Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Far East was robbed blind by whites back in the day when sea merchants eventually gave way to the European attack ships. Somehow, they recovered. That doesn't reflect too favourably on our ethnic antecedents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No use trying to explain this to a person who has convinced himself that sun shines out of the white man's arse. References and names of sources are listed if he really wants to learn but instead he c

and you SIr have only one response to anyone who looks at what you say and actually exposes its weird flaws ...to personally insult...and of course everyone knows the first to sling slurs does it out

*sigh* not this again. Simply by writing LOL does not make your point correct. I don`t even know where to begin with what you have written. It`s no use trying to debate with a person who is ignorant o

Whites never looted anything from colonies. This is a lie. There was nothing to loot as the east was largely agrarian societies. If anything they brought industry to the east.

So can u please explain, WHY are so many sikh/mahraja ranjit singh artefacts/paintings/jewels/historic items/cannons/weapons in the british museum, tower of london, V&A museums? Also u say there was nothing to loot, then how come, pre-british raj, s.asia accounted for 20-25% of the WORLD GDP/economy, yet when the brits buggered off after WW2/1947, s.asia's GDP was less than 1%?

I never forget the time i went to the museum in cairo, egypt, having seen the pyramids/sphinx, and looking forward to seeing the historical artefacts of the pharoahs etc. Then the tour guide of the museum, havin shown us around for about 15mins cut the tour short and saying... "and there u have it guys, thats all we have, if u want to see the rest, go to ur F***** british museum and see the rest of wat u white ppl have stolen". I was 13 at the time, so i wasnt totally aware of the robbery of the colonial powers, but coincidentally, the nxt year at school, we went to the british museum and i was amazed to see, just how much foreign stuff was in the "british" museum.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, me personally, I'm not too concerned about the material wealth that was looted. I'm more concerned about the intellectual/psychological impact on too many of our people.

We are still a relatively new, fledgling people. Despite all the (valid) criticism of our nature (and as you all know, I don't shy away from pointing perceived flaws out), we still have a lot of great traits too.

My point is: How are we going to grow and form a strong robust international community, and take our rightful independent place in this world, when so many of our people seem so ready to perceive themselves as lesser beings compared to other communities?

Problem with some people is that they justify being invaded, mostly because their ancestors benefited from it, and/or they objectify the invaders - whilst being oblivious to the way it has sent us into a cultural and intellectual backwater - which we will dig our way out of eventually. The people who implicitly or explicitly condone (and even celebrate!) being subordinated to a foreign invading power are just slowing the collective movement to blossom into a strong, independent spirited global nation. They should wake up. If we are going to teach our children that it was okay for an outsider to attack and subvert our hard fought for independence, they will grow up normalising this ghulaam mentality too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to umpteen museums in the UK, and see what lurks around in the private collections of the descendants of the people who invaded Panjab and you'll find hordes of evidence to the contrary.

You must be seriously twisted, plenty of English people openly admit that they went around the place robbing it blind.

Before the British conquered Indian sub continent, India was the richest place in the world. India accounted for 25% of the world's GDP where as at the same time Europe combined was 21% of the worlds GDP. This was a time when the combined population of the Indian sub continent was evenly matched with Europe's. As the British took over the GDP of India also began to drastically decline.

They destroyed all of the indigenous industry while promoting their foreign made goods. Baba Ram Singh Namdhari had understood this way before anyone else and that is why he began a movement to boycott all British goods including their postal service because he knew this is where it would hurt them most. Unfortunately the Kuka movement under Baba Ram Singh ended prematurely due to the hot headedness of some of his followers who killed the butchers and gave an excuse to the British to finish the freedom activities of the Kuka Sikhs. Later the Brits turned them into a Gurudom.

By the time the British were done with India in 1947, India had hit rock bottom. There was nothing left to loot. When the British conquered India, it was the richest region in the world. When they left, it was as poor as sub saharan Africa.

