Left-liberalism may be seen as a dark, inverted form of Dharma where Gods are replaced by the Client Groups, Brahman is replaced by the Omnicause, Yajña is replaced by Protests, Brāhmaṇas and priests (who answer only to the gods) are replaced by Left-wing academics and activists (who answer only to the Client Groups), other elites are replaced by “Liberals” who are the vanguard of the Left, Mokṣa is replaced by “Liberation” that is the unattainable endpoint of the recursive revolution, the Trivarga Puruṣārtha is abandoned for a totalizing commitment to this all-consuming dharma and the Ṛṇatraya are waived off (waiving off debts being a typical manner by which western religions have gained converts).
—a great man.
This section outlines a complete theory of the Left.
3.1.1Value vs the Noble Savage
The central principle of the Left is the hatred of Value (wealth/technology, order/civilization, morality) and the worship of the “Noble Savage” (whichever element of society or the world is lacking in any form of Value), or really (as we will see in point 3) the worship of “Noble Savagedom”1, the quality of lacking Value3.1.I.They express this in their views on every political and cultural topic. Criminals and Terrorists over Productive Humans. Ruinous or backward religions and cultures over those which bring Value. Nature over Man. Childlessness over Reproduction. Poverty and stagnation over Wealth and Growth. Mental illness and “trauma” over normalcy. Revisionist history that claims that primitive isolated tribes or barbarian steppe nomads were actually great and geniuses.
You could say—maybe they don’t actually worship backwardness, they just don’t want stigma and hate towards it, they just feel empathy. But you will never see the Left say “let’s normalize this” for something good and productive, e.g. “let us normalize working really hard and siring many children”; no, it’s always “let’s normalize having anxiety and shoplifting” “let’s normalize being a single mother with 10 abortions who never shows up to work then sues her employer for firing her”. Problems are never meant to be solved or cured: only perpetuated. They justify this by pretending that “working really hard and siring many children” or “man’s conquest over nature” are already somehow the hegemonic ideology and they need to normalize and destigmatize the more marginalized ways of life. But they are the hegemonic ideology, and these old Faustian2 beliefs have been pathologized.
Even aside from serious political and cultural topics, the Left expresses this belief in every aspect of their lives. Have you noticed the “millennial snot” that Western liberals speak in? “middle-aged PhDs with prestigious careers, talking like snotty teenagers or sassy black drag queens”3? The early Hindus held the culture of Kuru-Pañcāla to be the high culture that all men everywhere should emulate; Islam held Arab culture as highest. Left-liberalism holds the subaltern or Dehāt of society as high culture.The key in-universe rationalization4 needed to justify this ideology is that of Oppression.
3.1.2Oppression
Progressivism is the belief that if people behave badly, that is because the world has mistreated *them*, so they are the greatest victims.
The various rationalizations for these oppression narratives are ephemeral—they can critique “majoritarianism” on one hand, and on the other support “bahujan”/jitnā-ābādi-utnā-haq politics, “the 99% vs the 1%” or 2 billion Muslims against 10 million Jews; they can talk about how historical oppression still matters because of “societal trauma” yet attack Jews or ignore the fact that 200 years ago everyone was dirt-poor and suppressed; they can celebrate immigration and multiculturalism yet seethe at Israeli “settlers” (who simply immigrated there as refugees), support linguistic parochialisms in India against Hindu cosmopolitanism, etc. What is eternal and fundamental is the worship of the Noble Savage.
3.1.3Perpetuation of Noble Savagedom
In the Pre-Leftist era, normal human civilizations saw the backwardness of any groups and entities as something to be abolished in the due course of industrialization and Sanskṛtization—instead, the Left sacralizes the Resistance of these groups to upliftment/Sanskṛtization, perpetuating their poverty—they never intend the material upliftment of the Noble Savage3.1.III—after all, they despise exactly what would benefit the Noble Savage: Value. To them, the Noble Savage must remain backward, poor and seething with hate against Value: fullfilling its role as the object of worship for the Left and satisfying the Left’s thirst for material proof of its oppression theology.Much like Yājñavalkya says “Not for love of a husband is a husband/wife dear, but for the love of Ātman a husband/wife is dear”, the Left thinks “Not for love of some group/entity is that group/entity dear, but for the love of Noble Savagedom (lack of Value) is that group/entity dear”. Thus much like Yājñavalkya wished enlightenment/self-knowledge for his beloved Maitreyi, the Left wishes the perpetuation of Noble Savagedom/backwardness for their beloved client groups.
