ages, but still these dark ages will be theirs.
Every culture considers themselves the most “advanced and innovative.” In reality, the scores are settled militarily.
It may well be “innovative” to build a lab who comes up with and widely distribute a pill so sophisticated it selectively kills all military age males. But it’s ultimately rather pointless. Ditto for another pill that renders women incapable of producing said military aged males. The latter works just as “well”, just with a bit of a delay…
India might share some parallels with the West, but I don’t think the west will go down India’s past. The reason: The rise of red pill movement today- which WILL save the west – if not today, then in the future. In reality, Indian society needs more of the red pill,than the West.
Indian society is so fully blue pill, that the average indian looks blue from being poisoned from birth, depressed from its venom. The indian mentality is generally that of the subjugated. The country (and society) has been subjagated time and again – by foreign invasions, plunderers, outdated and outmoded social customs, blind faith, and in present times – corrupt politicians, feminism and other shit. The average indian today blindly apes the feminized western values,trying desperately to become a wannabe westerner. His mentality is still of the colonized, who worship their rulers: he yielded to and embraced the laws of his colonizers before, and today he yields to and embraces the feminism of the society of his ex-rulers. Man worship still exists in that part of the world.
There are several reasons for the average Indian man’s beta faggotry, but the
most compelling reason that could be explained is the lack of women to begin
with, forget quality of women, in India today.
Thanks to sex-selective female foeticide practiced over the years, India now lacks 23 million women in its population, and there are now 37 million more men than
women in India (the world’s largest surviving cockfest), and most of these men
are of horny marriageable age given the relatively young population. India is
thus sitting on a social time bomb of violence, and sexual thirst among its men.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2013/12/why-india-sitting-social-timb-bomb-violence-against-women
India’s unequal sex ratio is a prime worst-case example and cause of massive amounts of thirst and beta white knighting among its men – leading to a large population of men now either white knighting women, or worse, going for sexual violence for sexual release.
In the westernized cities, most of the young population of both men and women – bred on Western sitcoms – now typically follow western feminist dating values, leading men to often date below them. Thanks to the lack of available options for the men, the entitled westernized but below average looking Indian woman now has more than one Indian man fighting for her hand, in a typical white knight fashion (more indoctrination due to western sitcoms and gynocentric dramas),than ever before.
In 20 years, that this unequal sex ratio will worsen even more, thanks to child slavery, female foeticide.
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/indias-man-problem/?_r=0
India’s future looks massively screwed, and more so for the Indian man, than it does for the Indian woman. The choices left to him to get a woman are: white knight a below average woman to get premarital sex, marry a woman he doesn’t know, or in worst cases, sexual violence.
The irony remains is that the feminist, city born westernized Indian woman enjoys the benefits of this unequal sex ratio than her unfortunate,violence and poverty-ridden village sister. A below average unattractive Indian woman is now rest assured that she’d find a man who’d still be compelled to marry her unattractive ass, or if not still want to tap it.
India’s societal problems can be said as: Less women in its population, while the remaining available women being often feminists and unattractive, the beta indoctrination of men from birth due to restrictive and dependence-creating family values, the ‘hoes before bros’ mentality among the general population of men because of lack of options and sexual thirst, female foeticide, rampant political and bureaucratic corruption, illiteracy and malnutrition, further blind social acceptance of degenerate feminist western values and blue pill values – in the attempt to appear as western and modern, the highest depression rates in the world, overdependence on family, societal indoctrination against self independence, blind faith and belief in gynocentric religious values – Phew! the future of India’s society looks bad. These same scenarios can be found more or less in other Asian societies, to more or less degrees.
If there is one breed of men who can fight back – it is the western man, where the red pill movement has birthed today, and is now spreading and growing all over the world. Indian (and Asian) men need to learn that from their red pill western brothers. The west fortunately doesn’t have the numerous ills which afflict its society, as India has.
100% true. The demographics of a country are great indicators of the state of its people and their attitudes.
I want to disagree.I think Indian culture was/is the most redpill.India always had gurus, spiritualism..men going their own way. Sanyasi/hermit lifestye always flourished in India.Just story of Shiva and Parvati contains so much red pill, Shiva the truest alpha(doesnt live in society,doesnt want any material thing, no house, lives forest) marries parvati a princess. Apart from this there are so many folktales that give wisdom.India is so rich in wisdom, you cannot fathom it. Also the vedas, vedntas upanishads whcih talk about maya(delusion). Yoga about how to liberate yourself (from bondage).Read works of patanjali yogasutra it would blow your mind. Indian history is more than british mughal colonization…
“I think Indian culture was/is the most redpill.India always had gurus, spiritualism..men going their own way.”
Bullshit.
You just belied your first claim with your second statement, by implying the gurus went their own way (MGTOW) because of the prevalent blue pill state of the society – very much like men are going MGTOW in today’s feminist west. Thus, India has always been a feminist blue society for centuries.
In fact the mughals, and even the british did wonders for India (even though they may have colonized it) – is that they brought uniformity to a civilization of chaos which had different local kingdoms constantly at war with each other. India’s ‘diversity’ is another root cause of its problems. Earlier to that, the only time India was ‘unified’ was under the Maurya empire of Ashoka, who was himself buddhist.
However, Indian culture was always bluepill, that’s why it got conquered/overrun by foreign conquerors, and by western feminist values even now. The root of the problem itself lies in the Vedic religions which originated there which teach worship of women as goddesses, a limiting caste system because of a person’s birth, and other limiting beliefs.
Any ‘mythology’ (primarily associated with the Vedic religions) – which deifies women as goddesses is simply not red pill to begin with. Red pill does not deify women, as indian religions do. Get that straight in your mind.
If Indian men worship women today, then its primarily because the centuries old religion of Hinduism deifies women as goddesses, quite similar to Western wiccan religion, which both are gynocentric or feminist in nature..
Deify a woman, and what you eventually get is the subjugation of a man to her. Would a man ideally bow to a woman? And you call indian culture, as ‘red pill’?
Shiva’s life also says how he ‘longed’ in the memory of his first wife. If he was ever ‘red pill alpha’, he would’ve moved on to a new woman asap. The fact remains that the vedic religions which originated there actually sowed the seeds of blue pill among the people. Distinction among people because of birth, division of labor and duties in society because of birth – the horrors of the Indian caste system. A man is punished because of his birth. Is that red pill?
Only Buddhism (which indirectly speaks of the superiority of man over woman, as the abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam do) is the only faith which came out from that part of the world which has red pill teachings.
Buddha himself abandoned hinduism, and fought against the oppressive caste system, in which the priests assumed proxy ownership over the people.
The only red pill religion in that part of the world is – I repeat – Buddhism. The fact that it is red pill is that it spread all over Asia and the world (like the abrahamic religions) because of the logicality of its teachings. Whereas the remaining blue pill faiths stayed within India itself.
If India was buddhist, it could be argued that things would’ve been different in its history – very much like China, which still stayed strong. Religion (or lack of it) plays a vital role in people’s future and fate, and India’s history (with its blue pill faiths) – is no exception.
unlike other societies the idea in India has always been to seek mukthi liberation.In path of self realization you will always become redpill. I just wanted to highlight that.Still in India people respect hermits and hermit life and think mukthi is ultimate goal. Lets come back to Shiva, you pick one incident when he looses frame, so suddenly he becomes beta wow you are too harsh. You should be knowing he is also the lord of destruction,the one ferocious one who destroys all worlds at the end of universe, the very symbol of masculinity which aslo diefied.(India worships both masculine and feminine but just got stuck with diefying feminine).Shiva is conscience, the lord of inner word, he is the aadhi guru, the teacher of Yoga/lberation.Shiva can be rudra or shankara( the yajur veda pleades him to show his peaceful side, its terrified of his rudra side). Just as we have the angry side , the happy side.Inner world/world, self vs world, shiva vs shakthi. Shivas eyes closed,world goes chaotic(kali), he opens his eyes world gets domesticated(Gowri). I can go on and on. I can go on and on. Masculine matches feminine in all forms, If you are weak, then meditate ie focus on your inner self to become stonger, Dar or light side is context oriented( So iam not worried about worshiping feminine).
I just want end this by saying, yes india saw budhism,faced mughals, conqured by britsh was under the rule of invaders over a 1000 years and still is 80 percent hindu.Arabia, Iran(persians zorastrians) lost their way of life during this period and Indian did not
this isn’t the life of pi, hermits following the hermit path is still follower last i checked (not at all mgtow), and tripping out on copied emotions and superior-ness doesn’t make you superior. superior feelz is the petty irrelevant opiate of the region. this child mentality of avatars of emotional trips and the concomitant infinite choice if-you-only-go-to-our-gods-which-are-more-ancient-than-your’s-thus-we’re-better is a deep rot within all of indian heritage. it’s stupid, childish, and leads to laughably stalled development – quite the opposite of what it claims, and not at all superior.
now excuse me while my fat lazy white inferior un-vishnu-worshiping ass goes and makes a hamburger out of your god-cow, with a dash of elephant on the side.
Now where did I say my god is greatest,and every one else should follow? No where.
As I have observed, Every century in India great minds are born, more often as hermits than not…Vevekananda, Ramana maharishi, late saint of kanchi so..on. I just said way of life survived,Nowhere I am implying other cultures gods are inferior…
great minds tripping out on their great gods’ greatness with in their great long list of names all survived by… nothing. nothing but more dead end hermits picking up and following, as if that ever lead to greatness.
the implications your words make are self-evident to every one not you who reads them, right up to their childish end. sorry. it’s all opiate. get over it.
Now I am more interested in ideas, not following blindly a cult and showing off as spiritual. I think you believe all hermits are zombies following a cult.I am not advocating joining a cult.I am interested in getting ideas for expanding my mind thats all.
perhaps i was too harsh, but this must draw to a close: expansion without actually expanding, feeling great without actual greatness, is a dead end. and all of indian society is caught up following it.
That is your subjective opinion just as mine.
and so is this
subjective as “subjective mental gymnastics to get to your own superiorness shit again” still isn’t actually expanding, now is it? it’s the same convenient opinion of infinite choice mechanism to get to the same insidious predetermined end of “chose mine and not you”: a predetermination set before the false-openness charade of conversation ever started, closed from the very beginning. the opposite of expansion. and just like social justice warriors, it’s all hiding supreme supremacist feelz aggressiveness behind feigned passivity language openness: choice but not, choose but follow. which wouldn’t be a problem if it was objectively right, but its very nature renders such impossible by design.
superior my left testicle. this disease was made into a religion that makes feminists look like amateurs. and all of india is afflicted with it.
I don’t know much about India but you bastards make some good food.
Do you know the absolute truth? You dismiss my opinion. You call my opinion shit because I dont conform to yours.I never claimed to be superior.All you are doing is create a false narrative and insult me for a opinion I did not state.
of course i don’t know absolute truth. but i don’t think i misjudged your efforts in the slightest. i’ll recant my harshness if otherwise.
regardless, the personal isn’t here, this isn’t an insult to you, sorry, get over it.
I wont take it personal.Just like you have judgment about my intentions or my efforts, I have about yours a…you are no different form a SJW in not being patient/humble in analyzing/hearing a differing opinion. Thats all
He just told you how your “way of life” is itself blue pill but you are bringing forth the fact that you held onto that blue pill way of life despite centuries of others trying to save you from it, as proof that you are red pill. LOL
Only if you like rainbow-colored old mop heads.
Anything that is weak/unstable…A culture in which people find nothing is worth preserving will perish and not withstand the test of time. If it is standing there is something there thats worth preserving…..thats my point
test without testing. worth without worthy. stand without actually standing… at all. great sounding animal/avatar gods of supreme-ancientness “spiritual” trippy-ness without actually travel-ing. “it’s all opinion” -> magic -> but mine is test-worth-standing-preserved? more like magical thinking to invert reality.
ball-swamp getting magically preserved so it magically is worthy and magically withstands the “test” of time is one strange fucked up manipulative interpretation of the word “test”, and likewise of “worth,” “stand,” and even “time” itself. a culture far closer to one of childish hollow incestual hyer-feminism that withstands the “test” of time like overgrowth in a tropical swamp, all while vainly portraying itself as supreme superior enlightened greatness. feeling travel, but without moving, and then claiming not just the traveler title, but supreme journeyman.
rather than evidence of preservation, this thread demonstrates that magic must burn, else it will consume entire continents, imparting the feeling of producing civilization while actually doing nothing. the ‘good’ samaritan fails precisely because meaning good isn’t enough, you have to actually be good.
i’m sorry, but you really do have to get over it. i’m sure we’ll melt down all of disqus either way.
I live in New Delhi. I can confirm 99.99% population is blue pill. Open to any rational questions anyone has.
Such a systematic attach on India (and that is what it is) deserves close attention.
First, you are attacking India as a “blue pill” nation. Please tell me how red/blue pill pushing is not mindless sexual pursuit. I thought there was a lot more to life. Most of your “game” seems to be centered on getting women and essentially treating them as sexual outlets. Fine. If the fuzzy dichotomies that are red/blue or alpha/beta are what you want to stick to, and if you think red or alpha = good, than your insult holds weight. But here’s what I think. I think India thrived intellectually, culturally, militarily, and in more ways, during various long periods from the early ages to about the late 1980s (where it came to a dead halt). I think that there have been Indians (Hindus and others) that have thought for themselves, and that do everything they do with good reason, and not because society “brainwashes” them. Which is a good excuse people who don’t want to think use today.
You critisism of Vedic life is unfair, almost ad hominem. Why do you expect Shiva to be a “red-pill” male? Let’s go with your style of personificaiton. You say Shiv longed for his wife. Well, as it turns out, humans are emotional. Humans do miss one another when they die. Even if they move on, the desire for the lost person is emotional. Why do you expect it to go away? Have you lost your father or your mother? Machine-learning system won’t have this problem – but we do. Isn’t this repression?
The invasions you mention of Indian society require a hell of a lot more discussion. You must consider historical accounts, the genetics and build of the people involved (look at Patans and look at a coolie – there is a big different buddy), the circumstances surrounding civilization. Indian society didn’t tend toward unity in many phases, whereas Muhammad Bin Quasim and succesive invaders led a powerful united force. Mughals (Mongols), Patans… Look at their genes, or their build. There is litteraly so much to consider, but you think it is okay to just attribute invasions to a “blue-pill” mindset, huh?
The caste system was very practical, apart from a few shortcommings. Structured society was powerful. The warriors are the strongest people. The intellectuals, mistakingly identified as just priests, ruled. And just for fun, tell me, what Indian demographics today comprise the majority of the Indian army TODAY? What do you observe among those races, that are different than other races? Sure, there are cultural differences, but there are physical differences too, on average. It is the truth. I am not an ethnic Punjabi myself, but I can’t deny this.
I respect the accomplishments, and even more generally, the progress made by India over its history, academically, culturally, and otherwise. To speak so harshly of Indian society is irritatingly wrong. There are people out there, in India, who do think for themselves (are are Hindus, or of Hindu origin).
And who, by the way, reject the nonsense that passes for today’s Indian culture. Today’s Indian culture is a different ball game… You see the degeneration of anything and everything that was great about the country.
***
Hmm. Why the hell is Ashoka the only one who comes up in discussion of the Maurya empire? Do you know how far the empire spanned under the founder, Chandragupta (and do you know his accomplishments)? Not only did he expand toward Afghanistan, he removed Alexander’s government in the South. He formed powerful ties with Greece (if you are Indian, you probably know the great Seleucus could not defeat Chandragupta and actually gave him his daughter). At this point, Chandragupta’s empire was in present-day Afghanistan.
