Bravo. I'd pit a decent C.B.S.E (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Board_of_Sec ondary_Education) Kendriya Vidyalaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendriya_Vidyalaya) against some punk-arse private school any day. KV schools have produced some of the brightest students in India. Many of the JEE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIT-JEE) - high rankers ave been KV kids, and KV students with decent-to-high marks have done well in many of the best colleges. CBSE is a government syllabus and has the best maths curriculum in the country. So there!
The research group of Mark Raizen of the University of Texas at Austin has been working on similar techniques of 'tweezing' and 'laser culling'. Theoretically, in quantum tweezing, Gaussian lasers would sweep over a Bose-Einstein Condensate of ultracold atoms. The velocity of the sweep can be tuned in such a way that Landau-Zener tunnelling criterion is only satisfied for one atom in the reservoir and it tunnels into the sweeping beam.
In addition, 'laser culling' is a process by which a doppler-cooled set of atoms, kept in a MOT trap, can have the nuber of atoms whittled down by lowering the trap height. This can be done until a sub-poissionian regime is achieved and a definite number state is in the trap.
Hindus have a legitimate claim to Kashmir. Kashmir is Hindu holy land. Kashmir was originally Hindu land before the muslims invaded and captured it. (Hinduism predates Islam by 3500 years). Are you going to deny us the claim to Kashmir, then justify the claim of Jewish people to Israel? It's the same kind of situation.
Plus, do you think us 'letting go' of Kashmir is going to change anything? You don't think mad mullahs with Korans and kalashnokovs will stop getting their terrorist-training there?
If India abandons Kashmir, things will only get worse, and eventually Kashmiri terrorists like LeT, together with their buddies in al-Qaeda will start mucking about in the rest of India (they're pretty close already), and all Hindus will be massacred and India becomes another Islamic theocracy.
I'm just saying that if RAW/CBI & bullshit vote-bank-fucking U.P.A. govt and that awful Italian woman (I won't even pollute my keyboard by typing her name) were determined enough, they could establish a totalitarian state if they wanted. They won't anymore, though. Chalk it up to desi-laziness.
Re:Alternative Method
on
World Firefox Day
·
· Score: 2, Informative
One way to reduce start-up times is to always keep it in memory using Firefox Quickstarter:
This chap built quickstarters for both Mozilla & Firefox. Doesn't addres the huge RAM usage, but it does effectively 'speed-up' starting the frontend (which does seem to have a tiny memory footprint, the main footprint is in the runtime environment itself...)
Re:Too recent & controversial for an encyclope
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
The fallacy in your argument is that wikipedia does NOT favor a neutral point of view. Wikipedia favors the person who is most DETERMINED to present his point of view. The Islamic extremist is a classic example of that. The moderate may try to neutralize the article, but then he will be attacked by users with suspiciously muslim names, blocked from editing, banned, have their user pages vandalized and defaced, threatened, insulted, the list of libel and slander is rather large...
Take articles on Hindu-Muslim communalism on wikipedia, for instance. The articles are hopelessly biased in favor of muslims, and either ignore or excuse all of their violence towards Hindus. However, they mercilessly attack all hindus and all of India (despite the fact that a nontrivial fraction of India's popolation is muslim), filling it with anti-India/anti-Hindu bile and outright hate-speech. If you look at the article history, all of the editors have muslim names or are sock puppets of muslims disguised with hindu-sounding names (you can tell that they are sock puppets by looking at their edit history). Administrators who are largely ignorant of this go with the 'majority' consensus and keep the Islamist POV on wikipedia.
This problem has even leaked into articles on Zionism and Israel, where muslims vandalize articles relentlessly with biased anti-Semitic and outright RACIST POV (most articles on Zionism have been protected from editing for this reason), filled with all of the usual anti-semitic canards like blood libels , Protocols of Zion, carrot-and-stick etc. Unfortunately, Hindus are a softer and weaker target than Jews and so they don't neutralize articles about us that are edited by muslim extremists as well as we need to.
The bottom line is that wikipedia is not edited by people with a scholarly detachment, and articles often become highly polemical, biased and often full of hate-speech and bigotry.
Now, in a country such as the United States (where wikimedia servers are housed), free speech rights mandate that all speech, even hate-speech, disgusting as it is, should be allowed. The problem is the PROMINENCE with which it is displayed (on wikipedia) and the fact that it is disguised as scholarly work on wikipedia. A google search on a topic points first to the corresponding wikipedia article, and people are misled into thinking that the hate-speech is factually accurate, leading to subtle forms of brainwashing that, in turn, breeds more hate.
Wikipedia has become little more than a electronic supermarket rag when it comes to articles on politically charged issues.
