MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Printable Version
Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Printable Version

+- Forums (
+-- Forum: Archives (
+--- Forum: Library & Bookmarks (
+--- Thread: Media In India/elsewhere -2 (/showthread.php?tid=487)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Guest - 03-18-2008

Once again Naxal Ram's red shorts are on full display.
B Raman's blog:

Tibetian movie maker's response censored by N Ram.
Response to N Ram on Tibet

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Guest - 03-25-2008

18 March, 2008
Ms. Naazreen Bhura,
Deccan Chronicle,


I draw your attention to "A long wait for the king" – under "Brush up your Mythology" – Page 27 of today's (March 18, 2008) issue. I write this to you because, as the Editor, you are responsible for whatever that is written and published in your daily. I take strong objections to distortions that appear in each of the four paragraphs of this write up and for writing with absolute callousness on matters we Hindus hold dear to us. This is just another example of the indifference of the minorities to the sensitivity of the majority. And with a congressman, Mr Venkattarama Reddy as your Chairman of the Board, it is no wonder that Hindu bashing is patented, to please the Italian and Saudi masters and their cohorts who swear by their brand of casteism and communalism masquerading as secularism.

Let me dissect the entire piece and at the end of it please just tell me what is left of the cadaver:

I Para:


According to Hindu mythology, Bharata was second of the four sons of Dasaratha and Kaikeyi.


Bhagawan Ram was the first son, born of Kausalya, Bharat of Kaikeyi and Lakshman and Shatrughan of Sumitra to Dasaratha.

Why do you continue to call Ramayan as "mythology" like the Brits and the JNU inspired historians? Ramayan and Mahabharat are "ITIHASAS", meaning "This is how it happened". Maharshi Valmiki and Krishna Dwaipayana Veda Vyasa lived during the periods of Ramayan and Mahabharat and have respectively narrated what they saw happening around them. This is history – Itihasa – NOT, Mythology as you would want your young school going readers to believe. Or perhaps as one belonging to the minority religion, you want to deliberately perpetuate this falsehood created by the white christists for posterity!


He is better known as brother of Lord Rama. Considered to be born in the aspect of the Sudarshana Chakra, one of Vishnu's Panchayudhas.


Why Lord Rama? A Lord always has an over-Lord, someone bigger than the Lord himself. The word is incomplete to describe any of Hindu Gods. It is more appropriate to call Him as Bhagawan Rama. Someone who is absolutely complete in all the six Bhagas, which make him the Bhagawan. English is widely accepted because it could adopt words from different languages and make it its own. And addition of Bhagawan (only for Hindu Gods) for Lord and Vigraha or Moorthy in place of the derogatory idol to its lexicon will only make it richer.

Why does one want to write "considered to be"? What is the doubt? Is it not very clear in the Ramayan? Why not simply write - He is better known as brother of Bhagawan Rama, born in the aspect of the Sudarshana Chakra, one of Vishnu's Panchayudhas.


Bharata is said to have been married to Mandavi


What is the doubt? Is he or isn't he?

Para II


In Ramayana, when Kaikeyi betrayed Dasaratha into promising that Bharata should ascend the throne of the kingdom………


Dasaratha gave boons to Keikeyi. She had long forgotten them. Dasaratha NEVER made any promise to Kaikeyi that he would make Bharata the heir to the throne. It was the evil Mandara who slow-poisoned Keikeyi's mind, reminding her of the boons when the announcement of Bhagawan Ram's anointment to the throne was made. Where is the question of betrayal of Dasaratha? Where is the question of any promise made by Dasaratha to Keikeyi to make Bharata the Yuvraj? Ramayan tells us how much Keikeyi was affectionate to Bhagawan Rama in His childhood, her most favourite child. Yet, she allowed her mind to be poisoned to reflect the nature of a simple woman fond of her own son's progress, by her old maid, Mandara, the hunch-back.


For this great action of selflessness and honour, he was made immortal in the eyes of the world.


Who made him immortal? Why not simply say, He became immortal in the eyes of the world?

Para III


Indeed, this action itself has prompted many commentators, both ancient and modern, to portray Bharata as a greater idol of dharma and idealism than even Lord Rama himself.


This is one of the most mischievous of statements to be rated next only to Karunanidhi's stupid rants on Bhagawan Rama. Countless commentaries are available, made by Acharyas and most respected gurus on the contrast of Bharata's Paduka Pattabhishekam and Vibhishana SaranAgati. It is the Bhakti of Bharata and the SaranAgata Bhakti of Vibhishana that has been contrasted by the most learned commentators. What else can a devout Hindu expect from a Congi-backing Owner and his Islamist editor?


He is believed to have placed Rama's sandals at the foot of the throne……..


What the heck? In Doubt? Again?

He placed Rama's "Paduka" (don't call it sandals – next time you may even write Rama's 'sneakers'). "Paduka" is one more word that English can easily assimilate. It is sandals, slippers, sneakers, chappals for you and your chairman, but always "Paduka" for Bhagawan Rama. That's the difference.

Para IV


Hindu legend tells us……


Legend? No, simply say – The Itihasa tells us……


When Rama walked into the river Sarayu, he is believed to have transformed into his eternal Mahavishnu form………….


And God gave the 10 Commandments to Moses. And Allah gave Koran to Mohammed. Never, Moses is believed to have received the 10 commandments from God and Mohammed is believed to have received the Koran from Allah…., a convenient sura by sura; most times to cover-up his prophet.

Shame on you DC:

You are matching word-for-anti- Hindu-word with the commie bugle that was formerly known as the Mount Road Mahavishnu and currently as Security Analyst and Former Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, GOI, Shri B Raman calls it aptly – "The people's daily of Chennai "

And to recall your dictionary on Islam, you always give very selective, highly imaginative and very good meanings to Jihad, Jizya, Kafir, Talaq, Mujahudeen and a Koran/hadith/ sannat full of similar dangerous words.

