Gandhi Was A Creepy Racist

By Morris M. on Sunday, September 8, 2013
“I’m a lover of my own liberty, and so I would do nothing to restrict yours. I simply want to please my own conscience, which is God.” —Mahatma Gandhi

In A Nutshell

Gandhi was a saint in his time, a man who overthrew British rule in India without a single act of violence. He was also a class-obsessed, closet racist and kinky pervert who slept surrounded by naked women and may have had an affair with a German bodybuilder.

The Whole Bushel

Gandhi is one of the most widely revered figures of the 20th century, a peaceful protester who stands shoulder to shoulder with Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of great leaders. However, he was also an excellent PR man, managing to hide the less savory aspects of his character until long after his death.

How unsavory? Well, there’s no doubting that Gandhi had little time for black people. During his 21 years in South Africa, he repeatedly expressed contempt for the native population, claiming they were no better than the “untouchables” of Indian society. One speech in particular stands out. In 1896, he was quoted as referring to black South Africans as the “raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” For those of you who aren’t up on your South African slang, “kaffir” is a direct equivalent of our N-word.

Another time, he complained about finding himself in a “kaffir” prison, claiming Indians were “above” natives, who “are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.” It’s at this point we should probably mention he also admired Mussolini and once happily reviewed a black-shirt parade in Italy.

But it wasn’t just racism and dictators that Gandhi enjoyed—weird sex was an integral part of his daily routine. Or make that “weird non-sex,” because Gandhi was absolutely committed to celibacy, fuming every time he suffered “involuntary discharges.” Apparently, so determined was he to rid his body of its propensity to accidentally ejaculate that he took up sleeping naked, surrounded by nubile young women—including his grandniece, Manu.

In fact, the only sexually normal relations Gandhi may possibly have had are with (male) German bodybuilder Hermann Kallenbach, of whom he wrote, “How completely you have taken possession of my body. This is slavery with a vengeance.” Unfortunately, public Gandhi was less tolerant of homosexuality than this relationship supposes, ordering all the ancient homoerotic art to be cleared from Hindu temples as part of a “sexual cleansing” campaign.

Examined with hindsight, Gandhi looks less now like a saint than a strange, perverted weirdo who just happened to achieve some extraordinary things. Yet achieve them he did and for that he should always be remembered—no matter what he liked to do with nubile, naked girls.

Show Me The Proof

The Gandhi None of Us Knew
Thrill of the chaste: The truth about Gandhi’s sex life
Gandhi branded racist as Johannesburg honours freedom fighter
Mussolini and Gandhi: Strange Bedfellows

  • Rijul Ballal

    Oh you are soo gonna have a huge backlash for this article. I myself am an Indian and let me tell you from experience this could get vicious.

    • charlie vega

      Ghandi was a bad gay man. Accept it already. It’s a fact.

      • Rijul Ballal

        I do,i was merely predicting the backlash that tends to haunt this list..

        • gvanderleun

          Thank you. Now you can go back to your room.

        • lonelydisco

          Carried from Listverse – this isn’t a list, I’m afraid. This is an *”article”*.

      • inconspicuous detective

        why was he a “bad” man? weird, possibly gay, and racist, yea, but why bad? did he do something wrong or are you just uncomfortable with how he was? because i assure you EVERY great person in history has an equally dark side to them somewhere, whether we know of it or not.

        • Supbro

          I think racism could
          be defined as a bad trait?

          Bad bad man

          • inconspicuous detective

            yea, a bad trait maybe, but good men have those. everyone does, even regular not – so – spectacular people. i don’t see how a bad trait on it’s own can make someone a bad man, barring things like disregard for human life.

      • skwills

        Bad I can accept, btu gay Im not gping to withotu facts. The line quoted about his German Body Builder possessing his body may not have been Sexual at all.

        But yeah I knew of his “Nonsex” with women, and his Racism.

      • Gyanu Mani

        first afleast learn to spell his name..then post your fcuking comments

    • Jamie Frater

      Hehe we saw that from many Indian readers on a Listverse list that mentioned this.

      • Exiled Phoenix

        Hi appu;)

    • Guest


    • you are wrong, there are still indians like me who would appreciate this article, widen your thoughts and understand more about nehru, gandhi, and others. imagine why there were two groups, naram dal (soft faction) and garam dal (hot faction) why cant they stay together??

      and please don’t explain from the history books because those are dramatically diplomatic and the real picture is expertly hidden, sort like a crime scene with lot of unseen evidence.

      • lonelydisco

        You’re interpreting his words as a bit of a slight attack, it seems. Look below. Or above?

        • Peace sister!!!

          No offense taken.

          • lonelydisco

            Brother, actually!!!

            No offense taken. I sound like a girl, however aged I am.

          • everyone is a idiot

            dude,it probably has a lot to do with your profile pic than you sounding like a girl

          • lonelydisco

            Believe me, that’s not the case.

    • Asrul

      I just wonder how cme the poweful king Osman Ali Shah Asaf Jah willing to absorb his rich hydrabad state into very much poorer India?

      • Rijul Ballal

        We took military action and invade him.

      • Rijul Ballal

        If you really read into it, it does raise some ethical questions.Try reading October coup if you wish to learn more.

      • Eyan Khan

        hyderabad was invaded by india(unjustly)

    • Sachet Chavan

      Trust me the indians who read such kind of articles are pretty open minded and have a sound brain to understand that no person can be a ‘Mahatma’.

  • vuvuadi

    ‘Kaffir’ is way worse than ‘nigger’. They don’t go around referring to themselves as kaffirs in their rap music like African Americans do. It is one of, if not the most hated word in South Africa.

    • charlie vega

      Thank u captain black

      • vuvuadi


        • MRlC

          youre missing a K

          • David Robilliard

            I know it’s two years after you posted this. But are you still a disgusting racist or have you changed your tune?

      • Kaydot Mcdiamonds


    • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

      You’re right, we don’t, we don’t even joke about it amongst ourselves. Its actually one sure fire way to get your ass kicked in SA.

      • zerooskul

        Was it so in 1896 when the Whit Government was shitting on every Kaffir left and right and accusing Gandhi of being one?

        Was he to respond about Black people or was he to respond in the language with which the government addressed him?

    • GunsAndTheBeast

      to my knowledge, correct me if im wrong here, kaffir is from the arabic kuffar, which basically means a disbeliever (of a certain religion that the africans believed perhaps). Which eventually spreads around and became an insult, a word that is offensive as the n-word. Just like d-bag or bastard. lol

      So, n-word isn’t really related though.

      • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

        Well,when my grandparents and my parents were getting beaten, forced into cotton fields and made to pick cotton until their hands bled and being treated worse than people treat their dogs while having the k-word shouted at them, the word meant as much as the n-word did to African Americans so clearly you have no fucken idea what you’re talking about.

        • Ha


          • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

            Don’t care*

          • Ha

            suck a dick*

          • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

            With pleasure

          • Gyanu Mani

            Will you have same pleasure sucking my dick also.. your sister already done that

        • Al Sharpton

          well if your granparents and parents chose to pick cotton. how is that anyone’s fault? they were paid for their work. there has not been slavery in the past 2 generations (your parents and grandparents). so don’t bitch about what they freely chose to do as a career.

          • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

            Excuse you?!? They didnt choose anything! They were forced by the apartheid laws and what was done to black South Africans was the same as slavery. Do you even know what you’re talking about?!? Get your facts straight before you speak shit you know skwat about!

          • Al Sharpton

            since the majority of people on this site will be more from usa then south africa. you might want to hint atleast that your speaking of south africa and not america. because everyone going to assume

          • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

            Oh poor Americans, excluded from a topical conversation. *rolls eyes and dies* well I only responded as a South African because of the nature and content of the list so next time don’t assume. Because is makes an ass out of u and me but mostly u.

          • relay

            Y’know, when you die, you shut up!

          • Andrew Gora

            you are a grade A fuckwit; slavery still exists in the United States as well it’s just reserved as punishment for a crime (which is why our entire justice system now targets people of color)

          • Al Sharpton

            not legal slavery you fucking wana be troll

          • Andrew Gora

            YES, LITERAL LEGAL SLAVERY; slavery is LEGAL in the United States as punishment for a crime, and now we have privatized prisons exerting massive political pressure to criminalize everything that black and latino people do, to create a legal institution of slavery. Sit the fuck down.

