One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-3

We are not going to "defend" Modi by blaming some or many of his colleagues. It has become fashionable to scorn Arun Jaitley and Smriti Irani. Personally, we too disapprove of Jaitley (we will return to it later), and are neutral about Irani. However, for the purpose of this article, we view them as parts of Modi's government, so the buck finally stops at Modi.

Now, we also describe our understanding of the categories of reviewers we mentioned. This might give you, our dear readers, some more "hints". Ha ha. But before that we would like to share a story. Imagine an upper middle class family whose son is driven around in an expensive car by a driver. The son is attending FIIT-JEE and such reputed coaching centers. The driver too has a son, and he is preparing on his own. He is NOT interested in the free super-30 and all. He wants to fight it out in his life on his own. The exams happen, and lo and behold, the upper middle class son flunks badly while the driver's son gets in to JEE top 100. How do you, dear reader, think will the upper middle class family take it? Well, in real life, upper middle class families are not as bad as we imagine, still for the illustrative purposes of this story we assume otherwise. The members, well wishers, those who are patronized by the family, all view this result with utter shock. If you compound it with an imaginary constraint that such entrance exams are conducted only once  every five years, then the reactions would be further amplified. The long and short of it is that they find it nearly impossible to come to terms with the outcome. They can't imagine that while their talented son will only be attempting another shot at the exams, the driver's son could be graduating with flying colors. So they want the driver's son to fail, fail at any cost. But then, they are also apprehensive that the driver's son might succeed further, and the talented son might flunk further. They are torn between opposing feelings. Dear readers, do you get the drift of it? Good.

While the Modi-bashers are torn between conflicting emotions; those belonging to his "side" are so full of themselves that they think that the only way to answer any criticism is to point out what Congress used to do. While Congress indeed did horrible things, but then merely comparing with Congress puts such reviewers into those gloating about "-300 getting to -200" camp.

Now we come to the 4 percent folks who were in the third category. We found them mostly concerned about "only" economics, or Jaitley/Irani criticism in disguise.

Thus before we present our review, we wish to clarify our position vis a vis Jaitely and Irani. As far as we know, Arun Jaitley was one of the D-4 (Jaitely, Swaraj, Ravishankar Prasad, Anant Kumar) during Advani era. Then he was in good books of Hajpeyi too, at least till Hajpeyi was in power. And now Modi. Now, we believe, that anyone who always manages to remain on the right side of the fence is, more often than not, a man of suspicious and dubious character. And like it is often said regarding justice, that justice should not only be done, but that justice should be seen to have been done; we wish that it is important for Modi to not only remain clean, but to also be seen as clean. (We will mention our recommendation for Modi re' Jaitley later)

In the case of Smriti Irani, we believe it to be more a case of people being jealous of her rapid rise, rather than her (in)competence. We don't value her for her Yale certificate, nor do we denigrate her for her lack of "Doctorate" or whatever. Most of the high academics who have been criticizing Irani have been the ones with fat bottoms drawing fat pay-cheques at government expense for decades and have deep vested interest in the continuation of what we call as the Lutyens-Delhi-of-Academics. However, Irani can do no worse than getting swayed by the bureaucrats in her ministry. If she does that in her bid to protect herself from the wrath of high-academicians, she will be doing a great disservice to herself, and much worse disservice to her job. We believe that she is talented, and we believe that she knows that she is talented. If she asks herself some very elementary questions like: Does our educational system spot talent, nurture talent, and then put them to best use? If not (is there any doubt? haha) how should that be done? What measures does our education system take regarding those who are not "very intelligent"? How does it enable them to utilize whatever intelligence they have to achieve a reasonably happy and prospperous life (say, by being somewhat hard working and all)? - If Irani asks herself such questions and pushes for answers to such questions and their implementations, she would fare much better.

In the case of Jaitley, our advice is based on the premise that he is slimy. Even if he isn't, our suggestion should not make much difference to him. We would like that Modi makes Jaitley a minister without portfolio (he could even be a deputy-deputy-PM or whatever), but he must remain without portfolio. However, as "minister" he could advise (not mandate his advice though) any/all other ministers regarding negotiating the labyrithine pathways of India's babudom. If Modi has nothing to hide from public, he loses nothing even if Jaitley is able to know all that goes on in any department (which he anyway knows now). At the same time, all departments are protected from Jaitely's intrigues should he desire them. In this manner, even if Jaitley is slimy, the government is protected from his machinations, while his capabilities are utilized nearly fully. And, if Jaitley is clean, he should gladly do this "sacrifice" for the good of his "friend's" government. We must recall that other members of the D-4 have been doing far better already.

