My blog

Blog

  • A discussion on Marriage

    A discussion on Marriage

    The following discussion looks at the institution of marriage from Hindu perspective and what each party gains from the institution. Since this institution developed independently across all societies, marriage should serve some teleological function.

    D:

    Regarding this modern woman problem, the issue is the halo attached to this thing called ‘career’. This is originally a Protestant idea where routine work came to be seen as service to god. In the ancient texts we read that duty of men was to bring wealth and glory to the family. Women were care-givers for the family. Both worked for the family in their different capacities. But ‘career’ is for oneself. Once men get hooked on it, it is unfair to expect women to remain care-givers for the family. If salvation for men lies in building careers for themselves, the same will be demanded by women as well. I see men as the root of the problem here. They have switched from being ‘settler’ to ‘hunter’. Women merely emulate men in whatever they do.

    DF:

    So much of the modern world can be traced back to Protestantism.

    PT:

    DF the primary motivations under Protestantism is also the same, but protestantism spins it into work is worship. That’s the point. The primary motivation is always the same because humans are all the same animals fundamentally. The religions shape our baser instincts into something greater. Counter religions just do a shoddy job of it IMHO.

    AS:

    Within the confines of religion, counter religions sacralize primal instincts of man. For example, Islam grants four wives to men along with infinite number of sex slaves. It incentivizes aggression against a perceived ‘enemy’. So naturally, anyone choosing Islam is not maladaptive as far as base instincts are considered evolutionarily. The women on the other hand have a steady supply of good number of alpha men. Men who are polygamous and ever ready for war. Where Counter-religions fail is at building civilization. The costs of polygamy and being in war always within or without makes them incapable of building civilization.

    Also as far as women participation in the industrialized work force is concerned I would blame that on not only ‘feminism’ but also viewing women as primarily economic beings. This erodes the inherent value they come with- which is giving birth. Consequently, the relation between working women of today and their low TFR makes eminent sense.

    About ‘Sex’ being the primary motivation for men to marry. I think this whole approach is wrong from a Hindu perspective. Creating dichotomies between sex, procreation, filial piety, etc. is wrong. I have seen numerous Hindu couples who have got married without consummating the marriage.

    YP:

    Good point AS. Islam is a war machine and is used to gain new territory, but once in peace it cannot build civilization unless it gives up its Islamic core.

    AS:

    Their aim is not to bring order which civilization brings and with that progress. That is why they are unmattas.

    DF:

    Procreation and sex being divorced is very much a post-contraceptive development.

    AS:

    Due to degeneracy or for that even the way marriage was conceptualized in the Judeo-Abrahamic traditions. Sex is often seen as the primary motivation of marriage. It is a very good incentive, no doubt. And biologically perhaps the single biggest motivation for men to marry. Women of course have their own motivations to marry. But we are I feel not analysing the role of Religion and culture in bringing about marriages. Religion as PT pointed out curbs the primal urges to bring about a modicum of order. And we cannot discount that. DF, contraception is just an excuse. The larger forces at play is progressivism. Islamic societies still do allow free sex.

    YP:

    Successful easily available contraception is not an excuse. But you can say putting condom machine at every corner is definitely a choice by state.

    DF:

    Of course, but contraception is a dysgenic technology which has altered our understanding of sex/reproduction/marriage.

    AS:

    Granted. But who or what incentivizes the use of contraceptives? What I am trying to say is contraception is just a tool.

    DF:

    Liberal democratic state 🙂

    AS:

    Yes.

    DF:

    I’m making an entirely different point though.

    AS:

    Yes DF I got your point.

    PT:

    My point in saying sex is the primary motivation of men to marry is the base instinct. Why else marry, if you can simply sleep with whoever you want? And we can see that once women started sleeping around in the West and there was easy access to sex through these women plus porn, men have stopped marrying. It has nothing to do with the Hindu perspective, rather I’m hypothesizing about the fundamental reason marriage existed at all in all societies everywhere.

    YP:

    Historically speaking marriage was a way to get alliance and resources as well. But yes, in the end resource acquisition too boils down to value in sexual market. Cannot close eyes to its primacy.

    PT:

    Well let’s say there’s no marriage at all, then no one inherits any property right? Along with the institution of marriage Svetaketu also instituted property rights. So inheritance/alliance/resources pre-Svetaketu didn’t exist?

    YP:

    They must have existed in some form.

    PT:

    Well not property rights but inheritance laws. See here’s what I’m trying to figure out. Why marriage? What does a man gain out of marriage, similarly what does a woman?

    AS:

    PT- why would men marry if they get free sex like in the West? It used to be the case pre-Svetaketu. Of course, no one here is saying that sex is not one of the motivations of marriage. But there are other elements to marriage which the elders and wise understood and hence imposed upon the philandering men and women. Religion/Culture played a crucial motivational role.

    YP:

    I did not say sex does not play a role. It is primary market. Even other resources help in the same market. So thinking that it does not matter is foolhardy for Hindus.

    SV:

    The primary beneficiary of marriage (or similar agreement as in animal) is female in keeping the male bound as female is the known parent and the one that knows the male parent of offspring. Male’s motivation is two-fold: its fiefdom without which its existence is meaningless, and its possession of female (which again is twofold, mating and ownership).

    AS:

    Yes, what I am saying is along what YP is saying I guess.

    PT:

    Fiefdom in what SV? Isn’t ownership of the female the same as mating rights? Else ownership in what sense? I know the motivation for women. It is to have a protector, resources. Men I still don’t fully grasp.

    YP:

    Beta men gain by marriage! Weaker men have fitness incentive to not sow the oats everywhere but use one partner and see that his genes get passed on.

    AS:

    SV- in keeping the male bound, does the Female also possess the man?

    SV:

    Not just mating – the region it owns and rules, the food that the female gets, the protection of offspring, holding the sense of unit (pride or clan or family) etc.

    PT:

    Yes, YP I know that. One way I look at marriage is that it exists only to restrain alphas and enable betas to lead fulfilling lives.

    SV:

    Female possesses the male too, but I guess it is not of the same nature. Say for instance Sita tells Hanuman she does not know whether Rama’s affection for her is more or his ego of owning her.

    PT:

    AS if you look at the data on how marriage causally reduces crime it’s because the woman controls the finances as well as persuades the man not to indulge in risk taking behaviour.

    SV:

    After all things of nature apply to both genders but to varying degrees.

    PT:

    The civilizing aspect of marriage is because women control men within marriage and because men have duty to women. Simply being married in itself restricts a man’s liberty.

    AS:

    PT, yes aware of that. SV, interesting.

    SV:

    Call it restriction of liberty or finding a means of fulfilment through family 🙂

    PT:

    All limiting of that kind of liberty is good according to me so I use it interchangeably.

    AS:

    In a marriage, therefore, the man gives away his liberty, in exchange of ‘fiefdom’. I get it now.

    PT:

    Men probably gain much more than women in marriage else women wouldn’t initiate divorces.

    AS:

    So we both understand the teleos of marriage and how it is beneficial from a man as well as women’s perspective.

    YP:

    Not true PT. Women now marry the social security. Women would have cheated even in the past or would have had dalliances but they would not get divorce, just because state would not fund them.

    SV:

    I guess women initiate divorces because they stop thinking like women (except in extreme cases of course).

