India

Helo saar, can I hav bobs an vagene?

I’ve made recent posts on China, Ireland, Jews, and now it comes to the Crown Jewel of Britannia… India… This will be a fun one, because India is almost monstrously awful and yet many great things have come out of India intellectually. How could this be? And what of Indian Americans? Today, we’re going to get into all of it, from the very beginning.

If you want to hear me talk about India after 1000 BC, skip to the next section, where I talk about the actual Indian civilization and modern Indians and what I think of them.

Prehistoric India

Our story begins in the Indus Valley, around 3000 BC. The aboriginal population of India was likely genetically similar to modern day Andamanese, Onge, and “Veddoid” groups. The transformation of Andamanese people into an almost Negroid phenotype is probably a more recent phenomenon, and aboriginal “AASI” (Ancient Ancestral South Indian) people would have looked more like modern populations with high Australoid type ancestry in India. It seems that the epicenter of Australoid ancestry in India corresponds to the range of the Karnatid phenotype. This surprised me a bit, because this type (along with the broader Indo-Melanid type) doesn’t seem that tropical-looking in the way the Veddid variety does, but the only reconstruction I have ever seen of an AASI skull does seem to resemble the Karnatid type more.

Okay, enough skull-measuring. The Indus Valley people really have to be talked about, for a plethora of reasons. Firstly, with respect to the “Out of India” debate. Many Indians have gotten to claiming that the Aryans who wrote the Rigveda were actually not the Steppe invaders of the Andronovo Culture, but the Indus Valley civilization. I’ll explain why this is wrong when I get to the anti-invasion rhetoric, but I just want to say that the Indus Valley culture is also not native to India. Only the AASI are. The IVC is an introduction of Neolithic Iranians who probably spread agriculture into India in a similar way that the Neolithic Anatolians spread it into Europe and North Africa.

Also, just to really dig it in, please do not confuse Neolithic Iranian, who are Neolithic farmers who happened to live in modern day Iran, with actual Iranian, which is an ethno-linguistic group which definitely does not originate in Iran. “Iran” is cognate with “Aryan” which the Iranic peoples used to describe themselves (including faraway Scythians) so I prefer the term “Zagrosian” for Neolithic Iranians.

Secondly, the Indus Valley Civilization is kind of strange. They are not really like Pharaohnic Egypt or even Sumer. They’re definitely more like early Sumer than they are Egypt, but the IVC doesn’t leave behind much evidence for warfare. You were probably taught in School that they were an entirely peaceful society, but their cities do seem to have some degree of defensive fortifications. Maybe not to the level of civilizations further west, but some degree of it. Likewise, there was some social stratification but less evidence of it than in places like Egypt.

I think it is fairly likely that the Indus Valley spoke Dravidian. Many people believe this for the wrong reason, they think Dravidian is an aboriginal Indian language. Judging by the existence of Brahui, Dravidian possibly is not an aboriginal Indian language. I would consider it basically confirmed that Dravidian is not an aboriginal Indian language AND that Dravidian is the language of the Indus Valley, if the Elamo-Dravidian theory is proven true. It seems pretty well-grounded despite the lack of information on Elamite, but I’m not a linguist. Elamites, presumably, are pure descendants from Neolithic Iranians. Maybe they got some Levantine DNA from population movements, but it seems like they are surely descendants of Neolithic Iranians. Elamites are kind of weird as well, more women-oriented than other Bronze Age civilizations.

Probably the strangest thing about the IVC, is its lack of monumental architecture. This is one of the most important elements of Egypt and Mesopotamia, this obsession with monuments and massive architectural projects led by some emperor or priest. Pyramids, Ziggurats, even in other parts of the world like Mesoamerica you see the development of civilization start off with the development of these grand projects. You could say they made up for it in their urban design, with relatively advanced multi-story architecture and sewage.

You might have heard about these “great baths” of Mohenjo-Daro, but we actually don’t really have any idea what these things looked like. We have the bath part, yeah, but not the building surrounding it. It might have looked less like this:

Roman Baths of Caracalla

…And more like this:

Seeing Indians decide to bathe themselves is monumental enough I suppose. XD

There’s something wrong about this to me… It throws off what civilization is really all about! It is certainly not because of the decentralized politics of Mohenjo-Daro, remember that Sumer was also decentralized. The Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans were as well, and yet they built some rather impressive Cyclopean palaces!

