• ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.

India - Culture, Politics and Lunacy

Cynllo

Administrator
Other Christian
Moderator
Heritage
Philanthropist
Cira 50,000 years ago there was a migration out of East Africa, through Asia, that found its way to the shores of India.

In India the best preserved people of this migration live on the Adaman and Nicobar Island, tropical islands off the south-west of India. They are essentially a transitional people between Papuans and East Africans.

Andamanese_Onge.png


This migration continued east, populating Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Torres Strait Islands and Australia.

Populations who remain more genetically distinct from this migration are often called negritos.

LmpwZw


Filipino Negritos
2880px-Taman_Negara_%2830509997143%29.jpg


Malay Negritos
People-Chimbu-people-of-Goraka-Highlands-Papua-New-Guinea29.jpg


Papuans
Cakalele.jpg


Moluccans, a people of East Indonesia, largely unmixed with later migration
pO_4qTHoorQ.jpg


Australian aborigines
050118050056156157049111077079215248058168215044.jpg


Torres Strait Islanders

These people were largely replaced in Malaysia and The Philippines with East Asian migrations. From memory I think this began around 10,000 years ago. In Indonesia their genetic heritage still lives on strong the further you go east, more so in Papua New Guinea and totally in Australia.

These negrito people were/are very primitive, as can be seen in Australia and Papua New Guinea. The later has some later contribution from more developed Malyo-Polynesian cultures. There isn't really a strong concept of a Papuan people. The islands are the home of 100s of languages, with many being completely separate from the others. We can assume that all these peoples endures millennia or barbarism, genocide, slavery, cannibalism and war.

This is what we can expect the scene in India to have been up until 9,000 years ago. To the north stone-age technology had spread to pre-Iranian peoples. This led to their expansion and their technological advancements led to them largely replacing the old Indian negritos in the north of India, and considerably in the south.

Meanwhile, a people had emerged in the region of the Caucus, Southern Russia and Northern Kazakhstan around 8,000 years ago. By 6,000 years ago this culture had assumed metal-working abilities, which diffused from Anatolia. Using this advantage one branch of the people spread south-east and conquered the pre-Iranians, replacing their religion and language; and replacing around 50% of their gene pool with an Aryan genes.

Shortly after, a branch of the Aryan-Iranians moved south and eventually conquered what is now known as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and later spreading in smaller amounts into Indonesia. This movement occurred before a major corruption in Iranian religion changed the names of many Gods. So you can find in India Gods with similar names as were found in ancient Europe, e.g. Danu and Deus. Danu is the root of many rivers in Europe, such as the Don, Danube, Don-caster, Dniper, Dnister and Donets. The Thames is likely another, probably relating to the Greek for the River Don - Tamis (same root).

What is now the Hindu religion has a backbone of the Aryan religion, but has many pre-Iranian and some Dravidian (South Indian) influences.

A later expansion in to the area was by the Greeks, who had established trading communities in Asia. This led to the large conquests of Alexander the Great, which formed the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in the region up until about 120 BC. There is still one people in Pakistan who are quite an isolated descendant group of these people.

At a similar time, India saw the rise of its own large empires, but were, like Europe, wracked with divisions and wars. At the second millennium AD dawned India fell into economic decline and in 1206 the opportunity was seized by Iranian peoples to establish a large kingdom in northern India. This is why you find many Muslims in northern India.

The Muslim kingdoms also began to fall into decay and in 1500 the Portuguese began establishing trading colonies in India. They also began Christianising Indians en mass. But owing to never having much territory, this effort was small. This is why you find Indians with surnames like d'Souza and Fernandes.

Around 1525 saw a new Persian expansion into north India.

From about 1600 Denmark and The Netherlands began establishing trading cities in India. France later established small colonies.

In 1640 the English established a trading port in Madras (now Chennai) on the east coat of India.

Following this the Iranians seized most of India and promptly lost it to Indian and Sikh kingdoms.

As the 19th century progressed the English quickly sized most of India with technology that far out-stretched the Indian and Muslim kingdoms. The centuries of Islamic expansion came to an end. Although Britain controlled most of the continent, there were only ever as many as about 300,000 Europeans in a territory of about 300 million people. Most of the territory was under the control of Indian or Persian proxies.

There were a number of Protestant missions in India, but they didn't have much influence.

In 1947 India was granted independence and most of the European and many Anglo-Indian population left to the UK or Australia.

India became a mild hermit kingdom for about 20 years, before beginning economic development.

India will remain in population growth until about 2050.