    YP:

    The institution of marriage has changed over time, giving more power to women both in and outside the marriage. If you give progeny to the male, divorce would again fall. But in the west 80-90% times they get child custody.

    AS:

    Yes, laws are destroying civilization.

    Good point YP.

    YP:

    Divorce is a function of incentives. So you can say modern marriage don’t offer much to the women (in the west). Not so much true in Asia yet.

    AS:

    Interesting to note how the institution of marriage has changed based on progressive legislations.

    SV:

    Modern marriage is no marriage at all. It is a joke – sleep around for years and get married just like that and then separate when you want.

    AS:

    I am with the classical liberals here when they say that the state should have no role in passing out marriage certificates. If you stop that much of the stresses on modern marriage would go.

    PT:

    Right that makes sense, YP.

    AS:

    Let the ownership of marriage return to the society.

    Discussants- AS- @Abhra Sarkar, D- @Damanaka, PT- @PaganTrad, SV- @SkandaVeera, YP- @YugaParivartan

    Image Source:

    https://partycruiserevents.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/homa_agni.jpg

  • Britain celebrates mass murderer Churchill

    Britain celebrates mass murderer Churchill
    Representative visual for Britain celebrates mass murderer Churchill
    Representative restoration image generated because no original image was embedded in the supplied HTML.

    Our Monster, their Hero — Britain celebrates mass murderer.

    Last month British people started using a crisp new £5 bill that features arch imperialist, militant white supremacist and genocidal megalomaniac Winston Churchill. After all, white supremacism is never having to say sorry — except when the victims are fellow white Europeans.

    Churchill — the man responsible for 4 million deaths during the Bengal Holocaust in 1943, when a man-made famine was created in the then Indian province of Bengal (that included present-day Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal, Orissa and parts of Bihar) by diverting Indian grains to Europe to feed British troops and for storage in Britain as a buffer stock against shortages. His reply to Indian requests for food aid was that the famine was “their own fault” for they “were breeding like rabbits.” He further inquired of British colonial authorities in India when Gandhi would die. Indeed, the evil in this man goes further than that — recent historical research has revealed that he rebuffed an American offer to sail ships loaded with grains to India to bridge the shortage.

    Over in Europe, subsequent to the Wannsee conference in January 1942, the killing machines of the Nazi holocaust had not quite started in earnest yet. However, within a few weeks in the summer of 1943, somewhere between 3 to 4 million Indians were exterminated. It is important to keep in mind that these numbers were British colonial estimates — the real figure was probably higher, as colonisers are not in the habit of investigating their own crimes. Compared to the messy and industrial-style Nazi holocaust in Europe, the Indian holocaust was relatively clean and extremely efficient — the staggering body count was achieved through a simple and low-tech act of food stealing. No blood and gore for prim and proper Brits. Bengal holocaust remains the fastest genocide in human history.

    In fact the British colonial history in India was littered with multiple famines and mass starvations brought on by colonial land tenure and predatory revenue systems along with British orders to Indian farmers to produce Indigo and opium in place of food grains — opium that the British were selling in China in yet another atrocity. It is estimated that anywhere between 20 million to 60 million Indians could have died in multiple famines during almost 200 years of British colonial rule in India. Subsequent to Indian independence in 1947, not a single famine has occurred.

    The depredations of this mass murderer span Asia, Africa and even Europe. Yet Churchill was voted ‘Greatest Briton’ of all time in a recent poll in Britain, whose capital city London boasts of multiple statues and monuments to many colonial war criminals. Imagine for a moment if Germany were to issue a postage stamp featuring Hitler. The smug audacity displayed by Britain in celebrating genocide suggests that the sun might indeed have set on the empire, but the remnant of the empire remains thoroughly evil in spirit.

    PS — Never forget what our ancestors suffered under this murderous zealot.

    For a ravaging account, read Madhushree Mukherjee’s book on the Bengal famine — Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the ravaging of India during World War 2. According to her: “Winston’s racist hatred was due to his loving the empire in the way a jealous husband loves his trophy wife: he would rather destroy it than let it go.”

    Written by PS Arihant. Article sourced from Facebook post. Originally published October 3, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.

  • Game theory: what makes SF raid inside Pak optimal

    Game theory: what makes SF raid inside Pak optimal

    India under the leadership of PM Modi is finally showing the signs of coming out of “Kadi Ninda” or no response regime to terrorist acts of Pakistan. In the aftermath of Uri terrorist attack, Indian Army conducted a raid on terrorist camps inside PoK, the camps which were used as launching pads for the terrorists. There are two things which make this raid special. 1) Overt declaration by the army, that it conducted such an operation and 2) the size and scale of this operation, which targeted multiple such terrorist hideouts across the whole LoC. The first point is the more important change here because even in the past small time raids have been conducted across LoC to keep up the troop morale but it was never meant to get a nod/reaction from the government. But what made the current PM Modi government change this?

    One should look at this scenario using Game Theory and understand it in terms of assessing relative Payoffs for each player i.e. India, Pakistani government and Pakistani Army. First of all, one needs to understand that the current adversary for India i.e the real opponent, which takes all decisions is the Pak military generals. Pak’s overall population and politicians, although hostile are just pawns in the game, not the decision makers. So one can ignore them for most of this analysis.

    Before this SF raid, the Pak generals achieved positive Payoff by committing proxy terrorist attacks in India. They get a Payoff- the benefit of positive adulation from Islamic supremacists and the overall Pak population. Any criticism was deflected by claims that it is third party actors committing the terrorist atrocities and not the Pak military. Also the Pak military keeps getting funded as they keep peddling the inherent Muslims persecuted by Yindoos myth and the need for an effective Pak military to counter Yindoo kafirs.

    Now the Payoffs from the Indian perspective, up until the recent PM Modi government, perceived options were limited. Terrorist acts in India were negative Payoffs, but the alternatives were considered even worse. Cold Start Doctrine, which was formed post 2001 Parliament attacks, was obviously considered as a non starter because of the fears of escalation to nuclear conflict. Indian leaders had to consider the death of millions on the Indian side, whereas Pak generals don’t give a shit if millions die on their side. Basically Pak generals were by accident or design positively playing the “Game”.

    So what could have been done to reduce the Payoffs for these Pak Generals. First of all, CSD is a non starter, as the payoffs from a nuclear conflict remain the same, i.e. millions die from both sides as Pak Generals think it’s for the greater Islamic good. Without a credible ABM shield for India in the 90%+ effective range, there is no way that the relative payoffs can change in the near future.

    On the other hand, any strike backs on the Pak military/civilian or terrorist assets, without giving the Pak generals an excuse for all out war, would achieve negative Payoff for them, as it would make them look impotent/incompetent/stupid from the perspective of the Pak population and Islamists generally. On the other hand liberal Pak politicians would achieve positive Payoff by being in a position to finally take on the generals.

    So what forms can such strike backs that don’t escalate into a full blown nuclear war be? Well first of all, support for freedom movements and balkanisation by proxy is a definite tactic that seems to be working at the moment. PM Modi’s support to Balochistan should be seen in this perspective. Whether or not the current Modi government is actually supporting the Baloch freedom movements, the Pak generals seem impotent to do anything about it. Hence the negative Payoff and their whining, which is good news for India.

