Discussion Racist Swedish government trying to stop men from marrying Thai women (Feminism's use of demographics to cuck nations)
Good. If a white man marries a thai foid he should be forced to move to thailand where his son won't suffer
D
This thread wasn't even about Curries kek. Some people are so stupid.
Y
The whole argument started when I said
Truest of the true kikecels
Bro you aren't even white.
In response to Copexodius Maximus saying
Swedish men taking muh women..........after we moved to Sweden.
It seriously makes no sense to make comments like that when you aren't even white. It's the stuff alt-right race copers obssess over. muh sweden.
What is your beef with me? No I'm not white.
Y
tbh jbw maxxing failed mayos or cucked swedish foid scums fuck both these fucks
Y
Yeah because "clown" is usually meant as an insult these days. If it wasn't I don't know in what other context to take being referred to as a clown and it's a bit weird ngl
D
Hatred, Insecurity, Jealousy, Pride and Stupidity.The whole argument started when I said
Truest of the true kikecels
Bro you aren't even white.
In response to Copexodius Maximus saying
It seriously makes no sense to make comments like that when you aren't even white. It's the stuff alt-right race copers obssess over. muh sweden.
What is your beef with me? No I'm not white.
These WN fags would rather save a drowing White Chad over a truecel ethnic.
"Great White Hope baby"
"White Pride baby"
It is closeted cuckoldry.
Y
I mean on social media and online generally, referring to someone as "clown" or "you clowns" is meant as a derisive insult so it made no sense.Being a clown isn't a bad thing wtf
I said it as a punctuation just like saying bro or dude.
c'mon it's 2020 #ClownLivesMatter
But I understand if to you it's just another way of saying bro or dude but it isn't that common of a meaning or connotation ngl
This guy is supposedly Jewish and in the past sympathized a lot with ethnic males but is all of a sudden making threads in which he calls ethnics subhuman, ethnic countries shitholes and gushes about how Britain created the modern world and attributes anger at past atrocities by the British to "jealousy".Hatred, Insecurity, Jealousy, Pride and Stupidity.
These WN fags would rather save a drowing White Chad over a truecel ethnic.
"Great White Hope baby"
"White Pride baby"
It is closeted cuckoldry.
How is it any different than redditors saying that incels are just jealous of normies because they aren't normies and ignoring how incels hate normies because normies have treated incels badly?
It makes no sense whatsoever. It's not even that consistent with their previous posts.
Last edited:
Yes, the difference is that is a failure of the economic system and not built into the model. Caste system is definitely not overblown, it was underblown. If you read some of the Indian scriptures, like the Law of Manu, you will see that it commands low caste individuals to have molten lead poured down their throat for uttering vedic chants.
And varna literally means color, and looking at the genetics of the people that make of the different castes, it's quite obvious what they meant. The populations that existed in India before were darker skinned while the Central asian invaders were lighter skinned. There's even more evidence in the Vedas themselves of gods like Indra specifically saying he despises the Dasa people because their skin is the color of mud or dirt.
Jewelry isn't art, it looks the same everywhere. It's just shit that is expensive and that's why India wants it now. If the Muslims conquered Britain and wanted to take the stuff and display it in their own countries, then that's just how it goes. And it's not just my logic, this is curry religion logic, look up the arthshastra.
Of course they're spreading bullshit, curries are some of the biggest copers on the planet, even beating us kikes. Kikes cope so badly about thinking that all the times we got genocided was because it was punishment from god for not following the commandments as a nation, but in reality God wants kikes to suffer. But despite this, I have to give to curries for copemogging us to oblivion.
India was ruled by the British, they owned India and inherited all the wealth of the people they defeated. Getting mad at them for bringing the wealth to their own countries is a bit silly, because it's their wealth now. They can do whatever they want with it. Curry leaders don't own that anymore, they lost it to warfare. The tax shit and other stuff the British did I can understand, because it essentially means that the British weren't being good to their own subjects and taxing them way more for no value for them in return. But taking jewelry is not something I'm going to take seriously.
