• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rape crimes in India vs elsewhere: deliberate disproportionate reporting by international news
Related to the very long post 33 of this thread, and all of the "The tactics used by America to destroy (East) Asian society" thread, particularly post 16 thereof.


Quote:Jun 3, 2015 @ 1:00 PM




I Was Divorced By 26

Love is patient, love is kind, and sometimes, love means starting over.

As told to: Hannah Morrill

4.7k Shares (That's 4700 "shares" whatever social networking tool that refers to)

Tweet 16

When I was 23, I got married at a Hindu temple in Queens in front of 300 guests. I'm a tomboy—most days I wear no makeup, Vans, and a green army jacket that I've had for years—but on my wedding day, I'd gotten up at five to have my eyes rimmed with kohl, and my hair smoothed and straightened into a low, sleek bun. My nails were painted red, my wrists jangled with dozens of bracelets, and an ornate gold necklace—the same one my mother had worn when she'd married my father—was clipped around my neck. I wore a red and gold sari made of six yards of heavy silk. On the day we'd gotten it, my mother had haggled over the price with the salesman. It felt like it weighed twenty pounds.

Before a Hindu ceremony officially starts, the groom sits before all the guests as the bride stays hidden. When I came out for vadhu aagman, or the arrival of the bride, my mother, father, and sisters were by my side. I was shaking—I don't like attention—and was strangely transfixed by the walls, swirling with paintings of Hindu gods and goddesses, the temple's altar set with dozens of idols. Under the mandap, which was curtained with yellow and red fabrics and strung with carnation garland, sat Ajay*, my future husband.
He didn't say a word. He wasn't like, "You look beautiful." He wasn't like anything. Years later, I'd remember that moment with a zing. The priest guided us through three hours of prayers, calling every Hindu god to be a witness to our union. And the whole time I was just sitting there and thinking: This is a big mistake. This is such a big mistake.

I'd met Ajay when I was 18, working at a bookstore near the college where we both went. Ajay worked on a different floor. We hit it off, he asked me out, and we started dating. It wasn't much more complicated than that. I thought he was cute, and funny, and devoted. I'd broken up with my high school sweetheart a few weeks before college, and I felt ready for something new.

After five years of dating, I started bugging Ajay to get engaged. Now I regret it, but at the time, it just seemed like the natural next step. I wanted it so bad. On the night of our fifth anniversary, he proposed at a café on the Lower East Side, the same café where we'd had our first date. He said all sorts of romantic things, and I wasn't exactly surprised, but I was pleased. He proposed with a fake ring—like the kind you'd get out of gumball machine—which annoyed me, and as we walked home, he gave me the real one, which he'd had in his pocket all along. Later, when I was miserable in our marriage, dreading coming home to him, wishing I could be anywhere but in our apartment, and in our life, I'd look back on his proposal like it were a sign, too, as though that cheap fake ring held some prophetic significance I could never unfurl.

Ajay did not abuse me, or cheat on me. He didn't use drugs, he wasn't an alcoholic, he didn't have rage issues. And yet, three years into our marriage, I realized, quietly and in my own heart, that I was unbearably unhappy. I was frustrated with every aspect of my life—my job, my finances, my social life, and especially my marriage. I never wanted to have sex. I never wanted to do anything. But I never entertained the idea of leaving; I never told anyone, not even my closest friends. I was convinced that I wasn't trying hard enough, that marriage was about sticking it out. In the Indian community in which I was raised, there is no divorce. For as long as I could remember, my grandparents—who'd had an arranged marriage—had lived separately, each with one of their adult children. They got tired of pretending, but they never divorced.

At that time Ajay had just gone back to college, and after he finished his first semester, I gave him a selfish gift. I paid for a ticket to send him to Los Angeles for ten days to visit his brother. I just didn't want to be around him. Those were, without a doubt, the best ten days of my life. I was so relieved. I could breathe. I went dancing with friends. I stayed out late. I felt alive. And when I realized my life could always be like that, the thought was planted and the idea of leaving him was irresistible. When he came back, he texted me that he couldn't wait to see me, that he'd missed me so much. Once he got home, I just blurted out, "I can't be married to you anymore. This is over."

