Where people's tax money goes:
1. rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/nyt-hit-piece-against-modi.html
2. rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/fwd-wow-kudos-to-hon-tulsi-gabbard.html
I know I'm supposed to be grateful and all that an American convert interceded.
But I'd like people to act with the same honesty for the sake of truth - i.e. because it is the *right* thing to do - and not because they have a vested/personal (=selfish) interest. Usually this last tends to occur when the western person has an Indian spouse or because the alien is a convert/dabbling. Examples of the former are too numerous as well, but e.g. Francois Gautier's wife is Sikh, which explains his primary interest in writing in favour of India's native religions. Then there's the Australian author of that "Victorian Holocausts" book - about the British genocide in Bengal. The author is IIRC married to a Bengali, which is why they ever bothered to learn of and expose that history.
It would be nice, for once at least, to find someone to break that mould of pure self-interest driving them. The closest I have heard of - though not a complete fit - is an example Rajeev Srinivasan frequently mentioned on his blog: one "Theodore Dalrymple" - whom RS specifically contrasted against that anti-Hindu William Dalrymple.
I looked him up: Theodore Dalrymple - a pen-name of a British doctor of Russian and German-Jewish ancestry (which last explains why he is interested in being truthful for the sake of it) - frequently says something positive about Hindus and native Africans etc and even holds them up as examples. Of course, T Dalrymple - besides being Jewish - is a bit of a cynic, which is the other reason why he bothers to notice. As per wacky, he's accused by others of being a pessimist and even misanthropist, but there's a fine line between being a pessimist and being a realist, and frustration with humanity is not the same as being misanthropic. If he were the latter he wouldn't even bother writing about the sorts of things he does, I suspect. (I.e. his criticism of 'progressive' society is ultimately constructive and intended as such, even if he doesn't sound very hopeful of achieving any success with it.)
Theodore's wife is not an Indian and she doesn't appear to be a Hindu, and he himself does not seem to be a "convert" either.
But other than Theodore - though he is not interested, as far as I know, in politically clearing Hindus and the BJP etc of the psyops generated against them by AmeriKKKa and christoislam - I can't think of any other western person who has actually bothered to say anything truthful about Hindu India for the reason that being truthful is the right thing to do. Everyone else has a vested interest. And ultimately, that makes them unreliable.
And so I feel no particular gratitude to people like Gabbard. Perhaps relief for their observations/statements, but not gratitude.*
And her willingness to observe what are blatant facts - her being moreover a largely solitary voice in doing so - merely underscores how much of a conclave of liars the rest of the criminal AmeriKKKan government is.
Indians are very naive in admiring America. And those Indians of Hindu origin that live there knowing the true nature of AmeriKKKa - and how *actively* it works to destroy Hindudom even in the Hindu homeland - well, let's just say some people willingly sleep with the enemy. There's no law against it, of course: people are free to do whatever. But it makes their sermonising to Hindus back home (e.g. NSR) rather hollow. And excuses like "I'll sleep with the enemy so you don't have to" only counts as long as you get no perks on the job, no blood-money. Which is clearly not the case. When people make their bed, why don't they lie in it? Why do they pretend they have a right to have the cake and eat it too?
[* In contrast, I acknowledge any sincere beneficial words "Theodore Dalrymple" had to say about Hindus (and Africans etc) *because* he seems to have had no personal reason to say such things, and yet did anyway. I suppose this is a rare quality in the west - not counting ethnic heathens - though not rare among people of Jewish origin. And it's not uncommon at all among heathens further east, I note.]
1. rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/nyt-hit-piece-against-modi.html
Quote:Monday, April 07, 2014
NYT Hit Piece Against Modi
On the eve of India's elections, the desperate sectarian poison-pen artists at NYT pull out all the stops in attempting to demonize Modi over the 2002 riots (which were apparently started by slogan-chanting Hindus who then spontaneously combusted):
nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/06/world/asia/modi-gujarat-riots-timeline-.html?_r=0#/#time287_8535 Posted by san at 4/07/2014 09:25:00 PM
2. rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/fwd-wow-kudos-to-hon-tulsi-gabbard.html
Quote:Sunday, April 06, 2014
Fwd: Wow! Kudos to the Hon. Tulsi Gabbard!!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: N
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/US-rights-panel-under-fire-for-influencing-Indian-election/articleshow/33288151.cms
Chidanand Rajghatta
[color="#0000FF"]WASHINGTON: A US Congressional panel's hearing on religious freedom in India came under fire from some of its own members on Friday. They called it an attempt to influence elections in India, even as Hindu activists in the US said the partisan event was aimed at undermining the BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi.[/color]
The hearing by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC), named after a late Congressman whose holocaust survival resulted in a lifelong devotion to human rights, was deliberately timed to impact the election, US lawmaker Tulsi Gabbard, a self-described Hindu-American, told the panel, after a Hindu activist group complained the panel had packed the hearing with witnesses who have an ''ulterior motive.''
[color="#0000FF"]"I do not believe the timing of this hearing is a coincidence. The national elections in India begin on Monday and continue until May 12. I am concerned that the goal of this hearing is to influence the outcome of India's national elections, which is not an appropriate role for the US Congress. Such interference with India's elections would undermine our shared goals,'' Gabbard, a Democrat from US President Obama's home state of Hawaii, told the panel.
"We need to be especially careful not to directly or indirectly contribute to sectarian strife in India or other countries. I am concerned that this hearing is an attempt to foment fear and loathing purely for political purposes. This is wrong and it will contribute to further sectarian division in India and will undermine national interests of the US," Gabbard added, in withering criticism of the hearing.