Nothing wrong with race mixing. Don't see a problem with it. I don't know how that's cucking for whites.Hatred, Insecurity, Jealousy, Pride and Stupidity.
These WN fags would rather save a drowing White Chad over a truecel ethnic.
"Great White Hope baby"
"White Pride baby"
It is closeted cuckoldry.
You can't put me in a box, that's the problem. Some of the shit is stuff you will agree with, and other shit you won't agree with. That's just how it goes.
I will never praise almost any country, I am pretty anti-government (for obvious reasons).
Last edited:
Are you reading some sort of a liberal rag, cos there is an abundance of self hating indians in the west who keep on peddling these narratives and nobody follows laws of manu, people even don't know who is manu, not even my very devout grandparents know anything about manu or any of his works let alone reading it and following it. And Arthashastra by Chanakya doesn't tell anything about caste, it's a economic and political work similar to those of Machiavelli, and Arthashastra is not a religious book
Last edited:
Y
As others on this forum have already said in every culture brightness and whiteness was associated with riches, wealth and fortune while dark colored skin was associated with manual labor, disease and backwardness. That isn't just particular to Indians but most Asian and European cultures.
And the caste system is more dependent on what social position you were born in not what you looked like
How is caste discrimination different from racism?
www.runnymedetrust.org
Bullshit that jewelry isn't art. Not every specific mineral composition can be considered jewelry. If everything is jewelry than nothing is. If jewelry wasn't art it wouldn't be used for ornamental or aesthetic purposes and be such a lucrative possession.
Not it isn't and I won't accept your justification of the British looting from India. You can spin it however you want. The British stole riches from India and Indians deserve it back and I and others will continue to point it out.
No that's not the problem. The problem is you are justifying the British looting from India and subjugating ethnic countries as "it's just nature bro". Yeah well so is inceldom. And on top of that you are lecturing people not to get mad and that ethnics that do are just "jealous" of Anglos as if that's the sole reason ethnics are mad at Anglos.
It's no different than women saying to incels that they're just jealous they don't live on easy mode while neglecting that incels were treated terribly by women and that's more of the reason why incels hate women.
Last edited:
My first reaction is "Who the fuck are white Swedish women dating/fucking?"
Cause if this is getting the point where the government is getting involved and preventing Asian women from entering the country -- then there is a massive imbalance somewhere.
And my only conclusion is that white Swedish women are all just forming harems around the Chad's. There's just no other explanation. White women are all going polygamist for Chad. And all non-Chad males really have no other option but to date outside their race.
Cause if this is getting the point where the government is getting involved and preventing Asian women from entering the country -- then there is a massive imbalance somewhere.
And my only conclusion is that white Swedish women are all just forming harems around the Chad's. There's just no other explanation. White women are all going polygamist for Chad. And all non-Chad males really have no other option but to date outside their race.
That is true in agricultrual societies, however the Vedic people started as nomadic pastoralist communities, not agricultural.
Also you can't deny the genetic evidence, higher caste people have higher amount of Aryan ancestry.
Indra despised the Dasa people because of their color being like dirt, who were people the Aryans fight in the Rig Veda.
Your interpretation would make no sense with these things in mind.
The varna system was based on the birth of someone in a lineage, and that specific lineage specialized in certain kinds of work.
The Aryans gave themselves all the high positions in societies, and the other people the lower classes.
I know, the diamond is technically cut. But there's nothing special about how it is cut that makes it so valuable, it's just worth however much it weighs and it's purity.
It's used as a status symbol to show off you having something that is really expensive, which is due to it's rarity.
What part won't you accept? You didn't even address any of those points I made.
Exactly, they only want Chad for marriage, but will keep a Chaddam on the side.
Y
Where is race even mentioned in Manu's law:
The idea that white Argyans subjugated darker Dravidians is based in the ideas of 19th century race science and ideas about how western culture and Europeans were superior to others and other races deserved to live in dominion under them.
I'm not going to accept that the British got the riches fairly from India and that they shouldn't give them back. That's that. I won't ever agree that Britain is entitled to keep the wealth and riches it looted from India.