There is a certain skill in Congress kind of people, that they specialize in making themselves indispensable even though they do nearly nothing. And we believe that Jaitley does have, and most likely practices, such a skill. He would do a great service to the nation if he can use his skills in rooting out other "Jaitleys" from the government, and device means so that in future newer Jaitleys can not gain entry, then he would have fulfilled more than a fair share of his obligation.

Now that we have meandered round and about, we can return to presenting our review, in the concluding part.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-2

A little Background:

Ten years of UPA, and especially its final years were anything but horrible. Peoples' noses were getting cleared, and they could start smelling the Congress-shit. Wanton corruption, Lawlessness, name what you will, prevailed. People wanted some air (even if not fresh) as much as a drowning man yearns for a whiff of air. This is why Annas, Kejriwals could open their shops. People wanted something different from Congress, and something that could potentially deliver something. In Delhi-2013, BJP could not convince people that it was different from Congress, so people chose Kejriwal (though he deceived the people and jumped into parliamentary elections later).
 

In such a situation Narendra Modi's choice as a PM-candidate inspired people's imagination. Nay, it was almost as if the groundswell people's imagination forced the BJP to make Modi their PM-candidate. Here is a man, they thought, who is clean (different from Congress), and who will deliver (whatever said and done, Gujarat became a reasonably known place for "delivery").

And he led a great campaign. We must be clear, for the moment, that Congress was almost surely destined to lose. Even Advani, along with Nitish Kumar might have cobbled up a coalition, with Congress "respecting" the message of the "peoples' mandate" and letting some of its partners switch sides. So an Advani, or an Advani-like government was, kind of assured. Then what was the need of Modi?

 

A Brief Analysis of Advani:

We have heaped scorn on Advani and Hajpeyi in the past, so are we going to retract our opinion? No. We will present a somewhat more refined analysis. Let us, for the moment look at Vajpeyi and Advani in two "roles"; Vajpeyi-A, Vajpeyi-B; similarly Advani-A, Advani-B. There was Vajpeyi-A who along with Advani-A built the BJP, as if from scratch. (Not exactly, but still). There was Advani-A who led the rath yatra and fired Hindu-imagination with his "Jahaan Ram ka janma hua hai Mandir vaheen banayenge". This was a powerful lunge, in times when politicians were busy further dividing the hindus (Mandal commission and all). In our opinion, Advani-A outperformed Vajpeyi-A. He made a genuine sacrifice in letting Vajpeyi-A become PM, accepting him as his elder and leader. Okay, okay, ignore "Vajpeyi was a coalition builder and such and such...".

And then? And then Vajpeyi-B, popularly known as Hajpeyi happened. Vajpeyi-B was suspicious and insecure re' Advani-A and an internecine feud ensued. The 2004 debacle is history. Whether Advani-A was shortchanged or what remains unknown, though we have our suspicions. But this in a way destroyed Advani-A's "confidence", and (this is our guess, we are not privy to any personal confessions by Advani-A) this started Advani-A's decline and degeneration into Advani-B. While Advani-A stood as tall as, if not taller, than Vajpeyi-A, Advani-B was striving to outdo Hajpeyi in his "haji-ness". This was the reason BJP lost in 2009. In hindsight, we believe that had BJP been unapologetic re' 2002 in 2004 elections, Advani-A would have become PM just as Modi has become PM in 2014. But that was not to be, and in any case it is only our hypothesis.

However, Advani-B too, while unable to fire Hindu imagination, was quite likely equal to the task of puling it off in 2014, just as he did in 1999. Not that well, but some respectable total to cobble up coalition to "respect the mandate".

If, under such background, Narendra Modi got elected, he was chosen by people not to be a Hajpeyi, or Advani-B; rather he has been chosen to outperform Advani-A.