The British were very smart in how they did things. They prevented all major powers in India access to the sea. When the Nizam of Hyderabad came under their protection the first thing they did was to cut access from the sea by a thin strip of land. The same was done with Tipu Sultan and Mysore state. They first cut him off from access to the sea so Mysore will be forced to be dependent on the British trade and communication. Same was even done with the Sikhs. They had prevented Sikhs from conquering Sindh which the Sikhs could have done very easily in a single winter's campaign. In 1947's so called independence, Sikhs were left with nothing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro theres no point discussing/mentioning NWO/secret societies/13 bloodlines of the Illuminati on sikhsangat, most ppl here will just laugh/mock u, bcoz they think its all bollox conspiracies, without doing any research. The american presidency itself is all a sham too. The president is selected, NOT elected.

I know. Thanks anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We focus on the physical tangible wealth, what is even more interesting is the appropriation of the intellectual property.

How much vidya was appropriated from texts by the Germans (who invented the Aryan theory). This knowledge fed into Shopenhauer and Nietzche which led to Carl Jung,Freud and all the rest of Jewish Intellectualism we seen in the 19th and 20th centuries.

A lot of the Shaster Vidya of the Nihungs has been incorporated to special forces such as the SAS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the British conquered Indian sub continent, India was the richest place in the world. India accounted for 25% of the world's GDP where as at the same time Europe combined was 21% of the worlds GDP. This was a time when the combined population of the Indian sub continent was evenly matched with Europe's. As the British took over the GDP of India also began to drastically decline.

They destroyed all of the indigenous industry while promoting their foreign made goods. Baba Ram Singh Namdhari had understood this way before anyone else and that is why he began a movement to boycott all British goods including their postal service because he knew this is where it would hurt them most. Unfortunately the Kuka movement under Baba Ram Singh ended prematurely due to the hot headedness of some of his followers who killed the butchers and gave an excuse to the British to finish the freedom activities of the Kuka Sikhs. Later the Brits turned them into a Gurudom.

By the time the British were done with India in 1947, India had hit rock bottom. There was nothing left to loot. When the British conquered India, it was the richest region in the world. When they left, it was as poor as sub saharan Africa.

The British were very smart in how they did things. They prevented all major powers in India access to the sea. When the Nizam of Hyderabad came under their protection the first thing they did was to cut access from the sea by a thin strip of land. The same was done with Tipu Sultan and Mysore state. They first cut him off from access to the sea so Mysore will be forced to be dependent on the British trade and communication. Same was even done with the Sikhs. They had prevented Sikhs from conquering Sindh which the Sikhs could have done very easily in a single winter's campaign. In 1947's so called independence, Sikhs were left with nothing.

One of the reasons the seas were very important is because the Europeans had no access to the Silk Road routes through Asia as they were dominated by the Muslim empires so they had to find another way.

That is why Colombus "discovered" America. They wanted to bypass the Silk Road land route and tried to get to India by sea.

By the 1500s, Europe was going through Reformation which led to the Enlightenment phase where they were no longer satisfied with going through Silk Road route via the Ottomans,Safavids. They wanted direct access.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the British conquered Indian sub continent, India was the richest place in the world. India accounted for 25% of the world's GDP where as at the same time Europe combined was 21% of the worlds GDP. This was a time when the combined population of the Indian sub continent was evenly matched with Europe's. As the British took over the GDP of India also began to drastically decline.

They destroyed all of the indigenous industry while promoting their foreign made goods. Baba Ram Singh Namdhari had understood this way before anyone else and that is why he began a movement to boycott all British goods including their postal service because he knew this is where it would hurt them most. Unfortunately the Kuka movement under Baba Ram Singh ended prematurely due to the hot headedness of some of his followers who killed the butchers and gave an excuse to the British to finish the freedom activities of the Kuka Sikhs. Later the Brits turned them into a Gurudom.

By the time the British were done with India in 1947, India had hit rock bottom. There was nothing left to loot. When the British conquered India, it was the richest region in the world. When they left, it was as poor as sub saharan Africa.

