One may not form a coherent and cogent understanding from what one reads and what one perceives. One may not be intellectually capable of deciding what actions to perform out of whatever understanding he may have developed. After all, oftentimes real life situations are very very complex and difficult to deal with.
However, on learning about an act, drawing premature conclusions about the understanding and about the material that was read including those who wrote what was read, is quite simplemindedness. More over, it is hypocritical when a completely orthogonal approach is taken in thousands of other cases which are quite similar.
Consider an example in which a person A (or persons A,B,C), who claim to have read X, Y, Z, kill tens (hundreds) of people. What should be our position? Well, let us tell you what the current practice is:
If A (A,B,C) are Muslims who are inspired (or have read) Koran and kill infidels then the model is:
A, B, C have committed crime, but they are gullible people who were victims (of discrimination, and so on) and were indoctrinated by those who misrepresent an otherwise peaceful writing of Koran. And thus, though A,B,C must be tried for the crimes, utmost care must be taken not to tarnish the beautiful religion of peace called Islam, and not alienate Muslims.
If A is a Norwegian white, who read some stuff including Hindutva and killed those who he thought were collaborators with Muslims then the model is:
In the West:
A is a Christian Fundamentalist who is friendly to Hindutva and thus we must discredit Christianity, Whiteness and Hindutva.
In India, the model will soon reduce to:
Hindu organizations are fundamentalist and they are planning pogroms as they did in Gujarat.
Both the western and Indian people have to learn to call the bluff on this deception.
We are not sitting in judgment over the Norwegian man, nor are we saying that what he did was right. What we are emphasizing is that even before we understand the total picture, we must have the honesty and integrity to follow a consistent approach.
Another point that we must not overlook is that events may be correlated. Hitler ordered killing of Jews. American president ordered nuking of Japan that resulted in killing of millions of Japanese. How are these two events judged? It will be horrible to sympathize with killing of Japanese, right? And yet, the idea to nuke Japan was mooted as that appeared to be an effective way to defeat the Axis forces. Again, we are not rejudging history here, we only want to mention that if the act in Norway has happened as a reaction to somethings that have happened previously, the previous happenings must also be given due credence.
To judge may be easy, but to be wise in judgment is arduous.
Our view is that there is such widespread and gross unfairness and evil that is going on in the name of multiculturalism, affirmative action, secularism, social justice, feminism, socialism, minority rights, and so on; that unless drastic measures are taken quickly enough, the consequences are going to be far far worse. These are ominous signs and it will be insane to ignore these and parroting multi-culti and liberal platitudes.
However, on learning about an act, drawing premature conclusions about the understanding and about the material that was read including those who wrote what was read, is quite simplemindedness. More over, it is hypocritical when a completely orthogonal approach is taken in thousands of other cases which are quite similar.
Consider an example in which a person A (or persons A,B,C), who claim to have read X, Y, Z, kill tens (hundreds) of people. What should be our position? Well, let us tell you what the current practice is:
If A (A,B,C) are Muslims who are inspired (or have read) Koran and kill infidels then the model is:
A, B, C have committed crime, but they are gullible people who were victims (of discrimination, and so on) and were indoctrinated by those who misrepresent an otherwise peaceful writing of Koran. And thus, though A,B,C must be tried for the crimes, utmost care must be taken not to tarnish the beautiful religion of peace called Islam, and not alienate Muslims.
If A is a Norwegian white, who read some stuff including Hindutva and killed those who he thought were collaborators with Muslims then the model is:
In the West:
A is a Christian Fundamentalist who is friendly to Hindutva and thus we must discredit Christianity, Whiteness and Hindutva.
In India, the model will soon reduce to:
Hindu organizations are fundamentalist and they are planning pogroms as they did in Gujarat.
Both the western and Indian people have to learn to call the bluff on this deception.
We are not sitting in judgment over the Norwegian man, nor are we saying that what he did was right. What we are emphasizing is that even before we understand the total picture, we must have the honesty and integrity to follow a consistent approach.
Another point that we must not overlook is that events may be correlated. Hitler ordered killing of Jews. American president ordered nuking of Japan that resulted in killing of millions of Japanese. How are these two events judged? It will be horrible to sympathize with killing of Japanese, right? And yet, the idea to nuke Japan was mooted as that appeared to be an effective way to defeat the Axis forces. Again, we are not rejudging history here, we only want to mention that if the act in Norway has happened as a reaction to somethings that have happened previously, the previous happenings must also be given due credence.
To judge may be easy, but to be wise in judgment is arduous.
Our view is that there is such widespread and gross unfairness and evil that is going on in the name of multiculturalism, affirmative action, secularism, social justice, feminism, socialism, minority rights, and so on; that unless drastic measures are taken quickly enough, the consequences are going to be far far worse. These are ominous signs and it will be insane to ignore these and parroting multi-culti and liberal platitudes.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated. Please read the About Us page. If you have outright disagreement, then you may not have much use commenting. You are free to record your disagreements in a civil manner. Repeated abuse, and irrelevant postings will be removed. Please avoid advertisements.
This blog does not honor political correctness. If your comment is posted, this does not mean that this blog endorses your views.
While I allow anonymous comments, please quote your twitter account if you want to have a referenced discussion.
There is a Suggestions Page, please post your suggestions regarding this blog as comments on that page.