Those Isms That Use Theism Variations For Excuse For Plunder

There is a story from old collections that one reads as a child, about a wolf that accuses a little lamb of drinking water upstream and spoiling his - the wolf's - drink; when the lamb denies it, the wolf replies to the effect that if it was not the lamb it must have been an ancestor of his, the lamb's; and then he proceeds to tear him into bites to wolf down. This generally is a tactic that many people, even cultures and civilisations that would tear other cultures and civilisations to bite size pieces to swallow, use for convenience. The lamb people and cultures and civilisations are stunned for the crucial moment that they need to react to the fact of seeing a wolf and either run or defend themselves another way, and they waste precious moments, lives, centuries and millennia defending themselves against a so very blatantly false accusation - until they are being torn by the wolf into bites vanishing into the wolf's innards. Cultures, often, still struggle to refute the false accusations rather than struggling to free themselves from the wolf since the guilt imposed by a master culture using power of weapons is greater than the selfhood needed to save oneself.

The wolves, whether in forms of humans or cultures or civilisations, know this, and hence they generally find a good excuse to accuse an intended lamb with and impose guilt to stun the lamb into a defensive stance rather than a smart saving oneself by either fighting or running away successfully.

One such lamb culture is India - and the wolves are numerous, with a couple of excuses used to stun the lamb successfully.
........................


It used to be caste that India was flogged with - and it was as blatant a lie as it could get, not because India could deny the accusations but because no culture in the world possibly could, not even Pacific islands, well perhaps the original residents of the continent that lost its name along with the identity and was ever since considered a migration haven for the poor of Europe - the poor that either fled their homes due to the upper castes of their homelands robbing them of everything including their freedom, raising rents of the lands that ought to belong to the farmers but belonged instead to the aristocrat; else as it happened often in Ireland and Scotland the poor were encouraged to leave with two options, cross the Atlantic or go to prison. Europe had castes and so did most other societies, only they were mostly based on wealth and arms, power to buy and power to take away others' property without paying, even. Such forms of castes not only existed, they still do, cloaked in other names. But then, caste is not a word from India, it is a European word, Anglo Saxon in origin. The word (with a different spelling and slightly different form still discernible as the root of the English word) is used in German for two meanings, one caste and another box.

It is hardly possible they invented a word to fit a concept they did not come across until they were in personal contact with India rather than taking the existing plethora of words from India and using one. Only - castes of Europe were based on inherited money and power and titles and property, things that came to be seen as opportunities of equality to earn them when a fresh start was made in US by the poor of Europe. But in Europe not even church was same for rich and poor - so equality was merely a lip service paid and that too not often.

Hence, of course, the various revolutions that erupted not necessarily where they were most needed but merely where they could.
...........................



One area where they seem to point successfully is the seemingly multi-ethnic, multiracial, and so forth society in India where no uniformity of race, language, dress or even worship seems to exist at a surface level. They fail to see the continuum obvious to anyone really seeing rather than bending on accusation, and the fact that neither castes nor geography within India is determined by racial type or vice versa; in fact often children of same couple (married within the caste with an arranged match) look quite different to glance from outside India, not due to different DNA and any other such suspicious explanations that would come readily to minds of detractors of India, but because castes are not races as understood elsewhere.

On the contrary, the seeming racial uniformity in existence in various nations of Europe is the result of a lack of rights to poor therein, and the droit de Seigneur that existed in most countries other than India with its road-roller effect on the progeny and the vanishing of individual racial characteristics on the society. One no longer sees Brits, Celts, Druids, or even Prussians who were in fact butchered by Germans too lazy to go crusading to Palestine (so they went east marauding in name of crusades acquiring lands of Prussia all the way to Baltics, instead,) who then took the land, the name, and all. Prussian language no longer exists.

This is different from India where every variety of people survived with no need to a road roller uniformity, although marriages within the various groups did and do exist. Castes in India style have helped preserve identity and ideals of each, unlike societies where a totalitarian dictator of ideals is a central agency flattening social individual special characteristics.
.......................



Now, with modern life taking hold of most of the world and India of cities being relatively on par with world societies in terms of lifestyle on one hand, while a desperation need to find other pastures to feed the church making it imperative to not offend the rural India with harping on castes since that would be a sure way to antagonise them into throwing the churches out - and churches do instruct their priests to not antagonise the converted upper castes since the church does not want a low caste image, so the low caste converts are kept at a low profile much as the poor of Europe were - the accusations against India had to change and to go into upper gear, to hit at a fundamental point to suit a fundamental agenda. For, now the fundamentalists are of more than one variety, see, although they really are one under robes of different colour or name.

So the fundamentalists have found a new and suitable fundamentalist wolf's excuse to take a bite into the lamb. It is ingenious, in that it serves every possible purpose of every sort of fundamentalist agenda all at once. And it is an old excuse used to beat up Russia (but not China, so it was a false excuse and not a genuine reason by any shred of a possibility anyone can reasonably imagine) - the excuse of theism or its lack or variety. In other words, using name of God as an excuse to devour another culture, a civilisation, after tearing it apart.

The excuse to beat up an upbeat India now is about monotheism. On this point various fundamentalists of warring hues unite, sympathise with one another, and agree to divide India, once they succeed, amongst themselves as jackals share a wounded living deer unable to defend itself.

Various people debate this point about India, about Hinduism lacking monotheism - and while a good many people are able to point at a deeper understanding of the unifying Truth behind Gods which is far more complex and closer to ultimate reality than a simplistic kowtowing to authority in name of one entity (which in fact can be dangerous in more than one way) - few stop to think about the motives of the fundamentalist, the blatantly non genuine nature of the accusation, and whether in fact even the Greek sort of polytheism was really a lower variety of belief in its effects on world than the monotheism of fundamentalists today that are out to convert or kill, and plunder in either case.
.......................



Monotheists have gone to butcher whole populations and civilisations in the name of their God - and often in fact for sake of the name alone, which is as blatant as it gets. Ultimately it is generally about taxing in the name of God, theft of another's property by as fraudulent and improper means as it gets.

And hence the note of derision or accusations of unbalanced or false nature against Hindu, Buddhist (the latter denied recognition as branch of former pretty much as Christianity and Islam are not recognised as branches of Judaism) and other various theisms.

One ought to ask, if monotheists are really of the faith of their one God above all, why don't they have faith enough to know that whatever the form and name worshipped by anyone, it is their own Ultimate God that is behind it, receiving the worship from everyone? Or is it they are afraid their own form and name is not the Ultimate after all? Which really is a valid fear, for those that would worship one God with either a fixed form and name or a fixed number of fixed names for the same God. For, how do they know they are not in fact following the opposite? Notice that it is only the so called monotheistic faiths that also presuppose an equal and powerful opposite entity.
...........................



They beat up others with a theism hitting at atheist and agnostic excuse, one used against Russia (but not China) - while they fail to ask themselves, why would God care if God is greater than the Sun and Moon and wind and sky? None of them care what anyone believes, and benefit all those in contact, while allowing those that would stay enclosed to choose their own life and environment and its consequences without a vengeful punishment for a non recognition, non worship. Why would a God, much less the Ultimate Divine.
................................