New World Order (NWO) USA and Pakistani Politics part - ii

In neocolonialism, the method of directly occupying governments has changed. The imperialist countries now form the government of their choice, and this is the strategy that the local powers have learned. This is also the practice of the Pakistani hawaldars now that they seem to be manipulating from the inside out and forming the government of their choice. We have a living example of this. It is said in Punjabi that "One by one they collected firewood."

The rest of the liberals, who are basically captives of their own deep prejudices, are not even capable of seeing the whole process, their eyes begin to glaze over when a "big picture" is presented to them. Ten percent salary increase, so go to the "establishment" hell, look at your interest. If the violations of the constitution fall into the hands of the hawaldar, then there is no problem, because apparently everything is in accordance with the constitution. Can anyone say that the PTI came in an unconstitutional way?

If it was due to Hawaldar and it was wrong action then it is also due to Hawaldar then is this action correct? And what is PDM? Did it come without the consent of Hawaldar? And hasn't Hawaldar been a part of it all from the process of becoming a PDM to giving him a government? That is, should we acknowledge that Hawaldar's interference in politics is over? We will admit it, but when the Liberal Party did not win the election, they did not believe it.

The best strategy for forming a government under neo-colonialism is to ensure that no party has a clear majority. Because in that case Hawaldar will have to intervene directly, which is an old tactic, and that is why the PTI did not get a clear majority. The same strategy will be maintained in the next elections. "One One the Wood" will be collected, so that they can live under the shadow of Hawaldar's fear. 

This is the New World Order, which is used locally by those who read and know books. Just as capitalism is a big statement under the "big scenario" and includes many micro-statements, so too the "establishment" is a big statement in the political process, and all political parties are small statements. The Pakistani hawaldar is not only well aware of this New World Order but also has the practical means to put it into practice.

New World Order ( NWO ) USA and Pakistani Politics part - i

The political situation has changed. This is what has been happening in Pakistan's history since day one. Some people think that all this is in accordance with the constitution, it is foolish to think so. It is unconstitutional for Hawaldar not to interfere in politics, not to form governments of his own accord and not to overthrow governments of his own accord. Therefore, the basic thing that has always been unconstitutional is that every government is formed with the blessings of Hawaldar, and this is the unconstitutional act which cannot make any unconstitutional act constitutional. When a businessman commits fraud, he tries to ensure that every document is in accordance with the law, so that he cannot be caught. And when every document is in accordance with the law, it does not mean that there has been no embezzlement. If a robber erases all his marks by committing a robbery, the mark can be erased but the mark of a robber remains anyway. 

It is the result of Pakistan's 70-year political history that there have always been robberies in the political process according to the wishes of Hawaldar, but the mark of robbery cannot be erased. Sometimes the constitution was broken in public, sometimes the constitution was broken in accordance with the constitution, in order to convince the immature minds that everything has happened according to the constitution. The immature minds keep on preaching that the "supremacy of the constitution" has been established. But the fact is that Hawaldar first brought one, then sent him home, and now he brought him back, whom he had sent home earlier. Hawaldar wants to show that he is powerful and his decision is based on the constitution and law. This is the principle of neocolonialism which the local powers have borrowed from the world imperialist powers.

If we look at each other, the whole history of the PPP and Noon League is a history of throwing dirt on each other, a history of calling each other corrupt, thieves, robbers, looters, boot licking and scoundrels, on each other's women. Dirt throwing history. I do not say, but this is the same Noon League about which the PPP has always said that it came into politics sitting on the lap of the old Hawaldar. And this is the same PPP that when it came to power after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Gilani became the Prime Minister and Zardari became the President. 

The PPP was not ready to even mention his name. Everyone knows that Benazir had a 'deal' with Musharraf, but as soon as she reached Pakistan, she deviated from her deal and the end is in front of everyone. Write down our words and say that these allegations are about to start. This unnatural alliance of eleven parties will not last long. This will continue as long as the Hawaldar wants, and as soon as any party claims to be an independent and sovereign party, the same Hawaldar will come into action, and with this party will use the same neocolonialism tactics as the Nawaz League. Was done and now it is being done with PTI.

Unconditional condemnation of wars

Condemnation of wars must be unconditional. Regardless of who is fighting against whom. Withdrawal from reason begins the war. That is, war is an irrational thing in itself, and in capitalist countries there are periods of irrationality when the interests of the capitalists collide with each other and they fail to come up with any rational solution. Exported in case. That is, the intellect turns into its inverse non-intellect.