We digress a little further here. Recall what we wrote about Congress. Is it possible to have a "clean" Congress? No, but it IS possible to have a "seemingly" less-dirty Congress for a while. How? Change the people (politicians within Congress). Why only "seemingly"? Here lies the crux of the issue. Congress, as a group of a "kind of people who use certain kinds of solutions", is bound to produce only shit because those "certain kinds of solution" are designed (and known) to do only and precisely that. Ha. Good you guessed it. In a nutshell "secularism" and "socialism" epitomize their "solution strategy". However, that will not elucidate it as much as we wish to convey.

In an abstract way, take secularism as "separation of some concerns", and socialism as "sharing, collectivization of something". This pair, facilitates phenomenal levels of hypocrisy in Indian politics. For example: If Congress loses (apply collectivization) all the leaders (there are no leaders in Congress, only stooges of Congress president) own the responsibility. If Congress wins, it is the Congress president who won. We mention here that such can also be a practice in "good faith" in a good and honest team. However, in Congress, it is a different story. Now, observe most other parties in India. Aren't they similar? Whoever is to be robbed is pushed into a "collection", whoever is to be made "rich" is separated from the "collection". Whoever is to be hidden from "law" is pushed into collection, whoever is to be victimized is separated from the collection. And so on.

So try and view Congress, is a group which practices thusly. So merely changing people or names can hardly help. Also observe that for anyone who is even slightly competent, dropping moral hangups and practising "congress" can be highly profitable. Thus, you find a lot of "competent" people in congress. And then, when you become much more competent, then you don't want to share even within congress, so you start a new congress under a different name. And if you start losing competence, you surrender and rejoin congress. Political history of India post-independence is replete with such stories.

The main point to understand is that whichever group practices "congress" IS Congress, no matter what the name of the party. Now, try to investigate why Hajpeyi and Advani-B were thought to be congressising BJP. And that is why before BJP can push for Congress-mukt-Bharat, it has to become a congress-mukt-BJP first.

 

Another summary evaluation:

Therefore, Modi must ask himself a few questions. Is he really moving towards congress-mukt-BJP? Has his government done something which Advani-B could have done? Has he refrained from doing something which Advani-B would surely have done? These and similar questions will go a long way in grounding his perception.


By the way, those curious re' Vajpeyi and Advani need to be told that while we do consider Vajpeyi-A and Advani-A to be at least somewhat admirable, Vajpeyi-B (Hajpeyi) and Advani-B turned out to be such abominations that their respective sum totals, viz., (Vajpeyi-A + Vajpeyi-B) and similarly (Advani-A + Advani-B), continue to remain despicable. We also mention that someone might refine such analysis further into, for example Vajpeyi-A, Vajpeyi-B, Vajpeyi-C and so on, and come up with even more detailed analysis. Yet, the final sum total would still remain quite indefensible, in our opinion.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-1

First anniversary of getting elected happened on May 16, and that of taking oath happened on May 26. A lot of reviews of past one year have been published. Most reviews can be classified into one of the three categories. First, written by those who are known to be Modi-bashers so were expected to write adverse reviews. Second, written by those who are known Modi-defenders, so were expected to defend the government. About 75% belonged to the first category, and about 20%+ belonged to the second.But there is this third category, which is written by those who want Modi government to succeed and yet wished to provide a critical assessment without undue Modi diatribe while avoiding undeserved eulogizing. When we say that only about 4.5%+ belong to this category, we are still exaggerating the figures. We must also clarify that we have not read all reviews in English, and have read none of the non-English ones. So please bear that in mind. Now we come to our review.

Frankly speaking, we expected a much larger percentage to review Modi in the style mentioned in the third category, and a significant number to review the way we will review Modi in the following. However, we were (and we hope the general readers too) pretty much disappointed. So what category IS our perspective? Well, we present our review so that you can judge it for yourself, and then we will also try and categorize our perspective.

First a quick recap of 1947-2014 and Congress.
There are a large number of people (unfortunately BJP too is infested with them) who genuinely believe that Congress was a great movement (with Mohandas, Jawahar and all) but unfortunately it declined and deteriorated after that.  We believe differently. We believe that Congress was poisonous shit and it kept adding newer shit as well as kept rotting further. Then what changed? We believe that it is the ability of people for clear perception that changed. It was (and continues to be) a case of nose getting cleared and olfactory glands returning to normal sensory perception. Thus the more and the clearer people perceive the stronger the revulsion and disdain they feel for Congress. Further, we don't believe that Congress is only a "set of corrupt politicians" etc. For such problems have easier solutions, like, "change the politicians". When people describe Congress as an ideology, they are closer. We believe that Congress represents a "kind of people, who repeatedly attempt certain kinds of solutions". Such a representation will attract its "kind" of people, and it will perpetrate systems and institutions which keep attempting its "kind" of solutions. Please recall that we are not ascribing any ulterior motives to such "people", at least not now. This does not mean that they do not have ulterior motive. However, our purpose is to remind you, our readers, that even without ulterior motive and even despite the best of intentions, when certain "kinds of solutions" are attempted, it leads to perpetration of shit. Ha, now you are making guesses. Good.



