Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content Count

    7,709
  • Runs

    115,810 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    95d 16h 40m 14s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. what part of this is about destroying cities and property rights ? Nobody denies that people suffered a lot in Europe during medieval period, there were lots of witch-hunts, lots of deaths. BUT CITIES WERE VERY RARELY RAZED, PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE VERY RARELY VIOLATED. This is what i said. Not that Europeans were pacifists. There were more wars in Europe in the last 1000 years than rest of the world put together. Through all this, the overwhelming majority of their cities remained standing, owners of properties got to pass it to whom they wanted to and knowledge along with wealth was largely preserved. Cities were where property, knowledge and skills accumulate, throughout human history. The rise in urbanism in EVERY PART of the world sees corresponding rise in wealth, technology and sciences. This is where western Europe, over the last 1000 years, has had a decisive advantage over rest of the world - their cities were left largely intact, their properties passed genealogically largely, regardless of who got conquered by whom. PS: This is mostly about WESTERN EUROPE. Where the fount of modern day world comes from. Eastern Europe/Balkans being a $hithole is pretty much self-evident. Lands west of the whole 'iron curtain' zone, is where such acts were extremely rare and thus, they got to preserve their knowledge, their wealth and pass it forward. If you persist in your ignorant inferiority complex-fuelled nonsense, i shall be forced to post you legions upon legions of European documents detailing how property rights were respected, even when titles were taken away/re-distrubuted due to changing borders/conquests. PPS: Your inferiority complex is easily seen by the fact that you are hell-bent on disputing the fact that western European cities & property rights remained largely unscathed in the last 1000 years. Yet, when i said the same thing about Magadh's expansion, you chose not to dispute it. And i bet my bottom dollar you know jack $hit about Magadh's expansionary wars either. As i said, take off your racist, inferiority-complex driven glasses and see history for what it is. Europeans have invented more things, advanced sciences, property rights and wealth in the last 500 years than Indian civilization's sum total. How can you dispute this ?
  2. Says the guy who knows jack $hit about history. Do you want me to post articles on European property rights and countless instances of property passing within families of even the nobility, despite them losing nobility status when conquered by others ? Because unlike Indians, European record-keeping of the last 1000 years is vast. As i said, learn from the Japanese. They had more honor and courage than the bravest and most honorable Rajputs, Arabs-heck anyone else in the world. You don't top bushido code for honor-based behaviour, where bodyguards routinely commit suicide if they fail to protect their lieges. And they learnt that the European system is superior, adapted and yet retained their culture. If they can, so can we.
  3. Which cities were razed ? name them. Yes. On the battlefield. Dude, we have European property rights record going back to the 1100s that is pretty much untampered with. You are completely incorrect about European monarchs. Which monarch razed cities like practically all of the Delhi Sultans did ? name them and the cities they razed. False. the 100 years war mostly saw pitched battles. Cities hardly were affected. Whereas Indian monarchs THEMSELVES left inscriptions of razing each others cities. German states continuously fought each other. On the battle-field. Much like the Magadh wars of expansion, where Magadh continously fought Kosala, Vrijji, Panchala, Kuru, etc. on the battlefield but left their cities alone. However, this was last seen when Magadh empire reigned, over 2000 years ago. That is 100% true. But it does not change the fact that Europeans treated EACH OTHER better than any other group of people have treated each other. This is why Europe has universities from the 1100s AD still standing and property rights respected from that period till WWII. I am someone who's read and researched history all his life - longer than you have probably been alive and its a simple fact that the reason European way is the way of the modern world is because they preserved their property rights & knowledge base better than any other region on this planet.
  4. Get over your inferiority complex. The simple truth is, Europe's contribution to practically every technological,scientific, economic and philosophical field over the last 500 years is much, much greater than the entirity of Indian or Chinese history. Its not even close, its like comparing a termite to an elephant. Accepting this does not make us any less proud of our history. If the world's proudest and most honor-driven culture, the Bushido based Japanese culture could learn that during Meiji restoration, so can anyone else. And just as Japan's acceptance of reality has gotten them to western standards of living and yet preserved their culture, so can we. We owe the modern life we live, to European culture. That, is an undeniable fact and credit should be given where credit is due. They did all this, because they preserved their knowledge and property rights far better than India or China ever has.