I know I’m digressing. But too often, Indian accomplishment is swept under the rug or ignored in the light of the ferocity of Barbaric Muslim invaders and the very popular British Raj. It’s our culture and we have a right to our say. Look at how the Aryan Invasion Theory resulted from the snowballings of mere speculation. It is now rejected, but people still hold views like it, and use those VIEWS to further their agenda, as Mr. Hanno does here.
Also – This article by Mr. Hanno contains inaccuracies. Please see my recent comments (sort by new). Starting with the fact that INDIA DOES NOT GET IT’S NAME FROM ARABIC. I provide the necessary etymology there, to convice anyone who ignorantly believes that upon reading this drivel. I have referencnes and am williing to discuss this. Too many times in my life have I seen this disgusting distortion and misrepresentation.
I have a question for you, you punk. Did it occur to you that this article, written by Mr. Hanno, contains inaccuracies and mispresentations? Or, can you point those out?
Or are you a damned Indian who doesn’t know his history?
Do you buy into this fuzzy sh1t alpha/bet red/blue dichotomy. Perhaps people like you are the problem with India.
Hey buddy, let’s not spread the repressed view of Brahmins, okay? Especially in a rant like that. Focus on India’s achievements. Tell people what was great about the Maurya empire under Chandragupta, not only under Asoka. Tell them how violence or barbaric Muslim invasions doesn’t mean India sucks, and tell them more about the accomplishments we made. Tell them about battles like the Battle of Rajasthan, or our progress in the 60’s and 70’s (with a few problems – but no one is perfect). Tell them about the science, arts, literature, and poetry from the various periods of India. Tell them about the visionaries. There are a lot of notable businessmen, philanthropers (not that ass sycophant Tagore of course). Tell them about Pritviraj Kapoor, Madhubala; the old songs and movies. Tell them about Dhyan Chand or Tell them that all societies have ups and downs. Tell them what the country was like before economic liberalization. Tell them to think critically of the fuzzy red/blue and the fuzzy alpha/beta, and to think about how we should go about progress and how we should go about life.
We need more knowlegable and proud Indians to shut [email protected]@holes like those who twist our history for their own benefit. Put your red/blue pill in your cigar and smoke it. We (had, at least) a great country. Really, the only invasion was the pervasion of people who don’t think, are apathetic, or who shift blame to others, to the highest positions in all areas of society. Find another medium for your agenda, ROK, as should the white nationalists, and everyone else who is guilty.
I know about the rich history, I have actually read all of it unlike you. But what matters is the present condition and where we are heading.
You can compare it to the rich Greek history and the state of Greece now, which is putrid.
Think of Emerson, WW1, great leaders and America in it’s present decadent state.
Indians, we discovered zero and now are heading towards it. The west took the zero and made industrial revolution, new sciences. High time we started to evolve and you stopped sucking the dick of history.
That was not a rational but an opinionated question.
Now, shut the fuck up, bitch.
How do you know how much of India’s history I’ve read? I admit, I have never taken a class, or have never been schooled in India. But I have read deeply into it, as it is a side interest, and am of ethnic descent myself. I didn’t say I know more than you regarding Indian history. Nor did I mean that at all. Please keep reading.
I went to school and grew up in the US. In fact I am here now. I have lived in PA for over a decade. I can think of Emerson (Waldo?) and I can think of WW1. Trancendentalism was one of the only meaningful things I learned in high school English (and IN ENGLISH, at that!). But could you provide a context for me to consider these topics? I’m happy to discuss them you.
Yes. Indians discovered zero and are on a decline. No doubt. In fact, I mention this in a couple of my posts on this article. The current state of culture is disgusting. But when people use India as a platform to further their agenda, I turn on.
You may or may not know this, living in Delhi, but White Nationalism exists in the United States, and most of it hinges on white supremecism. A lot of them use anything they can scavage to prove some of their points. One thing that often comes up is that the whites are responsible for all developed nations, somehow or the other. Let’s forget about the particulars, such as the defintion of a white race since it doesn’t matter here.
Why am I telling you this? They use falsified views of India, that often include the now-revoked Aryan Invasion Theory, to prove their point (end of my last paragraph).
I could tell you more, if you’d like. But this is just a unique danger of accepting a wrong account of Indian history. More include perception of the Raj, etc. (Under new posts, I provide some references). I also think it’s unfair – don’t you? Do you think an incorrect history should be used to further a point? I don’t. But it is what Mr. Hanno is doing here. Please see my other comments if you disagree.
Clearly, the past is the past. But the Indian past is rich. There is a lot to be admired. A lot to be carried onward.
You came off as an apathetic ass who shrugs problems off on other people, and this view seems to be pretty popular – I’m right, others are wrong. Maybe that’s not you. I’m sorry. I also get irritated by the spread of this red/blue movement, which I believe is baseless and useless.
This article is an insult to Indian history, which is one of the only things Indians have today. Not stupid mindless tech jobs. Phone centers, tax prepareres.. HA! India isn’t any superpower. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Not irritating new Bollywood movies. None of that crap. But you go to the past and see that, hey, India actually did some cool stuff. And maybe that’s motivation for change. It is for me.
So that’s why I responded with implied resent toward your comment.
Also, my question was a perfectly fine question – did you catch the errors? How is that opinionated? The etymological origin of India provided here is wrong! Who knows? You could have been that type of person that sticks with the crowd without thinking – I was irritated. So if you know the answer, good for you. Ignore my question if you want.
I won’t shut up. I’d like to find people to discuss my points. I know I’m not perfect too – I have a lot to learn. You don’t have to respond if you don’t want. Report me. But you can’t stop me from speaking my mind.
Apologies for the profanities, but I assumed you are yet another ignorant being of the mass. My bad and I accept complete responsibility.
I did notice the inaccuracies in the article but to me it is irrelevant. History will always be shady, here is an excellent book on the shadiness of history http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4461869-why-don-t-we-learn-from-history
Bollywood is a platform for feminism and so is the horrible condition of India television. India on the whole is largely imitating the worse of America. Indians have proved superior in the past and it just goes to show the world needs all different ethnicities to evolve. I believe healthy competition is excellent. I have met lots of extremely intelligent and creative people in India, but somehow they lack confidence and want to move to US, or works for an American company. I would like to see some of us build our own personality and use our talent instead of working for someone, times are changing though. Lots of exciting enterprises where I work. I am proudly part of one.
I understand that ROK sometimes goes too far, which may seem like they are furthering their agenda. But I would not nit pick on the inaccuracies. On the whole it is right.
India is a very feminist culture, I do not complete with the whole Red Pill / Blue Pill concept they go too far at times but on the whole they are correct. Again, I would not nit pick on the inaccuracies as the overall concept prevails.
I would love to be patroitic and proud of India, but the point remains majority of us are lazy, greedy, passive-aggressive, sycophantic people who take too much pride in the history.
Much work remains to be done, until I get that feeling.
Okay. I understand, and no problem. And I know I have a lot to learn. Of course, different folks different strokes.
I will check that book out. I do place moderate trust in linguistics and history. I too will remain critical of present-day Indian culture… including today’s Bollywood, that you mentioned. I remember thinking where did the culture go (even that of 20+ years ago, seemingly and oddly enough after economic liberalization, but that’s just a correlation I’ve always thought was weird). Even the movies back then struck me as the products of artists. More than just movies back then I guess. But today, not much in the way of any sort of development. I hope for a better future!
Thanks.
That’s okay. I appologize for calling you a punk too – I was a little pissed off by this article and the people who accepted it as a summary of Indian history, when in fact it is a corrupted cherry-picking. Yes, different folks different strokes. I will check that book out, but I do like history (even recent history) and lingusitics. Good to hear from someone involved in something new and exciting there. Thanks.
“In fact the mughals, and even the british did wonders for India (even though they may have colonized it) – is that they brought uniformity to a civilization of chaos which had different local kingdoms constantly at war with each othe”
What ur forgetting is that these invasions brought the diversity which you complain about in the first place. Contradiction.
“Any ‘mythology’ (primarily associated with the Vedic religions) – which deifies women as goddesses is simply not red pill to begin with. Red pill does not deify women, as indian religions do”
Very true Hammer of “Thor”. Ever heard of Freya?
Your point about buddhisms lack of caste bias is true, but let us not forget that buddha himself was rather like your average hippie. Not only did he discredit even necessary violence, he thought that the root cause of all suffering is desire. What he forgot was that desire is the root cause that sparks the drive to achieve (knowledge out of curiosity, wealth and power out of desire to be respected). And that true achievement can never be obtained without some or other form of struggle.
“n its history – very much like China, which still stayed strong”
As an Indian, I may have a bias but ever heard of the Nanjing rape? A foreign power comes to your backyard and rapes your women en masse. And you don’t even take any drastic steps after 3ven this. Doesn’t sound very strong does it ?
As such ur point about China’s strength because of its buddhist tradition is bogus. There are many factors involved (one party rule eg.) and neither is its economic growth (backbone of military) very sustainable in the long run, environmentally as well as in terms of its demographic. Forced growth of an entire societycan only get youso far.
What makes you think MGTOW is even remotely red pill? Arguably, it’s the worst, most pernicious form of retreatism and wish fullfillment.
For me, self realization and having your own life path without following the herd is red-pill enough.
but it’s not red pill. that’s like saying only shooting people on mondays is ‘peaceful enough’.
Red Pill is not about self-realization. That’s egotism. Red pill is about peeling back the layers of propaganda and lies to get at the TRUTH. If that allows you greater self-realization, that’s great… but red pill recognizes that the SELF is not the ultimate arbiter of reality… reality exists independent of observer.
Assuming ‘self realization’ is the ultimate arbiter of reality is at the very core of blue-pill philosophy.
Self-realization is an expression used in psychology, spirituality, and Eastern religions. It is defined as the “fulfillment by oneself of the possibilities of one’s character or personality.[1]
In one overview, Mortimer Adler defines self-realization as freedom from external coercion, including cultural expectations, political and economic freedom, and the freedom from worldly attachments and desires etc. Paramahansa Yogananda defined Self-realization as “the knowing — in body, mind, and soul – that we are one with the omnipresence of God; that we do not have to pray that it come to us, that we are not merely near it at all times, but that God’s omnipresence is our omnipresence; that we are just as much a part of Him now as we ever will be. All we have to do is improve our knowing.”[2]
For me self realized is different from egoistic and being Narcissistic.
Defining self-realization does not make it red pill. Red pill recognizes that without cultural expectations, there is no civilization. Without civilization, there can be no good, without good, there is no god.
I am not going to argue on the side of secular humanism here, but you need to face the fact that in reality, you are NOT THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT. You are NOT god. Nothing you ‘ARE’ matters unless you DO, and what you DO for is other people, civilization.
You may choose to call it materialism if you wish, but what it comes down to is that it’s a far stretch harder to be ‘self realized’ when externalities, red pill reality, interfere. And red pill is the understanding that externalities are what we were designed for. Problem solving. sweat of our brow stuff. Introspection is overrated by intellectualist abomination.
It is a little bit more complicated.The reality outside influences the self(ones behavior) ones behavior influences reality too..But lets not go there.
Lets assume self is static and so is reality. How does anyone know reality, unless through the self.How did you determine what is reality and what is not? I assume through the self, through 5 senses? How does one align with reality? There is always a difference between ones self perception of reality and the reality. Thats why today most peoples perception about economic social and political reality is different from the reality.
Finally self-realization is a not merely an intellectual exercise, for me it is an experience. I will stop here
You are talking sensory reality (IE EST) versus sociopolitical reality. As the term ‘red pill’ is most often used, It is an understanding of sociopolitical reality. Red Pill was not about recognizing that YOU are living in the matrix, It was about seeing the matrix for what it really is.
Yes, Self-realization is likely neccessary to even start wondering what the hell is going on, and thus questioning the matrix, but it is not remorely ‘red pill’, and I strongly doubt most indian males (or most males in general) are even at the point of questioning why their ideology and reality just don’t…match.
The matrix(sociopolitical reality) changes with time,geography culture. Thats why realizing the matrix is necessary. Now while you may doubt about Indian men(or most men) with realization. I have much more linient view of that .
Example:The below link is about Raja Yoga written by a monk vivekananda 120 years before on a work written over 1500 years by Patanjali in India. I consider work of patanjali master piece.
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/raja-yoga/raja-yoga_contents.htm
feeling omnipresence without pursing omnipotence, feeling real without reality. call it what you will, it’s still inverting the truth while pridefully claiming otherwise and implying supreme greatness when there is none.
inverting the movie now too? get this part straight: the matrix was the illusion. you don’t get to define the movie how you want. your want is irrelevant. the escape from the matrix was reality. actually performing and achieving waking up (reality) instead of just continuing to feel like you were living life all while actually staying asleep in the insular insane repetitive go-nowhere religion (matrix) is the movie. you don’t get to invert shit when it suits you.
you don’t get to invert reality for that matter, but if it stopped at that there wouldn’t be a problem. the contention is with this childish inversion -and- your lying liar lies proclaiming the opposite -and- that false supreme ancient greatness crap-twist unique to india’s inheritance. add it all up, and it is, in fact, worse than feminism. and again, all of india suffers from it.
still not over it, still need to get over it, still will be stuck preserved in the distant past dead-end until you do, still not perseverance, just stupid.
The point is that being ‘red pill’ is about hunting for the truth BEHIND the matrix or sociopolitical ‘reality’.
In the end, what YOU are is irrelevant. You must divorce yourself from the process… the observer HAS to remain emotionally separated from the observed WHILE THE OBSERVATION IS TAKING PLACE (What he does with the observation later is his own business)
For example, let’s take Roosh. He meticulously studied how women react in a social environment. Obviously he was interested in fucking the girls that he gamed, but one of the first lessons he learned was NOT to be emotionally invested in the outcome. Rejection and submission were filed away as useful bit of information for the formulation of his game theory, and were never part of his self-image, Thus allowing him to gain ‘red pill knowledge’ of how to truly manipulate sloots into putting out.
Self realization was only important insofar as he realized that rejection (or submission) were irrelevant to his self-image.
In short, one does NOT require self-realization to gain red pill knowledge, and in fact too MUCH self-realization, placing too much importance on your own point of view, can potentially actively retard your puruit of genuine knowledge.
If you have come to the self-realization that you are a supremacist, are you going to actively search or take seriously information that challenges that assumption? Of course not. If you can maintain an interested and unbiased, with no ‘self’ involved, viewpoint, you are far more likely to research extensively all sides of the argument, until you come to a realization and then apply it. Having a strong self-image, is not likely to improve your ability to think critically.
Well, don’t get me wrong, I understand the appeal of the great figures of the past, since i too am a traditionalist, albeit one of an entirely different stripe.
The problem comes from the understanding of ‘revealed wisdom’. Real players in the past were neither all geniuses (as some traditionalists believe) nor all idiots (as modernists would have you believe). They were just as enmired in their own past and culture as we are… the difference is, that many of them existed in a time when the sociopolitical matrix was fluid enough to allow true thinkers to overcome the static of their peers…
That is, perhaps, the only real downside to the internet. Now the vocal idiots have the same loud voices as the astute, and ‘wading through garbage to get to gems’ has become far, far more difficult. It’s not that there are not the same proportion of gems to garbage as before, it’s that now, instead of the rare gem at the bottom of a pile of crap, you have a horde of gems buried under mountain ranges of stupidity… the proportions may be the same, but most people do not have the fortitude or mental tools to excavate a mountain of bullshit just to get to the treasure trove beneath.
