/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


All-Purpose Dharmic Philsophy Thread Blackshirt 05/30/2020 (Sat) 15:17:03 ID: 2205aa No.458
About time we had one. I'll begin with an interesting tweet thread going over how proper Buddhism has nothing in it that encourages social justice: https://twitter.com/gesarofbling/status/1070566104089583618
>>11184 Of course they were. Women by birth have no loyalty to the tribe, merely their immediate "nuclear family" since women across history have been been captured in war or traded for diplomacy. Women representing The Good independently of performing their role for the tribe is overall historically recent and roots in post-Christianized Europe (namely Modern England). >>11195 Any "genetic factor" would be the same one as for something like schizophrenia. Not just being gay. More importantly, in species that reproduce using two sexes there aren't any solid examples of exclusively homosexual (rather "situational") behavior in the wild (rather than in captivity). Even in a species like bonobos the homosexuality is lacks examples of exclusives.
>>11206 I saw this in my feed earlier, I'll have to check it out and come back here later. I definitely don't think a lack of masculinity was a huge problem in the past so they might have not had to deal with such things, as you say. >that video He's getting more open on these things. Based. The beard fits him better than clean-shaven too. >>11213 > Women by birth have no loyalty to the tribe, merely their immediate "nuclear family" This is why I think the guidelines for women in the Laws of Manu seem so much more sensible to me the more I get redpilled on these questions. I will have to quote them ITT thread some time soon.
>>11195 a gay gene should be selected out of existence, for the simple reason that it makes reproduction very difficult. it can't be a choice either, because even in societies that violently punish homosexuality, it still emerges, not to mention cases of fags trying to suppress their urges and not being successful. since it emerges in all sorts of environments, we can't draw a clear correlation there either. some older sources claim that upbringing causes homosexuality, but I think they're conflating certain character traits or behavior patterns with being gay; after all, not all homosexuals are the sissy type. if it's not genetic, environmental, or by choice, then it must be congenital. I think homosexuality is decided when the fetus' brain is developing. there must be some mechanism for sexual orientation, and for a minority, the 'switch' gets flipped the wrong way. that to me is the most consistent explanation.
Open file (83.67 KB 518x301 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (138.55 KB 507x403 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (184.31 KB 507x538 ClipboardImage.png)
Here is the section on women I was going to quote. >>11250 I at least think the explosion in homosexuality today is partially due to environmental factors along with sociological ones. It's like Calhoun's rat utopia. Homosexuals began appearing as the population density rose, along with all sorts of other bizarre behaviors.
Sri Lanka Police Anally Torture, Whip Gay Men Suspected of Having Sex, Human Rights Watch Says >Sri Lanka, an island nation of 21 million people, criminalizes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” and “gross indecency between persons.” >The law emanates from Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code, which the British passed in 1883 during its colonial rule. >Police say that the shape of the anus, as well as the “tone” of the anal sphincter, will determine whether or not suspects had engaged in receptive anal sex — an outdated theory medical authorities have dismissed. https://nextshark.com/sri-lanka-police-anally-torture-whip-gay-men-suspected-of-having-sex-human-rights-watch-says/ Why are these island mudpeople more based than their ancient aryan masters?
>>11311 I'm thinking it's a politically-motivated twisting of history for people to claim that ancient Aryans in India and elsewhere were "pro-gay" in any way. Usually they appeal to the fact that fags appear in literature occasionally, or that someone is described as a fag to show that it was prevalent - which is a bad way to go about it, I think. It is like with ancient Greece, it was far from unanimous, and the presence of homosexuality there to an extent was far from anything like the utter depravity that we see today (not to downplay what happened in Greece, btw, it's still degenerate)
>>9390 Interesting structure for a book. What is it? >>9398 Perhaps because he's the equivalent of an alpha male, a sort of lord, so polygamy appears natural. It would not be unnatural for an Aryan king to have concubines either. Monogamy is the major bond type in our societies but it should not forbid what allows people of superior quality to breed more.
>>11321 >Interesting structure for a book. What is it? The Tattvartha Sutra. https://archive.org/details/thatwhichistattvarthasutranathamalatatia_202003_432_M/page/n11/mode/2up I have always said that monogamy is a form of marriage based around the female and her needs. It is a form of egalitarianism in marriage and suppresses the birth-rate of the superior elements of society (which are almost always numerically inferior too!)
