BJP Future - 7

[acharya]

The answer to my question in detail why they are targetting BJP

Some thoughts from from western think-tanks about how best to manage Indian politics:

Does India Still Need a Hindu Nationalist Party?

BY ELLIOT HANNON | APRIL 30, 2010



[lots of platitudes, stereotypes, and obligatory diatribes against N. Modi clipped ... do read the article in full]



Clearly, the BJP is trying to make some changes -- but they may not be the right ones. It selected new leadership, opting for a relatively young face: Nitin Gadkari, a newcomer to the national stage who previously headed the party's Maharashtra state organization. Gadkari was backed by the RSS, however, suggesting that changes may be more superficial than real.



http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20...?page=full

To analyze this piece of news, we need to take a little detour. Let us look at some excerpts from Carroll Quigley's book "Tragedy and Hope", Macmillan, 1966. Quigley (1910-1977) was a Professor at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and was a mentor of Bill Clinton:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network ... has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists ... and frequently does so.



...there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy.



I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments.



They were gracious and cultured gentlemen .... who were largely responsible for the partitions of Ireland, Palestine, and India, as well as the federations of South Africa, Central Africa, and the West Indies.

It must be emphasized here, however, that Quigley is not giving us the full picture. This Syndicate is considerably older than what he says. Furthermore, Quigley fails to mention that the core of this Syndicate is based on the Sabbatean-Frankist sect [Ref Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman, "To Eliminate the Opiate", Vols I and II. Vol I is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/20459331/R-Mos...iate-vol-1]



Quigley recounts how the American people have been thoroughly confused and ineffective in dealing with this Syndicate:

...the relationship between the financial circles of London and those of the eastern United States ... reflects one of the most powerful influences in twentieth-century American and world history. The two ends of this English-speaking axis have sometimes been called, perhaps facetiously, the English and American Establishments. There is, however, a considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which reflects a very real power structure. It is this power structure which the Radical Right in the United States has been attacking for years in the belief that they are attacking the Communism. This is particularly true when these attacks are directed, as they so frequently are at "Harvard Socialism," or at "Left-wing newspapers" like The New York Times and the Washington Post, or at foundations and their dependent establishments, such as the Institute of International Education.



These misdirected attacks by the Radical Right did much to confuse the American people in the period 1948-1955, and left consequences which were still significant a decade later. By the end of 1953, most of these attacks had run their course. The American people, thoroughly bewildered at widespread charges of twenty years of treason and subversion, had rejected the Democrats and put into the White House the Republican Party's traditional favorite, a war hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Qiugley also mentions some of the over-ground fronts utilized by this criminal syndicate:

At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system had to be greatly extended ... This front organization [was] called the Royal Institute of International Affairs [aka "Chatham House"].... In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations ...

The RIAA and the CFR do exercise a fair amount of influence. Indeed, here is Hillary Clinton saying how the CFR tells the State department "what it should be doing and how to think about the future": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6TXcQpgC9Q



Now, the Crime Syndicate has very little respect for democracy. Quigley explains that the Syndicate intended

to allow an alternation of ... two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence of politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice.

...

Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within the very narrow alternatives ...

Although this false choice between two parties has been achieved in the US, the syndicate does nevertheless need to rig elections from time to time. It is greatly facilitated in this effort by the use of electronic voting machines.



Expectedly, the syndicate strongly supports the use of electronic voting machines in India. See "Indian EVMs impress Hillary Clinton" - http://news.rediff.com/interview/2009/no...linton.htm



Now, in order to create a similar false choice for the natives in India, two puppet parties are required. One pole of this order appears to already exist - the Congress Party. The interests of the syndicate would demand that Maoists be protected and the use of EVMs be supported. Sonia Gandhi and her loyalists appear to be adhering to this. But the system is not stable until there is an opposite pole, and this is the role that the BJP is supposed to play.

[size="5"]

It would have been best for the syndicate if the BJP were as much their puppet as the Congress appears to be. Then, the BJP could be allowed to win from time to time, thereby easing suspicions of vote fraud amongst the natives. However, it appears that the installation of Gadkari as the president has upset these plans. Indeed, the self-confessedly Anglophilic columnist Swapan Dasgupta, who harshly criticizes "conspiracy theories" about EVMs, regards the nomination of Gadkari as a "coup" in the BJP.



This brings up back to the article we started with: If the BJP cannot be reliably controlled, the syndicate may consider it better to not have a Hindu nationalist party in India at all. Severe rigging may be required to keep the BJP out. But the media can be relied on to mount a campaign that the BJP's support is eroding. That may make it easier for the natives to swallow their medicine.[/size]