<!--QuoteBegin-barat+Dec 9 2008, 12:09 AM-->QUOTE(barat @ Dec 9 2008, 12:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I am surprised as to why no Hindu here and elsewhere fails to recognize capitalism as the real problem behind terrorism.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Barat, welcome to forum. It takes a lot of guts to post on forum for first time. Don't get discouraged by thread thing.
Capitalism versus Communism (private versus state) are obsolete categories and only make sense as part of a complete propaganda systems emanating out of west. I believe that even heathen versus believer categories fail at ground reality levels and are really only secondary. Only the 'colonialism' category is really meaningful and primary. Is capitalism a propaganda facade for colonialism? Indians never cared about theory but rather only about functionality; hence these capitalism versus Communism debates-invectives are only at surface level in India and never really took root. Who were early sponsors of Communism in India? Why were they opposed to Independence movement? Is there a relation to the colonial power ruling India at the time. Take analogy with sponsors of Communists in India today; why Brinda attacked Ramdev on behalf of Western pharmas, all the while posturing as anti-western. Why Romila is sponsored by Library of Congress and Kluge, all the while affecting (pretending) anti-westernism. False flag hiding the true source is operative word for all these characters.
Go to colonialism thread in the Indian history section; you will see that American state itself started out as the rebelling British East India company. Therefore, all the rhetoric about great western private sector, rugged individualism, and so on... automatically falls into the propaganda category (and not at the truth level which we Hindus function at).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Barat, welcome to forum. It takes a lot of guts to post on forum for first time. Don't get discouraged by thread thing.
Capitalism versus Communism (private versus state) are obsolete categories and only make sense as part of a complete propaganda systems emanating out of west. I believe that even heathen versus believer categories fail at ground reality levels and are really only secondary. Only the 'colonialism' category is really meaningful and primary. Is capitalism a propaganda facade for colonialism? Indians never cared about theory but rather only about functionality; hence these capitalism versus Communism debates-invectives are only at surface level in India and never really took root. Who were early sponsors of Communism in India? Why were they opposed to Independence movement? Is there a relation to the colonial power ruling India at the time. Take analogy with sponsors of Communists in India today; why Brinda attacked Ramdev on behalf of Western pharmas, all the while posturing as anti-western. Why Romila is sponsored by Library of Congress and Kluge, all the while affecting (pretending) anti-westernism. False flag hiding the true source is operative word for all these characters.
Go to colonialism thread in the Indian history section; you will see that American state itself started out as the rebelling British East India company. Therefore, all the rhetoric about great western private sector, rugged individualism, and so on... automatically falls into the propaganda category (and not at the truth level which we Hindus function at).