  5. Standards of living is not just Per capita income. Its GINI coefficient, wealth distribution, access to education, services, etc. as well. You'd rather be a rich or a poor guy in Germany than in UAE: unlike in UAE, you end up with public funded healthcare, education, infrastructure, social welfare etc. As well as having greater creation of wealth. As for modern european concept or not, Europe has had the highest level of property & personal rights enforced, compared to ANYWHERE in the world, for the last 1000-odd years. Even in medieval times, despite king of England conquering parts of France or vice versa, the properties of the people were far more secure, protected etc. than anywhere else. Western Europe succeeded for a 1000 years, where India and China failed after just a couple of hundred years : from the end of Viking invasion till start of WWII, Western Europe hardly ever saw cities being razed, properties being seized by the conquerors, disposessing the conquered, etc. Indians have been razing their rivals cities since pretty much the fall of the original Magadh Empire ( Kanva Dynasty), where we find mention of the Guptas, Palas, Rashtrakutas, Cholas, Gurjaras, etc all razing cities and China had its periodic collapse every 150-300 years after each major dynastic collapse. Europe by 1700s had 3-4x the literate population than India or China. This is the main reason - Europeans being much, much nicer to each others civillians in warfare and property rights - that is the KEY to Europe giving us the modern age and their sum total accomplishment of the last 500 years- in every field- being orders of magnitude greater than that of the sum total of much older civilizations like India or China or West Asia.
  6. 1/3rd its original land ?! Where did you ever get that number from ? Only three political entities based in South Asia were EVER bigger than Republic of India : Mauryan Empire, Mughal Empire from Shah Jahan-Aurangzeb and British India. Oh and another thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasudhaiva_Kutumbakam PS: Its a matter of time before ALL religious hocus pocus becomes part of history and museum only. Those ideals are far too antiquated and made by far too inferior knowledge-based people to survive much into the future.
  7. Muloghonto

    Trump screwing china !!!

    Size of economy depends on population. The financial reserves a nation has, depends on their export-import surplus + taxation. It is a fact that Saudi Arabia has donated far more money (through their madrassah programs) than India has. Sure, both their economic future is gloomy. But as of now, they have more money & hard power (in Russia's case) to throw around than India. Sure. If it happens in future, we shall see. But as of now, India neither has the hard power like Russia to intervene/have its will enforced (ala Syria) or soft power ala Saudi by throwing billions at whatever catches their fancy. The other main issue India will have, is that India has zero reputation in the international front. Its reputation is that of a cowardly nation that runs off its mouth but cannot put up when the time comes. Its fiasco with Mongolia proved that. It will take a long time after India acquires either the funds or the military to throw its weight around, for foreign nations to trust us to have the will to stick to our 'talk'. That is quite different than respecting India's position. India has so little respect and soft power in the international scene that it cannot even get Kashmir to be recognized as legally Indian territory, instead demarcated as 'disputed territory'. Yet China, long before it became an economic power-house(ie the 1980s), was able to block Taiwan from having any official recognition anywhere in the world (barring 2-3 no-name countries like Chad or Guatemala)- despite Taiwan being de-facto independent. This is India's aukaat in the international community. LOL. Quadrilateral dialogue is practically dead. Read up on it. This is because Australian economy is practically owned by China and Australia is unwilling to commit to any security initiative with China's rivals. And without Australia ( a resource provider to resource consumers like India and Japan), there is no quadrilateral anything. India is a smaller player in the international community than US, UK,France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Saudi, China at the very least. Despite being 15-20x the population and much bigger economy, India's power is closer to Iran/Turkey in terms of international influence, than its rivals. Yes, India punches below its weight - massively so. Look dude, we PROMISED them a 2-3 billion dollar line of credit if they took their rightful claim against China to arbitration (and expected China to blockade them). China blockaded them, Modi failed to deliver on his promise to Mongolia and Mongolia had to go crawling back to China. All because we promised we'd help them and then ran away like cowards. We are not deepening ties with mongolia, we are kissing their behind in apology for promising we'd help them if they stood up to the bully and then left them high and dry. This is a backstab to Mongolia. Plain and simple and this failure of Modi is pretty much signature ' big talk, but no action' route of the 'nationalists' in India. Pfft. Yes, we will sell any hardware to anyone who is gonna pay, so long as they are not Pakistan-friendly or Islamic nations. So what ? We got something out of that deal - $$$. Compare that to gaining influence - where we made promises we cannot deliver and screwed another nation. China on the other hand, is POURING money into Africa under 'good-will' and 'many of those loans will be written off', as a tacit way to gain influence. India is a child trying to play a man's game. For this to happen, countries need to trust India. Why should anyone trust India after our PUBLIC promises to Mongolia towards line of credit if China sanctions them, then bailing on them ? This is classic 'dhoka-baazi'.