Politician and Lawyer:

Consider how an honest leader is supposed to behave. If a large dirty yard needs cleaning, he inspires the imagination of the people (towards the goal of a clean yard), and starts doing the cleaning himself (inspiring people to join him). Now consider how a lawyer deals with his client. A good lawyer warns his client (often even when the case is strong) and yet strives hardest to get the best possible results. A bad lawyer assures the client (even if the case is weak) but after the debacle quibbles with the client regarding what his assurances meant and what they didn't mean.



Priorities:
Now consider a somewhat lateral situation. (Women might understand it more easily though you don't need to be a woman to understand this). Suppose you and your family returns after (say a fortnight/month) a vacation, and enter the house (say at 5 in the evening). Assume you stay in a not-so-automated house and your house (and appliances) is not connected to the internet-of-things etc. So what sequence of action do you expect? We suggest one (of possible many): You first start the water pump (a few minutes later geysers will have to switched on for heating bath-water). Then you quickly rinse two vessels using the water from the bottle you carried in your journey  (the vessels might have been clean but have accumulated dust), open a milk-packet pour it in one vessel and put it on the gas-stove, similarly you put a another vessel with water (everyone might want to have a cup of tea/coffee!). And then something, and then some more thing etc. While there are many admissible solutions possible, consider the following one. As soon as you get to your house you thrust a broom each in to every member's hands and start cleaning the house. Midway, you realize that it would have been a good idea to have a cup of hot beverage, but now it will take another fifteen minutes (at least) to prepare it, so you tell all to skip it, and finish the cleaning job. After cleaning you realize that the pump was not switched on, so all have to wait for water to be pumped and then heated and so on. Pretty awful scene. Surely much below optimal. (And mind you, we are not alluding here to Swachchh Bharat Mission. Not at all.) What we are alluding to are "priorities". And if one is a sensible family person, while traveling itself one has thought about and decided priorities. Priorities will vary from individual to individual, and family to family. However, if a significantly non-optimal (in some cases counter-optimal) priorities are chosen, one suspects the capability of the chooser (even if not the intentions).



Summary Evaluation:

Suppose there are two delivery mechanisms A and B. On a scale from 0 to 100, suppose A regularly delivers -300 (yes, minus/negative 300); and then when you choose B, he delivers -100, isn't it a great improvement? Yet, is it good? Suppose B delivers 5 (yes positive 5), isn't it HUGE improvement? Still, is it good?
 

So dear reader, we are sure that you have made some very good guesses regarding what we are going to write. And you are not off the mark at all. This does not require any great genius. In fact, we honestly believe that most reviewers ARE much more intelligent than we are, and that is why we were disappointed by their reviews.
 

Also, before we shoot our volleys, we want to make it clear that we are NOT going to complain that "Achchhe Din" have not come, or this or that. Things take time. Journey from -300 to 50 can take a long time. Journey from even 50 to 75 is bound to take time. But, there is another aspect to it. The simplest question is: Has the journey begun? If it has begun, is it to cover -300 to -200, or -300 to -100, or -300 to 5, or what? What was the BEST possible journey that could have begun? Have the best possible choices been made? We all must ask these questions, and answer them for ourselves.

A brief history of the recent past.

Since the time last year when we discontinued blogging for a while; there have been a lot of decent developments. The activity on social media against the so called pseudo-secularism rose drammatically. The use of the term "Hindu" gained at least some popularity in political discussion. Against LKAdvani's resistance Narendra Modi was made the Prime Ministerial Candidate, and he delivered, in elections, that is.

However, this is just the begining. Election rhetoric is slowly subsiding and substantive issues are slowly emerging. Narendra Modi has a tough job on his hands. While he is bogged down by the weight of "lack of development" or rather presence of inhuman poverty and suffering of a great fraction of masses; the real threats facing us are different and much more formidable.

