Truth Snippets

by Gx1080 on October 4, 2010

coffee

The more money a social circle has, the paler it gets. It happens in way too many places to call it a conspiracy. Quit whining about it.

Being the pack leader of a bunch of nerds, chumps or whatever you want to call them is not an achievement. Ask these guys.

The only three kinds of men that are acceptable in our modern PC, lamestream media are the professional bullshitter, the thug and the fag. It’s no coincidence that those men are incapable of forming families.

All the makeup on the world won’t make fatties thinner, uglies prettier or sluts less STD-infected.

Internet Tough Guys are guys who are too cowardly and/or lazy to be real thugs.

Getting laid is actually easier than killing the final hard-mode boss at World of Warcraft. The problems are, first, is hard to do both, have a job and a life because there’s only so many hours in a day, and second and more importantly, both require actual effort, which discounts a massive amount of guys. And, you know, you could have another hobby.

Treating competition and desire for victory as sins is the consolation of the mediocre.

Modern welfare is a bribe to the underclass so they don’t revolt as well as a way for decadent elites to feel better about themselves and to impress their peers. Since both are driven by human ambition, and profit is what it matters in an economy, its nature is to grow to the infinity.

Women abhor emotional stability but love economic stability. Men abhor economic stability but love emotional stability. Opposite, but both are driven by the impulse of wanting to shine and prove themselves as worthy mates.

Chivalry originally was a code of honor, justice, loyalty and killing anybody that breaks the rules of that code. It changed in the Victorian age to a bunch of feel-good bullshit for a) Keeping the suckers stupid enough to believe it outside of the gene pool and b) Allowing chumps to rationalize their inadequacy.

{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }

TFH October 4, 2010 at 22:32

The more money a social circle has, the whiter it gets.

This would be true, except that Asians have higher incomes than whites, in America.

Actually, the richest ethnicity of all in the US is a dark-skinned group – Indians.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
Gx1080 October 4, 2010 at 22:45

Hey, could you put my article the way that it was? It said whiter. Is an actual word:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/whiter

W.F. Price October 4, 2010 at 22:48

This would be true, except that Asians have higher incomes than whites, in America.

Actually, the richest ethnicity of all in the US is a dark-skinned group – Indians.

Yeah, he’s writing from a Venezuelan perspective. White doesn’t mean the exact same thing there that it does here. Here in the US, racial issues are so politically charged that it’s a little weird. So GX, who describes himself as “not white” doesn’t see the big fuss. But man oh man, it’s a huge taboo here in America.

TFH, I’d be interested in whether you see any correlation between race in the US and caste in India, or any useful comparisons at all. Anthropology is a hobby of mine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price October 4, 2010 at 22:49

I know, GX, but I’m going to catch hell if you don’t put some disclaimer there — this is a third rail here in the US.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Joes October 4, 2010 at 22:58

Here’s a little truth snippet courtesy of the “she get’s half of everything” divorce MYTH:

More than half his money most often (since all borderline issues are decided in her favor in the vast majority of cases in family courts, and she gets a furnished house with furniture valued way down and without broker and other transactions costs to acquire a new place, etc.). As well she gets stealth alimony embedded within way way feminist jacked up before tax “child support”. If it’s a long marriage (typically 10 years or more) in many states she’ll get lifetime alimony if she’s been a lazy stay at home mom the whole time, at least as soon as her stealth alimony expires, or sooner if he’s a real high earner.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire October 5, 2010 at 00:58

Chivalry originally was a code of honor, justice, loyalty and killing anybody that breaks the rules of that code.

Actually it was a kind of early feminism.
Back in those days women and religion were mostly on the same side of the fence.
This did not change until religions influence started to wane in the west. That’s when feminism/social purity came along.
http://theantifeminist.com/the-sexual-trade-union/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Traveller October 5, 2010 at 01:20

“The more money a social circle has, the paler it gets.”