Now, I ought to talk about the elephant in the room. The Aryan Invasion. Today in India, it is very popular to deny the Aryans ever migrated into India at all. Especially among conservatives, for somewhat understandable reasons. Remember, India is full of leftists who are very obsessed with anti-casteism and anti-islamophobia. They will basically say that, because AIT is true, Hindus have no right to attack Islam because Hinduism is also a foreign religion. Furthermore, they use it to bolster the draconian Affirmative Action regime in India, because it proves that Brahmins and Kshatriyas are “invaders” who “colonized” the Tribals and who subjugated the Shudras and untouchables (untouchables are much more varying in origin albeit). We will get into the caste system soon enough, but I do feel some sympathy for Indian conservatives in this regard. They do the same thing here, unfortunately, talking about how Englishmen are immigrants because of the Anglo-Saxons (while simultaneously denying the Anglo-Saxons invaded England), or how the mixture of EEF, Steppe, and WHG in Europeans is somehow proof that there is no such thing as White People. But, they also use some dishonest and anti-white arguments in trying to prove their utterly ridiculous “Out of India” hypothesis, which virtually no one outside of India believes. And we will go through some of the common ones.

1. “R1a in Indians isn’t evidence of Aryan Invasion because R originated in India”

First of all, this is probably totally false. There is no evidence aside from very old outdated papers using pure speculation that R originated in India. It almost certainly originated among P1-rich Ancient North Eurasians, because we have North Eurasian derived samples with haplogroups P1 (Yana RHS), then R* (basal R, which we know descends from P1) (Mal’ta-Buret’) and Q1 (Afontova Gora 2, Tutkaul) and the earliest R1a samples come from EHG-rich Europeans. Other early R1-derived samples also come from Europe, for example the Villabruna Man (a very early representative of the eponymous Villabruna Cluster, basically an early Western Hunter Gatherer) who is from Epigravettian Italy and is R1b. There are EHG R1b samples as well and R1b may have had a presence as early as the Ancient North Eurasians.

Secondly, we know R1a in India comes from the Sintashta-Andronovo culture because Indians are particularly rich in branches descending from R1a-Z93, which only came into existence during the Bronze Age (according to Ytree, the most recent common ancestor of all Z93s is from ~2500 BC) and was the primary haplogroup of Andronovo Culture males. One of its closest relatives, Z282, is strongly associated with Slavs.

2. “Indians don’t have Steppe ancestry, they have northerly ANE ancestry from another source (ex: Oxus Civilization/BMACs) or this ancestry is recent Iranic influence”

No, we know that Indians even as far back as the Swat culture in 1000 BC had specifically Andronovo-Sintashta-CordedWare type ancestry because they have ancestry from European Neolithic Farmers. Not Anatolian Neolithic Farmers who went eastward, but European Neolithic Farmers, very WHG-rich farmers. All of this was already confirmed in the groundbreaking paper on the Aryan migrations years ago. Also, we’ll get to Iranians in a bit…

3. “Archaeological indicators of Aryan influence (swastikas, wheeled vehicles, horse bones) were already in India during the Indus Valley period”

No, the “wheeled chariot” that OoI people bring up was more like a wagon like you see among Sumerian warriors. What made the Sintashta chariots significant is that they were Spoked-Wheeled Chariots. This made them much swifter, much more mobile. These are the chariots of Indian legend, clearly. Swastikas show up all over the place, I won’t contest that an “argument from Swastikas” is kind of bad. However, finding one set of horse bones and using this as evidence that horses were already present in the IVC is just as ridiculous as finding Giraffe remains under the colosseum and saying that it is proof the Romans were using Giraffes intensively. Horses are not present in the material culture of the IVC, meanwhile many other farm animals are. Some people will point to ambiguous snouted creatures on coinage or emblems and say they are horses, but I have never seen an unambiguous horse on IVC art. Certainly, if the IVC was the civilization of the Rigvedic tribes (who don’t seem to match the IVC at all) you would expect to find a great deal of horses and also a great deal more weapons for that matter (of which there are none).