>>9462 >it kind of is a divine revelation. the tirthankara dedicates their life to spiritual practice and acheives perfection, liberation, and becomes omniscient. by acheiving omniscience they become an authority to teach religion, so the information we have today is seen have come from mahavira, an omniscient being. I do not buy it one minute. Omniscience is not an attribute accessible to humans. It would mean this individual knows everything at any time, which could be quickly verified by checking if he knows what you're thinking, knows about your life, what you have in your pocket, what goes on at the surface of Jupiter, the exact weight of all matter in our solar system, etc. >jainism seems to be more like mankind before the AI war/warp rift that destroyed humanities galactic empire and birthed slaanesh and vedic religion seems more like the post horus heresy imperium of man if you catch the reference. Pardon me? Is that another teaching? >the universe is here and always has been, no being created it or maintains it and no explanation is needed for its existence. Ontologically, a purposeless universe is a troubling idea. >the vedics have their puranas and all claim they are perfect No religion can be perfect unfortunately. It would be like cheating. In fact, from the jainist perspective, even having a religion is cheating, based on what you said about advanced ascetics calling on superior minds for knowledge gifts. >karma I prefer that which didn't consider it as a form of quantity wherein the less there is, the better the individual, but more as a measurement tool, so it can be rather dark or bright. >>9611 >In vedic culture out of the four varnas the kshatriya varna is the only one that is forbidden to take sannyasi, renouncing the world. this restriction is not in jain religion A renouncing kshatriya would logically stop being a true kshatriya. If he were capable of pure spiritual search, he'd even be considered a brahmin. >the jain mahapurana describes the kshatriya as the best and foremost of all races Evola might like this. An actionless life, an extremely passive one, really does sound like a corruption of the premise of life and existence. I think it should be about a healthy diet, with action and thought. If all that was required was thinking, then incarnation would not even be a thing. To which Gnostics will jump in and say that we weren't meant to be stuck in bodies. >>According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors This is very limited, almost to the point of being stupid. What if a house is destroyed through a bulldozer? What is kids are kidnapped? Others are so vague such as the one about poison where anything could be figuratively declared poisonous. >>9624 That's uncalled for.
>>9732 Agreed. We can at least start with our own lives and look into the astronomy correspondence to our birth dates. Combining this our parents' own astronomical realities would perhaps also help in building a greater picture of our own paths.
>>11314 I meant moreso in comparison to modern day aryans. >>11325 Theres a guy in the book thread who just dropped a bunch of pro-monogamy stuff. I saw it and was wondering if polygamy vs monogamy would be a thread worthy topic. Im personally in favor of allowing polygamy (within marriage) but i havent heard many arguments for either.
>>11332 I saw that list of pro-monogamy stuff too. I had considered responding but refrained for whatever reason. It's definitely a worthy topic of discussion, but I'm unsure whether it would be worth its own thread, or whether it would be better in the existing woman thread, since we would be talking about multiple wives after all. Lemme know what you think the better option would be and I'll either make a thread or bump one if that's cool with you >in favor of allowing polygamy (within marriage) It definitely has to be clearly separated from "polyamory", which is basically being as promiscuous as possible and sleeping around in an "open relationship". Polygamy, of course, is quite different from this type of relationship, as it is still based on actual marital relationships and involves one man and multiple women.
>>11311 Name a single source mentioning homosexual behavior in a positve light. >>11325 1. There isn't a single example of a long-lasting society bigger than the clan that practiced open polygamy (rather than married men taking on mistresses) without being in a state of endless war on outsiders (made possible by having a deep pool of disposable males and/or being widely hated by outsiders). 2. Women are not monogamous since monogamy requires an authority (if not the king, then her father or other leading male relative) telling who she can't interact with. Women want to be taken by the deadliest male in her sphere. If left to her own devices and she's not too old/fat/otherwise undesirable she will offer her ass and tits to all the males she sees who aren't her immediate blood relatives with those same males murdering each-other.
