12-09-2008, 12:09 AM
I posted the below as a new thread, but apparently, the moderator doesn't want me to start new threads and wants me to use existing thread. Although, it beats me as to why, since there's no thread relevant to my post anywhere. But here goes nothing...I am reposting it below.
Discuss, if you care to. I've already lost faith in Hindus, so mean and cold, even when dealing with new posters. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> And we wonder why Hindus have so few friends.
Hello Friends! smile.gif
I've always been a social democrat, but the recent events (not just terrorism but also political developments) made me rethink my beliefs. It's clear that Hinduism and Hindus are under threat, but I am still not convinced that social democracy isn't the right way. And when I say social democracy, I am referring to the systems prevalent in Scandinavian countries, NOT to the nonsense being done in the name of socialism by our Indian communists/Nehruvian socialists. mad.gif So please, let's be clear on that.
I am confused as to how Hindutva or any ideology that's based on nationalism can ever be free of conflict, because inherent in such philosophies is the 'us vs them' attitude. So I'd like some clarification on that.
Also, I am surprised as to why no Hindu here and elsewhere fails to recognize capitalism as the real problem behind terrorism. For instance, if A is a terrorist and B the victim of the said terrorist, then a capitalist would rather sell arms to both parties and expand profits. So why would he try and solve the problem of terrorism, when keeping it alive would benefit him? mad.gif He wouldn't, which explains why western countries and our money-minded politicians keep terrorism alive. Capitalism views everything as a business opportunity, and terrorism is no exception.
Second, if we identify ourselves as Hindus, we're pitted against Muslims, Christians, communists, capitalists, and these people are a huge number controlling 100 nations, oil and other resources, a powerful military, amongst other advantages. It's impossible to fight against such odds. sad.gif More importantly, a Hindu in India has nothing in common with a Muslim in Pakistan. But the same Hindu as a worker has a lot in common with the muslim worker in pakistan. So would it not be better to approach the whole problem as a socialist, rather than as a Hindu, because that way, we'll have something in common with all nations/cultures/races/religions?
Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone with this. I am not trying to impose socialism, just wondering whether Hindus, like the Jews of the 20th century, are in a position where they have to become socialists (by political orientation, NOT that they have to give up their religion) in order to become an international movement, and thereby gain strength. smile.gif
Discuss, if you care to. I've already lost faith in Hindus, so mean and cold, even when dealing with new posters. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> And we wonder why Hindus have so few friends.
Hello Friends! smile.gif
I've always been a social democrat, but the recent events (not just terrorism but also political developments) made me rethink my beliefs. It's clear that Hinduism and Hindus are under threat, but I am still not convinced that social democracy isn't the right way. And when I say social democracy, I am referring to the systems prevalent in Scandinavian countries, NOT to the nonsense being done in the name of socialism by our Indian communists/Nehruvian socialists. mad.gif So please, let's be clear on that.
I am confused as to how Hindutva or any ideology that's based on nationalism can ever be free of conflict, because inherent in such philosophies is the 'us vs them' attitude. So I'd like some clarification on that.
Also, I am surprised as to why no Hindu here and elsewhere fails to recognize capitalism as the real problem behind terrorism. For instance, if A is a terrorist and B the victim of the said terrorist, then a capitalist would rather sell arms to both parties and expand profits. So why would he try and solve the problem of terrorism, when keeping it alive would benefit him? mad.gif He wouldn't, which explains why western countries and our money-minded politicians keep terrorism alive. Capitalism views everything as a business opportunity, and terrorism is no exception.
Second, if we identify ourselves as Hindus, we're pitted against Muslims, Christians, communists, capitalists, and these people are a huge number controlling 100 nations, oil and other resources, a powerful military, amongst other advantages. It's impossible to fight against such odds. sad.gif More importantly, a Hindu in India has nothing in common with a Muslim in Pakistan. But the same Hindu as a worker has a lot in common with the muslim worker in pakistan. So would it not be better to approach the whole problem as a socialist, rather than as a Hindu, because that way, we'll have something in common with all nations/cultures/races/religions?
Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone with this. I am not trying to impose socialism, just wondering whether Hindus, like the Jews of the 20th century, are in a position where they have to become socialists (by political orientation, NOT that they have to give up their religion) in order to become an international movement, and thereby gain strength. smile.gif