          • Al Sharpton

            you need just gon head sit yo crack pipe down is what u need 2 do

          • Andrew Gora

            I’m going to take the lack of any actual content in your reply as a sign that you’ve realized I’m right and given up

          • Jeremy Paler

            I co-opt this. Labor is exported out of private prisons for other nodes in the private sector. It’s a travesty.

          • Rebe Lee

            I am Gypsy and my own people suffered 1000+ years of slavery, and are currently dealing with apartheid in Europe, please stop being an insensitive asshat comparing American prison sentences in nice air conditioned buildings with beds and tv and computers and libraries and medical care, to the atrocities actual slaves endured. Americans are very self-absorbed. Trust me, you don’t have any clue what real hardship is. Even your poor still have homes and beds and tvs and cell phones. Get back to me when your black and latino communities are so cut off you live in shanty towns with homes made of whatever scrap you can find in a landfill, and no running water or power, much less tvs and cell phones and cars and air jordans. smh

          • David Robilliard

            Are you a proper gypsy, or a gypsy that throws rubbish over walls in bags and goes on the rob?

          • Rebe Lee

            Don’t be a racist twat. The people that do that are Irish Travellers and, mostly, white new age hippies calling themselves Gypsies..neither group has any ties to us..

          • David Robilliard

            How in Christ’s name is that racist. The question was quite clear. I was asking if you were a proper gypsy. As in the ones with heritage and respect for others. Or the other type. There was no racism in it at all. Get a grip.

          • Rebe Lee

            Well then I apologize, all I have to go by is everything I constantly hear..Media, and now far too many regular folks, blame everything bad on Gypsies so I’m a bit defensive at this point. I never quite understood why the UK groups Travellers and hippies under that name. I am a proper Gypsy.

          • Brian Rebecca Meadows

            Oh like steeling murder selling cracks OK you right let’s make that legal but only for blacks and Latinos

          • Esteban Robledo

            2013 the year record on slavery

          • fuck google and android

            But they get to fuck tons of white boy pussy!

          • Brian Rebecca Meadows

            Realy that’s ignorant it punishment why shouldn’t you work tax payers can’t pay for everything don’t break the law and you don’t have to worry

          • Pill Collins

            If you bothered to read, you would have understood that Africans were being referenced. Your ignorance is startling.

          • From USA

            It should’ve been pretty obvious, to anyone people with basic reading comprehension abilities, that she was always talking South Africa. The level of her “likes” compared to yours suggest this. She also specifically referred to South Africa and/or the use of “kaffir” (a South African thing) several times in her comments. Obviously if she’s talking about the use of “kaffir” against her grandparents, she’s not talking about America bro.

          • The anti-everything guy

            aaa , yes she is , she said saying the n!gger word would get your ass kicked in the USA, not south africa!

          • Sandra Bell

            I didn’t assume. She is perfectly clear.

          • Rebe Lee

            Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills understood she was talking about South Africa…

          • Bruce Harrington

            Laws to make black people pick cotton in SA and they were essentially slaves, Holy fucking shit, it’s dumb fucking black people like you who give South-Africa a bad rap and actually make this country a pile to live in. Get educated you stupid bitch.

          • Nicci Bow

            Woooooow! Get Out!

          • Dick Fitzwell

            Not the brightest star in the sky there are ya Al? Basic comprehension of the conversation lets us know the “k-word” is only used in South Africa. So Al, why would you assume Kaydot’s family be yelled the k-word here in America? Point blank he said “… we don’t even joke about it [using the k-word] amongst ourselves. Its actually one sure fire way to get your ass kicked in SA.” He clearly states wheres he’s from, and his experience with the word. Your ignorance not only makes no logical sense but it proves you are hot-headed and quick to jump to radical conclusions.

            Slavery does exist in America and the rest of the world. There are approximately 30 million slaves right now. 30 million people are living as forced laborers, forced prostitutes, child soldiers, child brides in forced marriages and, in all ways that matter, as pieces of property, chattel in the servitude of absolute ownership. 162 countries were investigated and slaves were found IN. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Including your precious USA.

          • TheTimmynator

            Nicely summed up.

          • Maria Ivanova

            Can you tell me where from did you gain that information? I would like to learn more about it

          • The anti-everything guy

            And that means what? slavery lives in every country that a government has established!

          • Pill Collins


          • Truvvy

            I don’t think ure rly talking to Al Sharpton.

          • barney23

            Black Americans and ignorance!

          • TooHi

            Ignorance period. Let’s not fall into that trap of labeling all because of a few. You’d be surprised how many internet racist take on black figures names like “Al Sharpton” And then proceed to make comments as such in attempt to make Blacks look bad. He typed “crack pipe” definitely out of touch, I don’t think Al Sharpton is Black but I’m sure he’s American.

          • Rebe Lee

            It’s obviously not the real Sharpton, but the real deal has also used ‘crack pipe’ and is def out of touch, and is also a racist, close enough……..

        • Bruce Harrington

          LMAO I know I’m late to the party here but picking cotton in SA? SMH

        • Marius

          Without wanting to chose sides here, I travelled through Southern Africa, including South Africa in the time Apartheid was still in its full glory and though there was a boycott against SA, many blacks in what was then called ‘the front line states’ (the countries surrounding South Africa) were trying to get into South Africa coz, apartheid or not, there was work and food.
          Though SA was internationally criticized for apartheid, ethnic segregation was exactly that what the United Nations did as a ‘solution’ to the Balkan War

        • Andre Moore

          Ahaha, cotton in South Africa, who are you fooling!!! Where did this happen, Limpopo? For all the Americans visiting, cotton is not a significant agricultural industry here, with only the smallest sliver of land in the North East being suitable for its growing. She is trying to link conditions in SA with slavery in the deep south of the US.

        • relay

          When the fuck did y’all ever pick cotton? Trust me, it wasn’t the same as in the U.S….lol

      • AJ Prasad

        You are actually correct. It was not until later that the term became derogatory towards blacks. I find it scary that there is this defamation movement going around to against Gandhi and MLK Jr.

      • Yung Pervert

        Fuck u bitch

      • Marius

        That may be, but ‘kaffer’ wasused by early arab slavetraders for many negro tribes in afrika. As such it became a word in Afrikaans that was used to indicate various Bantoe tribes and sometimes to indicate one specific tribe. A 1596 text in Afrikaans mentions: “die swarten ofte Caffres (ghenaemt) van ‘t land van Mossambique en
        alle die custe van Aethiopia ende te landwaerts binnen, tot die Cabo de
        bona Esperança ”
        =The blacks or (named) Kaffers from the land of Mozambique and all from the coast of Ethiopia and hinterlands till the Cape of Good Hope”
        At the same time, ‘Kaffer’ is from tje hebrew word “kofer” for ‘village’ or ‘Farmer’ that was embodied in Dutch and used as ‘ill mannered person’ and as such maybe also in Afrikaans.
        In Dutch the word ‘kaffer’ is predominantly used in the meaning of ‘ill mannered person’ without any skin color involved.
        In my youth I also learned it in its meaning as the name of one specific Bantoe tribe, without any derogatory connotation.
        “Nikker” is the derogatory word used in Dutch.

        Supposedly the arabic ‘kufar’ is a loan word from hebrew or Aramaic and means ‘denial’ or ‘someone who denies’ Supposedly it is not related to the hebrew word ‘kofer’ that means ‘village’/’farmer’

        • D_L_L_D

          Dropping knowledge on deaf ears. People want to tear down our heroes.

      • Rebe Lee

        Yea, um, the n word originates from the Spanish ‘negro’ which simply means black. So, the n word doesn’t have negative origins either.

        • Truth Keeper

          The Latin word (Niger) means dark or black. Interesting note: ” Now in Antioch there were prophets and teachers in the local congregation:+ Barʹna·bas, Symʹe·on who was called [Niʹger], Lucius of Cy·reʹne, Manʹa·en who was educated with Herod the district ruler, and Saul.- Acts 13:1

          This word has been used for over two thousand years. The original definition was not used in disgrace, but to identify a certain skin complexion. It did not occur until centuries later this word had taken on another negative stereotypical meaning to the likes of attempting to link dark skinned people with being ignorant or stupid.