Of course, on the plus side, just recognizing where the gems lie, and having a framework of other men that know where they lie, can help men in THIS matrix comprehend the red pill… but when you are talking about speakers in the past, you no longer have the network of supportive red pill thinkers to rely on as much… you need to get ready to shovel through small piles of shit yourself. (Not to mention that the current matrix has piled enormous layers of shit onto the old knowledge. It might be impossible to recognize the ancient gems when you find them.)
Look at the left’s demonization of the art of war, the ‘homofication’ of the old masters, the villification of neitsche, etc for examples of this ‘shoveling shit’ over old knowledge.
”Thanks to sex-selective female foeticide practiced over the
years, India now lacks 23 million women in its population, and there are
now 37 million more men than
women in India (the world’s largest surviving cockfest), and most of these men
are of horny marriageable age given the relatively young population. India is
thus sitting on a social time bomb of violence, and sexual thirst among its men.”
Illustrating that Abortion is bad, male or female.
Not advocating abortion of males here(I’m prochoice regardless of the fetus’s sex) but how does that show that aborting males would have negative effects?
It doesn’t. However whatever the sex abortion is bad. I base this on the value of human who is Imago Dei.
I am not pro-death which ”pro-choice” is a euphemism for. Unless it is only including birth control.
Think of pro-choice like a tree, and pro-abortionists as branches. They represent a radical faction of pro-choicers, but not pro-choicers in their entirety. I’m pro-choice, AKA pro autonomy of the more intelligent party whose body is being used to facilitate life, having the final say. Yet I don’t hate children or babies. Rather, I think it’s more beneficial to them, their moms, and society as a whole if they are only born with the mom’s total consent. If that means allowing people who are irresponsible about using birth control to abort at will, so be it. It means innumerably less kids in the world made to feel unloved because their parent was forced to give birth to them under the law. Quality of life over quantity.
Generalizing pro-choicers as evil child-haters might work in religious pamphlets, but if you actually spoke to them(beyond the fringe radicals that make for popular conservative headlines) you’d get a fuller picture.
Ok, given that you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, how would you respond to the following rebuttals?
1) Both a man and a woman are required to create life and thus “facilitate” it. What a woman does is house the child for 9 months. Why specifically would this give her the right to unilaterally decide if it lives or dies? If I adopt a child and let him live in my house for 9 months, why can’t I legally kill him, under the same principle?
2) You argue from a social-good perspective that “It means innumerably less kids in the world made to feel unloved”. Yet ask any child whose parents chose not to abort them (like my sister). They are ALIVE. Any person would rather be unhappy (which is not always the case) and alive, than dead. If that were untrue, they would all kill themselves.
I am an indian and i want to clarify this common misconception in the west about gender selection, more number of girls are born than boys in india,while death rate for men and boys is very high,girls outnumber boys in all indian schools and universities except some top technical universities most indian women prefer to get married and stay at home and lead a comfortable life because of the congested and complicated nature of the country you dont see that much women in work place but this is changing thanks to widespread and aggressive feminist propaganda aided by western elements as for as gender selection is concerned it is only the boys that are aborted, male births are declining rapidly drastically worldwide escpecially in the west see wikipedia article on sex ratio,this is a very serious thing that need to be studied and stopped at all costs until then we cant have a redpill movement,india and china are emerging because there are more number of boys the west is on the decline because too many girls this is the true fact ,men from the west must show this in a positive light and gain control and not to show this in a negative light unlike the souless feminist elements who are silently pushing for abortion of boys which they have suceeded to a great extent, men from both west and east must unite to fight this scourge that is wreaking havoc in our societies before we get eliminated from this world in the name of gender equality.
I think you are missing the point. He is in no way saying that Indian culture is better or more Red Pill than American or Western today. Instead, he is pointing to India’s history and the many nations/kingdoms/civs that existed on that subcontinent and overtime fell/disappeared/were conquered, usually to the fact that their societies degenerated from within. Something that has happened also in the West in the past (Rome) and that is happening today. Just look at Western or American culture today and 50 years ago and how different it is.
While the red pill movement is a great thing, it remains to be seen if it can really save the West, which is in full decline.
I disagree with your post, but my post here is not a reply to you. It is something I have already posted, but that people need to see. Please, take a look:
***
Mr. Hanno, I’m not a history buff, but this article is full of
factual errors and misrepresentation. This article is BS and is why
certain Indians are angered and very critical of non-Indian historians
on the subject (eg. starting with Max Mueller). Please refer to the
section “Dangers of the Theory,” at this http://veda.wikidot.com/aryan-… if you are unfamiliar with this sentiment .
First,
India’s name does NOT COME FROM the ARABIC FOR HIND. It comes from the Sindhu, the name of the river, WHICH COMES FROM SANSKRIT AND HAS
SANSKRIT ETYMOLOGY. This term SINDHU DID NOT orriginate from the semetic Arabic language. Just in case you are curious (and obviously), Sanskrit is NOT a semetic langue NOR did it borrow from Arabic. Later on, Arabic was incorporated to off-shoots of Sanskrit (Persian too, of course,
which IS related to Sanskrit). This, Mr. Hanno, is a major display of
your ignorance, and is an insult to Indian society. You are
misrepresenting our culture and our history.
Regarding displacement of Dravidians and “other indigenous people”: The Aryan
Invasion Theory has been academically rejected, and this rejection is
important to consider. Take a look at the myth section at http://veda.wikidot.com/aryan-…
(broken down as four myths). There simply is not enough evidence to say
a primitive civilazation was displaced, even in waves, when not enough
was known. Max Mueller’s observations and subsequent historians
SPECULATIONS have snowballed into this view of the displacement of
primitive society by a more advanced society, which led to the Vedic
culture. It is damn near baseless! The Aryan Invasian Theory aside,
invasions themself are BARELY supported by basic DNA Haplogroup
analysis. There needs to be more than just correlation.
I think
you paint an unnecesarrily negative view of the Mughals. Sure, they
indulged. But they did contribute to culture. Some of them were harsh
([email protected] who imposed a polytax on non-Muslims, some were were noble,
intellectual, and progressive). I don’t think your summary of the
Mughals is balanced – it, in my opinion, would give the wrong idea to
someone not learned in this history.
Mr. Hanno, you don’t give the
full story of the Maurya empire either. The Maurya empire was one of
India’s more powerful empires. It spanned Central/North India to
Afghanistan, and was very powerful. The leaders were feroucious but
noble UNTIL Asoka WHO LATER EMBRACED BUDDHISM. There was much more to
the Mughal empire before Asoka (notable Seleucus, of Greek, actually
gave his daughter to Chandragupt Maurya, Asoka’s GRANDFATHER).
There’s
a lot more to be said about this article Mr. Hanno. It is an insult to
Indian history and culture. I am willing to discuss any of this (and a
LOT more). All of my life I have seen people ranging from friends to
WHITE NATIONALISTS fuel their arguements with these theories. I HAVE HAD
ENOUGH.
***
and another post
***
Some references:
1) Sanskrit origins of the term India/Sindh/Sindhu
Sindhu, The Indus River – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/…
From the Sanskrit Noun Sindhu – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/…
Likely from the Sanskrit verb – Sedahith (also on the link for the noun Sindhu)
2) http://veda.wikidot.com/aryan-…
If you are truly interested, you should read the whole thing. For those stuck in the past, the Aryan Invasion Theory is rejected by academia. This is interesting too, http://www.stephen-knapp.com/a…. Another summary here: http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents… .
–I will ask Mr. Hanno to provide the sources from which he writes about the Maurya empire, and specifically where they mention shoving Buddhism down people’s throats. This is a big deal, because Buddhism is usually seen as something that calmed the aggresive and more Barbaric side of the empire.–
3) A lot of Mughals emperors were tolerant and well meaning over the people they ruled. Akhbar the Great is such an example – a great Mughal ruler. He was learned, an intellectual, very tolerant, and yet had tight control over his empire. He even banned killing cows. Some emperors were a lot worse toward Hindus. Sure, your case could be made against Shah-Jahan in his later days, but then again, contributions to culture were and are very important.
Another misconception is that India is the result of constant takeover of some inferior indigenous people, and this view is held for various points in the timeline of India’s history. It’s just not that simple.
I also ask, Mr. Hanno, that you provide sources which explain how people participated in “maintaining popular superstitions and savage customs” during the Mughal empire. Can you please provide some sources and some explanation? I am interested in evaluating this claim.
***
Ignore any formating errors that took place when I coppied these comments from my original posts on this article, which can be found if you sort the page for New and look for notaun’s posts.
Ehm, excuse me but what you seem to be forgetting is that it was the west itself that birthed the despicable ideology called feminism, with vacuous complicity of its so-called Alphas. And no ideology has managed to successfully institutionalize anti male bias in such a widespread manner like feminism. Certainly no Indian tradition. Although you do make excellent points about gynocentrc religious traditions.
Even today, im sure if u do a percent count across entire nation, the percentage of white-knighting in the west will be higher. Atleast people in rural India are free from such attitudes but sadly enough that is changing with modernization. Of course they have their own share of garbage like female infanticide. This speaking as a resident Indian. (Can’t account for China. Couldn’t be bothered to.)
Point is, all societies have their own share of blue pill fallacy. And the single biggest problem India faces in this regard is not feminism itself but its blind rush to ape the west, instead of learning from its mistakes.
India is a two-class society, formerly the British took advantage of the Indians, now the upper, literate, wealthy class have taken their place to take advantage of the poor, brutally oppressing them to retain their comfortable life of plenty. Social upheaval is inevitable.
Except that’s not happening at all. Lower castes have their lives handed to them on a platter through affirmative action and most of the higher caste is leaving the country for the West.
Very astute, and very informative.
With the collapse of economic opportunity it is easy to see the growing lack of social mobility.
I would say that the religion of the West is equalism though. People in the comments say Christianity but I don’t see ‘authorities’ making sure you’re a good Christian, I see authorities making sure you believe people are equal in the correct manner
those are good points. no matter what country or century the age of decadence will ruin civilization.
what india can learn from the west…dont adopt feminism. stop it while you still can.
It is too late for India, recently I read they are PAYING women in India to come forward with rape accusations. You can only imagine that the number of false rape accusations in India will far surpass anything in the west within a few years.
o shit thatll be scary knowing how greedy indian women are espically the poor. then again how is india gonna do this they are poor. thry should roghy wing and fuck those socilists. its not too late yet..better late then never
Good article, but the author ignores the specific reasons as to WHY this change in greed and complacence occured. I would encourage everyone who wants to know more about this to read this post:
The primary reason India was doomed was due to the population getting too complacent. Keep in mind that India was the richest country in the world during the early Middle Ages. (“according to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book Contours of the world economy, 1–2030 AD: essays in macro-economic history, India had the world’s largest economy during the years 1 AD and 1000 AD”). There was a reason why all the Europeans wanted to form new trade routes to it.
Specifically, the warriors of the caste system (the kshatriyas) became too complacent. As the article alluded too, the excess wealth got to their heads. Then Buddhism came along starting around 500 BC and completely FUCKED up the system. With Buddhism’s over-focus on peace and non-materialism, the warriors, the kshatriyas all started to abandon their duty as protectors and started to become monastic monks. In essence, they went from alpha to beta. With this imbalance of power, new forces naturally started coming in to loot and plunder the entire region, since there were no strong forces to protect it.
Along came Islam. And the first Muslim conquerors into the subcontinent did nothing except loot, plunder, rape, pillage, and murder everything that stood in their way. And with a majority of the warriors who were supposed to stop them off meditating in caves instead of fighting on the battlefield, the conquerors had a pretty easy time of it.
Although several Hindu based resistance movements formed like the Maratha empire, it was ultimately too late for India to return to its former glory. After the Mughals solidified their control of much of India, Hindus became complacent again and used to the idea of living their life under the Mughal emperor of Delhi. By the time the British and Portuguese arrived in the 1600’s, India had been reduced to a rabble of local princes and rulers bickering among each other. The British expertly used divide and conquer to bribe and buy over these corrupt princes, in whom the noble ancient ideas and morals of the Kshatriya dharma were long dead. India was then literally ruled by gigantic corporation, the British East India Company, then eventually annexed by the British Empire and became known as the “jewel in the British Crown” due to the lucrative resources of tea, gold, diamonds, indigo, cloth, etc. They continued the policy of Muslims by indiscriminately looting the country by force. Here’s just one example:
“Since the Middle Ages, Indian textiles such as muslin were revered around the world and were produced at a cost that the British and Europeans could not compete with. So once the British ruled India they did what they couldn’t do in a freely competitive environment. They forcefully shut down the competition. In the early 19th century, the East India Company (EIC), had cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal[citation needed] in order to destroy the indigenous weaving industry in favor of British textile imports (some anecdotal accounts say the thumbs of the weavers of Dacca were removed).[citation needed] Twenty weavers’ families from Murshidabad and Nadia in Bengal had then fled to Awadh (to the British: Oudh; corresponding to modern-day Uttar Pradesh), whose nawab resettled them in the town of Mahua Dabar. The refugees taught weaving to their offspring and Mahua Darbar became a weaving town of 5,000 people. In March–April 1857 when Zaffar Ali, a young man whose grandfather had migrated from Bengal, spotted a British boat coming down the Manorama (a tributary of the Ghagra on which Mahua Darbar was set). Local people intercepted the boat and killed the British soldiers by beheading – Lt T.E. Lindsay, Lt W.H. Thomas, Lt G.L. Caulty, Sgt Edwards and privates A.F. English and T.J. Richie. The British had their revenge – on June 20 that year, the British 12th Irregular Horse Cavalry surrounded the town, slaughtered hundreds and set all the houses on fire. On the colonial revenue records, the area was subsequently marked gair chiragi (non-revenue land).”
After the Independence Movement that ended with India’s freedom in 1947 (making it a very young country) it was faced with immense problems. The British (whether they knew of the consequences or not) split the country in two before they left, Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, which resulted in 14 million displaced refugees (an insanely high number) and hundreds of thousands dead in religious fueled riots on both sides. Coming out of this bloody and tumultuous history, India seems to be on a shaky road to modernization.
So my point of this post was to show that the decline of India happened for slightly different reasons than what the author wrote about, I think the corruption of the ruling class as well as the rise of Buddhism left the entire country wide open to be fucked by foreign powers. But I do definitely agree with the author in that the West’s loss of identity as a society and loss of traditional values seems to be doing nothing but inviting disaster.
Interesting article.
“Most major countries of the Western world, including France, Germany, Italy and to an extent, the United States, have steadily declining fertility rates. As the native population ages, foreign labor is imported to sustain the fledgling economies of these fledgling states. The mainstream media, instead of urging the native people to save their communities, spew disgusting socialist and feminist propaganda, furthering the destruction of the nations of the West.”
This is mostly wrong. The corporate class wanted cheap labor during the booming 60s and 70s. And this trend has continued since then, now with (illegal)hispanics in the US, and muslims in europe entering for other reasons than work .
There has been no reduction in the native workforce until recently in practically all western nations. Female workforce participation has more than ensured this.
Most Growth in immigrant populations since the 80s has been through family reunification, (bogus) refugees and higher fertility relative to natives. West European nations opened up a Pandoras box of multicultural dysfunction when special interest groups were allowed to import cheap labor.