  8. Muloghonto

    Trump screwing china !!!

    The two countries you named have far bigger purse than India when it comes to throwing money around. And in case of Russia, it has the military menace that only NATO respects. If Russia today were to take a militaristic stance towards China, even PLA would crap their pants...with us, they will laugh. They are a small player, because nobody respects India in the international field - which is why we have no staunch allies or friends. India is a paper tiger and whats even worse, its the incapable 'bully-protector' who sells out the few who trusts it. Modi showed India's true aukaat when he promised Mongolia support for standing up to China and then went MIA, because India is all bluff - it has no $$ to back up its talk. To be a power of ANY sort, India has to first and foremost, back up its talk. Even Modi proved that he is spineless, like the Congress when it comes to backing the little guys it incites to stand up for themselves.
  9. Muloghonto

    Trump screwing china !!!

    Forget Doval, not even Machiavelli would change much for India. India has no money to compete with China or USA in the field of international policy. Its a small player in a big pond putting on a shark costume, thinking people will buy the bluff. They won't. India's international policy failure is primarily due to lack of $$ to back its intentions. This is the reason your precious Modi made promises to Mongolia and then sold them down the river.
  10. western influenced, eastern influenced or northern influenced is all irrelevant red herring. An idea either stands on its own merit or is dismissed due to its flaws. Doesnt matter what part of the world it comes from. If you profess to be Hindu, try believing in the concept of Vasudeva Kutumbakam, instead of warping hinduism as a cheaper, less effective copy of Islam (which is what the Sanghis really do). PS: Facts show us that the highest standards of living for a society are accomplished by societies that allow personal freedom with a lot of social responsibilities and programs, such as many EU countries. Get on with the program, bud.