Yours truly,
S V Badri


__._,_.___ <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - dhu - 03-28-2008

The Golden Age of the Military-Entertainment Complex

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Husky - 04-07-2008

India's christo and communist media's clever practise of not covering terrorist acts of murder and vandalism by christoislamicommunists, and otherwise its use of 'a certain/minority community' for christoislamic offenders is a very calculated move on their part: it's not just concealing perpetrators for the present, but also for the future - because newspapers are records of history. When the terrorists are not mentioned by name, this gives them the ability in the future to deny that they had committed criminal acts against the religion(s) they intended to destroy. It will be worse than in Rome when the acts were documented (though the church later went and destroyed much of the evidence when it realised other people could see that it was blood on their hands and that the public disapproved of murder).

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - acharya - 04-08-2008

<img src='' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - shamu - 04-08-2008

Interseting shape in the waveform.

Whenever Sonia Gandhi's attention goes up, MMS' goes down by almost similar amount. They are like mirror image.

Average value of Rahul's media attention is slowly going up.

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Guest - 04-19-2008

<b>Hinduism Damned with Faint Praise </b>- Michael Wood's 'History of India'
By Kripamoya Das

I watched a television documentary on the ancient history of India today.
Presented by Michael Wood and made for British and American audiences, it was entitled *Beginnings* and is the first of a six-part series, itself part of a season celebrating the 60th anniversary of India's independence.

Although the presenter was quite congenial and effusive in his praise of India's traditions, and rightly gave recognition to her people's antiquity, <b>the actual conclusion of his presentation was an unwitting slap in the face for every one of India's 800 million Hindus</b>. Some of my congregation members watched it and were troubled by it. They asked me what my own views on the show were.
so I'm writing this blog by way of a reply.

Firstly, I suppose I should begin by saying that television presenters are exactly that: they present. They present us with information for our awareness and entertainment in an appealing and artistic way. They are the face you see on the screen and the voice you hear. These days, when money is short in the industry and the atmosphere relentlessly competitive, and if they are particularly competent, they will also write the show and produce it themselves. I have got to know a number of television presenters over the years and have been featured in their documentaries. I know what goes into the making of a film and how much effort and creativity goes into making even the shortest one.

So I don't want to shoot any messengers here. Michael Wood was just doing his job. He has a team of researchers, who naturally approach the university academics, who are quite naturally teaching what they consider to be the latest knowledge. And that, they may all reason, is the best that anyone can do. But for anyone who actually has religious faith, who believes in the tenets of the scriptures of Hinduism, and, through the practise of their faith, hopes to be connected with God, this documentary was the equivalent of the proverbial mad elephant in a flower garden.

<b>Why? Because it explained that Indians came from Africa, the Vedas came from central Asia, the traditional Vedic fire sacrifices were conducted by intoxicated *shamans*, and that because Hinduism itself is in a constant state of flux, it is a belief system shaped only by the forces of climate, geography and history, rather than eternal verities. Oh yes, and while we're on the subject, that the speaker of the Bhagavad-gita - the Bible for all Hindus - was a Persian prince. Or perhaps from Kazakhstan. Or maybe Russia.</b>

That doesn't really leave India with much to be proud about does it? Nothing at all came from the land we now know as India. <b>Basically everything that every Hindu believes to be true is false. The great theology, language and traditions of a magnificent culture are all borrowed from somewhere else.</b>

Whoever thinks that chauvinism about India died when the last servant of the British Empire got on a boat and left the country should think again; <b>it is very much alive and well.</b>

<b>Right from the very beginning of exploration into India's ancient past the Europeans did not like the idea of anywhere other than the Garden of Eden being the cradle of civilisation</b>. At the turn of the last century there were those who conceded that the location of Eden may have been somewhere between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers – but no further east, please. <b>And this prejudice continues today, no matter how well it is concealed. Now the 'cradle of civilisation' has merely shifted further south, down into Africa, but never as far as India. </b>

Although *Beginnings* purported to represent the latest knowledge on the origins of India and the Hindu religion,<b> it actually left out some of the most recent research which has taken place. In this it was quite behind the times</b>.

Generally, popular presentations are quite a few steps behind the latest research, as it may take academics quite some years for their findings to be peer-reviewed, cross-checked by further findings, and finally accredited. The rest of us
– particularly schoolchildren – find it in their text books up to 30 years later. So who gets to say where mankind – and the great civilisations – actually come from? Who should we believe? And, more importantly, who gets to have the final opinion? Well, first up we have the:

Everyone has heard the name of Leakey. While I was living in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1979, the Leakeys were practically our next door neighbours. The Leakey Institute was just a few yards down the road. I met Richard, the son, and found him to be a very pleasant man. I was also able to drive for some miles away from the city and have my first sight of the Great Rift Valley. I defy anyone not to have grand visions of the history of Man in such a beautiful landscape.

But just last week, August 2007, the Leakeys announced that their most recent findings, without a doubt, provide vital evidence that

– we now know less about the origins of man than we thought we did. Or that the presumed straight line from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Sapiens is not straight at all; and that two or more species were flourishing at the same time.
*Beginnings* starts with the basic assumption that mankind – Homo Sapiens - actually started in Africa and that the habitation of all other regions of the world represent a migration outwards from that continent. Hence everyone in India originally came from Africa. But why would anyone conclude this?

How much palaeontology has been done in India? The answer is not a great deal.

Once you accept the basic premise that India was empty and had to be filled with people from somewhere else, it becomes part of the way you view all information, acting as a 'knowledge-filter.' Besides, if you're an archaeologist paid by an established university you're not going to risk your job by proposing an alternative notion – especially when you may know nothing about fossilised remains.