4. “The Rigveda never describes the Aryans as originating outside of India”

No, but why would it? It’s a book of hymns, not a people’s history. Even if it was, would the Aryans really *want* to make themselves known as outsiders? It is not great optics when you are a small ruling elite. And do you know what does describe the Aryans as originating from the far north? The Avestas. Well, not technically north, but a cold land wherein winter resides most of the year. I mean… I guess you could say it’s the Himalayas? But that seems like quite a stretch. Most scholars place this homeland of the Aryans (Airyanem Vaejah) in Central Asia, and I find the most likely area to be Chorasmia. Interestingly, the Zoroastrians seem to recognize the early Aryan tribes as seeping into the Indus Valley, which presumably represents Rigvedic Aryans. It is likely that the Indo-Aryans and Iranians went through some sort of religious schism, which explains why later Iranic sources call that region too hot for reason…

Of course, these “Out of India” silly people seem to make up things about how every Indo-European group actually comes from India, despite absolutely zero evidence of this genetically and almost all literary evidence coming from vague interpretations of Indian literature, not literature from elsewhere.

4. “The Sarasvati, which plays a large role in Vedic literature, had dried up by that point”

This is assuming that the Sarasvati is the Ghaggar-Hakra River, which leads to the present day Sarsuti river, but the evidence is far from conclusive. There is another view that the Sarasvati actually represents the Helmand in Afghanistan, or more particularly its tributary the Arghandab River, which runs parallel and to the south of the main Helmand. I’ve done my best to line up two maps here for you to see the Ghaggar-Hakra River and Arghandab rivers with respect to the Indus Valley.

Why do I refer to the Arghandab as the Haraxvaiti? Well, that is what it was called in ancient times, once again using Iranic sources. The region which the Greeks would call Arachosia was known to the Iranians as Haraxvaiti or Harakvaiti, which is cognate with Sarasvati. It is also possible that Saraswvati and Haraxvaiti originally referred to a more general category of large rivers, which would cast doubt on the significance of the Iranian cognate, but would also suggest the possibility that there was no single Sarasvati river in the Vedas. But rather, different rivers were referred to as such at different times. Anyways, the most solid evidence for the Sarasuti side I could find was the Rigvedic conjecture that the Sarasvati is a tributary of the Indus, while the most solid evidence for the Haraxvaiti side I could find was the description of the river cutting through mountains and hills.

Ultimately, this is the best piece of evidence of the Vedas having an earlier origin, and it is still no where near certain enough to stand up to the volley of evidence suggesting otherwise.

5. “MUH HEGGARTY STUDY!!! INDO-EUROPEAN IS TEN TAUSAND YARR OLD, SAAR!!!

This study is retarded and has already been left in the dustbin of history by Steppe and Armenian Urheimat believers alike. I mean, seriously, the amount of logical leaps to make this work. CHG and Anatolian Farmers speaking the same Proto-Language… Indo-Iranic diversifying before 4000 BC, a time where wheeled vehicles barely even existed… As Davidski said, it’s all fluff.

Other things I ought to bring up…

• The Mitanni — the probably Indo-Aryan invaders of Hurria, don’t really seem very much like Indus Valley refugia. They were horsemen, in fact they introduced the chariot warrior class to the Middle East. How do we know this? The term used for this in the Amarna Letters is Maryannu, which is a Vedic loan word for “young male warrior” with a Hurrian suffix. The Mitanni, for the record, were Indo-Iranian (probably Indo-Aryan in my opinion, judging by their worship of Indra) rulers over Hurrians, and spoke Hurrian in written texts with an Indic superstrate. I would imagine that in their spoken language they used Indo-Aryan, at least early in their reign. It isn’t like later in history where people wrote everything down. There was no reason to write letters to other countries or to people in your multi-national empire in a language known only by a small warrior elite.

Okay, and now that we have established that the Indo-Aryans *were* invaders, let’s talk about the next big controversy… Were they racist?

Well, there are a lot of quotes in the Rig Veda which seem to suggest this. Deities are referred to as fair-complexioned, golden-haired, or even just generally golden-hued. Meanwhile, the enemy tribes of the Arya, the Dasyu, are referred to as dark-skinned. However, there are some good points made by Indians against assumptions here.

