<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We want the westerners to fall at our feet seeking our endorsement (Just the Macaulyites have been doing for the last 150 years)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What?
How did you conclude that? Not from my post, surely?
It has nothing to do with west or east, "white" or "non-white", northern or southern hemisphere ultimately. These are all distractions that christianism has created to protect itself: thanks to which people will fingerpoint anything except christianism.
You've chosen to fight phantoms, ignoring the real enemy that is still entirely safe from your gaze and your slashing.
The first victims of christianism were the "white" people. Greeks and Romans did not know of the concept and connotations of "white". In fact, they never even considered themselves as part of Europe - "Europe" was unrecognised.
Vikings were indiscriminate in going berserk, plundering, looting, assaulting, enslaving. And indiscriminate in friendships too.
The modern west is a product of christoconditioning.
The west is belligerent now because it is christo-conditioned. It is a disease that runs very deep and it affects even some Hindus to some extent (psecularism). It manifests in many symptoms.
Racism is a spinoff of christianism, hence it remains there in the christoconditioned even when they do not identify with christianism (e.g. various racist orgs).
You have identified the wrong thing as the enemy, and in doing so, you are excluding people who DESERVE better. You don't undo racism and christian-conditioned imperialism (which is guided by the "we can do anything we want to other peoples, gawd absolves us" - which still directs western policy even where the second part of that statement is now ignored by the more secular 'non-religious' but still christo-conditioned forces) - you don't undo all that by falling into the racist/christo-conditioned mindtrap yourself.
Let it go. One can easily feel such misdirected bitterness at times, since "white-ness"/"western-ness" is the only 'visible' part of the malleable liquid underlying threat (christoclass mindvirus), and it is human nature to want something tangible to reproach and hold at fault. But this <i>misdirected</i> bitterness needs to be put into perspective every time and dissolved. It is not good for you, it is ineffective and mistaken.
There <i>is</i> most certainly an enemy - something that IS guilty - and it keeps generating all the related sideshows like psecularism, racism, (neo)nazism, fascism, communism, conquistador type tendencies, modern imperialist forms. Find a way to fight the causal meme. Then would still need ideology overhaul (through replacement/reinstatement with ethnic natural traditions) to mop up all the lingering symptoms of the christoconditioning (racism, communism, neonazism - that is, the 'heresies'/new strains of the christoclass meme retrovirus which can now exist independent of christoislamism).
I find this blind antagonism to the "west" surprising - as if it was always the nemesis and as if its current callous and imperialistic (summarised by the term "white") attributes are intrinsic to it. <i>What the west is now is a product of > 1.5 millennia of social engineering and mind-warping of the native European populace.</i> Who knows how many today could have been like some variant of Emperor Flavius Julianus and other GrecoRomans. What the *character* of the west could have been by now. While imperial Rome was not perfect, but it was already slowly changing, and in 2000 years (in time for now) it could have become far better. Instead it was forced on a different, ruthless path, eventually dragging all of Europe and the rest of the world with it.
So who knows what the world would have been like. Wars, likely, yes. Cruelty, yes - as always. But not this total destruction of the mind and crushing of the spirit in an evil nightmare haze caused by the terrorist meme of total intolerance. The meme has meant nothing but death for humanity - not just physical death, not just the death of naturally-derived (indigenous) civilisations. It has to go.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AgniVayu: Even a so called "Pagan" White takes the side of their race when push comes to shove.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The example I gave, which you refer to, was clearly labelled "new-agey neo-pagan":
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky: Comment by another <b>new agey neo-'pagan' </b>to an article by Wendy Doniger<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I already wrote in that post which you excerpted it from that:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have long been (independently) of the same opinion as the following expressed by the Hellenes at ysee.gr:
http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#24
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Are you Pagans?</b>
The term 'Pagan', which in the original Latin is derived from Paganus (peasant), is yet another insult used by the victorious Christians since the 4th Century, to belittle what remained of the Native Religions.
They used this to label all those remaining loyal to their Ethnic Traditions, to imply that they were uneducated and uncouth villagers. The term was used for centuries in most European languages to refer to the Ethnikoi. <b>In the 20th Century, it was reintroduced with the suffix neo (viz. Neopaganism), by various Christian-inspired devotees of Esotericism and the New Age. 'Neopaganism' doesn't concern us. It may even be a manufactured ploy to detract from the current world rule of the so-called 'Monotheists'.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Hellenes at ysee.gr are supportive of all true natural traditionalists in the world. They also gave moral support to the Tibetans protesting the Chinese olympics. By your description, they are "white" so-called "pagans" too. And so, your accusation, being too general, injures those that don't remotely deserve it - merely by association.
Here's a sensible comment I read recently that comes directly to the point:
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/06/dia...-in-sheeps.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Harish said...