Much of *Beginnings* was about the old archaeological stand-by of the ancient cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. <b>Discovered only in 1921 and 1922 they have nevertheless helped to confirm what was actually an existing Christian theory in need of evidence; that the Aryans, the presumed early ancestors of modern India, came from the West.</b>

<b>But nothing in the documentary was mentioned of the recently discovered Dwaraka, or of the even larger city (two miles long by one mile wide) discovered by submarine three years ago off the coast of modern Gujarat.</b>

Mention was made, however, of the 1948 excavation of Hastinapura, a city mentioned in the Mahabharata. <b>It was suggested that this discovery fitted in nicely with the newly-independent India's *need *to have an ancient discovery *of their own*. No-one as good as the culturally biased to sniff out cultural bias, eh?</b>

The discovery of remnants of Soma, the plant stimulant mentioned in the Rig-Veda, mixed with other ingredients, does not prove that such ingredients and the fire ceremonies which employed them originated outside India.

Rather, it may even show that such performances were exported outside what is now India. Of course, what is known as India today is a shrunken version of 'Hindustan' which incorporated even present day Afghanistan a few centuries ago. And Hindustan itself, according to the histories of India, is only a fraction of the kingdom of Bharata.

*Linguistic Palaeontology*
As a discipline, this 'Ology' is a baby compared with others. It does, however, have a lot to say for itself about ancient languages. Although in the documentary Michael Wood spoke in something approaching wonder of Sanskrit being 'the living sound of the Bronze Age,' and although he nicely displayed the sound-links between Sanskrit and Latin, his presentation was scuppered by the fallacious notion of a language that predates both: the so-called 'Proto-Indo-European .' That nothing has been found of this language, but that we need such a language to substantiate the claims made by other academic disciplines, does not seem to prevent anyone from claiming its existence. <b>I have a theory of my own, and this theory is just as good as that proposed by anyone else. I believe that because the ancient Welsh language, the tongue of the Druids, contains at least 200 Sanskrit words, that the Aryans actually came from Wales and that Hinduism is actually the finest expression of the Welshmen. Wales, therefore, is the very cradle of the ancient Vedic civilisation. I just happened to be born a few miles from Cardiff but that bears absolutely no influence upon my academic objectivity. </b><!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Of course, I do not believe that. And neither does anyone else. It is a generally accepted idea that the Druids – and the Celts – gradually migrated westwards across Europe. <b>That the Celtic forefathers can travel the thousands of miles from their notional origin to the very western tips of Ireland, where their language is still spoken, but that the culture of the ancient Hindus cannot travel a few hundred miles west to Persia and Central Asia defies logic. </b>

I might also mention here that 'fire-worship' (which, of course, is nothing of the sort, except to the naked eye) and the stories of Vishnu and Krishna, are also found in Russia in the oldest language of that country.

The discipline of Anthropology
– the study of humanity and the unique non-biological characteristics we call culture - has, as its working foundation, the current conclusions of all the above. Religion examined through the eyes of the anthropologist will be regarded as the study of how primitive peoples project their superstitions upon nature. Fear of disaster through failure of rains and harvests; longings for fertility and the mystery of life and death; all these will be explained through cosmic myths and played out in tribal rituals.

Because religious beliefs are merely hopeful mental projections based on lack of knowledge, when science can show us the actual realities of life religion as such will cease to be useful to us. Or so say the anthropologists. If religion is nothing more than subjective evaluation of nature, then, by extension, there is no objective reality involved in it at all. And absence of objective reality means self deception. The study of the religions of mankind – according to anthropologists - is therefore the examination of the many ways in which humanity has deluded itself since it had the power to think. And so-called 'helpful myths,' however helpful, do not become true simply because they are colourfully displayed in dance, drama and music. Hinduism, being perhaps the oldest religion, with 'so many gods' can therefore be labelled as the most deceived of all the branches of the human family.

So when Michael Wood, in the final scene of his documentary, is speaking to camera in his conveniently white shirt and trousers in the middle of a happy throng of Hindus throwing multi-coloured powders, he speaks words of praise for the antiquity of India and her culture. But he has, albeit not with malice, just smilingly damned the very religious beliefs of millions.

*The documentary is shown on BBC / PBS and is produced by Maya Vision.
Indeed. *

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Bodhi - 04-24-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->we hear that the son of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Rajsekhara Reddy’s son Jagmohan has launched a new Telugu daily with no less than 23 editions selling at Rs 60 a month. Called Saakshi—an apt name—it has apparently already created a sensation in Andhra Pradesh’s newspaper world. India is undoubtedly moving.

Media Watch, Jaya Jaitley: The Other Side of reporting

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - ramana - 04-24-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-"Tamang"+-->QUOTE("Tamang")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nuclear tests deterred India from 'punishing' Pakistan

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The 1998 nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan marked a watershed in the nuclear history history in the sub-continent, and deterred New Delhi from 'punishing' its neighbour after Kargil war and the 2001 Parliament attack, US experts have opined at a major conference in Washington.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Guest - 04-24-2008

India did not conduct an full fledged war because the objective of forcing pakistan to end it's economic, military and logistic support to terrorism directed towards india were met without firing an single shot.

Pakistan was defeated when it's military dictator cum president declared on paki state television that he would end all state support to terror.

This was the victory which these US experts are not ready to acknowledge lest their rentier state pakistan get angry and not co-operate with them for their War On Terror.

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Guest - 04-24-2008

This straight from Sonia text book before election, i think we will hear more nonsense from Congress PTI, when they recyle anything said by any joker in west.