    Additionally any Indian strikes at specific targets like the ones that happened this week also achieve the same objective as long as the Pak generals don’t have an excuse to escalate it to full blown war. Indeed the strikes don’t even have to be particularly accurate as long as they cause negative publicity in Pakistan and the Pak generals are shown as weak and impotent to do anything about it. Take out terrorist leaders, or camps by all means. But even if there is collateral damage as long as it is mostly to infrastructure rather than people, India can always say- Oops, so sorry, we were hunting terrorists. Blow up a bridge, a ship whatever. Just say- Oops, so sorry collateral damage. Keep firing off artillery, as Modi government did in 2015. Pak will criticise it, but Pak generals cannot do anything about it and will look impotent.

    Now once having explained the rationale for retribution against Pak, the question why to make it explicit and declare that India targeted terrorist launch pads. Fans of covert only operations fail to realise that covert strike is not a valid option against a major terrorist attack. Covert operations is a long term strategy with a long term payoff of balkanisation/instability, but it has no effect on single terrorist incidents. Look at the perpetrators of the previous Mumbai incidents, they are still roaming freely in Pakistan. Also covert operations do not preclude overt operations. No one can argue against covert operations, but as a background longer term strategy. In shorter term, overt action gives the signal and shows India’s resolve to not sit back in case of a terrorist attack. Also, this is the only way to show weakness and impotence of Pak Generals, which covert operations cannot.

    Also read, Why raid by SF inside Pakistan is strategically brilliant.

    The ultimate objective of Game Theory is to induce alternative behaviours in your opponent. During the Cold War, Game Theory was used to prevent all out war between the US and USSR, whilst still each side asserting their interests. Game Theory is said to have been used by Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis, to browbeat the Soviets into recalling their ships. The negative payoff to Pak General should be seen in this regard.

  • A Theory in Thought

    A Theory in Thought

    Human wisdom is finite. All that you will experience has been experienced by your ancestors before you. The rules that tradition has laid down before us are not ill-thought they were guided by years of human evolution. Society progressed in a certain way and within a certain manner under different civilizations.

    But how does a human think about the queries of his inner mind? All humans are born with priors, and these priors inform their outlook. Useful priors are retained by natural selection. Now when we say useful, it simply means it enhances group fitness. All the various Protestant memes are certainly not useful in the sense that they are sustainable. Huntington said “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards”, but note that it is still expanding. Islam may capture a significant chunk of the human population in the future, and what that means for Hindus and other pagans who have suffered immeasurably at the hands of the Mohammedans only time will tell.

    Any ideology that has existed for centuries has some value to its adherents and enhances their fitness in some way, else it would not survive. But the important point is, while it may be beneficial to its adherents, it may not be beneficial to the society at large, or even to its adherents in the long run. A virus or a parasite can bring down a human being, that does not mean it is superior to a human being. Similarly Islam/Liberalism/Communism can take down superior cultures, but that does not mean they are superior to the Gumtree they take down. Liberalism benefits its adopters in that it raises their social station, allowing them to be parasitic on the competent and hard working. Similarly Islam benefits its adherents by free riding on kaffirs. However, once there are no kaffirs/non-liberals left, the whole arrangement collapses, as a parasite cannot survive without a host. Islam cannot build a civilization, for example, it can only gorge on the flesh of existing ones. Once there is nothing external to devour, it will start to devour itself.

    But can certain people fix their priors? And what would it mean to accept a new prior? Now I draw from Bayesianism occasionally since I find it a very useful construct in describing reality. Thought is Bayesian. There is likely some genetic conditioning present in everyone’s priors, and either those priors are enhanced or dismissed, only to be replaced with new priors.

    Once enough coherent priors are acquired, a framework is developed. Once a framework is accepted, all thought is reduced to pattern matching. There is no need for original thought, since the thinker has already accepted that all new information will only be valid within the framework defined by his own priors. This is why facts don’t really matter. Accepting the pill; be it blue, red, black or rainbow coloured means accepting the framework.

    What this does is lead the average thinker into believing things that are simply not supported by reality. But the problem that Communists face is that for the average thinker born and raised in a family of normal people, they cannot convince themselves of these obvious fallacies. And thus political correctness was born, otherwise known as cultural marxism. The way to take control of an entire generation of those who pursue the humanities is to generate a false sense of reality that is supported by the University and the Journalists, what Moldbug calls the Cathedral. The Cathedral has worked in the USA and it is working in Bharata as well.

    Given the high signalling value attributed to education, this ritual is undertaken by more and more Hindus who are fed inconsistent mleccha ideas, aimed at the destruction of its traditional principles. When leftists speak of “modernity” they are speaking with contempt for the institutions of old. It is a thinly veiled strike at the heart of tradition heathen rituals amongst the Yindoos, aimed at deracinating and juvenilizing an entire generation by feeding ideas which lead to permanent adolescence. For example, the old institution of marriage, which evolved separately in all different cultures of the world and definitely has some Darwinian value has been discarded at the altar of modernity and faces the maximum ire of modernists.

    Once the framework of cultural marxism has been accepted, humans delegate little brain power to actually questioning whether the evidence actually fits the framework, instead twisting the pattern until it is matched. This is why Morons are so insidious, since they are highly adept at pattern matching and have recognized the optimal Motte and Bailey strategy to destroy tradition.

    Suffice to say it is time to note their patterns, and identify if they exist within your own thinking. Purge your old priors, accept Hindu ones. Let not the sacrifice of your ancestors go in vain. Uphold tradition.

    With inputs from @ArmchairPseph

    Follow the author @PaganTrad on twitter, and check out his blog khatvaanga for the original article.

    Photographer: Sebastian Kaulitzki | Agency: dreamstime.com

  • Why raid by SF inside Pakistan is strategically brilliant

    Why raid by SF inside Pakistan is strategically brilliant

    There are news doing rounds since yesterday that India conducted a special operation inside Pakistan to avenge the Uri terrorist attack. This was first published in an exclusive report by Quint. GoI has neither validated nor denied anything about this operation, which is again a very significant step in maintaining operational secrecy. If it really happened, then it is brilliant strategic move and signifies India has come out of age and is ready to sit on the world stage with big boys.

    There could have been two conventional responses from Indian side:

    1. India could have used irregulars and hidden assets in Pak for the same operation but that would not have delivered the same signal as this raid would evoke in Pakistan Army’s mind. Using irregulars from Af-Pak border to come in and do the job would not generate awe and change in Indian’s stance of the past.
    1. Or India could have shelled Pakistan border like it did in 2015, but would have been called escalation and amounts to declaration of war without saying so.

    But this raid shows some very important change in India’s posturing:

    1. If it is true, India will be doing what USA is doing for past decade.
    1. Now the onus is on Pakistani army to respond and show it is not paper tiger. It is brilliant from strategic and diplomatic point of view.
    1. It shows Pak army weak and in a way calls out their nuke bluff, if Pak does not respond heavily to Indian instigation by selecting time and place to shoot down Pakistan soldiers.

    This is probably the way to fight this war for India. You come and kill our army men, and we will just raid across and kill equal or more of your regular troops. While you send irregulars for deniability, we send regulars but don’t say anything. Could there have been a better way to show how impotent Pak Army actually is?

    It is not declaration of war but if Pakistan wishes India will give it war.

    It completely changes the defensive strategy India has used forever against state sponsored terrorism. This generates collateral damage and loss of face, the only thing which hurts Pakistan Army.

    To save its face if Pakistan owns up terrorists as its regulars, then it is overt declaration of war. On the other hand, India by sending its regulars shows that it has joined the league of big boys and does not care about world opinion when it comes to national security and delivering hard message to its enemies.