Aryan Invasion Theory has no proof, neither archeological nor textual nothing, had it been some sort of a invasion it must be in Sanskrit and avestan texts which it's not, nor are any weapons or chariots found btw India has its own civilisation with clothing styles quite different from the rest of the world at that time
>unchecked hypergamy supported by feminism
>massive import of foreign males, completely disrupting the gender ratio and further increasing inceldom
>get mad when swedish males start looking for alternatives
Yup, sounds like the cucked swedish government all right. Heaven on Earth.
>massive import of foreign males, completely disrupting the gender ratio and further increasing inceldom
>get mad when swedish males start looking for alternatives
Yup, sounds like the cucked swedish government all right. Heaven on Earth.
D
Yea cause Shias seem to think they know better then God himself, to call Shias muslims is a really big stretch.
“The trauma”. you realize who made socialism and communism?The trauma during industrialisation led to the utopian ideas of socialism and communism from which the former fucked my country more than anything and directly affects my life now put these ideas and all other elite dumbasses that got out of your western left leaning universities where the sun doesn't shine and GTFO, btw you're a soldier boy at best with you're rheoteric this is the job for you go beat some Pakis(if you make it alive) they're fucking your muh kweenz and half a million of them with your Colonism and Rectumism, fucking coward always shows up here to ruin the rest of my coping day
Tree
List of Communist Jews (comunisti evrei, komunistyczne żydzi)
See previous post about Churchill on the Jews NOTE: Numerous Jews who joined the communist governments of the newly-formed Eastern Block in late 1940’s had their birth names changed at this t…
communismblog.wordpress.com
Race kind of is mentioned in the Vedas, where the caste system is first made. The problem is that race is mostly a modern concept, and especially in Indian literature, there is almost no mention of any groups being different than their own. For example, the Dasu are characterized by their skin being dark as dirt, but this kind of racism goes away later on. In the Mahabharata, when various groups outside of India are mentioned, like the Chinese (Cheen) or groups of South India or Central Asia, there is no mention of their appearance being distinctly different, but only having different customs and traditions.
It's not mentioned in the Laws of Manu because the people had lost their seperate identites after over a thousand years of being in that region.
And the Aryan theory is pretty much settled now as a fact, although it has nothing to do with European people. It's more like people from Central Asia.
You say Britain didn't get the riches fairly from India, but it won in warfare and inherited the wealth of the ruling classes of the people they conquered. This is coming straight from the arthashastra, which describes how warfare is done in India. I don't know why you expect the British to be held to a higher moral standard than what the people in India themselves held themselves to.
Y
Still race isn't explicitly mentioned.
Lazy copout.
And yet you are using it to justify how British taking wealth wasn't a big deal because some lighter skinned kings ruled over darker skinned peasants in India before the British came.
And the Aryan invasion theory isn't settled. It is still very much contested in India but you never here about that because the western world is loathe to admit their previous embarassing conclusions on race science and that the British Empire and colonialism of ethnic countries was not universally largely a force for good and wants to cover up atrocities the British Empire conducted.
Stop insisting Britain got the riches fairly when they looted it and tried to justify it by pointing to texts in India like you are doing now. I'm not arguing with you further on this point and
my stance is clear that the British need to give back the riches and wealth they stole from India. This is non negotiable.
Even @chudur-budur a poster that you like so much talked about how the British should give back the trillions of dollars in wealth they stole from India.
Give all our money back, we will pack our bags tomorrow.
Also every race need to go back to where they originally came from.
Neither of us are in positions of power as far as I know to arrange for wealth and riches to be transferred back to India this but if I had the power to make it happen I would. I'm not changing my view on this.
Last edited:
It is recorded in the Zoroastrian tradition though. http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm#migration
Race isn't explicitly mentioned because it is a modern idea. People knew people further away from their land looked more and more different, but they saw it as a result of people living in different regions. Whether it was the Greeks or Aryans, they all thought other people were inferior becuase of their culture, not their physical characteristics. The Rig Veda is one of the few examples which ever comes close to being racist, because it says a god hated the dark colored skin of the Dasu people, and their caste system is literally called varna (color). In fact, India probably has one of the earliest evidence of racism in the world.
