1. Vanavasis (i.e. Hindoos) stuck at JNU tell the very christian leftist terrorists (it's christian, see link in point 2) and their islamaniac yes-men to go hang themselves:
indiafacts.co.in/tribals-worship-goddess-durga/
WE ARE TRIBALS AND WE WORSHIP GODDESS DURGA
Me too: of the Hindoo tribe/collective (and a fellow ur-native of the Hindoo subcontinent), loyal worshipper of Durga Amman, and of all the Gods inhabiting my ancestral home.
2. indiafacts.co.in/fact-sheet-jnu-mahishasura-day-controversy/
Fact Sheet on the JNU Mahishasura Day Controversy
The very christian left conspired to tell Hindus that Mahishasura "must have been" a dravoodian victim of the oryans they invented.
Tragically, only the debile christians and their equally-moronic islamic brethren believed it.
But it's more proof that christians support the jihad because jihadis scratch their back in return, as seen above.
The 2nd item also reminded me directly of posts 146, 147 and 149 (the rest of this post will not make sense without reading those):
* the christo and left (christo-left) inverted re-write of history/backprojection of dravoodianism with Mahishasura now projected as a "dravoodian" victim of some alleged oryan invaders who then allegedly imposed the Vedic religion on the backprojected dravoodians - when the real history is that the Vedic religion is the native religion of India and dravoodianism is a recently invented ideology that has only been able to gain an earlier ancestry by means of backprojection -
* is VERY much like: Rajeev Srinivasan swearing his oath of love and fealty to the backprojection of Buddhism onto Trivikrama/Vamana vs Mahabali account, where Mahabali is now the one being cheered in place of the hero Trivikrama, and Mahabali and his people are suddenly even projected as an allegory for how the religion of the "poor" Buddhists (elsewhere Jains) replaced by "upanishadic Hindus" as per Rajiv. Or Witan's version where the Trivikrama account was allegedly "actually" all about how Mahabali and people were to have been the native "dravoodians" who were oppressed and their religion/identity supplanted by invading oryans (euphemised as/unnamed but implied to be north Indians).
Now, WHERE is the difference between
- the JNU christoterrorists' inverted version with Mahishasura as (allegory for) backprojected dravoodian victimhood from "oryan" Vedic religion, with Durga as the chief villain; when ORIGINALY and historically and truly (and in Hindoo homes to this day), Navaratri/Durga Pooja is all about Durga as the heroine defeating the Mahishasura (who is as much a part of Vedic cosmology as Durga, and has nothing to do with dravoodianism which is a post/colonial construct)
and
- Rajeev's inverted version with Mahabali as allegory for backprojected Buddhist victimhood from Upanishadic Hindus (i.e. Vedic religion), with Trivikrama eclipsed by Rajeev's declaration that Onam is "actually" about Mahabali. When ORIGINALLY and historically and truly (and in Hindoo temples to this day), Onam was all about Vishnu as Trivikrama, with the EQUALLY-Vedic (and pre-Buddhist, not to mention unBuddhist) Mahabali only as a more minor character
and
- Witan's inverted version with Mahabali as (allegory for) backprojected dravoodian victimhood from Vedic religion, with Trivikrama eclipsed by Witan's insistence that Onam is "actually" residual "dravoodian" memory about defeat of dravoodianism/the "south" by the "north", and is hence allegedly about Mahabali as a centre of dravoodian resistance. When ORIGINALLY and historically and truly (and in Hindoo temples to this day), Onam celebrates a native Vedic Hindoo event known to all corners of ethnic Hindoo-dom: it's all about Vishnu as Trivikrama, with the EQUALLY-Vedic Mahabali only as a more minor character (plus dravoodianism - the concept - is unheard of to both Mahabali and Trivikrama. And Mahabali - the Vedic ritualist - would have been the first to crush all the suddenly-invented dravoodianists, for the anti-Vedic vermin* that they are. *Oryanists too, of course).
Shudder. :Unforgivable:
^ So where's the difference? ^
Nowhere. There is NO difference. They're all the same.
JNU christoterrorism = Rajeev's parroting of Buddhism = Witan's parroting of dravoodianism. In fact, the latter were not just parroting, they were peddling, same as JNU's christoterrorism.
The only difference lies in the Hindu audience's treatment of the left-hand side: they object to the lies of the christo-communists of JNU, but they keep quiet (or acquiesce or even applaud) to the lies propagated (though not invented) by Rajiv and Witan.
In other words: it proves as usual that today's Hindus care only about who says something, not about what is said. All the whining of "hurt Hindu sentiments" are play-acting reserved for the Hindu-baiters. Who cares about hurt sentiments. People should care about the truth and legitimate tradition vs speculation/fiction/lies.
Now, since Hindus won't even correct the "Hindu" nationalists peddling falsehoods in their midsts (dravoodianisms and late Buddhist dawaganda), is there any point in objecting to/correcting lies by more obvious Hindu-baiters? <= That's a rhetorical question. The answer is of course that 1. there is no point (in doing things in the wrong order: sane persons would be exposing the errors by people closer to home first, i.e. correcting those claiming to be Hindus); and 2. it is hypocritical to only expose and remonstrate against the blatant lies/moronisms peddled by the anti-Hindus.