Re:Too recent & controversial for an encyclope
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 0
The unfortunate truth is, however, that wikipedia is an EASY reference, and usually a google search on a topic points to the wikipedia entry first, even though the entry is hopelessly biased (articles on US, Israel etc edited by muslims and Islamic Fundamentalists etc). Wikipedia is a tragedy, except maybe for technical articles, or wherever unfounded bias is impossible.
Re:Cultural Problems -- THE CASTE SYSTEM IS REAL
on
The Myth of the New India
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Oh, and read this article about the hypocrisy of the liberal left:
National geographic is well known to be racially biased. They even had an article claiming all Indians are cannibals and eat rats (most Hindus are diehard vegetarians, even dirt-poor ones). They are the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" against Hindus. A hoax.
They also have articles demeaning African people, while completely ignoring the strides made by countries like Uganda and Ethiopia in recent years. They are the left-wing racists I spoke of earlier. Godlessness breeds racism. The Nazis were godless, as was Stalin, and as are American Liberals.
Legitimate criticism of developing nations is fine, but National geographic veers away from academic criticism and goes into racist rants and raves against all non-white non-christian countries (even though 87% of Uganda's population is Christian, just not white; That's enough for National Geographic to label them as 'soulless niggers').
National Geographic also had article (I read them as a kid) denouncing Zionism as Racism, so they are New (ie Left Wing) anti-Semites as well. They are overwhelmingly supportive of "Palestinian" (a ficticiuos nonexistent country) terrorists and demean and denigrate Israel (they had a completely biased article against the Kahane Khai party, for instance; they have ignored all the positive contributions that Kahanists made during the Palestinian Intifada).
Liberals in America portray Hindus as animals, and encourage hate-crimes against them. Liberal bastard Jonh Kerry insulted all Sikhs as terrorists, and Hillary Clinton made derogatory remarks against Hindus in public.
In contrast, conservatives opened the National Prayer Day in the US Senate in 2001 with a Hindu prayer, many members of the India Caucus are Neo-Conservatives, and Neo-conservatives generally present unbiased and fair views whenever they discuss Hindus.
>To quote Stephen Colbert: The facts have a liberal bias.
So does spin.
--Bill O'Rielley ? (Whom Colbert parodies).
In a sense, what you describe is precisely what America and Israel have. Checks and balances of Religious parties (like the Likudniks/Republicans vs Kadima/Democrats). My position is more along the lines of neo-conservatives in the US or the Kadima Party in Israel. India as a democrtic and pluralist state, but a Hindu Rashtra nonetheless, just like Israel is a Jewish State. Have Vedic and Shastric values incorporated into Indian law and government policy, and aggressively combat Islamic and Maoist terrorism.
Glad to see someone has the sense to look at NYT for what it is, a liberal stink - pot from Ewwrope. It continues to amaze me why the American Left bows so obsequiously to Eurotrash-esque snobbery, when the Americans pretty much saved those worthless morons from annihiliating themselves, or from spending the rest of their lives fellating Wehrermacht soldiers, and America is bigger, more evenly populated, cleaner, more civilized (Europe had a genocide not 10 years ago, last genocide in America was over 120 years ago), more pluralist (race riots in Paris, Anti-Semitism on the rise in France & Ukraine, Neo-Nazi gangs rampaging the streets of Moscow, Hindu Temples & Sikh Gurdwaraas desecrated in Russia, Muslim women banned from wearing Hijabs in French schools... ) than any damn Ewwropean country. America does not need to look up to Europe. America is better than Europe (I'm not American btw). I've been in the US for 4 years now, and I am very impressed with the overall ethos here. Americans can tell Europeans to fuck off.
>You know what? India's a socialist country. Says so right in the preamble
And that's why it's a shithole compared to Israel and the USA. Capitalist religious democracies.
>Oh, and the Supreme Court was one body which passed strictures against Bal Thackeray and Modi's Gujarat.
And Modi's Gujarat is an economic powerhouse. Look up the facts, instead of liberal horsecrap.
>I'm proud to call myself left-leaning.
Maybe not so proud when the terrorists do to you what they did to Daniel Perl. >ake your Semitic Hinduism and stuff it, say I.
No Pinkos == No violence
No Hindus == No India
>Let's see you win another general election, brother sanghi
Wait and see, Comrade Bolshie. We have many friends in powerful places. We can play your dirty politics, but with guns. Take away our guns? We'll do it with knives like we did in Godhra to protect our way of life. Muslims find loyal allies in self-hating Indians, it seems...
Yes, go concern yourself with lining Sonia Gandhi's sari with your hard-earned money (though a pinko never really works for a living, he just whines and complains).
The RSS is a dominant party in Gujarat, and Gujarat is safe for Hindus, and has more wealth than any other state in India. Shiv Sena is a dominant party in Maharashtra, where you left-leaning beggars from Calcutta swarm for jobs.