Warfare was a legitimate way to make money back in the day, the whole reason people even war mongered was almost for the sole reason of money. And the central idea about how warfare was done in India completely agrees with this point. Why shouldn't I use their own moral values, you keep saying British shoudn't push their own moral values but now you are mad they using the Indian ones instead.
Last edited:
Y
Wrong that's a western race obsessed interpretation.
The British shouldn't try to use any justification to steal riches be it values from Britain or India. It's morally wrong and that's the end of it.
You are so hung up with trying to justify how the British looted India and have derailed this thread so far that I doubt you were even interested in the start about anything besides race bait.
You claim curries are coping but cope with the vestiges of a long dead Anglo empire despite you being jewish and try to attribute all the hatred Anglos get to jealousy while ignoring that a lot of the hatred is due to the atrocities they committed when trying to colonize ethnic countries.
Stop bumping this thread and trying to challenge me. I'm not changing my views on this matter.
Last edited:
How can it be a western interpretation when it literally says Indra hates the dirt skin colored Dasu people, or that varna literally translated to color?
What's so bad about bumping the thread? You can just stop responding if you want. I'm obviously going to reply to my own thread if someone took the time to reply.
And yes Anglos committed attrocitites, but ethnic groups are still being persecuted right now in India and killed. Btw, there were no countries there before, it was just a bunch of kingdoms.
You can't argue the point I made about British winning the wealth from the Indian royals, so just say stop it bro, just stop bringing up what the people of those times believed on both sides bro.
Y
Race is more than color but also physical features.
There is color variation among Indians that live on the subcontinent with extremely melanated individuals
Because what you are arguing isn't even relevant to the original thread topic.
It's just you constantly trying to justify how the British looted India and that the British shouldn't give up what they stole.
As I posted before even the poster you look up to chudur-budur said that the British should give back what they stole.
Whataboutism and irrelevant to the discussion. And even if India was a disorganized collection of kingdoms before that doesn't give the British the right to meddle in their affairs.
No I can. Regardless of what justifications the British used to loot India be it their own ideas of might makes right or Indian texts is besides the point. It's morally wrong for them to do that and they need to give it back.
I'm not going to stop it.
Yes, the color difference exists because of the Aryan people. Just look at the people bro, even though there is lot of mixture now but generall the more south you go, the more they look like Abbos. The more north you go, the more they start looking like sand.
Idc if it isn't related to the original thread, if it gets bumped then people will see my original post no matter what.
Britian simply conquered the kingdoms, which is what those kingdoms tried to do to each other. I don't see the problem with the British doing it.
It's not morally wrong, if you defeat the people who rule, you inherit their stuff. What did you want the British to do with it when they were ruling? Redistribute all the wealth to poor people, which the original noblemen didn't even do?
Y
No the color difference also exists because of the different climates in India. Parts of northern India have a subtropical climate and mountainous regions that are cold as places in central Asia while southern India has a year round tropical climate with a well defined wet and dry season and strong solar insolation.
People in areas with stronger solar insolation develop darker colored skin as a necessity for UV protection from the sun's stronger rays at lower latitudes.
If what you are talking about isn't related to the original thread you are going off topic and derailing the thread.
It is morally wrong to loot even under the justification of war. Just like how raping and looting in war is morally wrong even if it's still done under war conditions.
And again it doesn't matter whether or not the original noblemen didn't restribute wealth to lower classes. The British colonists stole that wealth entirely and refuse to give it back to anyone in India, making India poorer as a result and having to play catch up over centuries to regain economic prosperity that it once had. The effects of British colonism didn't immediately end when the British left India and are still visible decades later.
There are difference in climate, but genetic analysis shows that it's also because of different genetic sources. Even the Indian government refuses to accept history breaks it down as ANI and ASI. Even the physical features are more abbo like in the south, while north is getting more and more sand. Why would the British give wealth to random Indians. India is much richer than it was when the British took control, and under the British it didn't get poorer, the average person didn't get poorer.
