Talking with a group of friends and explaining them about the tyranny of Akbar, who is so called
the great and a popular secular figure among Indian masses proved not only unfeasible but also
counterproductive for the young me. Whether I explained them about the jihad Akbar
committed against Hindus in Rajasthan or about the beheading of King Hemu’s father because
he refused to convert, those chaps had the power to effortlessly label me as anti-Islamic.
Though I had authentic resources to support me, but yet they overpowered me just by swinging
their tongue to label me with a word which can defame me easily. I was advised not to speak
about this matter in public.
In another case, while I was trying to talk about the names of cities, I was undermined by
another group of people, for the fact that my facts and their opinion were not coinciding. I was
talking of the cities like Hyderabad, Aurangabad, Tughlaqabad, Bakhtiyarpur, Shahjahanpur,
Sultanpet, Farukhabad, Aligarh etc who were forcefully renamed out of their glory to honor our
perpetrators. Again the 4-5 people staring right into my face were not happy at all. Their
argument ‘Why do you have problem with the installed establishment? Let them be where they
are. What are they snatching from you if they are named after invaders?’ in itself showed their
disrespect for their land.
In both the cases, I was expected, or rather forced to get engulfed by the idea which tries to
deracinate people off very truth. This idea is political correctness. Manufactured inside the
walls of the factory of Marxists in Germany and marketed throughout the world- USA, USSR,
India, Iran, France, Belgium, Scandinavia etc, it has been a successful product.
What we know as Political Correctness these days, it is a Marxist idea but is not really coined by
Karl Marx. His idea was to give people an economic equality to class of labors, whom he called
proletariat, so they could be free from the factory owners whom he called bourgeois. He thought
everybody’s income and purchasing power must be equal. This idea looks very attractive when
propagated using sugarcoated lines. Any person who believes that his life would become sweet
like sugar would fall for it, ignorant of the fact that this extra sugar would be a reason for
diabetes in the near future. People believe that their purchasing power would be same like
millionaires/billionaires would easily fall for it. They think that Capitalism is the unequal
distribution of poverty, without taking consideration that this economy called communism is
equal distribution of poverty (This line is inspired by a quote by Winston Churchill). Basic
understanding of history shows that this model of economy has resulted in people’s misery and
millions of deaths.
When some people from Frankfurt school extrapolated Marx’ ideas and gave it a cultural shape,
it came to know as Cultural Marxism. It focused on the society with the belief that conformed
with Marx’ ideals. Karl Marx’ ideas were based on assumption that all bourgeois are ruthless
power hungry people and proletariats are victims of the exploitation by the hands of bourgeois
governments and capitalists. In this regard, when Marxists took over the Soviet Union they
snatched the properties of the businessmen and made them owned by themselves. On the very
similar lines, the cultural Marxists are always engulfed in a belief that there is an oppressed
victim class and an oppressor culprit class.
In order to empower the so assumed victims, and that too based on the assumption that they
are victims, cultural Marxists believe that the culture of the land promotes oppression. Even if
such cases of oppression are in minority, they believe that in order to end it up they have to
uproot the culture of that land. When demarcating the boundaries on who is the oppressor (the
bourgeois) and who is oppressed (the proletariats), the notion they assume is that the people in
majority are always the oppressor, since they possess enough power based on numbers.
People who possessed any kind of social, political or economic power in the past are also
categorized in the oppressor class. When we think of US’ society, they put white males in the
bourgeois bracket and others- blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and women in proletariat bracket.
When it comes to India, Hindu Brahmin (Or any upper caste) males are the bourgeois whereas
Muslims, lower castes, women are proletariats.
After the classification between bourgeois and proletariat are done and established, they have to
tense the relations between the people of majority community if it happens to be smooth. Also
the minorities have to be portrayed as holy harmless cows being suffered by the hands of
majority. In order to achieve these goals, two herculean tools: projecting delusions and veiling
lies are used. Both activities, if analyzed carefully are complement to each other. After all, they
have to prove bourgeois are the oppressors. New jargons are created to veil the facts and new
facts (read lies) are created to veil the original ones.