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Husky - 04-26-2008

Dhu, do you know of an <b>icky movie called "American psycho"</b> (Christian Bale). Maybe you can read some reviews or, better yet, try to locate the script of the movie if it's online and go through it. (I once had the misfortune of watching bits of it.)
<b>ADDED:</b> Script is at
It says the movie's based on a "novel by Bret Easton Ellis"

<b>I don't recommend it to anyone for watching,</b> as it's got gore, sexual violence, violence against women, implied violence against animals and more of such junk. The only reason I'm mentioning it is because <b>it shows outright and very clearly the extreme of WASPyism/christowestern culture.</b> The christian aspect is not mentioned as such or even referenced (other than frequent mentions of gawd, jesus and christ), but just as 'secularism' makes the strongly present christianism merely invisible, the same is true with the film.

It's about the spoilt rich elite in America (90s movie set in the 80s yuppie period apparently).
Some scenes from the film:
- There's a scene where Patrick Bateman (the american psycho of the title) yells at the Chinese people at the laundry: he needs their services and threatens them with all kinds of things.
- He is repulsed by homeless people and murders an African American homeless man. The first murder.
- He and other spoilt rich man (his direct competitor, played by Jared Leto) yell at Hispanic people, and both threaten to "kill" the Mexican (?) waiters unless they did whatever it was they had demanded.
- His envy of Jared Leto's character is predictably about very petty things. He's jealous of the other's style since he is basically the same but better.
- There's a very revealing scene where he and his similar friends are grouped about a table and where they suddenly point out how they, being rich guys, should actually be discussing 'deep, intellectual', global, general-knowledge type stuff. And while some of them bring up sob stories from the rest of the world, Bateman shows off how well he's kept himself up-to-date with the 'things he ought to know and have the right opinion/popular informed opinion on'. Mentions Sri Lanka, Sikhs and other stuff. Probably he would have thrown in the environment and gun-running. Don't remember, but you get the idea.
Seemed to me like they are just programmed to be PC and show they care but couldn't really give a hoot about anyone or anything elsewhere.
This part of the movie taken from the movie's official script:
(Wired on coke)
Oh ho ho. That affects us? What
about the massacres in Sri Lanka, honey? Doesn't that
affect us, too? I mean don't you know anything about Sri
Lanka? About how the Sikhs are killing like tons of
Israelis there? Doesn't that affect us?

Oh come on. Price. There are a lot more important
problems than Sri Lanka to worry about. Sure our foreign
policy is important, but there are more pressing problems
at hand.

Like what?

Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow
down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world
hunger. But we can't ignore our social needs. either We
have to stop people from abusing the welfare system. We
have to provide food and shelter for the homeless and
oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights while
also promoting equal rights for women but change the
abortion laws to protect the right to life yet still
somehow maintain women's freedom of choice.

The table stares at Bateman uncomfortably.

We also have to control the influx of illegal
immigrants. We have to encourage a return to traditional
moral values and curb graphic sex and violence on TV, in
movies, in pop music, everywhere. Most importantly we have
to promote general social concern and less materialism in
young people.

Price chokes on his drink. Everyone is silent and

Patrick, how thought-provoking.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think the hypocrisy is obvious, and actually very representative of some of their ignorant rich people.
- He is incredibly misogynistic of course. He's totally twisted about women and it
ends in the murders of at least two women. (I didn't watch the whole thing, so not sure).
- He kills some poor kitten or pup, out of pure spite of course. (Not shown I think, but again, whatever happened I fortunately missed it - it was playing in the background at a classmate's house and I only caught bits of it and heard some sentences)
- He's a metrosexual. Obsessed with his clothes, his physique, the right restaurants to visit, the right introductory card to have, and knows all the music he is supposed to know and like (and for the reasons he is supposed to like said music). Has some skin-regime to supposedly keep him pretty and youthful. Spends hours everyday exercising and doing pilates (No, I don't recognise it as Yoga).
- Of course, he's is frightened to death of homosexual men. At one point he tries to kill a 'friend' in the men's room for having a more stylish introduction card than he has. He intends to choke him but the friend turns out to be gay and thinks Bateman is actually making advances and welcomes it. Bateman is so repulsed he doesn't want to kill him anymore and waddles off.
- His character is engaged to a woman (Reese Witherspoon) who it looks like he really hates. She keeps talking and he has disinterested affairs with someone else's girlfriend whom he dumps. At some point in the movie he breaks off the engagement to his fioncee.

So he hates everybody: non-waspies, women, animals, homeless people, gay people. The only thing I don't remember them showing was kids. But I'm sure he hates them too if he were to think of them.

It's strange how though it's played as a farce it is quite accurate.
The end twists things around supposedly, but by then, the message is already across and it was not meant to change the message anyway. The twist is how apparently he hadn't really killed anyone - that it was all his subconscious imagination and wishing. And it turns out that others don't think Patrick Bateman is the fabulous guy he imagines himself to be. When he talks to his friends in the end, they talk about "Patrick Bateman" as a third person and as someone who is a social loser and don't agree that he and Bateman are one and the same person. I missed too much of the movie in the middle and only caught parts, but even if I had wanted to know exactly what the end meant, I would never put myself through American yucko wacko Psycho again. Wouldn't advise anyone else to try it either.

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Capt M Kumar - 04-27-2008

<!--emo&:tv--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tv_feliz.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tv_feliz.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Mood of Middle India
Vir Sanghvi
April 26, 2008

Last Updated: 00:38 IST(27/4/2008)

Unless you’ve spent the last month on the planet Mars, you’ll know what Kya Aap Paanchvi Pass Se Tez Hain? is. The first episode was telecast on Star Plus on Friday and my guess is that it will be a huge hit.

