This is the most systematic and potent subverions of all. The idea is to kill the sense of belonging, cut the roots from the family tree, the thought process and ideaology of culture and Chritian missionaris alongwioth communists have been very successful at that. The Biggest culprit are - The Historians and the educated elite( off course with western education).
SOmetimes back in one of my notes(Religious or bigot) i made a point about the perception of ruling class and the subjects. Moreoften than not the success of arms is taken as the success of culture. As a result the native educated class tries to behave as the ruling class and start rejecting their own culture so that they are seen closer to rulers. They start looking down on their own people and culture, this is waht happened with India and Nehru was no different , he was a Fake Hindu and Brown sahib and his romance with Fabian socialism mixed with communist ideology gave alot of oxygen to idiots like Romilla thapar and other marxist historians who distorted the history and said it from the POV of Anglo - Saxons
Let us take academia first. What are the falsehoods that they have propagated to subvert the very idea of a nation? They have I think done two things. They have fragmented the Hindu consciousness so that a very significant section of the Hindu community has been placed outside of national borders, and many other sections have been placed outside the Hindu community itself.
By propagating the theory of the Aryan invasion, Indian academia, dominated by the Marixists, have successfully placed a significant section of the Hindu community outside national borders. And this is not something peculiar to India. This Aryan Invasion Theory was a colonial construct. It is a White Christian construct. And they have played this game in North America too, where they have had this ridiculous Baring Straits Theory, which said that the native Americans whom they almost exterminated through genocide and Christian colonialism, where themselves were migrants from elsewhere.
That is to say they propagated the Aryan Invasion Theory here because the intellectuals among the Hindu elite who were in the forefront of resisting the colonial invasion, the colonial administration turned the argument back at them saying you yourself have come as a migrant to India, it is just that we have come a little more recently. To justify the genocide of the Native Americans, the White colonial research which came out of Harvard and Smithsonian placed the native American population outside the North American continent, and said that: “You people came here several centuries ago maybe, but you are as much migrants as we are. There is no such thing as a native American population. You are a migrant. We are a later-day migrant.”
How could EMS Naboodripad have gone running to the Soviet ambassador when his homeland or motherland or matra-bhumi was being attacked. You must understand Islam, Christianity and communism (which was a virulent reaction to Christian capitalism), none of the three ideologies or philosophies subscribe to the concept of homeland, motherland or matra-bhumi. These are aggressive conquering ideologies. They believe all territories are open for conquest.
It is only the Hindus and Jews who are born into their faiths in a territory which they call their own who have the concept of matra-bhumi or homeland. The other three philosophies or ideologies do not subscribe to the idea of homeland. So by placing a significant section of Hindu community outside national borders, and by declaring that dalits and tribals are not part of the Hindu community, the Indian Marxist academia has fragmented the Hindu consciousness.
Subversion Through “Pluralism”
" They have propagated the untruth that the Indian civilization has always been pluaralist. This concept of pluralism, please understand, is a Western Christian colonial concept. Christianity also spread by the sword. Today, the developed Western nations may have succeeded in branding Islam a terrorist religion and the Western White Christian nations as defenders against terrorism, but let us not forget that Christianity also spread by the sword. It was also intolerant. With the advent of “democracy,” which is also a Christian construct when political Christianity had to accommodate people from other way so life and when Christianity devised other weapons of conquest like evangelization, they made pluralism a virtue in their nation states. "
Hindu dharma has always believed in diversity. We don’t need this Christian colonial construct of pluralism inside India. We have always been diverse. Pluralism is “multi-culturalism” which is the new term in use in Western democracy. This pluralism or multi-culturalism is about accommodating the indigestible elements of your society who refuse to become part of the mainstream. These elements do not consider this territory as their matra-bhoomi and do not subscribe to Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism. These elements insist that they will live as indigestible elements but they seek accommodation within the broader diverse parameters of Hindu dharma.
These are the pluralist elements and when White Christian colonial Western democracies promote the concept of pluaralism, this is for non-White, non-Christian democracies like India whereas they are rejecting multi-culturalism in their own countries. The Australian prime minister is saying subscribe to the Australian culture. The British prime minister is saying, subscribe to the British culture. Australian culture, British culture, American culture, please understand, is White Christian culture, whether Catholic or Protestant. And immigrants or migrants who seek residence or citizenship in their countries, it is demanded of them that they have proficiency in the English language and they subscribe to the broad cultural values which are rooted in White Christianity.
And this pluralism they want India to accept as an integral part of Indian policy, and it is this intellectual subversion that has launched Sonia Gandhi into the forefront of Indian polity. I personally consider the presence of Sonia Gandhi in Indian polity as much an affront to my Hindu sensibilities as the question by idiot and illetrate Karunanidhi(He studied till calss iii or V , I have to confirm) regarding Ram. Does he have the guts to question the same regarding Muhammed?