Some societies are inherently uniform whereas others are diverse. The uniformity (or diversity)
accommodates uniformity (or diversity) of culture, color, caste, economic status etc. The only
faultline that is too easy to exploit is the gender issue, since a society cannot be inherently fully
male or female. In order to divide the majority, its men are made bourgeois and women
proletariat. In the case of India, Hindus are examined on women’s rights according to their
standards and methods. The usual conclusion that follows is ‘Hindus were traditionally sexists
and misogynists.’ The book that teaches us misogyny which they quote is Manusmriti. However,
they overlook some basic philosophical and historic facts about the Hindu society:
1. Hindus had female deities who even fought with demons (hence they were warrior
women).
2. King like Chandragupta Maurya had a battalion of female soldiers. And who was the protagonist of this idea? Acharya Chanakya himself!
3. The practice of sati (which in mythology was purely consensual) was inflated during
Islamic rule where women had to burn themselves to save themselves from raids caught
in which they would be raped and sold across all the slave markets in Arab world.
But another fundamental question that arises is why these leftists fall silent on the issue of
rights of Muslim women. They can be beaten, announced divorce on just by speaking the word
talaq 3 times or be deprived of the right to be the only wife but nobody but right wingers are
ready to speak for them. Probably they don’t have anything to do with women’s rights. All they
have to do is to create rift between the majority community.
The Hindu community was divided on caste lines which were purely on the occupation one did.
This was called varna system which later evolved into caste system which was seen in last
century. Though nobody had seen this kind of caste system before Britishers under Macaulay
decided to ‘reform’ the education system in 1830s (not sure with exact years). The ancient
Hindu society had been divided on the occupation, but people were also allowed to choose for
the different occupation that his father. Chanakya, a born Brahmin who is also called castist by
Marxist made the king out of a maid’s son Chandragupta Maurya, who inherently would be
called a shudra.
However, if somebody blames Hindus for having different occupations and not an egalitarian
society in which everybody’s roles would be same, then ask him which society had that kind of
system. Every society runs by diverse occupation and occupational differences have to be
respected. Most of the Western societies had demarcation like- The Clergy (something like
Brahmin), the Aristocracy (something like Kshatriya) and normal citizens which again could be
businessmen (Vaishyas) or workers (kayasthas or sudras). In fact the egalitarian societies they
dream of are never egalitarian when it comes to jobs and respect. Ask them if communist
nations are too egalitarian then why do they have supremos like Maos and Stalins
Using this way of making fun of dominant culture, they try to take away the people of the land
from their existing culture and glory. Another property they make people possess is ‘self
hatred’. They are not from any distant land or culture. The self hatred is because our people are
either indoctrinated by communist propaganda or use this self hatred for their own benefits:
winning elections, gaining popularity etc. This self hatred is in the form of hatred of culture,
language, race, religion, beliefs, activities and texts. Hence they help these replaced by impose
foreign counterparts. In one way, they are not too different from colonialists and invaders, just
the difference is that colonialists and invaders were proud of their cultures.
One advantage Indian leftists enjoyed was the education system imposed by Britishers. This
education system already makes us believe that we were uncivilized before they arrived. This
education system makes someone learn English over their native language. With this system
settled in place, cultural Marxists had nothing much left to do. After all they had the first
government in their control which just conserved the British education system and the same
perverse laws of IPC 1860.
When the self hatred is incited by the education system, it is nurtured by media and the film
industry (Bollywood in India). Most of the media is owned or controlled by powers which use
India as laboratory for their cultural experiments. When a single man was killed in an incident
who happened to be a Muslim, media was acting like a drunk giant who blamed the incident on
right wing organizations like RSS and BJP and not on the state authorities who are responsible
for law and order of the situation. Such kinds of incidents were telecasted in many other
countries portraying Hindus as communal haters. The same kind of thing happened when
Nirbhaya was raped and India was shown as the country of rapists. A single rape happening in
India gets telecasted in world news. Whereas the reality is that India ranks 94th when it comes
to rape and developed nations stand far ahead of it.
