Posts Tagged ‘india’

How Diversity Extinguished White People In Ancient India

Wednesday, November 8th, 2017

All of us in this modern time run the risk of succumbing to a certain kind of inertia: that of giving in to our hope that everything will just turn out fine. We see two paths, one of the incredibly difficult realization that our current path leads to doom, and the other being the much easier way of assuming that everything will just work out fine, so keep doing what we are doing.

As it turns out, history shows us some lessons of where our current path will lead, and it is to our erasure and removal from history, not any kind of positive result. We know this because in addition to the examples of ancient Greece and Rome, whose original ethnic populations no longer exist, we can look at the example of India, which was once a white nation but now has only linguistic, legal and economic traces of that order:

According to Hans F.K. Gunther’s The Racial Elements of European History (1927), the conquering Indo-Aryans called themselves the Haris, meaning “the blondes,” and, according to the Vedas, they called the dark skinned indigenous people the Dasas, or “slave bands of black descent.” These people were later called Dravidians. Like the Greeks, many of their gods were blonde. The Vedas describe the Storm God Indra as having cheeks, beard, and hair the color of gora, which is Sanskrit for “golden-yellow.”

The Aryans themselves separated into three classes, or castes: the Brahmins, priests and scholars; the Kshattriyas, nobles and warriors; and the Vaisyas, farmers and craftsmen. This parallels the division of Proto-Indo-European societies into clerics, warriors, and herder-cultivators. We find the same division in Rome: flamines, milites, and quirites.

In India, below the three higher classes were the Sudras, or slaves, who were non-Aryan. In an attempt to preserve these social and racial divisions and codify ancient customs, the Brahmins drew up the Laws of Manu. They forbade intermarriage, and in some cases even social mingling among Indians of different castes. They also recognized the existence of three instead of two racial groups: more or less pure Aryans, dark-skinned Sudras or Dravidians, and the Varna-Sankara (those of mingled colors). The Sanskrit word for caste, varna, literally means “color.” The caste system can be viewed as the world’s most long-lived and elaborate system of racial separation.

Although it survived into modern times, the caste structure failed to preserve the Aryan racial type. Higher-class Indians are never blond or fair skinned, though they are taller and lighter than other Indians and some have Aryan features. Examples are the actress-model Aishawarya Rai and the Indian-American Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, whose parents are Sikhs. Color prejudice and a preference for lighter skin remain strong both in India and among Indians of the diaspora.

In other words: the finer people (blonder, more intelligent) invaded a place occupied by the coarser (darker, less intelligent) and tried to limit the latter with some kind of system of rules. It failed, and now all of the people there are darker, and not unintelligent, but less intelligent than the finer people.

Those terms, coarser and finer, are borrowed from H.P. Lovecraft but work adequately for these descriptions.

The bigger story here is not finer-versus-obviously-coarser, but finer-versus-crypto-coarser, and in India, we see that whatever the paternal line of the nation was, it quickly became absorbed into a maternal line of Asiatics. The same will happen to the West, where Asian women are easily acquired and white women become increasingly neurotic, solipsistic and disagreeable.

In turn, what happened in India probably provoked an exodus, resulting in many of the Dravidians/Australids ending up in Africa, and coloring the population there, despite that group having perhaps been lighter-skinned previously.

Much as diversity destroyed white people in India, it can do so here, and by the same mechanism: we will end up mostly Caucasian, with a large amount of Asiatic, and some of the African and Australid in us. We will then resemble existing mixed-race populations like those of South America, Israel and the Middle East.

Our only hope for avoiding this rests in declaring separation of the original unmixed Western European group from all other influences. This requires that we stop demonizing other ethnic groups, which produces a result similar to that of the racial-caste system, and instead to separate from them, so that we do not mix and produce yet another human average that erases its original influences.

Leftist Press Takes Comments Out Of Context In Order To Persecute Marc Faber

Thursday, October 19th, 2017

As many of you know, the guillotine squads went after their latest victim, Marc Faber, an investor and writer who — perhaps strategically — rejected a few of the illusions taken as faith that power the post-Enlightenment™ world. This will either destroy him or make him more famous than before for having been able to repel The Establishment and its ideological conformity.

Apparently, he spoke a forbidden truth about history:

Just hours after Marc Faber was ousted from three corporate boards for racist comments in his newsletter, organizers of a wealth conference next month in Singapore decided to keep the veteran investor as a keynote speaker.

…“The comments might be considered racist, but we can’t ignore his life work, experience and knowledge,” Talpsepp said in the email. “In the stock markets, there is no racism at all, as all trades are anonymous. You will never know with whom you are making trades. Sometimes you trade against a computer, sometimes against white, black and Asian people. It does not matter. What is important is the knowledge.”

…Talpsepp defended Faber’s comments: “He is a statistical guy and this is where his comments come from. He looks at the GDP of Zimbabwe and compares this with the GDP of the United States. But the United States has always been multicultural and some white people in America have used black labor against their will for centuries.”