    Indeed war should happen on time and place of India’s choosing.

  • Hindu suicidal escapism vs muslim triumphant awareness

    Hindu suicidal escapism vs muslim triumphant awareness

    Most of the Hindus & almost all of the HINOs(Hindu in name only) think & delude themselves that Muslims are ignorant, illiterate & unawares of sociopolitical scenario. Let us make things clear. All Muslims are literate & educated in their own language and not knowing English or a kuffar language is irrelevant to them. Knowledge (of course Islamic one) is accorded prime importance in Islam and every single Muslim is taught that since early childhood. Muslims know in & out about their dogma/faith/religion and have decent enough information about the rival faiths(including those of kafirs) even if its by cherry picking and used to deconstruct the kuffar religious principles.

    This ignorance is manifested at the highest level of our polity. Can see it in how we handle religious Abrahamic jihad aka terrorism. Sending testosterone driven quran-filled adolescent jihadis to wage ghazwa upon kuffar Endia is the SOP of the terrorist state of Pakistan. Such terrorists must be summarily executed. Keeping them in jails for the vain hope that the terrorist state will be ashamed to death on seeing such “evidence” is nothing but suicidal imbecility. But we always do that and have paid heavily many times including that of IC814 in Kandahar. Its suicidal naiveté to think that highest level or track-2 talks with a terrorist state created specifically to destroy us will even try for any farcical peace. After Modiji’s “confidence building” with Nawaz in Ufa, Russia, and subsequent rekindling of NSA level & other official military+civil engagements, terror attacks have only spiralled up exponentially in Endia.

    Now whenever the ignorance withers away its replaced by Hindu defeatist fatal obsession with Abrahamics and can be seen best in we demanding Aurangzeb Road be renamed to APJ Abdul Kalam Rd and not after any Hindu hero howsoever big or really important to us. Aurangzeb Road must be Chhatrapati Shivaji Road, Akbar Road must be Maharana Pratap Road, Babur Road must be Maharana Sanga Road, Humayun Road must be Samrat Hemchandra Vikramaditya Road and all this should’ve happened right after 1947 and before 1950. And we always err fatally in not following the dictum that no non-Hindu should be deified. And that does not necessarily mean all Hindus are patriots. In a current context if one sifts through the posts on Kalam ji’s demise you’ll know of the genuine heartfelt respect the “hardline hindutvavadis” have for him. But that should NOT translate into deifying non-Hindus.

    Hindus admire Israel greatly but always fail to notice that the Jews do never place any non-Jew on a pedestal even equal to a Jew. And that’s one of the simplest few reasons they survive against all odds. This is the problem with Hindus. Its good to respect great men who are not Hindu, sure,but its suicidal folly to put them on higher pedestal compared to our own great personalities, saints and Gods mass-psychosis of which was seen in the aftermath of Kalam’s unexpected demise. No Abrahamic will ever do such for a goyim/heathen/kuffar under any circumstance howsoever “good-intentioned” or secular the latter might be. And this self-destructive trait of projecting a non-Hindu much larger and bigger than the great Hindu saints & Gods was shown by none other than a Hindu missionary org(RKM). Shows the utter condition of decadent delirious dementia Hindus suffer now.

    Taking further this scary reality ahead we take the case of infantile reaction/approach of Sangh Parivar(led by RSS) to Abrahamism, Islam in this context. Muslim Rashtriya Manch, a daughter org of RSS, was last seen hyperactive with an “Ulema meet”; Ram Madhav, RSS’s loan to BJP, despite the J&K debacle of amorous dalliance with a pro-separatist political outfit is again seen hyper too as Modiji is to address a huge gathering at a cricket stadium in Dubai. What’s brewing up within RSS & its parivar?? The widely acclaimed custodian of Hindus & Hindu interests!! Some Ram Madhav cannot be doing this without the consent and permission of the Sarsanghchalak & Sarkaryavahs, the top two tiers of Sangh!! The fatal obsession of RSS & BJP with Muslims to “win over them to our side” will lead to another partition as the former just have not understood the fundamentals of abrahamic infection. On the surface things look hunky dory but RSS & BJP are now in the pre-partition congress mode leading the Hindus to halal slaughter houses in not so distant future if something radical does not shake up the Hindu core.

    And to tell you frank,blunt & upfront you escapist, lackadaisical, haughty, lazy, deracinated, idiot, self-deluded, arrogant hallucinating Hindus & HINOs! You who underestimate the abrahamics (esp Muslims) and overestimate yourselves: even a ragpicker riffraff Muslim is far superior to you in being knowledgeable and aware about local & global sociopolitical plus geostrategic affairs compared to you supercilious, soporific & suicidal slaves who exist only to offer their necks for slaughter at the hands of Abrahamics. Better mend your fundamental physical and mental constitution or you’re doomed to be annihilated! Which either you do not know of or do not want to accept in minds or worse that you’ve already accepted you being halaaled at some point in time.. Amin!

    Islam has cemented its position as a legitimate alternative to western civilization. Truth may be harsh but Hindus are not even in the race.

    — भीमकर्मा (@bhimakarma) September 17, 2016

    The article was first published here. The author tweets as @Shakra_Kulish.

  • Why Western “civilization” is not a civilization, let alone a superior one

    Why Western “civilization” is not a civilization, let alone a superior one

    There is so much propaganda on the internet, movies (specially Hollywood, but sometimes in Bollywood and other local Indian film industries as well), press (most of the national press especially the ones run in English language) about how Western “civilisation” is superior and how they civilised the whole world. This is specially true among the conservatives and the StormFront type white nationalists/superiority advocates, and they use this notion to justify the hundreds of millions their countries slaughtered, looted and starved. For instance the British barbarians today, typically justify their barbaric looting along the lines of “We gave India the science and technology, rail roads etc and hence our looting and starvation of hundreds of millions of Indians is OK”, even though it is pathetically false through and through as shown in this article Myth of British helping India. This propaganda is so pathetic that modern day “rationalists” like Sam Harris claim that western interventions today is Ok since western civilization and way of life is superior and interventions are a way of bringing said civilisation to the rest of the world. For instance Sam Harris even remarked how British and Portuguese helped end Sati in India, partially justifying millions of people that Portuguese genocided in Goa with their Goan inquisition and hundreds of millions the British barbarians starved to death during their loot, even though the truth is that Sati was banned by both Sikhs and Marathas, long before the British did it in their respect areas and was a practiced in areas where Indians/Hindus were not in power like Bengal as a self defence against Muslim barbarians. In fact, Hindu voice against Sati is much older and it is prohibited even in the Vedas, as shown here by Koenraad Elst. As one can see, this argument of western civilisation being superior is often used as a justification to intervene and destroy other countries, much like USA spreading democracy in Iraq.

    So it is imperative to understand the term “western civilization” for what it is to safeguard our civilization from the looting barbarians today. In the past, several non western publications poked holes in the notions of western superiority to show Westerners a mirror whenever they started denigrating others. But for some reason, that seems to be lost today because of the shameless western wannabeness among the middle class Indians and Indian elites, because of their colonised minds. Their media, much like Indian media, never shows the actual face of the Western countries or their barbaric societies and hence Indians have a very rosy view of the west, far removed from reality. This is a recent phenomenon though, as many in the past used to point out west for it what it is to their face before, much like what Mahatma Gandhi said about Western “civilisation”. When asked about it, he famously quipped that “It would be a good idea”, meaning if west had a civilisation, it would be a good idea. So Indians need to know what a shallow soulless garbage western “civilisation” is to counter both the Strom front and Brietbart type of white supremacists on the internet and to prevent the inevitable decay of our civilisation if we ever follow the western “civilisational” model.