I am glad that I was born in an age in which people from rationalist liberal societies take to the streets against the war policies of their own governments, regardless of the position of the governments or the nature of the war. Is happening against In the war against Iraq, 3 million people took to the streets in Spain, 2 million in Italy, 1.7 million in France and 1.2 million in Britain to protest against their governments. Came out, and war was opposed at every level. And it never stopped. 

On the contrary, if we talk about religious wars, it is amazing. On the one hand, war is an irrational thing in itself, and on the other hand, when the slogan of expansion of "Divine Religion" is included, the whole country gathers on the basis of this "Divine Religion" and runs against others. There is no attempt to understand what is right and wrong, just take the name of God and impose barbarism. In rationalist, liberal societies there are regular discussions, from universities to public places, dialogues are held, questions and objections are raised as to why this heinous act was committed.

Russia has imposed war barbarism on Ukraine, so before we get into the debate of right and wrong, Russian barbarism should be condemned because nothing can be more wrong than war, war is so wrong that it has to be right. Giving justification is also wrong. When the United States invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, we condemned the United States and its allies without justification, and wrote many articles against them. Therefore, without getting involved in the debate on who is right and wrong, war should be condemned as much as possible, considering it wrong. Our sympathies are with the people of Ukraine who will be annihilated on the basis of an act they have never done.

Women's Day & their emancipation

Today, on the occasion of "Women's Day", attention was focused on some historical facts. In 1792 the British philosopher Marie Woolen Kraft wrote a book entitled

A Vindication of The Rights of Women

The book presents such rare ideas for women that even today, reading the book, it seems as if it was written in the last decades of the twentieth century.

Rousseau, the forerunner of the French Revolution, was also a staunch Christian at the time. She wrote in her book, Emily, that women should be kept away from rational sciences and confined to the home. In view of these views of Rousseau, Marie Woolen Kraft, who was deeply influenced by the French Revolution, had the opportunity to express her unique views in support of women's rights. Following the publication of the book, Edmund Burke, Britain's "Great Conservative Thinker", was moved and made a lot of fun of Mary Woolen Craft in his book.

My demand was that women need representation in three areas. One is the rational education that is given to men, the other is that they should be given equal opportunity to get involved in politics and the third is that they should be given equal opportunities to work alongside men. 

The situation in Britain today is that 50% of women are doctors, 50% are legislators, 222 women are members of the British Parliament. Are, and four per cent are journalists, while sixty-five per cent of the UK's total workforce. I did my own thing and passed away at the age of only 28.

We have to see if the ideas that are being presented are against the class, is it conservative or progressive? The struggle of women is certainly progressive in itself. Since most other groups and religious parties in Pakistan are conservative, mixing women's voices should be a priority for all "progressives". 

A revolutionary is one who is active, dynamic, and can raise his voice in society at the theoretical and practical level. Ignorant forces and parties are never revolutionary. So salute the struggle of women. Just remember my Woolen Craft in your struggle, and if possible read his book, that book is still helpful in determining the direction of the struggle.

Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of The Rights of Women

Faith Monotheism and Atheism

Believers or atheists, if both of them spend time in improving their morals and character instead of giving advice to others, then I am sure that the common man can be safe from the 'evil' of both of them. The theologian has limited the scope of religion to such an extent that it has become difficult to breathe. 

Fed up with their behavior, many people want to break this "narrow" circle and take refuge in another circle that is a little wider than the circle of religious people, at least they can breathe. That is to say, focus on improving one's actions, leaving the worries of others behind and giving them a higher place in heaven.

I have seen in British, Western and American societies that there is a bar on one corner, a mosque on the other, churches, temples and gurdwaras on the third, fourth and fifth corners. Wherever he wants to go, he goes freely. Problems can arise when one of them, while carrying out a divine service, stops the others from going to their favorite place. 

Impose his will on them, take away their role contract, try to imprison them in his limited circle, so limited that the next moment this person has to be removed from that circle again due to some other action of his. 

Can The same is true of atheists, brothers, congratulations on your atheism! You believe that God does not exist, so do not waste your time and the time of others by discussing things that do not exist. Your atheism and the faith of the theologians are just a means of diverting people's attention from the real issues. Keep atheism and faith to yourself, first find out what the real problems of the people are and then try to solve them.

Maulana Maududi and the woman.

A gentleman has sent me an article about Maududi's wife and said that I need your comment on it. After reading the text, at first I apologized for the logical errors in it, but at his insistence I promised to write a few sentences. Let's go to Maududi first. Maulana says:

"What the West has given to women is not given as women but has been made into men."