Just about every source you have quoted is strife with self-hating left wing bias. Remember that both Stalin and Mao were rather good with fudging facts-and-figures to present their societies as "pinnacles of greatness". Take that attutude and combine it with the self-hating Hindu and viola, you have the Indian Express (to Hell), The (Worst) Times of India, and the (anti-)Hindu. Even the chap who posted this little anti-India article quoted it from the New-York Times, a fucking liberal shitpile of a newspaper with no real facts, just left wing spin.
Not to claim that we're not in deep shit over a lot of the caste and piss-poor stuff, we are. The difference is that the source of the problem has been mis-identified. The problem is not casteism, or poverty, or a cultural deficiency. It's SOCIALISM.
Yes, the self-loathing socialist communist left-wing zeitgeist of garbage that has gripped our society for so long that moments of levity actually hurt these Desi Bolshies. From the communist-sympathizing fools in the UPA government (half-beggar-half bandits that they are), selling our nation out to muslim terrorists who hate us and want to destroy us, as well as their pseudosecularist lovers in the Indian media, academia, and just about every one in the urban middle class (Ooo. Osama bin-Laden is really a nice guy, is he? One of the richest oil-monkeys in the world represents the 'opressed muslim underclass', does he? Stupid commie Indian media-turds).
And a few bold men like Balasaheb Thackeray and Narendra Modi speak out, call a spade a spade and try to right matters in India and what do Indians do? Call them 'haters','bigots','fascists' and what not.
With this much negationism in the Indian "intellectual elite" (using the word intellectual loosely) no wonder we have so much poverty in large parts of our country. People should look at Maharashtra and Gujarat. They are the most prosperous states in India, and are run by 'right-wing fascists', while 'enlightened socialism' has reduced West Bengal and Orissa to stinking toilets.
The only culture in India who have this attitude are, frankly, the Sikhs. Punjab has the most arable land in the country, and the Sikhs managed to keep the muslims out of their land long enough to develop a strong sense of social pride. There are no self-hating Sikhs, and that is why the Golden Temple stays golden. Sikhs are highly industrious, extremely hard-working, generous to a fault, gallant, courteous, all the good stuff. That is why Punjab is also among the more prosperous states in India.
We need to get rid of every pinko liberal socialist in the country and only then will we start to REALLY progress.
And yes, I am an admirer of American Patriotism. It may be crude and a tad unsophisticated, but it serves it's purpose viz. it creates a positive attitude in America. It is the positive attitudes of the American people (not the liberals, hate the useless liberals) that created the strong work ethic in the US and made it pretty much the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. Anti-Hindu and anti-India liberals like Arundhati Roy and that bitch Deepa Mehta who try so hard to soil our nation should all be sent to Iran or North Korea. Let's see how they fare there.
Think I'm flamebaiting or trolling (well, maybe a little)? Read Francois Gautier's articles on negationism in India (STFW) or those of Stephen Knapp or Koenraad Elst or Arun Shourie. They'll tell you what's what.
As long as Indians imprison themselves in the quagmire of negationism and misanthropy, we'll be in deep shit when the Sikhs finally get bored with India and form the Khalistan, and then the muslims can drop by and wipe us off the map (will Hindus put up a fight? Hah!).
Read the article again my foolish liberal friend. Dharavi is Asia's largest slum, not "the world's largest". There are slums in Africa that are way larger.
Three years ago, few people in India had heard of cellphones, now, even Hijras run around with ipods (I've seen 'em in Calcutta) and slum dwellers in Narayangaon (a small village in rural maharashtra) have a basic mobile.
Don't be a typical self-hating Indian and pander to these useless liberal India-haters here. We're not there yet, but we'll get there.
All lawyers? Mahatma Gandhi was a lawyer. All politicians? Thomas Jefferson and Abraham lincoln were politicians (Lincoln even a 'bible-thumping' republican, Alors!).
Do you want to create an elitocracy of 'sophisticated people with fancy degrees' only? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a masters' in civil engineering.
I am the president of the Linear Momentum Anti-Defamation League, and I must protest the screening of Superman. It is a blatant disrespect for the Laws of Physics and restores the traditional anti-physicist canards of the "motion-libel" that the laws of Physics can be violated with impunity.
Regards, President
Motto: To stop the defamation of the Laws of Physics. To restore mathematical sanity for all.
>A Muslim might say that Islam shows more respect for women's equality
Oh, come on. In how many muslims countries do we have STATE SPONSORED persecution of women ( where women are hanged upside down from cranes and executed by public stoning Iran, Saudi Arabia)?
Now, how many Hindu governments do that (0, there is no Hindu government anywhere)?
If muslims treat their women equally, them I'm a 23000-year old Buddhist Vampire.