Apart the matter paler/whiter, I do not see how this first phrase is tied to the rest of the (tiny) article. If you are going to write something, try at lest to write explictly and completely your point of view and do not make assumptions, given the variety of readers here.

And no, “snippets” in the title is not an excuse.

By the way, good examples of social circles full of money and run by non-whites (non white males too) are any Western govt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Avenger October 5, 2010 at 01:23

Actually, the richest ethnicity of all in the US is a dark-skinned group – Indians

I’ve found no statistics to show this and the samples are too small but let’s also remember that in the US there are a large number of Africans and Mexican Indians so the average Indian’s income may be higher than them but not as high as Caucasians. You also have another factor here in that the Indian found in other countries may not be typical and may be from a higher caste because the average Indian does not have the funds to travel to the UK or US and pay for visas etc
There is a definite difference in skin colour between a Brahmin and a Vaisya or Shudra for example with the untouchable being the lowest of the Shudra and practically a non person (they’re also mostly black) The caste system originated as a race system by the original Indo-European Aryans and you’ll notice that even today in Indian film the actors are very European looking so are the statutes and pictures of their gods.
Look at the leaders of the countries south of the US and look also look at their TV and film actors and the wealthier people in their countries. All very European looking and in fact they are Europeans who just happened to be born there and their families never mixed with the native Indians.
Everything is relative of course but if you look around the world you will see that the lighter people are the higher classes in all countries.Go to Indonesia and you can clearly see a difference between classes and in places like Venezuela and Brazil it’s even larger. In fact, Venezuela is sort of odd in having Chavez because he is a mix of Negro-Indian and Euro.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Avenger October 5, 2010 at 01:40

I think you may find this interesting regarding race in India or at least the race that controlled and governed India in the past. I happened to be reading the Knight’s Tale which is part of the Canterbury Tales written by Chaucer in the 1300′s. If you read the tale you will see that he was relating a story that took place in the BC era. Each knight had to bring a number of other knights with him for this battle they were going to have and Chaucer describes them. One of the knights brought the King of India with him to fight and he is described by Chaucer as having blonde hair.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
greyghost October 5, 2010 at 01:42

Smart move Mr price ( I like Welmer for some reason) We americans are thin skinned on the subject. I remember when”O” did an article here oon the subject.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Lavazza October 5, 2010 at 03:36

Somebody wrote the Brahmins has done a lot of selective breeding (through arranged marriages) over the millenia, which for example has led to Brahmin women having larger breasts than women from other castes. I guess the same goes for skin colour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Lavazza October 5, 2010 at 04:05

I found this snippet on “Hindu eugenics”.

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/67.extract

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cloud October 5, 2010 at 05:39

A Voice for Men has apparently been suspended.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Alte October 5, 2010 at 06:34

Thanks for the notice, Cloud. I wonder what’s going on there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
thehermit October 5, 2010 at 06:40

Here in the US, racial issues are so politically charged that it’s a little weird.

The Holy Hypocrisy will kill us all one day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gunn October 5, 2010 at 07:16

@Avenger:

I don’t intend to derail this particular thread, but I wanted to say that the idea of a race-based split of the caste system in India is an old colonial idea that has little support from whatever genetic research has been done in that area (nor in fact does it find support in the underlying vedic texts).

Castes in India do/did practice segregation from each other, but in many ways this is no different to the class structures that existed in Europe. Perhaps because there is more sun in India, skin colour serves as a more immediate proxy for caste, however Europeans have also practiced skin-colour based discrimination both in the past (when whiter was considered better as it showed that the person was not involved in manual labour) and today (ironically the tanned look was more in fashion when ski holidays etc. were the preserve of the rich).

Even today, you can still see various european stereotypes around class that manifest as physical traits (e.g. weak chins in the gentry), and in many ways linking caste in India to race is a bit like saying that the european aristocracy is a different european race to the common folk here.

Genetic comparisons of populations that live today where the IVC is found with those from 4000 years ago shows no significant differences in overall composition or mixture (e.g. there was a study done on skeletons found in Lothal, Gujarat vs. the modern population in that state).