• The Dasyu are a more general cast of enemies of the Rigvedic Tribes, or foreigners at large, and do not necessarily refer to human beings or a particular race

• The use of color in the Rigveda does not refer to skin color, but rather spiritual quality (ex: white is associated with purity/truth, darkness with ignorance)

• English copies of the Rig Veda are biased and contrived towards legitimizing light-skinned British rule in India

Alright, first I’ll talk about the last bullet, because I’m just gonna say, generally I don’t believe the British were such racist masterminds like this. It’s just one of those “new religion” things which I’m not gonna validate because it is downplaying the most generous people who have ever lived on this planet. Later, when I get to modern India, I’ll talk about why Indians should be thanking the Brits, but just look at the first translator of the Rigveda into English, Max Muller. He was not anti-Indian and would not have ever legitimized British rule in India by pigmentation, which he stated in multiple quotes was a shoddy and inauthentic way to measure the “Aryanness” of a people.

Secondly, with respect to translation to skin, it seems that the most common translations to “skin” in these passages comes from two words, varna and tvac. Now, varna is now used to refer to general quality and more of one’s character type, but is still heavily associated with caste and historically with one’s tribal origins. But in the past, it probably referred specifically to outward appearance or some sort of outward layer covering something, based on cognates in other Indo-European languages. However, it does seem like it is sometimes used to refer more to character within the Rig veda, ex: “Black Skin is Impious” really comes from “dasam varnam adharam” which can be translated as “the dasa’s varna is adharmic” or most conservatively, “the dasa’s outward appearance is improper”… Seems like a stretch to say this refers to skin color, although it certainly may refer to it when talking about color in particular. Because again, it probably originally referred primarily to the appearance of something, the exact opposite of internal qualities.

On the other hand, the more common phrase of “krsna tvac” seems to refer generally to skin color. “krsna” means dark, and yes this is the root of “Krishna”. Krishna is often described as dark in appearance, although whether this refers to a human skin tone or his typical blue depiction, is unclear. It shouldn’t really matter, obviously Krishna transcends race. “tvac” seems to mean skin, because it is regularly used to refer to the hides or pelts of animals. It is also used to refer to other things similar to skin, like the bark of a tree, the material we call leather, or the rind of fruit. Also, cognates in Greek and Hittite refer to a shield (an item which is often covered with animal hide, especially among the earliest Greeks) and a human body respectively.

Mycenaean Greek Shield

“Active and bright have they [the Soma-juice] come forth, impetuous in speed like bulls, Driving the black skin far away.

Quelling the riteless Dásyu, may we think upon the bridge of bliss, Leaving the bridge of woe behind.” —RV 9.41.1-2

For context, Soma was drunken by warriors prior to battle, including divine warriors such as Indra.

“Indra in battles help his Aryan [noble] worshipper, he who hath hundred helps at hand in every fray, in frays that win the light of heaven. Plaguing the lawless he gave up to Manu’s seed the dusky skin; Blazing, ’twere, he burns each covetous man away, he burns, the tyrannous away” — RV 1.130.8

“O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men,
Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates.” — RV 9.73.5

See, first I thought that this one really was referring to some “skin around the earth” like dark clouds or the darkness of the night, but it does seem to associate (like the rest) the “dark skin” with the impious and riteless, which I am not denying was the primary issue that the Rig Veda has with the Barbarians. They are impious, they are ritless, they are lazy and stupid (“devoid of sense”). The Dasyu also seem to be more urban and sedentary than the Rigvedic tribes, interestingly. I would find such a people pathetic as well. The civtards of the Nile and the Euphrates, at least they had ambition. At least they would make their subjects build the grandest of tombs and temples. These hippie lotus-eaters are truly odious-to-the-gods methinks… And that was when their civilizations were on high. By the time the Aryans arrived, things had gone way downhill in the Indus Valley. Most of the cities were largely abandoned or destroyed.