    Western Civilisation is not a civilisation

    The most pathetic claim about the notion of Western Civilisation is that western countries are civilisation to begin with. So what do they actually mean by the term western civilisation? The term Western civilisation refers to the descendants of the “Western half of the Roman empire and its descendants” while the Eastern Roman empire or the Byzantium Empire is traditionally called the Eastern Roman empire. This is where the term comes from. But how legitimate is the claim that western civilisation is the descendants of the Western Roman empire? As one will shortly see, not very much.

    The majority of the claimants of western civilisation are not actual descendants of the Western Roman empire to begin with. For example, the flag bearers of supposed western civilisation today, United Kingdom, Germany, and its descendants in United States and Anglosphere, the Anglo Saxons are not actually descendants of Roman civilisation or culture and are just barbaric Anglo Saxon tribes (as referenced during Roman period) which robbed and looted and eventually settled in present day England, Germany. They are not Romans, but rather the barbaric tribes which scavenged the corpse of the dying and decaying Roman empire and carved their own respected societies in modern day Britain and Germany. Then of course, the Britain got invaded and conquered by the Scandinavians, who themselves were barbaric Vikings (and one can even now see association of Americans to Vikings to relate their history and ancestry today) in the 6-7th century well after the fall of the Roman empire to warring barbaric hordes. Similarly, the French today are the descendants of Frankish tribes which carved out their own kingdom in France or Gaul, as known in Roman empire. These are the same people which then went onto settle in USA, Canada and Australia. They have little or nothing to do with the Roman civilisation. The same is true for most other European countries as well. Their claims of being western civilisation is their pathetic attempt at trying to forge a history of civilization pre-dating their colonial era of barbarity and looting, which isn’t filled with barbarity and hunter gathering tribes as was the case with most of their histories. They attempt to paint themselves as the Western civilization because without that illegitimate claim, their actual history is nothing but that of barbarity, loot and rapes, unlike a civilizational country like India, China or even Persia/Iran.

    These claims of being descendants of western civilisation by the Anglo Saxon west or indeed the majority of west is of course as legitimate as that of a poor fatherless bastard claiming his successful rich neighbour as his own dad to make up for the fact that he doesn’t have a dad or that he is an illegitimate bastard. Hence, the term western civilisation is by itself is an illegitimate and pathetic one and a more apt description would be to call them as modern nation states without any actual history. The truth is, most of them actually know it deep down, specially in the colonial countries like Canada, Australia and USA. They often make up for their lack of legitimate history or civilisation with artificial stories of greatness and of course trying to downplay the achievements of actual civilisations like Bharatiya or Chinese civilization through their communist coolies and sepoys here through their use of deliberately corrupted Indology and with attempts to rename Indian subcontinent as South Asia, for example.

    Of course, there is no actual western civilisation today as not even Italians can claim Roman heritage today. Rome is dead so are its customs and languages. While Shri Rama still enlightens the heart of any true Bhartiya today, does Jupiter generate any veneration in the hearts of Italians? The Roman civilization died the moment it adopted the worship of the bastard Jew from Bethlehem (ironically situated in Arabia/Asia). The original Roman culture or the western culture of worshipping Jupiter or Juno is long dead and what is present is a cheap Abrahamic culture which masquerades as a descendant of the Roman culture since facing the reality of lack of any history or culture on their own is embarrassing. This is especially hilarious when seen in the context of Scandinavia which had nothing whatsoever to do with “Western Civilisation” or Roman Empire,not even in the slightest, and still gets lumped together to cite western countries. Ironically, even the camel banging Bedouins of Saudi Arabia or other barbaric Islamic nations can at the very least claim a religion and culture of their very own unlike Europeans who resort to worshipping an Asian Jew/Semite while calling themselves “superior culture or civilisation”.

    Why Western superiority is a Myth

    The second problem with assertion of western civilizational superiority is of course the very assertion that the western society is superior in the first place. The truth of the matter is that, the supposed western superiority these people talk about is a very recent and a transient phenomenon borne out of looting, pillage and genocide against actual civilisations and not really their own achievement. This is evident from the fact that the only period of time where the supposedly superior west even had an edge over proper civilisations of Asia, i.e. during the 18-20th century is also the time they looted and raided the Asian civilisations to enrich their pathetic decadent societies. As soon as the decolonisation, caused primarily by Hitler’s breaking of colonial empires backs, an inter-barbarian civil war among the European barbarians, made them too weak to hold onto their colonies, they descended back into their historical role in the world- playing second fiddle to Asian civilisations

    Ever since the loss of their colonies, western countries like UK, Germany, French etc, is back to their barbaric and decadent ways of mediocrity and are today once again back to being the second fiddles to Asian countries and proper civilizations, like India, China, Japan or South East Asia or is in the process of losing out to the above like USA, which is on its decline. This is not anything new to known Human history of 8000 years. Indians and Chinese were living in large cities in Indus Valley and Yangtze river by 3000BCE, when the Scandinavians, Britons, French were still hunter gathering barbarians even in 7th century. Asia was the centre of arts, culture, science, philosophy, religion for most of Human history. India was the centre of the world for religion, arts, culture, science and philosophy, having also taught the other South East Asian countries like, Japanese and Chinese. The supposed western rise of the 18th century was due to western conquest and genocide of four continents – the two Americas, Africas and Australia- and not because of their greatness. Even many of the technologies used for these conquests were copied from the East in the initial phase of colonization.

    Of course one could argue that the conquest of proper civilisation like Indians, Chinese or South East Asia was only possible because of western superiority but that is a nonsensical argument. Superior army tactics doesn’t equate to being a superior civilisation. Nobody in their right mind calls the Gengiz khan and his horde of Mongolian horse back raiding barbaric thugs as a superior civilisation just because they managed to conquer China, Persia, Europe(Russia) and Central Asia. We just call them barbarians with superior military tactics who destroyed the civilised world for their own profit. Similarly,the western colonialists which conquered the proper civilisations like India, South East Asia or China are not superior civilizations but rather just barbaric thugs with better military tactics and they looted, plundered and killed hundreds of millions, sometimes even in the name of the bloodthirsty psychopathic monotheistic God for filling their treasury. If western barbarians are to be considered superior civilization because they conquered others, then so should be the Mongolian barbarians under Gengiz Khan. In short, military strength is not what demonstrates the superiority of a civilisation and the only superiority west had was that, else everything it acquired was by looting others and preventing others from developing. Also, European military superiority is a 200-300 year glitch in 8000+ years of written civilization, where Asians dominated the world and are on the way to dominate it again.