The defining element of Indian culture is the caste system, which has created a distorted IQ distribution. It has a priestly scholarly class at the top, followed by warriors; merchants; workers; and the untouchable toilet cleaners. This is probably out of a belief that the typically less Aryan people were less spiritually developed and less able to resist the Hindu concepts of sin.

This will likely lead to a growing SJW movement in India, where the large number of untouchable dalits are no longer given a structure as to why they are at the bottom of society. The elite in India publicly disown the caste system, while generally still living their personal lives within it. See champagne socialists in the West for comparison. From my experience, many young Indians are filling the void with Marxist ideas. These will likely zenith when India hits standard of living stagnation in around 2050.

The "race hate" and light supremacy that permeates these South and South East Asian countries is likely rooted in these ancient white, yellow, brown - Aryan, Persian and East Asian migrations into barbarous low IQ negrito lands. India has the highest per capita consumption of skin whitening products in the world. Virtually all Indian middle-class women use such products.
 
Last edited:
Fantastic post! I gave the shocked reaction because of the extraordinary breadth of information and conclusions. I'd read about much of this, and can't find anything to quibble with. Lots of amazing history here. The British role is particularly exceptional.

Edit: I am particularly impressed with the ancient Indus River civilization, one of the OG cradle civilizations that arose with no civilizational precedents, along with the Sumerians, Chinese, and some in the new world. I think the Indus River civilization gets the least attention, but they were very high level, very early.

Interesting to see it tied in with migrations of the proto indo-europeans from the Caucus regions, which I think is accurate.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the balanced explanation about India, most people regards India as a country of IRTs and memes.

Although until now I still do not understand since when India turned into a joke country? In ancient times India used to be a paragon of civilizations in Asia alongside China. In South East Asia the ancient cultures were shaped by India, and the influences can mostly be felt until now. But sometimes in history India lost its shine and devolved into funny IRT clown country. Even here in South East Asia India is now not taken seriously.
 
Thank you for the balanced explanation about India, most people regards India as a country of IRTs and memes.

How so?

Although until now I still do not understand since when India turned into a joke country? In ancient times India used to be a paragon of civilizations in Asia alongside China. In South East Asia the ancient cultures were shaped by India, and the influences can mostly be felt until now. But sometimes in history India lost its shine and devolved into funny IRT clown country. Even here in South East Asia India is now not taken seriously.

I can't see any good commentary on this, but my guess is a lot of it is to do with the caste system, which has distorted India's IQ distribution.

In feudal times, society was directed by an upper class. And India had and has an intelligent and organised upper-class, which led to it being very productive. It appears that feudal societies slowly increase the IQ of a population over generations. An extended social hierarchy begins to emerge. The caste system guarded the higher levels in a way that led to much larger levels of unskilled and underclass people. There was such a surplus of underclass people in India that over the last two millennia 100s of millions people died in famines. Predominantly from the underclass.

Meanwhile in Europe and Arab areas the classes outside of the landed and ecclesiastical strata were allowed to arrange themselves. So when the feudal system began breaking down in Europe in the 1400s, they revealed that there were plenty of high IQ proto-middle-class people ready to rise through the growing commercial/mercantile society that came to overpower the landed class. As an example you have Isaac Newton, who was born about 150 years after the end of the dominance of the feudal system. He was from an English yeoman family. The yeoman was a feudal rank for a better trained militia man under the fealty of a knight (in turn under a baron, under the king). As the feudal system declined these yeomen transformed from the highest rank of militiaman/peasant to minor land owners. From the Elizabethan period more and more men from this rank became prominent, and they eventually overturned the later end of the landed-feudal class.

In short the European feudal system bred a class of people who were more intelligent, but there was little social mobility to rise. When social mobility opened up, they instantly rose. Meanwhile in India, that class was not created and the barriers to mobility remained in place until living memory. Now those barriers have been removed, we don't see the same rise of the lower caste Indians, because they've been in a 3,000-4,000 year eugenics system that bred them for low skill and low status.

While European countries witnessed the creation of a middle class, India remained under a feudal system for a long time. It didn't have the capability to exit it, as it didn't have the above outlined proto-middle class that Europe did. So instead, the most obvious thing happened - they were invaded again and again, both by the same Turkic-Mongol hordes that invaded Europe and the more technically advanced Muslims. The middle class development in India was imported. But that was a small fraction of the population. The important control of trade (post-feudal) was mostly foreign - Muslim and later European. And from those invasions onwards almost nothing native was contributed to the nation.

I think it's probably this reason why people might view India as a joke. Along with Bangladesh and parts of Pakistan, it's probably the only country in Eurasia with this extreme modification to IQ distribution. So when you travel to those countries, you may find upper class areas, but those areas typically have shacks on the sides of the road, beggars with arms and/or legs cut off. It's not a country that any middle-upper class person is going to see and think - I wouldn't mind living here.