Whats happened with the Indo-aryan hypothesis is that a linguistic theory has been taken and misapplied as a race-based theory. None of the primary evidence (i.e. vedas and related ancient Indian texts) supports the idea of racial conquest (however, there have been mistranslations that were either accidentally or deliberately done to suggest such a reading), nor does material archaeology (no evidence of IVC cities being destroyed due to warfare, instead the current guess is wide-scale ecological [hydrological due to changes in river courses] disaster), and nor in fact do the biological/genetic studies.

As to the point about many Indians being ‘european’, I think this is a misunderstanding. India is home to humans that in past times would have been referred to as caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid. E.g. the oldest tribes in India, probably dating back well beyond the paleolithic to around 60,000 BC, are remnants of the original movement of people from Africa going across to SE Asia / Australia, and would probably be classed as negroid in terms of features etc. In more recent times, i.e. from about 10,000BC onwards, India appears to have a mixture of caucasoid peoples in the North and West and mongoloid peoples in the East.

In other words, India, particularly the North West corridor, was a great mixing pot for humanity over the last 10000 years. Both the country itself is a huge place (e.g. it is as big as europe and so one should expect similar diversity) and it was home to huge civilisations in the past (the IVC for example, is supposed to have occupied a similar area to the whole of modern day western europe; as such, it was larger than the other three ancient civilisations at the time, i.e. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China).

Modern day Indian immigrants to the west tend to be either NW Indian, i.e. from Punjab, Gujarat, or surrounding areas (in the UK/Europe) or NW Indian + South Indian (into the US). For the UK, this reflects an influx of professionals from India itself (doctors by and large) and refugees from places like Uganda (business people) in the 60s and 70s. For the US, I believe the influx is more recent and represents more IT Engineers from the various IITs as well as doctors etc. that have been coming in over longer time periods.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
criolle johnny October 5, 2010 at 07:18

Avenger … Fabulous tale, little history. DAMMIT! He was a great character.
It seems that Emetreus, King of India “was a Chaucer invention”.
“perhaps derived from Demetreus, the name of a Greco-Bactrian prince (third century B.C.) known during the Middle Ages as “King of the Indians.” (CHAUCER NAME DICTIONARY) http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/garland/deweever/E/emetreus.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Richard October 5, 2010 at 09:53

“The only three kinds of men that are acceptable in our modern PC, lamestream media are the professional bullshitter, the thug and the fag. It’s no coincidence that those men are incapable of forming families.”

…but not incapable of making babies…

Which is something I have seen way too God-Damned often…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Migu October 5, 2010 at 10:08

Here in the US, racial issues are so

politically charged that it’s a little weird.

I wonder why? Divide and conquer maybe?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
TFH October 5, 2010 at 11:07

TFH, I’d be interested in whether you see any correlation between race in the US and caste in India, or any useful comparisons at all. Anthropology is a hobby of mine.

Caste is a nebulous thing in India, since it is not obvious upon meeting someone (since the people look the same), unlike race. Brahmins like to mention their caste often as an attempt to angle for respect, but others can simply get away with not mentioning their caste if they make enough money.

The wealthiest people, businesspeople, are actually the third caste out of four, which further complicates the notion of caste.

One truth, however, is that the reason 13% of India is Muslim and 2% Christian is because of Hindu castes. When Hindus of lower caste were relegated to that level by their own religion, it became a practical choice to simply change one’s religion. The logic of British men going to Sharia courts to escape British judicial misandry is the same thing. Exactly the same thing. Islam is very good at courting and recruiting the oppressed members of other societies.

In the US, race is overused as an excuse for a lot of things. Asians are wealthier than whites, and while some of this is due to those Asians being the cream of the crop, a lot of Indian motel owners and Korean drycleaning owners have a lot of wealth, often more than educated Doctors.