The British Left India Richer Than They Found It - Unfortunately It Was Malthusian Growth
India's economy was more than twice the size as the British left than it had been when they arrived. Unfortunately, it was Malthusian growth, an increase in the number of people, not an increase in living standards. As with most economic growth across history, before an industrial revolution.
www.forbes.com
True, it is derailing it but you keep on going and going. I will respond to whoever makes a post here. But if you want, then I will go back to the original topic. What do you think about females using demographics to control the sexual market place? I think they know what they are doing because they let in men in mass but it's only a problem when an excess number of women are entering. Funny how that works.
Indra is the King of the gods and is a playboy who was often cursed for making fun of great sages and wise men it's common for him, he made fun of demons, lusted after nymphs, challenged Krishna and all that, it's the only God who made such remarks, even there I'm unaware of any Dasu people or their gods, I think you're in deep into some post modernist victim narrative by either a Christian convert or a leftist and they do plenty of such idiotic things to get new converts or to perpetuate their narrative of victimhood, I know plenty of good looking low caste people who mogg upper castes to oblivion and often get married to upper castes and vice versa, there are even South Indian Christians who claim to be from the lost tribes of Israel, not everything you read is true on there, I barely would waste my time on them. But I'd definitely put a bullet in their useless liberal art skulls if anyone of these scum of the earth try to make any difference on a paper or try to draw a line on the map, it's just rebellion looks good in a good grave.
Last edited:
Nah bro, I've taken a class on ancient South Asia and the Middle East. I thought it was going to be mostly about the Middle East but it also has a lot about South Asia. The class was run by a curry teacher who kept saying he will one day renounce the world and become a forest monk or something. He seemed like he was deep into curry religion, so really doubt he would just be shitting on it.
And I never said low caste people can't be good looking bro, but given that sand features usually mog abbo, it's rare. I suspect that throughout history there have been lots of low class women sleeping with Chad Brahmans, and the husband thinking the kid is his. Probably also true the other way around. We know genetic lineages almost never fully follow the lineages people claim they are because there is almost always some cuckage somewhere in the family tree cause women are whores.
But it's a shit show on twitter where you'd find a bunch of self hating curries, some proselytising Christians, some pagan Nazis and a bunch of leftist academics fighting with Hindus all day long, btw where did you find this monk like curry professor, do they even allow such a faculty in these leftist universities, I'm very skeptical of these academics anyhow, the most rabid leftists in India act like they're really into curry culture and dress like that but their discourse is so toxic that I stay away from them. Most of the universities especially liberal art ones in Curryland are rabidly anti India and are infested with Leftism and Islamism, and they have plenty of such academics in them
Last edited:
Y
Not true. Colonialism only leaves the colonists better off in gaining resources, women, legacy and status but makes the colonized poorer off and having to play economic catch up to get back to the state they were before being taken over by outsiders.There are difference in climate, but genetic analysis shows that it's also because of different genetic sources. Even the Indian government refuses to accept history breaks it down as ANI and ASI. Even the physical features are more abbo like in the south, while north is getting more and more sand. Why would the British give wealth to random Indians. India is much richer than it was when the British took control, and under the British it didn't get poorer, the average person didn't get poorer.
The British Left India Richer Than They Found It - Unfortunately It Was Malthusian Growth
India's economy was more than twice the size as the British left than it had been when they arrived. Unfortunately, it was Malthusian growth, an increase in the number of people, not an increase in living standards. As with most economic growth across history, before an industrial revolution.
There is a reason talk of such things like reparations exist for groups that were marginalized and set back economically and socially in the past.
Furthermore from your reference this "growth" is referred to more in terms of output per capita like population but mentions the living standards didn't improve.
"India's economy was more than twice the size as the British left than it had been when they arrived. Unfortunately, it was Malthusian growth, an increase in the number of people, not an increase in living standards. As with most economic growth across history, before an industrial revolution."
Decades of demoralization and humiliation from having been conquered and plundered also leaves deep emotional scars not easily accounted for through official measurements like GDP and can influence new generations' ideas of what is possible for them.
Just like bullying was once thought to be something you can bounce back from but now has been found to have long lasting detrimental effects so it is with European colonization and future generations of children born in formerly colonized countries.
It's not as simple as getting over it even if it is no longer present.
I keep on going on because I'm not going to concede to your view that the British deserve to keep what they looted and not give it back to India. I believe in this strongly and I'm not going to change my mind.
But going back to the original topic I think that females do view things in the sexual market place through a racial lens just like males do. However I believe a lot of the angst of white females is more on behalf of ethnic and asian females that they see as "settling" for subpar white guys and not shooting above their limit for chads like white females do.
If the ethnic and asian females have access to white chads I have only ever seen white females congratulate them and say things like you go girl and know your worth and all sorts of mental masturbation pat-on-the-back circlejerking statements.
This makes sense if you take into account the in-group bias preference of women and how women despite any squabbles and cattiness at the end of the day work more in their collective self interest than men do.
Also women want as wide as an assortment of sexual partners to choose from while being able to limit men's available assortment of sexual partners. They want to have a perpetual SMV advantage over men in every arena.
Last edited:
I just sent an article that debunks the claim in the case of India though, and reperations are dumb. Look up Thomas Sowell, he pretty much says blacks are poorer not because of legacy of slavery, but the current culture of blacks and the laws that incentivize them to live off the government. The growth they are talking about is the same amount that would have occured if the British weren't their at all. So the British didn't really fuck over the country economically for the average person.
India's been getting cucked by foreign peoples by thousands of years, whether it's the Turks, Mughals, or the British. I know this is a little different because those previous groups can pass as some curries, but still.
I kind of agree with you on the white females, they have a tendency to get upset for other peoples. However, as you say that women want to limit the sexual choices of males while making their options open as possible, this does have a problem when there are far more females than there are males. This will automatically make it so that women have to compete for the males in the society. I don't agree with the part where you said that females want rice and other foids from getting Chads as well, because this will mean a far larger number of women will be competing for a small number of males. That was the whole basis of my original post, that women don't want to have to compete with other females, hence why they are really mad that Swedish men are increasingly marrying Thai women, but have no problem with Sand men coming into their country because it increases the number of males they can fuck and be with.
Y
There's parallels to the current debate about giving black people reparations and long lasting economic and social/psychological implications from colonialism in ethnic countries is what I'm saying.
The British did fuck over the country by stealing trillions of dollars in wealth and siphoning off and controlling trade and using it to benefit the UK though. You don't simply have that much of a diversion of resources without negative economic impacts to the average colonized ethnic person.
True but that doesn't justify people continuing to treat Indians badly. Or else the same argument could be made that incels have been getting bullied forever so there's no use complaining about it.
I think women are less particular about race when operating in their collective interest as women though. A lot of white (and black women that have assimilated into western culture in western countries) see it as a task to make ethnic and asian women leave "backward" ethnic and asian men and get with better looking white and black guys and are happy when ethnic and asian women can get chads because that means their (white women's) own chance of getting chads and gigachads increases as a result.
Last edited:
Did you even read the article? The living standards were the same for the average person despite all the siphoning. The only people who got fucked were the rich nobles, which I don't give a fuck about. And yeah, no one should treat Indians badly, I am so for them to choose their own destiny that I think it should been divided into like 20 countries. But that's a different story.
Well, the thing is that my original post wasn't focuses on race, it just so happens Thai women are of a different race. I think there still would have been outrage if Swedish men were importing women from like Norway to marry in large numbers. This is solely a sex ratio thing imo, nothing to do with race. I don't see how white women wanting other females also chasing white chad will be in the best interest of white women, especially as an individual. Women don't want to have to compete with other women for white Chad, this will decrease their own individual influence on the Sexual market place.
Y
Yeah I did read the article.
And in the article it clearly said that
"There was significant economic growth throughout the colonial period, the only problem being that it was Malthusian growth, economic growth that leads to an increase in population, not an increase in living standards."
"This is what we call "Malthusian growth," where economic growth becomes more people, not higher standards of living. We have growth in GDP, but not growth, or not much of it, in GDP per capita. That's really the definition of it."