As Hindus we face two major threats to our civilization: External and Internal. External threats include threats from countries like US, China, Pakistan, etc. and ideologies like Islam, Church etc. And internal threats emanate from a lack of political unity which in our opinion is also borne out of a lack of social cohesion or rather an absence of an understanding which results in lack of social cohesion among Hindus. We can also view these as Civilizationally Existential Threats. The adversaries want to destroy our very existence. External is seeking to destroy us; and internal is weakening us. Externals want to encourage internals into weakening us faster; and internals want us to be blind to the gravity of the externals. This vicious circle needs to be broken; and rather a virtuous cycle needs to be put in place. Maoist terror is an example of the external-internal synergy. Using legitimate grievances of the "poor" to perpetrate delegitimization of Hindus and Hinduism. Legitimate grievances exist because of a lack of understanding; and this is exploited by the external powers that be. More often than not, this happens with active collusion of the powers that be in the within.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an unwillingness among Hindus. much more so among Hindu politicians, to discuss many of these issues thread-bare. We must understand that by this we are playing into the hands of adversaries. Equally bad, if not worse, is the tendency among some, most likely equally treasonous, to use the impending crisis to push for their own self-serving "solutions" or should we say "non-solutions"(?).

We can celebrate victories in recent elections. but we need not, rather must not, rejoice prematurely. It is more like a seriously ailing patient reaching the hospital and being admitted to intensive care unit. There can be some sigh of relief but no complacence should be allowed to set in. What is now needed is competent handling of the issues. It might take about a decade or two to come out of ICU but the movement in the right direction needs to begin at once.

While Narendra Modi has taken a few decisions, but they have not been what the Congress government itself could not have taken. NaMo has yet to show that he intends to take a course different from Congress. (Yes, we do know about China-Pak stance etc.) On the other hand, his current positions on Aadhar, foreign GM crops, recent appointments to posts of economic advisor, retaining RBI governor, etc., call for circumspection.

When Congress began its Garibi Hatao campaign, few could have imagined what lay in store; and therefore now when we hear of Development we must not let our guards down. And recall this is still just economics. What measures are being taken regarding civilizational existential threats?

While not being privy to internal decision making process, we must content ourselves with commenting on what we get as information for general public, and yet it will be foolish to mire in a vain belief that something really powerful is happening beind the scenes.

Until External and Internal threats are  at the very least named accurately, we should not trust the dignosis of the maladies. We are still far from it in our public discourse.

We intend to return to a bit of blogging and intend to try and cover some of these topics.

Wish you all a very happy and prosperous Deepavali.

On Challenges from Internal Adversaries

In our recent posts (here and here) we outlined the strategy of Congress and what BJP could do to  counter those devious designs. However, Congress or Secular parties are not the only challenge faced  by Modi. A formidable challenge is being put up by many who are in BJP itself. In order to assess the danger posed by such challenges we need to examine what Hindus suffered under Congress.

After 1857 war of independence, Congress began as an Indian movement, however now we know that it was a British design as a counter revolution. What Brahmo Samaj etc. failed to inflict onto Hinduism, Congress largely succeeded in inflicting onto Hindu-political movement. And the reason for that is not difficult to grasp. While Brahmosamaj etc., were recognized as external pressure onto Hinduism, even if plausibly towards reforms, Congress was misconstrued as an internal movement for independence.                                                            Thus Congress managed to gain access to emotional core of people which they should never have got.

Mohandas, the greatest Congressman, posed as Sanatani-Hindu, and skillfully slipped in his perverted ideas of no-self-defense in the guise of non-violence, etc. He was one of the most useful tools in the hands of British. While it typically took take enormous efforts to begin an agitation, this fake Mahatma could at any time switch it off at once by his emotional black-mail of fast-unto-deaths. In this way, the British had a tight control on when and how to switch any agitation off.

Thus, it was in British interests to equip Mohandas with substantial traction within Hindu society and therefore they gave him lot of respect and propagandized it through British controlled media. It is worthwhile to recall that while Mohandas was touted as a spiritual genius who gave the world new insights, those who eulogized him (for example the British) never used those high principles themselves. Mohandas's letters to various political leaders during the second world war, even if they gave the false impression of containing great spiritual wisdom, are easily seen to be either frauds or puerile.