>Hindu doctrine requires women to be burned when their husbands die
That is total bunk. 'Sati' is nothing more than an anti-Hindu canard used by white people to ddefame Hindus. It's like when anti-semites quote the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' or something. There is absolutely no mention of sati in any Vedic, Pauranic or Shastric Scripture (quote one for me if you think otherwise). Sati was the principle of VOLUNTARY self-immolation practiced by widows because muslims would automatically rape any Hindu woman if she was recently widowed (read about JOHAR/JAUHAR) and so she'd prefer death to rape. Sati has almost entirely been stopped, thanks to the efforts of the Brahmo Samaj anyway, whereas state-sponsored mistreatment of women continues in muslim countries.
>I don't agree with your example of the woman being the 'real' power in the house as being an example of >matriarchal society. The same is true of most societies
Incorrect, Islamic Sharia law regards providing ANY kind of authority to a woman to be absolute blasphemy. Woman have NO power of any kind in Islamic theocracies. None whatsoever. Secular-leaning countries of muslims like Turkey, Malaysia, and (to a lesser extent) Pakistan hve some empowerment of women, but not others.
>And if we were to adopt that distinction, it would quickly become apparent that a matriarchal society is >one in which women hold power in public spheres
Fair enough. There are ample examples of that in Maratha history. Read Jijabai, Tarabai, Laxmibai to name a few. Peshwa wives have been known to rule in lieu of their husbands. In fact, in few other Indian societies have this many women enjoyed this much empowerment.
I have cited a society. A very large society. The population of Maharashtra (as of 2001) is 96,752,247. That's a lot of people, and this type of matriarchy is not uncommon among them. That's 2% of the world's population, 30% of the population of North America. hardly a small enough number to dismiss so casually.
I disagree with you that matriarchial societies are rare. In my country (India) matriarchial families (where women held positions of power) are not uncommon. They have been even more common in the past. Example is the Maratha Confederacy
Matriarchial societies were aggressively discouraged by muslim rulers after they invaded and occupied large parts of India, since, according to Islamic Kanoon-e-Shariat, a woman can't take a dump without the husband's permission. Despite that, the Mameluk dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate was briefly inherited by a woman, Sultana Razia al-Din (Jalalat ud-Din Raziya), daughter of Shams-ud-Din Iltutmish (India's first and last black emperor).
Of course, the mad mullahs got their undies in a twist over that, but she did rule for 4 significant years in the Sultanate.
There is a strong matriarchial tendency in many Maratha clans in India to this day. Maratha women are aggressive and outgoing (more so than other Indian women). They bunch up their saris , wrap them around around their legs and wrap the tail over the backside and tuck it uder the small of their backs, making them more like trousers.
This way, their movements are less restrictive. They can run, walk long distances, balance themselves better while carrying heavy loads, and engage in physical labour like their male counterparts. They are addresses as 'Bai' (meaning Lady) in public, they fish, farm, sell stuff, all that. Maratha women often contribute more to the family income than Maratha men.
South Indian families (even Brahmin ones) often have the mother as the key decision-maker in the family (since males are busy working or studying) and thus has de-facto authority in family matters, even over the husband. This was true of my own grandmother, for instance (I'm Bengali), where my mother was one of 7 children, and my grandmother coached them in homework, got them to do chores, decided which schools they'd go to and so on, while my grandfather was busy at work (sometimes away from home for weeks). That's a matriarchial family right there.
If you define power roles by the breadwinner, then these families are not all matriarchial, but that's a pretty narrow criterion in my opinion. The real power of authority is in the hands of the decision maker, which, in these cases, is the female, not the male.
Plus, many South Indian Hindu Brahmins don't adopt their father's names as family names. They adopt the names of the town/village where their family originated (similar to some Arabs that way). They keep fairly detailed records of their lineage, and not much patriarchial bias exists in that process.
Please enlighten me as to why that is a legitimate talking point for Bush-bashing American liberals (offtopic as it may be in this forum). There'd be a Sunni-Shia civil war regardless of who liberated Iraq.
Yeah. Matrilineal and matriarchial societies exit among Tamils, Meghas (in North-Estern India), communities in Andhra Pradesh (specially Telegu Jews, who keep strict records of their matrilineage) etc.
I'm with the AC on this one. I've been to Pakistan and seen the sheer contempt and derision expressed by the Sunni majority on the Shia minority. Their clan wars go back to the schisms following the death of Mohamed, and all that "Mahdi" stuff...
Ah, nothing like the sweet smell of religious communal violence in the morning.
Slashdot Mirror
MOD PARENT UP!
c ondary_Education) Kendriya Vidyalaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendriya_Vidyalaya) against some punk-arse private school any day. KV schools have produced some of the brightest students in India. Many of the JEE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIT-JEE) - high rankers ave been KV kids, and KV students with decent-to-high marks have done well in many of the best colleges. CBSE is a government syllabus and has the best maths curriculum in the country. So there!