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Husky - 04-28-2008

A couple of things about:
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Apr 19 2008, 11:47 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Apr 19 2008, 11:47 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Hinduism Damned with Faint Praise </b>- Michael Wood's 'History of India'
By Kripamoya Das

I watched a television documentary on the ancient history of India today.
Presented by Michael Wood and made for British and American audiences, it was entitled *Beginnings* and is the first of a six-part series, itself part of a season celebrating the 60th anniversary of India's independence.
<b>Why? Because it explained that Indians came from Africa, the Vedas came from central Asia, the traditional Vedic fire sacrifices were conducted by intoxicated *shamans*, and that because Hinduism itself is in a constant state of flux, it is a belief system shaped only by the forces of climate, geography and history, rather than eternal verities. Oh yes, and while we're on the subject, that the speaker of the Bhagavad-gita - the Bible for all Hindus - was a Persian prince. Or perhaps from Kazakhstan. Or maybe Russia.</b>
*The documentary is shown on BBC / PBS and is produced by Maya Vision.
Indeed. *[right][snapback]80754[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So that explains why it is Persia/Kazakhstan/Russia that have the Mahabharatam and not us. Why Mathura is all of a sudden discovered right there in Moscow rather than in India <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Michael Wood must be of the line of those christoTerrorist Brits who destroyed our schools and thereafter point-blank refused to provide primary education for all. Because lying, destroying and thereafter more lying is what the christoterrorists and christoconditioned liars do. BBC and Please Be Silent (PBS) can stop talking/braying.

The geography of our Hindu Vedas and Epics like Mahabharatam match India. We have the Mahabharata, and India contains the places Mathura, Dwaraka and others associated with Krishna.

Whereas all the christos of the west have is their christomythological Japhetic-Hamitic (oryan-dravidioid) theory. Next to that, it is known for a fact that the whole arthurian romance of the British isles was put together based on Persian and Roman stuff with sprinklings of Celtic elements. <i>And</i> to top it all off their jeebus don't exist! So no wonder they're feeling sour and jealous.
(See also more on that news article posted by Dhu on the Giant Turtle of Vietnam that brought the Sword that saved the country to the Ruler and then at the end would take the Sword away. A very Asian narrative; the Iranians had an equivalent about a Lady in the waters bringing and taking the sword. Geebus-creepus - what's that very Asian motif doing in the British isles - where did the Romans get it before they ported it to Britain???? No, it wasn't them invisible, intangible, unmanifestible, unmanifested Oryans.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Turtle Lake has its own legend of the sword. The legendary "Excalibur" given to King Arthur by the Lady Of The Lake, is similar to the legend of Turtle Lake, where the keeper of the sword is a Giant Turtle. It is said that when danger threatens the country the keeper will surface on the Turtle Lake bearing the sword on its shell.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And so the Turtle came back not many centuries ago:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A national legend tells of a giant golden turtle that <b>bestowed</b> upon the Vietnamese people a magic sword and victory over Chinese invaders in the 16th century. Whether that sacred turtle has materialized in the 21st century will be a matter of cultural debate among the Vietnamese. [...] Of the other three Swinhoe's soft-shell turtles in captivity, two are in Chinese zoos and the other is cared for in the Hoan Kiem ("Returned Sword") <b>Lake</b> in downtown Hanoi — the lake in which the legendary turtle appeared to <b>reclaim</b> the sword from the emperor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nevertheless, CNN will insist it does not predate Little Arthur's Adventures. (They can whine all they want, because in any case, the Welsh Arthurian romance is beaten by the older Iranian narrative.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Stories about the mysterious creatures have been circulating for about 500 years, starting with the legend of King Le Loi and the giant turtle of Hoan Kiem Lake. According to legend, the gods gave Le Loi a magic sword, which helped him battle the Chinese invaders.
Having freed Vietnam, the king and his courtiers were boating on the lake when a giant turtle arose, took the magic sword, then plunged to the depths and returned the blade to its divine owners. Since that time the lake's name has been "Ho Hoan Kiem," which means "Lake of the Returned Sword."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->At least the Vietnamese have a lake they can point to and now they have the Turtle too. Meanwhile where is avalon? (No pointing to the many 'possible' locations or to JRR Tolkien's 'cute' renamings of Numenore - the star-shaped island of his oryans - into Avalone and Atalante. His attempts at being clever get tiring after a while.)
And more importantly, where is <i>jeebus</i>?

Going back to the description Kripamoya Das gives of Michael Wooden's mockumentary for the BBC/PBS.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I might also mention here that 'fire-worship' (which, of course, is nothing of the sort, except to the naked eye) and the stories of Vishnu and Krishna, are also found in Russia in the oldest language of that country.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Where's their proof - <i>without</i> them resorting to their stilted techniques of linguistical acrobatics - that Russia used those names before India had them.
Russia's oldest language is older than Samskritam? Or are Michael Petrified Wood and his bosses at the Beeb/PBS dating Samskritam to Max Mueller's "I said so therefore it is" 1500 bce again and figuring that therefore (a more realistically-dated) Russian language must be older? Yeah, I can do that kind of pathological 'math' too.