Take other countries in the region - Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, China, Korea. All of them have permanent expat communities. India doesn't have that, as it is not viewed as a desirable place to live. It has one of the worse ease of doing business rating in the world. So it's not surprising that around 25% of Brahmin (high caste) have already left India, mostly in the last generation.
 
I can't see any good commentary on this, but my guess is a lot of it is to do with the caste system, which has distorted India's IQ distribution.

In feudal times, society was directed by an upper class. And India had and has an intelligent and organised upper-class, which led to it being very productive. It appears that feudal societies slowly increase the IQ of a population over generations. An extended social hierarchy begins to emerge. The caste system guarded the higher levels in a way that led to much larger levels of unskilled and underclass people. There was such a surplus of underclass people in India that over the last two millennia 100s of millions people died in famines. Predominantly from the underclass.

Meanwhile in Europe and Arab areas the classes outside of the landed and ecclesiastical strata were allowed to arrange themselves. So when the feudal system began breaking down in Europe in the 1400s, they revealed that there were plenty of high IQ proto-middle-class people ready to rise through the growing commercial/mercantile society that came to overpower the landed class. As an example you have Isaac Newton, who was born about 150 years after the end of the dominance of the feudal system. He was from an English yeoman family. The yeoman was a feudal rank for a better trained militia man under the fealty of a knight (in turn under a baron, under the king). As the feudal system declined these yeomen transformed from the highest rank of militiaman/peasant to minor land owners. From the Elizabethan period more and more men from this rank became prominent, and they eventually overturned the later end of the landed-feudal class.

In short the European feudal system bred a class of people who were more intelligent, but there was little social mobility to rise. When social mobility opened up, they instantly rose. Meanwhile in India, that class was not created and the barriers to mobility remained in place until living memory. Now those barriers have been removed, we don't see the same rise of the lower caste Indians, because they've been in a 3,000-4,000 year eugenics system that bred them for low skill and low status.

While European countries witnessed the creation of a middle class, India remained under a feudal system for a long time. It didn't have the capability to exit it, as it didn't have the above outlined proto-middle class that Europe did. So instead, the most obvious thing happened - they were invaded again and again, both by the same Turkic-Mongol hordes that invaded Europe and the more technically advanced Muslims. The middle class development in India was imported. But that was a small fraction of the population. The important control of trade (post-feudal) was mostly foreign - Muslim and later European. And from those invasions onwards almost nothing native was contributed to the nation.

I think it's probably this reason why people might view India as a joke. Along with Bangladesh and parts of Pakistan, it's probably the only country in Eurasia with this extreme modification to IQ distribution. So when you travel to those countries, you may find upper class areas, but those areas typically have shacks on the sides of the road, beggars with arms and/or legs cut off. It's not a country that any middle-upper class person is going to see and think - I wouldn't mind living here.

Take other countries in the region - Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, China, Korea. All of them have permanent expat communities. India doesn't have that, as it is not viewed as a desirable place to live. It has one of the worse ease of doing business rating in the world. So it's not surprising that around 25% of Brahmin (high caste) have already left India, mostly in the last generation.
Yikes! I never knew caste system can have such far reaching ramifications! 😠

From watching people's reactions when India or something Indian related is being discussed, here are some examples:
- In RVF when an Indian posters got caught trying to stir up debate/mayhem, he gets called out as IRT or Pajeet. Members there acts like "oh here we go again". It seems that no other people/races have a propensity to trolling as the Indians.
- In Youtube, in the comment sections on videos about Karni Mata Rat Temple or cow dung festivals, people make jokes and think Indian culture is weird.
- In Indonesia India is mentioned online as "Prindavan". If country with low human development index such as Indonesia does not respect your country and treats your country as a joke then you are in trouble.
- When Rishi Sunak became prime minister of UK and Vivek Ramaswamy announced his candidacy they are treated like unusual candidates.
 
Cira 50,000 years ago there was a migration out of East Africa, through Asia, that found its way to the shores of India.

In India the best preserved people of this migration live on the Adaman and Nicobar Island, tropical islands off the south-west of India. They are essentially a transitional people between Papuans and East Africans.

Andamanese_Onge.png


This migration continued east, populating Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Torres Strait Islands and Australia.

Populations who remain more genetically distinct from this migration are often called negritos.