>>11366 Polygamy is the only way. Only the fittest of the fit will be permitted to have more than one wife though – the aristocrats of nature. This is a morality of improvement to adopt. There are winners and losers. Incels are garbage-tier males. Historically far more women reproduced then men. Men are the disposable sex if you really think about it. Women are irreplaceable. >without being in a state of endless war on outsiders (made possible by having a deep pool of disposable males and/or being widely hated by outsiders). “Eternal peace is a dream --and not even a beautiful one. War is part of God's world-order. Within it unfold the noblest virtues of men, courage and renunciation, loyalty to duty and readiness for sacrifice--at the hazzard of one's life. Without war the world would sink into a swamp of materialism” >Women are not monogamous It was never claimed that women are “monogamous”, it was said that monogamous marriages are geared towards the female, and not the man. The reproductive needs of a womam are satisfied by a single man. The aim of Nature is to bring about the greatest possible increase in the species, and the job falls on the male, hence a man could easily beget over one hundred children in a year with no physical difficulty to himself, while a woman cannot bear more than a single pregnancy a year. Therefore, artificially restraining males to monogamy is quite contrary to Nature. Women are hypergamous, i.e. they flock to males of high social status. Women aren’t as jealous as men either. This is why harems exist, and this why groupies follow around celebrities and other high status males. Once again, we see the natural order at work. Many women, one men. This is why polyandry is literally almost non-existent as a practice. No man wants to share his wife’s pussy with other “husbands”, plus men care much less about the social status of their prospective wives. Women live life on tutorial mode. They just have to exist and still have almost infinite SMV.
>>11368 >Historically far more women reproduced then men Dubious statistics that conflates access to decent women with reproducing. >Only the fittest of the fit will be permitted to have more than one wife though – the aristocrats of nature. And you can't find any societies with such who were beyond the Bronze Age without being the likes of Muslims. >Incels are garbage-tier males "incels" are impossible in a non-industrial society with enforced monogamy (including no criminalizing of fathers or brothers killing unwanted males for not staying away from their daughters/sisters), no mass public lewdness (pornography, yoga pants), legalized prostitution. >Women are irreplaceable. Strictly speaking that only applies to women who are fertile. Which is far more limited than you think since women peak in fertitilty at age 12-14 and never get it higher. >“Eternal peace is a dream --and not even a beautiful one. War is part of God's world-order. Within it unfold the noblest virtues of men, courage and renunciation, loyalty to duty and readiness for sacrifice--at the hazzard of one's life. Without war the world would sink into a swamp of materialism” Meanwhile societies like Achmed's reliably lose wars since they lack the societal cohesion to triumph from all the men more or less being too busy trying to muh dik each-other's women. >It was never claimed that women are “monogamous”, it was said that monogamous marriages are geared towards the female, and not the man. If what you said was the case feminists wouldn't be so hostile to the institution of marriage. A non-clannish society absent of keeping itself in a state of war on war needs monogamy to ensure that enough of its men have a stake in society from just getting access to decent women but being able both keep them and trust their neighbors to not try to poach from them. >Therefore, artificially restraining males to monogamy is quite contrary to Nature. It's more about restraining females than males. >Women are hypergamous, i.e. they flock to males of high social status. They let whoever are the most available males who register to them as the biggest and baddest take them as their pimps (providing resources and protection from other males) absent of shaming or threats of violence. The "most alpha" male in America is the US government to the White American Female but since she can't get fucked by every man in there she'll get fucked by whoever the Deep State wants her to (like Blacks). And absent of that, she'll strut around offering her goods around men with the men all fighting each-other until a victor claims her. Monogamy avoids the above by having one authority distribute women to trusted men or at least screen men before letting the women leave with any of them. >Women aren’t as jealous as men either. They are. Women channel it through passive-aggression and insults rather than direct murder. >This is why harems exist, and this why groupies follow around celebrities and other high status males. It shows that the highest quality women would rather be a backup bitch for a rockstar or George Clooney in his prime than settle down with men they see as beneath them.
>>11281 I think there's a small amount of congenital homosexuality regardless. however, I agree that environment/sociology play a large role in the rise of sexual deviancy.
>>11380 >Strictly speaking that only applies to women who are fertile. Which is far more limited than you think since women peak in fertitilty at age 12-14 and never get it higher. This is some mental gymnastics. If a woman can have children she's fertile. Women can easily have children well after 14 lol.
>>11404 Nice try simp, but women past the age of 25 have a major loss in reproductive ability. Non-degenerate societies had women already having babies well before age 25. A women no younger than 25 is reproductively garbage and would be designated to spinsterhood with appropriate shaming and duties.