Congress was useful to the British as all young people who were interested in joining the freedom-struggle would be attracted to Congress and it made the job of British intelligence to track their movements easy. No wonder that those who disagreed with Mohandas left Congress, or were forced to leave, or were betrayed by Congress. For Congress was a tool for subverting Indians (read Hindus). Thus, while British encouraged Congress (despite pretending to be opposed to it), they also encouraged Muslim Leagues of various hues and kinds.

A few points emerge out of the above: Typically,

1. An adversary who has infilterated your ranks is much more dangerous than external adversary who is recognized as an adversary.

Example: Congress, Mohandas, Jawahar inflicted immense damage. Congress by derailing the freedom in freedom-movement; Mohandas by derailing armed struggle; Jawahar by 

2. Such internal adversaries would push for high-moral-standards (which actually are dharmabhasa and rarely are dharma), which are intended to weaken your own resolve.

Example: Congress, Mohandas, Jawahar, etc.

3. These internal adversaries would get very high respect from the external adversaries as epitomes of great virtues. Despite such high-respect the real adversaries never practice the virtues which they eulogize.

Example: Atal Behari Hajpeyi, Brajesh Mishra, etc.

4. Despite all this, if success ensues owing to great sacrifices made by grass-roots workers, the success is attributed to the philosophy and policies of these internal adversaries. Also, despite repeated failures, there will be constant propaganda to strengthen the hands of such subverters.

Example: Mohandas (Partition), Jawahar (1991-"Bankruptcy" of India), Hajpeyi (Kargil).

Example: Mohandas (non-violence), Jawahar (post 1962 debacle), Hajpeyi (consensus builder)

5. These internal adversaries are extremely cruel on anyone who exhibits even a hint of dissent within the fold, while they are very kind with real adversaries (dharmabhasa again).

Example: (What Mohandas did to Bose, what Jawahar did to Many, what Hajpeyi to Govindacharya, etc.)

It would be good to remember here that we do not advocate an openness which is a vulgar washing-dirty-linen-in-public. However, a culture of frank evaluation of ideas, including publicly expressed disagreements, need not be taken as that serious a threat so long as professional co-operation despite differences is practiced. Serious differences leading to a simple disassociation too is admissible. What is important is to accept responsibility. Any large group that practices power without accountability will bear fruits of Mohandas, Jawahar types.

Now we provide a few examples:

1. Mohandas and Jawahar are foregone conclusions. A partition with unprecedented blood-bath, and a policy vision which led us to the 1991 cul de sac, should be sufficient for anyone to sit up and question. However despite these huge costs their policies are being paraded as self-evident truths.

2. Hajpeyi was foisted upon Advani. And then Advani himself discarded his earlier avatar to recast himself as the new Hajpeyi. A Govindacharya who was hounded for his remark on Hajpeyi, has turned around and now attempting to Hajpeyise BJP.

We emphasize that we are not necessarily endorsing any one who was opposed to Mohandas, Jawahar, etc. Many of the opponents themselves suffered from perilous myopia or wanton blindness that those who they were opposing suffered from.

It is also important to note that while there is incessant talk of ideologies, what we perceive are endless glorification of personalities. Despite failure of their ideologies, we still push for critical-evaluation-free idolozing of the personalities who pushed for those ideas, and now want newer generation of leaders to adopt the same poisonous ideas. And, that dear friends, IS the way of subversion. This is the devious design to ensure so that no matter who wins the same shame and sham ideas rule the roost.

The worst is that such subversions finally precipitate in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Recall how a very good opportunity for total population exchange was lost due to Mohandas-Jawaharian partition. Recall how the momentum built by Advani during early 1990's was lost into Hajpeyian consensus-building during late 1990's.

For a long time Hindus have been subverted and deceived by "well meaning" insiders. If we might paraphrase an old quote: The subversion towards defeat is often presented in the guise of good intentions. And it is the "guise" that we need to assiduously guard against. Otherwise, despite quibbling over "fiscal responsibility" we will be sliding into Coercive Wealth Redistribution, despite parroting opposition to "Muslim-appeasement" we will be sliding into Surrendering-to-Islam and Surrendering to Semitic-designs.

Be on vigil against Internal Adversaries.