"Any attempt by the United States to have an effect on the Indian elections will backfire,'' Gabbard's senior colleague Brad Sherman cautioned while questioning panelists.[/color]
[color="#800080"](Really? US settlers' genocide against native Americans didn't backfire. AmeriKKKa always gets away with genocide, doesn't it? Why should their terrorist meddling in India be less successful? Then again, US' manual landwars in Asia did sting AmeriKKA so much they decided to minimise manual warfare and do long-distance genocidal meddling.)[/color]
Leaders of the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) echoed similar concerns, noting the ''unbalanced'' panel of four witnesses, all of whom expressed concern over the prospective election of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate, Narendra Modi, as Prime Minister. A witness that would have offered a Hindu perspective to ground realities and the multi-dimensional nature of inter-religious tensions in India was not included, despite requests by some members of the TLHRC, the foundation said.
Witnesses who testified before the committee included [color="#0000FF"]Katrina Lantos Swett, Vice Chair, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, John Sifton, Asia Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch, Robin Phillips, Executive Director, The Advocates for Human Rights, John Dayal, Member, National Integration Council, Government of India. Swett has been a leading advocate of continuing the US denial of visa for Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi.
HAF activists said they had reached out to the office of Congressman Keith Ellison, who is the first Muslim to be elected to the US Congress and is co-chair of the TLHRC, asking to add their witness ''to provide additional perspective on religious freedom in India.'' But they were told that only human rights groups were slated to be on the panel, and not specific to any religion. HAF pointed out though that panelist John Dayal serves as the Secretary General of the All India Christian Council in addition to being an activist, and said, ''the rejection seems disingenuous at best, and indicative of the ulterior motives of the hearing sponsors at worst.''[/color]
"While the promotion of international religious freedom should be a US policy priority, the testimony made it clear that the witnesses today simply had an axe to grind with the BJP's prime ministerial candidate,'' said Jay Kansara, HAF's Associate Director of Governmental Relations.
The panel's leading witness made no secret of her concern over a Modi-led BJP-alliance coming to power. ''Many religious minority communities fear religious freedom will be jeopardized if the BJP wins and the Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi becomes Prime Minister. We hope that is not the case,'' USCIRF's Katrina Swett said, recommending that the State Department elevate religious freedom concerns in the bilateral strategic dialogue mechanism.
--
sent from samsung galaxy note, so please excuse brevity Posted by nizhal yoddha at 4/06/2014 10:34:00 PM
I know I'm supposed to be grateful and all that an American convert interceded.
But I'd like people to act with the same honesty for the sake of truth - i.e. because it is the *right* thing to do - and not because they have a vested/personal (=selfish) interest. Usually this last tends to occur when the western person has an Indian spouse or because the alien is a convert/dabbling. Examples of the former are too numerous as well, but e.g. Francois Gautier's wife is Sikh, which explains his primary interest in writing in favour of India's native religions. Then there's the Australian author of that "Victorian Holocausts" book - about the British genocide in Bengal. The author is IIRC married to a Bengali, which is why they ever bothered to learn of and expose that history.
It would be nice, for once at least, to find someone to break that mould of pure self-interest driving them. The closest I have heard of - though not a complete fit - is an example Rajeev Srinivasan frequently mentioned on his blog: one "Theodore Dalrymple" - whom RS specifically contrasted against that anti-Hindu William Dalrymple.
I looked him up: Theodore Dalrymple - a pen-name of a British doctor of Russian and German-Jewish ancestry (which last explains why he is interested in being truthful for the sake of it) - frequently says something positive about Hindus and native Africans etc and even holds them up as examples. Of course, T Dalrymple - besides being Jewish - is a bit of a cynic, which is the other reason why he bothers to notice. As per wacky, he's accused by others of being a pessimist and even misanthropist, but there's a fine line between being a pessimist and being a realist, and frustration with humanity is not the same as being misanthropic. If he were the latter he wouldn't even bother writing about the sorts of things he does, I suspect. (I.e. his criticism of 'progressive' society is ultimately constructive and intended as such, even if he doesn't sound very hopeful of achieving any success with it.)
Theodore's wife is not an Indian and she doesn't appear to be a Hindu, and he himself does not seem to be a "convert" either.
But other than Theodore - though he is not interested, as far as I know, in politically clearing Hindus and the BJP etc of the psyops generated against them by AmeriKKKa and christoislam - I can't think of any other western person who has actually bothered to say anything truthful about Hindu India for the reason that being truthful is the right thing to do. Everyone else has a vested interest. And ultimately, that makes them unreliable.
And so I feel no particular gratitude to people like Gabbard. Perhaps relief for their observations/statements, but not gratitude.*
And her willingness to observe what are blatant facts - her being moreover a largely solitary voice in doing so - merely underscores how much of a conclave of liars the rest of the criminal AmeriKKKan government is.
Indians are very naive in admiring America. And those Indians of Hindu origin that live there knowing the true nature of AmeriKKKa - and how *actively* it works to destroy Hindudom even in the Hindu homeland - well, let's just say some people willingly sleep with the enemy. There's no law against it, of course: people are free to do whatever. But it makes their sermonising to Hindus back home (e.g. NSR) rather hollow. And excuses like "I'll sleep with the enemy so you don't have to" only counts as long as you get no perks on the job, no blood-money. Which is clearly not the case. When people make their bed, why don't they lie in it? Why do they pretend they have a right to have the cake and eat it too?
[* In contrast, I acknowledge any sincere beneficial words "Theodore Dalrymple" had to say about Hindus (and Africans etc) *because* he seems to have had no personal reason to say such things, and yet did anyway. I suppose this is a rare quality in the west - not counting ethnic heathens - though not rare among people of Jewish origin. And it's not uncommon at all among heathens further east, I note.]