    Asia had the largest GDP, had the better science (Indians and Chinese had Heliocentrism for 4000 years, while Europe was still persecuting Galileo for heliocentric theories in 16th century), better religions (Europeans or west doesn’t have a religion of their own and worship an Asian Jew), better societies with even caste ridden India was a much better place for the lower castes than the peasant life (peasant castes as opposed to Nobility caste of Europe) in Europe during the 15-18th century (peasant revolutions were unheard of in medieval India while extremely common in Europe due to exploitative systems employed there) before industrialisation in Europe destroyed the caste structure there, which was denied to India during her colonial rule and hence the persisting caste problems (since India was robbed for 200 years of industrialisation and the subsequent societal growth), better livelihood, better sanitation , better philosophy (of building your own country rather than loot and destroy other countries and steal their resources like the European barbarians did at that time). The European spike in living standards during the 18th century was a result of conquest by military and not because of ideas or superiority of culture. Even industrial revolution was brought by the mass production of rifles for the military at the time in the Britain.

    So, when this conquest and looting of others stopped, so did the momentary superiority of the so called Western countries, which they enjoyed over proper civilisations like India or China. With loss of colonies, Europe and west is relegated to their decadent societies as powers of yesteryears and a society of bastards, dead bodies and crime. The Asian century as the 21 st century is called today is a misnomer as all centuries, except 18-20th had been Asian centuries only, for the known history of Human race. It is especially funny that certain white cretins in online forums advocate eugenics as if their race is in the top hierarchy of races of the world, even though any proper analysis of human history would show how much of the bottom feeders the white race actually is.

    Of course leaving history aside, what is the supposed superiority of western countries today? 50% bastard rates? 2000% higher rapes per capita compared to Asia? Several magnitudes higher crime figures and prison population? 50% divorce rates? A “culture” so materialistic and self indulgent that they can’t even bring themselves to have enough children to replace themselves and have to import rape happy Muslim immigrants from middle east for improving their economy? Seriously which part of western society can one define as being superior? Their economic prosperity was of course brought by loot of others and now that that has dried up, even the economic edge the western barbarians had over proper civilisations like India and China is dying out today .

    All in all, it is stupid to think that western “civilization” is actually superior (actually it is not a civilization if we go by proper definition and death of Roman culture) and it is suicidal to mimic their decadent culture of single mothers, bastards, divorces and rapes. Every Indian (and indeed every non westerner) should know this fact. Next time the Storm front or Brietbart thugs brag about “Western civilization”, they should be shown a mirror for what they truly are- a subhuman barbaric trash for most of human history, someone who got rich and wealthy by destroying other races and cultures. Their model of society/culture/”civilization”, as they like to call themselves, is not a model for anyone except barbarians. Civilisations like India, China, Japan, South East Asians etc would do well not to adopt the western barbaric morals or code or culture or religion!

  • Addendum: The biggest losers in a feminazi world

    Addendum: The biggest losers in a feminazi world

    This is further addition to the last article on same topic. This time we concern ourselves with the winners of this new feminist world. The last articles focussed on the impact on different classes of men/women in the society, but more can be said about other groups. The other winners are-

    1. Corporates: Apart from sexual winners, if one thinks about economics then the corporates win. The reason they started to let women work is because they were falling short of laborers during the world war. The feminist social doctrine that evolved was just an extension of this economic model. Not letting women work means 50% of capable labor force remains unproductive. Instead, if they are made to work, the production goes up and need to import migrant labor goes down. There are more buyers for all sorts of products and local economy goes up.

    Now the attack on biological aspects of womanhood is a further extension of this economic agenda. If she is stuck in traditional gender roles then their economy is hurt, so they are trying to take away the femininity of the woman away and trying to brainwash all women into thinking that they are a “resource”, like a good HR would label them. Women have started buying this definition too and just like men, they have started attaching their self worth to how much they earn.

    In the west, this is somewhat okay because it increases productivity but in India young women have started a new doctrine of their own, they want the good points of the western doctrine but don’t want to let go of the traditional benefits of “patriarchy”. For example a girl earning the typical 3.5 Lakhs Per Annum from one of the top 4 mass recruiting IT firms now wants her potential husband to earn at least 12 LPA. So she is trying to play the realpolitik game and make the best of both doctrines and squeeze benefits for herself. Although western women too display hypergamy but not at the same level as their Indian counterparts. If one goes around barking about being an independent woman who is not dependent on any man to sustain herself, why not marry a low earning artist, or a plumber or a carpenter? Why 3X salary requirement from the husband? Where’s the feminism now? Why claim maintenance money after divorce? Why claim custody of children by default of being a “mother”?

    1. Government: No one can forget the second beast in the room which is the government itself. It has all the reasons to make corporate slaves out of women. More labor means more tax and more tax means more spending on welfare. The increased and non-stop growth in the size of bureaucracy means that the government needs an ever expanding size of labor force to balance budget. Now having run out of women, the same western governments are not shying away from importing foreign migrants to shore up their finances in the future.

    The government bureaucrats and politicians not only draw power from increased spending power delivered through increased revenue but it also gives them immense power to interfere in public sphere. Large number of propaganda programs can be rolled out to change mindsets and thus favours can be curried to the select few through media and academia. Different gender issues which were earlier monitored and improved by civil society now require explicit government interventions, which means more redundant jobs created by the government.

    We leave the reader to dig deeper into this issue but look at the kind of studies funded by taxpayer’s money as shown below. If they are not outrightly ridiculous, then one would wonder what is:

    Gender scholar asks 55 women if there’s a link between being a woman and having a vagina.

    If you want to think in Indian context, then think about abuse of 498A. An incoherent law has been imposed on the society which has led to destruction of families through rampant misuse, but the vested interests do not want to let it go. And who are the vested interests in this case? Feminist groups and law fraternity. These two groups hardly want to budge back on this issue, even though greater than 90% of the cases don’t get any conviction and half of the victims are themselves women. So once a law is enacted, it is almost impossible to backtrack on it. The one way street of feminism allows no U-turns.

    As one can by now see, the feminist ideology gives enough reasons for the above two classes to implement these policies even more zealously. So next time when you see a government funded program in favour of altering social norms, you would understand why.

  • The biggest losers in a feminazi world

    The biggest losers in a feminazi world

    Who are the biggest losers in an increasingly feminist world? WOMEN! But there are different shades of losers and some lose more than others. The losers are listed below in decreasing order of significance:

    1. Children– They are the biggest losers in a feminist dominated society. How does the children lose in such a society? Children lose because they are forced to grow in single parent households and sacrificed at the altar of protecting individual whims and fancies over the future generation. No fault divorce coupled with high alimony payments ensure that women have almost no incentives to maintain a healthy marital bond. Although, feminists will argue that women are not responsible for divorce but almost 80% of divorce are initiated by women!

    This problem is further exacerbated by delayed marriages and out of wedlock births. #MyLifeMyChoice type of arguments have removed the taboo from pre-marital sex as well as out of wedlock births. All this means that paternal investment in kids has gone down and the laws have left no incentive for fathers to invest in their offsprings.

    Sexual abuse of children increases in broken families

    If sexual abuse can be taken as a metric of exploitation, then kids are at the receiving end of all the abuse in broken families. The chances of a child getting abused in a broken family is several times higher than the case when a child lives with his/her biological parents. Another metric that can be employed is school performance of kids with absentee fathers. Broad survey of research shows that absentee fathers have a negative impact on school performance of kids. The article states:

    We find strong evidence that father absence negatively affects children’s social-emotional development, particularly by increasing externalizing behavior. These effects may be more pronounced if father absence occurs during early childhood than during middle childhood, and they may be more pronounced for boys than for girls. There is weaker evidence of an effect of father absence on children’s cognitive ability.