Language of a person is an important aspect of his culture. It acts as a binding agent for the
community. When you take away his language, you make him disabled to read his ancient texts
and comprehend cultural hymns. Invaders in India had yanked away Sanskrit from them in the
past and replaced it with Persian, Arabic and even Turkish to some extent. Then came the
British who replaced them with English. We have been able to conserve our cultures and
languages after 800 years of slavery but they are very well corrupted from what they were ago.
We unconsciously use lots and lots of Urdu, Arabic and English words when we speak in Hindi.
That is exactly the leftist version of education made us do. When the current government
replaced foreign languages with Sanskrit in schools, they all went mad over it.
After we got independence from the British, we could have imposed our own education system
but again Nehru and government didn’t do that. They were busy in imposing other destructive
ideas like socialism in the economic system which their own Congress party disbanded in 1991.
In the recent years by the trends of leftist governments and social justice warriors have so
much made us loose in the name of progressivism and multiculturalism. This has happened in
India, Europe and US. Governments in India have taken the control of all the funds of temples
to use it for so called development purposes. The same thing they haven’t done on minorities. In
fact the minority community gets subsidized (free) hajj trips. The educational institutions
owned by Hindus are getting scrutinized by the government. They aren’t allowed even to admit
students of their choice under the banner of Right to Education. The non-Hindu aka minority
institutions have got free hand.
In a state in southern India there was a famous sport played annually called Jalikattu in which
the most fit male bulls. The idea behind the tradition was to find out the most suitable bulls for
mating but very recently, this old tradition called Jalikattu was banned on the petition of
‘People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (aka PETA)’ in India. The idea was to take away the old
culture and be progressive. But on the contrary, they always hold mum on issues of beef. Their
silence on beef ban and slaughtering animals for religious rites suggest us 2 things: (1) This kind
of progressivism lies only on majority community, or (2) slaughtering is ethical treatment of
animal.
On the lines of Multiculturalism- which is again a Marxist idea to malign the majority- European
nations’ government allowed inside them a huge influx of migrants under the banner of
refugees. The move got a huge supports from other governments and it acted like a status
symbol. Angela Merkel allowed around 1 million so called refugees into Germany. This
multiculturalism has given them-
1. Taharrush- an Arabic game in which people mass grope and rape women. Taharrush is
an Arabic word which comes from al-taharrush al jinsi which means ‘sexual harassment’
2. A German court ruled that people acting as Sharia police are going nothing wrong. They
are just exercising their right to free speech. So now Germany has Sharia law under the
right to free speech.
3. In a school where these migrants took refuge, female students were asked to maintain
proper dress code (no shorts and compulsory covered head) so that you do not offend the migrants.
4. Women are told not to go out alone in night due to immigrant.
This kind of refugee crisis has a lot to say on the hypocrisy of left ideologies. On one hand they
are so weary of any kind of violence against women but they fall silent on such issues.
Like the communists who blame everything bad on bourgeois, cultural communists blame
everything on majority community and try to show how minority is affected by the majority.
Since in many prominent nations, Muslims are in minority, the news channels love to take their
sides to portray them as victims. Many a lot of times the news spread were found fake. This
kind of act is done to belittle the majority. On the other hand, most of the heinous deeds by the
minority or what they consider proletariat are hidden.
After Mr Trump won the US elections, the media showed how a Muslim woman was affected of
hate crime by radical white Christians (though that never happened). They label that most
crimes are done by whites due to the phenomenon of ‘White extremism’. But a terrorist attack
is not labeled as the result of ‘Radical Islamic terror’. When a terrorist attacks take place, it is
just another attack by a psychopath.
When they talk of the racism against Blacks issue, they try to peep into the income gaps
between black and white families. The income gap-they say- is because of inherent racism in
the United States. But their silence on the crime rates of blacks explains all. Blacks, in spite of
constituting only 13% of the population are responsible for 50% of murders, 55.6% robberies,
33% rapes and 38.3% violent crimes. But still the leftists cry about the high percentage of blacks
in prison.
