HSD1

Oh nice. You cant actually give a proper definition of what you see as 'spiritual culture' so you go back to the perceived injustice of my little joke about hindus. Unfortunately for you that was done with about as much grace as an elephant sitting down in a tea shop, so I can see right through it and so will many of those who rad what you post. Try harder next time. Really? The jews believe their god is their own. Many hindus dont share your 'all hindu gods are really one god' beliefs. As for 'Why is defending the same Hindus you keep speaking of offensively the same as putting down something else or some other philosophy?', you used the word 'high' to describe sanatan philosophy which implies that other philosphies are lower. Now that is far more of an insult than all the jokes/funny comments i have ever come up with. Who needs to show more respect now? My dear, you are Frau Hostile. You have to at least acknowledge that you 'shit' is far more hostile than 'poo'. Now you brought up the more hostile word and refuse to allow this thread to get back on track by constantly expecting others to abide by your own fascist rules and attitudes. I for one will never bow down to such horrible authoritarian views such as yours, nor will I allow my right to freedom of speech be curtailed by those like yourself. You remind me of those BNP-nuts who feel that by spamming left wing sites they are winning a victory for freedom of speech, even though they are actually stopping others. Which is exactly what you are doing. You can reply to this post if you want, but i wont, for I refuse to give you the ammunition to further derail this thread.

The lady doth protest too much! No we dont. But you see it that way. Which is more a problem you have rather than any real reflection on our attitudes. If you love hindustan so much, why dont you go and live there then? No sikh is defending what happened in Vienna. Most of us dont really care. If we dont feel the need to go all out to condemn something that we dont know everything about, it doesnt mean we agree with it. What are the evils of seperatism? The Khalsa Raj was independant of British Hindustan. So was that sikh state evil? And were does it say that you have to be a 'hindu' to be a hindustani? Therefore your ranting about muslims, parsis etc in the governing family is just an obsolete smokescreen. So what is hindustan then? The leaders, army and rioters all in 84 showed it is no place for a sikh patriot. Have you ever been to india? But what about those who did protest and were roughed up? There are many deras that are fronts for brothels, weapons smuggling and corruption. Sometimes the Khalsa needs to deal with criminals with violence. It taught the mughals, afghans and hindu hill rajahs a good lesson, and you cant expect sikhs to constantly use the 'shaheedi jatha' attitude to every problem. The bodyguards fired with intent. They are not exempt from blame. So the taliban are not a reflection of any muslim ideology? That's funny, that's not what they say. Same goes for the RSS and many violent and vicious hindu organizations. But just because they dont make front page news with what they do, we should ignore them right? Waheguru gave you your time on this earth. I dont think it would be appreciated that you spend most of your time arguing mute points. What will it achieve? Absolutely nothing.

No i am not saying the ravidassia incident is connected to 84. But one abhorrent attack in a holy place is not too different to an attack in another. I hope you can at least see that. My point about the punjab police is that they have sikhs and hindus in them. But they are an organization of the hindustan government. The british raj is what gave birth to hindustan. The british raj in turn absorbed much of the status of the mughal empire. Which makes hindustan today a neo-Mughal empire. Her army and police are the modern versions of the vicious Mughal armies who tried to stop the Khalsa Militia taking the Punjab and cutting the mughals off from the rest of the muslim world. These neo-mughals may not be muslim, but our gurus taught us that hinduism and islam can be used by its followers to nefarious ends. That includes the leaders of hindustan, whether they answer to islam/hinduism/capitalism. So if hindustan today is the bastard child of the muslim mughal oppression, what does it say about all your theories concerning love of hindustan, hindu dharam etc? Coupled with the fact you blame all sikhs for things that a few sikhs do, whilst making excuses for hindustanis, it just leads to a lot of confusion as to what you are trying to put across. Do you even know yourself? He was always a hindustani before being a sikh. He even says so himself. Its also clear to me that the propaganda that the british used to neuter the old Khalsa has been passed onto the hindustanis in 1947. There will always be sikhs who fight on the wrong side. It was so in every war since the dawn of the Khalsa. Our enemies are good with their sweet words, and we sikhs are too proud to put unity before petty differences, so this will always be the way. Unfortunately it gives people like you the ammunition to spew rubbish. But not all of us are stupid enough to fall for it. What's an RN? I am glad that you agree the bullets shot by the body guards killed and wounded the sangat. Once again I am not justifying what happened in Vienna, and again would like to say that the two events are not connected. Funny thing is taliban means student according to some. So does the word sikh. You mention fanatical students, but what were they learning. You are what i would describe as a fanatical student, someone who studies, forms extreme views on the little she knows to only then learn a bit more and then have to change what she fights for. Not a clever way to go through life is it? And I am telling you this as a young man. Even i know that over excessive reaction is part of no real dharm. Rather than thinking your essays do any good, go for a walk in a park or visit the seaside. See the beauty of creation. All this arguing cant be good for you. All in all, chill out. Carry on like this and the mods will just boot you off, and all this time you used on here will have been of no use. So far it has been of no use. Dont waste time that could be better spent on helping heal a really broken world, rather than fighting over the moral high ground with people who see things for what they are.

