There are many dumb Hindus who play the game of moderate vs extremists Muslims. But only when their death is certain do they seem to realise how pathetic and Darwin award worthy such positions are. The recent killings of Hindus and Buddhists in Bangladesh should show them the stupidity of their position.
Take the incident in Bangladesh, where the Jihadis specifically asked the Muslims to step aside as they proceeded to kill Kafirs one by one by slitting their throats. The moderate Muslims were spared because after all they were people of the book.
The article argues that ideological and sectarian differences among Muslims often become secondary when non-Muslims are targeted.
It criticizes both left-wing publications and right-wing commentators who present Sufism or moderate Islam as reliable protection for Hindus.
Some escapist Hindus often cite how Shivaji and Marathas won against the odds for the Hindus. The article argues that historical survival required political realism rather than abstract claims about universal brotherhood.
It then discusses Faraaz Hossain and Ishrat Akhond, two Muslims killed in the Dhaka attack, and argues that isolated acts of courage do not alter the vulnerability of non-Muslims who cannot recite Quranic verses.
Japanese have once again proved their pragmatism and national mettle. Japanese courts dismissed a plea asking the Japanese police to stop profiling Muslims in their country, on grounds of national security and national interests. Is it any wonder that Japanese society could rebuild and rearm into the third most powerful economy in the world in mere three decades of being nuked and defeated in World War II? They have again shown courage and honour by putting their own security and national interest before nonsensical post-modernist political correctness — and have defied the Muslim apologetics.
Law enforcement mostly ignored the case. One of the few public statements they made came at a United Nations human rights committee hearing on the matter in 2014. An official from the National Police Agency said “details of information-gathering activities to prevent future terrorism could not be disclosed,” but that “police collected information according to the law.” Some have defended the surveillance of Muslims, including Naofumi Miyasaka, a professor at the National Defense Academy of Japan. He describes the data leak as “the biggest failure in the history of Japan’s counter-terrorism” because it would have hurt the ability of law enforcement to gather intelligence on potential threats through “mutual trust and cooperation between police and informants.”
Compare this to the present-day supposedly nationalistic government of BJP, which has banned various sites which expose Islam and its Jihad and the real side of Muslims from Indian viewers. For example, the Department of Telecommunications has blocked the site islam-watch.org for hurting Muslim feelings — i.e. for exposing Muslim society and Muslims for what they really are on the inside. Indians should learn from the Japanese on what nationalism looks like. What BJP advocates is not nationalism but Baniaism and mercantile sellout of national and Hindu interests under the garb of development. It is high time that BJP stops fooling Hindus around with mere sloganeering and “Jumlebaazi.”
Countless studies and surveys in the West have shown that western women are on average getting miserable every decade for the past several decades while men’s happiness have been constant. Many in west find this to be contrary to what they expected because the ultra progressive feminism of the west was thought to be harbringer of liberation and hence happiness for the women of the west. However, many mainstream academia and media there, because they are clouded by their own “feminism is good” bias, miss the most important reason for the declining happiness of women in the west which is Feminism.
Decreasing women happiness: Stevenson and Wolfers, 2009
For a long time, the western media and feminists have been pushing a narrative that women would be happy with their work life and that they would get as much satisfaction from being a corporate money slave as they would from having a loving husband and loving children and loving families. They have been pushing the narrative that women can have career as much as they can have a family without any problem even though this is against reality. Given this reality, feminists have now hardened their stance against nature even more by further downplaying the role of motherhood and are increasingly calling it slavery and asking women to opt out of child bearing all together. They come to this conclusion because of viewing the world with feminist lens that men and women are absolutely the same. However, men and women are not absolutely the same. Men don’t have to take a break of 1 year from their careers to have children like women and hence have a natural edge in the careers. Men also have a higher strength in their overall body and only the top 0.1% of women can match the body strength of an average Man. This is the biological reality and cannot be wished away. While traditionally, the families helped women against this natural bias through institution of marriage, now the feminists have forced western governments and increasingly the industry to bear this private cost of having children, thus replacing regular husband with the new husband called big government.