When Israel falls prey of Hamas rockets from Gaza and West Bank, the media channels justify
those attacks as reaction to the Israeli occupation. But Israeli pre-emptive to save itself faces
strong rebuttal. This time, the United Nation accused Israel for being against women and Israel
had to face a resolution against it. Ironically, these resolutions are brought by the organization
that elected Saudi Arabia for human rights council. Israel, and not Saudi is being blamed on for
bias against women.
Modi, even after getting acquitted from all courts, still has to face repercussions for what
happened in 2001 riots when he was the chief Minister of Gujarat. The right wing organizations
are still blamed to have biases against the minorities whereas the reality always hidden from us
is that it was a retaliatory action to the train burning incident. Media again blamed it on Right
wing organizations for being too intolerant. Perhaps the media wants us majority people to be
tolerant of all the crimes against us.
President Donald Trump during his public campaigning days informed on how Muslims had
celebrated the attacks of 9/11, shouting allahu akbar (God is great), all the media was behind
him for inciting hatred. In the next phases he advocated to not to take any refugee without any
scrutiny because it was very potentially dangerous to invite people without knowing his
backgrounds. Donald Trump, for speaking the truth was made to face serious criticism.
When Simon and Schuster decided to publish the book by an alt right person named Milo
Yiannopolous, the critics threatened the publisher for a boycott. A similar boycott was
threatened against Peter Thiel –co founder of Paypal and Palantir- because he donated to
Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign.
The leftist institutions always advocate for ethnic diversity, gender diversity, religious diversity
in company boards, educational institutions against the cost of diversity (i.e. by introducing
quotas). They have made another fad of diversity under the name of providing equal
opportunities. But yet these people are intolerant of the diversity of ideas. The person with
ideas which oppose them has to oppose the sugarcoated ideas and is met with loads of
criticism. Imagine a person saying that he opposes the idea of multiculturalism- he will be
criticized by saying that he is intolerant of other cultures. He will be labeled as a demagogue
and even normal people will hate him for they don’t know how harsh these ideas are and the
real outcome of them.
the great and a popular secular figure among Indian masses proved not only unfeasible but also
counterproductive for the young me. Whether I explained them about the jihad Akbar
committed against Hindus in Rajasthan or about the beheading of King Hemu’s father because
he refused to convert, those chaps had the power to effortlessly label me as anti-Islamic.
Though I had authentic resources to support me, but yet they overpowered me just by swinging
their tongue to label me with a word which can defame me easily. I was advised not to speak
about this matter in public.
In another case, while I was trying to talk about the names of cities, I was undermined by
another group of people, for the fact that my facts and their opinion were not coinciding. I was
talking of the cities like Hyderabad, Aurangabad, Tughlaqabad, Bakhtiyarpur, Shahjahanpur,
Sultanpet, Farukhabad, Aligarh etc who were forcefully renamed out of their glory to honor our
perpetrators. Again the 4-5 people staring right into my face were not happy at all. Their
argument ‘Why do you have problem with the installed establishment? Let them be where they
are. What are they snatching from you if they are named after invaders?’ in itself showed their
disrespect for their land.
In both the cases, I was expected, or rather forced to get engulfed by the idea which tries to
deracinate people off very truth. This idea is political correctness. Manufactured inside the
walls of the factory of Marxists in Germany and marketed throughout the world- USA, USSR,
India, Iran, France, Belgium, Scandinavia etc, it has been a successful product.
What we know as Political Correctness these days, it is a Marxist idea but is not really coined by
Karl Marx. His idea was to give people an economic equality to class of labors, whom he called
proletariat, so they could be free from the factory owners whom he called bourgeois. He thought
everybody’s income and purchasing power must be equal. This idea looks very attractive when
propagated using sugarcoated lines. Any person who believes that his life would become sweet
like sugar would fall for it, ignorant of the fact that this extra sugar would be a reason for
diabetes in the near future. People believe that their purchasing power would be same like
millionaires/billionaires would easily fall for it. They think that Capitalism is the unequal
distribution of poverty, without taking consideration that this economy called communism is
equal distribution of poverty (This line is inspired by a quote by Winston Churchill). Basic
understanding of history shows that this model of economy has resulted in people’s misery and
millions of deaths.