The third World immigrants have had a net negative effect on per capita GDP, since they on average contribute less then they take out of the economy. This is due to lower workforce participation, lower productivity and a larger share of dependents.
The hordes of muslims and africans which have been allowed to settle in europe, have in addition caused many other problems related to culture.
These populations are increasingly putting a strain on western societies, and the multicultural bubble will therefore burst in the coming years.
There are some non-European immigrant groups that have contributed positively on average, but they are a minority.
“The West may not necessarily be destroyed by nomadic hordes and barbarian enemies in the future, but it will certainly be destroyed from within because Western society has fundamentally changed for the worse, just as so many Indian kingdoms and empires were destroyed from within due to the vices of their people, both the rulers and the ruled.”
Western society was created and has been sustained by people of European stock.
And they are slowly being outbred and replaced by non-Europeans. There is nothing to guarantee that European society can be sustained once the indigenous Europeans are reduced to minorities. Most likely western society will become unruly and unsustainable when a demographic tipping point of replacement has occured.
No matter what the ill effects of postmodern liberalism will be on societies in the West, cultural trends are reversible. Demographic displacement is however not reversible.
At present it most certainly looks like the barbarians at the gates will partake in the destruction once they sneak inside as trojan horses. The US has already embarked on this journey, where White Europeans are projected to become a minority before 2050. Western Europe is following in its footsteps, albeit at a slower pace.
The author is acting a bit dishonestly when he suggests that the root causes of western decline is feminism and socialism, while he is ignoring the multicultural elephant in the room.
The West might be destroying itself from within at the moment, but it most certainly is also being destroyed by forces from outside its borders.
“White Europeans are projected to become a minority before 2050.”
I read somewhere that “Mohammad” was the most popular baby name in Yugoslavia in 1990. I don’t know if that’s true but it certainly paints a rosy picture.
This might be true, since Bosnia is majority muslim. But today multicultural Yugoslavia is no more, and the reason is nationalism and religion. The West might just experience Yugoslavia writ large in the coming decades.
There was a Russian Political Scientist who theorized that the same will happen to the US. I hope he’s right. We’ll see how liberal Canada is when 45 million black refugees are at their gates.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123051100709638419
Feminism started it all, women’s suffrage gave ANY idiot the right to vote, allowing all other forms of depravity to be voted in.
That hardly implies what you are implying it implies. Mohammad is just an extremely common name among Muslims. It doesn’t take a particularly large Muslim population for that to happen.
So true ,we fallen into decadence some of us want this to change but we aren’t the majority!
I love to point to India, as well as Brazil and Russia, whenever the “Diversity is our Strength” crowd starts rambling on about how multilingual, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-everything, somehow makes a country strong despite all evidence to the contrary.
“Diversity” is poison.
Meanwhile in 92% White Australia…
It is merely a matter of time before Australia becomes 25% Chinese and Indian (it is already 12%). Many of Australia’s elite want Asians to populate the equatorial regions (Cairns, etc.), which are too hot for white people.
But the Chinese are buying up real estate in Oz at a fast rate, and it won’t take much until 20-30% of Australia’s real estate is owned by the Chinese (and some Indians).
Yup. I see genocide on the horizon. I’m not sure if whitey will be the perpetrator or the victim.
Nah…. I just see major inter-breeding.
I think you’re right. The most successful/rich/prosperous/inventive nations appear to be mostly homogenous: Japan,Switzerland, Scandinavia , New Zealand ,Australia, Europe ( for now…)
This article is horrible. For a place that advocates development of the mind, this is flat out horrible. Have any of you ever taken a look at a map?
India’s population core lives in the Ganges River Basin, which is the most fertile and productive in the world. However, none of the rivers in India are navigable. What does that mean? It means you’re likely to get a country that has a very large population that’s very capital poor. Why? It’s because transport costs by water are about 10-15 times cheaper than transport costs by land by just the cost of operation. If you add in the cost of the road/rail networks, you’re looking at around 50 times the cost.
That’s right! Transport costs spike by a factor of 50 when you shift from water by land! This number increases when you talk about highlands.
The US, on the other hand, has the largest amount of navigable waterway of any place on the entire planet. The entire river network is interconnected and there’s also an intercoastal waterway (a set of barrier islands) that runs from the Gulf of Mexico all the way around Florida to around Virginia. If you have a piece of this network, you’re golden.
In the case of Europe, all the rivers (except in Russia) are navigable, but none are interconnected. So you have a divisive effect where all of the rivers are national unlike the integrative effect in the US coming from the interconnected Mississippi Basin river network.
I see someone’s been reading his Peter Zeihan. 😛
I actually haven’t read Ziehan’s book yet. I do read a good amount of Stratfor’s stuff though. I don’t agree with everything, but it’s a fun read and it’s great stuff. Just picked up a new subscription a few days ago.
It’s a damn shame that the average person’s monthly cable bill is more expensive than a yearly Stratfor subscription, yet way more people have a cable subscription than a Stratfor subscription.
Almost all of these things are set by natural constraints. The “West” (a horrible term to describe very different regions and combine them together) has a very different set of natural constraints than India. How the hell can anyone compare them?
You don’t even mention the British once.what’s that all about?
The problems that led to India’s collapse started long before the British got there. When they finally did, India was already just a shell of what it had been in the past.
The only reason the British took over India was because the Muslims had already ruined us. Now we, the Hindu Indians are rising again.
A British guy in Canada is at a party with a bunch of Indo-Canadians there. He looked around at all the Indians and declared to them “you know I gave you your independence – twice.”
More like we kicked you white pigs out of India through years of resistance.
Such is nature. The frozen forests and steppes of northern Eurasia have always bred tougher, smarter, more resourceful races of people than the subtropical paradise that is India. So each wave of northerners invades India and settles down to enjoy the easy life. Devolution is much faster than evolution, so in a few generations they become as soft and decadent as the people they conquered.
Welfare states have a similar effect on human evolution, making each generation stupider, lazier and more fecund than the last, until the state goes bankrupt and the streets are littered with frozen corpses.
it takes energy to form order, and more energy to form more order. if an organism doesn’t need to expend an trait’s energy to survive, it won’t, and the unfounded-cost trait atrophies as unneeded in the environment. that saved energy can go to making more units, rather than building greater heights. what determines necessary traits, minimum to make-it, is always the environment.
Bullshit. A quick review of history will show that almost all the Great Civilizations of antiquity -Egyptian, Sumerian, Indian, Babylonian, Persian, Phoenician, Greek, Roman…- originated in hot or template climates; seldom cold, let alone frozen. The peoples from the frozen forests and steppes of “Northern Eurasia” left no work of art, no scientific progress, no majestic building or any legacy that is remotely comparable to the achievements of the subtropical Indian civilization, so arguing that they were “smarter” and “more resourceful” than the Indians is preposterous. And “tougher”? Even if that were true, toughness has no say in military conflict since the time humans stopped living in bands of hunter-gatherers.
All Eurasian civilizations dreaded the North-men, were conquered by them on many occasions, and had a skin color that suggested ancestry of a higher latitude. There’s no need for stone cities and aqueducts where wood and water are plentiful, but there are plenty of other problems, both physical and political, to solve in a cold climate.
In nature, generalized forms (e.g. barbaric North Eurasians) evolve into specialized forms (e.g. civilized South Eurasians) to better exploit the environment, and specialized forms go extinct when the environment changes (drought has killed many civilizations). So for the sake of your descendants, don’t get too specialized!
As far as skin color is concerned, the same could be argued for ancestry of a lower latitude, so your Point is moot. And what were those political problems that were exclusive or typical of the cold? I’m sincerely trying but your comments make little sense. I trust you’ll see your many contradictions.
1 you died if you didn’t have food over 5.5 months of snow cover.
2 you could freeze to death overnight or just die of lung infection.
3 you needed good clothes, shoes and shelter and you or your wife needed to know how to make them.
4 you needed a strong sense of temporality, urgency and anxiety and foresight.
5 high female dependence due to harsh climate and reliance on game encouraged companionate marriage. Your wife and child died unless you cared for them. They needed you.
We’re all aware of the physical problems exclusive to cold climates -and of those exclusive to hot climates, which are too many for me to list here. As I said, I want you to point out the POLITICAL ones -remember, you said “both physical and political”. None of those you list is a political problem -save maybe the last one.
But I find your point 5 ironic. Hunting/gathering, herding and subsistence farming societies, typical of the frozen Northern-Eurasian steppes and forests, are more gender-egalitarian -the Vikings being a good example- because there’s scarcity of resources and little division of work, so everyone, no matter the gender, can and must do their part. Female dependence comes with the development of agricultural society, because the surplus of resources 1) allows for half the population -females- to opt out of work and 2) allows division of work into many niches where women simply cannot compete with men. Do you know why they kill female babies in India and China? Because they aren’t as good field hands as males! So unless they are pretty, they’re a burden to their family. Thus marriage is born: a woman, because of her physical disadvantage, subjects her sex, her womb and her will to a man who in turn will provide for her and her offspring, which she can’t properly do.
Storing food is a political problem, because now you have a valuable and rather immobile asset to protect. If your tribe lacks the political skills to organize itself and build alliances, other tribes will kick your ass and steal your food.
Storing food is hardly a political problem -especially not for the reason you mention- nor it is exclusive of cold climates. Besides, where is it harder to store food: where there are less of any animals and the cold, darkness and dryness help in conservation, or where there are all sorts of critters, such as rats, ants and cockroaches, plus several forms of plagues, such as locusts, and the heat, sun light and humidity will spoil your food in a matter of days? And who can be more concerned with food storage: the nomad of the steppes with an occasional surplus of meat, or the large scale farmer looking to preserve huge amounts of produce?
Apparently we have never heard of vikings.
Yeah, what about them?
And apparently vikings never terrorized other “strong men” of the north. Where were the Alphas of the North when they hit Lindisfarne?
Moral : Strong societies are forged from certain values, not location. Indeed hardihood is a common element.
The factors often were:
1 hydrolaulic, i.e. rivers for commerce and agriculture.
2 good useful climate for agriculture
3 isolation form autocratic control as in Greece and it’s city state democracies. This prevented the dead hand of control by a despot or crushing taxes.
4 Northern Europeans were actually fairly advanced technologically in terms of metallurgy. Low energy density from 5 months of Winter prevented large cities. It’s actually rather silly to build pyramids as opposed to wooden long houses but I get that they were making a statement.
makes you wonder about the chinese that are down farming in Africa… how many generations until they are lazy, inept, and culturally bankrupt as the natives?
Nice article, but your warnings are in vain, my brother from the East.
You see, every major civilization going back as far as the Assyrians has a lifespan of only 250 years, give or take. That’s about 10 generations. There is the pioneer generation, conqueror generation, merchant generation, artistic generation, intellectual generation, decadent generation, and then the collapse. The pattern is the same everywhere. We are the victims of our own success and even my own post is preaching to the converted. I urge everyone to read this excellent article by British general John Glubb. It was written in the 70s, and its amazing how his predictions have all come true, as well as the historical examinations.
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
Be careful, people will try to argue with the term ‘major’, citing whatever stupid tribe has caught their fancy as a ‘major’ civilization, and ignoring the fact that tribalism, while an enduring ‘government’, is precisely the reason why in an era of ‘nations’, some simply don’t work.
Tribalism is why the middle east doesn’t work, it’s why africa doesn’t work, india, and virtually every equatorial ‘nation’ is barely half an inch from a banana republic. Tribalism allowed scotland and ireland to be conquered by the british, and had to be discarded HARD before the northern countries could even approach anything more civilized than raiders.
Not to disrespect Jack Donovon, I understand many hold him in high esteem, but his focus on promoting ‘western tribalism’ is an exceedingly poor idea.
Refreshingly lacking in blame for the British.
Most Indians just think of the British as irrelevant these days. Your capital city’s MAYOR is a Paki, what a laugh! Fallen a long way since the good old white supremacist days of Churchill I’d say old chap!
Exactly the West needs to learn from the lessons taught by other societies that have failed, such as India. Chinese history was equally bad before Communism, being even darker than the dark ages of Western Europe and with oppression from our nemesis, Mongolia, where the Mughals originated as well.
The real issue is despotic government that is not rule by the people, as well as complacency that enables it. It allows more warlike groups to come in and cause chaos, for example steppe people in Asia or terrorists and street gangs in the West.
Mughals originated in Persia and Turkey not Mongolia.
Ultimate, not proximate origin
China would have been beautifull, prosperous and free under general chiang kai shek , much like Taiwan. Communist infiltration to the state department meant us support fell to the communist rather than the nationalist who did all the real fighting of the Japanese. Joe MaCarthy a honest and fair man smeared by history was in fact right. Communism was a disaster for China that retarded it’s development, promoted a state run high birth rate program that turned into a nasty single child policy as it produced a population disaster. In addition maybe 70 million were killed by the regime.
I am a Chinese and this is pretty much the equivalent of saying that freedom from slavery was bad for black people. I wouldn’t be alive without Communism, much less literate or have enough food to eat. Without Communism, we would have been holocausted by Japan.
Taiwan is illiterate? They did a lot better than China with a great deal less brutality and starvation.
Once Mao and the communists had control they rewrote history to make themselves heros and saviours of China while the other huts were made out oppressors. Can’t you see that?
The reality is that technical change would have more rapidly drawn into China than it did under the communist dictatorship and improved living standards much quicker. Mao was just another supreme ruler that suppressed the natural inventiveness and fastidiousness of Chinese people with his ideas.
Even the Japanese, if they had of ruled China, quite likely would have starved less people to death than Mao and his iron smelting collective farms.
Taiwan isn’t illiterate but my father was the first generation in his family to become literate because Communism created a school system that educated the poor. Also first generation Standard Mandarin speaker.
Because my grandparents generation fought for socialism. We were not “cadres” or anything like that but just the 99% of people who were glad to have enough fire wood and a job.
Nationalists like to organise education systems just as much. They also get less in the way of people organising themselves. The reason the west pulled way ahead of China is that centralised political control functioned more to suppress the natural abillity of the Han than to advance them. Ancient Greece and Europe sometimes had idiot rulers and despots but it was generally possible to just move to another city, principality and wait untill the idiot died.
Have you been around lots of Chinese people or been to China before? Not Taiwan they’re a different culture somewhat.
We’re not the most educated, and some form of coercive population control would have been necessary in some way, shape or form. India also had population control but not as sharply, and they have way more problems.
Go around China, look at the way most of the country is set up, it indicates IQ 90, admittedly probably my IQ is like that same as most of Asia like India. This requires a different approach than high involvement democracy.
Most non outbred ethnicities like Chinese, Indian, Russian, Hispanic, South European, are not very good at self organizing with nonblood relatives. Like you’ll see more civic organizations among Anglo Saxons, African Americans, Japanese, b/c they are less clannish. Also not all Chinese are Han. Not dying of malnutrition or gangrene is a pretty good thing.
Well dear,we may not be the very best of societies yet but hardly a failed society. Neither is China (we do hate each other though). If you wan’t a failed society look at Pakistan.
India a society that has failed? I guess that is exactly what a Chinese communist cocksucker like you would say.
Before pointing fingers, do remember that it is in your country where should a man raise a single protest against retarded gov policy, they are jailed and buttraped. I guess same thing needs to happen to ypu to rid you of your delusion.
Dude I never said China wasn’t a shitty place.
probably going to get flak for this: there’s nothing there. their individuals lack an ability of ‘greatness’, and this emerges from this base unit into their civilizations: nothing really there (beyond bodies).