      • Mr. Hooks

        You guys are idiots. Nigga or Nigger is derogatory and racist because it is derived from the Latin word Negro which means black. You calling Gandhi a racist because he referred to ppl as Kafir but no one on here knows what the word even means. Kafir is what Muslims called non believers it’s in the Kuran for God sake. It has nothing to do with being black smh.

    • Exiled Phoenix

      Who besides them cares?

      • vuvuadi

        Almost everyone, actually.

        • Exiled Phoenix

          You are wrong!

      • Phil_42


        • Exiled Phoenix

          Not what your mom said;)

    • furrykef

      But Gandhi said it in 1896, when it simply meant “native black South African” and carried no insulting connotations. Turning this into “Gandhi said the South African equivalent of the N word” — let alone anything worse than that — is ignorant at best, and character assassination at worst.

    • FunnyMonkay

      Please don’t minimize the negativity of the n-word. “Nigga” is much more different than “nigger”. The former is a modified version of the latter in an attempt to reclaim it amongst ourselves, but you’d still get beat down if you’re white and say either.

      Some of the younger generations have forgotten the origins of “nigga”. While it may be a word meant to inspire solidarity — a synonym for “brother/friend”, as they often say — it’s a specific solidarity; black solidarity. It’s also meant to show we acknowledge, remember, and recognize the past in which we were oppressed.

      So yeah.. it’s not a matter of “way worse”. It’s a matter of “how two different ethnic groups dealt/deak with oppressive slurs.”

  • charlie vega

    Everything in this article is true. Ghandy was a sick perverted old Hindu And gay.

  • Lyon

    He was also a lying little bitch
    Inciting violence whenever he could

  • Hillyard

    What is this Morris Sunday? We all have our little twists and kinks, when your famous like Ghandi you need to keep them hidden. The whole sleeping with naked young women to ‘test’ himself (I wonder how many times he ‘failed’ that test) is well known. The racism and possible homosexual relationship is new to me. So another idol with feet of clay, his activities don’t seem to have hurt anyone, except his posthumous reputation. While knowing about such failings is okay, we shouldn’t let them overpower what he managed to accomplish.

    • Swapnaja

      His racism side is well known in India. His views were “we should accept what god told us about human caste syatem”, and only thing he did was to refer the untouchable “dalit” as “Harijan” (people of god).

      • skwills

        Its God, Cap G. I know its become popular to leave god in lower case but its used as a name, so its capitalised. Please don’t tell me it snot a name, the sentence structure dictates that it is because its used to identity a specific entity. That is also True regardless of if you believe in God or not.

        • Dick Fitzwell

          Then what the hell is the capital T in “True” for?

          • skwills

            I just have a tendency to do so, but it is not Grammatically incorrect to do so. It is Grammatically incorrect to leave Names in Lower Case though.

          • Basil Malik

            god god god god god god god god god god god god god god god god god god god god god god god. Lower case is the reflection of the prominence fairy tails and the purveyors of those fairy tails hold on my existence. god.

          • skwills

            In other words, yoru a bigot who lieks to spell god in lower case just to show of oru suppsoed Ateism, even though the asusmption that belivers calitalise god out of revernece is itself false. Yopu also ue the overused “Fairy Tales’ rubbish to make youself seem smarter withotu havign to actually oresent a Reason why someone else is wrong.

            Oh, and yoru Choldish, and need to try to hurt peopel by repetition of soemhgin that irritates them, even if you dont get why it irritatws them.

            I’ll not be takign you seriosuly in the Future.

          • Basil Malik

            Really fed up with the hyperbole and the bs spewed by those that claim to believe. I would point out if your salvation depends on and can be offended by the lack of capitalization, then there are serious issues with you salvation. I also would like to ask you what have you done in the last week that reflects the teachings of christ? Have you stood up for injustice? Have you fed the hungry or supported policies and organizations that feed the hungry or fight for equality in education, the criminal system.. .have you done anything that Jesus would do because Jesus wouldnt be bitching about grammar and god would be too powerful, too mighty, too omnipotent to give a f*ck. #IJS

          • skwills

            I didn’t say anything about ones Salvation, however, the Grammatical Rule is still there. it is improper grammar to leave god in lower case when using God as a name, and Atheists began doing this to illiberality insult god, operating on the false assumption that Christians capitalise God to distinguish him from the false gods, since god and gods are both left in lower case. The reality is, people capitalise God not ourt of reverence, but because its used to identify a specific person, making it a name, and the reason god and gods is left in lower case such as “the god Apollo” is because it’s not a name.

            I don’t see how that’s Hyperbole, and I didn’t say ones Salvation hinged on it. I did say the trend in leaving god in lower case was irritating because its poor grammar being used as an insult, and makes no sense given the actual Reason why God is capitalised though.

            by the way, god is not omniscient and powerful, God is.

            Also,l you really should learn about the people you deal with before asking them to prove to you how well they lead the Christian Life. You really don’t know hat I did last week and are assuming that I did nothing to help society. Way to go on the Hypocrisy.

          • Basil Malik

            I neither accused you of doing nothing nor awarded praise unto for all your efforts. I just posed the question which is very valid. I am sure to the highest degree of certainty god would prefer you work on more substantive issues then grammar. Grammar doesnt save souls and with no saved souls there is no money in the coffers to spread exclusion, intolerance and ignorance in the name of Jesus.

          • skwills

            Actually, god doesn’t think anything, because god is impossible in the English Language. It’s still God, Capital G, and its still wrong to leave god in lower case. Instead of asking me questions about what I’ve done, let me instead ask you this; Why do you insist on spelling god in lower case when its patently clear that god is used as a name and should be capitalised?

            Of course you’ve already answered that with saying the Salvation of Souls is all about putting money in the coffers so that the Church can spread exclusion, intolerance, and ignorance in the name of Jesus. The reason you spell god in lower case is just to insult Christianity, and you don’t care about the fact that its bad Grammar so long as the objective in delegitimising God as a concept is met.

            You’re also a Hypocrite since you ask what I’ve done that’s good yet act like if I am a devout Christian I’m about spreading exclusion, intolerance, and ignorance.

            And the supreme Irony is, that’s what your preaching. By attacking Christianity and depiction it as an Evil in the world that spreads Exclusion, intolerance, and ignorance you’re basically trying to get people to themselves be exclusionary of Christian concerns, intolerant of Christian beliefs, and perhaps Christians themselves, and ignorant of this beliefs. Indeed, spelling god in lower case itself spreads Ignorance of the English Language, as well as serves as a means to berate Christianity by casting their god as not real, like the other gods, which was the original, albeit misguided reason for doing the spelling of god in lower case.

            So in the end, you’re just a Hypocrite trying to mock and harass Christians who spells god in lower case just to make people upset and to spread hatred. I see no real value in that.

            We both know that Christianity isn’t about spreading exclusion, intolerance, and ignorance, and we both know that Christianity is not a racked to make Money, those are just slanders you use to depict it as Evil, and really it gets as old as spelling god in lower case.

            By the way, before you try this tactic, I’ve also defended Islam, and Judaism, and even Atheists, if they are misrepresented. This isn’t about me being a Christian, and being upset that you trounced on something I’m forcing on you, its just about proper Grammar and now, its about proper respect and manners, as well as accurate presentation. Lying about Christianity is just really pathetic.

          • Basil Malik

            I really have to find other ways to entertain myself… in the meantime. While you are obviously the patron saint of grammar. A distinction you’re probably proud of but god could care little about, you’re use of the English language, specifically your love for the word hypocrite and all derivatives as applied to me has been extremely out of context as I have not set a moral standard for myself and then acted in opposition to those beliefs.

            If I where you I would ask god for intervention with my reading comprehension and pray for the understanding of words and there meanings. Furthermore, if I had been hypocritical, is it then christian of you to call me a hypocrite when scripture says “all men fall short of the glory god.” There is also a couple of things in there about casting judgement. When you are typing what you obviously feel are your divinely superior comments is your light shining “so all men shall see thy works?” Is your temperament being displayed here a reflection of Jesus and his teachings?

            Just a few more relevant points and then I have work to do… I have not attacked anything or anyone nor have I preached as you suggested. I have provided factual indisputable observations that just because you dont agree with them doesn’t make them wrong. Religion in America is a $400 plus Billion dollar industry. Period. Christian retail sales is a $200 billion dollar industry. Period. The catholic church holds over $500 billion dollars in real property in the United States. Since they do not produce or manufacture anything where is that money coming from? Souls. So whether you are intellectually stable enough to make a connection between saving souls and profits, the connection exists.