The Vedas came from Central Asia? Where's the actual evidence? Meanwhile, the Siberian Buryats remember that they got their Hindu-Buddhism from India and not the other way around. (See

Here's a thought (which does not use the colossal gaps of logic displayed by beebeeb and Wooddust, nor does it refer to their desperate deus-ex-machina of the Oryans): the Iranians of Persia could have got familiar with Krishna and Vishnu from the Hindus of greater India (upto Afghanistan). And everyone including the Russians know that Persians influenced Russia a lot, especially with their Zoroastrianism (see for instance the reference to fire worship in the quoteblock). So why not pockets of Iranians introducing Russia and Iranian Kazakhstan to both Zoroastrianism and Hinduism? Why not Hindus of India themselves (of the NW say) - who moved about a lot in that region anyway - having introduced the Russians and Kazakhstanis to Krishna and Vishnu like they also introduced the Siberians to Indra upto Buddha?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So when Michael Wood, in the final scene of his documentary, is speaking to camera in his conveniently white shirt and trousers in the middle of a happy throng of Hindus throwing multi-coloured powders, he speaks words of praise for the antiquity of India and her culture. But he has, albeit not with malice, just smilingly damned the very religious beliefs of millions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is an unacceptable argument.
The west means "blind faith" with it. It does not mean what we think it means. English is full of such loaded terms.

Religious beliefs? Religious faith? Blow that. I don't care about 'beliefs'.
What I do care about is facts. Michael Wood and BBC-PBS are lying and that's what they should be called out on, not on "offending the religious beliefs" of 1,000,000 or 1.000000 people.

I have a right to the truth and I have a right to utter it. I have a right to insist it being told and to be spared lies. "Freedom of speech" should not include freedom to lie with impunity. Because lying with impunity is christoterrorism's incorrigible way. And this christoislamicommunistic practise of lying is a culture that is alien to Zoroastrian and Dharmic traditions, Taoist and other E Asian traditions.

The right to truth means I have a right to say it whenever I see fit (apparently we are also duty-bound to do so, but I whince at heavy words like duty, so). And if the truth happens to offend? Well, boohoo - as long as what I say is not false, I have the right.
Therefore, I have the full right to say jeebus doesn't exist, regardless of whether 2+ billion people find it offensive to their (violent intolerant) religious beliefs or not. What do I care about their beliefs anymore? When did they care for the truth? They've trampled on my Hindu Dharma and our Dharmic traditions and on E Asian, America's native American and African traditions all the time.
But the christoislamicommunazis offend with their lying. <i>That</i> is the difference. They have to <i>make up</i> lies about the Natural Traditions in order to sell/shove their inferior/invisible garbage product onto us. Even today: the only way they are able to convert people is by lying and brainwashing people with their hateful Oryan Dravidioid fictions, or with their Hutus and Tutsis myths and with their caste fables or with their "The benign christobritish" falsities. And with their lies against our traditions and Gods.

Next to that, they kill people and destroy temples and civilisations. So if they feel pinched whenever someone tells them facts, well then, ain't it all a cryin' shame - they can go blubbing to their mummies and daddies/Il Papa all they want. Nothing frightens lying ideologies as much as the truth.
As I said, christoislamics offend others with their compulsive lying. Whereas they are so quickly stung by the truth that they fall over themselves trying to make laws against "blasphemy". But how can we help it that history and their cooked-up babble so clearly points to the non-historicity of the scary character of christ. Or that the koran describes mohammed's character so damningly as an utterly repellent monstrosity.
If they don't like it, they should quit reading the babble and koran.

Why are Hindus such great defenders of <i>others'</i> freedom of speech anyway? And at the same time so quick to stifle any amongst us who wish to state facts? (Facts that unmotivated historians at least do not dispute.) Why is psecularism a sword that only cuts one way?
Most Hindus these days wear their Badge of UltraPsecularism as if dhimmitude and the colonized mind is something to be proud of.

In Dharmic traditions there is the concept of freedom to truth and freedom from lies; whereas the trite western ideal of "freedom of speech" essentially grants everyone the freedom to lie without providing the checks-and-balances of having the liar's reliability revoked.
It takes energy to refute lies, and it requires wide publication to get truths re-established after lies have been propagated. And that is exactly what the western imposed 'Freedom of Speech' tries to do in India: antagonise truth and circumvent its dissemination. Just like secularism in India manifests as psecularism that only props up christoislamicommunism and regularly hits at Dharmic traditions, freedom of speech in India is no more than the freedom to lie about our Dharmic traditions, all while we are absolutely forbidden from telling the truth about the terrorist ideologies. It is "unsecular" and "anti-minorityism" and "communalist" to speak the truth about them.

They can keep whining. Because the first step to decolonization from christo-conditioning is to stop being respectful or tolerant of intolerant ideologies. The natural second step then is to stop self-censorship against uttering the unpleasant facts about christoislamism. Nothing scares them more. Why else did the church enforce illiteracy and keep the hideous horror stories in the bible in Latin-only throughout the middle ages? Because a free mind naturally rebels against the impositions of such evil thoughts as are contained therein (see Mark Twain's experience with the babble). Why do you think communists from China to Bengal clamp down on the media about their atrocities against The People they claim to stand for?
Because nothing is more damaging to them than disseminating the truth about terrorist ideologies.
What scares them is what should be our weapon of choice. By their reaction, they have themselves given away what will defeat them. Then <i>use</i> it.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rather, it may even show that such performances were exported outside what is now India. Of course, what is known as India today is a shrunken version of 'Hindustan' which incorporated even present day Afghanistan a few centuries ago. And Hindustan itself, according to the histories of India, is only a fraction of the kingdom of Bharata.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is true.

Edited: to undo some earlier edits (which, although it made the text flow better, changed the meanings).

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - dhu - 05-01-2008

Husky, Following is the typical christian/western psycho behavior pattern. someone in the comments mentioned that it is modeled after "office", not "office office", only "office"

Jesus People - Episode 1

-added later:
The structures between church and secular world (western grand narrative) are exactly the same. That's why there is such an easy transition between "office" and "Jesus people" genres.

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Husky - 05-01-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+May 1 2008, 01:54 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ May 1 2008, 01:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jesus People - Episode 1
[right][snapback]81111[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thanks Dhu, that was a riot.

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - Guest - 05-02-2008

Did you know...