Bravo. I'd pit a decent C.B.S.E (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Board_of_Se
The research group of Mark Raizen of the University of Texas at Austin has been working on similar techniques of 'tweezing' and 'laser culling'. Theoretically, in quantum tweezing, Gaussian lasers would sweep over a Bose-Einstein Condensate of ultracold atoms. The velocity of the sweep can be tuned in such a way that Landau-Zener tunnelling criterion is only satisfied for one atom in the reservoir and it tunnels into the sweeping beam.
h tml
m l
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/i7/e070401
In addition, 'laser culling' is a process by which a doppler-cooled set of atoms, kept in a MOT trap, can have the nuber of atoms whittled down by lowering the trap height. This can be done until a sub-poissionian regime is achieved and a definite number state is in the trap.
http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/2006/01/physics04.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/index.ht
Hindus have a legitimate claim to Kashmir. Kashmir is Hindu holy land. Kashmir was originally Hindu land before the muslims invaded and captured it. (Hinduism predates Islam by 3500 years). Are you going to deny us the claim to Kashmir, then justify the claim of Jewish people to Israel? It's the same kind of situation.
Plus, do you think us 'letting go' of Kashmir is going to change anything? You don't think mad mullahs with Korans and kalashnokovs will stop getting their terrorist-training there?
If India abandons Kashmir, things will only get worse, and eventually Kashmiri terrorists like LeT, together with their buddies in al-Qaeda will start mucking about in the rest of India (they're pretty close already), and all Hindus will be massacred and India becomes another Islamic theocracy.
What about the Naxalbari terrorist insurgency in west Bengal? Thatwas suppressed with brutal force:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite
Not that I sympathize with those cheap commie beggars and thugs, they murdered my grandfather (High court judge in cal).
What about the bad old days of the emergency?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Emergency
I'm just saying that if RAW/CBI & bullshit vote-bank-fucking U.P.A. govt and that awful Italian woman (I won't even pollute my keyboard by typing her name) were determined enough, they could establish a totalitarian state if they wanted. They won't anymore, though. Chalk it up to desi-laziness.
One way to reduce start-up times is to always keep it in memory using Firefox Quickstarter:
http://mozillaqs.sourceforge.net/
This chap built quickstarters for both Mozilla & Firefox. Doesn't addres the huge RAM usage, but it does effectively 'speed-up' starting the frontend (which does seem to have a tiny memory footprint, the main footprint is in the runtime environment itself...)
The fallacy in your argument is that wikipedia does NOT favor a neutral point of view. Wikipedia favors the person who is most DETERMINED to present his point of view. The Islamic extremist is a classic example of that. The moderate may try to neutralize the article, but then he will be attacked by users with suspiciously muslim names, blocked from editing, banned, have their user pages vandalized and defaced, threatened, insulted, the list of libel and slander is rather large...
Take articles on Hindu-Muslim communalism on wikipedia, for instance. The articles are hopelessly biased in favor of muslims, and either ignore or excuse all of their violence towards Hindus. However, they mercilessly attack all hindus and all of India (despite the fact that a nontrivial fraction of India's popolation is muslim), filling it with anti-India/anti-Hindu bile and outright hate-speech. If you look at the article history, all of the editors have muslim names or are sock puppets of muslims disguised with hindu-sounding names (you can tell that they are sock puppets by looking at their edit history). Administrators who are largely ignorant of this go with the 'majority' consensus and keep the Islamist POV on wikipedia.
This problem has even leaked into articles on Zionism and Israel, where muslims vandalize articles relentlessly with biased anti-Semitic and outright RACIST POV (most articles on Zionism have been protected from editing for this reason), filled with all of the usual anti-semitic canards like blood libels , Protocols of Zion, carrot-and-stick etc. Unfortunately, Hindus are a softer and weaker target than Jews and so they don't neutralize articles about us that are edited by muslim extremists as well as we need to.
The bottom line is that wikipedia is not edited by people with a scholarly detachment, and articles often become highly polemical, biased and often full of hate-speech and bigotry.
Now, in a country such as the United States (where wikimedia servers are housed), free speech rights mandate that all speech, even hate-speech, disgusting as it is, should be allowed. The problem is the PROMINENCE with which it is displayed (on wikipedia) and the fact that it is disguised as scholarly work on wikipedia. A google search on a topic points first to the corresponding wikipedia article, and people are misled into thinking that the hate-speech is factually accurate, leading to subtle forms of brainwashing that, in turn, breeds more hate.
Wikipedia has become little more than a electronic supermarket rag when it comes to articles on politically charged issues.
The unfortunate truth is, however, that wikipedia is an EASY reference, and usually a google search on a topic points to the wikipedia entry first, even though the entry is hopelessly biased (articles on US, Israel etc edited by muslims and Islamic Fundamentalists etc). Wikipedia is a tragedy, except maybe for technical articles, or wherever unfounded bias is impossible.