The first logical fallacy is that Maududi, by saying "whatever the West has given to women", has driven women out of the West. It is common for women to be Western. The second thing is more interesting than the first. Says:

"In fact, women are still as humiliated in his eyes as they were in the old days of ignorance."

Maududi is admitting that woman was "humiliated" even in the "old age of ignorance". This means that the religion of God, Christianity, spanning over two thousand years was not only the "age of ignorance", but also the woman was considered "humiliated" in this age of Christianity. In short, the two thousand year age of religion was just ignorance, in which woman was not respected. Look at Maududi's second mistake that in the first sentence he said that what he has given to a woman now has made him a "man". In other words, bringing a woman on the image of a man is a disgrace to the woman, therefore the man also remained a "disgrace". That is, the man brought the woman to the level of his "humiliation" and proved that she is also "humiliated". However, it is not so simple. So let's see more. Writes:

"There is still no respect for the queen of the house, the wife of the husband, the mother of the children, a real and genuine woman."

Now, according to the turn they have made, the woman who does not have these "characteristics" should be considered as "humiliated". This means that women in Western society have never been through these relationships, because they themselves have said that they were "humiliated" even in the earlier "age of ignorance", and in their eyes, that is all right. ۔ The rest is their self-made standard, which has nothing to do with Western social life. Mr. Maududi has not stopped here but is making more mistakes. See more:

"If there is honor, it is for a man or a woman who is physically a woman but mentally and mentally a man."

"If there is honor", that is, now they are believing that woman has "honor", whereas before that they have said that woman was "humiliated" before, and still "humiliated". Is. A person who does not know what he is saying is called a teacher of others. Without understanding the values ​​of foreign societies, man does the same stupid things that Maududi has done. Now tell me friends, should I continue reading this foolish article of Maududi or not? Because the next thing about the "dress" is much more stupid, and my enthusiasm has responded.

Maulana Maududi's objection to women's clothing

At the insistence of friends, Maulana Maududi offers another analysis. Maulana says:

"The obvious proof of the mental confusion of the sense of inferiority is that Western women wear men's clothing with pride. However, no man can think of coming out in public wearing women's clothes. "

It is impossible to find an example of the mental and intellectual "inferiority" and narrow-mindedness and moral crisis expressed by Maulvi Maududi in his own words. Maulana has talked about a woman wearing 'pants', jeans etc. And I wonder how ignorant Maulana is of Western culture. In the West, men wear jeans and women also wear jeans (regardless of the fact that government employees cannot wear jeans). As much as there is a difference between men's and women's shalwar kameez in Pakistan, there is also a difference between men's and women's jeans in the West. Go to any big store, there will be a separate section for men's and women's clothing. 

Maulana would also object to women's participation in sports only because of the dress, because in every sport in the world, trousers etc. have to be worn. Now cricket or football cannot be played by wearing shalwar kameez. Maulana will not even know that you can't even go to nightclub wearing jeans here. Maulana's real problem is that woman has slowly broken the orthodox chains of religious ignorance through her struggle. It was deliberately burned alive. 

And the same woman today is teaching thousands of idiots like Maulana sitting in the top universities of Europe and Britain. There are people like Maulana who are captives of the religious ideology of the Age of Ignorance. If they are doing research to make it, then those boys and girls will understand that this person must belong to the "age of consciousness". These are the people who say that their religion has given "rights" to women, such "rights" that they cannot even wear the clothes of their choice.

Iqbal was right:

"Islamic thought has been stagnant for the last five hundred years. There was a time when the world was enlightened by Islam. The most remarkable manifestation of modern history is that the Islamic world is rapidly moving towards the West spiritually. There is nothing wrong with this movement, because the rational aspect of European culture is the expansion of some very important levels of Islamic culture. We are just afraid that the dazzling light of European culture will catch our feet and we will not be able to reach the inside of this culture. "

Intellectually handicapped people like Maulana Maududi had fallen prey to the "dazzling light of European culture", which is why their eyesight was limited to appearances. Has any of the world's great philosophers ever talked about men's or women's clothing? 

Never! But Iqbal was well aware of the philosophical aspects developed by the philosophers, and was convinced of the "spiritual" power of Western society based on their intellectual achievements, which also makes it clear that "spirituality" Has nothing to do with religion and the concept of "dress" by fools like Maulana. What could be more intellectual backwardness of any thinker than to start objecting to the dress of women, when dress is related to culture, and culture grows by its own internal force, breaking the stalemate? It starts with changes in every aspect of culture, not just clothes.