However, this is not a bad thing. Questioning why it is unfair that men can have a career AND family while women can’t have both is ignoring the reality that women have to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and another 6-9 months of child rearing when the child must be with his mother compulsory. This takes away almost 1 year away from career of the women for each child they have. But that’s not a bad thing as propounded by feminists. When they have husbands taking care of them and earning for them when they are vulnerable during bearing and rearing a child, why should it matter where the money and resources for taking care of the child comes from? This is a problem only if one views woman as a single unit instead of viewing women as a part of a whole unit called family. So long as men and women are part of family, such differences in careers and working capabilities hardly figure into anything meaningful as both men and women would complement each other and form synergies to raise their families together for a better future. Even through government intervention, this problem will not disappear as women still have to take almost or more than an year off per child, thus making it difficult to balance career and family together. Unless women become like men and completely give up their natural instincts for motherhood, this constraint will remain binding. Now the only question which remains to be answered is whether women will like to have loving caring husbands next to their side during this important period of their life or a faceless government.
However, since many women in the west were brainwashed into pursuing a career over finding a suitable family before their prime age of 22-25, they end up wasting their prime time looking for careers and becoming corporate slaves like most men. However, since men value youth and beauty in women over money, for the most part at least, they end up not going after “career” women. So when the career women come looking for a man to settle down after their youth has faded away, they usually end up being disappointed that there is no one left, at least not the kind of guys they dreamt would be theirs. Eventually they settle for a guy that they usually end up loathing because they had passed up so many better potential mates during their prime age but were forced by career to not settle down. This undoubtedly leaves a large number of women unsatisfied with their marriages as they end up taking divorce and finally becoming lonely cat ladies in their old age.
Also, feminism has also reduced any taboo regarding divorces and free sex in the west in the name of sexual revolution. This has further reduced the incentive for men there to marry them in the first place. Why would men marry women when they can get free sex with far less emotional and economic baggage that is associated with marriage? This has led to Pick Up Artist culture in the west among men. Either way, both contribute to low marriages and high divorces in the western society and the women and men having to live separately and divorced for the major part of their life. Is it any wonder that western marriages fail more than 50% of the time even though most marriages happen after several dates and partners and live in relationships, implying that the marriage must have finally happened after the couple had decided that they have a lot of compatibility? This also busts the myth of better screening mechanism associated with love marriages. The truth is, marriage needs commitment more than compatibility to work and feminism and its assault on western families have turned marriage from being about commitment to being about compatibility. Now the western society is paying the price for it with 50% divorces and 50% single moms and 20 times higher per capita rapes than India.
How feminism destroyed the happiness of Chinese women
While feminism has completely ruined western society and it’s family structures, it is now in the process of ruining eastern cultures and society too. Chinese and Japanese society, which are all family values based societies much like Indian society are also starting to feel the pinch caused by feminism. And as with western feminism, feminism in China is ruining the happiness of the women there as well. For a long time, feminist elites in Chinese media propagandised about the greatness of women entering workforce and sacrificing their early lives for career. They fed the lie that women will be as satisfied with their lives as corporate paper pushers as they would be with their family life and children and that women can have a family after they had established a career for themselves. However, reality is far different from propaganda and China is not special either. The women who believed the media lies that men would like their money more than their youth and pursued a career instead of pursuing a family at their prime age are now finding it increasingly difficult to get married even though they are very rich now. It is important to note here that China has a very bad sex ratio and these women should have had no problem in getting married just because the demand for marriageable women would be very high due to very poor sex ratio. Still, these women have a hard time finding a “suitable” life partner and are called “leftover women” in Chinese parlance. Of course, the western feminists are now trying to blame the Chinese society and government for shaming these women, but fact of the matter is that these women are themselves sad due to lack of interest they receive from men.
