Some home truths for Ravi Singh Khalsa Aid

[proudkaur21]

1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Secularism in India does not mean the same thing that we know it as the west

There is a reason in India Secular is called Sickular. 

In the west, Secularism means separation of religion and state. In India it means separation of Hindu and state.

The Indian secularists are the dhimmis. 

 

What sickularism are you talking about? That hindu guy mowed down 5 farmers and he is still not in jail. That sadhvi pragya thakur had hands in causing bomb blast and even accepted it and she is not in jail. Hindus can cause riots and are not put in jail. Are you saying the secularism in India is enjoyed by Muslims only? Maybe it was in the start under that nehru and all but this entire country's system has always been anti sikh from the start.

[proudkaur21]

2 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

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.

Okay so you are saying Indian agencies dont spy on us Sikhs in different countries? And you are making the same mistake of Indian Sikhs who think they are free.

[MisterrSingh]

Just now, proudkaur21 said:

They should have just not let Muslims enter. Now they are done for. Same mistake low iq Sikh liberals have been making. I guess western euors didn't have a taste of Islam yet unlike Southern Euros. They are dying to see what it feels like to live under sharia so let it be. We should worry about our own land.

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. 

[Ranjeet01]

27 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

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.

You could say the only reason India is secular is because it is a majority Hindu.

Once it becomes non Hindu, secularism gets thrown away.

This type of system happens in a democracy, where there vote bank and numbers count.

What could happen to save India from Islamisation is to throw away the democratic structure and enforce a more autocratic system where vote bank politics and breeding become irrelevant. 

 

[MisterrSingh]

Just now, proudkaur21 said:

Okay so you are saying Indian agencies dont spy on us Sikhs in different countries? And you are making the same mistake of Indian Sikhs who think they are free.

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? 

[Ranjeet01]

7 minutes ago, proudkaur21 said:

What sickularism are you talking about? That hindu guy mowed down 5 farmers and he is still not in jail. That sadhvi pragya thakur had hands in causing bomb blast and even accepted it and she is not in jail. Hindus can cause riots and are not put in jail. Are you saying the secularism in India is enjoyed by Muslims only? Maybe it was in the start under that nehru and all but this entire country's system has always been anti sikh from the start.

Like I may have pointed out before, this system has a pecking order as to who gets preferential victim status.

Sikhs are bottom of the pile.

[Suchi]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

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?

Islam was supported by Hitler. I have read that the Vatican even created it. 

Islam has been chosen as the religion to unite the world and Muslims are being used as force this. 

The reason for this is multifold. 

1.  It will bring in a worldwide dictatorship. 

2.  Human rights will be removed as Only Allah is Supreme. 

3.  As an Abrahamic religion there is no reincarnation, only heaven and hell so people will be sent to Hell. 

4.  Further along, people will be easily mind controlled to believe that Allah is the only controller.  Therefore we are all Slaves of Allah. 

5.  This fits in nicely with the AI Controller who will take the place of Allah. 

6.  All attempts to merge with God/Waheguru will be blocked through AI tech. 

7.  AI tech will be used to keep people docile, weak, conforming to the Party. Bodies will be replaced with robots. 

8.  Thereafter Islam will be replaced with YaWeh who will reign supreme. 

It's a Spiritual War. 

 

 

 

[proudkaur21]

1 minute ago, MisterrSingh said:

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. 

We have almost 900 years of recorded brutal history of Islamic invasions. Myanmar did the most based thing by kicking them out. They were being targeted everywhere by libtards but said its best to contain the rabid dog now. Libtards be like Buddha didn't teach this blah blah . The monks said f you, no thanks. Can our libtards learn something from them?

[MisterrSingh]

3 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

You could say the only reason India is secular is because it is a majority Hindu.

Once it becomes non Hindu, secularism gets thrown away.

This type of system happens in a democracy, where there vote bank and numbers count.

What could happen to save India from Islamisation is to throw away the democratic structure and enforce a more autocratic system where vote bank politics and breeding become irrelevant. 

 

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.

[proudkaur21]

5 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Is it a cross-party, apolitical policy that transcends partisan lines, i.e. something that remains in place no matter who is voted in? 

Yes. They all hate the idea of Sikh sovereignty and Sikhi prospering.