    Effects on social-emotional development persist into adolescence, for which we find strong evidence that father absence increases adolescents’ risky behavior, such as smoking or early childbearing. The evidence of an effect on adolescent cognitive ability continues to be weaker, but we do find strong and consistent negative effects of father absence on high school graduation. The latter finding suggests that the effects on educational attainment operate by increasing problem behaviors rather than by impairing cognitive ability.

    So laws that lead to broken families in turn harm future of children. And there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the primary goal of many feminists is destruction of family which in turn can be interpreted as destruction of childhood. The failure of blacks in American society can be traced back to broken homes and large number of out of wedlock births and absence of fathers in African-American society.

    1. Lower class females– The second biggest losers in a feminized setting are lower class women. Although high class women also end up as cat ladies due to feminist indoctrination and male hate but the biggest casualty is borne by lower class females. They lose out by bearing the feminist assault on family structure. While high class women preach feminism to their lower class sisters, they themselves are much less likely to divorce as compared to low class women. The study by Isen and Stevenson gives details on education attainment and divorce rates.

    Three things become immediately clear from the above data for US. Firstly, the rate of divorce has increased since 1950s for all classes (both race and sex). Secondly, the rate of divorce has strictly been higher for high educated females. Thirdly, percentage of divorce for blacks has been higher than whites. Since education and gender both determine an individual’s class in US, it is more than abundantly clear that lower class females have been on the receiving end of new legislations.

    Not only the richer females are less likely to divorce but they also end up with high alimony settlements and a comfortable lifestyle while their poorer sisters are left out in the wild without a mate plus dependent on welfare state given low/negligible alimony payments. At the same time, while the richer women still have the option to opt out of work in case of a divorce (or even within a marriage), the lower class women have no option to opt out of workforce and have to almost always support themselves and their children, often living life on subsistence, while flipping burgers in McD. The problems of black families are increased many fold due to the breakdown of their family institution and hence black women are even bigger losers.

    1. Lower class males– The lower class males lose due to decrease in their SMV and decrease in chances of landing up with a mate. Since women display hypergamy and have also increasingly joined the workforce, the role of lower class males as bread earners has diminished and they now have almost no utility for the modern female. If a women is unable to find a job she has nanny state to help her live on. Thus, most males on the lowest level of social pyramid find it almost impossible to attract any female.

    Also breakdown of social taboos on sexual relationships means that women are free to pursue alpha males leaving the betas of the old alone and lonely. Such men only have chance of ending up with an old female once she is past her prime fertile age and does not any longer have better options. Since society does not put any pressure on their youth to get married early, an entire generation of low value men are restricted to their parent’s basement and increasingly pursue other hobbies to hide their failure at attracting women. This is reflected in the coinage of terms like herbivore men in Japan and MGTOWs in the west.

    Whether the external impulses like porn, video games etc are able to compensate for life long partnership with women for these men is yet to be seen, but low SMV men are increasingly opting out of the society.

    1. Super high class women– These are the women at the top of the pyramid and are unable to find men who can overcompensate their value. Feminism has brainwashed entire generation of women and has de-emphasized the value of maternity and children. Women who are increasingly successful in corporate careers find it increasingly difficult to find potential mates who are better than them. While successful men have no problem in marrying down and settling for a less value women, female hypergamy ensures that highly successful women end up alone.

    Another factor which hurt these women is the blind pursual of career over family, thus forcing them to waste their best fertile years as corporate slaves. By the time they realize their folly, they are well past their prime age to attract high value men, who are interested in other younger women. The same women then shout at men to man up.

    While few women might be happy with being corporate slaves but many end up bitter in their old lives by giving up on timely maternity. Although marriage is not important for having children but the mad race for jumping corporate hoops ensure that successful corporate women delay child bearing to win cut-throat competition. While these women might bed best males during their small fertile youthful period, their value decreases exponentially with age, thus making them resentful later on in life due to male rejection. The rise of the cat ladies to douse the maternal instincts is a modern phenomenon, thanks to the propaganda against motherhood by feminazis.

    Who wins?

    Not everyone loses in such a society! The winners are high SMV men who get unbridled supply of young emancipated women ready to sleep with them without the burden of marriage. Although any male with an interest in family has to act over-cautious in such a society but if the idea is to be a philanderer than no society offers better options for a high SMV men. In case these men decide to tie the knot, since educated women have lower divorce rates, it also means they do not get a raw deal like their poorer counterparts. It is an almost win-win situation for them in each case. Just to emphasize, these men lose the most in a patriarchal society due to reduced access to prime fertile women and have almost all the reasons to support feminazi agenda.

    The question now is- where does India want to end up with its increasingly anti-family legislation?

  • Equal rights is fine but what about unequal fights?

    Equal rights is fine but what about unequal fights?

    What happens when you rob a man of his dignity and his life? Someone someday will take a drastic step, lose his mind and go on a killing spree. After all, if you ruin a man’s life to the point where there is nothing left to live for, well, he can surely take a few lives with him as revenge. One must not take so much advantage of someone just because one isn’t saying anything. We are talking about men in current India to make you realize that it is not far from truth. What has brought about this sad state of affairs? Short sightedness of legislature and judiciary. To give an example-

    Rohit is a psychiatrist and runs a suicide prevention help line. He got a call from one guy in jail and went to meet him. He told that his wife registered a case on him for divorce and maintenance. So the judge fixed an amount but the total income of the guy is less than the amount payable in maintenance. Since he could not afford to pay it now he is jailed for not paying the maintenance. Not surprisingly, he is now contemplating suicide.

    Such cases as reported by Rohit are widespread but do not get enough coverage and get drowned in the feminist hysteria, except generating some coverage on inside pages of local newspapers, where no one bothers to pay heed.

    Man leaves suicide video blaming wife n in-laws, says ws threatened n harassed with a false #498A , parents torturedhttps://t.co/TFNKloH8Nu

    — Deepika Bhardwaj (@DeepikaBhardwaj) August 31, 2016

    What is the solution out of this mess? With changing times, men must update their attitude about relationships and marriages and see it the way women see it- a contract made for self interest. Currently, once someone’s marriage gets fixed he starts building air castles about what will happen on honeymoon, while the girl’s family starts doing financial calculation about how their daughter gets upward social/economic mobility just by marrying (female hypergamy).

    The popular narrative tells men that dowry is evil but is silent on how women (and their families) hunt grooms? They roam with calculators in their hand! The primary motivating factors for them are “Mumbai/Delhi mein khudka ghar hai? (Does the man own an apartment)”, “1BHK/2BHK?”, “does the groom have any other claimants on the property, like brother?”, “ladka kitna kamata hai?(How much does the boy earn?)” etc. The institution of arranged marriage is nothing but legalized prostitution these days where parents sell their daughter to the highest bidder and have the guts to lecture ‘society’ that dowry is evil. What is this mythical ‘society’ they keep ranting about? Aren’t women a part of the same society?

    Compare their cold and calculating attitude to the callous attitude of men while hunting for wives, all they see is “ladki dikhne mein theek hai? Ok, kardo shadi (Is the girl decent looking? Ok, lets marry)”. Anyway it’s inappropriate for the guy to lay claim on the girl’s property, neither socially nor legally. It is impossible to get her property even after her parents die, or if you divorce and become jobless and she has job, she never has to pay maintenance. The feminazis failed to get it legislated but the next bill will give claim to wife on husband’s inherited property post divorce. So basically the onus of a failed relationship and its economic implications are put squarely on the man, while the woman has ZERO liability in such an alliance. Go big or go home but no loss. When a girl’s family says that they got a good groom, what they mean is they found a wealthy groom, so if X is better than Y then it can be proved with objective data that X has more money than Y. Can a guy do similar calculations? What does he mean when X bride is better than Y bride? Do men even have objective parameters to judge on a scale of ‘better’? They consider themselves lucky just because someone is marrying them.