LmpwZw


Filipino Negritos
2880px-Taman_Negara_%2830509997143%29.jpg


Malay Negritos
People-Chimbu-people-of-Goraka-Highlands-Papua-New-Guinea29.jpg


Papuans
Cakalele.jpg


Moluccans, a people of East Indonesia, largely unmixed with later migration
pO_4qTHoorQ.jpg


Australian aborigines
050118050056156157049111077079215248058168215044.jpg


Torres Strait Islanders

These people were largely replaced in Malaysia and The Philippines with East Asian migrations. From memory I think this began around 10,000 years ago. In Indonesia their genetic heritage still lives on strong the further you go east, more so in Papua New Guinea and totally in Australia.

These negrito people were/are very primitive, as can be seen in Australia and Papua New Guinea. The later has some later contribution from more developed Malyo-Polynesian cultures. There isn't really a strong concept of a Papuan people. The islands are the home of 100s of languages, with many being completely separate from the others. We can assume that all these peoples endures millennia or barbarism, genocide, slavery, cannibalism and war.

This is what we can expect the scene in India to have been up until 9,000 years ago. To the north stone-age technology had spread to pre-Iranian peoples. This led to their expansion and their technological advancements led to them largely replacing the old Indian negritos in the north of India, and considerably in the south.

Meanwhile, a people had emerged in the region of the Caucus, Southern Russia and Northern Kazakhstan around 8,000 years ago. By 6,000 years ago this culture had assumed metal-working abilities, which diffused from Anatolia. Using this advantage one branch of the people spread south-east and conquered the pre-Iranians, replacing their religion and language; and replacing around 50% of their gene pool with an Aryan genes.

Shortly after, a branch of the Aryan-Iranians moved south and eventually conquered what is now known as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and later spreading in smaller amounts into Indonesia. This movement occurred before a major corruption in Iranian religion changed the names of many Gods. So you can find in India Gods with similar names as were found in ancient Europe, e.g. Danu and Deus. Danu is the root of many rivers in Europe, such as the Don, Danube, Don-caster, Dniper, Dnister and Donets. The Thames is likely another, probably relating to the Greek for the River Don - Tamis (same root).

What is now the Hindu religion has a backbone of the Aryan religion, but has many pre-Iranian and some Dravidian (South Indian) influences.

A later expansion in to the area was by the Greeks, who had established trading communities in Asia. This led to the large conquests of Alexander the Great, which formed the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in the region up until about 120 BC. There is still one people in Pakistan who are quite an isolated descendant group of these people.

At a similar time, India saw the rise of its own large empires, but were, like Europe, wracked with divisions and wars. At the second millennium AD dawned India fell into economic decline and in 1206 the opportunity was seized by Iranian peoples to establish a large kingdom in northern India. This is why you find many Muslims in northern India.

The Muslim kingdoms also began to fall into decay and in 1500 the Portuguese began establishing trading colonies in India. They also began Christianising Indians en mass. But owing to never having much territory, this effort was small. This is why you find Indians with surnames like d'Souza and Fernandes.

Around 1525 saw a new Persian expansion into north India.

From about 1600 Denmark and The Netherlands began establishing trading cities in India. France later established small colonies.

In 1640 the English established a trading port in Madras (now Chennai) on the east coat of India.

Following this the Iranians seized most of India and promptly lost it to Indian and Sikh kingdoms.

As the 19th century progressed the English quickly sized most of India with technology that far out-stretched the Indian and Muslim kingdoms. The centuries of Islamic expansion came to an end. Although Britain controlled most of the continent, there were only ever as many as about 300,000 Europeans in a territory of about 300 million people. Most of the territory was under the control of Indian or Persian proxies.

There were a number of Protestant missions in India, but they didn't have much influence.

In 1947 India was granted independence and most of the European and many Anglo-Indian population left to the UK or Australia.

India became a mild hermit kingdom for about 20 years, before beginning economic development.

India will remain in population growth until about 2050.

The defining element of Indian culture is the caste system, which has created a distorted IQ distribution. It has a priestly scholarly class at the top, followed by warriors; merchants; workers; and the untouchable toilet cleaners. This is probably out of a belief that the typically less Aryan people were less spiritually developed and less able to resist the Hindu concepts of sin.

This will likely lead to a growing SJW movement in India, where the large number of untouchable dalits are no longer given a structure as to why they are at the bottom of society. The elite in India publicly disown the caste system, while generally still living their personal lives within it. See champagne socialists in the West for comparison. From my experience, many young Indians are filling the void with Marxist ideas. These will likely zenith when India hits standard of living stagnation in around 2050.

The "race hate" and light supremacy that permeates these South and South East Asian countries is likely rooted in these ancient white, yellow, brown - Aryan, Persian and East Asian migrations into barbarous low IQ negrito lands. India has the highest per capita consumption of skin whitening products in the world. Virtually all Indian middle-class women use such products.
Very interesting piece.