When some people from Frankfurt school extrapolated Marx’ ideas and gave it a cultural shape,
it came to know as Cultural Marxism. It focused on the society with the belief that conformed
with Marx’ ideals. Karl Marx’ ideas were based on assumption that all bourgeois are ruthless
power hungry people and proletariats are victims of the exploitation by the hands of bourgeois
governments and capitalists. In this regard, when Marxists took over the Soviet Union they
snatched the properties of the businessmen and made them owned by themselves. On the very
similar lines, the cultural Marxists are always engulfed in a belief that there is an oppressed
victim class and an oppressor culprit class.
In order to empower the so assumed victims, and that too based on the assumption that they
are victims, cultural Marxists believe that the culture of the land promotes oppression. Even if
such cases of oppression are in minority, they believe that in order to end it up they have to
uproot the culture of that land. When demarcating the boundaries on who is the oppressor (the
bourgeois) and who is oppressed (the proletariats), the notion they assume is that the people in
majority are always the oppressor, since they possess enough power based on numbers.
People who possessed any kind of social, political or economic power in the past are also
categorized in the oppressor class. When we think of US’ society, they put white males in the
bourgeois bracket and others- blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and women in proletariat bracket.
When it comes to India, Hindu Brahmin (Or any upper caste) males are the bourgeois whereas
Muslims, lower castes, women are proletariats.
After the classification between bourgeois and proletariat are done and established, they have to
tense the relations between the people of majority community if it happens to be smooth. Also
the minorities have to be portrayed as holy harmless cows being suffered by the hands of
majority. In order to achieve these goals, two herculean tools: projecting delusions and veiling
lies are used. Both activities, if analyzed carefully are complement to each other. After all, they
have to prove bourgeois are the oppressors. New jargons are created to veil the facts and new
facts (read lies) are created to veil the original ones.
Left in the education sector:
Some societies are inherently uniform whereas others are diverse. The uniformity (or diversity)
accommodates uniformity (or diversity) of culture, color, caste, economic status etc. The only
faultline that is too easy to exploit is the gender issue, since a society cannot be inherently fully
male or female. In order to divide the majority, its men are made bourgeois and women
proletariat. In the case of India, Hindus are examined on women’s rights according to their
standards and methods. The usual conclusion that follows is ‘Hindus were traditionally sexists
and misogynists.’ The book that teaches us misogyny which they quote is Manusmriti. However,
they overlook some basic philosophical and historic facts about the Hindu society:
1. Hindus had female deities who even fought with demons (hence they were warrior
women).
2. King like Chandragupta Maurya had a battalion of female soldiers. And who was the protagonist of this idea? Acharya Chanakya himself!
3. The practice of sati (which in mythology was purely consensual) was inflated during
Islamic rule where women had to burn themselves to save themselves from raids caught
in which they would be raped and sold across all the slave markets in Arab world.
But another fundamental question that arises is why these leftists fall silent on the issue of
rights of Muslim women. They can be beaten, announced divorce on just by speaking the word
talaq 3 times or be deprived of the right to be the only wife but nobody but right wingers are
ready to speak for them. Probably they don’t have anything to do with women’s rights. All they
have to do is to create rift between the majority community.
The Hindu community was divided on caste lines which were purely on the occupation one did.
This was called varna system which later evolved into caste system which was seen in last
century. Though nobody had seen this kind of caste system before Britishers under Macaulay
decided to ‘reform’ the education system in 1830s (not sure with exact years). The ancient
Hindu society had been divided on the occupation, but people were also allowed to choose for
the different occupation that his father. Chanakya, a born Brahmin who is also called castist by
Marxist made the king out of a maid’s son Chandragupta Maurya, who inherently would be
called a shudra.