  I wonder if Radha Rajan would be fine tomorrow with the Church if all "whites" disappeared from this world & "blacks" took over the Church hierarchy?
  Instead of focusing on ideas she prefers to focus on "race" to obsfucate the real problem, similar to Rajiv Malhotra's "whiteness studies" where he claims that Xtianity is fine, it's the fact that whites dominate it thats the problem.
  The White Church started among a bunch of disgruntled Hebrews in the ME (far from "white" as understood today), it was viewed with contempt by the white rulers of the Roman empire & rejected for nearly 3 centuries until Constantine, even after that the white Emperor Julian who had nothing but contempt for Xtianity tried to restore the Hellenic religion but didn't live long enough to see his dream fulfilled. The first ones to thoroughly critique Xtianity & reject it with disgust were whites like Celsus. In comparison the "brown" Hindus in India adopted a nonchalant attitude about Islam & Xtianity for over a thousand years while being massacred by followers of these two cults, the supposed intellectual heads of the Hindu society (i.e the Brahmins) failed miserably in putting forth any intellegent critique of Xtianity until Dayananda Saraswati the founder of Arya Samaj in mid 19th century along with Arumuga Navalar (a Vellalar from Eezham) in the South.
  It may interest Radha Rajan to know that the white church also expanded by brute force in lily white northern europe over the centuries.
  I wonder how Xtianity became the "white race's religion", so tomorrow if enough Indians become Xtians through force & forget their Hindu past then Xtianity is the bonafide religion of the Indian race?
  The problem with Christianity is not whether it's followed mainly by white people or black people or martians. The real problem is that it's central truth claim that Jesus died for our sins is not true, add to this the intolerance inherent in this cult. These are the real problems.
  It's funny that the same Hindus railing about white this & white that often nurture fantasies of Jesus as some good boy Yogi (eg: Rajiv Malhotra) whereas they have no clue of someone like Marcus Aurelius who is much more closer to a Yogi than the mythical Jesus could ever hope to be.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->See, respectful mentions of Marcus Aurelius, Flavius Julianus. I can only nod in approval.
<b>ADDED:</b>
<b>I think this <i>is</i> my fault actually.</b> I probably don't qualify my statements. Like how I <i>should</i> always say "catholic Croatians" (and later communist Croatians) when referring to those who tortured and genocided the orthodox Serbs.
Likewise, I should properly explain what I mean when I say "west" accusingly. I mean "christoconditioned west" each time.
How did you conclude that? Not from my post, surely?
It has nothing to do with west or east, "white" or "non-white", northern or southern hemisphere ultimately. These are all distractions that christianism has created to protect itself: thanks to which people will fingerpoint anything except christianism.
You've chosen to fight phantoms, ignoring the real enemy that is still entirely safe from your gaze and your slashing.
The first victims of christianism were the "white" people. Greeks and Romans did not know of the concept and connotations of "white". In fact, they never even considered themselves as part of Europe - "Europe" was unrecognised.
Vikings were indiscriminate in going berserk, plundering, looting, assaulting, enslaving. And indiscriminate in friendships too.
The modern west is a product of christoconditioning.
The west is belligerent now because it is christo-conditioned. It is a disease that runs very deep and it affects even some Hindus to some extent (psecularism). It manifests in many symptoms.
Racism is a spinoff of christianism, hence it remains there in the christoconditioned even when they do not identify with christianism (e.g. various racist orgs).
You have identified the wrong thing as the enemy, and in doing so, you are excluding people who DESERVE better. You don't undo racism and christian-conditioned imperialism (which is guided by the "we can do anything we want to other peoples, gawd absolves us" - which still directs western policy even where the second part of that statement is now ignored by the more secular 'non-religious' but still christo-conditioned forces) - you don't undo all that by falling into the racist/christo-conditioned mindtrap yourself.
Let it go. One can easily feel such misdirected bitterness at times, since "white-ness"/"western-ness" is the only 'visible' part of the malleable liquid underlying threat (christoclass mindvirus), and it is human nature to want something tangible to reproach and hold at fault. But this <i>misdirected</i> bitterness needs to be put into perspective every time and dissolved. It is not good for you, it is ineffective and mistaken.
There <i>is</i> most certainly an enemy - something that IS guilty - and it keeps generating all the related sideshows like psecularism, racism, (neo)nazism, fascism, communism, conquistador type tendencies, modern imperialist forms. Find a way to fight the causal meme. Then would still need ideology overhaul (through replacement/reinstatement with ethnic natural traditions) to mop up all the lingering symptoms of the christoconditioning (racism, communism, neonazism - that is, the 'heresies'/new strains of the christoclass meme retrovirus which can now exist independent of christoislamism).