There are much more references to the dasyus as “black” or “dark” in the Rig Veda, and given what we know about the genes of the Aryans and the non-Aryans, it would not be surprising if they referenced skin color. In fact, even in racially homogeneous societies there is a tendency to favor fair skin, because it is a sign that you don’t spend your days getting burnt in the fields. But, I feel like to bring these many examples up is somewhat unproductive. Those who agree with me already will agree with them, and those who disagree with me will deny the possibility that the “dark hue” of the Dasa tribes implies anything more than dark moral character.

Now, what about the actual nature of the Dasyu? Shivaji on iFunny once tried to argue that they were only snake-demons, and the term does seem to be used sometimes to refer to demons (although, with Indo-Iranians, the line between inferior races and demons is not always clear… Maybe read the Bundahishn?) but clearly many times they are referred to as human beings who our human warriors fight, and who live in human cities, who wield weapons. I haven’t brought up the “noseless” accusations, because I’m not sure how accurate the “noseless” translation is, but Greek travelers often referred to tropical peoples as “noseless” or “flat-nosed” so it can totally be a description of human beings. The Dasyus are criticized for their irreligiosity, a shirking of a human duty. Nobody expects demons to be praying and I don’t even imagine any god would accept such a prayer. Dasyu in later texts, if I recall correctly, is used as “servant” or “slave”, so that might tell you how things turned out for them.

What about the supposedly light-skinned Aryans? Well, Indra is described often as golden-haired, golden-hued, and golden-jawed/bearded. However, this may be due to the regality of gold, rather than a statement about hair color. Other deities are described with light hair as well. Nirrti, Surya, Savitr, Agni are described also with light hair, but not as frequently as Indra (albeit, Indra has much more hymns dedicated to him in the first place). It’s hard to say if these correspond to human traits, they are more meant to characterize the inner nature of the gods. Nonetheless, we know from genetic evidence that the earliest Aryans were most certainly familiar with very light-complexioned people, and some later Indian texts seem to also suggest that fair features were still common among Classical Brahmins in some parts of Northwest India, but there is only scant evidence of this.

I would say, the strongest evidence of racial consciousness of the Aryans is the fact that Brahmins and Kshatriyas are higher in Aryan ancestry today than lower castes within the respective regions of said Brahmins and Kshatriyas, despite around 1800 years of mixing between the invasion of India and the enforcement of caste endogamy under the Gupta Empire. The Hellenes, who were similarly outnumbered, had become a relatively homogenous component within the Greek population only a couple of centuries after their entry into the peninsula. There is very clearly a racial element to the caste system which genetics demonstrates, albeit it is a common misconception that some group of Brahmins are the most Aryan. The rule is that higher castes have higher Aryan ancestry, but there are exceptions to the rule.

The most Aryan groups in India are actually the Jats and the Ror, both farmer-warriors of ambiguous origin in Northwestern India. Some of them are, believe it or not, rather scary and fierce looking like Afghans. Sharp faces. Sharp noses. Sharp mustaches. I suspect that all Indians looked like Afghans even after they began mixing, and only after 3000 years of subtropical life did their noses adapt to the hot humid air and they developed a rounder face, big lips, and squat noses like the Negro.

Historic and Modern India

Let’s segue into this next section of the article by talking about the caste system. Many Indians claim that the British invented caste, and while the British may have been the first to truly and fully standardize caste, genetic evidence suggests it has existed in India since at least late antiquity, possibly earlier. You’ve gotta love how that article words it, such a sly way of putting it. “Indians were not endogamous until the past… two millennium.” And for the record, they obviously were somewhat endogamous. As I was just talking about by comparing to how quickly other “elite” groups completely dissolved into an equal component across the entire population. They just weren’t as endogamous as they would become.

In the classical period we get a wider array of dialogue about caste and discouraging caste-mixing, and emphacizing that although there are exceptions caste is largely hereditary. The Mahabharata talks about caste-mixing as improper, and it was compiled and composed from ~400 BC to 400 AD. Likewise, the Laws of Manu explicitly condemn caste-mixing as creating caste-confused bastard children:

“By adultery (committed by persons) of (different) castes, by marriages with women who ought not to be married, and by the neglect of the duties and occupations (prescribed) to each, are produced (sons who owe their origin) to a confusion the castes. —Manusmriti 10.24

“Among all castes, those only who are born of consorts wedded in the natural order, as virgins of equal status, are to be regarded as the same (as their father).” —MS 10.5

The second reason for the rise of caste may be due to the “Brahmanical resurgence” under the Gupta Empire. The Mauryan Empire which preceded it was much more heavily influenced by Buddhism, following the conversion of Ashoka, and after its decline Northern India was invaded several times by the Indo-Greeks, Scythians, and Hephthalites, who were all strongly influenced by Buddhism.