He was shocked. He didn't know how to react. And I was totally emotionless. He went to meet a friend at a bar, and when I went to bathroom, I saw that he'd left his wedding ring on the sink. I don't know why, exactly, but something about that gesture felt so final to me. I packed a Bloomingdale's bag with my taxes, my social security card, and my birth certificate. I put in three shirts, two pairs of pants and some underwear. Then I left.

The actual divorce took longer than it should have, and was incredibly sad. Ajay was—is—a good person, and I feel like I broke his heart and ruined his life. For the first few months after we split, I stayed with friends and with my parents, and then I got my own place. During that time, he was just crushed. He'd call me at all hours of the night, crying and sobbing. And I'd feel so awful. It's been six years, and I still feel tremendous guilt. It's a guilt I'll always live with, like a scar that stays an angry red.

He didn't want to deal with the official procedures of the divorce, so I went to a place that files the papers, and I signed. I think it cost $800. The company told me they'd contact him to sign—I didn't have to do anything. A month later, on one of those sunny, bustling New York City days that feel impossibly full of promise, I'd met a friend for coffee in Union Square. We were walking back to her apartment, and I saw him in there, signing the papers. He didn't see me, and he still doesn't know I saw him. I felt like the entire world stopped. My vision blurred with tears. My throat felt tight and painful. Seeing him there, alone, signing the papers, was one of the most devastating moments of my life. That was the day my heart broke. I still cry now, right on the spot, when I think about that day.

People say divorce is like a death, but a death is more final and more concrete. There is a funeral, and you're allowed to feel sad. You're encouraged to grieve and to process and remember. A divorce is murkier. Ajay and I tried to have lunch a few times, but it was awkward and sad. He deleted me on Facebook immediately, but stayed friends with my mom, and every now and then she'd give me an update, like that he was seeing someone, or had gone out that weekend. That made me happy, because I want him to be happy. For a while, he'd Facebook message me late night—I'd see the time stamp the next day—which always made me sad. I don't think he's seeing anyone now.

After I got divorced, I swore I'd never get married again. But then I met John*, and as they say, I just knew. We married last October in front of my mother and sisters at city hall. On the subway ride to our ceremony, I wore a white dress I'd gotten last minute upstate. Ajay used to say to me, "You're my best friend." And I'd always think, you're not my best friend. Maya is my best friend. Or Avni is my best friend. Now I know how he felt.

My relationship with John has made me a different person. I'm affectionate. I communicate. And, at least for this moment in time, I'm happy. Love is not fair, and it is not easy, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't come with a guarantee. Not ever. But for the moments when it works, at least in my life, love still feels worth trying for.

*Names have been changed.

(Changed to a very biblical one for John, I notice. Oh, was that meant to be subliminal? Will pretend not to notice then, shall I?)

"When it rains, it pours".

Starting now with a drizzle. As seen above.

Moral 1: "Love can happen to anyone" even to Indian Hindu-origin women, but only not if married to Hindu-origin Indian men.

Moral2: "Therefore don't throw your life away on a Hindu-origin Indian man. Hold out for your true alien love." Tsss. Can the marketing be more obvious and tacky.

The above article once more follows the established modus operandi of the western psyops + social engineering already seen among E Asians. In specific, compare with the case in post 16 of the E Asian thread, and then the similarities in how the christowest has orchestrated this instance too will be immediately obvious.

Standard Operating Procedure after all. Note the same methodology is evident in both:

1. Kiss-and-Tell:

"Ajay": something is wrong (hint: he's an ethnic Hindu), he's not even in the list of top friends.

Vs "John": he's the "white" saviour, like jeebus.*

As was summarised of Amy Tan etc's encouragements to E Asian American women to date/marry "white" and eschew their own men. Of course, in the Indian case, the groundwork is still being laid at this stage, so they can't yet come out with an article where a native voice - a handpicked Indian Hindu-origin woman a la the native handpicked voices for E Asian American females, Kingston and Tan - full-on advocates to her own kind to dump their own men and date alien demons.