3.1.4Class traitors
Any Noble Savage group (or members thereof) who truly seeks to break free of their backwardness and uplift/Sanskṛtize themselves are seen as “colonized” by Value—or worse, condemned as Class Traitors (though “moderates” may use them as positive examples to attract outsiders into the cult of Noble Savage Worship3.1.IV). “Liberation” never means true upliftment of the Noble Savage, but the teardown of Value, pulling everyone down to the same level. Thus the Noble Savage entities simultaneously serve two purposes: gods to be worshipped, and slaves to be kept downtrodden so they can be mobilized for a revolt against Value.
3.1.5Zero-sum framing
The zero-sum framing of “oppression” means that any policy that creates the maximal deadweight loss or damage to Value is regarded as service to the Noble Savage. Leftists never accept positive-sum solutions or “simple solutions” to the problems they care deeply about—such a solution is regarded as blasphemous, because3.1.V:Such a solution contradicts the fundamental tenet of zero-sumness: that the successful are successful because they oppress, and the Noble Savage is backward because it is oppressed.
The Left’s fundamental goal is to further division, resentment and strife—i.e. a “class war”—a positive-sum solution contradicts this goal.
The Left doesn’t care about solving the problem. They fetishize the costs you are willing to pay in the service of stated goals, because that is what proves religious fervor. If you don’t excuse the rape rings, terrorism and constitutional overreach, do you even care about civil rights? If you don’t destroy the global economy for it, do you even care about climate? If you don’t censor anyone who disagrees with consensus, do you even care about COVID? Simple solutions are despised by the Leftist like lab-grown diamonds are despised by a gold-digger—they think “if you have not paid great costs to solve the problem, are you even devoted to it/me?”
In Reality, all our interests are roughly aligned. Regardless of class, race, caste, gender and gayness level we all benefit from economic liberty and growth, industrialization, BVILDing, REPRODVCtion, crushing crime and terrorism and the ideologies that support them, greater cultural vitality and FAVSTIAN-ness etc. The Leftist Ideological Aether, however, compels us to only focus on those matters that can be used to sow dissension between groups—because it feeds into their oppression theology and the leftist bloodsport of class warfare.
One apparent exception is Islam: surely, Muslims aren’t being “fooled” by Left-liberals into sacralized backwardness, they are genuinely being benefited by them? This apparent contradiction disappears when you distinguish between Islam and the material interests of the people who happen to follow it. Islam isn’t a race, after all, but itself an ideology, much like Leftism, that subverts the races it has conquered. Ummah made Iran sacrifice its future and turn itself into a pariah state for the sake of thankless Palestinian terrorists, and makes the descendants of Rājā Dahir sing songs cursing him in their schools. This is a humiliation ritual that demands you spit on your ancestors and worship those who committed unspeakable atrocities against them—and demands that regardless of your background, how poor you/your country may be, whatever challenges you may have in your personal life, you must subjugate all those interests for the sake of an invisible ideology. It is just that these races have been so thoroughly conquered by Islam that we forget that they even have material interests of their own besides the ideology that subverts them (section 4.4.2).It is this fact: that Islam is itself an Ideological Client Group—i.e. one which already justifies the perpetuation of this moral backwardness in scripture—that makes Muslims such a favoured client group for the Left. They never have to worry about a Muslim saying “Wait a minute, maybe I don’t like this toxic relationship where I must remain morally backward in order to be the sacred object of the Left”—because anyone who says that would simply be an ex-Muslim (and therefore not favoured in the first place).