  11. That does not mean Indians invented how to think, as you claimed. Mesopotamians were also plenty advanced. So were the Greeks. Oh and Indians never stopped killing each other for wealth and food either pretty much right until the British conquered ALL of India. That much, is objective, archeological and historical fact. The first language to have epic tales, is Sumerian, the language in which Epic of Gilgamesh is recorded. If you mean Sanskrit is the first engineered language - its true for classical, Panini Sanskrit that is somewhere in the 800BC-400BC range. Prior to that, aka Vedic Sanskrit, is not one of 'Rasa' at all. Its another Indo-European language. So far, what we can tell from its structure, its atleast the second-oldest of all Indo-European languages ( Nesite, aka Hittite, has an older/more archaic form to it) in its 'Vedic' form. Modern day kids know more about their own existence, their own body, the universe, etc. than Valmiki or Vyas. Authors who's books are used to 'recommend to us' how to live our lives should know more than the kids of today, don't you agree ? Pffft. You don't know enough history to comment on my level of history. I have the classic misfortune of being an 'Indian biassed history buff' to the largely ignorant history folks in the west as well as being the 'Firangi Lutyen' to the Chaddi idiots back home like yourself. India, is an underrated civilization- that is true. But India is not the inventor of thinking. As far as Indian history is concerned, the best way to know you are on the right track is when you piss off the RSS types as well as the die-hard anti-indian racists out here like Witzel. In terms of knowledge, yes. Its knowledge that leads to the correct conclusion - decisively. Give enough knowledge to a monkey and the monkey will make the right call eventually. Deny knowledge to even some of the most brilliant and they will believe in nonsense. This is pretty much testable in lab condition. What is also an empiric fact is the technological, scientific and existential knowledge of species homo sapiens is getting greater and greater with time. With the most educated population in history of mankind (as a % of mankind that is educated), we are at a point, where our kids know more about where the universe comes from, what we are made of, what species homo sapiens IS- than Valmiki, Vyaas, Mohammed and such. A good, objective measure of blind reverence to an idea being out-dated, is when the author of the idea has less empiric evidence about what he/she is talking of, than most of the kids of a much later time. So we should pay no attention to what their ignorant extrapolations were about 'life'. If they bumbled upon a greater truth, because they were smarter than the rest, despite being far less educated than our kids, yay- congrats. I am sure if i knew the name of the dude who first figured out how to make a fire, I'd think he is a pretty freaking smart guy and deserves rememberence. People telling us how to live our lives and what is true/not true about the universe from 1000s of years ago, fall in that category. I will happily admit, they were some of the smartest, brightest minds of their time. But they are also lilliputs in actual knowledge today. So i have less reason to listen to their extrapolations, than those of far better educated and equally smart people of modern times. Just like how Valmiki and Vyas were much, much more advanced than the guy who invented fire and wouldn't think much of this guy's (or the spiritual guru of his times for eg) idea of 'existence', Valmiki, Vyas etc. are at that level to us.
  12. Ofcourse it will, if the government treats them all equally and does not let them interfere in the government. That is the more standard and common definition of 'secularism'. The indian style is psuedo-secularism (ultimate pandering, on paper, to all religions by the govt.):it is definitely violating the seperation of church and state axiom of secularism.
  13. Mind science *IS* psychology, psychiatry and pure biology.Anyone who says otherwise, is saying pure bakwaas. And so what they learnt the nomenclatures and frameworks from others ? They learnt it, they improved upon it 1000 folds and now we know how the brain and mind works 1000x more than your half-literate rishis thousands of years ago. i used to be a practicing buddhist. So i know the concept. Still doesn't change the fact that what we know today via science, about the mind, is 1000x more than those half-literate rishi-munis did. Yes, they do know more than Galileo and Newton. Newton and Galeleo were great minds, just like those rishi and munis, but the fact remains that their knowledge is less than what a science grad possesses in their little finger. Therefore, they are not fit to instruct us or lead us. Simple logic. As the saying goes ' knowledge is power'. Not ' brilliance is power'. You could be a brilliant illiterate (just like those muni-rishis) and you have nothing to offer. You could be someone not so smart but with entire encyclopedia memorized and you have a lot to offer. Kids today have more knowledge than those self-declared sages. Simple. LOL at thinking being initiated by indian civilization. Such insecure nonsense belongs in the dustbin. You need to learn history more if you think we invented how to 'think'.
  14. Pfft. Mind sciences are 1000 times more advanced today than the age of so-called rishi-munis who did not even know how many planets are in the solar system, nevermind meaning of existence. Give me a clinical psychiatrist any day of the week over the hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo speaking half-literate rishi-munis. You just can't handle the fact that children know more about our existence, biology, dna, the universe etc. than the writers of your religion. An average university science graduate knows more about math and sciences than the sum total of ancient Indian civilization. The average psychology graduate knows more about how the mind works than the totality of every single 'rishi muni, gyaani' of the past talking about mental faculties. So tell us, how are the thoughts of those with 0.00001% knowledge as us, are fit to be followed as an example ?
  15. today's scholars think of the same and today's high school kids have a better understanding of the universe and how we came to exist than those illiterate 'sages'. Thats a fact.
