Assad is Hitler. Putin is Hitler. Trump is Hitler. Iran is led by multiple Hitlers. Climate change deniers are Hitler. Did you hear about the Burmese Hitler? This Burmese monk gets the double whammy of being called the Buddhist Bin Laden in the headline and then compared to Hitler later in the article. This article is a brilliant peek into the mind of our elite as they frame things the way they want. Like an ocean wave wearing down the rockiest sea shore, it is a repeated trick that affords control simply because of repetition. Wirathu, the little Buddhist monk, is no Hitler.
Wirathu is a spiritual man looking out for his people and securing their safety from what he considers a threat. Very simply put: Wirathu is a nationalist who rejects multiculturalism. In his instance, it is the Muslim menace. Read on for the comical portrayal of this Hitler in training:
By all appearances, Wirathu seems an unlikely leader of sectarian violence. He speaks in soft, measured tones, clasping his hands thoughtfully. Like all Burmese Buddhist monks, his head is shaved and he is draped in a simple saffron robe. He teaches at a quiet and dimly lit monastery in Mandalay where monks kneel in study or prayer and flowers and images of religious figures decorate the walls. It’s every bit the Western stereotype of Buddhist tranquility.
But the exterior of the monastery is gruesome, coated with propaganda posters depicting violence he claims has been perpetrated by the Rohingya, Burma’s Muslim ethnic minority: collapsed temples and blood-streaked bodies.
“These pictures are here to protect our religion and our national interest,” the monk calmly explained to a BBC reporter in a 2013 documentary. “If we do not protect our own people we will become weak, and we will face more mass killings of this kind when they grow to outnumber us.”
“Muslims are only well behaved when they are weak,” he adds, contemplating another poster. “When they are strong they are like a wolf or a jackal, in large packs they hunt down other animals.”
These are incredibly measured, appropriate, and rational words to utter, given the track record of Islam when it moves into another country. No nation ever said, “Thank God we brought in those Muslims.” It gets even more ridiculous when the article cites how rights groups call him a Neo-Nazi and TIME called him the Burmese Bin Laden.
Doesn’t Wirathu’s rhetoric sound familiar? Anti-immigration voices in Europe echo these words of caution and vigilance. Those voices are similarly being smeared as xenophobic, privileged, and heartless. The media tells you who they side with by saying “violence he claims” which diminishes the accusation, since the article is comparing him to Bin Laden and Hitler. Why would you take his word for it? The media makes Wirathu and his word unreliable to those uninformed reading the Washington Post for insight. This is the same as smearing sites that track gay misdeeds and dysfunction, underclass crime, or immigration problems around the Western world.
Now flip the who-whom, and we would see the opposite. This article is the flip. Kaplan is writing Wirathu as a terrorist-like figure leading Buddhists to purge and eradicate poor, sweet Rohingya Muslims. No nuance is given to the claims against Wirathu. The minority group is automatically given the benefit of the doubt. New Burmese legislation put into place that restricts a faith is broadcast as repressive. The media silence on the plight of Christians in Muslim lands is portrayed as one of exodus and dwindling numbers, not repression, death, and harassment.
The who-whom always matters, as the media is our arbiter of what is good and what is bad. This was echoed here in America as the Charleston shooting led to the erasing of the Confederate Battle Flag from everywhere (including Google searches) because it was white on black. A homosexual, black male media member shoots some white people after writing a manifesto detailing his distressed mental state and calling for a race war, yet that is brushed off the news as fast as the calls for gun control fail. His manifesto has still not been fully released. Who-whom, it’s not just for domestic issues. Who-whom, but who is the third party telling everyone else about it?
Something deeper is revealed in the passage quoted. This writer (Sarah Kaplan) stereotypes all Buddhism as peaceful. This is a SWPL western frame of mind on display, one which holds religion of the host society (Christianity) as evil, while foreign religions are fetishized. Buddhism has its corruption and problems just like any long-standing, organized institution. Kaplan is writing from the American inch-deep, mile-wide SWPL base of knowledge of cool Buddhism. Kaplan is choosing to frame a religion as a peaceful community open to all others by default, rather than looking at Buddhism as a set of rituals, history, and shared values of a group.
Kaplan also forgets, or chooses to disregard, that if threatened, religions approve of the sword. Holy wars are not just an evil to associate with the Crusades and those who “distort and pervert” Islam. Buddhism even has some history of conquest and conversion. Religion is a set of rituals and beliefs shared by a people. Wirathu and the Burmese Buddhist majority are dealing with outsiders who operate under a universalist worldview of forced conversion, subversion, and infiltration. They are also dealing with Muslims. A group of people threatened by an outsider will naturally look to remove that outsider, religion be damned. Protect the group.
Kaplan also reveals the stupidity of the American media that guides foreign policy and informs the little people. She is a writer under 25 telling you about this evil little man. Her Hitler comparisons might now be ethnic in origin but revolve around the boogeyman that earned her As at Georgetown. Giving her the platform to write about Wirathu is a joke in the first place. Her silly Hitler comparisons are just a byproduct of that paper empowering an adult wet behind the ears. A calm little Buddhist monk speaking for his people… Bin Laden… Hitler!
Nationalism is bad. Expelling outsiders is bad. Not supporting multiculturalism is bad. The media is the tool of our imperial elites, so it is obvious who they side with in the current battle of nationalism vs. globalism. Get used to Hitler comparisons, because the struggle between nations, peoples, and the global elites will continue to heat up as the glue that holds it together weakens. The edges of the American Empire will show the first signs of stress. The dangerous thing, and the irony in these Hitler comparisons, is the global elites’ belief that they can control Muslim populations no matter how many they bring in, which is similar to how many old German elites felt about Hitler and his Nazis. As the racism card has descended to a laughable attack only scary to the GOP elite, the Hitler card may one day simply be applied to one man or woman leading a people who object to their eradication.