[Disclaimer: Of course I have no intention of correcting anyone. I'm just judging people - being a very judgmental person. More specifically, it's because I have a theory about humanity. And every year I have lived, has only confirmed it to be a working theory: that people should naturally do the right thing, with no prompting, with no correcting. That those that are Right, would be Right innately, from the ground up. That, left to themselves, people will reveal what they are made of. And that it is exactly situations where subversionist ideas present themselves, that will naturally reveal people's true tendencies/characters: How they deal with subversionist ideas - whether they fall for it, whether they object, by what arguments they object, etc. Because most everyone falls for one thing or another. So I want to know at which point any given individual keels over. And I want to know which ones won't fall over - which ones won't fit the pattern - and that's the hardest of all to discover. Because there are so many subversions out there and any given person could manage to avoid most, but fall into just one of them. So one wants all the subversions out there thrown at people, just to see how many and which of the modern Hindu population is actually heathen=insubvertible, and which ones are actually subvertible=dangerous=gangrene when it comes down to it. The numbers will indicate the certainty of Hindu-dom's decline/eclipse. The inverse is not necessarily true: if the numbers are optimistic, it still does not guarantee victory against the anti-heathenisms, but is still a decent indicator of strength of resistance, and definitely of immunity to subversions.
Therefore, no external influences allowed, no preventative or corrective measures [to curtail vocalists and other modern Hindus from revealing their mental propensities], in order to be able to identify those that are innately perfect (insubvertible, heathen), and those that aren't, and are hence flawed, diseased, to be avoided.]
So glad that the Vanavasi Hindoos at JNU stuck to their Amman. Loyalty [to heathenism, to the Gods] is a great and precious heathen thing, after all. It is a primary force in preventing de-heathenisation and subversion. And insubvertibility is a heathen's only asset and it is innate (to heathens). Surprising how many Hindu "nationalists" and other vocalists don't really possess loyalty - when push comes to shove - despite braying loudly.
And the news was:
1. indiafacts.co.in/tribals-worship-goddess-durga/
WE ARE TRIBALS AND WE WORSHIP GODDESS DURGA
2. indiafacts.co.in/fact-sheet-jnu-mahishasura-day-controversy/
Fact Sheet on the JNU Mahishasura Day Controversy
Compare the article in 2 with the latter half of post 146 (along with the context of posts 147 and 149).
indiafacts.co.in/tribals-worship-goddess-durga/
WE ARE TRIBALS AND WE WORSHIP GODDESS DURGA
Me too: of the Hindoo tribe/collective (and a fellow ur-native of the Hindoo subcontinent), loyal worshipper of Durga Amman, and of all the Gods inhabiting my ancestral home.
2. indiafacts.co.in/fact-sheet-jnu-mahishasura-day-controversy/
Fact Sheet on the JNU Mahishasura Day Controversy
The very christian left conspired to tell Hindus that Mahishasura "must have been" a dravoodian victim of the oryans they invented.
Tragically, only the debile christians and their equally-moronic islamic brethren believed it.
But it's more proof that christians support the jihad because jihadis scratch their back in return, as seen above.
The 2nd item also reminded me directly of posts 146, 147 and 149 (the rest of this post will not make sense without reading those):
* the christo and left (christo-left) inverted re-write of history/backprojection of dravoodianism with Mahishasura now projected as a "dravoodian" victim of some alleged oryan invaders who then allegedly imposed the Vedic religion on the backprojected dravoodians - when the real history is that the Vedic religion is the native religion of India and dravoodianism is a recently invented ideology that has only been able to gain an earlier ancestry by means of backprojection -
* is VERY much like: Rajeev Srinivasan swearing his oath of love and fealty to the backprojection of Buddhism onto Trivikrama/Vamana vs Mahabali account, where Mahabali is now the one being cheered in place of the hero Trivikrama, and Mahabali and his people are suddenly even projected as an allegory for how the religion of the "poor" Buddhists (elsewhere Jains) replaced by "upanishadic Hindus" as per Rajiv. Or Witan's version where the Trivikrama account was allegedly "actually" all about how Mahabali and people were to have been the native "dravoodians" who were oppressed and their religion/identity supplanted by invading oryans (euphemised as/unnamed but implied to be north Indians).