>>11380 >And you can't find any societies with such who were beyond the Bronze Age without being the likes of Muslims. Addressed in the polygamy thread. Still, it is irrelevant. >Strictly speaking that only applies to women who are fertile. Which is far more limited than you think since women peak in fertitilty at age 12-14 and never get it higher. Obviously. Being non-fertile is useless from the perspective of Nature. I'm very much redpilled on the age of consent. >Meanwhile societies like Achmed's reliably lose wars since they lack the societal cohesion to triumph from all the men more or less being too busy trying to muh dik each-other's women. Societal cohesion doesn't matter when technological and racial superiority are the real deciding factors in wars. Also, adultery is not tolerated in Islamic societies. Here is what adulterers get: https://hoodsite.com/man-found-guilty-adultery-stoned-death-afghanistan/ >If what you said was the case feminists wouldn't be so hostile to the institution of marriage. "Geared towards the female" doesn't mean "favored by the female". >It's more about restraining females than males. Easily done with polygamy as well, indeed is preferable in this instance as well, as the woman is not seen as an "equal partner" with the man, but is one of a small number of women. Women are easily restrained when there are not gay laws against slapping / spanking your wife. >They are. Women channel it through passive-aggression and insults rather than direct murder. Obviously not enough as to where they mind sharing partners.
>>11409 25 is a long ways past 14
>>11417 >Addressed in the polygamy thread. Still, it is irrelevant. Okay have fun in Africa then. >Societal cohesion doesn't matter when technological and racial superiority are the real deciding factors in wars. >societal cohesion has nothing to do with technology and race Ever notice how the industrial and scientific revolutions happened in Europe and not Achmedland. >Also, adultery is not tolerated in Islamic societies And yet they're still impotent when not used as a weapon by Globohomo. >"Geared towards the female" doesn't mean "favored by the female". Women do not have loyalty to their society, merely their immediately blood. Monogamy requires them to use their bodies in service to the whole of society. >Obviously not enough as to where they mind sharing partners. They only "don't mind" when they sense they're out of options (too old, too overweight, too many men they despise) and see being a backup bitch to some gangbanger or drug lord is better than eating the cum of some incel in an office.
>>11430 >societal cohesion has nothing to do with technology and race Strawman. I never used this phrasing. You can be a cohesive, close-knit society and not be technologically advanced. In fact, industrialization has led to the disintegration of natural social bonds and the family structure. This problem has been exacerbated by the Jews. >And yet they're still impotent when not used as a weapon by Globohomo. That's not the point. >They only "don't mind" when they sense they're out of options (too old, too overweight, too many men they despise) and see being a backup bitch to some gangbanger or drug lord is better than eating the cum of some incel in an office. Backup bitch? Are we even talking about polygamy anymore? I'm not talking about fornicators.
>>11206 That was a good video. It shows that he's really up-to-date on the problem if he's aware of incels and MGTOW. A more Vedic perspective would have been nice, but in general he was speaking very accurately, I think, on the destruction of the family, the attacking of the very idea of masculinity, and the undermining of fathers. Him making the analogy between the father and the military of a nation was a very interesting analogy. I was surprised to see him even know about accelerationism, honestly.
Open file (5.53 KB 592x90 ClipboardImage.png)
Is this you Jain anon? I was casually browsing cuckchan and even the typing style made me think of your posts
>>11311 >>Police say that the shape of the anus, as well as the “tone” of the anal sphincter, will determine whether or not suspects had engaged in receptive anal sex maybe they should be investigating the dudes that carry out this work >>11314 to my knowledge there is a verse somewhere saying that if you do gay shit you have to take a bath with your clothes on(????). there is also a temple (maybe more than one) where all kinds of sex acts are depicted that may include homos and bestiality, i think the muslims are credited with destroying some of these. from what i have read in vedic literatures (not much) the topic and sexual ethics in general isnt really talked about. in puranas i dont think theres every been a gay character though which i think confirms that outside of some degenerate offshoots of vedic religion which didnt last into today the behavior of homosex wasnt encouraged. arsha bodha center guy has a video on this, but hes definetly leftwing pozzed. maybe even gay too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9q2jnRPp_4 >>11330 >I do not buy it one minute. Omniscience is not an attribute accessible to humans. this attribute wouldnt come from the persons humanity it would come from them transcending any bodily form and fully identifying as an immortal soul. >It would mean this individual knows everything at any time, which could be quickly verified by checking if he knows what you're thinking, knows about your life, what you have in your pocket, what goes on at the surface of Jupiter, the exact weight of all matter in our solar system, etc. yes. these tirthankars give information about the size and shape of the universe, particle physics, information about the gods and demons and they are to be believed based on the claim they are omniscient. >Pardon me? Is that