In all of my observations from a distance, India has never been a State, in the Western/Roman common law sense. Rather, that region of the world is afflicted with an inheritance that renders an inability to form such. A collection of families and thugs, all forming strict castes and staying quite separate. Separate fighting, separate economies, separate lives, separate defense, if even; nothing common, nothing intrinsically uniting, no sense of larger picture and foundation of faith in men, no perception of a gear shared by default amongst even two people, much less all people. It has never been a Nation. Its cultures and traditions and latent genetic traits all emphasize an inability to intrinsically unite under stressors. Their individual member cannot form a larger collective system view inside their head, they don’t seem to have as much of that ability. It’s as if their individual member can perform, but is hollow, and doesn’t know it. Quite hard to articulate, especially without sounding bigoted.
so from this, they can be polite, but interactions with them always result in deep violations of your trade assumptions. what are obvious behaviors due to the obvious ground you walk on, quite simply don’t even come close to occurring to them, for they can’t see the ground. it’s as if there is a deficiency of ability, and that emerges to shape their societies on the whole in to what has always been seen from a distance: no State, no Nation, just a civilization of something there but not even they know what that really is. and they’re not aware of it. a strangeness that can copy quite well what it sees, and build under direction, but can’t find direction on its own. you could say that’s the result of being conquered again and again, but what i’m saying, is that they can’t conquer period.
i continue to observe, searching for correction, if only because the idea of people-similes with nothing actual there is depressing. doesn’t apply to all indian-decendants, thankfully.
What’s with all the hate against Consumerism? Actually, “Consumerism” is a term often favored by Leftist propaganda, which somehow managed to turn the positive “abundance of everything”, one of the greatest achievements of Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, into negative “Consumerism”. “Consumerism” is one of the top differences between the rich West and the poor Third World! Yet misinformed people seem to think that a fast rate of production and consumption will accelerate the downfall of civilization. As opposed to what: widespread scarcity and want? Nonsensical.
correct enough. now, who is consuming? who is producing? what happens when they’re not the same, extended over several iterations? this is the problem.
faster production and consumption just is, but map that down to individuals, and what is is the feeding of nonproducing noncontributing consummate consumers biting the hands of production with self-righteous insidious glee, unable to see their unchecked selfishness causing downfall to all.
consumerism just is, and it is better than prior arcane inefficient economies, but this is an incomplete picture. despite being better, and producing more than ever before, at ever faster rates, consumerist economies still can’t afford both innovator and imitator. pay fail, you get only more fail, and since
fail produces no pay and must take pay from success, you concomitantly
get less success.
I think they mean the accumulation of wealth and commodities are the main if not the sole reason for the existence of the individual and state and deep down they feel life lacks meaning. Just an observation. I prefer the term economicism. I define it as a system whereby all policies, institutions and cultural constructs are geared towards short term maximum growth of the economy regardless of the deleterious impact on the bulk of the population, often in opposition to wishes of the population and detrimental to long term interests of the people and nation.
Yes. And what more specifically is consumed also matters.
If people use a large fraction of their income on stupid gadgets, fries & coke, and degenerate activities with the sole purpose of generating cheap thrills and feel goodism, then society is not getting spiritually and culturally richer.
GDP would indicate otherwise, but this is mostly because it is a simple measure of revenue generated in the economy, and the amount of “preferences” satisfied. GDP is a limited metric, which cannot measure societal values fully.
Consumerism isn’t the same as a high standard of living. Consumerism is the notion that the one who has the most stuff when he dies has won at real life.
No, it isn’t
“Spew disgusting socialist and feminist propaganda”
Due to the “feminist propaganda” engrained in me from an early age by my feminine, confident mother, I have a drive to provide for myself and help the world via research after studying. I don’t have a drive to have a million kids with some guy who will stop being attracted to me one day because I’m not some “hot young thing”. I want to devote my life to a career that directly benefits others and helps the economy, not pop out several children that will require constant attention and mounds of money. How horrible of me.
Almost no female jobs (outside of nursing or something like that) actually ‘helps the economy’. Most women are in make-work jobs, that would not exist in the free market.
One of my female relatives owns a small business, another is a doctor, another is a teacher, etc. I know hardly any women in gov. funded “make-work” jobs. Save your bellyaching until you want to throw stats at me.
Women fill in the jobs created by men. Businesses started by men are three-and-a-half times more likely to reach $1 million in annual revenue than businesses started by women.
http://www.businessinsider.com/get-your-business-to-1-million-in-sales-2014-11
My favorite story of what happens when women try to run a business without men picking up the slack…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
Be honest, you work in human resources, don’t you?
personal anecdote don’t make sufficient sample size.
You are now just making more things up.
Prove it.
And yet it disproves the assertion that females are useless beyond reproduction entirely inaccurate. When females can perform on par or better than the average male in their field, they deserve to be there just as much or more.
That doesn’t disprove the fact that most women are in makework jobs. You are attacking a strawman in that regard for a point that we did not make. My original point still stands.
“Almost no female jobs (outside of nursing or something like that) actually ‘helps the economy’.”
Assuming by “female jobs” you mean areas dominated by females, take a look at the second graph here: cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2005/2005-1825-wm.htm
According to this, the most female-dominated fields are “clerical and caring occupations”, from secretarial work to nursing. Receptionist jobs may be menial, but they, like all the other positions listed, serve a practical purpose. If you can find me data showing that women occupy the majority of “useless, makework” jobs, show me.
Assuming by “female jobs” you mean female dominated fields, consider this: http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2005/2005-1825-wm.htm
Look at the second graph, which shows the positions most dominated by women. Notice they’re all “clerical and caring occupations”. While the receptionist jobs may be the most menial of the list, even they serve a practical purpose, like the others(secretary, home help, care attendant, etc.) listed.
If you can produce data showing that the government funds “useless”, “makework” jobs primarily for women, I’m all eyes, but so far I’ve found no such evidence.
And let’s assume you do produce data. How does this fit in to my preferring a career-driven life to one centered around child rearing? When did I say I wanted a female-dominated job?
http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/02/the-empowered-female-parasite/
”How does this fit in to my preferring a career-driven life to one
centered around child rearing? When did I say I wanted a
female-dominated job?”
You were using an anecdote to prove the general. Hence I objected as the sample size is too small.
No proven data; just quotes and anecdotes.
But let’s address where even that article falls short:
* Not every woman seriously wants a guy to make more than her. Sometimes *gasp* they have such interesting and amazing careers that they aren’t going to just sit back and give up to be housewives, especially when they have husbands willing to be dedicated, stay-at-home dads. You can argue that the majority want guys who make more, and perhaps that’s true, but nor do they want to feel locked down like an animal against their will and forced to have a family when they’re not ready. Even if they’re nearing infertility, there’s always adoption.
* The article complains often about workplace policies killing the spirit of “productive masculinity”, without providing explicit examples(besides the Alberta policy, which is optional anyway, giving productive employees an advantage), which makes it seem like they’re whining about not being able to grab coworkers’ asses. Show me policies that actually hurt men for being productive, not ones that simply punish unnecessary schoolboy behavior.
* “Very few of the professional women are actually productive – they do not work in the industries which form the baseline of civilization, they predominantly work in ancillary, easy, and often unnecessary industries, which would crumble without government support.” I’m literally surrounded by examples that disprove this. The article doesn’t offer any explicit data to prove this. I don’t know any women, aside from teachers, who have “government jobs”. Each that I know takes their job and career seriously, and isn’t comfortable with laziness. I agree that affirmative action is over-done at this point, but why not cut the shit about how “parasitic” women are, and simply judge their productive abilities equally with men’s? Campaign against policies that give one sex an unnecessary leg up(ex. lowering the bar for female firefighting applicants), cut the employees that don’t measure up, male or female, and move on.
I could go on, but I don’t feel like delving into my ridicules throughout the article. I agree with some of it, but the title, along with the general, over-simplified view of modern women in general, doesn’t prove the author’s scope of intelligence. The overwhelming majority of my(a feminist’s) friends hate drugs and alcohol, the club/partying scene, etc. Where’s our representation? Or better yet, where’s the representation of people who lead comparatively mixed lives(partying sometimes while maintaining a respectable job) who are still great parents? Just because a woman isn’t a nun doesn’t make her an unfit parent, or a detriment to society.
The article would seem much more well-founded if they accounted for more than a dichotomy.
“Almost no female jobs (outside of nursing or something like that) actually ‘helps the economy’. Most women are in make-work jobs, that would not exist in the free market.”
You’ve still yet to prove this assertion. Where is the data that proves that the overwhelming majority of employed women are in government-funded, unnecessary “makework” jobs?
yes, it is horrible. You abandon the most important job that could ever exist, creating NEW LIFE, for the self-righteous assumptions that you are ‘studying to help the world’
Or I’m being realistic in knowing that I don’t like kids much, and I’d rather have a stellar career and help others than be a miserable mom and raise depressed children that don’t feel loved.
And by the time you have figured it out it’s too late to change your mind
I agree. It’s probably best for all of us that your genes go extinct.
Yes, any woman who doesn’t obey your caveman ideals is a horrid monster. Go back to your man cave and watch men fight over a ball. It’s the masculine thing to do.
Meanwhile I’ll make a difference in the world(whether through research or medicine) and can lecture young girls about the joys of living in an age where you can choose to develop qualities beyond your looks.
I didn’t say you were a monster, but people like you will ultimately cull yourselves from the gene pool. It’s evolution by Natural Selection. My “caveman ideals” will be corrected by the laws of nature, which you are still subject to. I only need to stand back and watch nature run its course like a finely tuned watch. Between us, you’re actually the only one with “ideals.” I simply accept the world as it is.
Yes, teach girls to develop that career. Men will still care more about female looks, just as women will care more about a man’s status and power. Evolved instincts. You can’t change them.
Figured what out? That I’ll inevitably age and be treated like shit by society, no matter what I accomplish? We’re born alone, we die alone. At some point, husbands don’t find you as attractive as other women, children become annoying teenagers, grow up and leave. At some point your husband dies, so even if the marriage was good, your neurochemistry has to adjust to a more depressive state than it was used to.
Relationships aren’t worth it for a lot of people nowadays. I’d rather have a stable career and, if I really want to, just adopt a kid who might otherwise develop mental issues or become a criminal. By then I could be making enough to hire a nanny: human interaction, no daycares, and no guy to worry about leaving me. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.
Haven’t you ever heard that it’s better to have loved and lost than never loved at all?
Yes, but that tends to wear off when you’re 50, were financially dependent(because ALL decent women should avoid college and get married at 18, right?) on your husband, and he decides to up and leave you for a “fresh young thing”.
I’d rather be able to take care of myself, make friends, travel the world, and do something meaningful that I KNOW will leave me feeling fulfilled when I know I’m on my deathbed. Some women are more nurturing and need to be surrounded by children to feel happy and meaningful. That’s great for them. But never have I felt remotely like that, and I don’t want to raise kids just for my own supposed benefit.
Funny story, my mom is a total feminist, and guess what? She created me. My aunts are equally in favor of girls deciding to settle down and have kids as they are that they go to college and have a meaningful career, whether in science, engineering, math, etc. And the ones that can’t have kids? Who’s to say they can’t adopt?
Check the birth rate for feminist countries, then check the birth rate for Muslim countries. Guess who’s going to win in the long run and who will ultimately lose?
Lilac Haze is unusually belligerent for a woman who cannot survive without a man shielding her from the real world, and providing her with some make-work paycheck.
Plus, Lilac Haze is too ugly to get a husband. It shows.
Hmm, sounds like projection. Guess your feminist but feminine mom was quite a pathetic mother.
You don’t like kids much huh? Who are you going to “help” again?
So you are the one who says they are studying hard to go out and help people?
You are a miserable wreck who obviously was raised by a terrible mother. .
Do NOT adopt !
Suit yourself. Just realize that the gender wars are a zero sum game. It’s not possible to win. When you “win” you go extinct.
Loving children is a like loving adults and friends. You have to learn how to do it. I didn’t realise how much I wanted it till I met a family with 4 children. It was beautiful and I was filled with longing. Our modern politically correct culture introduces a great deal of demoralising negativity.
Besides when the little ones are born the Oxytocin will take care of it for both you and your husband.
Warm regards to you Lilac.
It’s usually Africans or pet rescue. Maybe crazy cat lady syndrome. Sometimes they get Amanda Kajeira syndrome.
I’ve been around kids plenty of times before; I have way younger cousins, and I’ve been a babysitter. I don’t hate kids, nor do I mind being around them temporarily, but the idea of being a parent turns me off. Nor has the idea of having a husband ever appealed to me. I get along fine with guys, but the idea of being stuck in a relationship with the same person for decades doesn’t sound appealing. I’d much more happily make a bunch of friends throughout my lifetime, and be surrounded by them on my deathbed.
I don’t care if my personal DNA goes extinct. I’d rather raise an adopted kid.
“So you are the one who says they are studying hard to go out and help people?You are a miserable wreck who obviously was raised by a terrible mother. . ”
SO much logic, it’s making my head hurt. Yes, my mom is horrible because she’d rather see me with a diploma and a job than three kids in my arms by the time I’m 17.
You’re not one to talk about “pathetic moms”. I’m not the straight guy visiting a site to denigrate women who don’t measure up to his personal ideals.
Oh dear, tell me how much you know about me because I don’t kowtow to misogynists who believe a woman’s sole value is her uterus and vagina?
It doesn’t apply to a world where men think like the authors and commenters of this site. Why love anyone romantically if you’re no more than a depreciating sex object to them? I’d rather have friends that actually give a shit about me and won’t turn on me when I get wrinkles.
Women do depreciate in sexual value. However, you forget that a young woman is immensely more powerful than a young man, sexually. No one is more powerful than a young woman, and she can use her sexuality to milk resources out of men.
The reason her power fades is because her fertility eventually declines and ends in menopause. Assuming a man wants children and has none, a menopausal woman isn’t of any value to him. This isn’t to be a dick, this is men behaving the way nature programmed them to behave. To flip this around, if a woman wants to feed her large family, would she marry a homeless man?
It has nothing to do with wrinkles. Wrinkles simply indicate a woman’s age, which indicates her fertility. Any men who were naturally attracted to menopausal women simply went extinct. Hence, why men are most interested in young women, and why young women hold all the sexual power.
A man’s sexual power can increase over time, assuming he obtains power and status. However, young men rarely have both. He must work hard for it though.
This is the reality of the sexes. We don’t necessarily think it’s right, but it’s the way things are, and it’s unlikely things will ever change. Ideals be damned, give me facts!
I never denied any of that. But the fact is that if men really think like the bulk of these authors, who set very narrow parameters for what’s “okay” and what’s not for women, then they’re not worth hanging around. If they want to get hitched to a young lady when they’re financially built up, more power to them, but if you act like a jerk with a fragile ego, something tells me the marriage will head south, fast. I’ve been reading a fuckton of the articles here to gain a 3-dimensional idea of what these guys would look like in real life, and it’s not positive.
The fact is, if societal value is a depreciating quality for women in general, then marriage is dangerous to self protection. It gives you the illusion that a man is so special he’ll stick with you through thick and thin, even when both of you are old and ugly. Then one day you can wake up at 50, with no skills beyond domestics, only to find that your husband is “bored” and looking for a hot young thing. Or you eke out a half-satisfying marriage where he tries to make you feel better by telling you you’re beautiful, though you know that due to biological imperative, he’s probably lusting 100x more over 20 year olds than the likes of you, emotional bonds or not. Neither of those sound pleasant to me.