However, if somebody blames Hindus for having different occupations and not an egalitarian
society in which everybody’s roles would be same, then ask him which society had that kind of
system. Every society runs by diverse occupation and occupational differences have to be
respected. Most of the Western societies had demarcation like- The Clergy (something like
Brahmin), the Aristocracy (something like Kshatriya) and normal citizens which again could be
businessmen (Vaishyas) or workers (kayasthas or sudras). In fact the egalitarian societies they
dream of are never egalitarian when it comes to jobs and respect. Ask them if communist
nations are too egalitarian then why do they have supremos like Maos and Stalins
Using this way of making fun of dominant culture, they try to take away the people of the land
from their existing culture and glory. Another property they make people possess is ‘self
hatred’. They are not from any distant land or culture. The self hatred is because our people are
either indoctrinated by communist propaganda or use this self hatred for their own benefits:
winning elections, gaining popularity etc. This self hatred is in the form of hatred of culture,
language, race, religion, beliefs, activities and texts. Hence they help these replaced by impose
foreign counterparts. In one way, they are not too different from colonialists and invaders, just
the difference is that colonialists and invaders were proud of their cultures.
One advantage Indian leftists enjoyed was the education system imposed by Britishers. This
education system already makes us believe that we were uncivilized before they arrived. This
education system makes someone learn English over their native language. With this system
settled in place, cultural Marxists had nothing much left to do. After all they had the first
government in their control which just conserved the British education system and the same
perverse laws of IPC 1860.
When the self hatred is incited by the education system, it is nurtured by media and the film
industry (Bollywood in India). Most of the media is owned or controlled by powers which use
India as laboratory for their cultural experiments. When a single man was killed in an incident
who happened to be a Muslim, media was acting like a drunk giant who blamed the incident on
right wing organizations like RSS and BJP and not on the state authorities who are responsible
for law and order of the situation. Such kinds of incidents were telecasted in many other
countries portraying Hindus as communal haters. The same kind of thing happened when
Nirbhaya was raped and India was shown as the country of rapists. A single rape happening in
India gets telecasted in world news. Whereas the reality is that India ranks 94th when it comes
to rape and developed nations stand far ahead of it.
What have we lost to leftist ideology?
Language of a person is an important aspect of his culture. It acts as a binding agent for the
community. When you take away his language, you make him disabled to read his ancient texts
and comprehend cultural hymns. Invaders in India had yanked away Sanskrit from them in the
past and replaced it with Persian, Arabic and even Turkish to some extent. Then came the
British who replaced them with English. We have been able to conserve our cultures and
languages after 800 years of slavery but they are very well corrupted from what they were ago.
We unconsciously use lots and lots of Urdu, Arabic and English words when we speak in Hindi.
That is exactly the leftist version of education made us do. When the current government
replaced foreign languages with Sanskrit in schools, they all went mad over it.
After we got independence from the British, we could have imposed our own education system
but again Nehru and government didn’t do that. They were busy in imposing other destructive
ideas like socialism in the economic system which their own Congress party disbanded in 1991.
In the recent years by the trends of leftist governments and social justice warriors have so
much made us loose in the name of progressivism and multiculturalism. This has happened in
India, Europe and US. Governments in India have taken the control of all the funds of temples
to use it for so called development purposes. The same thing they haven’t done on minorities. In
fact the minority community gets subsidized (free) hajj trips. The educational institutions
owned by Hindus are getting scrutinized by the government. They aren’t allowed even to admit
students of their choice under the banner of Right to Education. The non-Hindu aka minority
institutions have got free hand.
In a state in southern India there was a famous sport played annually called Jalikattu in which
the most fit male bulls. The idea behind the tradition was to find out the most suitable bulls for
mating but very recently, this old tradition called Jalikattu was banned on the petition of
‘People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (aka PETA)’ in India. The idea was to take away the old
culture and be progressive. But on the contrary, they always hold mum on issues of beef. Their
silence on beef ban and slaughtering animals for religious rites suggest us 2 things: (1) This kind
of progressivism lies only on majority community, or (2) slaughtering is ethical treatment of
animal.