another teaching? its a reference to warhammer 40k >Ontologically, a purposeless universe is a troubling idea. i would have to agree. i cant really agree with the jain idea of there not being a brahman or creator god. if you are going to believe that the body has a soul why is it so hard to believe that the universe itself as a soul? >I prefer that which didn't consider it as a form of quantity wherein the less there is, the better the individual, but more as a measurement tool, so it can be rather dark or bright. they divide karma into harmful and beneficial categories. >>11471 >A more Vedic perspective would have been nice, this would have been more authoritative and permanent. everything he said in the video isnt going to be recorded as shastra and shared by sages, it can be ignored by others. i like to use the samkhya philosophy of purusha and prakriti as a reference for gender identity, but its really not meant for that even though its occasionlly mentioned those two principles are also the masculine and feminine. >>11483 lol, no. i cant believe theres another anon who knows about jainism though. its super underrated, it hasnt gotten enough attention. too many people think its a branch of hinduism or scoff at it because its associated with prakrit and not sanskrit and rejects the vedas, so therefore it has to be dravidian. truth is though that gods suspected to be dravidian influences wont appear in jain lore. from what ive seen references to indra are plenty. as for the vedas they dont outright reject them, rather they claim the vedas are not eternal and written by god they just believe that the vedas were written by humans (one of their guys actually) and have since been modified. i dont know why their work is mostly in prakrit though. maybe as an oral tradition they didnt write things down until sanskrit had already become prakrit. theres a user here who might chime in to say its dravidian because its classified as srmanic and nastika, but can you imagine ancient abbos built temples like this?
Open file (133.60 KB 396x521 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (94.98 KB 392x389 ClipboardImage.png)
>>11492 >to my knowledge there is a verse somewhere saying that if you do gay shit you have to take a bath with your clothes on I've read that in the Laws of Manu I believe. There is another verse which is a little more strict though. It says something about a loss of caste. I'll have to dig it up. >yes. these tirthankars give information about the size and shape of the universe, particle physics, information about the gods and demons and they are to be believed based on the claim they are omniscient. So how literally are the claims to the size and nature of the universe to be taken (pics)? Just like with Hinduism, they speak of Jambudvipa in the center of the universe, ringed by an ocean of salt, and surrounded by another landmass, and it goes on from there for some great distant. It seems quite at odds with what (((science))) tells us. Do people really knock Jain literature for being in Prakrit and not Sanskrit? That's silly to me. Prakrits are just descendants or vernaculars of Sanskrit to my understanding, just like Pali for the Buddhists. > its dravidian because its classified as srmanic and nastika Also silly, to me. I mean, both Mahavira and Siddharta Gautama were Kshatriyas if I recall correctly. I don't think that nastika or sramanic ideas are automatically associated with the Dravidians. I mean, what is inherently Dravidian about renunciation, ascetic practices and other things so associated with sramana? Some of these ideas could be found in ancient Greece among some. Though I think I'm preaching to the choir here. Also, beautiful temples.
Open file (134.77 KB 512x587 24tirthankaras1.jpg)
Open file (425.73 KB 1100x805 24tirthankaras2.jpg)
>>11495 >>11495 >So how literally are the claims to the size and nature of the universe to be taken (pics)? pajeets discuss this on quora. there is a theory out there that maybe the book is talking about islands and oceans as allegories for galaxies and such, bringing it inline with modern ideas of the universe. jain ideas can be backed up by a lot of intense analytical thought and reasoning, but when it comes to their cosmology they seem to have neglected it. its presented as is without as much philosophical explanation/justification. maybe while jains were used to being challenged on their other theories, nobody challenged them on cosmology and time cycle so arguments justifying it arent there. >Do people really knock Jain literature for being in Prakrit and not Sanskrit? That's silly to me. >I don't think that nastika or sramanic ideas are automatically associated with the Dravidians. it goes into aryan invasion theory. that the aryans brought the vedas with them and the sanskrit language, so prakrit would be post sanskrit, post vedic, post aryan, it would be dravidian. a user here in this thread said julius evola wrote this. >Also silly, to me. I mean, both Mahavira and Siddharta Gautama were Kshatriyas if I recall correctly. i dont know the sources but buddha is supposed to have been a White man, most of the tirthankaras are described as golden colored. 2 of them are described as black and 2 as blue, but in these two paintings there are 2 green ones and 2 blue ones. i have a theory that the krishna as meaning black has been mistranslated and it just means dark blue, the green i dont know about. >I mean, what is inherently Dravidian about renunciation, ascetic practices and other things so associated with sramana? Some of these ideas could be found in ancient Greece among some. Though I think I'm preaching to the choir here. exactly. these are the complete opposite of nigger subhuman tier behavior. if they were even capable of creating a religion at all, it wouldNT have been this one lol.