3.1.6Experts and Śruti
3.1.7Monism/the Omnicause
The Noble Savage is not restricted to some specific racial groups or classes—in the Leftist theology, any one of us may play the role of the Noble Savage relative to our respective “Oppressors”. Much like we say “[Kṛṣna] is Indra among gods, Meru among mountains, Bṛhaspati among priests, Auṃ among sounds” and so on—the Left says: “The Oppressed is the subaltern and indigenous (i.e. primitive), against Civilization; criminals and terrorists against bourgeoise conceptions of morality; Society at large against its most productive elements (Billionaires, Corporations etc); inanimate Nature against Man; but humans against Machines and Property (for those inanimate objects have Value, they are the product of human achievement, and therefore evil); sloth, antiwork, childlessness and various dehātī degeneracies against moral behaviour” and so on. Just as we say “Ahaṃ Brahmāsmi”—they see this ideal of the Noble Savage in all of us, every element of the world when it provides “Resistance” against Value; every degenerate or anti-Value behaviour from it is a form of resistance and revolt to be worshipped as a manifestation of the holy Omnicause. Even the relative positions of different gods in the leftist “hierarchy” change with time and context, depending on who “earns” their place as the Noble Savage and who loses it by being Class Traitors. Thus: the old “proletariat” lost favour in the American left as the blue-collar working class embraced capitalism, rejected unions and stopped seeing themselves as economic victims for the most part; India lost favour with the Left as it proved its economic potential and increasing cultural assertiveness; Secular Arab dictators lost favour as Islamist extremists out-Noble-Savaged them; Gulf Arab states (especially the UAE and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia) lost favour when they stopped supporting terrorism and adopted a healthier vision of modernity. This may lead to “infighting” within the Left. Should we worship the Razakars for the atrocities they committed against Hindus, or should we worship the communists who revolted against their rule? Should we worship transgenders, or should we be Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists? Should we worship Burkina Faso, or should we worship the gays they oppress? Should we worship girlboss feminists, or is that bad because they’re still upholding capitalism? However, this kind of infighting is something the Left is anti-fragile to, i.e. it is strengthened by such infighting, because it structures the entire debate towards the end of proving oneself the better Noble Savage. It is analogous to in-fighting within Islam where groups try to prove themselves the better Muslim or having done more jihad than other subgroups.Each individual group or entity is merely a god, small-g—whose position in the oppression pyramid is as ephemeral as the position of any particular deva in our pantheon—while the Platonic ideal of Noble Savagedom and his liberation is the eternal Omnicause, the monistic unification of all causes, as paramount to them as Brahman is to us.
Notes
3.1.I: Re: Noble Savage
Wealth, economic growth, new technologies, civilization, morals like “do not steal/kill/do terrorism” are regarded as fundamentally evil, simply because there are still people still lacking in them. This is the root of arguments like “we should not go to space as long as there is even a single person hungry on Earth!” and ludditism against new technologies on the basis that it will create “inequality” as not everybody will have them.“But the technologies will eventually reach the poorest (as they always have),” you say, “Why adopt such a zero-sum attitude?”
The Leftist looks at you aghast: “That is even worse! That is colonization!”3.1.II: Re: Creation of Oppression narratives
The most damning falsification of “the Left looks out for the oppressed” is the Left’s patronization of Muslims (perhaps the literal least-persecuted group in the world—as well as responsible for the greatest amount of persecution of other groups) and their active enablement and running cover for the persecution of Hindu, Christian and other minorities in Muslim states. If you take away the left-tinted goggles for one second and look objectively at Islamic beliefs as articulated by “normal” Muslims among themselves (including by those in non-Muslim countries), it is simply a Nazi-tier supremacist ideology against non-Muslims. And one cannot use the “yes but they are themselves oppressed/racism is prejudice + power” argument either, given that Muslims are in no sense oppressed, and also possess a considerable amount of power both in their countries and in those in which they are minorities.Yet, the Left justifies it by creating an oppression narrative about Muslims.
Take, for instance, the widely dominant narrative created around “9/11 reprisal killings”, to the point that on every anniversary of 9/11 the media discourse is exclusively about reprisal killings and “Islamophobia”, Americans were told that they could atone for their sin of Islamophobia by electing Zohran Mamdani and even multiple Indian films were made about the tragedy of “Islamophobia in America after 9/11”. In reality, the total tally of “Islamophobia-motivated” reprisal killings from 9/11 was: 2 Hindus, 2 Muslims, 2 Whites, 1 Sikh, 1 Indian Christian5. For comparison, 3000 people (including 250 Indians) were killed in the attacks themselves. Public favourability of Muslims in America massively shot up after 9/11 (figure 2.1). The narrative created is not based in real oppression—rather, it is invented to justify the Left-liberal patronage of Islamic terrorists as a group, which must itself is the consequence of totally different principles (namely, the worship of whoever is morally rotten).And Muslims are not an exception. If you explain to a Leftist, with incontrovertible statistics and bodycam recordings, that American blacks are not unfairly targeted by police officers, or that the greatest challenges facing Dalits in India are not “oppression by Brahmins”—they will not be relieved (as you would expect someone who genuinely cares for these groups to react). Instead, they will react with outrage that you dared to question this core part of their theology.
