Category Archives: Liberals

Ignoble Resident Sepoy Gets Noble

Kailash Satyarthi, a little-known, self-proclaimed crusader against “child slavery,” has recently been awarded the Noble Prize for Peace. Many Indians — including journalists — were perplexed as they had never heard of the man. On scratching the surface, the truth has come out: Satyarthi is just another opportunist sepoy who was quietly being groomed by the Whites for years and used against India’s national interests. The agenda was to target some of India’s industries in the guise of activism and thwart competition with Western firms.

Satyarthi has been a smart sepoy, only too happy to offer his services as long as Western awards and funds were made available. India Facts has published a brilliant expose of this charlatan and his links with Western churches and manipulative American politicians who are known for running operations in third-world countries. A pox on Indians like Satyarthi and their Western awards.

Kailash Satyarthi –Nobel Prize for advancing WTO’s agenda

By Arvind Kumar

The choice of Kailash Satyarthi for the Nobel Peace Prize is the result of an old tussle between India and the US. Throughout the 1990s, the US used trade sanctions as well as the World Trade Organization to foist its version of the so-called “free trade” which came complete with patent laws, genetically modified seeds, Enron’s shenanigans, and stringent standards related to environmental and labour laws. The Indian government as well as Indian activists resisted these moves at that time and there was friction between the US and India.

The environmental and labour laws were intended to make it expensive for businesses to run their operations in India by forcing them to go through a costly certification process, and one such law that targeted the Indian carpet industry was the Child Labour Deterrence Act which was passed in the US. The law was first proposed in 1992 by Democratic Party politician and American Senator Tom Harkin who drafted it with inputs from Kailash Satyarthi.

Not only did the American law grant NGOs in India the status of inspectors of Indian businesses, but Satyarthi also demonstrated his entrepreneurial skills and set up one such NGO named Rugmark in 1994 with venture capital from a German Protestant group named Bread for the World. He thus profited from his venture while also effectively becoming an inspector on behalf of Western forces ensuring that Indian businesses would lose their competitive edge.

Satyarthi’s benefactor, Bread for the World, does not hide its political agenda when it declares on its website that it seeks “to influence political decisions in favour of the poor.” Many cables on the whistle-blower website Wikileaks too show that money from the group has ended up with churches in at least one country (South Korea) where these churches attempted to foment political trouble.

In 1994, Kailash Satyarthi appeared before a Senate subcommittee chaired by Tom Harkin instead of raising the issue with either the Indian parliament or the Indian government thus calling into question not only his motives but also the veracity of his claims made before his international audience.

When USA passed Tom Harkin’s law, India already had laws against using child labour and the American law, rather than helping families of children who were employed in the carpet industry by finding them alternative means of earning their livelihoods, merely aimed to help Western firms by weeding out competition. This point seems to have been noted by Dr. Subramanian Swamy who was appointed the Chairman of the Commission on Labour Standards and International Trade by the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao.

Dr. Swamy writes in his book, India’s labour standards and the WTO framework, ‘It would be of interest here to note that Section 2 of the Child Labour Deterrence Act of 1993 — Tom Harkin’s Bill — introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate in USA says brazenly: “adult workers in the United States and in the other developed countries should not have their jobs imperilled by imports produced by child labour in developing countries”.’

Children who worked in the carpet industry did so out of desperation but Tom Harkin and his assistants cynically portrayed it as a case of exploitation. In many cases, the employer too was from a similar socio-economic background as the children they employed, and both parties viewed the arrangement as a means of providing a livelihood for the families of children involved in the manufacture of carpets. The result of the Harkin-Satyarthi effort was that scores of families of carpet manufacturers as well as families of their employees were reduced to misery and many of them even faced starvation.

Satyarthi’s NGO, Rugmark, later changed its name to Goodweave International and it is pertinent to note that a majority of its board members have Christian names and at least two of them are from Western churches that use the alleviation of human suffering as a cover for proselytism, a strategy that has been effectively used by Western governments to destabilize several countries. While one board member, Rev. Pharis J. Harvey, is from the United Methodist Church, another board member, Pat Zerega, is from the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

It also turns out that Tom Harkin was responsible for nominating Kailash Satyarthi for the Nobel Prize, effectively making the prize a quid pro quo for Satyarthi’s services rendered to American politicians.

Although Satyarthi was unknown in India and around the world until he was named as the recipient of this year’s Nobel Prize – making the award even more questionable – Western countries seem to have decorated him with many prizes such as the Robert F. Kennedy Award, Defenders of Democracy Award, an award from the US State Department and other awards from European countries. Many of the awards he has received are known to have been used in the past as rewards for advancing the agenda of American and European governments.

Despite the US government honouring Satyarthi with awards, a Wikileaks cable acknowledges that they understand he exaggerates the number of children who are engaged in child labour in India. Others have complained that Satyarthi has made tall claims of rescuing up to 50,000 children but has been unable to provide details of the identities and whereabouts of the children when challenged to do so. Satyarthi has also been accused of staging a ‘rescue’ operation for the benefit of Dutch television cameras by using a child who acted out the part of the victim.

The West has shown that its relationship with India is in bad faith and has sent the message that working for its mercantile agenda by acting against India’s economic interests can be rewarding. It should be noted that among the five Norwegian politicians who form the panel that decides the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, two of them have a history of actively interfering in Sri Lanka and supporting the Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE. Of the two, Gunnar Stålsett is a former bishop and served as the state secretary of the Ministry of Church Affairs and Education while Thorbjørn Jagland is a former Prime Minister and a member of the Labour Party in Norway which grew out of the Communist movement. It is time for Indians to realize that the Nobel Peace Prize is just an award given by a group of politicians from Norway who pursue their own agendas, and the process of awarding this prize too has had its share of corruption scandals.