The US being more obsessed with race has now categorized ‘Hispanic’ as a ‘race’, which is absurd. A language is not a race. Also, anyone who is half-black (Obama, Tiger Woods), is also considered ‘black’, which implies it is advantageous to play that card. Any opponent can disarm Obama’s whole portrayal by pointing out that he is half-white, but no one does.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
TFH October 5, 2010 at 11:14

Avenger,

I’ve found no statistics to show this and the samples are too small but let’s also remember that in the US there are a large number of Africans and Mexican Indians so the average Indian’s income may be higher than them but not as high as Caucasians. You also have another factor here in that the Indian found in other countries may not be typical and may be from a higher caste

What on earth are you talking about? Your paragraph is completely wrong on so many levels, and bundles Mexican Mestizos and Africans with East Indians from India, which is itself entirely wrong.

But East Indians (and Chinese) have a substantially higher income than whites. It does not take much Googling to verify this well-known fact.

Lastly, your misuse of the term ‘Caucasian’ is also wrong. Persians, Arabs, and North Indians are also Caucasian, as per the accurate definition of the term.

There is a definite difference in skin colour between a Brahmin and a Vaisya or Shudra for example

No, there isn’t. The skin color delta between Indians north vs. south of the Narmada river is much more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
TFH October 5, 2010 at 11:15

Gunn’s comment about India is quite accurate.

Avenger’s is waaaay off. Quite wrong on many fronts, sorry to say.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
TFH October 5, 2010 at 11:30

Avenger,

and you’ll notice that even today in Indian film the actors are very European looking so are the statutes and pictures of their gods.

Completely bogus. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Indian statues go back over 5000 years, long before they had any interaction with Europe (which was still in a primitive state by then).

Indian film stars : The two biggest of all are Amitabh Bacchann and Shah Rukh Khan. Neither look ‘European’ at all.

Amitabh Bacchann.

Shah Rukh Khan.

Indian Gods : They have blue skin and 4-8 arms. If you think this is ‘European’, then you are even weirder than I thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
TFH October 5, 2010 at 11:33

These are the Indian Gods that Avenger thinks look ‘European’. A simple Google image search of ‘Indian Gods’.

LOL!!!!!! Europeans have blue skin, 4-8 arms, and some of them have multiple heads, elephant heads, etc. in Avenger-world…

ROFL!!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
scatmaster October 5, 2010 at 12:24

Just would like to know why on a MRA website Google brings up adverts for Curves (women only workout centers) and a Meet Elite Women website. I come here to get away from these types of things.

http://imgur.com/chO61.jpg

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price October 5, 2010 at 12:29

Just would like to know why on a MRA website Google brings up adverts for Curves (women only workout centers) and a Meet Elite Women website. I come here to get away from these types of things.

For some reason, the site seems to be popular with women. As for the dating site, I have no idea. Basically, the ads make money off people who came on search and aren’t really interested in the content, so it’s way to have otherwise useless traffic partially pay for the site.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Gx1080 October 5, 2010 at 13:11

Ok, I understand.

I was drawing from the experiences of my life, when in all the VIP, rich areas most people are of European descent, and in the rest there’s the people with African or Native-American descent. Exceptions aside, of course.

And the racially-charged climate in the US is weird. Class warfare and country pride are common here, but most people don’t have a stick up to their asses about the latter, so nobody cares. The former still is the basis for politics. Gotta hate Marxism.

This place is popular with women for the same reason that the rest of
the Manosphere is: Red Pill takers are more “hot” than Blue Pill takers.

A lot of women comment at Roissy’s.

Avenger October 5, 2010 at 14:15

TFH: forget the 8 armed elephants. Take a lot at the normal looking human Indian gods and you will not that they are very fair skinned. The same with Buddhism another Indo European invented religion originating in India.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Lavazza October 5, 2010 at 15:00

Avenger: I think it is a way to show that they are radiating bliss.