I find this blind antagonism to the "west" surprising - as if it was always the nemesis and as if its current callous and imperialistic (summarised by the term "white") attributes are intrinsic to it. <i>What the west is now is a product of > 1.5 millennia of social engineering and mind-warping of the native European populace.</i> Who knows how many today could have been like some variant of Emperor Flavius Julianus and other GrecoRomans. What the *character* of the west could have been by now. While imperial Rome was not perfect, but it was already slowly changing, and in 2000 years (in time for now) it could have become far better. Instead it was forced on a different, ruthless path, eventually dragging all of Europe and the rest of the world with it.
So who knows what the world would have been like. Wars, likely, yes. Cruelty, yes - as always. But not this total destruction of the mind and crushing of the spirit in an evil nightmare haze caused by the terrorist meme of total intolerance. The meme has meant nothing but death for humanity - not just physical death, not just the death of naturally-derived (indigenous) civilisations. It has to go.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AgniVayu: Even a so called "Pagan" White takes the side of their race when push comes to shove.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The example I gave, which you refer to, was clearly labelled "new-agey neo-pagan":
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky: Comment by another <b>new agey neo-'pagan' </b>to an article by Wendy Doniger<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I already wrote in that post which you excerpted it from that:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have long been (independently) of the same opinion as the following expressed by the Hellenes at ysee.gr:
http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#24
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Are you Pagans?</b>
The term 'Pagan', which in the original Latin is derived from Paganus (peasant), is yet another insult used by the victorious Christians since the 4th Century, to belittle what remained of the Native Religions.
They used this to label all those remaining loyal to their Ethnic Traditions, to imply that they were uneducated and uncouth villagers. The term was used for centuries in most European languages to refer to the Ethnikoi. <b>In the 20th Century, it was reintroduced with the suffix neo (viz. Neopaganism), by various Christian-inspired devotees of Esotericism and the New Age. 'Neopaganism' doesn't concern us. It may even be a manufactured ploy to detract from the current world rule of the so-called 'Monotheists'.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Hellenes at ysee.gr are supportive of all true natural traditionalists in the world. They also gave moral support to the Tibetans protesting the Chinese olympics. By your description, they are "white" so-called "pagans" too. And so, your accusation, being too general, injures those that don't remotely deserve it - merely by association.
Here's a sensible comment I read recently that comes directly to the point:
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/06/dia...-in-sheeps.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Harish said...
  I wonder if Radha Rajan would be fine tomorrow with the Church if all "whites" disappeared from this world & "blacks" took over the Church hierarchy?
  Instead of focusing on ideas she prefers to focus on "race" to obsfucate the real problem, similar to Rajiv Malhotra's "whiteness studies" where he claims that Xtianity is fine, it's the fact that whites dominate it thats the problem.
  The White Church started among a bunch of disgruntled Hebrews in the ME (far from "white" as understood today), it was viewed with contempt by the white rulers of the Roman empire & rejected for nearly 3 centuries until Constantine, even after that the white Emperor Julian who had nothing but contempt for Xtianity tried to restore the Hellenic religion but didn't live long enough to see his dream fulfilled. The first ones to thoroughly critique Xtianity & reject it with disgust were whites like Celsus. In comparison the "brown" Hindus in India adopted a nonchalant attitude about Islam & Xtianity for over a thousand years while being massacred by followers of these two cults, the supposed intellectual heads of the Hindu society (i.e the Brahmins) failed miserably in putting forth any intellegent critique of Xtianity until Dayananda Saraswati the founder of Arya Samaj in mid 19th century along with Arumuga Navalar (a Vellalar from Eezham) in the South.
  It may interest Radha Rajan to know that the white church also expanded by brute force in lily white northern europe over the centuries.
  I wonder how Xtianity became the "white race's religion", so tomorrow if enough Indians become Xtians through force & forget their Hindu past then Xtianity is the bonafide religion of the Indian race?
  The problem with Christianity is not whether it's followed mainly by white people or black people or martians. The real problem is that it's central truth claim that Jesus died for our sins is not true, add to this the intolerance inherent in this cult. These are the real problems.
  It's funny that the same Hindus railing about white this & white that often nurture fantasies of Jesus as some good boy Yogi (eg: Rajiv Malhotra) whereas they have no clue of someone like Marcus Aurelius who is much more closer to a Yogi than the mythical Jesus could ever hope to be.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->See, respectful mentions of Marcus Aurelius, Flavius Julianus. I can only nod in approval.
<b>ADDED:</b>
<b>I think this <i>is</i> my fault actually.</b> I probably don't qualify my statements. Like how I <i>should</i> always say "catholic Croatians" (and later communist Croatians) when referring to those who tortured and genocided the orthodox Serbs.
Likewise, I should properly explain what I mean when I say "west" accusingly. I mean "christoconditioned west" each time.