So what does the shootings in Vienna have to do with sikhism? Where is your proof that the punjab police are overwhelmingly sikh? " that it is somekind of justification of shooting up a gurdwara with unarmed women and children in there", like i said, ask the indian army about 84. You said "Shooting into crowd with children" and have provided no proof to back up that statement. Are you a ballistics expert? Do you work for the police? In that case you have to shut up about ricochets of bullets. It has already been proved that the bodyguards of the 'baba' were well armed and fired their guns. It is far more likely that they tried to shoot the assassins and ended up firing into the crowd themselves. If the baba was at the back of the room, the assassins would have rushed forward, with the sangat to their back. Unless the assassins were firing over their own shoulders it is unlikely they killed any civilians. The fake baba's bodyguards would have had to aim in the direction of the crowd as that is where the assassins would have come from. The baba could have ordered his bodyguards to shoot, especially if he realised his time had come. As the baba lay dying, some of the sangat may have rushed forward to see if he was ok, at which point his body guards may have confused them as more assassins, and inflicted further injury on them. That makes a lot more sense than the nonsense you peddle. As bad as those who ignore or downplay murderous acts in other places.

Tell that to the indian army and punjabi police! Or any hindu mob going on a rampage against non-hindus. Right, so where is the bit about shooting into a crowd of children? Or are you reading things and then interpreting your own personal 'HarjasKaur' view on them, even though the facts point in another direction? Haha. I try to be funny, but you are the Queen of Irony.

Spiritual culture? WTH? Stop making stuff up. Gurbani is far more than 'spiritual'. Stop using random western words to describe something so beautiful. High as opposed to what? Muslim philosophy? Christian philosophy? Ancient Greek philosophy? Once again stop using random words to vaguely hint at what you are trying to say. Where did i say i equated them with shit? You said it not me. With regards to the monkeys, i said poo rather than shit, so i dont know why you put shit in inverted commas. As for hostility, you are the most hostile person i've come across. Your ignorance is constantly used by you as an excuse to overreact against others.

I was joking, hence the lol. The fact that we are all here shows we did something wrong in past lives. People need to learn that my humour isnt spiteful or a reflection of any superiority, which cant be said of many who take the mick out of sikhs. According to evolution we have a direct heritage to the ancestors of the apes etc. Should we respect that heritage and live in trees, eat bananas and throw poo at each other too?

I wonder what he did to get punished like that, lol.

Lol, most singhs do understand the importance of hygiene, even if they work in hard jobs. But other freshies are just so god damn dirty, even ones who work in the city. It's not nice dealing with them, especially as they feel the need to get so close when talking to you. First they take our punjab, now they want our personal space too. Some try to make up for it with alot of deodorant which is at least an attempt at thinking of others. Some of those who come over have a view that all sikh girls here are loose, and have a terrible pervy nature to their behaviour. Many of them get involved in all sorts. Now I'm not saying that sikh girls behave like good girls or that sikh guys here are puritanical or that we dont have home grown criminals. But having their bad nature imposed on top of our problems just compounds things to a silly uncomfortable level. What i'm trying to say is that we want more gursikhs and less hindustanis.