    Men must start exploring proper options like pre-nuptials, hiring detective to see if there are any other Feminazis in the girl’s family who have given divorce to their husband and stolen 50% of his property. ANY red flag, ANY, just say no. It’s time men start thinking with their heads. No one goes to buy a new car and think “what are my insurance options if this new car gets into an accident” because we are all wishful thinkers and assume the best possible scenario, but when the accident happens, they realize that in their happiness to buy a new car they didn’t read the fine print and cannot claim any respite once an accident takes place. It is the same callous attitude men in India have towards marriage. No one realistically thinks about bad scenarios at the time of marriage- what if this doesn’t work out? What are my legal/economic liabilities? What is my plan B?

    Men need to start becoming more cunning. The world is a scary place filled with vultures who want to take everything that you have (the very reason they made any association with you is because of what you HAVE, not because of who you are) so once you stop having what you have (by losing a job/business/accident/disease) then the same girl who thought it made sense to be with you earlier makes the calculation that it doesn’t make sense to be with you now. It is these ‘sensible’ people who are the most poisonous and we keep hunting for demons under our beds.

    The idea of marriage was offered to men under the premise that after evaluating the pros and cons, it had a net positive effect on everyone. Steadily, over the years the dividends which men receive from this institution has eroded and it is increasingly becoming a liability. It used to be a package deal where you got companionship, children, sex, and a friend to grow old with, but now with the new laws and corporate lifestyle, all of that has been jeopardized. There’s no companionship as the husband and wife work in different offices and hardly see each other daily, sex is non-existent (or as per the whims of the lady, and now that they are clamouring to introduce marital rape bill, more fake rape cases will ensue to blackmail husbands). Kids? Well, once there is a divorce, the court take away the kids and gives them to the wife! And old age? You will spend old age as an old man filled with regrets, no companionship, no kids, no retirement pension, paying maintenance to your wife. Where is the benefit to men to get into such a one sided arrangement where the onus of a failed relationship is completely on one gender?

    Now a days, if you are an upper middle class man, the fact that you marry only means that you have pledged your wealth to a stranger unilaterally where she has no reciprocal obligations whatsoever. The concept of household chores is non-existent as there are washing machines and house maids. So even if the wife is a house wife, her status is that of a highly pampered house cat. She adds no value to the alliance in any way compared to what she gets to legally claim in return (your entire property). Going out and marrying is like going to the mall and buying trouble with your hard earned money.

    On the other hand, the women, by marrying, immediately become legally entitled to lay claim on the husband’s property and immediately achieve social/economic mobility. The husband’s real estate is multiple times of what she would earn from her job anyway. It’s the woman who gets everything in a conventional marriage scenario and no matter how shrill the Feminists are, they aren’t ready to forfeit this benefit of caricaturing the man in the role of a provider. The more he is capable of providing, the better man he is considered. How come no Feminists are crying objectification now?One just needs to look at west to realize how a failed marriage society will look like. They have disintegrated this ‘package deal’ that marriage offers and relegated each of its constituent elements to different sources. There, when the men want companionship? They join hobby clubs and meet like minded people. When they want intellectual conversations, they talk to people in their office or on the internet. They want sex?, They arrange it yourself through ‘various means’ including pick up artistry (free casual pump and dump sex which oddly is opposed by their own feminist) and fuck a new girl each weekend. when they want to have the feeling of fulfilment of raising a child? They adopt an orphan or 10 and sponsor their education. When they want safety and security in retirement? They buy a house at a prime area from all the money saved and lead a comfortable life, which arguably is a way better choice there since their chances of good old age life is better if they are single and unmarried and hence not screwed by their legal system where they get robbed of their properties and earnings in the name of divorces and maintainance. Even the hospitals have become like 5-start hotels. If you are sick in old age and pay them enough, they will keep you like a king till you die. Men there don’t need a wife or kids for that (or they will still have 10 adopted kids who might help them in old age). The laws pushed down the throat of men in their feminazi society has ensured that the above combination is FAR better than the prospect of marrying a woman in 20s, and then have a sexless bitter life with a false marital rape case filed against them once their wife lose interest in them, while their house and money and kids are taken away while leading the life of a single uncle and waiting to die and nothing to look forward to!

    The above scenario is well exemplified by the movements like PUA and MGTOW in the west. Their society is already at a point where majority men don’t marry and leave their women (even the normal non-feminist feminine women) stranded with a cat with their shrinking ovaries with nothing to look forward to except cat piss in their future. While men are learning to cope up with anti-men society, it is actually the women who end up as sore losers and cat ladies in the end. Since men no longer want to marry feminazis, the shrill feminazis then raked up the old patriarchal quote and ask men “To Man Up”. The irony is that despite all these impediments that men face, it is the women who keep claiming perpetual victim hood.

    The above decadent situation which is prevalent in west today, has reached the current decadent state wasn’t reached overnight and was reached by decades of unopposed march by feminism and mindless women pampering by their politicians and judiciary which thought men had no issues in marital life and only women had issues and pampered their women without thinking through the consequences for their actions. While not every women might have supported feminism or “women’s rights” march and the laws screwing the men there, they inevitably let their feminist crazy sisters to shout over the rooftop and let the laws screw their men. Now it is the same women, who might not even be feminists themselves but are made to pay the price for such anti-male laws there with singledom, cat piss and dog shit. Feminists who pushed for such laws are actually happy for it since why would an already lesbian, anti-male and all sex is rape hippy care that other normal women are getting left alone without companionship?

    This is not to say that women don’t face atrocities in India. Many women in rural areas are getting physically abused and killed by their in-laws, but that sample set has no connection to the modern urban educated woman working in a corporate job. Urban Feminazis appropriating victim-hood on the behalf of their rural counterparts whom they have never even met and claiming more and more concessions is nothing but crude opportunism. It’s like Anil ambani saying “my driver didn’t have breakfast today so I must eat 2 extra burgers on his behalf to compensate for it”.

    So the only advice to men and their sisters and mothers is to avoid the dynamite of failed marriage by properly filtering out any signs of feminism when they look for a bride. Unless the Indian society wakes up to this challenge, it too will end up with failed marriages and unhappy cat ladies like in the west, while men look the other side and ignore them. This will be especially true for women in India as well. The price for feminism and it’s cat ladies of the west is paid for by both feminist and non-feminists alike in the west. The percentage of women who identify as feminists is at an all time low of 27% in USA and still the percentage of women who manage to get a husband is only 30-40%. This is why women against feminism is gaining ground there. But it is a step too late and too little. Their society is already dying and their women are already miserable. Women of India should women up and stand up to the braindead white wannabe Indian feminazis, for if they don’t stand up to this judicial trampling of men by courts and society on the advice of white wannabe feminists, it is not just their brothers and sons who are going to be destroyed, but their own lives along with their sisters and daughters as well. It is about time Indians stop this blond white wannabeness and start learning from the mistakes the dying and decadent west made.