            I’ve saved the best for last. Since name calling is one of your better suits I will still refrain from indulging but you did call me pathetic for suggesting Christianity is spreading exclusion, intolerance and ignorance. It may be you are not yet sophisticated enough to understand these things but they are true at least in the form of American Christianity. There were christians in Arizona who wanted a law that would allow them to “exclude” from doing business with anyone they disliked. Actually I get intolerance points for that example as well. This is a fun game. It is the Christians in Texas (actually all over the south) that do not want science taught to their children. You know big bang, evolution. Nor do they accept the overwhelming evidence of science change. One could argue by denying science they infact propagate ignorance. I didnt even have to bring up slavery or Jim Crow which used christianity as its justification. (bet you wont get that either maybe I’ll explain later). I didnt even have to mention all the christians in congress or the religious right whom have no problem railing against poor children receiving free lunch or poor families receiving assistance for food. I am really not the right person for you to have your hissy fits with plus its doesnt get you any cool points with god,

          • skwills

            You didn’t address my question. Why do you spell god in lower case when you use god as a name? Like when you ask em why god doesn’t’ help me with Reading Comprehension, or what god cares about? As you are using god as a name, why do yo leave it in lower case?

            You do it to insult god, of course, and by extension those who believe in him.

            You’re also willing to lie. For example, you say the Catholic Church does not produce anything, and act like it just collects money to get rich, whilst ignoring the fact that the average Priest makes about 30’000 a Year, and the Catholic Church actually runs numerous Charities, including Hospitals, Homeless Shelters, Child Care, and other very crucial services they give away for Free. The same is True of the Protestant Churches, and most Churches. They don’t just make pure profit.

            Like spelling god in lower case, you’re willing to ignore the facts and just use it as a way to attack others.

            You’re also oversimplifying the Situation that “American Christians” do. For starters, not all American Christians back any initiative you named, and for another, our still lying about them. EG, no American Christian, even in the South, actually says “We don’t want Science taught to our Children”, and Big Bang Theory is actually not objected to like Evolution is. Evolution is not the end all be all of Science and rejecting it does not make someone Anti-Science in general. Of course, the Real argument is over if they can teach alternatives to Evolution, with no one that I know of arguing that Evolutionary Theory should be banned all together. But who cares about the facts? With you, god is spelled in lower case and American Christiana want their Children to not be Taught Science.

            By the way, I’m not a Creationist. However, I do know that Teaching Intelligent Design alongside Evolution is no the same thing as not teaching Evolution, and I know that Evolution is not “Science” in general.

            Climate Change isn’t even objected to by “Christians”, its objected to by some Christians, whilst others actively participate in campaigns to mitigate it. Both the Catholics and Anglicans for example actively support efforts to hinder Human Damage to the Environment, but you lump them in with “The Christians”. By the way, there are Atheists who disagree with Climate Change. Again, disagreement with Climate Change does not mean disregard for Science as a whole.

            As for Businesses, what these Christians object to is outright participation in things that contradict their morality. EG, catering a same sex wedding. You can call them exclusionary and intolerant all you’d like but, how is forcing someone to engage in a behaviour they don’t want to be part of, or lending material support for such behaviour, better?

            If someone doesn’t want to, say, bake a cake for a Same Sex Marriage or rent a room to a same sex couple, they aren’t being exclusionary, they are standing on their own Moral Principles.

            I also lean rather Libertarian so, I’d argue that if someone owns a Business they should have the unqualified Right to refuse service to anyone just because they don’t like them, but even barring that, the Truth remains that the Christians your complaining about aren’t lobbying for Laws so they can refuse to do business with someone just because they don’t like them, they are lobbying for laws that would protect them from having to act against their own moral Conscience.

            The issues you brought up are far more complex than your willing to admit. Its like when people say Christians oppose Stem Cell Research. They don’t. What’s opposed is Embryonic Stem Cell Research, because of the Source of the Embryos, and that it is an Ethical rather than Scientific issue.

            Ignoring the actual reasoning people use and what they actually want is simply a form of Lying.

            By the way, “The Christians” opposed both Slavery and Jim Crow Laws.

            Wilberforce, for example, saw the abolition of the Slave Trade in the British Empire in 1807, and in 1833 lead by Christians Slavery was abolished in the British Empire, and even in America a driving force behind Abolition was Abolitionist preachers.

            Oversimplifying History is just stupid.

            By the way, Hypocrisy is not limited to Morality. You can be a Hypocrite for saying Reality TV Shows are terrible and no one should watch them, without making a moral judgement, and watch them yourself.

            Hypocrisy is ding something you condemn, but is not limited to moral objections.

          • Basil Malik

            Wow just because you feel all enlightened well beyond your pay grade and can reconstitute bigotry, ignorance, exclusion, hatred, manipulation, slavery, and climate change in clever little packages palatable for you and your ilk, does not make what you type correct on so many levels.

            Not sure which would be more priority for you, faith or libertarianism but faith would not lead you to be intolerant and practice exclusion as this is something Jesus never did. He was in the company of whores and lepers and other undesirables and did not pass judgement. In fact he was compassionate. So realistically you cant be both with out being a ummmmmm what the word Im looking for? oh! A hypocrite.

            Everything else you mentioned in the above comment doesnt merit debate as many a folk way smarter than you or I would tell you the very justification for the american slave trade was Christianity and the white superiority complex built on the false premise of the whiteness of Jesus. In the same way that folk smarter than you could educate you on evangelism in America and its effect on education, climate change and programs to help the poor. None of those effects by the way would be considered christian.

            While you argue from an emotional investment in beliefs. I have facts. Facts that have been noted, recorded, written about and are available on google. Emotions, religious affiliations and political beliefs change and evolve. Facts remain the same no matter how hard you try to bend them to support your arguments. Google is a helluva drug. Thank god for it.

          • skwills

            You aren’t listening to me and now want to make it an argument with a strawman Christian using me as a proxy.

            This had nothing to do with making things palatable for me and my Ilk, and you don’t even know what my ilk are. it does, however, have to do with actual points of fact you got wrong. EG, no one actually says “We do not want or Children taught Science”. That doesn’t go away just because you say this is what people want, and the same is true of the rest. By your Logic, someone who says “No smoking” in his establishment is exclusionary and intolerant, because they refuse to allow Smoking, and thus must hate smokers.

            Heck, even your Jesus example makes no sense. Jesus may have kept the company of Lepers and Whores, but he did not tell the Whores that being a whore was OK. Didn’t he famously tell the woman caught in Adultery “Go and sin no more”? Jesus may have forgiven Sins, but he didn’t say it was OK to practice them.

            As for Slavery, your utterly wrong. Slavery had been abolished in Britain since he fall of the Roman Empire, and the Colonial Slave trade only came into existence by Dutch sailors bringing slaves in from Africa, who had been enslaved by their fellow Africans. Whites didn’t institute the African Slave trade and Christianity was not at its root. While some people defended it with Christianity, others opposed it based on Christianity, and you can’t make the Abolitionist Churches go away just because you want to pretend the entire slave issue was about Whites and Christianity.

            Given that you’re utterly clueless about how Slavery cam tot he colonies ( and not to England or Scotland…) and seem oblivious to the actual complexity of the History, what makes you think the rest is justified?

            Evangelicalism in America does not really operate as you think it does, as Evangelicals do not actually try to hinder aid to the poor or hinder Education. What you really mean is that most (But not all) Evangelicals are also politically conservative and do not approve of modern Government funded programmes for a variety of Reasons, and think they are ineffectual. but rather than deal with their actual beliefs, Instead you depict them as simply not wanting to help the poor. Well, that;s not the Truth.

            Also, I’m not arguing from an emotional investment for beliefs, and you’re not presenting facts. You’re presenting propaganda that’s been used on other websites that distorts the situation and again, oversimplifies it.

            I mean, really, what Facts did you use to prove that Christianity and a White sense of superiority began the African Slave trade? What facts did you use to show Evangelical Christians having an adverse impact on Education and climate change? Accusations are not Facts, and simply saying that something is happening is not the same thing as proving its happening.