Having said that, as documented by E Asians, a stand-up comedian Indo-alien christian half-breed (I know it's a gross insult, it's why I use it) did blatantly make this very recommendation superficially as a 'joke', but his half-alien all-christian (IIRC catholic) bile is typical:


Quote: Russell Peters was doing a comedy show here last week and he noticed an Asian woman and man in the front row. If you’ve ever been to a comedy show, you know better than to sit in the front. Anyway, he asked this Asian guy his name and he made the usual racial joke that his real name must sound like a kungfu move. He asked them if they were together. He said no and that they were just coworkers. He asks him if he’s single and he responds yes. He turns to the Asian woman and asks if she’s single. She responds no.

Without hesitation, he then asks how her parents feel about her dating a white guy. The whole audience was just laughing their asses off. She didn’t do anything except look down. He did manage to stick up for Asian guys though. He said that at least he knows why Indian women might flee Indian men because of arranged marriages but he also joked about body odor and being boring engineers but he actually said that there was no real reason for Asian men to get the shaft.

Compare the blue bit to the nazi type statements made about the Jews, portraying them as untermenschen and creating odium against them. Don't know what the half-breed catholic is yapping about, though: he'd be at least twice as smelly, surely - getting this from both sides?

Had deliberately omitted posting the above link in the ChristoWestern Attack on E Asian Society thread for reasons of cowardice ultimately: as usual, hoped they could remain private fears and not become public realities. So much for that. Will repost in that thread too.

That the Eurasian i.e. literal Indo-European is a catholic:


Quote:Russell Dominic Peters (born September 29, 1970)[3] is a Canadian comedian and actor. He began performing in Toronto in 1989 and won a Gemini Award in 2008.[4]


Peters was born in Toronto, Ontario to Eric and Maureen Peters. When he was four, the family moved to nearby Brampton. His older brother Clayton now serves as Peters' manager.[5] Peters is Catholic and of Anglo-Indian descent.[6] His late father was born in Bombay (now Mumbai), India and worked as a federal meat inspector; Peters regularly features stories about him in his comedy work.[7]

(Gross. Photo at link. Hideously ugly man. Hope no woman will marry that and thus encourage further copies of the same.)

2. The Harpers Bazaar article dedicates a long section 'portraying' Hindu "tradition" - complete with polytheism AND idolatry, note - and how irksome and clearly alien it is to the (alleged) Indian woman who allegedly narrated it from 1st person's perspective to the christian I mean western reporter woman.

- The "Indian" woman is dragged down by her Hindu tradition. Even her sari is heavy, "heavy" silk which "felt like it weighed 20 pounds". Apparently she was being throttled by Hinduism even during the wedding ceremony.

- But the quick breezy wedding with John - in the 'traditional' alien white=mourning dress so quick to come by - is a summary for how easy and breezy life and love is with John. She ends with "It (just) works." Whereas try as Ajay might, it just didn't with him. I mean, she did know from the start that it was "all wrong".

Obviously uneven treatment in reporting:

- Hindu man brings baggage of religion/tradition (though the same is the woman's own family's legacy to her; surprised she didn't divorce herself from them too: she must loathe every minute in their Hindu-origin company doing "cultural" Hindu things a few times a year).

- Meanwhile the Gospel of John at least didn't seem to be heavy baggage: easy wedding (light wedding dress, even in colour), easy life.

But christianism is invisible to christoconditioned Hindu-origin Indians of our and all subsequent generations, christianism actually feels like the norm to them, the comfort zone. Heathenism is all too obvious and alien to these Hindu-origin 'Indian' types*, and feels like it suffocates them: their family already did, and now they'd be chained to it in marriage. [*More proof that the oft-recommended 'quantity' of offspring is in no way guaranteed to be better than quality: either do both or don't bother. But at a minimum do quality. Else people are just breeding enemies of Hindus.]