Yep. The musis and hindoos do the same thing with their own little spin. They keep on doing it because they know they can get away with it. Another trick the 'higher class' use is of acceptance. They deliberately make people feel like outsiders, so that when a person becomes useful for something they can offer them equality in return for whatever they need. Usually its turning against their own or fighting another group of people. We sikhs have fallen for this god knows how many times. And we will keep on falling for it as long as their are traitors and coconuts in our nation. Lol, i know. But snobby singhs arent only going to spring up because of our system. There are a few snobby sanatan elitists on here, and even one PC-loving snob who likes to cause problems. Fire can only be fought with fire. Sikh schools are good as they create a sense of belonging, but it still needs to go further. If we have our own country, regardless of Khalsa ideals of equality, we will need to provide the brightest youth with a better education than those who are only going to be doing menial jobs. Otherwise our politicians/army commandeers/captains of industry will be idiots who achieved their status through the age old punjabi practice of nespotism. Even on a smaller scale in the diaspora communities, we need to get the best to the right places at the head of our communities. But we cant. From the gurudwara committee to the sikh society of a university, it can be seen that we rely on leaders who have no obvious flair. Intelligence, experience or competence are not really something we ask for or expect in our leaders. The people who want to be leaders dont seem to want to have any of those either. Which is fine if everyone else was as stupid as we sikhs are, but they arent. They are sly, sophisticated and cruel but keep this covered with a screen of apathy or placating us with sweet words or quasi-ignorance. Try explaining all this to your average sikh of average intelligence and they wont believe you. They have their own preconceptions that they dont want destroyed as it will make them feel stupid. It takes a bigger and better person to understand the kind of things discussed here. It will take an even cleverer person to then use this and act on it for the benefit of our nation. Hope that's enough to convince people the need for a new structure if we want things to change.

Many of the new sikh immigrants are great. They contribute to the system we had in place and are real pillars of our community. It's great to be able to speak and joke with someone from the homeland. Having said that i dont like the immigration of other hindustani immigrants or sikhs who are MTV-hindustanis (i.e. the pervy young ones). They do smell like gurmat said, traveling on public transport with them around is disgusting at best. Also they are effeminate to the point of being faggots. Many dont have manners and seem to have superiority complexes over the sikhs who were born here. Now i know this isnt nice to say, but i sure as hell aint going to let them treat me like they treat sikhs were they come from.

Churchill was an english patriot through and through. In australia they really dont like him as they feel he sent thousands of 'their boys' to die like cannon fodder against the japanese in SE asia without air support and other resources, whilst keeping the same resources for britain or sending them off to help stalin. But that was the way Churchill was. He was the Prime Minister of Britain, a country which did not allow true democratic representation for its colonial inhabitants in the Houses of Parliament. His first responsibility was to the british people. Everyone else was expendable, white or non-white. At least he did seem to have some love for the sikhs, even trying to convince us to stand on our own 2 feet with a country of our own. Our leaders were too scared of the musis to want it and had been sweet talked into bed by the hindustanis so we we said no... and look at the last 60 years. Churchill was not a nice man, as can be seen by the attitude of the arabs/ozzies etc towards him. But at least he wasnt our enemy, which in a world were we have few friends is something at least. As for him not joining the Mosleys, well it just wasnt does was it? Fascism, old boy, is a ghastly and unkempt continental religion only fit for huns, dagos and wops. Just not done by an english gentleman, say what.

Need for Speed is rubbish. Shouldnt even have put it in your PS3. It really is as simple as that.

We pay more tax so that HUTs and chavs can sit on their lazy backsides and receive benefits. Great. No taxation without representation! lol.