Though this is a generalisation, it will hold true for most men and women- men are visual creatures and are attracted to youth and beauty of a woman and women are needy creatures who are attracted to wealth and security of a man. There is nothing wrong in either behaviour as they are deep rooted in biology and evolution. Men love women because they can have babies and hence are attracted to young women who can have healthy babies compared to old women. Women on the other hand are very vulnerable socially and financially when they have children and look to men who can provide them security- physical, financial and social and hence marry more for their power and wealth than their physical attraction, even though physical attributes do have a role in attraction.
This is why, even though the Chinese women are now millionaires they find it very difficult to find men of equal status to marry today. Women want men of same status as themselves to be their husbands and hence will try to look for millionaire men. The only problem however is that millionaire men are already rich and are more attracted to youth and beauty and would rather marry younger, less rich women as they themselves have all the money they want and have little use for more money compared to a good wife who can take care of their families better. Of course the western articles on this issue has dismissed the issue as being patriarchal mindset but that doesn’t change the truth or the ground reality or the biological realities of the sexes. Whining and crying about patriarchy is not going to make women go after poor beggars for marriage nor is it going to make rich men go after old “career” women just because the feminists say so. All that feminists have done is given women bad advice and have ruined their chances of success in their love life and hence an overall happier lifestyle. Having blindly chosen career by completely side-lining the importance of family, is it any wonder that women’s happiness has been on the decline ever since the advent of feminism?
The recent (Nuclear Suppliers’ Group) NSG snub from China in Seoul should wake up the sleeping diplomats in the Foreign Ministry on who they are up against in the global affairs. India needs to start acting like a big boy in the big boy’s club now given that it has rattled so many feathers. The article below is reproduced from Vajrin’s blog to look at how India can go up against the mighty dragon when the battle lines are clearly drawn.
Hindus seem to have lost their ability to do a strategic analysis of the global scenario and position themselves accordingly. Or rather, the Hindu masses are selecting such ‘leaders’ who certainly do not have any ability to do some critical thinking. Or rather, it has become a vicious cycle – the masses select dumb, self serving ‘leaders’ who in turn ensure to keep the masses in their pockets by using various ‘schemes’ which are not about strengthening the nation but retaining the vote banks.
The current geo-political scenario seems to be a treacherous sea which India is trying to sail across without a proper ship, compass or sailors. The Hindu land is surrounded by adversaries. Islamic threat in the west and east, Hans are in the north, and the Theravadins in Lanka have anti-Hindu strain. There is a Han-Islam-Theravadin circle around the Hindu land.
While China has allied with our enemies and is creating a ring of fire around us, the Hans have enemies on her borders. Japan, Vietnam and Philippines are our natural allies against China. China has trouble in its western borders as well. India could leverage this position to forge an alliance with a majority of states in the ASEAN and Far East.
But such an alliance is not enough. DRDO must be strengthened in India. The string of failures must be corrected. Any country needs strong domestic military industry complex in order to fight wars. We cannot survive wars based on ammunition imported from Israel or Russia.
We must start engaging the ASEAN Buddhist nations more vigorously and conduct joint military exercises with them. We must also try to get a greater foothold in Africa and Central Asia. While we may not be able to counter China’s economy singlehandedly, we can form joint ventures with other countries to take over the African assets that Chinese are interested in. To hold a strong grip over Chinese energy supply must be a primary aim of Hans’ adversaries.
The primary circle against China shall be the border states of China apart from those of the Mekong basin. The secondary line shall involve Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia. The third line shall include the NATO and its allies.
An excessive crackdown on Uighurs can also be used to bring Islamic nations against Chinese. While Islam is our other major enemy, we can still work together to defang the Chinese giant.
Huntington rightly noted that India/Hindu civilization plays the role of a mere swing state in the current circumstance. Destruction or even a strong containment of Han imperialism will open the doors for a more prominent India much more easily as well. Containment of Hans must be a primary motive of the Hindus apart from defending against Islamic aggression. But will the Hindus ever wake up to this reality?
The article was first written at Vajrin’s blog and you can follow the authors @Rjrasva and @dasyavevrka.
This is the second article in this series. Check part I here.