"India's economy was more than twice the size as the British left than it had been when they arrived. Unfortunately, it was Malthusian growth, an increase in the number of people, not an increase in living standards. As with most economic growth across history, before an industrial revolution."
The living standards didn't improve with the siphoning of resources. Rich nobles getting fucked over still impacts a portion of the Indian population negatively which has ramifications down the line because those rich nobles still had children that would grow up in these reduced living circumstances and shifting of wealth.
You can't just say that just because mainly rich nobles in India sufferred that people that weren't rich didn't suffer longer lasting economic impacts of the stolen riches.
Not true from what I have seen. All women encourage each other to go after white chads because they don't mind sharing white chads with each other. They'd rather do that then settle for their looksmatch.
Malthusian growth means the average living conditions stayed the same. This includes the nobles, poor, and everyone else in society. Overall it was the same. This completely debunks the idea that the British are why Indians are in poverty for so long, I never said living conditions got better.
And nobles getting fucked over is something I dont give a fuck about, unlike farmers or crafters and such who earned what they made, the noble classes made money from literally doing nothing. Boohoo, they aren't ultra wealthy anymore, I don't give a fuck. But for poor and the average person, there wasn't much change, and that's the only thing I care about. Trickle down economics is stupid and a complete lie.
Bro, I don't believe this at all. The only time I think this can remotely be true is if the woman herself thinks she deserves better than that white Chad. Because even in the case where she thinks she deserves better, she will still want to keep the lower tier Chad as a back up beta male she wants to marry. If some other woman marries the Chad first, she has absolutely no hope to marrying him normally, so women wouldn't want to do that.
Y
Living conditions and poverty are related. Theaverage living conditions did not stay the same and the British stealing wealth from India and the demoralizing effects of colonization are still apparent decades later and put India economically and politically behind on the world stage. It doesn't matter if you can't see how that's immediately apparent. Some of these things are more subtle and hard to quantify but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
It's what I've seen. Your experience may be different. In my experience women encourage each other no matter what their race to know their worth and chase after chads and dump their current man and trade up.
Last edited:
Stop repeating the same shit over and over again when the article does not support that at all. There was no decrease in living condition, that's all there is to it. Demoralization could be true and other stuff you say, but decrease in living conditions or stifling of the economy of that region is false.
As for women, I'm not just talking about personal experience dude, I'm thinking about this in terms of sexual competition. This is a pattern we should see that is biologically ingrained into women. The only reason I would think the situation you said is because women are trying to use preselection by having ugier women sleep with those men to see whether those men are desired by other women, thus making sure those males are worthy to be their partners. But despite this, because the women are marrying the Swedish men, they know they have no chance to be able to get with those men, and thus sexual competition for females is something they don't want at all.
Y
No there was a decrease in living conditions and many Indians were indentured servants to the British during the time the British were in India. That is itself a decrease in living conditions.
A lot of the economic "gains" from colonization went to the British and not to India. That's one of the reasons countries colonize each other in the first place. To siphon off economic gains from a country for themselves.
The article says there was no decrease in living conditions though. And whether people were servants to curry kings or anglo leaders doesn't change living conditions on it's own. The excess growth that was siphoned off would have never happened at all if the British werent there, so it's essentially like the country developing, but only the parasitical country gets the benefit of that. Meanwhile the living conditions stay the same for the average person in India.
Y
Living conditions include more than just what is accounted for and include the fact that Indians were made to be indentured servants to the British during the time the British colonized India.
What about the famines brought on by Winston Churchill?
Winston Churchill killed as many as the worst genocidal dictators of the 20th century, says Indian politician
'This is a man the British would have us hail as an apostle of freedom and democracy,' says author
www.independent.co.uk
Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine – study
Study is first time weather data has been used argue wartime policies exacerbated famine
Anglo leaders would have a racial in-group preference to redistribute more of the riches toward other Anglos than "curry kings" would so saying that whether people were servants to Indian kings or Anglo leaders doesn't matter is false.
Last edited:
Redistribution trickle down economics is complete bullshit bro. Even today, as you said, just because the rich are getting richer doesn't mean everyone else in society is getting richer as well. The fact the living conditions did not change under the British means the idea curry kings were more generous than the British is bullshit.