Oh, and read this article about the hypocrisy of the liberal left:
http://www.bnaielim.org/schmool042206.htm
My Dear pasty-faced Shaheb:
National geographic is well known to be racially biased. They even had an article claiming all Indians are cannibals and eat rats (most Hindus are diehard vegetarians, even dirt-poor ones). They are the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" against Hindus. A hoax.
They also have articles demeaning African people, while completely ignoring the strides made by countries like Uganda and Ethiopia in recent years. They are the left-wing racists I spoke of earlier. Godlessness breeds racism. The Nazis were godless, as was Stalin, and as are American Liberals.
Legitimate criticism of developing nations is fine, but National geographic veers away from academic criticism and goes into racist rants and raves against all non-white non-christian countries (even though 87% of Uganda's population is Christian, just not white; That's enough for National Geographic to label them as 'soulless niggers').
National Geographic also had article (I read them as a kid) denouncing Zionism as Racism, so they are New (ie Left Wing) anti-Semites as well. They are overwhelmingly supportive of "Palestinian" (a ficticiuos nonexistent country) terrorists and demean and denigrate Israel (they had a completely biased article against the Kahane Khai party, for instance; they have ignored all the positive contributions that Kahanists made during the Palestinian Intifada).
Liberals in America portray Hindus as animals, and encourage hate-crimes against them. Liberal bastard Jonh Kerry insulted all Sikhs as terrorists, and Hillary Clinton made derogatory remarks against Hindus in public.
In contrast, conservatives opened the National Prayer Day in the US Senate in 2001 with a Hindu prayer, many members of the India Caucus are Neo-Conservatives, and Neo-conservatives generally present unbiased and fair views whenever they discuss Hindus.
>To quote Stephen Colbert: The facts have a liberal bias.
So does spin.
--Bill O'Rielley ? (Whom Colbert parodies).
In a sense, what you describe is precisely what America and Israel have. Checks and balances of Religious parties (like the Likudniks/Republicans vs Kadima/Democrats). My position is more along the lines of neo-conservatives in the US or the Kadima Party in Israel. India as a democrtic and pluralist state, but a Hindu Rashtra nonetheless, just like Israel is a Jewish State. Have Vedic and Shastric values incorporated into Indian law and government policy, and aggressively combat Islamic and Maoist terrorism.
Glad to see someone has the sense to look at NYT for what it is, a liberal stink - pot from Ewwrope. It continues to amaze me why the American Left bows so obsequiously to Eurotrash-esque snobbery, when the Americans pretty much saved those worthless morons from annihiliating themselves, or from spending the rest of their lives fellating Wehrermacht soldiers, and America is bigger, more evenly populated, cleaner, more civilized (Europe had a genocide not 10 years ago, last genocide in America was over 120 years ago), more pluralist (race riots in Paris, Anti-Semitism on the rise in France & Ukraine, Neo-Nazi gangs rampaging the streets of Moscow, Hindu Temples & Sikh Gurdwaraas desecrated in Russia, Muslim women banned from wearing Hijabs in French schools ... ) than any damn Ewwropean country. America does not need to look up to Europe. America is better than Europe (I'm not American btw). I've been in the US for 4 years now, and I am very impressed with the overall ethos here. Americans can tell Europeans to fuck off.
>You know what? India's a socialist country. Says so right in the preamble
And that's why it's a shithole compared to Israel and the USA. Capitalist religious democracies.
>Oh, and the Supreme Court was one body which passed strictures against Bal Thackeray and Modi's Gujarat.
And Modi's Gujarat is an economic powerhouse. Look up the facts, instead of liberal horsecrap.
>I'm proud to call myself left-leaning.
Maybe not so proud when the terrorists do to you what they did to Daniel Perl.
>ake your Semitic Hinduism and stuff it, say I.
No Pinkos == No violence
No Hindus == No India
>Let's see you win another general election, brother sanghi
Wait and see, Comrade Bolshie. We have many friends in powerful places. We can play your dirty politics, but with guns. Take away our guns? We'll do it with knives like we did in Godhra to protect our way of life. Muslims find loyal allies in self-hating Indians, it seems...
Yes, go concern yourself with lining Sonia Gandhi's sari with your hard-earned money (though a pinko never really works for a living, he just whines and complains).
The RSS is a dominant party in Gujarat, and Gujarat is safe for Hindus, and has more wealth than any other state in India. Shiv Sena is a dominant party in Maharashtra, where you left-leaning beggars from Calcutta swarm for jobs.
See you in hell. Ooops, I meant JEHENNUM!
Correction to my last post:
"The only culture in India who have the RIGHT attitude are, frankly, the Sikhs". Rest is my take.