The British were very smart in how they did things. They prevented all major powers in India access to the sea. When the Nizam of Hyderabad came under their protection the first thing they did was to cut access from the sea by a thin strip of land. The same was done with Tipu Sultan and Mysore state. They first cut him off from access to the sea so Mysore will be forced to be dependent on the British trade and communication. Same was even done with the Sikhs. They had prevented Sikhs from conquering Sindh which the Sikhs could have done very easily in a single winter's campaign. In 1947's so called independence, Sikhs were left with nothing.

LOL! Where are you getting these numbers from? There was no Wall Street or any entity recording GDP back in the day. India was not an exporting country either. Did they even know what was GDP back then? LOL! Please cite your source.

As for India being rich, where are you getting your fairy tales from? Even Indian history books mentions poverty. The general population were so poor and oppressed. Hinduism was so corrupt. Low caste treated so badly. That is why the Bhakti movement started which finally culminated in the creation of Sikhism. The Muslim invaders whose numbers were far smaller then Hindus were easily able to defeat the Hindus.That is because low caste Hindus and Buddhists joined the invaders and helped them win. Ghazni's top general was a Buddhists! The Buddhists were so enraged with the Hindus destroying Buddhism in India that they actually assisted the Muslims to invade and destroy the Hindus.

If people were living in a 'lap of luxury' prior to British arrival, why did we Sikhs fight the Muslims and Hindus for our own homeland? You entire post is complete, utter, bollocks. Please tell me, what did they 'steal' from India other then artifacts? The British just like the Muslims, were able to easily defeat the Indians because the Indians never had any unity. If they were all living in the type of wealth as per your fairy tales, they would have put up a united front against the British, like how the Chinese did.

I think the only time Indians lived good was when Buddhists were in power. Before and after that it was all downhill.

You are the perfect example of the crazy, wacko, delusional mind set that I mentioned in my earlier post. So out of touch with reality, so delusional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to umpteen museums in the UK, and see what lurks around in the private collections of the descendants of the people who invaded Panjab and you'll find hordes of evidence to the contrary.

You must be seriously twisted, plenty of English people openly admit that they went around the place robbing it blind.

I'm talking about resources such as oil, tin, rubber....stuff the Whites created. When the Sikh empire extended up to Kabul, did they never loot anything? No? How did the Koo Hi Noor end up in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's possession? Did the Hindu Rajas and Muslim Sultans who frequently invaded each others territories not loot from each other? They were such perfect angels?

Invading and looting each other was the standard back in the day. Every power did that. If you want to judge the British, you must judge based on the standards practiced by all powers back in the day and not today's standards.

This is what I mean by crazy, delusional, one track mind set. Unable to rationalize. Unable to have a balanced view of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about resources such as oil, tin, rubber....stuff the Whites created. When the Sikh empire extended up to Kabul, did they never loot anything? No? How did the Koo Hi Noor end up in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's possession? Did the Hindu Rajas and Muslim Sultans who frequently invaded each others territories not loot from each other? They were such perfect angels?

Invading and looting each other was the standard back in the day. Every power did that. If you want to judge the British, you must judge based on the standards practiced by all powers back in the day and not today's standards.

This is what I mean by crazy, delusional, one track mind set. Unable to rationalize. Unable to have a balanced view of the world.

Although I agree with what you're saying here, Kohinoor wasn't acquired through looting, it was gifted to Maharaja Ranjit Singh by Shah Shuja Durrani.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about resources such as oil, tin, rubber....stuff the Whites created. When the Sikh empire extended up to Kabul, did they never loot anything? No? How did the Koo Hi Noor end up in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's possession? Did the Hindu Rajas and Muslim Sultans who frequently invaded each others territories not loot from each other? They were such perfect angels?

Invading and looting each other was the standard back in the day. Every power did that. If you want to judge the British, you must judge based on the standards practiced by all powers back in the day and not today's standards.

This is what I mean by crazy, delusional, one track mind set. Unable to rationalize. Unable to have a balanced view of the world.