  16. I'd say yes. LOL at name-calling. The world is trending towards putting all these hocus pocus religious nonsense in the dustbin, buddy. Because the world is slowly waking up to the reality that just like how we don't let amazon tribals to dictate how we should live our lives, the same applies for religions who's founders/major figureheads are all high school flunkies by today's standard.
  17. Well i am firmly for the government running everything that is a public space and public property. Religion is no exemption- the government is ultimate authority in charge of running a land, creating its laws and dispensing justice. Religion falls under those categories.
  18. Turkey during Ataturk's early years, allowed such for females. The cardinal question is inapplicable, since it is a title granted ONLY by the said religion. I am talking about access and civic rights. I am not saying who gets to be purohit or mullah or bishop, etc. The way i see it, as long as all religions are treated the same and has no influence on the government, it is secular. Doesn't matter if they are treated well or treated poorly. Secularism is not about good or bad treatment of religions, its simply about equal treatment of all religions and them having no influence over government functionings.
  19. If they are a completely private property and private entity, sure. But they are not. This is not someone's personal temple, this is a public place. Therefore, i refuse to recognize any such restriction to a public building. Nope. You have no right to dictate what the purpose of a public building is or why people should go there. Nobody does.
  20. And that is not a valid reason because ?! You sure everyone who goes to a temple to pray are there so they can commune with said God/Gods and isn't just there coz their moms dragged them along ? You cannot judge intent.
  21. Uhm, pretty sure i have been in more churches, mosques & temples than 99.9% of humanity.........
  22. Judiciary does not have supreme power, since judiciary has no power to MAKE the laws. They have the power to strike down any law if they deem it unsatisfactory. And that is required, because without judiciary having the supreme authority to strike down laws, you WILL have a banana republic, in a region rife with low education, where all you will need, is to have a big majority and you can deem any group - muslims, hindus, sikhs, christians, bengalis or gujjus or whatever- to have no rights or xyz impositions specifically on them. The best system we can think of, is the system we have currently, where the legislative body only has power to MAKE the law while the judiciary has the power to VETO a law. One without the other, is where abuse of power will come from. Also, i am a statist - not an anarchist. I simply do not share beliefs in old, out-dated systems made thousands of years ago by people who'd be considered ignorant illiterates by grade-10 kids. That does not make me an anarchist, just a modernist. Anarchism is anti government/anti-system. That is fundamental anathema to statists like me, who think that under current socio-political systems, the state machinery reigns supreme.
  23. False. Judicial committee has ultimate authority in legality of laws created. No amount of public pressure is going to get 'unnatural sex act' back in the constitution. Also, democracy works with an element of authoritarianism in it - our fundamental human rights for eg, are not democratically elected values, neither are they subject to democratic erasure. Ie, its fundamentally authoritarian imposition - in this case, it is our rights. Ie, you can get a 100% super-majority in both the houses to change the Indian constitution, to revoke all human rights from muslims. SC will immediately invalidate that, as fundamental rights are not subject to democratic consensus. This is for every single democratic nation btw. Nope. Judiciary cannot CREATE any laws. But they certainly can and will override any laws created by the legislative, if they deem it unconstitutional/in violation of our rights or heck, even amend the constitution if they find one part conflicts with another (such as with unnatural sex act part). You must've skipped basic civics class in school it seems. The legislative has the ultimate mandate in CREATING laws. The executive has the ultimate mandate in IMPLEMENTING said laws. And the Judiciary has the ultimate mandate in determining the VALIDITY of said laws. No amount of 'people pressure' is going to legally force the supreme court to change its decisions on a law.Thats basic civics 101.....
  24. decision by logic, reasoning and by committee ofcourse.
  25. Nope. We don't want to 'kill' tradition. We are simply not interested in protecting a grotesque concept under the guise of 'tradition'. Tradition exists to serve us. Over time, almost all traditions become meaningless, flawed or obsolete. We are simply going to educate people on this concept and over time, remove all the traditions that have ceased to serve our modern existence. Simple.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×