I thought that these passages addressed some themes that we had been discussing recently, such as the abilities of the gods to appear and change form at will, and the idea that during the kali yuga the sensory levels of humans has declined and the gods and other beings have curtailed their communication with Earth. The source is this book on Vedic astronomy: https://archive.org/details/vedic-cosmography-and-astronomy-richard-l-thompson/mode/2up
>>11012 Check out this video for for a good video on Vedic flat earth if you're into that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYIzDSJg8s8
>>11575 Over two hours? I’m curious what the heck he’ll spend all that time on, especially if he’s just gonna be re-iterating stuff on Bhu-mandala and the like
their cosmology is crazy and really interesting but tbh the prevailing theories of modern science are a lot easier to believe than any of this lol.
>>11575 dude this video is cringe. https://youtu.be/DYIzDSJg8s8?t=4302 he mixes up the kalis too. did you watch this whole thing before posting it?
Open file (118.30 KB 1099x1600 richard l thompson.jpg)
>>11578 Check out that book my Richard L. Thompson that I linked here >>11508. He approaches Vedic cosmology (especially that from the fifth canto of the SB from a much more grounded perspective). He doesn't fall into crude literalism (in the sense that the Earth is flat and we're literally a peninsula on Jambudvipa and that all of this can be detected with our five senses). From what I've read in the book so far, there are regions of this earth not accessible to our senses, especially in the Kali Yuga. Thompson takes the position that though many of the statements may seem fantastical or hard-to-comprehend, they nevertheless present a realistic and understandable description of the universe. It's important to remember that before modernity, at least for Christians but I'm sure with other traditions as well, they were not braindead literalists. Statements within holy texts could refer to both literal, symbolic and spiritual meanings, or were analogical and imperfect descriptions of realms of existence described via descriptions of things on Earth. We'd be given a picture that's accurate in a sense, but not strictly so.
>>11609 >>11609 Their accents are so thick that it's hard to follow. The one girl obviously asked about aboriginals in India. Then the speaker lady mentions Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. She says that on some seals discovered at one of those sites apparently the name of Rishabhadeva was found on. So apparently according to her these were the original places were Sramanic culture developed? So she's equating Sramanic culture with Dravidian culture, and it was the Aryans who came later with a much different "loka-dṛṣṭi" (worldview), especially when it comes to creation. I did a bit of looking around afterwords, not too deep, I can't find shit about evidence for tirthankara iconography in Mohenjo-Daro or Harappa.
>>11610 i was asking because it seems like she brought up aryan invasion theory and then there was a subtle bit of chaos to try and put that back into the bottle. but yeah the english is to bad to tell.
>>11612 Oh, yeah, I watched onto that part a bit as well. I found it very hard to follow as well, that's why I didn't mention it really kek. From what I picked up, she talked about Indra and how he has been described as a "destroyer of dams" and a "destroyer of cities" - apparently this is in reference to Indra / invading Aryans clashing with the existing Dravidian cultures or settlements of the Subcontinent. Then someone asked the source, and she replied "the Vedas".
>>11380 >Strictly speaking that only applies to women who are fertile. Which is far more limited than you think since women peak in fertitilty at age 12-14 and never get it higher. I think we found the local pedo.
Open file (97.85 KB 260x289 problems loli.png)
>>11628 He's right though.
>>11614 is she saying jainism is (gasp) dravidian? i wont believe it. the tirthankaras are golen colored, niggers cant make a written language much less a civilization or "fortress" and they certainly would never create a religion obsessed with purity. either jainism and vedic peoples were originally one people, or there were already Whites living in the area, meaning the dravidians might not even be as native to the area as we thought. >>11628 >>11630 from what ive read i think they considered 16 to be the peak of youth and beauty for either gender.