            You don’t have facts, you have the emotionally derived need to undermine Christianity for political and cultural reasons and in the name of your own belief system. What you accused me of is, in fact, what you have. You have an emotional need, and will believe whatever spin can be presented to somehow validate your views.

            Which again brings us back to god being spelled in lower case, which was my actual primary focus. you do this simply to try to undermine god and by that Christianity because in your mind “Christianity” means “Republican” means “TEA Party” means “Creationist’ means “Denied Climate Change” mean “Anti-Science” means “Anti-Poor”.

            None of his is true. it’s like saying all Muslims are Terrorists or blaming the evil cartel of Jewish Bankers and shadowing political figures for trying to create a new World order. its lumping everyone together into a singular category and castigating them based on exaggerated, misleading, and sometimes false claims.

            This has nothing to do with facts, it has to do with spelling god in lower case, just so you can be ketch and sow off your Trendy Atheism and proclaim how rational you are, whole trying to bully others. It’s just an emotional crutch.

          • Basil Malik
          • skwills

            Which proves…what? You’re still spelling god in lower case, which is a Violation of Grammatical rules, and you’re not really providing any real evidence for anything. Ken Ham doesn’t represent Christianity as a whole, or even “American Christianity” as a whole, and is perfectly free to say what he likes. He’s critical of Cosmos, big Deal.

            No whee did he say that Science was bad, and rejecting Evolution is not rejecting Science, nor did he advocate anything to do with Schools. I don’t care that he’s a creationist that’s critical of Cosmos, it doesn’t prove anything at all about Politics and society, and doesn’t justify your misspelling god.

          • Basil Malik
          • skwills

            The link still doesnt address my main point. Why do you insiston spellign god in lower case G when it is grammaticlaly incorrect to do so?

            Also, have you ever hear of a COnfirmation Bias? You just posted an article tot he Southern argumentfor Slavery, iignored most of it which has nothign to do with the Bible, and focused only on the Biblical aruments for Slavery, and tis soehow proves that White Surpemacism creared Slavery and it was what “The Christains” belived?

            What about the case agaisnt Slavery? Did anyone make Biblical argumets agaisn Slavery using the Bible?

            Shoudk I ignore Wilburforce and his Christin COnvictions? What about the uakers an Evangelical Groups in America who fouh Slavery and foudn it UnChristian?

            Nope, they ditn matter as you have this link which proves…well, nothing,, as I had already noted that some peoepl sued the Bibelto justufy Slavery, but am critical of you if you insist to pretend this was hat all Christains did, or even the overwhelming majority.

          • skwills

            I didn’t mentuon Salvation, and this has nothgin to do with what I beelive. Its also not Hyperbolye. You relaly are a bugot if this is how you conduct yorself.

            By the way, when you ask peopel you presume are Christaisn what they did to reflect he Teachign of Christ, be careful, many of them have done thigs you didnt do. Its relaly rather presumptive ot think they didnt.

          • Basil Malik

            what are you 12? and what is a bugot and where have I demonstrated any bugotry (lol) if anything I have reminded those who get caught up in silliness what the principles of Christ are. If by some far stretch pf your imigination, that offends you.. Then turn the other effen cheek!

          • skwills

            iven that you go out of yoru way to spell god in lower case, then say “god god god god god god god” to shw hat you can, and can’t see past a ty[o, accusign others of beign caught up in silliness is relaly hypocritical. The Truth is, you can’t shame me n any way because you relaly don’t have any foundation for it. You want to present hared of Chrisainity, and even God hismelf, and act liek yoru somehwo Rational when you play childish games like this.

            I simply pointed tis out.

          • Basil Malik

            what are you a member of the christian isis.. you know the ones who dont understand the separation of church and state and claim every year Christmas is under attack as if Christmas has anything to do with Christ, Again, words on a page should have no affect on your spirituality. But theres the rub.. you and or others aren’t spiritual. Just religious. Just christian. Which has nothing to do with christ or his teachings or way of life. for example, god has nothing to do with you attempting to engage me. And you are out of your league. But hey Sunday school is tomorrow. Pay attention in class.

          • skwills

            There is no suchthing as the Christian ISIS, this is liek the “Christian Taliban” tommyrot. You also use this to try to somehow tar me. Well, what am I dogn that’s remotely liek ISIS? Have I killed anyone? For tha matter, you don’t know me or my political beleifs.

            Also, Christias is the Annual celebration of Christs Birth, so it does have somethign to do with Christ. Spare me the Pgan origins of the Holiday, if yoy’d bother to chekc the facts and bot the usual drivel you use to condemn Christians, you’d see this isn’t True either. Try lookign up Christmas on the Encyclopedia Bitannica, it invalidates this idea.

            As for the r4at, its still God and not god. The word god is still used as a name and its imporper to leave it in lowr cae. Intentionally leaving god in lower case is just a ridiculou fad, and tryign to say Im just Relgiiosu nto Spiritual or that I dont follow Christ teachigns is laughable since yo don’t have a valid reason to continue to misspell god. You do it to show off yoru sypposed Atheism. Its tiresome. Intead of blastign me over steroptypes of how you think Cristains are an what you think I beleive, why not just acknowledge the fact that you have no valid reason to misspell god?

          • Basil Malik

            never clamed in all my life to be atheist. so try again. What are you doing remotely like ISIS or the Taliban is espousing your dogma and mandating everyone follows suit. If you read your bible or even understood it you would know christ was born early fall and I’m using lower case to spell god because its driving you mad.

          • skwills

            There’s plenty I’ve never claiemd to be in my enture life, that doens’t stop you from accusing me of it anyway. Liek beign part of the Christian ISIS, a statement that makes very little since given that Isis stads for islamic State Of Syria And Iraq…

            Also, I never said you had to follow any Dogma, I said its improer Gammar to spell god in lower case, and I also said you only ad oetty Reasosn to do this that undermines any Reason to take you seriosuly. You just now admitted that I was right.

          • Basil Malik

            my god! dont you have something else to do.. and if you dont understand the comparison of I.S.I.S. to christian evangelism you arent qualified for me to engage with any further. You should ask god for the spirit of discernment and comprehension.

          • skwills

            Its funny tha you ased me if I don’t have anythign else better to do. Can’t the same be asked of you?

            Also you did not compare Christa Evangelisismto ISIS so much as youd I am part of the Christian ISIS, and aid so base don nothig at all. You dont even know if I am a Christain let alone an Evangelical. You know nothgn of my beleifs, Religosuly or Politiclay.

            Really yoru recrimination of me does not make you spellign god in lowrr cae Right, and again, is baed on a need to villify Christianity, no on factual evidence.

          • Basil Malik

            Nor have I claimed to hate god.. .so don’t put words in my mouth. The presence of god has nothing to do what so ever with the capitalization of his name.

          • skwills

            Why do you rfuse to capitalsie Gods name if you don’t hate him? ets be honest, you spell god in lower case to show off yoru supposed Atheism, and it is based on findign fault with God and with Christianity, as you proved in yoru other post callugn me a memebr of the Christian ISIS. Trying to shift the blame li4k that isn’t going to convince anyoen that you dont hate “god”. Is gon to vndivcate what I said of you.

          • andy

            learn to spell FFS.

          • skwills

            I am dyslexic.

          • Natasha Haworth

            Learn to spell

          • skwills

            I’m dyslexic.

          • Doran Amat Vitam Dixon

            Here’s a reason: Your whole spirituality hinges on the actions of a man that, for all intents and purposes, did not exist. If the Bible is proof he did exist, then The Little Mermaid is proof of a vast underwater civilization of mermen. Correct me if i’m wrong.

          • skwills

            Spellign god in lower ce in grammatically oncorrc regardless f if Jeus existed. Also, Jesus did exist. You are wrong. Thee are no actual Hisorians who say otherwise, besis Richrd Carrier who is biased.

            byt he way, “the ible” is itsef multiple sources, and is not a fictional novel. Even if th Bibel is all we ave on Jesus, that still 27 New testament Books The O ost not mention him) by 9 different authors. Why woudl w ignore 9 different authors on the topic?

            Besides, we do have othe sources, lik Jospehus, who wrot4 of him t3wice. if you pull the “Its a forgery” cap, not only does that aly to only one of the references, but Jack Kirby, who is an Agnostic, did a sirvey n the subject and foudn that most Historicans accept the Jospehus commenton Jeus in the Testamonium to be at leats partial;y valid.