We are all familiar with this drill: person with something that we can take says something against the narrative of our time, so we humiliate them publicly, remove their power and take their stuff. Then we conclude that, because we have banished the symbols of someone knowing better than our narrative, the narrative is safe and therefore we are safe in continuing our behavior as it was.

You can see the same thing in a monkey troupe if an individual finds a fruit that no one else noticed. There is much screeching, and then monkeys come over to demand “their” share, and when it is not given, they gang up on the monkey who found the fruit, beat him up and take it. Even alpha monkeys cannot resist the numbers of the crowd. You can beat the first ten, but then it is the deluge.

So what were the controversial comments? If we read the full document that he issues through his Gloom Boom Doom consulting firm, we can see that he makes a number of controversial-but-accurate comments, starting with a critique of conservative missteps in the West:

But that fact seems to escape righteous socialists such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, who, unlike de Soto, believes that (according to an interview that appeared in New York magazine on September 4, 2017) “the biggest obstacle to progress is the idea of private property. He spoke of a ‘socialistic impulse,’ and seemed to favor the idea of turning the Big Apple into Venezuela.”

…he gets at least one point right when he says: “I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs.” (People with socialistic impulses would probably love “things to be planned in accordance to their needs” by someone like Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, or Kim Jong-un.)

…Today’s politically correct society prefers to waste its time with tearing down important historical monuments that are a reminder of our history, even if it was not always glorious. (George Orwell: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”) Important issues, such as how we are going to resolve the problem of excessive debts and enormous unfunded pension fund liabilities, etc., are ignored or neglected. Westerners prefer nowadays “not to give to society but for society to give to them”, and they ardently wish for freedom from any responsibility (Edward Gibbon).

I don’t want to enter into a serious discussion about the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world’s two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let’s not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)

There is quite a bit to unpack there, but let us start with his actual topic: some methods work for civilization, and some do not, and each of us has a “socialistic impulse” by which we desire paternalistic society, but this leads to movements like the Taliban, Communism, National Socialism, or African tribal heads who are willing to sell slaves.

He equates this socialistic impulse with “freedom from any responsibility” and a desire for “things to be planned in accordance to their needs,” and points out earlier in the article (not quoted above) that this is the path by which societies commit suicide. Planned societies do not work; societies based on responsibility, or having everyone contribute and raising the best contributors above the rest, work well, and that is the point of the article: to relate investment strategy to the rise and fall of civilizations.

The title of the article, in case you were wondering, is “Free Markets And Capitalism Versus Socialism.”

After condemning Hitler, blasting the destruction of Buddhas, and then pointing out that destroying history is part of this “socialistic impulse” and a sign of decline, thus related to the topic of the newsletter, which is a gloomy outlook on the various booms and bubbles of our managed economy, Faber then compares two societies: Zimbabwe and America.

He takes pains to point out that he is not a racist, and gives no reasons why there are disparate results, and this is what upsets the Left the most; he has, more than violating the race taboo, violated the equality taboo. In Leftist logic, Zimbabwe is an impoverished high-crime typical third world nation by either (1) chance or (2) the Guns, Germs and Steel theory that Europeans just stumbled on wealth and technical innovation that they did not deserve. Faber violated taboo by not affirming the narrative of equality.

But since he does not give us a reason in another direction, such as comparing IQ figures or MAOA-L genes, he is simply stating history here. Much like those planned economies failed, indicating a bad method, something about the white majority method worked while the African majority method does not. Naturally the Left will see this as racist, but Faber is stating bald facts without cruelty.

Perhaps that needs to be understood in context; the article begins by analyzing the suicides of farmers in India, where the tax requirements for a planned society are destroying individual farmers. He then points out that, generally, third world countries adopt this paternalistic form of society, and that the West succeeded where it broke free from that mental trope.

Now let us return to his actual point, which is to criticize that white majority for having adopted the strategies common to the third world societies:

Two of my readers recently sent me articles that showed how ridiculous our regulatory system has become in the West.

In one instance, a six-year-old girl who was selling orange juice on a London street corner was fined $50. In another, a county in California decreed that schoolchildren who were cutting the grass of their neighbours’ lawns needed a licence.

I find it very commendable when young children try to be entrepreneurs instead of relying on handouts from the government, begging on the streets, taking illicit drugs, or attending courses on political correctness.

When we read Faber’s comments in context, suddenly we see that they are not “racist” and more a comparison of methodologies. But again, that probably offends the Left more, since it contradicts their socialistic impulse and desire for a planned society by pointing out the bald truth: planned societies do not work, whether in the third world or here.

And if we read that point in context, we see that Faber is asserting the exact opposite of a racist claim. He believes Zimbabwe could, if it adopted the original Western method instead of the planned economy method, become a success because what is holding its people back is not their race, but their choice of economic and social system.