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->senior producer of CNN-IBN, Vidya Shankar is said to be a nephew of Mani Shankar Aiyar<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - agnivayu - 05-05-2008

Hey Y'all,

This British newspaper article has some stupid comments, so I posted suitable replies to them. If you have time, write a comment so these White Xtian Bastards learn to show some respect to other religions:

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - dhu - 05-12-2008

<b>The Many Forms of Propaganda</b>

Surely, we (modern, Americans) could not fall pray to the propagandizing techniques of malicious institutions. When advertisements attempt to produce us as loyal consumers, we are well aware. However, the propagandists aren’t naïve. As Professor Rentschler points out, the marketing firms that try and sell various ideas and items to modern populations factor skepticism into their approaches, making the ‘propaganda’ element of advertising all the more complex and difficult to detect. Although we may call attention to the overtly manipulative aspects of certain ads, these campaigns are themselves paper tigers, which conceal the fact that we are only contesting what is disagreeable. In his work on the diverse types of propaganda, Jacques Ellul suggests that there are far deeper forms of manipulation, which are perpetuated through what appear as commonsense understandings and aspects of our culture. Indeed, Ellul argues that the power of propaganda is the power to conceal itself. For an example of this type of propaganda, see the following advertisement.

What commonsense understandings are implied by the rhetoric of the ad? Does the ad merely reflect a neutral understanding of masculinity, or does it function to naturalize a particularly heteronormative view?

In this post, I would like to use a discussion of several of the modalities of propaganda highlighted by Ellul as a means of sharpening our understanding of the propagandistic function of the Nazi cinema. Did Nazi films present the same type of propagandistic message? Or did the purpose of propaganda change based on the historical circumstances? Speaking of purpose, did the Nazis have complete control in the process of producing propaganda? Or was the efficacy of propaganda largely determined by viewer responses, which could not be fully colonized or predicted?

Before seeking to address these questions, let us turn to the work of Jacques Ellul. In his definitive work on propaganda entitled Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, Ellul proposes a number of distinct, dichotomously opposed forms of propaganda, many of which are relevant to the function of Nazi cinema and the internal conflict regarding its goals. The first dichotomy of interest relates to propaganda of agitation versus propaganda of integration. <b>Agitation propaganda</b> is widespread, subversive, and often involves a call to action. <b>Propaganda of integration,</b> on the other hand, is a more long-term propaganda that seeks not temporary excitement, but the long term ordering of an individual into a given social configuration. Often these two forms of propaganda are sequenced. Propaganda of agitation is used to compel revolution, and after the rebellion propaganda of integration is deployed to stabilize a population into a new social order. Thus far, we have really only seen the former type of propaganda. Hitler Youth Quex, for example, could be understood as a means of agitating resistance to political resistance to the Nazi’s top competitor for power, communism.

Another pertinent distinction made by Ellul, and eluded to in the last post, is that between rational and irrational propaganda. While<b> rational propaganda </b>uses reason, facts, and statistics to ground its claim to authority/truth, <b>irrational propaganda </b>addresses the population’s feelings and passions. As mentioned last time, the Nazis primarily relied upon this latter method of propaganda. Rather than producing hatred (of communism, Jews, etc) through recourse to reason, a great deal of Nazi propaganda plays on (and indeed produces) the affective terrain of the viewers.
[NOTE: Although Ellul argues that irrational propaganda is fading due to modern population’s demand for factual explanation, the Bush administration’s recourse to religious themes as a justification for its actions, in the face of factual counter-evidence, seems to suggest that certain populations are still quite vulnerable to irrational propaganda that plays on passions (notions of patriotism, security, retribution) as opposed to reason.]

A final dichotomy I would like to touch on before addressing Nazi cinema specific is that between covert and overt propaganda. This one is fairly straightforward. <b>Overt propaganda </b>is open and explicit about its message. (Think Triumph of the Will). <b>Covert propaganda, </b>on the other hand, conceals its intentions and seeks to push populations towards certain views without their being aware of what’s going on. Again, thus far we have primarily seen overt propaganda, such as Triumph of the Will and Hitler Youth Quex. However, I think it could be argued that Olympia was less about promoting the Nazi regime than it was about affirming a particular vision of natural beauty, which seems unrelated to Nazism upon first glance.

Keeping these dichotomies in mind, let us return to the propagandistic function of Nazi cinema. Importantly, Hitler and Goebbels disagreed on how cinema should function within the larger Nazi propaganda apparatus. Whereas Hitler believed that people should know they were watching a Nazi film, Goebbels thought the opposite. Overt propaganda could often ruin the fantastic experience of the cinema and the potential for a more subtle colonization of viewer affect. In opposition to Hitler’s all overt all the time vision of Nazi propaganda, Goebbels promoted the orchestra approach. He did not want everybody (read: medium) playing the same instrument, and instead suggested the need for a blend of overt and covert propaganda that could surround the population on all sides. Within this framework, Goebbels generally felt that films should serve as a tool of subtle, affective integration, as opposed to overt propaganda. Thus, Goebbels challenge was to seamlessly combine seductive, pleasurable entertainment with propaganda. [NOTE: While many Nazi films succeeded in this regard, Professor Rentschler suggests the need to interrogate the common presumptions that (i) all propaganda was conscious design and (ii) that people like Goebbels had complete control over a film’s interpretation] Given Goebbels desire to blend pleasure with concealed political purpose, one cannot argue that Nazi feature films were simply tools of distraction. Although many Nazi films played passionately on the viewers’ perceived fantasies, they also worked to subtly integrate propagandistic elements into these very fantasies. In this way, one could view much Nazi cinema as integrative propaganda. However, as Professor Rentschler laments, if such subtle mechanisms could be considered propagandistic, are there any elements of modern society that escape propaganda?