“When there is the beginning [of the sound] in the void, the Yogin is possessed of a lustrous body; he is radiant, with an exquisite fragrance, free of diseases and has a full heart [i.e. filled by Prana and Bliss].”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Avenger October 5, 2010 at 15:16

Gunn: all I can say is that you have a very politically correct view of anthopology. 10k years ago the entire human population on earth was only 1m. They were all located in Europe, N African and were all the same ethnic group of Caucasian regardless of where they lived. There was only a tiny Negro group all the way over on the west coast of Africa and a tiny group in the Far East so for you to claim that ther were Mongols and Negroes in India 60k years ago is absurd. Between 10k years ago and 5k years ago the population of the earth increased dramatically. That tiny group of Negroes on the west coast of Africa started to migrate in diferent directions and eventually into the Arabian penisula where they mixed with the Old European group, these are the Semites(Arabs) btw, Hebrews are not semites are were just another Old European group living in the south during the last ice age. In fact, if you read the Hebrew bible you will find stories about men who had to go find a wife only within certain tribes(obviously white) and wouldn’t mix with the new Negro/Arab groups.

You probably also believe the 100k years ago out of Africa propaganda but this makes absolutely no sense in light of the fact that the oldest Human footprints (not ape, hybrid but Human) are 350k years old and are found preserved in the lava at Roccamonfina , Italy.
That 100k year ago out of East Africa nonsense was just a migration of people living in the south during ice ages.
It has always been politically correct even when I was a kid to say that all humans on earth were of the same species, Homo sapiens sapiens but this is likely untrue and I’m sure that some groups are actually Homo sapiens idultu a closely related human species. Close species are capable of mating with each other just as a lion and tiger which are classifed as different species or a dog/wolf also differnt species can mate.
You mentioned DNA testing but science only proves what we already knew (or I should say what knowledgable scholars already knew) We’ve always known that the Roma or Gypsies were from India and mixed with other people on their travels and also changed their religion etc. Well, modern DNA proves that they did indeed originate in central India.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Gunn October 5, 2010 at 15:47

@Avenger,

Thank you, I could not have painted you as an idiot as succinctly as you managed to do so yourself.

First: my views are hardly politically correct. I actually believe that the central focal point for early humanity was the IVC, which flies in the face of most of modern scholarship, which believes in the primacy of mesopotamia and egypt.

Second: a dating of 150k years for humanity comes from a study of mitochondrial dna, and is not reliant on even looking at archaeology. The fact that material archaelogy supports this dating is nice, but also irrelevant.

Populations increased from 10k to 5k years ago probably because of global warming, i.e. the departure of the last ice age. Nothing to do with culture or civilisation. Incidentally this time period is also the reason we have the prevalance of so many flood stories.

I note that rather than argue any of my points which directly contradicted your fatuous statements, you chose instead to bring up various irrelevant ‘facts’.

Either argue properly, or fuck off. I don’t really care which you choose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Gunn October 5, 2010 at 15:50

Also Avenger, last time I checked, I could go to Australia and fuck an aboriginal woman and make her pregnant. This means that she and I are in fact the same species, you fuckwit.

Show me any human woman today, who is fertile, and who I am unable to impregnate, and I’ll listen to what you say. Until then, you’re just talking shit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
TFH October 5, 2010 at 15:52

Avenger,

Take a lot at the normal looking human Indian gods and you will not that they are very fair skinned.

This is the first time I ever saw someone claim that blue skin is ‘fair’ and ‘European’.

If you actually knew anything about India, you would quickly know that Krishna, Shiva, and Ram were overtly described as dark. There are entire poems describing how Krishna was jet black in skin.

Almost everything you have said is completely wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
TFH October 5, 2010 at 15:54

Even in this second round of comments, I can assess Gunn’s comments about India as completely correct, while Avenger’s are complete incorrect. I could not write something more off than Avenger’s comments even if I tried to construct satire/parody.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
TFH October 5, 2010 at 15:56

Avenger,

The same with Buddhism another Indo European invented religion originating in India.

Most Buddha depictions look Chinese, in fact.

Buddhism originated in Eastern India around 500 BC. At that time, there was no contact between the Bihar region of India, and Europe (of which only Ancient Greece was a civilization at the time. The rest of Europe were scattered barbarians).