Thus the leftist conception of who is “oppressed” is not based in reality, but rather only in the leftist theology where this oppression is used as the in-universe rationalization for patronizing that group.
3.1.III: Re: Perpetuation of Noble Savagedom
Ultimately, this is the reason for the perpetuation of the “caste system” in India into the modern era. In other societies, similar and worse systems disappeared as the “subaltern” groups climbed the ranks in the course of industrialization (with the exception of the short-lived French revolution, this happened peacefully and without notice). India’s industrialization was delayed by the British and Left-liberal Rājs, and it only started to industrialize after the rise of Left-liberalism: thus the Dalits and others were turned by the Congress and its partners into a sacred category who had to live in eternal poverty in order to satisfy the Left’s thirst for material proof of its oppression theology. Indeed, Dalits did not make any great material progress after decades of reservations, but have massively grown economically since the economic liberalization of 1991 as noted by Swaminathan Aiyer: Capitalism’s Assault on the Indian Caste System: How Economic Liberalization Spawned Low-Caste Dalit Millionaires.This also explains the religious condemnation of “sweatshops”/labor arbitrage, the “gig economy”, health tourism to poorer countries etc. They do not try to provide the poor with better economic opportunities than sweatshops or gig economies—they simply want to take away what limited opportunities they do have. Sure, they do so expressing “empathy” to the poor rather than with open hatred—the hatred is instead directed to the employers who are portrayed as oppressors for not giving the poor enough (even though you, the subhuman Leftist, gives them nothing). Wages are lower in poorer countries due to lack of opportunities—the fact that the people there voluntarily choose to work in these jobs implies that the other opportunities (or lack of opportunities) are worse, and anyone with a basic level of intelligence can tell you that taking away the opportunities they do have does not help them whatsoever. Indeed, as the rise of China and also literally every other industrialized country has shown, that is very much a necessary stepping stone in the transition to higher-productivity industries—which the Left has for decades locked India and other poor nations out of with excuses like “labor dignity”.
The aspirational Dehātism of the Mlecchavādi camp that is the root of such policy-making should be seen in the light of modernity and its fostering of powerlessness as a virtue.
Contrary to expectations, the creation of the Scheduled Castes has not integrated our brethren into the mainstream, instead strengthening the differences between them and the rest of society in socio-political terms, if not economically.
The rise of a small beneficiary elite within, instead of manning the movement for greater prosperity among the oppressed, has forged for them a new class of kulaks, self-interested in keeping them in perpetual submission to exploit state-welfare.
It is their strategy to claim that the condition of their brethren is worse than ever. They tend to minimize the importance of the economic problems that are involved with the lower classes and instead read all reality in terms of caste and caste struggles.
This is part of the democratic tendency to victimization (Pascal Bruckner talks about this). Self-victimization is seductive because it promises a pedestal of moral purity that elevates these groups beyond typical ethical scrutiny. The allure of a “perpetual innocence”.
It’s a means to eschewing responsibility towards societal maturity, to justify vindictive “oppression” of the “oppressor”, and dwell in self-infantilising entitlement.
Regardless of whether such claims of victimhood are true or not, it is weaponised as social currency to sell in the markets to engender support for their political establishment.
It fundamentally denies, or takes away, the agency of its client-groups, to the woe of both the oppressed and the oppressor, for the former is denied its own path to integration within larger society, and the latter must suffer malice of certain elements using it as a shield for licenses of impunity and against criticisms.
What is it with prioritising emotional vindication over resolution? These movements aimed at justice devolve into self-perpetuating victim narratives.
The very nature of affirmative action that has emerged in this country encourages an attitude of entitlement that sees it as an ends to their cause rather than a mean to full participation in civic and economic life:
“We will perpetually remain in revanchist ressentiment sitting on top of affirmative action for eternity, this is our goal”.
This sentiment is infantilising and reduces the Dalit to a whining victim, it’s corrosive and parasitic by its very nature and is detestable.
Contemporary intersectional leftism has interestingly enough defanged Ambedkarism.
When Ambedkar started out his movement, he wanted some kind of a higher culture for SCs to act as a vehicle of upliftment and pride. Since Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism and Christianity already had strong vanguard classes in India which would put SCs in a weaker position, he chose Buddhism since it was largely abandoned by the Indian upper classes which had once played a pivotal role in it.