This famous sculpture of the Buddha was probably made by a Greek.

I believe that the Bhagavad Gita (which is part of the Mahabharata) can be considered the fundamental text of Brahmanism in the face of Buddhism and other new Dharmic religions like Jainism. Buddhists I have talked to online seem to promote the text, but many ancient Buddhists were very critical of it. They viewed it as a copout justification for violence. To say that Buddhists rejected caste entirely is a modernist lie. However, Buddhism was moving in a more individualistic and esoteric direction than Hinduism, and part of this involved a skepticism towards the sanctification of social order in Hinduism. The Gita, likewise, takes Arjuna as someone who represents the aspiring nihilistic ascetic of that day. It isn’t meant to criticize those who go down the ascetic path, it clarifies this many times. For some people, ascetic paths are the correct paths. However, it creates a brilliant defense of action within this world, particularly action in accordance with one’s social role, as potentially more conducive to non-attachment than ascetic traditions. It also emphasizes how asceticism can be considered as a form of motivated action in the wrong hands, as to shirk the fruits of one’s labor represents a “negative” attachment to them just as much as to covet them represents a positive attachment to them. I recommend the Bhagavad Gita even to people with no interest in Indian philosophy. It isn’t a terribly long or terribly heavy read, despite its philosophical nature. I would consider a similar sentiment in western philosophy to be the rift between Plotinus and Iamblichus. Plotinus encourages Henosis (union with the Monad) through meditation and contemplation, while Iamblichus tried to justify the active process of Theurgy as a means of enlightenment, thus justifying the Pagan practice of rites.

One really must understand, Caste is the only reason India is not like Africa today. India has an average IQ in the 70s, and yet it has been able to keep up with China and the Middle East in intellectual advancement for most of history probably because of caste. I have never seen evidence to suggest even Brahmins are as smart as Europeans within India, but they are definitely smarter than Shudras. Because the intelligentsia did not mix itself too hastily with the tribals. When they did mix with lower orders, they did it with the exceptional men to rise from the masses. Brahmins in India are not as smart as Indian-Americans, who are so smart because the degree of selection going on with Indian immigration is utterly insane in America. I don’t have the statistic for it, but someone posted it fairly recently showing just how cherrypicked Indian-Americans are out of the ocean of ‘jeets. In the UK it is not as good, which is why UK Indians have lower IQs. Some idiots take this as a sign to take in more Indians, but that’s not a good idea. The more Indians you bring in, the less exceptional those Indians are, so you quickly end up with Indians not much smarter than the general Indian population. Furthermore, smart Indians here promote more Indian immigration, which will result in a higher chance of stupid Indians coming here even if you didn’t ask for it. This is why elite groups are the worst fifth columns even if they are the most economically productive. *cough* Jews *cough*.

India has unfortunately foresaken caste, and hopefully it will be divinely punished for this. The caste system is falling apart. India has an insane affirmative action regime, and many of India’s high-caste individuals are leaving to become impious secular businessmen with Transvestite children in the United States (speaking from eyewitness accounts). 90 percent of Indian-Americans are high caste. And yet, they are a total and utter disgrace to the Brahmins of old. They are butt-kissers, as we all know. They are corporate tech speculators, which is truly the place of a middle-rank Vaishya and not a Brahmin. And worst of all, they are insanely liberal. It isn’t like the UK, where there are Muslims who scare them into voting “conservative” (as if you can call the UK’s conservatives such a title). Strongly recommend this article to demonstrate how Indians are the least conservative ethnic group in the united states. Not the least republican, that honor goes to Africans, but the least conservative.

It could honestly be said, that Indians are the “new Jew” in some senses. Jews still have power, but not as much as they did in the late 20th century. The tech field is dominated by these AAPI types. Indians also excel at ass-kissery. I can’t statistically justify this, but it’s visible in politics anecdotally with people like Ramaswamy.