Bzzzzzt. Thanks for playing….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
TrailTyme October 5, 2010 at 16:03

So the article was changed from reading ‘whiter’ to ‘paler’ because its a ’3rd rail issue’?

Welcome in Political Correctness in a supposed manosphere blogroll. That action contradicts the very sentiment of this article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 5, 2010 at 16:09

Rome was founded about 750BC and we know that people were living there for 350K years.

There was no contact you say between Europe and the East you say?
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=665

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Simon October 5, 2010 at 16:11

Hahaha you guys have such racial hang ups. This is why people of color have a hard time taking MRM seriously.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Avenger October 5, 2010 at 16:15

GUNN and TFH-apparently you are both incapable of understanding what I wrote and I intentionally made it very simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
W.F. Price October 5, 2010 at 16:26

Most Buddha depictions look Chinese, in fact.

Buddhism originated in Eastern India around 500 BC. At that time, there was no contact between the Bihar region of India, and Europe (of which only Ancient Greece was a civilization at the time. The rest of Europe were scattered barbarians).

To be fair, Greco-Bactrian sculpture had a huge influence on Buddhist art. But that started around 200 BC or so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
badger October 5, 2010 at 16:44

thanks W. H. for your explanation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 5, 2010 at 17:27

Lastly, your misuse of the term ‘Caucasian’ is also wrong. Persians, Arabs, and North Indians are also Caucasian, as per the accurate definition of the term.
I didn’t say they weren’t and the “race” called Caucasian is diverse (as are the other races)

Indian film stars:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=altavista&va=indian+film+stars

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Avenger October 5, 2010 at 17:42

Indian statues go back over 5000 years

They do not and in fact it’s very difficult to date writings and other things in India before ther year 500. The Vedic people (Indo Europeans) were the original peoples in the north and we know for a fact that they were there in 2k BC. They predate Siddhattha and the Buddhist religion found around his philosophy.
And just because some people may call themselves Brahmins in the south does not mean they are.

All you’re seeing today is revisionist and politically correct history so I would be very skeptical about what you read.

You also wrote-a lot of Indian motel owners and Korean drycleaning owners have a lot of wealth, often more than educated Doctors

How many of these people have you actually dealt with? Most of them have advanced degrees in their own countries but it’s sort of difficult to practise law when you’re older and have spoken Korean all your life so they open some other sort of business like a nail salon etc and btw, many of those girls working at this menial job are well educated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Fidelbogen October 5, 2010 at 19:40

“Treating competition and desire for victory as sins is the consolation of the mediocre.”

Shaming language.

Not unlike a feminist. . .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Gunn October 5, 2010 at 23:48

Evilwhitemaleempire wrote:

Chivalry originally was a code of honor, justice, loyalty and killing anybody that breaks the rules of that code.

Actually it was a kind of early feminism.
Back in those days women and religion were mostly on the same side of the fence.
This did not change until religions influence started to wane in the west. That’s when feminism/social purity came along.

Chivalry goes back to feudal times in europe, and represented knightly duty. It wasn’t what we’d recognise as ‘feminism’ of any kind. Rather, it was a code of conduct that knights / the nobility lived according to. The reference in the original quote to killing those who didn’t follow it is spot on, as they represented knights that were no longer behaving ‘properly’. Some aspects of chivalry were undoubtedly influenced by christianity, but a better way to understand it is to compare it to other warrior codes such as bushido in Japan or the codes followed by the Kshatriyas [warrior caste] of ancient India, and similar formulations in other early civilisations.

Its instructive to note that warrior codes in general didn’t stop at the idea of life/death in combat; most also prescribed cultured ways of living for their practitioners, extending to things such as valuing art, music, and beauty. Part of this was an appreciation for the feminine and for women.

As GX points out, the concept of chivalry was bastardised during the victorian era.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
TFH October 6, 2010 at 13:10

Avenger,

GUNN and TFH-apparently you are both incapable of understanding what I wrote and I intentionally made it very simple.