Why Feminist version of equality is fake
Feminists also assert that men and women are almost the same and that gender is a social construct. The article argues that men and women are not identical and should be treated as complementary rather than competing classes.
The family, where man and woman form supplementary components, is presented as the basic unit of human society rather than the isolated individual.
The article argues that when family structures dissolve, the state increasingly replaces family support through welfare systems, particularly for single-parent households.
Proof that Feminism destroys societies
The article claims that feminist societies have weak family structures and are demographically and socially unsustainable.
It cites high rates of divorce, single parenthood and father absence in western countries and argues that these outcomes contribute to social instability.
The article also discusses Planned Parenthood and abortion in the United States, especially in relation to black families, and argues that family breakdown rather than race alone explains much of the difference in crime and incarceration.
It further claims that feminism is an offshoot of Marxism and that early feminist thinkers sought to weaken marriage and the family as social institutions.
The article concludes that feminism will affect Indian society in the same way it affected western societies unless Indians consciously reject its conflict-based assumptions.
Many Indian/Hindu feminists when confronted with reality check on destructive nature of feminism claim that it is implemented badly in the west and in India and hence few glitches can be ironed out through Hinduism. However, this is a flawed view as feminism is flawed at the very fundamental level.
Feminism at its core is described here as a Marxist idea of class warfare which pits women as a class against men as a class.
In most cases, feminists try to create a gender war when there is no problem to begin with. Their campaign regarding wage gap is one such example. The article argues that once corrected for different occupations and career choices, the gender pay gap largely disappears.
It further argues that in family-based societies men and women are not separate economic classes because household income is shared within the family.
This is what the feminist ideology gets wrong- it only views the issues of society from a female individualistic view instead of having a holistic view on the subject.
Feminism causes unnecessary gender wars
By turning social issues and practices into a gendered one, feminism turns simple issues into gender wars between men and women. The article uses dowry as an example and argues that both women and men can be objectified by marriage-market expectations.
When husband and wife start competing over who sacrifices more, family solidarity breaks down. The article argues that this conflict-driven framework contributed to fractured families and high divorce rates in the west.
Read Part II here.
Image Source and clarification: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/10/goddesses-hurt-indian-feminists-2013105104822923415.html
Representative restoration image generated because no original image was embedded in the supplied HTML.
The job of the media around the world is to report truth and promote awareness against malpractices and injustices so as to grow the society as a whole. But Indian media is filled with the vilest scum on the planet and they try to deflect issues of rape and sexual harassment done by their fellow presstitute cronies.
Look at the tweet of Sagarika Ghose, the queen bimbo of Indian journalism, on what she thinks about her fellow media presstitute Tejpal being involved in rape and sexual harassment:
[Sagarika Ghose tweet suggesting Tejpal should not be targeted for rape and sexual assault because many more such incidents happen in the world]
— Sagarika Ghose (@sagarikaghose)
She thinks that Tejpal should not be targeted for his rape and sexual assault against women just because there are many more happening in the world. How do these people justify such a stance? Should every rape allegation be downplayed and women be allowed to be raped just because it happens everywhere? Is this what these presstitutes think is empowering and protecting women? It is through instances like these when normal patriotic Indians get to know about the true nature of these parasites in India. Their outrage against rape and assaults against women is not for protecting women of India but rather to promote self-hatred among Indians.
Anyone who has seen the massive propaganda against India and Indian society for the past three years would have seen massive debates on rape culture in Indian society and how it is Indian men who are the vilest in the world — all thanks to the coolies of Christian missionaries in media. They paint a picture of how Indians are all rapists and that Indian culture is inherently evil and misogynist, even though this is completely contrary to the data at hand which shows that India is one of the safest countries for women in the world with respect to rape, with one of the lowest rapes per capita in the world. They do this to promote Indophobia — self-hatred among Indians — so that they will feel ashamed of themselves and their own culture. Once they feel ashamed enough, anything from misleading conversions to sprouting of civil war in India by the likes of John Dayal with his foreign funds can be justified.