On the lines of Multiculturalism- which is again a Marxist idea to malign the majority- European
nations’ government allowed inside them a huge influx of migrants under the banner of
refugees. The move got a huge supports from other governments and it acted like a status
symbol. Angela Merkel allowed around 1 million so called refugees into Germany. This
multiculturalism has given them-
1. Taharrush- an Arabic game in which people mass grope and rape women. Taharrush is
an Arabic word which comes from al-taharrush al jinsi which means ‘sexual harassment’
2. A German court ruled that people acting as Sharia police are going nothing wrong. They
are just exercising their right to free speech. So now Germany has Sharia law under the
right to free speech.
3. In a school where these migrants took refuge, female students were asked to maintain
proper dress code (no shorts and compulsory covered head) so that you do not offend the migrants.
4. Women are told not to go out alone in night due to immigrant.
This kind of refugee crisis has a lot to say on the hypocrisy of left ideologies. On one hand they
are so weary of any kind of violence against women but they fall silent on such issues.
The Blame game:
Like the communists who blame everything bad on bourgeois, cultural communists blame
everything on majority community and try to show how minority is affected by the majority.
Since in many prominent nations, Muslims are in minority, the news channels love to take their
sides to portray them as victims. Many a lot of times the news spread were found fake. This
kind of act is done to belittle the majority. On the other hand, most of the heinous deeds by the
minority or what they consider proletariat are hidden.
After Mr Trump won the US elections, the media showed how a Muslim woman was affected of
hate crime by radical white Christians (though that never happened). They label that most
crimes are done by whites due to the phenomenon of ‘White extremism’. But a terrorist attack
is not labeled as the result of ‘Radical Islamic terror’. When a terrorist attacks take place, it is
just another attack by a psychopath.
When they talk of the racism against Blacks issue, they try to peep into the income gaps
between black and white families. The income gap-they say- is because of inherent racism in
the United States. But their silence on the crime rates of blacks explains all. Blacks, in spite of
constituting only 13% of the population are responsible for 50% of murders, 55.6% robberies,
33% rapes and 38.3% violent crimes. But still the leftists cry about the high percentage of blacks
in prison.
When Israel falls prey of Hamas rockets from Gaza and West Bank, the media channels justify
those attacks as reaction to the Israeli occupation. But Israeli pre-emptive to save itself faces
strong rebuttal. This time, the United Nation accused Israel for being against women and Israel
had to face a resolution against it. Ironically, these resolutions are brought by the organization
that elected Saudi Arabia for human rights council. Israel, and not Saudi is being blamed on for
bias against women.
Modi, even after getting acquitted from all courts, still has to face repercussions for what
happened in 2001 riots when he was the chief Minister of Gujarat. The right wing organizations
are still blamed to have biases against the minorities whereas the reality always hidden from us
is that it was a retaliatory action to the train burning incident. Media again blamed it on Right
wing organizations for being too intolerant. Perhaps the media wants us majority people to be
tolerant of all the crimes against us.
Sorry, but who is intolerant?
President Donald Trump during his public campaigning days informed on how Muslims had
celebrated the attacks of 9/11, shouting allahu akbar (God is great), all the media was behind
him for inciting hatred. In the next phases he advocated to not to take any refugee without any
scrutiny because it was very potentially dangerous to invite people without knowing his
backgrounds. Donald Trump, for speaking the truth was made to face serious criticism.
When Simon and Schuster decided to publish the book by an alt right person named Milo
Yiannopolous, the critics threatened the publisher for a boycott. A similar boycott was
threatened against Peter Thiel –co founder of Paypal and Palantir- because he donated to
Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign.
The leftist institutions always advocate for ethnic diversity, gender diversity, religious diversity
in company boards, educational institutions against the cost of diversity (i.e. by introducing
quotas). They have made another fad of diversity under the name of providing equal
opportunities. But yet these people are intolerant of the diversity of ideas. The person with
ideas which oppose them has to oppose the sugarcoated ideas and is met with loads of
criticism. Imagine a person saying that he opposes the idea of multiculturalism- he will be
criticized by saying that he is intolerant of other cultures. He will be labeled as a demagogue
and even normal people will hate him for they don’t know how harsh these ideas are and the
real outcome of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment