INDIA THAT IS BHARAT
NOW that we have cars that can drive themselves, robots that can serve as waiters, and computers that can argue with you, Satiricus knew that sooner rather than later we are going to have mechanically manufactured journalism. In a way that seems to have come to pass. For the other day he read in the technology section of a newspaper that there is now a new app which “identifies reliable news”. Called “Trooclick”, it can catch “glitches” in online news and highlight the most reliable news for you to read. The report explains that a “glitch” could be any incorrect fact of which the reader should be aware. Says Trooclick: “News reports are full of unverified and conflicting information. The result is that people no longer know if they can trust what they read.”
Well, now, a technology for truth is truly terrific, but so far as Satiricus can see, the question is, does the reader of a newspaper want true news or does he want interesting news? This “Trooclick” would have us believe that he suffers a trust deficit. Maybe that is “troo”, but is it true? In fact in these days of paid news, manufactured news, officially ‘sanitized’ news, deniable news, and plain lies masquerading as news, today’s newspaper reader does not suffer a trust deficit, he enjoys it. He enjoys the daily paper as an entertaining piece of fiction. Why else would every day every daily’s “front” page be found at the back of one or two or even two-and-half pages of ads? And can there be anything more fancifully fictitious than an ad for a face cream or a shampoo?
JUST the other day British Prime Minister Cameron proclaimed that Britain was a Christian country. Since long before that it has been officially proclaimed that the British monarch was the defender of the faith. Putting these two assertions together, Satiricus had assumed that the faith the British monarch was required (or supposed) to defend was Christianity. But now stupid Satiricus is stymied. Being a hopeless Hindu and therefore a pea-brained pagan, he did not know that there are varieties of Christianity, and among them American Christianity is the in-thing. On the other hand, the Brits see that the British brand of Christianity is becoming increasingly indefensible and so seem to have decided that their school children need schooling in American Christianity. As a result more than 20 Christian schools in Britain have started using the US-based “Accelerated Christian Education (ACE)” curriculum books. And what is the American Christianity that these American Christian textbooks teach? According to newspaper reports they teach that “God wants wives to submit to their husbands,” that “children can avoid AIDS by practising the Bible”, and that “homosexuality is a learned behaviour”. Well, now, what do you know? This non-Christian nitwit never knew marriage, AIDS and homosexuality are school subjects. But of course how can an illiterate journalist know anything about schooling? Still he cannot help wonder how the American Christian God could advise American Christian wives to submit to their husbands. Shouldn’t it be the other way round? And how exactly is homosexuality a “learned behaviour” that is a part of “accelerated Christian education”? Being poor in English grammar, as required by his profession, Satiricus does not know if “learned behaviour” means behaviour of the learned or behaviour that is to be learned in school. Whatever it is, such libidinous learning of Christianity is beyond the reach of this Hindu retard.
THE top court of Malaysia has recently upheld a lower court’s ruling that only Muslims can refer to God as “Allah”. But there is a proviso that believers may find difficult to believe. It says this restriction applies only to the Malay-language Christian journal involved in the court case, but Malaysian Christians can still use Allah in their church services, as their Malaysian Bible also uses the word. Oh my God! By what name should secular Satiricus call you? If there is a Bible with Allah in it, what about Jesus, the Son of God? Will he be the Son of Allah? And if he is, will it not mean Jesus, the Son of Allah, is to be adored more than Mohammed the messenger of Allah? But in that case what about that emphatic Islamic assertion : Bakhuda diwana bashad ba Muhammad hoshiyar—“one may be negligent towards God, but one must be circumspect (respectful) towards Muhammad”? And to cap it all, if the Malaysian Bible is more or less the Quran, the Malayalam Bible is called Veda Pustakam! Does that mean Veda is the source of Bible and Quran? Satiricus gives up. He finds it simple to be a Hindu simpleton.