It depends on what you mean by investment. No one has looked into the accounts of British India but it's obvious they stole more than they 'invested'. What they did invest (army/civil service/ports/railways etc) was just to make it easier to control and tax the subcontinent. Going back to the pyramid analogy, imagine america as a strong well put together square based pyramid, like the ones in Egypt would have looked like before the muslims defaced them. The reason america has such a strong pyramid is because of its 'consecutive structure' - each state in america is next to the other one, with each state built from the ground up to give the specific qualities/resources needed by all the rest. Imagine the British Empire, pre-1945, as a structure the same size of america. But when you look at it, all it is is a small well formed pyramid at the top of a conical shaped pile of rubble. Britain was so keen on being on top of all these decapitated bases that they did not realise how precarious their position really was. At the end of WW1 america came to the negotiation table at Versailles and talked about spreading democracy/americanisation, especially to Eastern europe. This didnt even occur to Britain or France. History went on to repeat itself. Germany rose, war ravaged europe. Maybe the germans hoped britain would stand with them against russia and america, but they didnt understand the bond between the anglos was stronger than whatever kind of partnership the germans were offering. But at the end of WW2 it was obvious the americans were here to stay and had invaded, as i pointed out earlier. It was completely untenable for britain to maintain an empire and yet be submissive to america. Something had to give. Britain cut the empire she had sucked dry lose. That small fairly well formed pyramid (the island known as Britain) then found itself stuck to the side of the american super structure, albeit at a funny and sometimes uncomfortable angle. Like most things, if you leave it out in the sun, it melts together. What were seeing is the absorption of britain by the strengthening of what they have in common and the american way becoming the norm in all other spheres of life. EDIT: If you meant 'where is america's investment in the uk?', then it is on a personal and business level rather than government one. The US govt doesnt need to invest in army/civil service/transport here because the brits try their hardest to keep up with them. Plenty of american citizens and businesses invest in or are shareholders of major parts of the private industry here. This week Prince William was somewhere upside down, opening a 'Supreme Court'. The British 'Supreme Court' has been open a number of months now. Where did that idea come from? It's not as obvious or as in your face as we would have done it, but that's how these people do it. Too much too soon just shocks the system. Some of them are. Especially those in big business. But there is also many englishmen who see america and britain as one so they provide a similar force for change from the inside rather than the outside. Nearly every white american I know has talked about moving into neighbourhoods where they will be with people of the same mind. Many sikhs obviously know whats good for them and gravitate towards progressive communities rather than the bible-bashing-mel-gibson-loving areas. In britain we are all on top of each other, unless you like living out in the country. We cant all just move to a nice progressive area, so there is more social collision. If by 'americanisation' you mean we stick all the natives on a reservation in wales, then i think you might really be onto a good thing lol. This is why i found Mein Kampf so fascinating - it was like looking into the mind of a white imperialist, with no bs or attempt to hide what they meant with a smokescreen. The british had a lot in common with germans, but they would never have let anything like this be published by an english author as it is so open and honest. The brits are a lot better at hiding their intentions and reasons for doing things. Nowadays most modern britons try to create an image of britain defending democracy, liberty etc. against german fanaticism. This is a myth. The brits are just spewing out the things the americans said. If you look at british propaganda and newspapers during the war, they are similar to the germans. For example in a german poster you will see a nordic type standing tall with others defending the fatherland. In a british poster it will be a black haired, blue eyed englishman standing next to a sandy haired ANZAC, a grinning south african, a smirking canadian and possibly a sikh or black person, all of them staring forward with an union jack above them. British papers were all talk of empire joining together fighting naughty germans who did not know their place in the world. It was like they were saying 'Look, all the darkies and non-english speaking people know that we should rule them, but these bloody huns need another thrashing to get the message'. American papers on the other hand were full of all the liberty, democracy, freedom spin. And the yanks were kind of right - they were finishing off european colonialism, with a little help from the locals. Anyway back to the school thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wewelsburg One of the notorious SS castles. These places took the best and most able young germans in order to train them for leadership. The kids chosen were not allowed to refuse going to the castles. Quite a few were killed due to the strictness of training and accidents during live fire exercises. Yep, 11-18 year olds with real guns firing real ammo. A notch up from Eton eh? Having said that, the americans also have a system in place very similar to Britain when it comes to elitist education establishments. It's served them pretty well so far. Something the Khalsa may need to emulate one day? Who knows.

Does this topic include 'epiphanies'? And are these realisations/feelings part of my brain just processing information or careful revelations by Waheguru? Or am I talking rubbish again? My mind boggles lol.

A minority of a billion people is an awful lot of people. As for the jatts in the pinds cutting their hair, do you think it has something to do with the hypocrisy of some keshdharis/amritdharis who use their physical appearance as a reason to be lofty above the moneh? Combine that arrogant attitude with the blind eye turned towards sexism and casteism by these 'holier-than-thou' types it's not hard to see why some of them are indifferent to looking like sikhs, or even think that there are more important things to overcome. Finally! You can have the honour of starting it off then lol.