Just about every source you have quoted is strife with self-hating left wing bias. Remember that both Stalin and Mao were rather good with fudging facts-and-figures to present their societies as "pinnacles of greatness". Take that attutude and combine it with the self-hating Hindu and viola, you have the Indian Express (to Hell), The (Worst) Times of India, and the (anti-)Hindu. Even the chap who posted this little anti-India article quoted it from the New-York Times, a fucking liberal shitpile of a newspaper with no real facts, just left wing spin.
Not to claim that we're not in deep shit over a lot of the caste and piss-poor stuff, we are. The difference is that the source of the problem has been mis-identified. The problem is not casteism, or poverty, or a cultural deficiency. It's SOCIALISM.
Yes, the self-loathing socialist communist left-wing zeitgeist of garbage that has gripped our society for so long that moments of levity actually hurt these Desi Bolshies. From the communist-sympathizing fools in the UPA government (half-beggar-half bandits that they are), selling our nation out to muslim terrorists who hate us and want to destroy us, as well as their pseudosecularist lovers in the Indian media, academia, and just about every one in the urban middle class (Ooo. Osama bin-Laden is really a nice guy, is he? One of the richest oil-monkeys in the world represents the 'opressed muslim underclass', does he? Stupid commie Indian media-turds).
And a few bold men like Balasaheb Thackeray and Narendra Modi speak out, call a spade a spade and try to right matters in India and what do Indians do? Call them 'haters','bigots','fascists' and what not.
With this much negationism in the Indian "intellectual elite" (using the word intellectual loosely) no wonder we have so much poverty in large parts of our country. People should look at Maharashtra and Gujarat. They are the most prosperous states in India, and are run by 'right-wing fascists', while 'enlightened socialism' has reduced West Bengal and Orissa to stinking toilets.
The only culture in India who have this attitude are, frankly, the Sikhs. Punjab has the most arable land in the country, and the Sikhs managed to keep the muslims out of their land long enough to develop a strong sense of social pride. There are no self-hating Sikhs, and that is why the Golden Temple stays golden. Sikhs are highly industrious, extremely hard-working, generous to a fault, gallant, courteous, all the good stuff. That is why Punjab is also among the more prosperous states in India.
We need to get rid of every pinko liberal socialist in the country and only then will we start to REALLY progress.
And yes, I am an admirer of American Patriotism. It may be crude and a tad unsophisticated, but it serves it's purpose viz. it creates a positive attitude in America. It is the positive attitudes of the American people (not the liberals, hate the useless liberals) that created the strong work ethic in the US and made it pretty much the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. Anti-Hindu and anti-India liberals like Arundhati Roy and that bitch Deepa Mehta who try so hard to soil our nation should all be sent to Iran or North Korea. Let's see how they fare there.
Think I'm flamebaiting or trolling (well, maybe a little)? Read Francois Gautier's articles on negationism in India (STFW) or those of Stephen Knapp or Koenraad Elst or Arun Shourie. They'll tell you what's what.
As long as Indians imprison themselves in the quagmire of negationism and misanthropy, we'll be in deep shit when the Sikhs finally get bored with India and form the Khalistan, and then the muslims can drop by and wipe us off the map (will Hindus put up a fight? Hah!).
Read the article again my foolish liberal friend. Dharavi is Asia's largest slum, not "the world's largest". There are slums in Africa that are way larger.
Three years ago, few people in India had heard of cellphones, now, even Hijras run around with ipods (I've seen 'em in Calcutta) and slum dwellers in Narayangaon (a small village in rural maharashtra) have a basic mobile.
Don't be a typical self-hating Indian and pander to these useless liberal India-haters here. We're not there yet, but we'll get there.
Remember "Hum honge Kaamyaab"? Bet you forgot.
All lawyers? Mahatma Gandhi was a lawyer. All politicians? Thomas Jefferson and Abraham lincoln were politicians (Lincoln even a 'bible-thumping' republican, Alors!).
Do you want to create an elitocracy of 'sophisticated people with fancy degrees' only? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a masters' in civil engineering.
Hi,
I am the president of the Linear Momentum Anti-Defamation League, and I must protest the screening of Superman. It is a blatant disrespect for the Laws of Physics and restores the traditional anti-physicist canards of the "motion-libel" that the laws of Physics can be violated with impunity.
Regards,
President
Motto: To stop the defamation of the Laws of Physics. To restore mathematical sanity for all.
>A Muslim might say that Islam shows more respect for women's equality
Oh, come on. In how many muslims countries do we have STATE SPONSORED persecution of women ( where women are hanged upside down from cranes and executed by public stoning Iran, Saudi Arabia)?
Now, how many Hindu governments do that (0, there is no Hindu government anywhere)?
If muslims treat their women equally, them I'm a 23000-year old Buddhist Vampire.