>>11669 I’m willing to accept the fact that non-Whites there had some *rudimentary* stuff set up before the Aryans conquered them and truly made their civilization flourish, but I definitely don’t buy this theory that this lady is pushing that Jainism is somehow Dravidian. For one, both Buddhism and Jainism originated in the kshatriya milieu. Mahavira was from a royal house in northern India of course, all the texts are in an Indo-European language, not Dravidian. Literature in Dravidian languages didn’t really become a thing for centuries, and we would think that if this new religion was Dravidian, it would be far more obvious. Typical “we wuz Aryans” rhetoric. >from what ive read i think they considered 16 to be the peak of youth and beauty for either gender. I have some infograph on girls that demonstrates this. I think it was set a year or two earlier, but you’re basically right. I will have to find it tomorrow.
Open file (233.27 KB 742x1050 1509870436033.jpg)
Open file (126.98 KB 564x676 1509864624464.jpg)
Interesting in Hinduism but how would a convert choose between Vaishnavism and Shivism
>>11762 I've read an interesting thing that said that there are basically three primary spiritual paths (tri-marga) in Vedic spirituality >Vaishnava-marga >Shaiva-marga >Shakta-marga The different paths have different goals. From how I've seen it explained, the Vaishnava path has the highest goal in its sight, i.e. ultimate communion with the Absolute Supreme Godhead. The Shaiva path apparently is aimed at achieving an isolated realization of the internal self as atman, while the Shakta path is more focused on the material and the energies flowing through it. A Vaishnava wrote this description though, so others may disagree, but I thought it was an interesting approach to the internal diversity of Hinduism that went a long way to reconciling many of the differences. It would depend on what your goal is, it seems.
>>11630 U serious? 12, she has barely started maturing. 14, she's still not there yet. 16-22, or perhaps 18-20, is truly the peak. On average people start ageing at 24 or 25, but a girl's body is fully shaped around 18 although some achieve this at 16 years of age.
>>11786 A Womans fertility peaks at 14 and she is more than capable of having a child as early as ten with no issues as it happens quite frequently all over the world, quit buying into bullshit jewish science you fucking nigger.
>>11794 dude im not fucking anything that young though, and i would second guess the humanity of someone that would. i think later sexual maturity is a sign of a more advanced species/culture.
>>11799 >dude im not fucking anything that young though, Dude, I don't care what you will or won't do, your choice is your own. >and i would second guess the humanity of someone that would. Good on you for questioning the humanity of a very large portion of our ancestors. >i think later sexual maturity is a sign of a more advanced species/culture. No it's a sign of a culture soon to be dead because a womans best breeding years are spent twiddling her thumbs instead of breeding, a high age of marriage is a sign of decline as it is a direct result of granting women rights or lets call it what is Feminism.
Many girls peak between 13 and 16. It's appropriate if you think about it, if she attracts a man at that age then she can be in position to start having kids by the time her peak fertility comes around so as not to waste those precious years (16-20) when her kids will be healthiest and there will be the fewest complications. It might be contrary to the morality of today or make me a “pedo” in the eyes of society, but I have complete faith that I am more in tune with the truth than feminists and Jews who want you to marry a thirty-year old who’s hit the wall and will be unable to have children at all within a few years. It’s simply what is in accordance with the Laws of Nature / what is divinely ordained. Our ancestors understood this.
>>11805 Pedo is pre-puberty. Fucking a 16 year old is not an issue. The titless 12 year old is. It's not some binary choice between being a prepubescent pedophile and getting 30 year old hags. >>11794 If you fuck a 10 year old you deserve to get shot. Even puberty is not enough for you creeps. You keep pushing down the age, the slippery slope is real. Funny enough the kikes are into the same shit and are pushing it too. Pedo comments are perfectly at home on reddit whereas advocating for your racial interest will be insta-banned. Really makes you think. It's too bad that pedos are given a platform it's a perfect nose under the camel's tent.
>>11813 >Pedo comments are perfectly at home on reddit Is not Reddit full to the brim with feminists and soyboys of all varieties who will freak out if a man in his twenties even finds a 17-year old desirable? Reddit is pro-child molestation, not pro-early marriage – which is pro-White and wholesome. This is the exact thing that Christians and Feminists ended >It's not some binary choice between being a prepubescent pedophile and getting 30 year old hags. Obviously, this is what normalfags will say though.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?