The shallowness of Indian media on selective coverage can be seen by their complete silence when a convicted paedophile bishop was reinstated by the Church as a bishop in South India, while it was massively reported even in the western media.
So long as Indian society is under the influence of these coolies of anti-India Christian missionaries and vile rapists, even 1000s of Narendra Modis can’t save India.
Representative restoration image generated because no original image was embedded in the supplied HTML.
The rising awareness about the Muslim demographic bomb is causing sleepless nights for most well-informed Hindus — something that gets highlighted every time there is a mass exodus of Hindus from Muslim-majority areas, like in the case of Kairana recently. There are many strategies to counter this demographic siege, and maintaining high TFR is one of them. But as soon as any realist Hindu advocates high Hindu TFR to counter Muslim growth, one gets bombarded by various psychological defence arguments from those who are happy with the current low-investment and individual narcissistic scenario. Here are the different types of arguments given against Hindus counter-breeding Muslims in India — arguments which hardly stand close scrutiny:
1) The high Muslim TFR is a myth
People giving this excuse have buried their heads in the sand so deep that it is almost impossible to wake them up. No logical arguments can budge a person engaged in such levels of escapism. Any careful look at the map of India and the population of young Jihadis (oops — Muslims!) can clear this point without doubt.
2) Throw out Bangladeshis and control politics
This argument is again given by those who are steeped in naivety. If Hindu politics had been on top of its game, no one would be discussing the Muslim fertility bomb in the first place. But the fact is, Hindus live in a hostile country where Hinduphobia is very real. Control of politics should be an aim for the long run, but given the uncertainty on this issue, losing demographic superiority will only make it more difficult in the future. Moreover, increasing Hindu TFR is never a standalone measure and needs to be coupled with all other available options. Kicking out Bangladeshis is very important but it would not solve the problem completely — 15% of the population will still remain to fight this demographic war through the womb. Look at the so-called progressive heaven of Kerala, where Muslim women regularly outperform both Hindu and Christian women. The need is to simultaneously pursue all strategies: increase TFR, kick out BDs, and try to get hold of power.
3) Hindu women are no baby-making machines
This is the point of attack of entitled Hindu feminists who are trying hard to separate the fate of Hindu women from Hindu men. Whenever riots strike, while men are killed, women are forced to bear bigger costs. The rape and enslavement stories of Yezidi girls should send shivers down the spine of any normal person. So the fate of Hindu men and women are not separate — they will swim or sink together. Losing demographic superiority will only increase Muslim numbers, thus increasing the likelihood of crimes against women. The real question becomes — who represents the interests of Hindu women better? Those sold to liberalism who only want to enjoy their lives, or those who can look into the future and see the fate of future Hindu women? Having more children would mean women will be out of the workforce for longer — which again means men have to slog out more for maintaining the same standard of living. It is not just a sacrifice on the part of women but also men. It is only in the feminist mind that the fate of the two sexes is different — in the real world, it is intertwined.
4) Hindu men are timid
This is one of the most stupid responses on this issue. Some people even questioned whether TFR increase now could have helped those who were forced to flee Kairana. Well, given the environment in Kairana today, increased TFR will not change reality tomorrow. But had the Hindus in Kairana maintained a high TFR in the past 4–5 decades, it would have been much more difficult to dilute their numbers. TFR is a long-term strategy — demographic surplus in many areas has lulled Hindus into inaction. Any sane person would understand that violence should be the last resort in any conflict, and keeping demographic surplus would allow Hindus to solve this issue at the right moment.
5) Cost factor
Kids are expensive and there are no doubts about it. But this is another typical argument to chicken out of the situation. While Muslims have internalized the issue, Hindus still engage in the quality vs. quantity debate. Fact is, many Hindus have gone below replacement levels of TFR. In many regions — specially South India — Hindus are having less than 2 kids, while for maintaining population they need 2.1 kids per woman. There is no other way to put this: rich people prefer to have fewer kids to decrease their responsibilities even though they could afford them much more easily than poor. Western couples have no impeding demographic threat — Hindus have bought into this liberalism idea which is almost suicidal. The only question is: will they take up this challenge?
