Miscellaneous News

Ringsword

Junior Member
Registered Member
Monkeys are more effective than police in India.


If it's a measure to prohibit certain channels (like Hezbollah, Resistance Network, Intel Slava, etc) from sharing live war updates, then Twitter will also be affected because as far as I've seen, nearly all the war updates on Twitter originate from Telegram.

Telegram has usually raw data with few details, while Twitter handles reposts that Telegram content with the addition of context which is sometimes false (such as in the case of those -OSINT accounts which add Israeli nonsense to Palestinian/Lebanese raw content).


But Chinese weren't boasting of being or becoming the best, unlike Indians. If you're boasting and proud while standing on a heap of shit, then you deserve to be ridiculed.


1947 was the first time, in thousands of years or maybe ever, that India had a Hindu ruling class in a somewhat united India. So, they have no real experience of running such a large state as Hindus. This is also one of the reasons why foreign conquerors established themselves very easily; because the local Indians have always been shit in administration. More specifically, it is the Sanatan that is the ruling class, not other denominations, many of which refuse to be called Hindu.

Another reason why Hindus couldn't unify India is because the Hindu religious system isn't minority-friendly, which is a problem because India always had significant minority groups - Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and more. That is also why Pakistan was carved out of the British Raj, because many Muslims feared the Hindus would discriminate .. and that is exactly what happens daily to those Muslims who refused to join Pakistan - communal riots, pogroms, genocides, etc.

One such ^^ Muslim state was Hyderbad State that thought they could survive without Pakistan. Less than a year later, they were annexed by India after the Indians massacred 200,000 Muslims (pales in comparison to Palestine).
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Another was the affair of Sikhs who were promised an independent country for siding with Hindus in the war against Pakistan. When the war ended, Indians told them to piss off which started the Sikh separatist movements.

Only way India can progress is if it becomes totally secular, devoid of any Hindu element or if it disintegrates into smaller states, or the third tested and proven option, be administered by a foreign / non-Hindu culture.
Explains easily why the British East India Company (basically Marks &Spencers of UK) can easily conquer entire India-when some of the warrior caste Khastriya-burdened by Hinduism itself-enemies driving "sacred" cattle before them.not fighting at night etc were readily defeated in battle and instead of rallying the people the Brahmin high caste fearful now of their own destruction quickly and readily surrendered to the new Mughal or British overlords ...as long as they -the Brahmin kept all their privileges/wealth and standing over the lower castes as in times pasts while now serving a new master.Nothing has changed and therefore no real progress let alone triumphs.As for stockmarket the cronystic nepotic system where all of Modi's friends like Ambani and Adani -and their friends get very rich skimming/skinning the indian economy.but no benefit to the system /populace except a few crumbs.
 

Chevalier

Captain
Registered Member

This is actually an interesting ethical dilemma for governments; what to do if your national hero is revealed to have committed corruption? Save the image of the role model or carry out legalistic deontology? A consequentionalist would opt for the choice of conferring greatest benefit and assume that hiding the crimes and maintaining the image of the hero would be the correct choice but insofar as i can see, the deontologist legalist position of maintaining rule of law as a demonstration for Chinese youth and other citizens to maintain an upright moral character, is the ultimate good.

In this, we can see the difference between western and Chinese morality. Judging by the kabuki theatre of western politics, they would naturally be more concerned about the image of righteousness, hence their obsession with China's "human rights" whilst invading other countries and locking up their own dissidents. As Putin puts it, the West has no principles and are obsessed with power and are thus comfortable with open, legalised bribery via lobbying whilst contradicting the will of the people eg arms sales and foreign aid to Israel.

Remember this, the next time a western chauvinist dares to assume any sort of moral superiority over Chinese people. In China, at least we have Rule of Law.
 

Randomuser

Junior Member
Registered Member

This is actually an interesting ethical dilemma for governments; what to do if your national hero is revealed to have committed corruption? Save the image of the role model or carry out legalistic deontology? A consequentionalist would opt for the choice of conferring greatest benefit and assume that hiding the crimes and maintaining the image of the hero would be the correct choice but insofar as i can see, the deontologist legalist position of maintaining rule of law as a demonstration for Chinese youth and other citizens to maintain an upright moral character, is the ultimate good.

In this, we can see the difference between western and Chinese morality. Judging by the kabuki theatre of western politics, they would naturally be more concerned about the image of righteousness, hence their obsession with China's "human rights" whilst invading other countries and locking up their own dissidents. As Putin puts it, the West has no principles and are obsessed with power and are thus comfortable with open, legalised bribery via lobbying whilst contradicting the will of the people eg arms sales and foreign aid to Israel.

Remember this, the next time a western chauvinist dares to assume any sort of moral superiority over Chinese people. In China, at least we have Rule of Law.
Constantly living on past glory is how everything gets messed up in the future.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator

This is actually an interesting ethical dilemma for governments; what to do if your national hero is revealed to have committed corruption? Save the image of the role model or carry out legalistic deontology? A consequentionalist would opt for the choice of conferring greatest benefit and assume that hiding the crimes and maintaining the image of the hero would be the correct choice but insofar as i can see, the deontologist legalist position of maintaining rule of law as a demonstration for Chinese youth and other citizens to maintain an upright moral character, is the ultimate good.

In this, we can see the difference between western and Chinese morality. Judging by the kabuki theatre of western politics, they would naturally be more concerned about the image of righteousness, hence their obsession with China's "human rights" whilst invading other countries and locking up their own dissidents. As Putin puts it, the West has no principles and are obsessed with power and are thus comfortable with open, legalised bribery via lobbying whilst contradicting the will of the people eg arms sales and foreign aid to Israel.

Remember this, the next time a western chauvinist dares to assume any sort of moral superiority over Chinese people. In China, at least we have Rule of Law.

Father of Chinese HSR was also in prison for corruption despite creating one of the best rail networks in the world. In the UK, on the other hand, the HSR 2 project expended billions of dollars with nothing to show for it under an open democratic system. There was no corruption supposedly but no one was indicted, and no one knows where the money went.
 
Top