Despite the success of Indians, Indians are also seemingly one of the most bullied ethnic groups out there. First of all, Indians are not attractive. Indian men are the most unattractive race to American women, it’s very clear. It seems that even Indian women don’t go for them.

This is mostly explained by the “foreign/ESL effect”, their shortness, their smaller-than-average penises, and their infamous poor grip strength, but it is strange considering that such an elite subset of Indians come to the west. Interestingly, some of them would probably mog in India, as high-caste Indians tend to be taller (due to better nutrition and probably also higher Steppe ancestry).

I hate to say it, but yes, Pakistanis are probably more “Aryan” genetically than Hindus on average, but the most Aryan people of South Asia are the exact people who fought the Muslims so vigorously. Like I said earlier, the Ror and Jat people of Haryana are the most Indo-European descended people in South Asia, and many of the Rajputs who fought the Muslim Mughals came from these castes. Albeit, some Rajputs did side with the Mughals and converted or just became local elites.

Another reason that Indians get made fun of a lot is because Black people make fun of them endlessly. I think we are all familiar with the Black-Indian internet wars at this point, but Black people always get priority because we live in a negrolatrous society.

India is severely overpopulated, and a big issue in India is the higher birth rates of Muslims as well. Savitri Devi was talking about this before India even became independent, that if Indians didn’t form a salient against Islam they would be replaced. I think this is why “Hindutva” types don’t spend more time trying to restore caste, because they have this bigger threat on their doorstep (Devi also talks about this). Does anyone else ship Hitler and Devi? Eva Braun was not a good woman, she would kick Hitler’s dog out of Jealousy when he wasn’t looking. I also suspect Eva Braun was part Jewish, there is some decent evidence for this unlike the idiotic claim that Hitler is part Jewish. Many people get mad at Bill Gates for testing infertility-causing vaccines on Indians, but he should have probably kept doing this. There are way too many Indians. There are too many people on earth in general, but the fact that 1 in 4 of them are Indians is terrifying. No wonder these people are so hellbent on trying to escape the cycle of birth and death, it’s like playing Russian roulette with a four-shot revolver!

So basically, we are stuck in a lose-lose situation. Indians of high wit leave their home country, causing brain drain. They come here, support progressive anti-white BS. And what do they get for it? They get to be currycels. India is a very dirty place, and I think that some of the outcastes there actually revel in their own filthiness as a sort of “low caste identity”. The toilet cleaner shall inherit the earth! Indians are also a very perverted people, if you haven’t noticed. They somehow beat out Arabs in their level of perversion. They are also really annoying on very online forum and imageboard, and they are actually the ones behind the BBC spam. You might think it’s Jews, but no. Jews are probably the ones MAKING the porn, but the people endlessly posting it on 4chan are Indians. It’s their way of coping. You question BBC spammers long enough and eventually they will give some sort of hint that they are Indian, Chinese, or Somali. One of those “world island” ethnic groups.

Oh yeah, and before I forget, the British did not ruin India. The British probably aren’t even very responsible for the Bengal Famine, and the Indian famines under British rule are a sign of economic growth, because famines happen after periods of population growth. I talked about this a bit in my Ireland post. People who point out the decline of Indian world GDP are being either stupid or maliciously fake-ignorant. The Indian GDP share went down because the British and Western European GDP share exploded. Indian economic output probably increased heavily (watch that video I linked), and that doesn’t even mention the technology the British introduced to India. Trains, cars, modern medicine, toilets… The Indians have several copes for the fact that they are indebted to the British, such as claiming that in the distant past it was actually Indians who bathed and the British who stenchmaxxed.

Some Indians are honest and acknowledge that the British were a much better alternative to the Muslim Mughals and the host of other invaders who had subjugated Hindus over history, but most now rely on the British captivity as part of their origin narrative. The entire world despises the British for literally handing them the modern world and life expectancies above 40 on a silver platter. It’s the most intellectually dishonest and aggressive, hateful way of thought out there. If you’re an Indian, please, thank your local Anglo-Saxon today.

Couldn’t find an attractive Indian girl for the boob break, so I’ll use a White girl. I wouldn’t want to cause miscegenation-inducing temptations anyways.