Christianism feeling comfortable to kids of modern-day Hindu origin Indian families is quite a commonplace occurrence, the rot exists in high doses among NRIs but the Indian case will not be far behind shortly. Had already in some post brought up the example of the Sri Lankan offspring of the atheist Hindu-origin father and Hindoo mother of an NRI (or 'NRSL') family I know. By far most such combinations end up with christo-conditioned "non-religious" kids. As it happened to these two also: their son is an atheist or agnostic*, married a christian SL ("love" marriage) and their kid is baptised. May have multiplied and brought for another one by now. BTW the dude would never have married a Hindoo female. Thankfully.

The daughter is an atheist or agnostic* too, of course, and was willing that her mother organise an arranged marriage (don't know why she bothered), with the stipulation that the groom is anything but Hindoo, i.e. anything but a heathen. A christian or an atheist Indian was specifically fine. Note how christianism is invisible and acceptable and even feels natural to such Indians - though just one generation removed from a devout polytheistic idolatrous Hindoo woman. But that's what heathens get, when they marry Indian atheists aka 'cultural Hindus' (the dad was the head of most local "Hindu" gatherings, so "Hindu" by Hindu nationalist standards, the same standards that kills Hindoo heathenism and Hindoo lineages).

Like her brother, the girl herself was purely English-speaking (said she understood Tamizh, but all I heard was "pardon" whenever any of us spoke to her in Tzh).

*Atheist w.r.t. Hinduism, agnostic with respect to christianism. Note how Hindu devolution is toward christianism, since their dad was an atheist with respect to any religion. But somehow a Hindoo woman was roped into marrying him. Villains, who performed that union. But there are so many like it among NRIs. And even in India nowadays.

But back to this post's article, the one from Harper's Bazaar.

There are several features of this article that make it seem like it's concocted in western armchairs. Among them:

The fact that the anonymous "Indian" woman who supposedly relayed it to her alien counterpart** speaks about "idols" and how clearly alien/strange these and the multiple Hindu gods and goddesses (lowercased, of course - if not by the foreign journalist then the Indian woman) sounds more like an actual alien, writing overly-descriptively about some type of Hindu wedding as if to prove that it is not written by an alien but by an insider. Unconvincing.

Way too descriptive and distracting: far more descriptive about unnecessary details - not to mention the dragging in of "idols" and Hindus' polytheism and the (failure of) the Gods' witness in making the marriage successful (<- which are all missionary pre-occupations in projecting the christian view of Hindu religion) - than is necessary compared to the actual alleged purpose of the article: which only pretended to generally be about 'divorce at 26' of women in the west (or anywhere on Earth) but is actually for social engineering of Indian Hindu women.

Add to that the alleged 1st person's tale of her alleged long separated grandparents, who had also had an arranged marriage and which 'anecdote' is merely present in the article to expressly imply that all Hindu [arranged] marriages/marriages between Hindus - all the way into the past - were equally unsatisfying, miserable and disharmonious. The only difference with the present then being that divorce ("freedom") is now within the reach of the Indian "Hindu-origin" woman's hand, so that the modern "Hindu-origin" woman especially those in the west is presented as being at an advantage/a step up from Hindu women of the past. Christowest (and its alleged "native informants") have to even lie about the past now to make it conform to their psyops. But rewriting heathens' past is a longstanding christowestern psyops/social-engineering tactic.

** "Of course" we'll believe Indian Hindu-origin women would confide to alien women their total disinterest~apathy~hatred towards Hindu(-origin) men. Or so we're told by the alien female mouthpieces "themselves", who are clearly above suspicion as they tell us they're writing up the Indian woman's story or claim to have been asked to intervene by Indian (Hindu-origin) women on their behalf. An example of the latter is IIRC an article that was re-posted prominently at the bharatabharati blog as supposedly giving an authentic view and was by some alien female infesting India, who, even as she opened with the prerequisite apologetics by stating how much she 'likes' India etc (the usual oath to divert from how it becomes obvious from the rest of the article that she's a categorical bigot and has an agenda), continued to write in the rest of the article only about how evil and patriarchal Indian society/males universally were. She linked to other alien females who were to have agreed with her in experience and opinion as further "evidence/testimony". Most importantly, the alien female obvious-plant (she really had nothing good to say, and it was so clearly motivated by bile pretending to be merely ethical and concerned) brought out her prime witness: declared that she had been asked/pleaded to by an anonymous Indian (Hindu-origin) woman to give all Indian women's side of the story ("the true story"), since all the Hindu nationalist men had been defending ("whitewashing") Hindu society ("patriarchy") from the barrage of psy-ops, slander & social engineering ("the truth") released in the wake of the gutter-inspection video ("documentary").