            Sorry, the wole “Jeuss never exissted” thing is nonsense.

          • Piret Rhapsodos

            Honey, if you claim Him to be a Fairy Tale, why do you even care? Sounds to me like you a Bitter Ex-Christian. Real Atheists don’t believe and shrug it off. Not bellow like TheAmazingAtheist.

          • Basil Malik

            I’m not sure what frame of mind I was in when writing this. I would have to read my comments again.. But as a rule of thumb I dont claim or deny any belief system when debating with folk. If i claimed god to be a very tail than it is in context of the debate I was having and I certainly stand by my words. And you’re right for the most part I dont care. But I challenge you to find the part where I said I was an atheist or anything else. I could ask you why you care to reply to a comment thats over 8 months old.

          • Piret Rhapsodos

            Why care about timelines? I’m not going to stop and go, “Oh my! This seems to be well over X amount of time! Guess I shouldn’t post something!” ¬3¬ Kinda redundant, and it won’t stop me from posting. If this bothers you, just pull your hair out already. Assuming you were an Atheist, because most I’ve seen used that tired, as well as parroted phrase. That’s why.

          • EFC442 .

            The phrase you cant answer…again!

          • Piret Rhapsodos

            And stalking….again! 😀 Stalk my Facebook! I won’t go away! :D!!

          • EFC442 .

            Not answered……again!

          • Piret Rhapsodos

            Yaaaay!!! 😀

        • lonelydisco

          Useful. But, then again, I already do that.

      • Peter Deepinsky

        Probably why Ambedkar et al. still felt the need to convert to Buddhism.

    • guest

      He never failed that test…

  • Vid

    Gandhi was a horrible person. He fooled Indian people and stupid Indians believed him blindly.What a pity ! No wonder India is still a backward country and will always be one.

    • AJ Prasad

      Complete and utter bullshit

    • lonelydisco

      Let’s just say “The Spirit of Gandhi”, then.

  • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

    Please don’t use the k-word!

    • Juan Albarrán

      It’s an article… Giving the facts, not using it in an offensive way…

      • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

        Yeah but he didn’t use the word nigger now did he.

  • GunsAndTheBeast

    was this acts during his gandhi prime period? lol if not possibly he might’ve changed by then honestly dont know, btw interesting fact: gandhi used to wear a suit just like the brits there a pic of him in an ancient selfie

    • Eyan Khan

      that was before his period in india(before he became a radicle hindu)

  • Exiled Phoenix

    Unless his wife had big boobs, who cares. Punk couldn’t shoot a gun if he tried. Bald headed mahatma!

  • Exiled Phoenix

    Lol, he didn’t pick up a gun because he couldn’t see one
    Bald headed mahatma would’ve tapped more tail. Coward and amatuer;)

  • Exiled Phoenix

    Racists of every race deserve death. Would’ve kicked the back of his head like any other criminal I deal with in prison.

    • MRlC

      you mean highschool.

  • Marozia

    There was a write up of this in ‘Uncensored’ magazine. Talk about eye-opening!!!

  • Kip Conlon

    “who just happened to achieve some extraordinary things” seems a bit reductive. You could say the same thing about Jonas Saulk, Martin Luther King jr., Jesus Christ, John Glenn, or whomever you feel like slagging the next time.

    • Illuminati Recruitment Agency

      Hero worship is a disease and I am glad that many people unlike yourself are being cured of it.

  • John Roy Kennedy

    Funny. Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and Che Guevera. All revered and it turns out they were extremists, racists and liars. Gotta love politics and mass ignorance

    • Andrew Gora

      Mandela and Guevera were revolutionaries that supported the full liberation of oppressed peoples lol ghandi was co opted by the west and heroized because he told oppressed people not to rebel against their oppressors and since the western imperialist powers are the oppressors…. obviously we would broadcast his message. mandela and guevera are whitewashed by western media to pacify two figures who were able to inspire actual change

      • Jane Kodros

        Good points!

      • Peter Deepinsky

        Yeah, in a lot of ways Gandhi’s views were reactionary. Mandela overturned a system of oppression; Che instigated rebellions for a utopian society. The former, for his flaws, did something and wasn’t a PR ploy; the latter was a revolutionary, badass, and a bit of a dreamer IMO.

      • Piret Rhapsodos

        Guevera was a RAGING Racist.

  • Swapnaja

    Gandhi is well known for his role in 1st world war. When another leading activist was demanding Independence in trade. Gandhi opposed him and said we should help empire in bad times.
    If not him the whole 1st world war scene would have been different. And India would been Independent 35 years earlier.

    • Eyan Khan

      hard to think that india would have achieved independance but yeah the scene would be quite different

  • Eyan Khan

    well this is an interesting article although most of the facts are known except maybe the part about his speeches in S

  • UN

    we need a new gandhi movie…

    • Valkyrie

      It called be called Randy Gandhi 🙂

      • FURRY LION

        or it could be “Candy Gandhi”

        • Valkyrie

          As opposed to Bandy Gandhi 😀

          • FURRY LION

            or Mr. No Hanky Panky

  • J_Doe5686

    He was ignorant as well. He went to S. Africa and complained about the people?

  • Illuminati Recruitment Agency

    Well…Churchill was right. Gandhi was a loathsome little man in a diaper posing as a fakir.

    • jack night

      Churchill murdered 4 million bengalis.

  • Mr. Nubs

    Once you start wearing diapers as an aduly, your sanity tends to ware out. I know from personal experience.

  • martha_xyz

    you have twisted his words. Go back to sources, when as per you he had said
    your words>>>”””they were no better than the “untouchables” of Indian society. One speech in particular stands out. In 1896, he was quoted as referring to black South Africans as the “raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” “”

    my statement>>> at that time he was saying that their situation is bad under British Rule. Their poor situation is no better than Untouchable Dalits of India of those times. So, he requested all to rise for their rights.”
    Don’t twist his words, by taking it out of context.

  • Ajay

    Just curious as to why are the site owners looking for publicity when i think listverse is doing well already. I am an avid reader of listverse but after reading this article about Gandhi i am highly doubting the truthfulness and the authenticity of any of your articles. Gandhi was in a completely different dimension. In order to understand that man you have to first understand yourself. I don’t get it. Why do all the good people have to go through all kinds of slander and political blabber when in due time everybody finally ‘gets it’. It took 200-300 years before people started treating christ as god. I am not sure how long it would take for Gandhi. But if this is how its course takes place then who am i to protest. Carry on..slander the hell out of Gandhi..troubled Indian youth are doing the same, they need something to justify their unjust methods.

    • Eyan Khan

      well the facts shared are pretty authentic,i mean his “experiments” are pretty well known.while i would not say that gandhi was a bad man in any term and he achieved alot during his lifetime , he was racist to a certain degree if not a complete racist and creepy as well.don’t just go for the movie or for what the indian government and textbooks show you.

      • Ajay

        First of all he was never a racist. If he was ever a racist then the Hindu and Muslims would have never gone hand in hand with him trying to get freedom for the country. Moreover about his ‘experiments’, in order to understand why he did and for what he did takes a lot of self discipline. If he really wanted to have sex slaves or what not then he could have easily achieved that while being a lawyer. He was a mahatma for what he stood for and it should never be confused with, that, he was also a human being and he reached one of the highest peaks in being a human. His game was to get freedom for the country with non violence and he devoted his life for that game. And thats what he taught us, to choose a game in our own lives. Just because a man puts on a ‘dhoti’ and becomes a freedom fighter doesn’t give us the right to stereotype him. Its our perception which needs to be tinkered with. Try this, think of him as Tony Stark of ironman, its just that he was not Tony Stark he was himself.

        • Eyan Khan

          well i disagree i do respect him for what he did and what he achieved was monumental no doubt but he was a racist to a certain degree( he even objected to separate electorate for the low caste hindus) plus his speeches as mentioned show him as a racist, btw i never said he wanted sex slaves .yes its true he wanted to achieve self discipline however that does not make his experiments less creepy,in my opinion he was not a mahatma neither was he always right. as a leader although he was one of the best.and muslims and hindus did not completely go hand in hand with him there were other leaders as well.besides india was partitioned was it not?(partly his doing although he wasn’t alone to blame for it)

          • Eyan Khan

            also he did support the brits in first world war,he remained silent at the invasion of kashmir and he remained silent during 1937-1939 congress rule in which a number of measures happened against the muslim interests and congress lost muslim support quite dramatically ,so towards the end it was not him whose hands muslims were holding rather the muslims united under the leadership of jinnah if i am not wrong?(muslim league won the lost election in muslim majority areas which eventually led to independence

          • Ajay

            he did more than enough. He took a stand. It wasnt about right or wrong. Noone knows what is right o what is wrong. He did what was required.