But where the Dravidians Austroloids? I always thought they were neolithic farmers. Genome mapping suggests that the Indus Civilization was populated by people that are close to todays Dravidians.
 
From watching people's reactions when India or something Indian related is being discussed, here are some examples:
- In RVF when an Indian posters got caught trying to stir up debate/mayhem, he gets called out as IRT or Pajeet. Members there acts like "oh here we go again". It seems that no other people/races have a propensity to trolling as the Indians.
- In Youtube, in the comment sections on videos about Karni Mata Rat Temple or cow dung festivals, people make jokes and think Indian culture is weird.
- In Indonesia India is mentioned online as "Prindavan". If country with low human development index such as Indonesia does not respect your country and treats your country as a joke then you are in trouble.
- When Rishi Sunak became prime minister of UK and Vivek Ramaswamy announced his candidacy they are treated like unusual candidates.

Isn't Indonesia quite diverse? It's obviously not really a nation. It's more like a confederation or empire, in that it has - so far as I can remember three broad ethnicities that bleed into each other: Malayo, Sulawesi (Filipino adjacent) & the more negrito-type people.

GDP per capita on Java is $4,800 or $15,000 (PPP). There are four states in India with a higher GDP per capita, and other than the Delhi Capital district, they are all small. One Indian state has a GDP per capita of $643, which is less than most countries in Africa.

But where the Dravidians Austroloids? I always thought they were neolithic farmers. Genome mapping suggests that the Indus Civilization was populated by people that are close to todays Dravidians.

The Dravidian languages are probably related to whatever they were speaking in the area that is now Iran 10,000 years ago.

Australoid is called scientific rasicms now. Mainstream science can't deal with certain things, because the actual truth is often "racist". For example, they don't have much problem with saying there is such a thing as ethnicity. It would be racist to say there is no such thing as Ethiopians. They also don't have a problem with discussing broad people, like Semitic peoples or Polynesian peoples. But when it comes to the level above that - race - they have to completely shut it down. Any higher level of categorisation of humans is racist. But there can be broader classifications, based on genetics. e.g. Europeans, particularly Northern Europeans are essentially all the same people going back 20,000 years - this is a race.

Some ethnicities are genetically not part of a race or people, because the ancestry is too mixed. Indians are one.

Genetically, on the male line Dravidians are (on average) about 50% negrito/Australoid, 25% Aryan and 25% pre-Iranian. While on the female line they are more like 90% negrito and 10% Aryan. In total about 70% negrito. As is typically the case with invasions, the genetic inflow is primarily found on male lines, who displace domestic males.

41559_2022_1775_Fig1_HTML.png


This shows genetic distance of East and South East Asians, along with Papuans etc. You can see there is a huge gap between East Asians, with some transitional people, mainly in East Indonesia.
 
He's not correct on Egypt. Prior to the Muslim expansion North Africans (Berbers) were close to completely genetically isolated. Copts and native Berber speakers are about 100% North African. While other North Africans have about a 20% infusion of Arab on the male line, less on the female.
What race do you think ruled Egypt during its ancient times? Not being condescending or anything, I'm curious on your thoughts on this. I also don't want to derail the thread talking about Egypt.
 
What race do you think ruled Egypt during its ancient times? Not being condescending or anything, I'm curious on your thoughts on this. I also don't want to derail the thread talking about Egypt.

I haven't looked into it. But the depictions in Egyptian murals/art seem to be people with a Berber appearance.

main-qimg-5da6e7e51d8df3b3593db6aafb03453a-lq


Some depictions of Greeks, seem to be lighter - https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ince-of-Keftiu-Prince-of-Hatti_fig1_304488056

By the looks of this, it seems they were a mix of Semitic, Caucasian and Berber -


It's possible that Egyptian civilisation could have been seeded by an outside group, as it often the case. And the appearance of Caucasian and Semitic male lineages there would suggest that. Also suggested by this:


There doesn't seem to be enough data.

But the earliest settlements emerged around Egypt and the Levant 20,000 years ago. They were destroyed in the deluged and the recovered cira 10,000 years ago. It seems most civilisations stemmed from there.
 

Although funny and unusual, from a Hindu standpoint it is logical. Since Hinduism view living beings as having the spirit of gods inside them, men can have godlike qualities and even be a demigod.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaraja these are examples of kings that have divine status. Extrapolating from this line of thought it is possible that Donald Trump is a god in human form.

However we have to admit that Donald Trump is a person with charisma, achievements and talents, that in 2016 even some Americans called him with titles such as God-Emperor and Donaldus Triumphus. It is hard not to be Trump's hardcore fans.
 
Back
Top