I'll bring the brains if someone else brings the brawn. Hell, I'll bring that too if no one has any. Miracles cost extra.

They sure did, but managed to get done in themselves doing it. In WW1 they were just trying to get on an even footing with the french and british empires. For WW2, Hitler says that the British Empire was an example of how he would run the German Empire. As the anglos were to greedy to share their world, Hitler changed his tune pretty quickly and said something along the lines of 'Germany will crush Britain like Rome crushed Carthage'. In the end the americans came and crushed them both. The american way of ruling the world is pretty bizarre compared to the european way. It involves more economic control than military or political, but with a big dollop of ideology as well. Just look at iran where they want to be more 'western'. If iran did become more western, give them 20 years, and then they will just have another fundamentalist revolution. Americanism is so well spun as it appeals to our basic wants on a level most people find hard to realise. Its similar to the way that the british encouraged people in the colonies to think Britain had streets paved with gold. It made many feel inferior even though there was no real difference. The thing is that britain lost an empire without losing a war. Her capital was never overrun and ruined, her population forced to live in fear and subjugation, their culture was left alone etc. But the americans are here, their culture overrides the native one. It leaves the british in an unusual position. On one hand they are independant and still like they once were, but on the other hand they are the 'poor cousin' in the relationship. I feel that in the end Britain will end up as some kind of contorted mirror image of america's east coast. Either that or (with EU intervention and more immigration) a island reflecting the f***ed up world we live in. The war in afghanistan is of no real consequence. The families of the injured or dead are the ones who will deal with the burden as the rest of the country moves on. A few veterans might take their feelings out on their wives, but nothing will happen that will shock the bottom class to its core. Plenty of musis from this country have gone to fight for the talibs aswell. Plenty of pakistanis,iranians and arabs are there too, just feeding into the other end of the mince-making-machine. No imam or MP will lose sleep over it. I know that sounds cynical and cold, but that's just the way I see it. The 'special' relationship is worth a lot to the elite of britain as they are just another corner of europe without them. Just as we lost our best commanders over the years before the first war, the british kept their best ones well away from harm. People like Hardinge and Broadfoot were really conniving sobs, who would know that the Khalsa would smell something was wrong if the british started a war of maneuvres. Gough wanted to invade Khalistan and smash into any sikh army he found. Which is what the average panchayat wanted to do to British India. The jatha commanders were in no position to argue with their men. So when Gough came across and didnt do any fancy deceptions or try to outmaneuvre us, it didnt raise any alarm among the common sikh soldiers when the traitors started screwing things up. If the british hadnt admitted to it after the war, they could still argue that it was the Khalsa general's incompetence rather than disloyalty which cause the sikh army so many problems. If the british had tried something fancy, the traitors would have had to react but at the same time get the Khalsa to still lose, which would have made their decisions a lot more difficult to justify to their own men afterwards. Have you heard that the british had almost 86,000 men arrayed against us across NW india? As Gough was only given about half of this number it shows that the british were probably even prepared for the possibility that Lal, taj and gulab singh double crossed them. Anyway, war and conflict is sometimes inevitable. After what happened in afghanistan, the Khalsa probably thought the british would collapse like a house of cards if the sikh army marched on Delhi. The british got their act together before we did.

Lol, if all the pindus sold up and moved to St Johns Wood, it might make it somewhere worth travelling on the Jubilee Line for.

Goddamn reds. We needed to be wary of how international politics leads to the forming of certain organisations in our own back yard. History is littered with examples of weak nations being infiltrated and then controlled by outsiders who use locals to do their dirty work. Communists were notorious for this during the cold war.

Looks nicer but there is a clear border to the left of the eye-flower logo. If the white shadow on the eye could be blended in with the blue background, it would look a lot sharper than the last one.

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the NF's preparation for any race war they have planned. There is an ongoing investigation into an incident in the USA, where during the floods in New Orleans a bunch of white neighbors shot numerous blacks they came across. Racial/religous violence is a common part of history, I am not sure why I am so surprised each time stories like this turn up. Modern britain is a 21st century Weimar Republic.

Did india used to account for 49% of world GDP before colonial rule? I have heard that statistic thrown around, not sure how true it is though. Shame all this new found wealth wont filter down as much as it does in some places.