          • Eyan Khan

            so he took a stand through his experiments? or through his racist speeches and actions? he took a stand through his non-violent protests (nobody denies that) but in the end we can agree he was a creepy person,and at places he went against his beliefs on non-violence i mean he did nothing at the invasion of kashmir right neither did he hold a refrendum (although he died he still had sufficient time)

          • Ajay

            dude…he got us freedom isn’t that enough for you? How hard is it to understand that great people’s actions are always misunderstood by puny people, they have gone through transformation through which they think at a level which takes a lot to achieve. For god’s sake grow the fuck up. And don’t put any more posts here.

          • Eyan Khan

            first of all it was not him alone who got us freedom alot of leaders and the population did together, and it is not hard you just can’t seem to accept that he was not perfect some of his actions were creepy/weird/wrong/hypocritical

          • gvanderleun

            “Gandhi was in a completely different dimension.” Okay, Ajay, you puny little enema bag, Now it is time for you to shut your yap and quit trying to impress us with you Ghandian autofellatio. It doesn’t impress. Nobody, but NOBODY, is “in a completely different dimension.” That’s so manifestly stupid on the surface I am frankly surprised your peanut didn’t detect it was so as it escaped from your brain pore. I suggest more study of basic mathematics as a means to decolonizing your mind.

          • Ajay

            lol…its people like you who completely kill off the fun in living. I am not even going to argue with you it will be a waste of my time. You will waste your life in trying to prove yourself and will always be complaining about other people. Not my problem.

          • Eyan Khan

            jnbjbj bj

    • leaves and bells

      here it comes.

  • nonamericannonchristian

    seriously!! get your facts first. just a typical american way of thinking….. gandhi was a creepy racist?? like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and chemical weapons in Syria.. You ugly americans….

    • lonelydisco

      Any racist that sleeps next to his niece in a semi-sexual way is creepy. Ipso Facto, in fact.

  • Deepa Venkitesh

    Gandhi may have got freedom and he is respected still for his values but he played with the future of a country by giving in to childish like demands of separate states on east and west. Had he not been shot, he would have done more damage than any other. His non violence type of satyagraha ideal is actually misused by the angry youth politicians who are no good to disrupt the life of the people during strikes. His way of thinking has made sure that certain people get jobs even if they are not qualified while the brilliant look on desperately. No wonder there is a brain drain still going on.

  • Darryl Harb

    You forgot to mention the enema fetish of the diaper-wearing megalomaniac, and propensity for drinking his own urine. In the end, Gandhi is one of those people upon whom progressives like to project their own morally grandiose self-images.

  • gvanderleun

    From The Gandhi Nobody KnowsRichard Grenier[ From the magazine, “Commentary,” March 1983,

    “At a dinner party shortly afterward, a friend of mine, who had visited Indiamany times and even gone to the trouble of learning Hindi, objected strenuouslythat the picture of Gandhi that emerges in the movie is grossly inaccurate,omitting, as one of many examples, that when Gandhi’s wife lay dying ofpneumonia and British doctors insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her,Gandhi refused to have this alien medicine injected in her body and simply lether die. (It must be noted that when Gandhi contracted malaria shortly afterwardhe accepted for himself the alien medicine quinine, and that when he hadappendicitis he allowed British doctors to perform on him the alien outrage ofan appendectomy.) All of this produced a wistful mooing from an editor of amajor newspaper and a recalcitrant, “But still….” I would prefer to explicatethings more substantial than a wistful mooing, but there is little doubt itmeant the editor in question felt that even if the real Mohandas K. Gandhi hadbeen different from the Gandhi of the movie it would have been nice if he hadbeen like the movie-Gandhi, and that presenting him in this admittedly falsemanner was beautiful, stirring, and perhaps socially beneficial.”


    “Gandhi”, then, is a large, pious, historical morality tale centered on asaintly, sanitized Mahatma Gandhi cleansed of anything too embarrassingly Hindu(the word “caste” is not mentioned from one end of the film to the other) and,indeed, of most of the rest of Gandhi’s life, much of which would drasticallydiminish his saintliness in Western eyes. There is little to indicate that theIndia of today has followed Gandhi’s precepts in almost nothing. There islittle, in fact, to indicate that India is even India. The spectator realizesthe scene is the Indian subcontinent because there are thousands of extrasdressed in dhotis and saris. The characters go about talking in these quaintPeter Sellers accents. We have occasional shots of India’s holy poverty, holyhovels, some landscapes, many of them photographed quite beautifully, for thosewho like travelogues. We have a character called Lord Mountbatten (India’s lastViceroy); a composite American journalist (assembled >from Vincent Sheehan,William L. Shirer, Louis Fischer, and straight fiction); a character calledsimply “Viceroy” (presumably another composite); an assemblage of Gandhi’s Indian followers under the name of one of them (Patel); and of course Nehru.

  • gvanderleun

    More from: The Gandhi Nobody KnowsRichard Grenier[ From the magazine, “Commentary,” March 1983,

    Gandhi was an extremely difficult man to work with. He had no partners, onlydisciples. For members of his ashrams, he dictated every minute of their days,and not only every morsel of food they should eat but when they should eat it.Without ever having heard of a protein or a vitamin, he considered himself anexpert on diet, as on most things, and was constantly experimenting. Once whenhe fell ill, he was found to have been living on a diet of ground-nut butter andlemon juice; British doctors called it malnutrition. And Gandhi had even greaterconfidence in his abilities as a “nature doctor,” prescribing obligatory curesfor his ashramites, such as dried cow-dung powder and various concoctionscontaining cow dung (the cow, of course, being sacred to the Hindu). And tothose he really loved he gave enemas–but again, alas, not to MargaretBourke-White. Which is too bad, really. For admiring Candice Bergen’s work as Ido, I would have been most interested in seeing how she would have experiencedthis beatitude. The scene might have lived in film history


    The plain fact is that both Indian leaders and theIndian people ignored Gandhi’s precepts almost as thoroughly as did Hitler. Theyignored him on sexual abstinence. They ignored his modifications of the castesystem. They ignored him on the evils of modern industry, the radio, thetelephone. They ignored him on education. They ignored his appeals for nationalunion, the former British Raj splitting into a Muslim Pakistan and a HinduIndia. No one sought a return to the Arcadian Indian village of antiquity. Theyignored him, above all, in ahimsa, nonviolence. There was always a small numberof exalted satyagrahi who, martyrs, would march into the constables’ truncheons,but one of the things that alarmed the British–as Tagore indicated–was theexplosions of violence that accompanied all this alleged nonviolence. Naipaulwrites that with independence India discovered again that it was “cruel andhorribly violent.” Jaya Prakash Narayan, the late opposition leader, onceadmitted, “We often behave like animals…. We are more likely than not tobecome aggressive, wild, violent. We kill and burn and loot….

  • Rahul

    cum on people.

  • Arjan Hut

    I may not achieve much in my life, but at least I’m no Ghandi.

  • Jhale

    I do not see anything bad with Gandhi’s sex life. There were worse things that could have been brought up.

  • AJ Prasad

    Kaffir was used as a neutral term in the times of Ghandi, The same way Americans said Negro. It was only later that it was used as a derogatory term. Ghandi was not a racist. I cant believe you would hop on this defamation bandwagon.

  • Gyanu Mani

    you bloody bastards..I feel shame & pity on you guys for writing such a article for a great man..ROT IN HELL !!!!

  • Peter Deepinsky

    What on Earth did Gandhi accomplish other than provide an unsurpassed PR tool for Nehru AND Jinnah? If I were in PR, I would worship Gandhi and Nehru: there was nothing in Gandhi’s vision of the world that could have bettered the Indian people; India today is more a product of Nehru’s vision and not Gandhi’s nonsense. But when everyone is starving and illiterate familiar nonsense seems to gain attention. It’s not like American politicians don’t also tap into stupid sentiments of the electorate to get attention. 0_o

  • derp herp

    Kaffirs are disgusting. Bring black slavery 2014!