I’d rather build up a career, enjoy life(whether that means having relationships or not) and learn to brave the world so that when I’m not young, I’ll have value in other areas. I might not look pretty, but if I do something useful with my life(ex. research that helps cure diseases, building up a nonprofit, etc.) it will command more respect and honor from others. Sexual attention may be temporary and depreciative, but self-improvement lasts throughout life.
I’m focused on human rights more than anything else. How dare I’d rather spend a lifetime helping many people than popping out a few.
Most men here are cynical. They’re angry by the lack of marriageable women. Men will have sex with promiscuous women, but we absolutely do see them as lower status and unworthy of relationships. The reason being that a man can be tricked into raising another man’s baby, but a woman cannot be tricked into raising another woman’s baby. This is due to biology. We must take a woman’s history into account when sizing her up. Marrying a promiscuous woman is a great way to spend your entire adult life raising other men’s children. The end result is being removed from the gene pool.
The true misogynists are not as numerous as you think. I find that outsiders have trouble telling when people here are joking and when they’re serious. There is a lot of dark humor here. The idea that women will ever be confined to the kitchen is fantasy. They never really were to begin with. Stay at home moms were a luxury afforded by prosperity after WW2. Prior to WW2 it was common for a woman to do work outside of the home.
This is only dangerous if you get with a VERY successful man. The competition for young women is intense, thus not every man can get a young and fertile one. Usually, the only men who can do this later in life are those who are exceedingly successful. Their money can attract women who exchange their fertility for the man’s wealth. This isn’t as common as you think. Most men also have an incentive to stick around and raise their children.
I think the advice for young women to “settle” is not a bad idea. The logic here is long-term investment. If a woman feels like she’s settling at 25, eventually her sexual value with decrease and the man’s will increase (if he’s not lazy). This means in the long run she may find that she got a slightly better deal. The key to long-term success, in my opinion, is to make sure you’re always providing value in the relationship. When things get too out of balance relationships tend to end.
“They’re angry by the lack of marriageable women.”
Unless you’re dead-set on spreading your genes, marrying younger women isn’t that crucial. Older women may not be at their physical “peak”, but they have more life experience, and(believe it or not) aren’t all “bitter” or “broken people”. If they have good personalities, and know how to relate to people easily, they’re probably more emotionally mature for a relationship than your average 20-something, who might not have even settled on a career choice yet(or whether they want to marry young and have kids).
For example, my grandmother died when she and my grandfather were already fairly old(60s I believe) and had had a wonderful marriage, including raising several children together. About a decade after she died he met another widow, who had also had several children, who is also ridiculously nice and has a warming personality. They got married, and enjoyed several years together before my grandfather died due to liver conditions. But they enjoyed life fully.
I have other examples, but don’t feel like writing a book to prove this to you: older women, though maybe not conventionally physically “sexy”, can still make wonderful, fulfilling partners. Often they can remain physically attractive for decades still, whether due to good genetics, lifestyle choices, or a combination.
It’s not crucial, but most men want to have children. The men here are mostly angry about women who
spendwaste their 20s being promiscuous, and then society shames men when they are reluctant to marry those women. In a man’s mind, her promiscuity has devalued her and established her as a low-status woman, due to the risk of paternity fraud. Top that with decreased fertility and the horror stories of men getting screwed over in divorce and family courts, and this is the source of the anger. People here deal with the same problem in different ways. You have MGTOWs who completely give up on women, Pickup artists who take advantage of female promiscuity, or traditionalists who long for traditional families and religion. All blame feminism for the way things are.As said, I think the only men who have issues with older women are those who want to have a family. Men are just following their evolved instincts, which are the same ones that tell women to be attracted to men of wealth, status, and power. I never said older women couldn’t provide value as friends and lovers, but for men who want families menopause is a deal breaker. If a man thinks he can get a young and attractive women he’l go after he, just as if a woman thinks she can get a tall, rich, and powerful man she’ll go after him. Dating will certainly be tougher for short, poor men and menopausal women, but not necessarily hopeless. Her chances of getting what she wants will certainly be better when she’s younger, which is why we constantly tell women to stop “riding the cock carousel” in their 20s. Putting off marriage until the end of her fertility isn’t benefiting anyone, and has dire long term consequences (i.e. population crash).
It’s helpful to put off if you don’t want to be a stay at home mom. Some women(virgins even) can get married to decent men while they’re young, have kids, and feel deeply unsatisfied. They might have more will to “keep the marriage together” for the sake of the kids and whatnot, but they can easily become depressed, especially as they see women their own age who decided to stick it alone and build businesses, become doctors, travel the world, etc.
Additionally, women who refuse marriage until later years aren’t necessarily sexually promiscuous. My mom didn’t get married until she was 30, and she’d only had one boyfriend before that(he died after succumbing to an illness, I could ask her which again, but I can’t remember off the top of my head). Before getting married she studied and worked, in an effort to get out of the poor area she was born into and support herself(both of which she succeeded in doing). Media pressure or not, I think a lot of women are similar: they want to improve themselves to be able to live as individuals and support themselves before settling down. Whether they choose to have sex or not(or if they do, how much they have) is entirely up to them. But I’m going to take a wild guess and assume that a large percentage don’t want to have sex with multiple men that badly(I’m a feminist, I crave independence, and even I don’t like the idea).
So you don’t have many cats then?
The fact that you are pulling yourself out of the gene pool saddens me, but perhaps it’s for the best, a natural adjustment. It s clearly pathological. No organism can survive this pattern of behaviour.
Angry young women and angry Young men are both victims of the culture war of genocidal demoralisation against western people. Please be part of the solution. Unfortunately it is human nature to uncritically accept what we are taught when children and adolescence through something as simple as a fictional novel. Nature assumes that what we are taught by parents, grandparents, villagers of goodwill. Modern mass media has Brocken that altruistic connection.
I do not care if you make your hobby and identity out of helping “Africans” or whatever. What I do get upset by is that such efforts invariably degenerate into attempting to take the resources of your own nation and to give them away rather than use your own. This occurs through forms of moral agression, guilt mongering, fabrication of a narrative, showing of as having superior “compassion”, blaming others (a human with a Y chromosome and Blue eyes usually)
Your country is not yours to give away. It belongs to small children here now.
I do hope you find yourself out of this negativity, I too once was in this situation. Getting angry at each other does no one any good.
Good luck on your journey.
If you look at stats, you’ll see that the more intelligent people are, the fewer children they tend to be so eager to pop out, so along with that, my choice of profession, and my inability to feel fulfilled without evidence of helping people beyond extending my own genetics, I fail to see this “pathology” you speak of. If you’d prefer to praise the high school couples with babies, permanently menial jobs, and no degrees, keeping them because “It’s in God’s will”, then be my guest.
I pity that your mind can only conceive charitable efforts as attempts to drain the nation of its resources. Moreover, when did I claim any and all help I wanted to provide would be directed solely at overseas populations? Cut the shit and pay attention to what I actually say.
“Your country is not yours to give away. It belongs to small children here now.” Where the fuck is this coming from? I dare say I’d rather help humanity via research than being a mom(how scandalous and inhumane) and you think I’m out to destroy the country? Pull your head out of your ass and smell the roses: women don’t need a husband, or even children to lead productive, fulfilling lives. Sorry that’s so difficult for you to accept.
“Getting angry at each other does no one any good.” I never said I hate men as a group, but the mentalities towards women portrayed by the bulk of this site’s authors reveal the scummy side of the male population. I’m angry at misogynists, and sexists(many of whom consume the comment sections here). This helps people in general to show that sensitive, interesting guys(you’d dub them “betas”, I’m sure) are more capable of being supportive husbands/boyfriends, and still be sexy, than the “alpha jerk” mentality brandished here.
Why do you hold such a vitalistic view of nature? Nature is not an omniscient controller. It won’t correct anything. You have a brain. You will think during your lifetime, make some accomplishments, and then you will die. You might have some children. They will not be magically updated from you. Just break down the mechanisms – mating and mutations. And the complexity of it all!
If you want to lay bitch to nature, then you are at fault buddy. You will be the one that is irrelevant. Just curious, do you act on every instinct that comes to you?
We are superior in cognition to animals, yet we restrict ourselves as if we were animals. You think evolution, random mutations and selective mating, is an optimized process? It definetetly doesn’t have to be… and even then… what the hell is being optimized?
We have the ability to think critically. We have synthetic and analytic capabilities, and can communicate. And it’s clear that humanity is running the course of progress. We can’t blindly trust nature – it doesn’t make sense. We have to question it in the way of progress. And we have and we will. Keep up or die out. That’s your real evolution.
Why do you cling to sexual power? Why lay bitch to nature? Fertility this and fertility that…
We are not animals. We posses a superior cognition. Don’t you think we should think for ourselves, and not artificially restrict ourselves. Why do you think we clearly hold and act upon ethics whereas animals don’t? We think. Doesn’t mean we can’t keep our culture. Doesn’t mean pretty girls can’t be considered pretty. And good looking men can’t be considered good looking. Doesn’t mean we can’t fool around. Doesn’t even mean a man + women is the best for a child’s upbringing. I just mean we shouldn’t restrict ourselves by pretending nature is some perfect omniscient controller. We should be open-minded and willing to try new things and make them work if they are promising.
I believe things will change, if we really want them to change. And things are changing. We are progressing.
Adopted or natural born – treat them with love and teach them to think open-mindedly, critically, and to stand up for what they believe. Not to be apathetic.
Or pursue a career with the intent to make a difference! Make a difference in whatever you do! I’ve seen all sorts of great moms and dads bring up rotten children.
Or do both and try to balance it.
The whole thing is a gamble in the end. You want to help society and in that way are willing to be held accountable for your actions like anyone else? What can I or anyone say to that!
Think about what matters in the grand scheme of things for you. We shouldn’t lay bitch to nature, but we are our own people, and we do have our own goals. We have different core values, beliefs and perspectives. What’s fulfilling for one doesn’t have to be for the tother.
Ad hominem.
Yes we are.
Even the fastest and the biggest animals are still animals.
I don’t know any other animals that have developed the A-Bomb yet. We fight, eat other animals, and occasionally kill each other. I’m not sure which ethics you’re preaching about. Man is the most ferocious animal on Earth.
We are the result of millions of years of natural selection. It has honed us into what we are. This is a fact, no matter how embarrassed you might be by it.
We, we, we. How about YOU. Your problem is that you care too much about what I think. Fuck off.
Progressing towards what? Extinction? That I agree with. Those who will inherit the Earth will NOT be the people with the highest moral ideology, but the people who produce the most offspring. Guess who’s gonna lose? YOU.
What’s funny is, in your entire little screed you didn’t actually contradict anything I said, because we both know it’s true. You just tried a lame shaming tactic. Leftists will fail because their ideology puts them at an evolutionary disadvantage. Just look at their birth rate. The future belongs to the Africans and Muslims, who (when they fuck) actually produce offspring.
Fine, that was ad hominem because of the way I worded it, and in the context of your pre-existing arguement. The whole thing was a pot-shot at what you originally wrote – I admit. I was pretty irritated by this article (which is inaccurate and mispresenting), and was wrong to have randomly attacked you. I get your point.
There is a clear line between us and other animals. We may have urges and instincts, but we have a higher-level cognition. We are far more advanced, cognitively, than other animals. My point was that people shouldn’t make restrictions based upon what nature apparently “suggests.” And that point was misdirected/out of place, as well.
You are toxic
And? Women still have limited reproductivity, thus any man who prefers post-menopausal women will face extinction. This is a fact of nature. Evolution does not care about your morals.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’ve said. Like I said, my original attack was a stupid [almost random] potshot.
Between two old mates, it’s possible that reproduction/extinction would be a concern to neither. And where older women are limited by menopause, older men are limited by the integrity of the genetic material they pass down (perhaps…) But like you said, an older woman just isn’t lucrative in terms of reproduction.
All the publications I’ve ever seen that noted that always ended the article by clarifying that proper health can correct this. It’s not the result of age, but of health. Men go through nothing like menopause, which is why women never evolved a strong preference for young men.
An average older man, who already has a family and doesn’t want anymore children, would probably go for an older woman simply because there’s far less competition. However, if he’s highly successful and can use that to attract a young woman he probably would. A woman’s reproductive shelf-life is teens to about 40. After that, the demand and desire for her sharply declines.
This is no more sexist than the fact that most females find tall men attractive. Most men cannot adequately explain why they find young women attractive, nor can most women explain why they prefer taller men, other than the way it makes them “feel,” which is just common parlance for “my instincts told me so.” Both are simply behaving in the way that nature programmed them to.
I have never heard that proper health can correct genetics you pass down – but I will check that out. I once talked to someoneabout telomeres shortening – his point was that the probability of our own genetics and epigenetics being similar to what they were when we were young, decreases – and he speculated on the effect hits would have on our children. this was after I heard about Down’s and Autism in children of older fathers.
“An average older man, who already has a family and doesn’t want anymore children, would probably go for an older woman simply because there’s far less competition. However, if he’s highly successful and can use
that to attract a young woman he probably would. A woman’s reproductiveshelf-life is teens to about 40. After that, the demand and desire for her sharply declines.”
This is clearly what happens in practice. Aside from cases of older men just seeking company (loneliness?), I don’t disagree.
“Men go through nothing like menopause, which is why women never evolved a strong preference for young men.”
I always have trouble with ideas like this. That’s implying a cause-and-effect relationship, really with no proof or hope to find proof. Maybe that’s just how evolutionary psych works… I guess they don’t have much to work with. I really don’t know.
As far as the sexes being different, I couldn’t agree more. Like you said several posts ago, it’s the way things are. The only place I differed was on deviating from what’s natural (clearly a difficult mind-over-matter task) – IFF it’s beneficial. And I’m not making any solid claims here.
Let’s look at the evidence. A survey in Finland confirmed this preference. Christian Rudder, the founder the American OK Cupid dating website, poured through his company’s data and found the same thing. He published his findings as graphs in a book titled Dataclysm. The data is extremely clear and unambiguous in these cases.
There’s clearly something going on here. Do we have absolutely undeniable proof that it’s caused by Evolution? No, but it certainly the best theory at the moment, and makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Men who prefer women at peak fertility would obviously benefit genetically over the course of millions of years. This is obvious. The disagreement is over whether it’s hardwired, which is harder to prove given the state of brain science. We certainly know that some things ARE hardwired in the brain, such as a baby’s instinct to suck on a nipple when it’s hungry. The baby doesn’t need to be taught that. So we’re not dealing with a theory here that is entirely implausible.
My point was that women have different preferences simply because male and female biology is different.
I sometimes wonder if people who criticize these ideas are engaging in pseudoskepticism, in that they hold evolutionary psychology to a higher standard than they do other evolutionary sciences. The reason, I assume, is because they don’t like what EvoPysch has to say.
“No, but it certainly the best theory at the moment, and makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Men who prefer women at peak fertility would obviously benefit genetically over the course of millions of years. This is obvious. The disagreement is over whether it’s hardwired, which is harder to prove given the state of brain science. We certainly know that some things ARE hardwired in the brain, such as a baby’s instinct to suck on a nipple when it’s hungry. The baby doesn’t need to be taught that. So we’re not dealing with a theory here that is entirely implausible.”
That’s an interesting study and explanation. Thank you.
I thought that evolutionary psych receives that treatment because the axioms underlying evolution theory seem to be pretty tricky. As for me, I will visit some of the areas of the field I’m unclear on. Maybe I’m being unfair. I’m open to checking that out.