I think what Quantavius is alluding to here is that when looting was common amongst warring parties.

Another thing I might add is that the looting here occurred between the elites. Not the common man.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* not this again. Simply by writing LOL does not make your point correct. I don`t even know where to begin with what you have written. It`s no use trying to debate with a person who is ignorant of these matters. But for starters, read here and educate yourself of the basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India

Quote from the link:

you wrote:

Seriously, your lack of understanding history is depressing. The Sikh fight against the Muslims was not due to economics but due to religious persecution Sikhs faced at the hands of Muslims.

The amount of wealth your British masters looted from the Indian sub continent is about 600 trillion dollars in today estimation. Besides the wealth looted, millions died either due to war or famine:

I can't believe you're quoting WIKIPEDIA and calling me ignorant. Dear Johnny, Wikipedia is not a 'source'. It is not considered a source because anybody buffoon can write anything there. You can go there and write Sikhs are from Mars. Anybody can even go there and edit those articles. Do you know I can go into the part where you quoted and edit it? Wikipedia is not accepted anywhere as a source. You can't submit a University paper and quote Wikipedia. Not as a 'primary source' anyway. 600 trillion looted? Why not go for gold and 6 Zillion or even infinity?

What is a source? A source is where someone has done genuine research and that research is usually peer reviewed. It is usually done by historians submitting a thesis paper or writing a book and it is usually peer reviewed, much like scientific journals. To understand what I mean by a source, go buy any history book and you'll see at the table of contents or bibliography where the writer quotes his source.

By the way, GDP is not a measure of wealth. It is merely the output created by a nation. India today has far higher GDP then smaller countries like Finland or Singapore. Yet, Singaporeans and Finnish people have a far higher standard of living then the average Indian so much so, they are not even comparable anymore. Your entire premise that GDP equates wealth for the individual in a nation is false. You need to educate yourself on what constitutes wealth of the individual in a nation means.

As for the rest of your nonsense, it is complete utter bollocks. There are millions of books written of the everyday life of the average Indian. They were not living in the lap of luxury. The average Indian was poor. I won't even go to how the low caste lived. Indian society was a stratified society. If you were a leader or in royalty, your life was set. The others who had it ok were the priests and merchants. The rest lived very poor lives. Every single book or history mentions Indians as being poor. I have never read a single book depicting the average Indian as being rich. They were all poor. That is how langar in the Gurdwaras first started, to cater to the massive number of poor people who didn't have food on their table. If not for poor people, Sikhism would have died at it's infancy as they were the biggest number of converts.You are seriously deluding yourself on Indians being rich.

The religious persecution from the Muslims was tied with economics. Learn how things work. It is used as a means to attack and forfeit ones land and wealth against those who fought back.