As this post comes to a close, let us return to the Hitler Youth Quex. What <b>vision of a better world </b>is the film trying to provide? Although the end of the film provides an obvious discussion of a beautiful, nationalist Germany, what more can we grasp? Professor Rentschler suggests that the final scene (linked in the previous posting) reveals more than simply a recourse to nationalism. The solemn, silent cut of Heini’s body, followed by the dissolve of his body into the Nazi banner and the reemergence of the Hitler Youth anthem produce a feeling of the oceanic, infinity of Nazi symbols, which transcend even the physicality of the party’s members. While this closing scene certainly, as Professor Rentschler suggests, has the effect of contrasting the tidy organization of Nazi society with the disorganized brutality of communism, it also reveals the unsettling position of death and martyrdom, not as aberrations, but as constitutive aspects of the Party’s existence. The cult of death rolls on…

Media In India/elsewhere -2 - acharya - 05-12-2008

India magazine industry thriving, big players moving in

By Rina Chandran

New titles are coming thick and fast in one of the few markets in the world where advertising and readership for print media are expanding

WHEN Conde Nast launched its premium lifestyle magazine ‘Vogue’ in India last year, it carried a whopping 168 pages of advertisements of a total 400 pages.

Now, the publisher is preparing to launch its luxury men’s magazine GQ and expects a similar rush of advertisers in Asia’s third-largest economy, where rising incomes and growing literacy are boosting readership and revenues of magazines and newspapers. From specialist magazines on golf and parenting, to regional-language newspapers and financial dailies, new titles are coming thick and fast in one of the few markets in the world where advertising and readership for print media are expanding.

“It’s a fast growing economy and with consumption so robust and with incomes rising, it’s a fertile ground for the print media,” said Vivek Couto, executive director of Hong Kong-based research firm Media Partners Asia. “There is also a buoyancy in print advertising that is encouraging new launches and niche publications in particular.”

Print publication advertising revenues in India generated 94 billion rupees ($2.4 billion) in 2007, or 48 percent of all of the country’s media advertising revenues, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) said in a recent report. TV ads generated 41 percent. With the economy having grown at an average rate of 8.75 percent in the last four years, middle class incomes have risen, boosting demand for niche magazines on health, leisure and finances.

Growing prosperity in rural areas is also encouraging demand for publications in India’s more than 20 official regional languages. Revenue for newspapers and magazines in India, where reading at least one newspaper in the morning is sacrosanct, grew at an average rate of 15 percent in the last four years, higher than anywhere in the world, PWC said. The growth is helped by a young demographic, more working women, rapid urbanisation and smaller households, PWC added in its report.

The print publication boom in India contrasts sharply with more mature markets in the West where circulation figures and advertising revenues are down as readers move to the Internet.

Boom: India in 2005 allowed 100 percent foreign investment in non-news publications, keeping the cap for news at 26 percent. Early investments included Independent News and Media’s 26 percent stake in newspaper publisher Dainik Jagran, Pearson Plc’s 14 percent in Business Standard newspaper, Henderson Ventures’ investment in HT Media and BBC Worldwide’s magazine venture with Bennett, Coleman & Co.

More recently, private equity firm Blackstone Group put $150 million in regional publisher Ushodaya Enterprises, Warburg Pincus moved $33 million into the Dainik Group and DE Shaw invested $39 million in Amar Ujala Publications, according to research firm Venture Intelligence. News Corp, which has a content alliance for The Wall Journal with HT Media’s business daily, is keen on more launches. Pearson, which has sold its Business Standard stake, is reported to be in talks for a new venture.

“There’s huge investor interest in the growth potential, because the segment is still quite under-penetrated,” said Atul Phadnis, chief executive of consultancy Media e2e. Local firms are also seizing the opportunity: Business Standard and Bennett, Coleman’s Economic Times have launched Hindi and Gujarati-language editions of their financial dailies.

Deccan Chronicle Holdings has launched a business daily to compete with five others, and new regional-language and city papers are hitting the stands nearly every day. The boom in advertising revenue is not limited just to print. As new media grows and controls are eased in television, these will attract greater investments and advertising revenues. Specialist publications have a better chance of scoring with advertisers and readers in the increasing clutter, Phadnis said.

“Niche publications are almost immediately profitable: Advertising more than makes up for lower subscriptions, and there are easy synergies with other verticals, like radio or Internet.”

Glut: But it’s not all good news. The large number of players jostling in the market place could lead to a drop off in advertising revenues in the coming years, analysts say. “One of the worries is that publishers are taking ad revenues for granted,” Phadnis said. “Everyone thinks it will keep rising, but as early as 2009 we are going to see a glut in inventory in TV, print and the Internet because of so many players. We will see intense price competition, and smaller firms may be forced out,” he said.

Investors are also chasing only a handful of large media firms, he said, nudging up already high valuations: Deccan Chronicle shares trade at 10.3 times forecast earnings, while Jagran Prakashan trades at 19.3 times and Mid-Day Multimedia quotes at 19.7 times forecast earnings. Rising newsprint prices are also bumping up production costs.

Still, Conde Nast expects Vogue will break even in its first or second year of operation compared to an average break-even period of five or six years in more mature markets, said Alex Kuruvilla, managing director in India, referring to Europe and the United States. “We are optimistic and bullish,” he said of the potential. “But also cautious: In this market, you have to be smart.”

Attracting the attention of vendors who hawk magazines at traffic lights and getting space on shelves in overcrowded news stands across Mumbai is not easy for new entrants. “I am already running out of space,” said K.B. Singh, pointing to a low wooden bench on a busy sidewalk piled high with dozens of glossy magazines and newspapers. “Where will I put the new ones?” reuters