Perfect example of the narcissism of today’s generation
(I’ll ignore that you claimed your mother was a feminist while being feminine ….feminists don’t allow those gender roles…maybe Mom was just stupid)
So you are going to help the world huh? Pray tell, with what? are you going to teach them to not help themselves, like you plan on doing, but to help others instead?
Well, I wonder what kind of society is going to run well with everyone working on other’s self interests and not their own.
Or are you going to tell them to not have so many damn kids? This would be you not actually helping them but telllng them to be for your interests .
Study hard, the world awakes all your “help”.
*awaits
Being feminine=/=being a slave to gender roles. I can wear a corset and still not want a relationship, kids, domestic life, etc. A guy can lift weights, read business magazines and still love theater.
I want to either be a researcher or go into medicine~ Much more helpful, in my opinion, to do something that interests me and I’m better equipped for than half-assing parenthood by rushing into it, and just adding more mouthes for the world to feed. You can adopt practically whenever, so I could have a stable career built up.
”Being feminine=/=being a slave to gender roles. I can wear a
corset and still not want a relationship, kids, domestic life, etc. A
guy can lift weights, read business magazines and still love theater.”
The exact feminist thing to say. Gender roles do however operate from certain 1st principles and arose out of genetic potential. And those 1st principles don’t change hence gender roles don’t change.
You are not feminine if you don’t operate from certain 1st principles that result in particular gender roles.
Traditions in general come from this
http://www.moreright.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/the-past.png
Femininity and masculinity is the fulfillment of potential available special to each sex.
No one is saying that femininity and masculinity associated with your natural sex isn’t biologically optimal. What I’m saying is that you can have some of these “ideal” qualities for reproduction, and simultaneously deviate in other areas. Hence you can have biologically optimal traits in some regards while differing in others, including psychological ones. Ex. a woman can have a beautiful hourglass figure(signal towards high fertility) but hold a much stronger drive for a career than having children. Or a guy can be really muscular, tall and healthy(evolutionary signals for a good provider) but want to be a stay at home dad, or be gay.
@Lilac Haze
This is the result of some things going wrong sometimes due to the chaos of reality.
But those things are self-correcting.
“This is the result of some things going wrong sometimes due to the chaos of reality.”
Show me hard, undeniable proof. At this point I could just as easily say it’s an evolutionary mechanism of population control(consider the myriad of people surfacing who claim to have little to no sex drive/sexual attraction to others).
”Show me hard, undeniable proof. At this point I could just as
easily say it’s an evolutionary mechanism of population
control(consider the myriad of people surfacing who claim to have little
to no sex drive/sexual attraction to others).Let’s assume you
prove yourself correct(I’d be amazed if you could truly prove that
assertion, but let’s entertain the idea): why should reproduction be the
end-goal of your utopian vision of a rigid gender dynamic between the
sexes? Why not focus on quality of life rather than the quantity of
children you spread genes to?”
It follows doesn’t it. That creatures that don’t replace themselves are defective. And perhaps I could say this is an evolutionary mechanism of population control. It makes logical sense.
Or this is like mouse utopia. Where the population crashes and never recovers.
No such thing as utopia but those gender roles and better than the alternatives in terms of long-term ramifications. Likewise my personal beliefs factor into this as well.
”Then this “gender war” could be at least partly over. If
women(like many men, how shocking) want to party through their 20s and
live up their younger years, then settle down with what you’d call a
“beta provider”, let them. They might wind up divorcing, feeling
unsatisfied, etc. or be happy, but ultimately, it’s THEIR choice. Why
sit here complaining about someone who’s going to live the way they want
whether you like it or not? Let them have it their way, and you have
yours(rather than fuel the writers to waste another article about the
“degradation” of women, who are all written off as either crazed 24/7
partiers and meth heads, or near-virginal, submissive housewives).”
Then women should stop lying about their sexual past and let the man choose what they may. Likewise what they do is bad for civilization as a whole and to put this message out there is to convince the men and women who will listen.
We will state what we want and let the chips fall as they may.
Reveling in doomsday advice isn’t helping anything except to drive a further wedge between men and women.
“It follows doesn’t it. That creatures that don’t replace themselves are defective. ”
If we were all ignorant cavemen, then yes, it would make sense. But you’ll notice that the more intelligent/well off a couple is, the fewer children they tend to have, even if they’re perfectly fertile. Why would evolution want idiocy to outlive intelligence?
”Reveling in doomsday advice isn’t helping anything except to drive a further wedge between men and women.”
If it is true. Then might as well. Being willfully blind to the flaws of the opposite sex as well as their potential evil is not going to help anyone.
We hold men accountable but not women. Therefore its time to hold both accountable and tame them both. Perhaps our doomsday advice is an over compensation against what we are told by mainstream culture.
”If we were all ignorant cavemen, then yes, it would make sense. But
you’ll notice that the more intelligent/well off a couple is, the fewer
children they tend to have, even if they’re perfectly fertile. Why
would evolution want idiocy to outlive intelligence?”
Our artificial abundance is what leads to that situation where idiocy outlives intelligence. Seems to work along r-selection currently. A more competitive environment will suffice to select for quality rather than quantity.
However we are experiencing demographic decline(in the west at least). Frightfully reminds me of the Mouse Utopia Experiment by Calhoun.
“Buddhism was supposed to promote tolerance and pacifism, but what it
ended up doing when it became the dominant religion was instead creating
intolerance and hatred.”
Pol Pot was a buddhist monk.
Robert Ingersol pointed out that every religion, every sect, preaches tolerance and peace when it is in the minority, and begins persecuting other religions the second that it has the power to do so. That’s because every religion is made up of people, and this is simply what people are like.
Thank you, great article.
I would normally hit back when someone speaks ill of the west and her people but your spot on. Greed, selfishness, feminization and a poisonous culture, not to mention dysgenic fertility rates will be our downfall. Our leaders simply couldn’t care. They are more concerned with their own wealth and security in this life rather that halting the decline and building for the future.
And as I mentioned in a previous comment:
“The third World immigrants have had a net negative effect on per capita GDP, since they on average contribute less then they take out of the economy. This is due to lower workforce participation, lower productivity and a larger share of dependents.
The hordes of muslims and africans which have been allowed to settle in europe, have in addition caused many other problems related to culture.
These populations are increasingly putting a strain on western societies, and the multicultural bubble will therefore burst in the coming years.”
The multicultural mess in the West needs a special mention. This is driving down society as much as feminism and socialism. The immigration boom is in itself causing dysgenic fertility.
Why does the author not mention this factor at all?
Any article on India is incomplete without mentioning the HBD perspective.
India, famously controlled male polyamory and female promiscuity by inventing arranged mairrage.
Imagine a JR High dance with all the boys on one side and all the girls on another, too scared to talk to each other. The one boy who walks across the hall to ask the girl for a dance is going to look like a confident badass, and he is still going to “feel” like a badass to the girl if it was all a setup, an agreement beforehand with the other boys. Arranged Mariage worked this way, worked well for thousands of years.
But the alpha male gets the female mechanisms of evolution cannot be denied. By trying to surpass this, India produced a lot of mediocrities: not athletically gifted (look at India in the Olympics), not beautiful, nor especially smart except for the professional & merchant castes.
Cont’d
Today, India is infected with Western liberalism as much as anybody else, but is particularly unsuited to this new order.
The introduction of Courtly love destroys arraigned mairrage and leaves Indian men & women near the SMP bottom.
Anti-Racism destroyed the caste system, resulting in a situation where 95% of the country is on affirmative action.
Globalism & the jobs/affirmative action situation results in a gigantic “brain drain” where India’s best exit the country which gets stupider.
The main reaction to western liberalism, Islam, has a violent form and threatens the relative peace.
And one might also add bad health and diet.
The majority of Indians have lived on a subsistence diet of lentil Soup and rice for hundreds of years. Lack lactose tolerance and therefore have not been able to comnsume dairy in adulthood.
Which is probably also one of the reasons for indians being unmuscular, skinny and short
This is in addition to low social and sexual evolutionary pressure.
India badly needs eugenic socialpolicy.
Not all Indians are brawny, okay? Lentils are full of protein. Indians drink lots of milk – are you claiming the contrary? Actually, India was doing pretty well till the late 1980’s, when suddenly different values started to fluorish. Some areas of India are full of tall, strong demographics. Maybe you have a limited view? Even then, a diet of lentils, moderate carbs, combined with excersize is more than enough for a good physique. A lot of protein that you intake is excreted. Moderation is what is important. With the rise in snacks and inactivity, it’s even harder to maintain health. There was a time when people prioritized health. Don’t worry though – we need cooperation more than eugenics in India. It takes very little for progress if everyone is open minded. Hopefully the country is on a temporary down. We’ve done some magnificent things, and we’re coming back. Not as a superpower though. It all starts at home – and don’t worry, it will.
Please know that evolution does not exert pressure. Evolution is not some optimized omniscient controller. It is the result of selective mating and random mutation. Evolutionary biology puts too much stock in a vitalistic view of evolution – as if we are nature’s blind bitch. Tell me, what *is* being optimized in selective mating and random mutations? What does it mean in the way of progress? Very little. Break down the mechanisms. Break the vitalistic view you hold of nature and of evolution We’re not animals. We are superior to animals. We can think. We have ethics and can act accordingly.
I must have missed those tall brawny indians during my stay in India. The very large majority looked thin, short and unmuscular, while the more well off looked more flabby and unathletic. Up to 70% of indians suffer from lactose intolerance, thats quite a majorty. And no lentil Soup is not adequate for Building serious muscle. Stop deluding yourself.
India needs serious population policies, not “open mindedness”. This will get you no where. India is in huge trouble on many levels.
Evolution does exert pressure. Sexual selection is also an evolutionary pressure moderated through culture.
“Evolution is not some optimized omniscient controller.” I never claimed it was. Quite on the contrary. Thats why eugenics is needed.
It is possible for the prevailing culture to sexually select thorugh differential fertility rates.
The ones who breed are the ones who shall inherit the earth. You can as a nation try to influence this Development, or remain passive.
Doing nothing is however also a choice.
Okay. I didn’t realize that lactose intolerance was that prevalent. Honestly, in all of my visits I never noticed that people were lactose intolerant. I don’t live in India, but I am ethnically Indian and it is my home in many ways.
Milk based foods and drinks are very popular – so I was a little surprised by your statistic regarding the prevalence of lactose intolerance. Chai, buttermilk, yogurt, and many deserts contain milk. Some people even eat milk with rotis. Though I do believe it’s easier to digest cooked milk with the disorder. In my visits, throughout one day, I would drink multiple cups of chai visiting family and freinds, and sometimes cold coffee (instant coffee prepared in milk) and lassi (yougurt-based drink). Chai is offered everywhere – I’ve noticed people drinking it all day. Not sure whether cooked milk is not good for protein, due to denaturing, but anyway, I see your point.
I’m not going to try and convince you that the majority of India boasts a tall and strong physique. Such ethnicities do exist (Punjabis, Patans, etc.). No they are not mega-burly men, naturally. But Punjabis, for example, definetly tend to have good genes in that regard – which is why they comprise a big portion of the Indian army and are/were common in the rougher athletics (think Dara Singh). Obviously, the poor have grown rapidly in numbers, and a lot of intermixing takes place. Most muscular indians are lean – not burly. Sure, with poverty so prevalent, most are thin and malnourished. But there is potential.
I’m not sure about the lentil+beans+(+dairy) diet not being enough for developing good lean musle mass. ‘m not going to argue here, but I would look more into this. Excess protein tends to be excreted – and you have to work to make muscle mass. How many people actually want to “bulk serious muscle,” let alone become lean?
Anyway, I see what you’re saying. In the past, population control caused more trouble than benefit. I’m against hardcore eugenics, but population control starting by family planning is very sensible. Thanks. Damn, I have to work on being more terse.
Interesting I see no mention of the British Empire period of India’s history. Granted, British rule wasn’t perfect and made many mistakes, but real reforms were made – extirpation of Thugee, curbing the barbaric practice of suttee and introducing a railway system in use to this day being examples…
British rule was a travesty. Through deliberate economic policy imposed by the colonial overlord, India was forced to become the raw material supplier and the captive market of British manufacturers. Colonial India was de-industrialized as its artisan industries couldn’t compete with the steam-powered industries of Britain, while it was prevented from developing steam-powered industries of its own. The railway system you mention was deliberately designed to get raw materials from the interior to the coastal ports, not intra-Indian economic integration.
I already admitted the Raj wasn’t perfect, and whilst the railway system may originally have been designed to serve an extractive economy, (and industrialization caused artisan job losses in Britain too,) I notice that hundreds of millions of Indians still make use of it daily. I also notice you seem unwilling to comment on the suppression of Thuggee and suttee. The former came about because the British thought ‘out of the box’ by Indian standards of the time – Indian opinion was that the rulers were getting a cut from the Deceivers, so nobody bothered to report the matter. Then the British found out about it…or are you one of the deniers who want to denounce Thuggee as a racist lie ?….
Ah, the usual truism “I agree X wasn’t perfect” as an attempt to appear balanced. And, at that, to characterize the bad things as “mistakes”, implying that they were well-meaning, denying any moral liability for misrule.
The English artisan economy was replaced by a better mode of production, the Indian artisan economy was replaced with nothing, as a matter of deliberate policy. Economically speaking, it’s pants on head retarded to grow cotton in India, ship it to Britain for manufacture into textiles and ship them back to India for sale, when the factory could have been in India to begin with. But, as Adam Smith recognized, “national interest” is the self-interest of the best politically connected merchants and manufacturers.
The Mughals might have brought along a decadent, exploitative upper class, but at least they kept the sources of Indian prosperity intact. During their rule, Indian per capita income was still on about the same level as in Europe.
That Britain put an end to thuggee and suttee is about as relevant as Hitler building the autobahn and Mussolini getting the trains to run on time.
“already admitted the Raj wasn’t perfec”
Understatement of the day.
“) I notice that hundreds of millions of Indians still make use of it daily.”
That would be somewhat like saying that you took a sickle to carve someone’s face up and just because they managed to wrest it from you and use it to thresh crops now, credit dhould be given to u.
Talking of sati, there are plenty of “traditions” in Britain’s checkered past which I could raise but point is, Britain overcame these on its own. What proof do you have that India couldn’t have overcome these ills sans british intervention.?
Well you’re highlighting the worst of the predecessors and the best of the successors. Also, it always seems as if people like you are elevating credit to the British as a blessing to lower people. But you are right. But there was great prosperity in India beforehand.
I don’t know how common Sathi was prior to the British raj. I am very curious now, about its prevalence during Mughal rule, or even the Maurya empire, etc. I think that’s important to consider.
“Mistakes” that killed millions of my people under the iron hand of white supremacy. Indeed. The entire railway system was the benefit the white man in Britain, not us. Now we’re using your technology to enrich ourselves. We don’t owe you anything. White pigs.
Thank you for the article or opinion piece., however I must point out that I’m more than a little disturbed at what appears to be your Glee in seeing “The West” destroy itself from within. My dear sir where exactly do you think India and China are headed? There isn’t some counter eastern culture that is poised to replace the west, rather it appears to me that the whole world with the exception of the most primitive of societies is following the western model. If so, than were all doomed.
I’ve always liked Indians. What with the teepees and war bonnets etc.
White people (well white males really) stole the Indians land and gave them diseased blankets in trade. So I’m glad to see the Indians finally getting some good press.
Cheers.
Haha facetious asshole.
