MisterrSingh

Is it the debts and loans that lead to them taking their own lives? Do their wives and children not get saddled with the debt?

Don't you dare badmouth our Essayi Bhai. ??

When the majority are brain-dead or slavish, who exactly is someone who doesn't fall into these categories going to stand with? Will anyone with even a little self respect tolerate having 5hit talked about them by brain-dead slaves?

This naivety on your part that I appreciate stems from religious preachers and figureheads is why we'll end up extinct. What pure form of Sanatan Hindu dharam was niece-fondling, racist Bald Gandhi practicing when he managed to maneuver himself into such powerful positions? What khattar form of Islam was Jinnah following when his pork and alcohol consuming self managed to wrangle a country for his co-religionists? Yet Sikhs are expected to have the spiritual knowledge, morals, and ethics of 10 Gurus coupled with the martial prowess of Baba Deep Singh before they're even given a sniff of leadership. That's unless you happen to be a celebrity; then you be whatever you feel like as long as you dress up and get the proles over-excited at a rally. Today's Sikhs will never be mini-Guru Sahibs and we certainly should never aspire to be nachne-tapne people. Relinquish this delusion because with every passing year we are arriving closer to the end.

I think that's too simplistic an assessment. With the kind of administration (in terms of ideology) currently leading India, an intelligent and farsighted Sikh leadership would've made it a priority to get as much done in our favour by playing the game by further isolating the globalist-aligned Congressis. We acknowledge the growing Muslim problem in Punjab, and we should've worked with the faction that also wants a solution to it. Then, depending on circumstances, we back off and see where the water flows, and push forward our specific interests that DON'T align with the big Hindu monolith. That's how smart leadership works, not shouting jakare at random intervals. Because as I've said previously, if Congress is a no-go (which I agree with) and BJP is off limits, the how the frig is anything going to get done? What's our leverage and bargaining power where we have so much ego and pride?

Got to remember the globalization aspect of it, too. Media and propaganda from the West is SO incessant. Just look at attempts to isolate and harm Russia through economic sanctions and soft cultural policies such as banning Russian sportspeople from competing. Sports aside, I don't think India or a potential Sikh land could ever survive concerted economic and psychological warfare of that kind.

They certainly do, but I'm confused about who specifically is doing it all? "Indians" is just vague. Is it a cross-party, apolitical policy that transcends partisan lines, i.e. something that remains in place no matter who is voted in?

That's exactly the problem that will face our own potential land if secular sants like Ravi Singh ever involve themselves in issues of Sikh self-determination! This is why I raised the subject. Do you think they just happen to insert themselves into these influential positions by luck? The "payoff" comes decades later once they've established themselves decades earlier. It's not accidental.

I've come to accept, on principle, this isn't a negative once the shackles of secular and enlightenment emotional blackmail is discarded. In a hypothetical Sikh state, would you want these same dhimmis advocating for a secular Sikh state that will - 100+ years in the future - come to resemble an Islamic or non-Sikh land? There's no point in any of the struggle if a group just breeds their way into demographic change. Eventually, a government will need to stand up and say, "We don't want ANY of this particular religion / group in this country. We don't wish you any harm, but you can't come in, and those who are already here need to leave." There's no other possible way to overcome this issue in a peaceful way before letting the "problem" grow roots.

It does beg the question regarding India of all places: why would Indian law create a backdoor for a group such as Muslims to almost colonise a land (over the imperceptible course of decades) through legislation that was originally created, supposedly, as part of a secular constitution? Who or what decided that was a good idea, and more importantly why?

Amusing to hear this when there's upcoming non-Congress Indian intellectuals who are arguing the same about their own Hindu temples not being free. There's apparently certain laws embedded in Indian legislation that prioritise secularism at the expense of the integrity and autonomy of Hindu religious practices, i.e. the immediate surrounding land on which Hindu temples are built in India isn't owned by the outfit that runs the day-to-day matters of the temple. That's why you get Muslims able to buy beef processing factories on that same land in order to pi55 off these Hindus. And we all know that in a country where secularism is publicly espoused while being home to millions of a specific sand-dwelling religion and its followers, secularism will lead to Islamisation if left unchecked. Eventually, that beef factory will become a mosque. That's the plan. Open your eyes to the nuance. Don't get your ideas on India and politics from uncles sipping on tea, sharing conspiracy theories from the 80s and 90s in the gurdwara langar hall.

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

The past couple of years has seen the issue tentatively being broached in a serious academic context (as opposed to the immediate and almost reflexive revulsion across the board of earlier times), which is usually a precursor to eventual normalisation. I was reading a few weeks ago about how homosexuality went from being classified as a mental disorder to being downgraded by the Psychiatric Association of America (I think) post-1960s and 1970s. That was when it started to be propagandised in the media as a life choice. When academic journals and professors start to frame the discussion around paedophiles as one where the perpetrator is misunderstood and the victim of prejudice, you might as well accept normalisation is around the corner. However, thinking it through (not that I want to, lol), the logistics of it don't make sense. A child obviously comes with parents in most situations. No sane parent is going to allow their child to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult. Bad things will happen to any adult who tries to commandeer a child by force. Will the media launch a demonisation campaign against parents or adults who won't allow these relationships? Will there be "paedophobia" legislation to protect paedophile rights? Is the lowering of voting age a peripheral contributor to the narrative that children are capable of making adult decisions? Doesn't make sense unless parents are so out of it that they won't care or be able to control their kids which is a possibility. Also, I feel there's a hidden aspect to paedo stuff that goes across political lines. It's definitely not a Left-Right situation.