The reason for adapting Buddhism was to give SCs a sense of community without the degraded caste status that they had been accorded otherwise.
But Buddhism is also a religion of discipline and high morals, and so he’d hoped that over time his people would inculcate these values and rise up in society. Enter intersectional leftism, Jai Bhim slogans alongside rainbow flags, free Kashmir, free the nipple, regionalist movements, OBCs talking about increasing quotas for themselves, and a dozen other movements.
This has effectively done what is called “muddling the waters”. A movement cannot be successful if it has too many goals ... eventually the less confused group comes out on top.
Coming back, modern Ambedkarite movements are a confused mishmash of all the things pioneered inside a HQ of some NGO. So modern day Ambedkarites want to do everything from abolishing Hinduism, to freeing women, to Palestine, to everything else except what they were supposed to do: upliftment of their own community.
3.1.IV: Re: Use of “Class traitors” by moderate libs
For example, the Congress in India uses the relatively better record of Akbar to run cover for the atrocities of Mughal Rule. But had Muslim Rule in its totality really been as enlightened as they portray it, the Left/Congress would not have been so fond of it in the first place, and would instead deconstruct and subvert Islam with oppression narratives as they do with Hinduism. And indeed, the purer versions of our Congressis—i.e. our beloved neighbours to the North-west—condemn Akbar as an apostate, i.e. a class traitor. The case of Akbar may also be compared to “dictatorship of the proletariat” and “girlboss feminism”.3.1.V: Re: The Leftist bloodsport of Class warfare
The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.
Feminist apologia for rape
Merely two weeks after the Nirbhaya rape case, prominent feminist groups and feminists (including Kavita Krishnan) signed a petition against the death penalty to the rapists arguing that:
As seen in countries like the US, men from minority communities make up a disproportionate number of death row inmates
[...] The logic of awarding death penalty to rapists is based on the belief that rape is a fate worse than death. Patriarchal notions of “honour” lead us to believe that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a woman.
and instead urged Indians to “challenge this stereotype of the destroyed woman who loses her honour”, and focus on the “culture of impunity” and the “patriarchy” because “rape is a tool of patriarchy”.
(the victim had already died from the rape.)
For some reason, the petition then went on to repeat the debunked and libellious hoax that the Indian army had “raped and murdered” two women named Neelofar and Aasiya in Kashmir (this had already been disproven and rejected by courts at the time). As an alternative to the death penalty, the petition demanded “Greater dignity, equality, autonomy and rights for women and girls from a society that should stop questioning and policing their actions at every step”, gender sensitization training for police officers (yes, seriously), an “audit” of the National Commission of Women, and punishing, not actual criminals, but ... Indian army-men fighting Naxals and terrorists in Kashmir.
This—the left-wing feminist approach to rape—is perhaps the most illuminating example of the left-wing approach towards the problems they outrage about. Nothing is aimed at solving the problem—rather, the problem is used as a tool, the victim’s grave is stood on, to:Create strife between groups (in this case women against men)
Recruit those who sympathize with victims into the Omnicause: “Do you hate rape? That’s actually a special case of patriarchy. And criminals and terrorists are just as much victims of the patriarchy as you are!”
Rapists catching heat? → Blame “all men” instead.
TMC openly using rape as a political tool? → blame “all men”.
Women being persecuted in Muslim countries/by Muslim personal code in India? → blame “all men”, equate their horriffic oppression with some random grievance about your father or boyfriend or employer.
The good-faith explanation of this is the Streetlight effect: the guy who knows he dropped his keys in the dark, but searches under the streetlight because he’s afraid of the dark.
But these people also without exception support Left-liberals and all of their activist groups and policies that cause these problems in the first place, and fight tooth-and-nail any right-wing attempt to fix them.
they are soft on crime (the last death penalty in India was for Nirbhaya; anti-death penalty activists like Indira Jaisingh routinely brag on Twitter about saving some child-rapist or murderer from death row)
they defend the TMC (or the commies before them, whom they learned to use rape as a political tool from)
they support Muslim personal law, and all of the moral corruption in Indian muslim society that comes with it
heck, they even fight for the “rights” (read: supremacy or favouritism) or even separatism of the very groups that commit these crimes.
Islamic terrorism
People often think of the “what about the backlash against peaceful Muslims?” focus of Leftists as “Muslim ethno-narcissism”—i.e. they put the feelings of Muslims over the lives of countless others.But it is not even ethno-narcissism.
