>Ancient Hinduism (Vedicism) has inscribed that when Indra (I think?) comes back, she'll exterminate all the dark skinned indians
I don’t think you are thinking of Indra. You are probably thinking of Vishnu’s coming tenth avatar, who is Kalki, and who will exterminate evil of all kinds and false kings, beginning a new time-cycle.
Indra is the king of the devas (gods), wielder of the thunderbolt. One of his many names for Indra is ‘Purandara’—The Destroyer of Cities. He destroyed legions of dark-skinned Dasyus for the Aryans long ago. Even today Indra remains the king of the gods in the heavenly realm of this universe.
>So why is the leader of such beliefs (ISCKON) have to be a Dravidian?
The interesting thing about Prabhupada is that his teacher specifically ordered him to go and bring his religion to the West immediately prior to his death, which he did. And if it had to be a Dravidian doung this, there was no better person than a theocratic Hitler-loving, anti-feminist swami who believed that Aryans were White and that blacks were non-Aryans who needed to be controlled. Now the problem is that his followers generally aren’t like that today. I like some Hare Krishnas like Richard L. Thompson, but in general I wouldn’t say to join them or anything.
>On that note, how come indians worship a religion that would put them as low as dogs? Shouldn't a religion uplift its own race?
Strictly speaking if they were honest to themselves their karma would dictate that they are the servants of the true biological and spiritual Aryan race, but like the other anon again said they have coped hard in this regard but redefining terms and the like.
>Shouldn't a religion uplift its own race?
Not necessarily. If there are true aspects to the pagan worldview as present in Hinduism, it would imply a universal hierarchy of beings, and Aryan humans would be above non-Aryan humans. That doesn’t mean we’d treat them like literal cattle, but they would exist to serve Aryans and to perform servant, labor and other roles for us of various kinds. They would just have to accept the truth of it, and that this is their place in life. They can still their ancestors, spirits and other deities though, and maybe they will derive some benefits from it.
Kek, I never knew he actually said some based things despite being a degenerate
Basically it was a type of ancient atomism. It is often called a form of hedonism as well. But Epicurus’ hedonism was aimed at achieving ataraxia, or tranquility. He also divided pleasures up into several kinds, including natural and necessary desires (needing to eat, needing shelter, etc.), natural and unneccessary and vain desires (desire for wealth, luxury, fame, etc). The latter have no natural limit. There’s no natural limit to the amount of wealth that someone may want. It’s endless, same with fame and the like, so Epicurus rejects it as not conducive to this state of ataraxia he says life is aimed towards. The natural and necessary are to be focused on. We can see how it’s very different from hedonism as popularly conceived.
He also had some beliefs about how gods lived blissful, peaceful lives and did not do much, and that there was nothing after death. You just dispersed