Of course such venomous Indian 'Hindu-origin' women as would gullibly conspire with alien demons exist, I have to admit that. But:

+ they're not usually anonymous. In fact they never are. They know that they can say any bloody lie and badmouth and stereotype away and will never be censured, but most likely be praised and supported (and nowadays retweeted/favourited/befriended/liked or something. They know they'd be championed as a survivor who was never a victim, but claims to speak for anonymous victims anyway. Sort of the cheap common Suzanne Arun-dhoti Roy types.)

+ And I'm sure alien demons can find and produce sufficient quantities of socially-engineered Indian females to repeat their programming out loud, or pay even more female Indian mercenaries to read out the western script on India.

But it is still a distinct feature of the current game - i.e. as at this early stage - that the alien psyops and social-engineering materials frequently don't even bother finding any traceable names of real Indian women, for whom the alien females merely claim to speak, to prove that these even exist. (Of course, having said that, tomorrow they will quickly round up some - not hard to find, as mentioned - or else hire some of the usual suspects. Faking witnesses only works for so long, after all.)

The whole notion that today's English-speaking Hindu(-origin) Indian woman has some rapport with alien females to work against the former's society & men or to liberate herself in some way is a fraud perpetrated by and an environment/framework being consciously created by feminism.

-> Feminism is specifically introduced as a transcending power, breaking all barriers of ethnicity, and makes sudden "sisters" out of the oppressed and the oppressors (as long as the gender is the same and female, it all becomes okay, no?), while only the former=the oppressed in such allegedly "equal" relationships among the world's women are (or are programmed to become) traitors to their ethnic kin - their ethnic men and their society as a whole -, but the latter curiously never are, but promote the interests of their male alien counterparts from whom they may be alienated though their allegiance to the christowest is not in doubt. <- This was already observed by E Asian females too, and documented or linked off the "The tactics used by America to destroy (East) Asian society" thread, and in the transracialabductees(.org?) site found by Dhu now to be found on archive.org.

Anyway, this next pic found in one "Sankrant Sanu" tweet is perfectly applicable to all kinds of social engineering going on in India, including - very much so - the purpose of feminism etc in India.

[Image: CHrpxvCUEAAVm7-.png]

The real irony? If the materials linked to and the excerpts in the E Asian thread were made public (such as by wide dissemination) among Indian women including even the angelsk-speaking "feminist" kind - and they are thus made to see how the entire mass mental manipulation is staged, and how they are walking *right* into the same trap/are being programmed - even many of the most brainless follower/loudmouthed "Rights" activist types will start noticing the pattern and feel gravely offended and start avoiding the pitfall. (Although in another sense, I'd really like such women as the last removed from my people's gene pool. And so too the Indian male feminists, as these then stand to lose by the drain of progressive Indian women.)

Because: If there is one thing women universally despise - and even vocalist feminist women dislike more than "oppression by the patriarchy" and other rallying points,

one thing that all women including those who like to consider themselves 'thinking' women (you know, the kind that snub other women as intellectually stunted if these won't join feminism=fascism) find unforgivable,

it is to find that they are being manipulated without their knowledge. <- Even the most activist against "patriarchy" and prone to seeing ghosts where there are none, hate that more than ANYTHING.