Even if you valued the feelings of Muslims or possible retaliatory violence against a few Muslims over thousands of non-Muslim lives, the best way to prevent that backlash would still be to just stop Muslim terrorism.
The fact that this is not their solution means that they quite literally just support terrorism. For “ordinary, non-terrorist Muslims”, out of religion; and for Leftists because they see it as a legitimate “revolt of the subaltern” and that, as they explicitly say, it is us Hindus who are a saḍā huā samāj for not tolerating the idea of getting murdered.
The thing that makes this hard to grasp is that Islam is itself an ideology like Leftism which subjugates the material interests of its adherents to itself. As it is so entrenched in the minds of Muslims, we forget that the people who follow Islam do have their own material interests diametrically opposed to Islam—they have just long forgotten it.
Dalits
If you take off the Left-tinted lenses for a minute, you realize how farcical it is that the Left/Congress try to portray themselves as the representative of Dalits.All Hindus—whether GC, OBC, SC or ST—still suffer from the decades of stagnant growth under Nehruvian socialism: SCs disproportionately so, in fact: their living conditions only began to improve after the Gandhi family was removed from power (see Swaminathan Aiyer’s’ Capitalism’s Assault on the Indian Caste System). Hindus of all castes have lost lives to the terror attacks that were encouraged by the Left and were a routine affair under Congress Rāj. Hindus of all castes benefit from the same policies: free markets, cultural and political sovereignty, national security, building industries and apartments and railroads and ports and infrastructure.
But in the Leftist theology, Dalits may not have the same aspirations, economic interests or religious life as everybody else. No, their interests may only lie in those issues which may be used to create disunity between castes—the meaning of their lives must be subjugated for the sake of the Leftist bloodsport of creating division and strife.
When Indira Gandhi massacred Hindu saints and devotees on Gopashtami in 1966, she killed UC and Dalit alike. When Mulayam Singh Yadav’s government fired on Hindu devotees in Ayodhya in 1990, he did not care if he was killing Brāhmaṇas or Śūdras. Under Lalu Prasad’s Jungle Rāj, Hindus of every caste and tribe were murdered, kidnapped and raped. Whether the Hindus of Dalit birth massacred by Communists in Marichjhapi, or the Hindus of Chitpavan Brahmin birth massacred by Congress as reprisal for Gandhi’s assassination, or our adjacent Sikhs massacred by Congress as reprisal for Indira Gandhi’s assassination—they are all my people, not the Left’s.
Whether the Sultanates, Congress, Pakistan or various other terror outfits—no killer of Indians has ever differentiated on caste when murdering our people. When it comes to attacking Hindus at large, they see all of us as the enemy—but when it comes to dividing us, they have the audacity to say they only hate half of us and LARP as the representatives of the other half.
Bus stops for feminism
Some PhD students at UCLA wanted to address “gender equity in the community”. So as to do this democratically and with public participation, they did a wide survey of women in the community, asking them what they wanted. Maybe they hoped to find some great example of inequity or oppression by the patriarchy ... but women are people, you see, and so the top grievance they found was “we want the bus stops to have shelters”.
To their credit, they listened and built a bus shelter. Well, 1 (ONE ONLY) bus shelter, which only provided shade in late evening (not noon), did not protect from rainfall and costed $500,000 for some reason.
What this whole episode demonstrates is that by and far all our interests are roughly aligned. Regardless of class, race, caste, gender and gayness level we all benefit from economic liberty and growth, industrialization, BVILDing, REPRODVCtion, crushing crime and terrorism and the ideologies that support them, greater cultural vitality and FAVSTIAN-ness etc. The Leftist Ideological Aether, however, compels us to only focus on those matters that can be used to sow dissension between groups—because it feeds into their oppression theology.
3.1.VI: Re: Experts and Śruti
It is unbelievable how the leftist narrative simply just believes (and promotes-to-truth) whatever literal terrorists tell them. We saw this in the Gaza war as well, where mainstream narrative was simply sourced from Hamas.And even moreso how normie-libs understand instinctively to do this. I recall once seeing a meme somewhere involving the “Muslim rage boy”6 (in a basically apolitical context) where western normie-libs who probably not even familiar with Kashmir, were commenting “I recently learned the reason he’s so angry is because the Indian army killed his sister :(((”
They would not say something similar about anybody actually good or productive—they just instinctively *know* that someone who is so obviously a subhuman must have a heart of gold.