    • everyone is a idiot

      only this time the previously oppressed are going to oppress the oppressors

  • Yung Pervert

    Fuck her right in the pussy!

  • Darth Vader

    Those sources have very little weight.

    A striking post by user tx_in:

    It’s always important to read the original biography and understand all perspectives before writing an opinion piece. In the Huffington Post article by Irene Monroe, a heavily biased, unpopular African American ‘journalist’ with a very narrow mimded view of the outside world, she writes: “But Gandhi was an unabashedly diehard supporter of India’s Hindu caste system, and would never mix with a lowly group or caste” – I have never heard a comment more ignorant than this. All the hundreds of thousands of people marching along with Gandhi in India’s freedom struggle were just High caste Indians? I have seen opinion blogs before without much knowledge of the subject they are talking, but nothing like this.

    Here’s my favorite comment by user synergie:

    Honestly, this opinion piece reflects the ignorance people have about Gandhi. Yes, he was a great soul, an excellent teacher and an effective political leader. His personal life and his actions are not a surprise to anyone who bothered to read the man’s autobiography in which he explains his actions and his reasoning behind some of the things he did.
    Instead of either deifying him or salaciously denigrating him based on out of context excerpts and the projection of yet more ignorance, perhaps you should read the man’s own words? They were published long before these biographies and the hagiographies you denounce. The Ascetic practices including the enemas your disparage and part parcel of some of the teachings of various philosophies within Hinduism, of which you are clearly ignorant, since all you can do is spew ignorant statements on “caste”.

    If you’re going to bother blogging about a subject it might behoove you to educate yourself just a tiny little bit, otherwise you merely expose your own ignorance and bigotry.

    Also, most of the rumours of Gandhi’s supposed racism stem from the book Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity by Colonel G. B. Singh, another prejudiced author and is based on unsubstantiated hypothesis and pure speculation. Moreover, the Mr Singh was a high Caste Sikh who despised low Caste Hindus like Gandhi. If you want a true account of Gandhi’s shortcomings read What Gandhi and the Congress Have Done to the Untouchables by B. R. Ambedkar.

    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was far from being perfect, but he was no creepy sex obsessed masochistic homosexual racist. This is a fact.

    Now join the dark side of the force!

  • amin

    It is false that he kicked the British out. They were leaving anyways as they could not afford to police India anymore after WWII. Ghandi was just annoying. His protests were useless because the British could care less if he does not eat.

  • Ibrahim Djama Sahal

    I swear to God that Indians are 1 million times dirtier and stinking than the Africans. I spent sometime in India and you will be shocked of their body odors and this asshole calls the natives dirty.

  • fuck google and android

    I dont like how SJW use the word Creepy instead of using the word ugly or the word nasty. Also If he had been a Black Cock lover like all of the SJW are, and completely rejected women he would still be a saint to most of you, nigger worshipers.

  • sunaina

    These all nonsenses are never proved.

  • Curious Sam

    This article is an extremely poor argument, using modern perspective to ignore contemporary views and terms, presenting only parts of the truth that seem to support its thesis, and ignoring obvious connections to promote less likely, twisted perceptions (“Gandhi didn’t get rid of the ancient art because of his interest in overcoming sexuality as a whole, an obvious conclusion concerning a concept which was JUST MENTIONED IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH–he did it because DOWN WITH THE GAYZ”). An article this biased and with such poorly constructed arguments and leaps to conclusions is only harmful to its own purposes. Regardless of how many of these assertions actually have merit, they seem laughable and easily dismissed simply because they’ve been presented in such an amateurish fashion.

    Morris M. clearly has less literary proficiency with argument than the average eighth grade student. The powerful Gandhi PR machine that Mr. M. vaguely mentions could not have done a better job of discrediting the core concept of this article than Morris M. has himself.

  • Usa911

    Dont be fooled by blacks who want pity , apartheid was not as bad as it seems and the only reason why it was brought in was because the black people fucked sheeps and the white thought from that day on 3 words – WTF

  • 360

    “It’s on the internet it must be true”-Abraham Lincoln . And besides Gandhi before returning from Africa and before that were two completely different versions of himself . The version that people look up to is the latter and I’m pretty sure all this happened before that

  • JveeSobukwe

    can the statue go down already….am pissed off right now

  • Beeraj

    As a child, I used to respect Gandhi based upon whatever was taught to us. When I reached an age to read on my own, I started hating the person for several reasons.

    1. He used non violence against Krishna’s philosophy & encouraged Indians to join British army. The latter repressed Indians and served for British Interest out of Indian soil which is against the Indian philosophy of millennia. To add the “ahimsa” meaning non violence was not created by Gandhi but copied from people (Eg. Tolstoi) before him.

    2. To lead India, Gandhi favored Nehru instead at the expense of Patel. To note that Patel was brilliant while Nehru was the son of wealthy/influential person.

    3. The credits for gaining independence should go to Maharani Lakshmi Bai, Bhagat Singh, Subhas Chandra Bose and various others who shared and gave lives for the same philosophy.

    4. Gandhi/Nehru accepted the partition which no patriot should have accepted! How can someone accept the partition of his/her motherland? Is the religious problem over after partition? What has happened to the Hindu population of Pakistan?

    5. Gandhi was hands in gloves to have Indira married to Feroz Khan who became Feroz Gandhi to mislead Indian opinion!

  • zerooskul

    Gandhi was in South Africa being accused of behaving like a Kaffir by the White minority. He, an Indian statesman was treated exactly like a Zulu tribesman. It should be pointed out this is around the timde of the Zulu wars. India is a caste obsessed, class obsessed nation and Gandhi had an Indian mindset. He was raised that way. Apples don’t fall far from trees and most don’t do a very good job getting out of the shade of the trees they were sprung from. Who here can picture a state that isn’t their own and envision the people there being civilized?

    Who here, if hate speech weren’t so frowned on wouldn’t say something mean about a group they don’t like, like Mexican dishwashers are regularly picked on in America.

    Gandhi believed the stories about Mussolini were overblown because unlike the racist pigs of South Africa, Mussolini was willing to invite the brown man to hang out as an equal.

    As to the destruction of homoerotic historic art, people do weird things when they’re scared. It wasn’t an era that was particularly safe for homosexuality. Remember what happened to Turing in the highly civilized UK?

    As to having nonsexual relationships with nubile young girls… who wouldn’t?

  • Mr. Hooks

    This article is stupid and misinterprets everything. Gandhi went to south Africa to represent the Indian Muslims who referred to non believers as kufr or Kafir etc. Word has nothing to do with being black until the Europeans adopted it and starting using it as Kaffir. Also, south Africa was the turning point for Gandhi because he seen how ppl of color were treated and experienced it himself (Kind of like what Mecca did for Malcolm X). That is what caused Gandhi to fight against racial injustice. Do some research before you just post misinformation.

  • guyfromvancouver

    So, your point is that Gandhi liked “weird sex”, and was celibate. I assume I don’t have to point out the idiocy of that idea.

    Gandhi’s experiences in Africa affected him greatly. His time, and his mistakes there as a young man were the inception of his political philosophy. He never claimed to be without sin, though he did strive to avoid sin, and learn. Young Gandhi was not the Mahatma. As memory serves he didn’t really ‘get his shit together’ until his mid 30s or something.

    Also, this business of him using racially charged terms. This was the frikin’ 1800s. You’re trailing him using todays standards. He was young, and ignorant in those days, but he would eventually learn, and nobody, NOBODY looking at his whole life’s work, and who he eventually became, could call him a racist.

    How would you like someone to write posthumously about you, but only mention the sins of your youth, completely ignore your positive contributions to the world, and headline it that you were creepy.

  • Mailie Marshalls

    What a lot of tosh – Pffft !! – Gandhi spoke the truth and facts, the ZA Kaffir was and has always been the lowest form of pond sludge on the planet.

  • Rachel Lakhi

    Apartheid was horrible.Black out African was treated worst than animals. ghandi only came to South Africa to make sure that Indians who came to work on the sugar plantations in South Africa gets treated better than the owners of the land which was Blacks.Ghandi wanted the Whites to allow Indian to take part in business in South Africa. Both the Whites and Indian are Immigrants who took our land in South Africa.