Of course they want to project that kind of image. Imagine being some poor fool who is convinced to travel all that way to kill a bunch of foreigners to allow your government and upper class to enjoy the main spoils. They dress up their actions to placate their own minds and create some kind of worth to their lives. Read the last paragraph in the enlistment and conditions section. I first heard of it when someone from uni I know came out of Sandhurst was going on about how hot some of his soldier's gfs were, and how it was like 'in the good old days' lol. And the british go on about how pervy the sikhs were in the days of the sikh kingdom! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_the_Victorian_Era Imagine the relationship of a nation and it's economy as some kind of square based pyramid. The people at the bottom are poor and produce the raw materials i.e. food/coal/wood etc. This is then given to the slightly more skilled who turn it into goods and sell it. The people at the top are the lords/captains of industry who own a lot of the resources needed by those underneath them. The top part also contains the politicians/generals/royalty etc who arrange things to try and maintain the pyramid model. I know its basic but I hope its comprehensive enough to illustrate this: The british turned up and destroyed the middle and top of other nation's pyramids. They then imposed their own 'pyramid' on the base of the defeated. This automatically moves the bottom of the british structure up a notch. The british pyramid then inherits resources from the conquered nation. It takes this through reparations, taxation or the top class part of the british pyramid taking ownership of the resources that are produced. These were then shipped to britain and used to produce more goods. As all these nations that were subdued by the british no longer have middle or upper sections of their own, they had to rely on the British to produce the other goods, which were sold to them at inflated prices. The low selling price of the resources combined with the high price of the items produced that required skill created poverty in the subdued nations and created a bigger profit for the top of the british pyramid. Over time the non-british nations completely lose the ability to form efficient middle and top structures to their economic pyramid as their institutions/knowledge has been eroded and watered down. This leads to an almost natural state of superiority for the british as they have almost lapped everyone else. Unluckily for them, there was another twist in the tale. People say afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. The british went there 3 times. No, the real graveyard of the British empire is in Germany. It took them 2 wars but they brought Britain to her knees. During the world wars, the british economy was geared towards war. This created problems for the nations they ruled as the resources they produced were useless. This was a major problem as the british did not let them sell to others. If the british werent buying, or even stealing, what was the point in producing? The british still had administration costs and the cost of war to pay. As they had thieved from and stunted their colonies' economies, who were now not producing as there was less demand for non-war resources, it began to bite the british were it hurt. British people had sucked the world dry, and had run out of anywhere to harvest to maintain their system. The germans were the have-nots in this situation. They looked enviously at the french/british and wanted what they had. The only way they could do that was to humble the french and british, which is what they did. Britain ran her empire so badly that she could not even hold the germans back by themselves in the second world war. But britain was still invaded. Not by the germans, but by the americans. Their army came over, built permanent bases, had the govt hand over all its technology, slept with native women, had their common man strut around like he owned the place and all that other stuff that invaders do. Hell, the british army became a bunch of sepoys. So britain became a corner of the american pyramid, and it fitted very nicely in that position ever since. The bases of the other pyramids they had conquered were cut lose after 1945, to let them form their own middle and top. If anyone wants to write a Khalsa-centric history book, you can use the above for the international section. Watch out for angry reactions though, lol. Imagine if the british had fought the first war with fancy maneuvres and full tactical planning etc. The traitors in the Khalsa would have had a hard time defending their military decisions to their sub-commandeers. Goughs tactics were simple which helped to create a smoke screen for the traitors. We fell for it hook, line and sinker. In the second war we outmaneuvered the british but they used the advantages they had gained from the first war (heavy artillery, support of the muslim population, fresh troops etc) which eventually reached a critical mass that the khalsa could not resist. The enemy had completely over-run our turf. But what happened happened. All we can do is honour the memory of those who died in the belief of sikh independence and self-rule, as well as learning from their mistakes. Last Wednesday was the 161st anniversary of the Khalsa victory in the Battle of Chillianwallah. A special thankyou to the son of Hari Singh Nalwa who destroyed the british right flank during that battle if I remember correctly. Losses that they recovered from well enough to fight us. It's a shame we never knew enough about the british to come up with effective strategies. If NATO loses in afghanistan, they will make up for it by giving more money to hindustan and invading iran.