I'd like to think I'm a bit more lucid than that, lol! As to the gist of the remainder of your post, it's nothing I already don't know. Some terms are interchangeable here and there. They get thrown around in the heat of the moment. With each passing year, the lines blur with increasing frequency. But as you well know - and as you've selected not to see the distinction in order to construct a leg for your argument on which it can stand - I use the term Marxist "liberally" (?) and it's almost always in the context of Culture (captial 'C'); the context makes it very clear. Your attempt to denigrate my stance comes from the political and economic aspects of Marxism, which almost always enters through the markedly more acceptable gateway ideology of Socialism. Don't get me wrong, Socialism - before it inevitably goes full-Communism once it drip-feeds populations into developing a dependency on its tantalizing mores - has many benefits (no pun intended) and is actually something quite positive overall. The problem is that Socialism is never intended to remain just as Socialism. It's the cannabis of the political-ideological world; a gateway drug that leads to harder and more dangerous dependencies. This may come as a shock for someone of your particular head-space and worldview, but I actually don't like the idea that people have befallen some horrible fate in the past, or people are suffering in the present, or knowing that some great suffering will arrive once I'm long gone because of completely avoidable courses of action that COULD be taken in the present but aren't because of men and women like you. You've heard the phrase, "A wise man is he who plants a tree knowing he'll never feel the comfort of its shade"? The reason I get passionate about the world I see around me is because I'm not looking at the picture from the odd 60-70 years I have on this planet. I take in the grand sweep of history from thousands of years prior to my existence to at least a few decades or centuries when I'm dust. I'm not a fortune teller but I can extrapolate what is most likely to happen based on what HAS happened prior. And I don't like where things are heading if history is any indication (and it always is). I laugh when hateful, petty, vindictive, and generally small individuals proffer visions of a bright, equitable, and positive future that will supposedly arrive if only their devilish ideology is allowed to be expressed unhindered; usually when millions of people they disagree with will need to be eliminated for this dream utopia to be realised. That's what it's like trying to digest your opinions when you wax lyrical about the need for tolerance and justice after reading 10 years of your posts where you just can't stop mentioning how much you hate a particular demographic belonging to your own religious background. So you'll forgive me if I place very little stock in anything you have to say that expresses something hopeful and decent for humanity when your own sense of humanity has several conspicuously chasm-like blind-spots. Maybe you should start closer to home, bucko?

You're just imagining things. Go and make some saunf tea, watch some Netflix, and relax. Everything's going to be fine.

Nevermind his cabinet, check his dinner table and his family tree! ?

The religion that breeds extremism is defended and protected from being labelled as such by a certain brand of SIKH, but Sikhs advocating for self-interests are labelled as budding... terrorists and extremists by SIKHS. This is some paagal world going on here. Our paggs are too tight and Fixo has hardened our beards, making our faces stiff, constricting the oxygen to our brains, because I can't think of anything else to explain this nonsense.

You really love your advocates of Soviet-era social and political ideologies, don't you? ? Defend Trotsky (Jagsaw declared himself a Trotskyite). I dare you.

Realistically, I think that whole Covenant with "God" and 'the Chosen People' narrative has bred an incredible sense of entitlement in them that no subsequent group has been able to challenge. Even Jewish atheists (they refer to themselves as cultural Jews) exhibit much of the same pride and entitlement as the religious types. If you read their Torah and Talmud you'd realise it's not so different from the Koran in terms of depravity and bloodthirstiness. Ironic that Muslim scriptures get hammered for their contents, when the Jewish scriptures are comparable in content but nobody puts them under the microscope. All religions have a supremacist outlook. That's how they try to convince people to adhere to their beliefs AND inspire fear in opposing religions. "Raaj Karega Khalsa" isn't going to happen by handing out langar, is it? ?

Typical American ignorance. Thinks socialised healthcare through taxation is equatable to Marxist policies of equity. Are bin-men agents of a Marxist state? Are the civil service Marxist lackeys?

Sadha khoon teh sadhi aatmic shakti peeni. So I've heard. I'm not sure I buy it.

They're out there, and they're getting sick and tired of being used as punching bags as well as Trojan Horses by politicians, media, genuine bigots and patronising "allies" who imprint the bigotry of low expectations on these people. When blacks finally stand up and make their voices heard in a way that doesn't involve them being manipulated by Marxists who want to use them as golems and proxies to take the fight to whites, it will signal a change in the course of history. Unfortunately, they're mostly Christians. ?

Anyone who sees any similarities between Jews & Israel and Sikhs & Khalistan (beyond their respective minority status) doesn't have a grasp of either Sikhs & Khalistan and Israel & Jews. It's beyond laughable to draw ANY comparisons between the two. It's downright ignorant of not only history, but religion and sociology. This is the kind of take you'd read in an English language Punjabi local newspaper that you can find stacked up in any langar hall across the UK. The Jewish elite and its Machine are so powerful they literally have to downplay their reach and impact as the eternal, downtrodden minority so as not to draw attention to their power and capabilities, which is why you get Sikhs believing we're anything like them. Why do Sikhs who see these comparisons never mention the historical and continuing British and American patronage of Jewish causes and Israel; two of the greatest empires in the history of humanity? Why no mention of the one family and financial house established in the Middle Ages that virtually bankrolled the establishment of Israel? Where's that support for Sikhs? Instead, we see the same room-level IQ arguments stemming from Sikhs getting gassed after watching Schindler's List.

I'm not responding to a liar who chooses to ignore my very carefully selected words and opinions in order to push through his propaganda diatribes. Anyone can go back to my earlier posts in this thread and see the distinctions I've made between various groups. Don't put lies in my f*****g mouth.