Stop being a Low IQ Pendu. Learn to think instead of regurgitating the same lies and nonsense you heard from your close circle of Low IQ Pendu friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9831797/Bradford-child-abuse-report-reveals-victim-raped-forced-Islamic-marriage.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top Social worker 'attended wedding of terrified girl, 15, to her abuser': Carers turned a blind eye when teenage grooming victim was forced into Islamic marriage, damning report reveals Independent review on child sexual exploitation was published on Tuesday The review was commissioned in the wake of the sentencing of nine men in 2019 It found social workers in Bradford had turned a blind eye to grooming victim  By JAMES TOZER FOR DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED: 19:47, 27 July 2021 | UPDATED: 01:39, 28 July 2021                       e-mail     8kshares 1.2k View comments   Social workers in Bradford turned a blind eye when a 15-year-old grooming victim took part in an Islamic marriage to one of her abusers, a damning report revealed yesterday. Despite the teenager not coming from a Muslim background, professionals meant to protect her then allowed the parents of her 'husband' to foster her after she became pregnant, it revealed. One of her social workers allegedly even attended the wedding ceremony. The terrified girl – referred to as 'Anna' – was left in a state of 'domestic slavery', too scared to leave the controlling relationship for fear she would be the victim of an honour killing, she told the report's authors. Details emerged yesterday in an independent report into the treatment of five abuse victims in the West Yorkshire city over the past two decades, which found that 'children suffered abuse no child should have to experience'.  Alarmingly, it concluded that some youngsters in Bradford 'remain unprotected' from sex exploitation.   +2   Social workers in Bradford turned a blind eye when a 15-year-old grooming victim took part in an Islamic marriage to one of her abusers, the damning report revealed yesterday (stock image) The report – described by the body which commissioned it as making 'difficult and, at times, distressing reading' – began two years ago after nine men of Pakistani heritage were jailed for more than 57 years over the sexual exploitation of girls who had been in Bradford Council's care. Anna was placed in residential care as a teenager in 2002 but went missing more than 70 times, according to the report. She disclosed details of sexual abuse – including rapes – to a confidential support service for girls involved in prostitution, but nothing was passed on to police or social workers. RELATED ARTICLES Previous 1 Next Lumberjack, 24, doing his 'dream job' was crushed to death...Britain's biggest travel insurance provider stops offering... SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share The following year, aged 15, she told the project worker she had converted to Islam and married her older Asian 'boyfriend' in a Sharia law ceremony. The report said it appeared there had been 'collusion' with this by her social worker 'who allegedly attended the ceremony and assessed that her marriage was likely to reduce the risks incurred when Anna was missing'. Staggeringly, despite becoming pregnant, after a review Anna was formally placed with her abuser's parents as a foster child, with the family even paid a fostering allowance.   +2   The report began two years ago after nine men were jailed for more than 57 years over the sexual exploitation of girls who had been in Bradford Council's care. Pictured: Basharat Khaliq, Saeed Akhtar, Naveed Akhtar, Parvaze Ahmed, Zeeshan Ali, Fahim Iqbal, Izar Hussain, Mohammed Usman and Kieran Harris who were all jailed at Bradford Crown Court in 2019 Anna told the report's author: 'At 14 years old I was engaged to be married, taking on the role of an Islamic wife fulfilling the needs of my husband and the extended family somewhat like a maid. 'We had no similarities in race, religion or culture and I continued to be subject to domestic violence and was subject to a coercive, controlling sexual relationship with a known perpetrator. I was frightened to leave, in fear of an honour-based killing.' The report concluded: 'It is hard to understand how this decision can have been made and it resulted in Anna being entirely reliant on her abuser and his family.' Instead of protecting her from harm, the placement left her 'at greater risk and made her entirely dependent on them', it added. While there, she was subjected to 'domestic slavery' and 'sexually abused and exploited by dozens of adult males', it went on. The Bradford Partnership – which includes Bradford Council children's services and Bradford Police – has since apologised to young abuse victims who had been failed. It said a large number of defendants have been found guilty and given substantial prison sentences. The joint statement said: 'We believe that practice across all agencies is improving... but there is much more to do.'  
    • I don't think narcissism is on their increase per se  I think that narcissism was always there in people and all that has happened is the narcissism is now out in the open. It has been amplified.  Similar to how people who become rich become arrogant and obnoxious. Money did not change them, it just exposed them to show they really are.  We had social controls in society that shunned narcissist aspects so that it got buried. With social controls now being untangled it is no longer taboo and with social media (instagram and tiktok ) it has upscaled attention seeking and the narcissism. But with a overload of narcissism and attention seeking in society, I think what could happen is: 1. We could see narcissist insensitivity in that we will see people less bothered with the attention seeking 2. A backlash and swing in the pendulum 
    • there has been vaaran /caste since early days of manusmitri and every Brahmin has used it to make themselves useful to invaders as they sold their skills as master manipulators of society else how could handfuls of people control multi millions ?They did it during the islamic invaders reign and then switched when the angrez/portuguese arrived . Guru Sahiban removed the leprosy of vaaran from our consciouness but with the interference of Angrez and their flying monkeys the brahmins they inserted dubious texts into our literature which allowed the poisonous mentality back
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use