Y
Trying to justify British plundering of India by saying the wealth would have stayed with richer nobles and that rich people in India deserved to lose their wealth is one of the most retarded takes I've ever heard.
And no one ever claimed that curry kings were more generous than the British but that regardless of what the situation was it wasn't any of the British's business to meddle in the affairs of Indians.
And people inherently have a racial in-group preference so Anglo leaders would have more of a tendency to redistribute economic gains to other British people and not Indians while "curry kings" would have more of a tendency to redistribute economic gains to other Indians.
Last edited:
Not really, the wealthy lose their shit when they can't win in wars. And if they don't lose, then communist revolution strikes and the poor people kill the rich (which would have been pretty based ngl).
Curries don't exist seperate from the rest of the world, empires have always wanted to expand and absorb other parts of the world. That's why it's literally called an Empire lol. The only difference with Anglos is that they were the most successful at it than anyone else (except the Mongols, which India dealt with in the form of the Mughals).
Y
There aren't always communist revolutions. There's more than one way that lower economic classes can rise up against higher economic classes that doesn't involve communism or wealth redistribution as an exact platform. And communist revolutions always end up eating their own eventually and spiraling out of control. It's not something you should celebrate unless you are a sociopath.
No obviously empires want to try and conquer other people and not leave them alone. That's why they are empires in the first place. But just because Anglos were more successful recently at conquering doesn't mean they are owed any kind of gratitude for subjugating others or that I will change my stance in that what they did to countries like India was morally wrong.
I will never agree that the British should not give back what they stole from India. They set back India politically, economically and socially many years by plundering and refusing to give it back.
Before they left they drew up artificial borders like they did in the middle east as a final fuck you like they always did before they left a region. Those artificial borders drawn by the British and sectarian disputes are still a large source of conflict to this day.
Last edited:
I was just fucking around, curries are submissive with the caste system and wouldn't do shit about their situation, just like in the last thousands of years.
Holy shit you keep repeating arguments. I already completely debunked the pint that India was economically held back, it grew at the same rate it was growing at before. This is a point you didn't address accept saying it obviously did ruin India with 0 evidence.
Politically, India was had many kingdoms and empires fighting one another. I don't see any evidence of India being politically worse off.
And yeah, the dumb border that was drawn is a huge source of issues today. It should have been broken by ethnicity, but of course the British were too lazy and the Indian leaders probably didn't want that because they thought somehow all these ethnic groups would be united. Clearly history has shown both these were destructive assumptions and decisions.
Y
Dude fuck off. Many Indians were raised underneath the caste system and had no need to "rise against". It worked fine for them for many years and no system on earth is perfect.
You took some leftist South Asian course and now think you know better than others and can shit on Indians even more. I see through your disguise.
Famines and indentured servitude don't count as lower living standards? You said living standards didn't change during the time the British were in India. It's not all about economy and yet there are many other things to take into account that aren't easily quantified.
Evidence famines in India were made worse by Winston Churchill:
Winston Churchill killed as many as the worst genocidal dictators of the 20th century, says Indian politician
'This is a man the British would have us hail as an apostle of freedom and democracy,' says author
www.independent.co.uk
Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine – study
Study is first time weather data has been used argue wartime policies exacerbated famine
Churchill’s policies to blame for 1943 Bengal famine: Study
The Bengal famine that is estimated to have killed up to three million people was not caused by drought, new study says.
Evidence of abuse and suffering Indians suffered at the hands of British colonial rule:
Colonialism in India was traumatic – including for some of the British officials who ruled the Raj
How one member of the Indian Civil Service coped with being a colonial usurper.
theconversation.com
India is a diverse subcontinent meant to have many kingdoms and empires but the British saw things purely from a Muslim vs Hindu perspective and insisted on divvying up India into Pakistan and India before they left. It has been the source of India being politically worse off since then.
The borders shouldn't have been drawn up at all arbitrarily in the first place and the fact that they were has continued to lead to unnecessary political disputes to this day.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