Another day, another outrage by people with nothing better to do because they have no purpose in life. Leftists are only one variant of those; our entire society, held captive by jobs and television, seems to have lost its ability to be honest and forthright and work toward solutions. When people give up that thoroughly, no wonder they lash out in blind ignorant rage at the truth-tellers.

Best Long-Term Outcome: Worst Short-Term Outcome

Wednesday, November 16th, 2016


Ideological movements have a habit of creating the opposite of what they intend. This occurs because they treat effects as causes of themselves; for example, they want “equality” (lack of risk of social exclusion) and so they mandate it directly, instead of realizing that it must be achieved in fact before it can exist in theory.

Perfect is the enemy of good, they say, to remind you that waiting for perfection prevents you from accomplishing your task. But by the converse, good is the enemy of perfect, which tells us that most people stop at good and never aim higher. Ideology creates a permanent perfect that both prevents good and, by being good enough, discourages improvement.

This means that once ideology strikes, it does not let go until the end.

Visualize civilization as existing on an arc. This arc first goes up, then comes down. While the arc is heading upward, long-term and short-term goals are the same because those are dependent on society. On the downward stroke, however, the long-term goal becomes destruction of the civilization to restart the process, where the short-term remains with trying to keep the leaky boat float to avoid risk, terror and immediate personal loss.

Our peak was long ago and then we entered into a bad time. This happened not because we failed, but because we succeeded and beat all the previous threats; those with some experience of life knows that to succeed means you face new unknowns and deadlier threats. We reached the level boss of civilizations, which is internal decay.

To beat internal decay, you have to keep people unified on a positive purpose while removing those who are useless and stupid. This takes a steady hand and is hard to do because all the other societies around you will begin attacking you because, being unable to succeed, they think they can succeed by simply taking your stuff, although they will be unable to replicate it and therefore will fail.

One force stands in favor of internal decay: our own fear. We, as individuals, fear being excluded. We worry that a moment of inattention will reveal us as worthless, and the group will eject us. For this reason, a group within the group forms dedicated to the idea that all are welcome no matter how much they screw up. This group takes over the society, but its “ideology” of universal inclusiveness (equality) runs away from it, and soon takes the place of its original intent. The virus subdues the patient.


Imagine that it is 2018. The leaked “election results” from July 2016 in fact became the numbers that were reported, and Hillary Clinton waltzes into the White House. Or rather, she is elected; before she can take office, however, the parts of America that are not merely benefits leeches raise their fists in anger and for the first time, take action.

Looking at the possibility of quelling a rebellion, President Barack Obama instead maneuvers the USA into war both in Syria and the South China Sea, conflicts which soon spill into Europe. He uses this to make it seem morally outrageous to rebel at the time that “your country needs you.” He recites all the old Kennedy speeches.

It seems to work. People join together and set up an industry based on the war, and everyone else goes into the service. Even the illegal aliens, LGBTQ, women and minorities join in. Soon America has a gigantic army in the field and, despite going $100 trillion into debt, is able to push back the Russo-Chinese front.

All seems to be going well until India and Brazil jump in on the side of China. The third world wants revenge for colonialism, and the USA finds itself short of allies in South America, Central America, Eastern Europe, and Asia. Even the UN turns against the USA, finding (correctly) that the USA was not the sole aggressor but the proximate aggressor in this war.

This results in a prolonged conflict which cannot be won. The USA has superior technology, but the soldiers who fought the other world wars are not there, replaced instead by squishy narcissists and do-nothings who wanted to be in the services for benefits and a paycheck.

As a result, the Americans are driven out of Europe and Asia, and finally invaded when a joint Chinese-Indian task force attacks through Canada and drives toward Washington, D.C. American media has refused to report on losses so far, instead stressing how the glorious People’s militia is driving across the Rhine into Russia, and now must admit that New York is burning and the East Coast may be lost.

Despite this setback, the Americans put up a furious fight around their capital city, mainly because the units defending here are most like those from former wars. To save time, the Russians lob a battlefield nuke into Washington, D.C., destroying the soldiers there and such American icons as the Lincoln Monument, White House, Congress and Vietnam Memorial.

Millions of members of the Historical American Nation (HAN), namely Western Europeans who have been marginalized by Leftism, look at the rising fist of flame that is a fresh mushroom cloud with awe and gratitude. The long nightmare of being presumed guilty and constantly shaken down with racial animus is over. Diversity has failed.

In fact, commentators note that this is not just the failure of America and its Constitution, but a Berlin 1945 moment for liberal democracy. All of the old ideas, starting with equality, have failed. A new world is upon us.

Having realized that, the actual Americans — not the pretender Amerikans — assemble their weapons and prepare to drive out the foreign Asiatic invaders, much as they drove away the Siberian Indians and Mexicans and finally fought the Chinese in Vietnam and Korea, just as their ancestors fought Asiatics across Eurasia in the days before history.

It will be a costly war, but at least it is not a war within. We are no longer divided. Those who act against our interests we eject; those who attack us, we destroy. Existential stress drops despite the constant warfare because finally, the world makes sense again.

Recommended Reading