Now, WHERE is the difference between
- the JNU christoterrorists' inverted version with Mahishasura as (allegory for) backprojected dravoodian victimhood from "oryan" Vedic religion, with Durga as the chief villain; when ORIGINALY and historically and truly (and in Hindoo homes to this day), Navaratri/Durga Pooja is all about Durga as the heroine defeating the Mahishasura (who is as much a part of Vedic cosmology as Durga, and has nothing to do with dravoodianism which is a post/colonial construct)
and
- Rajeev's inverted version with Mahabali as allegory for backprojected Buddhist victimhood from Upanishadic Hindus (i.e. Vedic religion), with Trivikrama eclipsed by Rajeev's declaration that Onam is "actually" about Mahabali. When ORIGINALLY and historically and truly (and in Hindoo temples to this day), Onam was all about Vishnu as Trivikrama, with the EQUALLY-Vedic (and pre-Buddhist, not to mention unBuddhist) Mahabali only as a more minor character
and
- Witan's inverted version with Mahabali as (allegory for) backprojected dravoodian victimhood from Vedic religion, with Trivikrama eclipsed by Witan's insistence that Onam is "actually" residual "dravoodian" memory about defeat of dravoodianism/the "south" by the "north", and is hence allegedly about Mahabali as a centre of dravoodian resistance. When ORIGINALLY and historically and truly (and in Hindoo temples to this day), Onam celebrates a native Vedic Hindoo event known to all corners of ethnic Hindoo-dom: it's all about Vishnu as Trivikrama, with the EQUALLY-Vedic Mahabali only as a more minor character (plus dravoodianism - the concept - is unheard of to both Mahabali and Trivikrama. And Mahabali - the Vedic ritualist - would have been the first to crush all the suddenly-invented dravoodianists, for the anti-Vedic vermin* that they are. *Oryanists too, of course).
Shudder. :Unforgivable:
^ So where's the difference? ^
Nowhere. There is NO difference. They're all the same.
JNU christoterrorism = Rajeev's parroting of Buddhism = Witan's parroting of dravoodianism. In fact, the latter were not just parroting, they were peddling, same as JNU's christoterrorism.
The only difference lies in the Hindu audience's treatment of the left-hand side: they object to the lies of the christo-communists of JNU, but they keep quiet (or acquiesce or even applaud) to the lies propagated (though not invented) by Rajiv and Witan.
In other words: it proves as usual that today's Hindus care only about who says something, not about what is said. All the whining of "hurt Hindu sentiments" are play-acting reserved for the Hindu-baiters. Who cares about hurt sentiments. People should care about the truth and legitimate tradition vs speculation/fiction/lies.
Now, since Hindus won't even correct the "Hindu" nationalists peddling falsehoods in their midsts (dravoodianisms and late Buddhist dawaganda), is there any point in objecting to/correcting lies by more obvious Hindu-baiters? <= That's a rhetorical question. The answer is of course that 1. there is no point (in doing things in the wrong order: sane persons would be exposing the errors by people closer to home first, i.e. correcting those claiming to be Hindus); and 2. it is hypocritical to only expose and remonstrate against the blatant lies/moronisms peddled by the anti-Hindus.
[Disclaimer: Of course I have no intention of correcting anyone. I'm just judging people - being a very judgmental person. More specifically, it's because I have a theory about humanity. And every year I have lived, has only confirmed it to be a working theory: that people should naturally do the right thing, with no prompting, with no correcting. That those that are Right, would be Right innately, from the ground up. That, left to themselves, people will reveal what they are made of. And that it is exactly situations where subversionist ideas present themselves, that will naturally reveal people's true tendencies/characters: How they deal with subversionist ideas - whether they fall for it, whether they object, by what arguments they object, etc. Because most everyone falls for one thing or another. So I want to know at which point any given individual keels over. And I want to know which ones won't fall over - which ones won't fit the pattern - and that's the hardest of all to discover. Because there are so many subversions out there and any given person could manage to avoid most, but fall into just one of them. So one wants all the subversions out there thrown at people, just to see how many and which of the modern Hindu population is actually heathen=insubvertible, and which ones are actually subvertible=dangerous=gangrene when it comes down to it. The numbers will indicate the certainty of Hindu-dom's decline/eclipse. The inverse is not necessarily true: if the numbers are optimistic, it still does not guarantee victory against the anti-heathenisms, but is still a decent indicator of strength of resistance, and definitely of immunity to subversions.
Therefore, no external influences allowed, no preventative or corrective measures [to curtail vocalists and other modern Hindus from revealing their mental propensities], in order to be able to identify those that are innately perfect (insubvertible, heathen), and those that aren't, and are hence flawed, diseased, to be avoided.]
So glad that the Vanavasi Hindoos at JNU stuck to their Amman. Loyalty [to heathenism, to the Gods] is a great and precious heathen thing, after all. It is a primary force in preventing de-heathenisation and subversion. And insubvertibility is a heathen's only asset and it is innate (to heathens). Surprising how many Hindu "nationalists" and other vocalists don't really possess loyalty - when push comes to shove - despite braying loudly.
And the news was:
1. indiafacts.co.in/tribals-worship-goddess-durga/
WE ARE TRIBALS AND WE WORSHIP GODDESS DURGA
2. indiafacts.co.in/fact-sheet-jnu-mahishasura-day-controversy/
Fact Sheet on the JNU Mahishasura Day Controversy
Compare the article in 2 with the latter half of post 146 (along with the context of posts 147 and 149).