Hindus have to wake up now or their fate will go from bad to worse in the coming years. If Hindus don’t wake up and keep pretending that crucial factors like TFR do not matter, then they will have to face what Bengali Hindus are facing now in Bangladesh — and West Bengal. Bengali Hindus kept singing “all is well” and lost demography to Muslims in the 1880s due to low TFR, chanting their liberal secular nature and quality-over-quantity mantra. The quality kids produced by Bengali secular Hindus are of no use against the barbaric hordes motivated by a death cult with a divine mandate to rape kaffirs. So Hindus need to decide whether they are going to be pragmatic and real, and learn now to start counter-breeding — or listen to TFR deniers and let their future quality children and grandchildren be at the mercy of barbaric hordes.
Yugaparivartan carried out a big expose on evangelist roots of Audrey Truschke and how it explains anti-Hindu bias in her studies. After all one needs some ulterior motives to whitewash crimes of a religious bigot like Aurangzeb, something that Truschke has been happily doing for the past some time.
The Indian history written by Marxists for the past 70 years should leave no doubts in the mind of any sane reader that the whole field of history writing is wide open for pushing political agendas.
The article cites the Ayodhya dispute as an example of historians suppressing or dismissing archaeological evidence and argues that entrenched scholars can evade accountability for decades.
While it was expected that Truschke would receive support from her ideological allies, the article criticizes some Indian right-wing commentators who insisted that only a formal scholarly rebuttal was legitimate.
It argues that “writing a scholarly rebuttal” can become an endless trap when institutions and peer-review structures are controlled by hostile academic networks.
The article also raises conflict-of-interest questions about scholars whose family or institutional networks are involved in evangelical activity in India.
The way forward proposed is for internet Hindus to investigate the backgrounds and institutional affiliations of academics and media figures who denigrate Hindu civilization.
Ever since the social media buzz against the Hindu exodus from Kairana and BJP’s attempt at painting the issue as betrayal of Hindus in Uttar Pradesh by Samajwadi party CM Akhilesh Yadav, presstitutes were on overdrive and found a new way to spin it as a “law and order” problem. However, for a law and order problem, the problem seems to be very grave and obvious for any neutral observer and seem to affect only Hindu families at Kairana.
However, an even more sinister Hindu persecution is happening in Mewat district of Haryana, just 50 Kms from Delhi. The presstitutes at Hindustan Times had called it a law and order problem and even published a polished version of the issue. However, a law and order issue must involve all people instead of involving only the Hindus and Hindu families there.
As per the article, Hindu women are forcefully married off, raped and converted to Islam, sometimes even as second or third wife of the Muslims there. Hindu temples have all been destroyed and Hindu children are forced to learn Islam and Quran at the mosques and Jamaat centres in the district. The local shop keepers who are Hindus were not allowed to sell to anyone in their areas or were forced to pay massive amount of money to the Muslims there to even function in the area.
But what about the BJP government which took over? Has it done anything to wrestle back control of Mewat and restore the dignity of the Hindus there? Of course not. BJP being true to its colours has completely forgotten that it got elected on Hindu votes, having got the power now.
The central government gave the excuse of not being in power in Uttar Pradesh for failing to save Hindus in Kairana. They used this excuse to send a BJP team to investigate the issue having completely forgotten to keep Hindus safe in their own states like Haryana.
Unfortunately for them, the HT article published now on the Mewat issue on how BJP has not protected its own citizens in Mewat, even though BJP has been in power there for two years now. Whatever the motive of HT article be, it does raise the important question of what has BJP done to protect Hindus in areas like Mewat.
What do the usual BJP fanboys, who defend it with nonsensical excuses, have to say about the way Hindus are neglected by the supposedly pro-Hindu BJP in Haryana where both state and central governments are run by BJP? Hindus should do a serious introspection on whether BJP can indeed restore their right to proper Hindu government which will ensure a proper Hindu way of life.