[The author can be reached at]

Talking about sepoys and House Negros, also read  R Jagannathan’s article published today in First Post: Behind Pankaj Mishra’s rants: A pathology of self-hate and Hindu-phobia



Filed under Liberals, Uncategorized

When truth is incorrect: The warped world of progressives

Fantastic video by a dude called Pat Condell about the deranged liberals and self-claimed progressives.

The transcript:

I’ve noticed that a lot of people today who would formerly have referred to themselves as liberal or left wing, now prefer the term, “progressive”. Presumably because it sounds more, well, progressive. But there’s a difference between being liberal and being progressive. I like liberals but I don’t like progressives. Even lefties are okay if they are the right sort of leftie but progressives give me the creeps. Progressive sounds like a positive word, doesn’t it? Brimming with the promise of bright new tomorrows. In reality it means improving gradually, progressively, bit by bit, towards an ever more regulated, controlled and less free society, where group identity trumps all and every casual remark is a potential hate crime. We’ll have more and more equality and more and more fairness and when we’ve had all the equality and fairness we can stomach, and then some, we’ll have some more, whether we like it or not. It’s the same agenda as revolutionary Marxism, only they want to do it gradually, progressively. You know, like a disease.

A liberal is a person who will defend your right to free speech even when they disagree with you. A progressive is a person who will defend someone else’s right to shut you up because they find you offensive. A liberal sees the value in the free exchange of ideas and opinions. A progressive views these things as a threat to community cohesion. Liberals do what they believe is right. Progressives do what they believe is correct. Right and wrong don’t come into it. Liberals tend to live and let live. Progressives tend to regulate and censor and meddle and interfere because progressives always know best for everyone. It’s a gift they have. To a liberal, language is a tool. To a progressive, it’s a weapon. The actual meaning of words is irrelevant as long as they can be used as heavy blunt instruments to shut people up. Because progressives regard themselves as the sole arbiters of what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to think and say, and they feel perfectly entitled to shout down opinions they disapprove of so that nobody else can hear them. Progressive students are particularly keen on this. In contrast, a liberal is open to another point of view. To a progressive, there is no other point of view. If you’re not progressive, you must be far right and, if you take a dim view of Islam, you must be a racist. End of story.

So, which are you? Liberal or progressive? You can’t be both: the 2 words are opposites in the same way that sanity and insanity are opposites.

Multiculturalism is the ultimate progressive marquee word, of course, a rainbow-colored confection that, like all progressive words – including the word, progressive – means the opposite of what it says. There’s nothing multicultural about an Islamic ghetto and here, in progressive Europe, Islamic ghettos have been the principle fruits of multiculturalism. As a result, Jews can no longer walk around several European cities without being attacked by gangs of Muslim immigrants but nobody in the media wants to talk about it. It’s not progressive enough. Besides, a progressive journalist would describe an unprovoked attack on a solitary Jew by a gang of Muslim thugs, if they reported it at all, as a conflict between communities. Because progressive journalists are not interested in the truth if the truth is incorrect.

And this, particularly, applies in Scandinavia; whose media is impeccably progressive and therefore impeccably halal and full of the same kind of cultural hypocrites who got Pim Fortyun murdered in the Netherlands and who then pretended to be shocked about it afterwards.

In Sweden, the press is directly subsidized by their progressive government to hide the truth about the effects of their suicidally progressive immigration policy. They don’t want people to know that their formerly civilized and peaceful country is now the rape capital of Europe; a situation exacerbated by the media’s refusal to ethnically identify criminals because that information is not progressive. It might be helpful to the public and ethically right and proper to give people a true picture of reality, but it’s not progressive, so it must be wrong. The truth must be wrong if the truth is incorrect. As a consequence, statistically, 1 in 4 Swedish women will now be raped during their lifetime and every one of them can thank a progressive journalist.

But if you thought Swedish journalists were the progressive scum of the Earth and the absolute moral dregs of humanity, you would of course be correct. But say hello to a couple of new contenders from across the water in Denmark. You won’t have heard about this story anywhere in the Western media because, for all their bellyaching about free speech, they’re too busy digging up celebrity gossip to do anything real to protect it, while people who are doing something, at considerable risk to their own safety, are routinely depicted in the media as extremists and hate mongers. Yet who is the extremist? A man who expresses a non-violent opinion, or the so-called journalist who chases him through the streets hoping to pinpoint his location for a future Islamic assassin?

Recently, when Danish freethinker, Lars Hedegaard, was forced to move house after an assassination attempt at his front door by an Islamic fanatic, the removal van was followed by a pair of unprincipled pieces of human vermin masquerading as a journalist and a photographer who wanted to reveal his new location and who were only prevented from doing so when they were pulled over, twice, by the police. And they were most indignant about it too. As if the police had somehow prevented justice from being done. Am I the only one who thinks that these 2 goons should be in jail for what they tried to do? At the very least their mug shots should have been on the front page of every newspaper in the free world. Instead, we got nothing. Not a whisper. Not a peep. If not for the Internet, nobody would even know that this outrage had taken place. Yet we know all there is to know about every empty-headed celebrity.

Free speech is becoming a very dangerous business in Europe and the media are on the wrong side. Ultimately, however, what is there to say about such a spiteful and irresponsible mentality? Maybe there’s a word in Danish that would do justice to 2 such ugly-minded pieces of human trash but I can’t think of one in English. “Cockroach” doesn’t do it. That’s a gross insult to cockroaches who are noble in comparison. Scumbag, scuzzbucket, slimeball: none of these words even come close.

Ah, of course. You beat me to it, didn’t you? Progressive.


Filed under Liberals