Retard, wrong Indians.
As a White male I certainly notice that other cultures and races can despise us despite our affable indifference. India and the non Muslim parts of a East Asia are the ones I feel most comfortable with and who are most likely to have goodwill towards me.. Indians with their long history of societal and civilisational cyclic decay have a great deal of insights to offer us. There are people of goodwill everywhere. There are also those of ill will, don’t forget about those either. Demographics is destiny.
Hey. You seem pretty open minded. This article contains inaccuracies and misrepresentations. I invite you to see why I say so, and why I am so angered by it. Sort these comments for the newest, and look for the long posts by the user notaun (me), if you are interested. If, you are interested.
I married an Indian woman, who has made me very happy, and I’m currently visiting Bengalore. For my money, this is one of the top cities in the world for beautiful women. The average waste to hip ratio is amazing, and many of the women have strikingly exotic faces. (Not all, of course.) Compared to the US where the average woman today has a waist size that is bigger than Marilyn Monroe’s breast size, the difference is truly striking.
Moreover, for all its supposed backwardness, the lifespans from previous generations are striking. My wife (who was the third child in her family) has fond memories of 5 of her great grand parents. Practically every household I’ve visited (all upper middle class by Indian standards) has grandparents or great grandparents living in their late 80’s and up. They at least used to do something right.
If many generations are simultaneously alive, that could just as well have to do with average generation time being short, due to marrying young and starting to breed right away.
It doesn’t though. My wife is 3rd of 2nd of 2nd, (going maternal line) not first child. Her granny came over, she was 93, her parents died at 91 and 94. Her dead older sibling died 20 years ago– riding a motorcycle, if you can believe that. Her Dad’s teacher came over, he was 91, his brothers 89 and 85 still doing well, and he left to go on a 23 km walk.
The older generation lasted a long time. I much doubt the next generations will be as long lived though, they are being corrupted by western vices and advice.
Since you seem open minded (sexually and aesthetically concerned too, like the masses of ROK – but I digress) you might want to read my recent post: sort by new and look for posts by notaun. Only if you are interested in my view of this article. It contains wrong information and many mispresentations and distortions.
You messed up buddy. Take it from an Indian man. Indian women worship white c*ck until they get married to one. Get ready for her to make your life into absolute hell. 🙂 You deserve it for marrying into our blood.
My Dear Fellow ROK,
Red vs Blue! Here we go….
Lead -Red! Follow : Blue.
Fight/Argue: R/B.
Doers / Thinkers – R/B.
Last benchers/ Teachers pet,
YOU Vs Patriotism, Religion, Race, Creed, Color, History, Credibility, Respect, Love, Marriage, Family, Govt., Corporate, Fuckin Job, Responsibility, law, System, Media, Politics, Computers, Beta, White knight, Mangina Feminist, Cockblockers, her pussy.
U are bloody Red against whole lotta DEEP Fuckin Blue!!!
Every moment a sucker is born, Case Rested.
Go out n score some chicks or end up shagging repeatedly on this thread.
Cheers!
More of the fuzzy dichotomy you people mindlessly stick to. Critical thinking is important. Stay open minded. Stand up for what you believe in. ROK’s framework is irritatingly superfluous, and baseless. No one has to listen to you, you little fuck. If you want to score chicks, go out and do that. Some people recognize that there is more out there that needs to get done. And one thing I am interested in is shutting down people who use Indian history to make ridiculous claims.
Stay open minded and u immediately just say you people. You think I’m not an Indian? Lol.
Btw ur that IT nerd nice guy working a good 14+ hours to get your piddly wages so that u cud swagger on ur Indian history and become wise and at some point remotely aim for a LTR being a nice guy with a cute loyal Indian pussy yeah? Who will fuck that Alpha cock in her ladies night out while u have a boys night out with ur gay childhood frnds and discuss history.
Good for u bud!
Jus one question can I have ur chick’s FB/ number, while u can shut down anything u want in here! 🙂
Good day!
Welp, the Indian society right now is totally blue pill.
Although I am mainly speaking for the middle/upper middle/rich class as these are the ones I know and interact with on a daily basis.
Speaking about Red Pill ideology, I don’t think it’s worth forcing here as it won’t work. All the blue pill betas I know, realize deep down that feminism is wrong but still stay beta (for the pussy) or they turn into bitter vocal anti feminist (for the pussy)
Me and my other red pill friends keep our knowledge and opinion to ourselves (usually) and do pretty good with the girls. Although Indian girls are highly entitled and hypocritical in nature, the are surprisingly very very easy to game. However they’re shit relationship material cause they take manipulation/deceit to a new level. Who wants relationship anyways these days?
One thing I have noticed that most people my age (21) are pretty blue pill here. Even some of my French friends (college) who did well (cause white powah) were sucked up into bitter relationship where they were toyed by and out played by the Indian girls. After sharing the red pill knowledge and introducing ROK, Heartsie and Rational Male, it converted them significantly. Like my close friend is now one the best player I know and has gone from 1 relationship (5) in 2 years to 3 in five months(6,8,7). Their bullshit doesn’t work anymore.
The main reason behind the bull pill ideology has to be the feminized media, our controlling freaked parents and our double standard based hypocrite society.
Indians are pretty hypocrite in nature. It’s very hard to wash away your conditioning of so many years. I was always open to change so it was easy for me but It’s pretty hard for others. I was fat, beta but still a natural leader in my early years. After taking a hold in my life and throwing away the brain washing the society did on me I am now living probably the best days of life. Hopefully it continues.
So yeah that’s that. In the recent years I have changed my plans to go to USA after seeing it’s decline. My siblings were born there and I have seen how they have changed for the worse(only one is decent). Been looking forward to traveling to Europe and other SEA countries. A huge thanks to the manosphere for that.
You are a little sap, Rom. You do not speak for the rest of Indians. What has happened to this country?
sap? now that’s creative man.
I live here so I get to say what I observe, if you don’t like it, then ignore 🙂
Also stop with this bs regrading mindless sex. Just because I don’t aim for relationship doesn’t mean that the time I spent with women is mindless or wthout charm. Infact it’s even more fun and I always give them the option leave whenever they want.
I was sneaky fat beta before and after I step up and changed my life I could see the difference. I am doing good in all aspects of my life and the change is real. I even help people around me to change and self improve however usually it’s futile.
So go cry some more. I paint the picture as it is. I love India, it had the honor for me to be born there ( 😀 ) but that doesn’t make it any less shit than it is.
For me alpha is being the best I can be. I’ll damn well keep working on myself. The sooner people stop denying the better is.
You either lead, either you follow, or you call people sap.
India is one of the worst places to meet a woman. Better read this
https://biggerbaddergentleman.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/stable-sleep-will-give-you-more-power/
Fantastic article, thank you very much, Mr. Hanno.
At the end, though, I would focus the lion’s share of blame on the globality of American warmongering undertaken on behalf of corporations as opposed to welfare, which is a civilized service at its core.
Great read. And thank you for not hesitating to use the word “Aryan” in its true sense. It’s so funny how people think the word never even existed pre-1933. Sigh, worthless American education system…
Curious that you didn’t mention The British Raj and how it has impacted Indians still living even today. Thoughts?
I’m not a history buff, but this article is contains several factual errors. This article is BS and is why certain Indians are angered and very critical of non-Indian historians on the subject (eg. starting with Max Mueller). Please refer to the section “Dangers of the Theory,” at this http://veda.wikidot.com/aryan-invasion-theory if you are unfamiliar with this sentiment .
First, India’s name does NOT COME FROM the ARABIC FOR HIND. It comes for the SANSKRIT term SINDHU, for the name of a river. This term SINDH DID NOT orriginate from the semetic Arabic language. Just in case you are curious (and obviously), Sanskrit is NOT a semetic langue NOR did it borrow from Arabic. Later on, Arabic was incorporated to off-shoots of Sanskrit (Persian too, of course, which IS related to Sanskrit). This, Mr. Hanno, is a major display of your ignorance, and is an insult to Indian society. You are misrepresenting our culture and our history.
Regarding displacement of Dravidians and “other indigenous people”: The Aryan Invasion Theory has been academically rejected, and this rejection is important to consider. Take a look at the myth section at http://veda.wikidot.com/aryan-invasion-theory (broken down as four myths). There simply is not enough evidence to say a primitive civilazation was displaced, even in waves, when not enough was known. Max Mueller’s observations and subsequent historians SPECULATIONS have snowballed into this view of the displacement of primitive society by a more advanced society, which led to the Vedic culture. It is damn near baseless! The Aryan Invasian Theory aside, invasions themself are BARELY supported by basic DNA Haplogroup analysis. There needs to be more than just correlation.
I think you paint an unnecesarrily negative view of the Mughals. Sure, they indulged. But they did contribute to culture. Some of them were harsh ([email protected] who imposed a polytax on non-Muslims, some were were noble, intellectual, and progressive). I don’t think your summary of the Mughals is balanced – it, in my opinion, would give the wrong idea to someone not learned in this history.
Mr. Hanno, you don’t give the full story of the Maurya empire either. The Maurya empire was one of India’s more powerful empires. It spanned Central/North India to Afghanistan, and was very powerful. The leaders were feroucious but noble UNTIL Asoka WHO LATER EMBRACED BUDDHISM. There was much more to the Mughal empire before Asoka (Seleucus actually gave his daughter to Chandragupt Maurya, Asoka’s GRANDFATHER).
There’s a lot more to be said about this article Mr. Hanno. It is an insult to Indian history and culture. I am willing to discuss any of this (and a LOT more). All of my life I have seen people ranging from friends to WHITE NATIONALISTS fuel their arguements with these theories. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH.
Some references:
1) Sanskrit origins of the term India/Sindh/Sindhu
Sindhu, The Indus River – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sindhu
From the Sanskrit Noun Sindhu – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%81#Sanskrit
Likely from the Sanskrit verb – Sedahith (also on the link for the noun Sindhu)
2) http://veda.wikidot.com/aryan-invasion-theory
If you are truly interested, you should read the whole thing. For those stuck in the past, the Aryan Invasion Theory is rejected by academia. This is interesting too, http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm. Another summary here: http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf .
–I will ask Mr. Hanno to provide the sources from which he writes about the Maurya empire, and specifically where they mention shoving Buddhism down people’s throats. This is a big deal, because Buddhism is usually seen as something that calmed the aggresive and more Barbaric side of the empire.–
3) A lot of Mughals emperors were tolerant and well meaning over the people they ruled. Akhbar the Great is such an example – a great Mughal ruler. He was learned, an intellectual, very tolerant, and yet had tight control over his empire. He even banned killing cows. Some emperors were a lot worse toward Hindus. Sure, your case could be made against Shah-Jahan in his later days, but then again, contributions to culture were and are very important.
Another misconception is that India is the result of constant takeover of some inferior indigenous people, and this view is held for various points in the timeline of India’s history. It’s just not that simple.
I also ask, Mr. Hanno, that you provide sources which explain how people participated in “maintaining popular superstitions and savage customs” during the Mughal empire. Can you please provide some sources and some explanation? I am interested in evaluating this claim.
India has had a very rich and powerful history predating china but it has forgotten its own accomplishments.
–First signs of Asian empires are in india; harappa and mohenjo-daro
–First Major asian empire: Mauryan empire of India (also the largest of its day)
–Modern marital arts shows roots to these Major martial arts: shastarvidiya, āyudha-vidyā, dhanurveda, Gatka, Kalaripayat, Mardani khel, Silambam, Sqay, Thang-Ta
— Birth place of 4 religions: Sikhs, Hindu, Jainism, and Buddhist,
–First major influence on Asia: Math, Science, military, and social construct. (Buddhisms, finance and economic standards, astronomy, medicine, yoga, military assembly, weapons, etc)
-Only empires to beat Islamic empires: Maratha beat the mughal …Sikhs empire/confederacy (1717-1849) slaughtered the Durrani (iran-Afghanistan)
Yes, but you know what? I’ve realized that it is an utter waste of time to point these things out to people. And people on ROK probably couldn’t give less of a sh1t. India needs to resume building on her history, which it abondoned some 20 years ago in favor of the vulgar modern culture.
I have spent a lot of time promoting the points that you mention, and arguing with those points, both in person and online. But people will continue to accentuate the negative, and they will continue to distort the truth to futher their agenda. This Indian author does the same thing.
I can’t believe no-one pointed out the incorrect etymology of India (it is from Sanskrit, not Arabic), or the gross mispresentation (an un-even representation to be exact) of India’s past civilizations. You’re right though – when Indians are not proud of their accomplishments, how can one expect them to be well known and understood. This is important because, among other reasons, it is often used against us.
India’s problems could be solved with one simple solution. I think a lot of their issues stem from families being dependent on sons in order to sustain themselves. If men moved in with their wives rather than their wives with them, it would no longer be a problem. Even if a man never married, he would just continue to live with his mother and contribute to the family. This was how the Spartans lived and how the Minangkabau in Indonesia do today. Men visited their wives at night and returned home in the morning. The Minangkabau (who are devout Muslim, btw) are virtually the most prosperous ethnicity in South East Asia and those in positions of power are disproportionately Minangkabau. Men are pressured to leave and explore the world and make a name for himself. There is no poverty and children are always insured to be cared for. If something happened to the mother, aunts would take care of them since they are already raising them with their own children. The Mosuo in China live in a similar system and are very peaceful and egalitarian. So are the Ashanti of West Africa.
I have a theory India used to be this way at one point which is why there’s still the tradition that dowry goes to the woman rather than the man the way it is in most other countries. The caste system is probably a vestige of this as well since people lived in clans. Some clans prospered better than others. This was likely the way it was for most of humanity up until rampant war disrupted it after the Agricultural Revolution starting in the the Cradle of Civilization in the Middle East. Men, women and children were slaughtered and virgins were taken as part of the spoils of war. Subsequent daughters of these women were sold for dowries. This cycle continued until all women were ones kidnapped during war or bought with a dowry. It’s all over the Old Testament of the bible. As nations were conquered, patriarchy was imposed on them. Missionaries forced natives to adopt this way of living as Christianity was spread. Little by little, over the next ten thousand years, this was the dominant way to live with the exception of a few societies here and there.
cliches glore some red pill movement ha
Damn! This article is full of bullshit. The writer is beta as fuck. I’m Indian too and unfortunately a lot of Indians are as pathetic and submissive as he is.
Get your facts straight. The Vedic culture spreaded from present day Afghanistan to Sri Lanka. Kabul (capital of Afghanistan) was founded by Hindu Kings. The great city wall of Kabul was built to protect the city from Arab raids who wanted to spread Islam. Even ancient Persian culture was based on Vedic principles, but they got conquered by the Arabs and subjected to Islam. Just look it up. The Persians followed Zoroastrianism, which is based on the same Vedic principles as Hinduism.
The Vedic culture is NATIVE to the Indian subcontinent. All the places and rivers named in the ancient texts are found on the Indian subcontinent and NOT in Europe or Central Asia. The Aryan Invasion Theory was made up by the British to claim that the Vedic culture was invented by white people and not colored people. They wanted to conquer the proud Indians, but therefore you need to make them weak. So they made them feel inferior and ashamed of their own culture.
I really can’t believe Indians are so pathetic as you. “We” were the wealthiest and most knowledgeable people in this goddamn world. Then the Muslims fucked it all up and eventually the British made the deathblow and destroyed the wealth AND morale of the Indians. Wealth is easy to recover, but the inferiority complex is still present among Indians. And YOU are a perfect example of this.