Note how "patriarchy"/oppression vs emancipation is a discussion in terms of others (males/patriarchal society) taking away women's freedoms, their rights, stunting their abilities and thoughts, making their choices for them, controlling them and their future, lack of agency. Feminist thought claims that women had been (are being) blinded by male manipulation into subservience and are sacrificing their own happiness for the greater goals of patriarchy/for keeping patriarchy in place, thus working for interests inimical to themselves. (Modern feminists get angry at others for pointing out cases of actual lack of agency - such as when pre-programming/social engineering is in effect* - with angrier feminists insisting that females have agency in most situations, even in cases of victimhood [even though by extension such an insistence actually ends up detrimentally calling into question the victim's victimhood/powerlessness in such situations]. *Until the undeniability of such social engineering is driven home to them.)

So the last thing any female feminist would want is to find that they're still being subconsciously manipulated to implementing others' interests.

And BTW, I very much suspect that the realisation of ^that^ was the primary motivator in breaking the spell that some feminist Asian American females were under and turning them into stage 2 or stage 3 feminists whose foremost enemy thereby becomes the western patriarchy, and who therefore choose to gang up with their own ethnic men against this.* This primary realisation then allows such women to start perceiving the larger problems facing their society and often causes them to do a double take on their own men, to re-evaluate these without the western-introduced bias; to wonder where the western lies/psy-ops against their men began and ended and how far they bought into it.

* The "Eminism" site on the other hand shows Asian American feminist females teaming up with 'minority/ethnic' and even western women against western patriarchy - identified as the overall enemy - and was therefore deliberately infiltrated by western agents attempting to scuttle this rogue strain of their own programming.

The recommendation is therefore that Hindus uniformly implement widespread indisputable presentation of data/articles on earlier christowestern attempts to break other non-assimilating societies - IMO the E Asian American case is a good, copiously self-documented case by a population of introspectors - to all Hindu females and Hindu-origin females (not to Indian christoislamic females note, let them and thereby their societies drown).

+ Hindoo and Hindu nationalist women will be indignant about the magnitude of this genocide. <- If stealing children away from ethnic communities is genocide as per the Genocide Convention (see defunct site "christianheritage" exposing christianism=terrorism), then brainwashing ethnic women away from ethnic men and their overall society - thereby destroying the future of their families/society - is very much genocide too.

Upon awareness of existing documented cases (and the pattern's unavoidable and repugnant), Hindu women will further train themselves to recognise this pattern, to avoid it, to immunise themselves and others in their circle of it. And they will start seeing ulterior motives and hands in other matters of social engineering too. And self-immunisation will grow.

+ Hindu-origin 'progressive'/secular women - who think they're so brilliant that they should have seen through this too - will, if they bother perusing and studying such materials, become indignant about the attempts of others [the christowest] to dare to manipulate them in this matter and will also become more suspicious/aware and could start perceiving other western conspiracies afoot. And even if many of such women will still never be pro-Hindoo or even nationalist, they will not fall for *that* trick at least.

I say Hindus should put feminism to some use at last: leverage it to make it work in Hindu society's favour, by appealing to feminism's weakness of self-conceit/thinking they can see through any manipulative plot against women (when many won't see this one, certainly not until it's too late). And ironically: this IS a plot against all Indian women - i.e. against the gender - most especially Hindu-origin ones including Hindu ones. Unthinking but non-crypto feminists/progressives ought to be up in arms.

Hindus should start doing this before it's too late IMO. I'd do it myself, but I've never had the ability to convince anyone of anything (and don't quite believe that is actually possible in the general sense, as conviction comes from oneself, not from others; but manipulating people into doing the right thing/form the inevitable opinion based on factual data/a completer picture is definitely possible). [Also, I seem to be past caring and feeling quite apathetic about "India" as a whole, as it - including Hindutva/Hindu nationalism and vocalist "activists for Hinduism" - have totally screwed Hindoos and Hindoo-dom.]

Also, I think that rather than such info reaching the unreachable "generally deaf to the opposite sex especially if it's Hindoo" Hindu-origin females by way of Hindu men, it should be disseminated by female Hindus and Hindu nationalists, and thus there's more chance that selectively deaf women will choose to hear.

The news - rather relevant to Hindu nationalists of all stripes, as it foreshadows more to come - was this next data-point:


Messages In This Thread
Rape crimes in India vs elsewhere: deliberate disproportionate reporting by international news - by Husky - 06-18-2015, 09:59 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)