Liberal help from lot of reading. Quotes(Bold ones) from Dr Rajni's speech.
SOmetimes back in one of my notes(Religious or bigot) i made a point about the perception of ruling class and the subjects. Moreoften than not the success of arms is taken as the success of culture. As a result the native educated class tries to behave as the ruling class and start rejecting their own culture so that they are seen closer to rulers. They start looking down on their own people and culture, this is waht happened with India and Nehru was no different , he was a Fake Hindu and Brown sahib and his romance with Fabian socialism mixed with communist ideology gave alot of oxygen to idiots like Romilla thapar and other marxist historians who distorted the history and said it from the POV of Anglo - Saxons
Let us take academia first. What are the falsehoods that they have propagated to subvert the very idea of a nation? They have I think done two things. They have fragmented the Hindu consciousness so that a very significant section of the Hindu community has been placed outside of national borders, and many other sections have been placed outside the Hindu community itself.
By propagating the theory of the Aryan invasion, Indian academia, dominated by the Marixists, have successfully placed a significant section of the Hindu community outside national borders. And this is not something peculiar to India. This Aryan Invasion Theory was a colonial construct. It is a White Christian construct. And they have played this game in North America too, where they have had this ridiculous Baring Straits Theory, which said that the native Americans whom they almost exterminated through genocide and Christian colonialism, where themselves were migrants from elsewhere.
That is to say they propagated the Aryan Invasion Theory here because the intellectuals among the Hindu elite who were in the forefront of resisting the colonial invasion, the colonial administration turned the argument back at them saying you yourself have come as a migrant to India, it is just that we have come a little more recently. To justify the genocide of the Native Americans, the White colonial research which came out of Harvard and Smithsonian placed the native American population outside the North American continent, and said that: “You people came here several centuries ago maybe, but you are as much migrants as we are. There is no such thing as a native American population. You are a migrant. We are a later-day migrant.”
How could EMS Naboodripad have gone running to the Soviet ambassador when his homeland or motherland or matra-bhumi was being attacked. You must understand Islam, Christianity and communism (which was a virulent reaction to Christian capitalism), none of the three ideologies or philosophies subscribe to the concept of homeland, motherland or matra-bhumi. These are aggressive conquering ideologies. They believe all territories are open for conquest.
It is only the Hindus and Jews who are born into their faiths in a territory which they call their own who have the concept of matra-bhumi or homeland. The other three philosophies or ideologies do not subscribe to the idea of homeland. So by placing a significant section of Hindu community outside national borders, and by declaring that dalits and tribals are not part of the Hindu community, the Indian Marxist academia has fragmented the Hindu consciousness.
Subversion Through “Pluralism”
" They have propagated the untruth that the Indian civilization has always been pluaralist. This concept of pluralism, please understand, is a Western Christian colonial concept. Christianity also spread by the sword. Today, the developed Western nations may have succeeded in branding Islam a terrorist religion and the Western White Christian nations as defenders against terrorism, but let us not forget that Christianity also spread by the sword. It was also intolerant. With the advent of “democracy,” which is also a Christian construct when political Christianity had to accommodate people from other way so life and when Christianity devised other weapons of conquest like evangelization, they made pluralism a virtue in their nation states. "
Hindu dharma has always believed in diversity. We don’t need this Christian colonial construct of pluralism inside India. We have always been diverse. Pluralism is “multi-culturalism” which is the new term in use in Western democracy. This pluralism or multi-culturalism is about accommodating the indigestible elements of your society who refuse to become part of the mainstream. These elements do not consider this territory as their matra-bhoomi and do not subscribe to Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism. These elements insist that they will live as indigestible elements but they seek accommodation within the broader diverse parameters of Hindu dharma.
These are the pluralist elements and when White Christian colonial Western democracies promote the concept of pluaralism, this is for non-White, non-Christian democracies like India whereas they are rejecting multi-culturalism in their own countries. The Australian prime minister is saying subscribe to the Australian culture. The British prime minister is saying, subscribe to the British culture. Australian culture, British culture, American culture, please understand, is White Christian culture, whether Catholic or Protestant. And immigrants or migrants who seek residence or citizenship in their countries, it is demanded of them that they have proficiency in the English language and they subscribe to the broad cultural values which are rooted in White Christianity.
And this pluralism they want India to accept as an integral part of Indian policy, and it is this intellectual subversion that has launched Sonia Gandhi into the forefront of Indian polity. I personally consider the presence of Sonia Gandhi in Indian polity as much an affront to my Hindu sensibilities as the question by idiot and illetrate Karunanidhi(He studied till calss iii or V , I have to confirm) regarding Ram. Does he have the guts to question the same regarding Muhammed?
Liberal help from lot of reading. Quotes(Bold ones) from Dr Rajni's speech.