>Hindu doctrine requires women to be burned when their husbands die
That is total bunk. 'Sati' is nothing more than an anti-Hindu canard used by white people to ddefame Hindus. It's like when anti-semites quote the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' or something. There is absolutely no mention of sati in any Vedic, Pauranic or Shastric Scripture (quote one for me if you think otherwise). Sati was the principle of VOLUNTARY self-immolation practiced by widows because muslims would automatically rape any Hindu woman if she was recently widowed (read about JOHAR/JAUHAR) and so she'd prefer death to rape. Sati has almost entirely been stopped, thanks to the efforts of the Brahmo Samaj anyway, whereas state-sponsored mistreatment of women continues in muslim countries.
>I don't agree with your example of the woman being the 'real' power in the house as being an example of >matriarchal society. The same is true of most societies
Incorrect, Islamic Sharia law regards providing ANY kind of authority to a woman to be absolute blasphemy. Woman have NO power of any kind in Islamic theocracies. None whatsoever. Secular-leaning countries of muslims like Turkey, Malaysia, and (to a lesser extent) Pakistan hve some empowerment of women, but not others.
>And if we were to adopt that distinction, it would quickly become apparent that a matriarchal society is >one in which women hold power in public spheres
Fair enough. There are ample examples of that in Maratha history. Read Jijabai, Tarabai, Laxmibai to name a few. Peshwa wives have been known to rule in lieu of their husbands. In fact, in few other Indian societies have this many women enjoyed this much empowerment.
I have cited a society. A very large society. The population of Maharashtra (as of 2001) is 96,752,247. That's a lot of people, and this type of matriarchy is not uncommon among them. That's 2% of the world's population, 30% of the population of North America. hardly a small enough number to dismiss so casually.
Remmeber the trains as they whizzed by Midnapore and you saw women in gaamchas disciplining their kids? That's what I'm talking about.
I disagree with you that matriarchial societies are rare. In my country (India) matriarchial families (where women held positions of power) are not uncommon. They have been even more common in the past. Example is the Maratha Confederacy
a r.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Confederacy
which, while founded by Shivaji Raje Bhonsle (a man) was really run by his mother, Jijabai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jijabai
As well as the reigning queen of Jhansi, Laxmibai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxmibai
http://www.copsey-family.org/~allenc/lakshmibai/
in the 19th Century.
Matriarchial societies were aggressively discouraged by muslim rulers after they invaded and occupied large parts of India, since, according to Islamic Kanoon-e-Shariat, a woman can't take a dump without the husband's permission. Despite that, the Mameluk dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate was briefly inherited by a woman, Sultana Razia al-Din (Jalalat ud-Din Raziya), daughter of Shams-ud-Din Iltutmish (India's first and last black emperor).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razia_Sultan
Of course, the mad mullahs got their undies in a twist over that, but she did rule for 4 significant years in the Sultanate.
There is a strong matriarchial tendency in many Maratha clans in India to this day. Maratha women are aggressive and outgoing (more so than other Indian women). They bunch up their saris , wrap them around around their legs and wrap the tail over the backside and tuck it uder the small of their backs, making them more like trousers.
http://www.maharashtratourism.net/images/women-we
This way, their movements are less restrictive. They can run, walk long distances, balance themselves better while carrying heavy loads, and engage in physical labour like their male counterparts. They are addresses as 'Bai' (meaning Lady) in public, they fish, farm, sell stuff, all that. Maratha women often contribute more to the family income than Maratha men.
South Indian families (even Brahmin ones) often have the mother as the key decision-maker in the family (since males are busy working or studying) and thus has de-facto authority in family matters, even over the husband. This was true of my own grandmother, for instance (I'm Bengali), where my mother was one of 7 children, and my grandmother coached them in homework, got them to do chores, decided which schools they'd go to and so on, while my grandfather was busy at work (sometimes away from home for weeks). That's a matriarchial family right there.
If you define power roles by the breadwinner, then these families are not all matriarchial, but that's a pretty narrow criterion in my opinion. The real power of authority is in the hands of the decision maker, which, in these cases, is the female, not the male.
Plus, many South Indian Hindu Brahmins don't adopt their father's names as family names. They adopt the names of the town/village where their family originated (similar to some Arabs that way). They keep fairly detailed records of their lineage, and not much patriarchial bias exists in that process.
Please enlighten me as to why that is a legitimate talking point for Bush-bashing American liberals (offtopic as it may be in this forum). There'd be a Sunni-Shia civil war regardless of who liberated Iraq.
Yeah. Matrilineal and matriarchial societies exit among Tamils, Meghas (in North-Estern India), communities in Andhra Pradesh (specially Telegu Jews, who keep strict records of their matrilineage) etc.
Surprisingly numerous, these matriarchials...
I'm with the AC on this one. I've been to Pakistan and seen the sheer contempt and derision expressed by the Sunni majority on the Shia minority. Their clan wars go back to the schisms following the death of Mohamed, and all that "Mahdi" stuff...
Ah, nothing like the sweet smell of religious communal violence in the morning.