Projection. It is you who have said things that are so completely incorrect that it is rather startling.

To claim that Buddhism was inspired by a need to copy Europe is yet another of your many super-wrong claims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
TFH October 6, 2010 at 13:14

They (statues in India) do not (go back 5000 years) and in fact it’s very difficult to date writings and other things in India before ther year 500. The Vedic people (Indo Europeans) were the original peoples in the north and we know for a fact that they were there in 2k BC. They predate Siddhattha and the Buddhist religion found around his philosophy.

Your own paragraph contradicts itself. You say Indian statues do not go back 5000 years, but then say that the people were well-established in 2000 BC.

The Ramayana was over 5000 years ago, and statutes from India date well before then, but you seem to be unconcerned with facts that dispute your white supremacism, so I am not going to expend much effort here.

How many of these people have you actually dealt with?

Certainly more than you.

You have never been to India, not do you know any Indian people well, yet cling to absurd beliefs that even other Westerners know is not true.

If you had an iota of intellectual curiousity/honesty, you would admit that Indians and Chinese are the two highest income groups in the US (about 40% higher average income than whites). It takes very little Googling to verify this well-known fact.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
TFH October 6, 2010 at 13:16

WF Price,

To be fair, Greco-Bactrian sculpture had a huge influence on Buddhist art. But that started around 200 BC or so.

That is correct, but note two points :
1) This was mostly on the Afghan-Pakistan area, which was Buddhist at the time. Greco-Bactrian influence didn’t translate to Eastern India, Burma, Thailand, etc..
2) This was over 300 years after Buddha (who lived around 500 BC).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Fidelbogen October 6, 2010 at 15:00

“2) This was over 300 years after Buddha (who lived around 500 BC).”

That is, assuming that he lived at all, and was not a mythical founder figure. Although c. 500 BC probably makes as good of an approximate starting point for Buddhism as any. . .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price October 6, 2010 at 15:42

1) This was mostly on the Afghan-Pakistan area, which was Buddhist at the time. Greco-Bactrian influence didn’t translate to Eastern India, Burma, Thailand, etc..

Yes, but the Central Asian corridor (via Silk Road) was crucial to the spread of Buddhism to Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, etc. I’ve seen Tibetan Buddhist statues, and they are indeed quite European-looking, wearing togas, etc. This is because Greek sculpture was transmitted directly from the Greco-Bactrian Buddhists to Central Asia. Although the Greeks obviously weren’t the first sculptors in the world, they were without a doubt the best at the time.

But yes, south of the Himalayas Buddhism was spread more by people from the subcontinent itself, who traveled by sea rather than overland via the Silk Road. And, in fact, this has a lot to do with the major differences between Tibetan and SE Asian/Chinese Buddhism.

2) This was over 300 years after Buddha (who lived around 500 BC).

True, but that’s still pretty early. Personally, I think it’s very interesting that the Greeks and Macedonians converted so readily to Buddhism when they arrived in the region.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 October 6, 2010 at 20:19

Thanks Gunn for explaining it.

I still don’t understand how this became a discussion about ancient cultures, but whatever.

I dunno about the Indian stuff, but Avenger nailed it on who has the money in south-american countries.

And yay, 50 comments!

wwmargera October 11, 2010 at 06:12

To add to what TFH said, the name “Krishna” literally means ‘dark’. BTW he is arguably the most popular God in India.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
alpha October 11, 2010 at 12:16

wow. never expected my land to get so much discussion. It is a bit flattering.

[quote]The more money a social circle has, the paler it gets. It happens in way too many places to call it a conspiracy. Quit whining about it.
[/quote]

hey!why should I quit whining?tis not fair.anyway ,Tiger Woods isn’t all that pale(although I bet his ex-wife is)

hey I got a small snippet of my own:

No matter who says what, the world always works on the principle of “survival of the fittest”
welfare state, social/economic/political justice, affirmative action be damned!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: