This post does not actually belong in this thread. But placed here as it is on the same topic as one already posted here earlier.
To add another prominent name to a list alluded to in the following:
[quote name='Husky' date='08 April 2014 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1396973185' post='117185']
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.*
[...]
[* 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.]
[/quote]
The Rajeev2004 blog's twitter feed shows that "David Cohen" - whose positive remarks on India are oft retweeted by Rajeev - is married to one "Radha Bharadwaj". Anyway, I already guessed it/assumed it: there is almost never any other reason for 'western' people* to make pro-Hindu and pro-Hindu nationalist statements.
* Even if Mr Cohen were Israeli in ancestry - his surname is both Jewish and Scottish, IIRC - he'd still be considered "western" by E Asian populations and, to some degree, by myself too. (But will give him extra points if he has Israeli ancestry.)
Indian Hindus on twitter seemed to be cheering for the match (with one exception IIRC) - guess he's unanimously regarded a prize in Hindu nationalist circles? (I never hear such an applause for an ethnic Hindu nationalist marrying a fellow ethnic Hindu nationalist; surely such combinations must exist) - and for Mr Cohen being pro-Hindu. Apparently none of the Hindu nationalists retweeting Mr Cohen guessed Mr Cohen would have a Hindu wife. (Honestly, I can't believe everyone else didn't see this coming. It doesn't take a crystal ball, right?) It was surely so easy to guess: lots of western people married to Hindus are "pro-Hindu". They have to be.
I have nothing against Mr Cohen of course. I only know of him from some of his tweets reposted at RS, where he sounded sympathetic, and comes across as a nice person, just as many people in the world are. But I do note - once more - that he fits the pattern long observed and all too often seen: that, in western populations, only alien dabblers OR western persons married to/dating/crushing on Hindus tend to be pro-Hindu*. And their ever making pro-Hindu statements or assuming pro-Hindu positions is therefore always out of some degree of self-interest, and not because it is the Right position (one they would naturally have had/have considered, their apologists' demurs notwithstanding). It makes all the difference, after all.
* About this statement: "only alien dabblers OR western persons married to/dating/crushing on Hindus tend to be pro-Hindu" => Though neither is at all a guarantee, i.e. "pro-Hindu western person" tends to commonly imply dabbler or Hindu spouse, but the reverse is not a given: a western person being a dabbler or having a Hindu spouse does not at all imply the western person is pro-Hindu. (Sometimes they are merely neutral/don't care.)
So the score is still: of the prominent/visible persons, only the Jewish-origin doctor penning works under the pseudonym "Theodore Dalrymple" is positive about Hindus without ulterior motive and of his own choice.
Some western atheists - with no Hindu affiliations/relations - admire Hindu thought, other atheists consider Hindus respectfully too. But they do so passively. Am speaking here more about those pro-actively pro-Hindu. (E.g. tweeting the occasional pro-Modi or generally pro-Hindu statement (Cohen) or writing pro-Hindu articles (Gautier) or pro-Hindu books.) All these last tend to be - are exclusively? - either affiliated with Hindoos by marriage or with Hinduism by religion (dabbling).
Just can't admire or trust or feel comfortable with such people once I discover the source of their conscious positive treatment of Hindu religion is self-interest. And have so far never been wrong - which is a disappointment. Also, compare the mildness of Theodore Dalrymple's positivity with regard to Hindus, with the strength of the pro-Hindu stand assumed by dabblers and those married to Hindus. It's easy to detect.
As for dabblers: Elst has declared himself one, i.e. he considers himself a "Hindu" (though he vehemently denied it earlier in a comment at HK). So that -if his declaration were true- it answers questions regarding his sympathy: not an objective onlooker, which was already obvious by his peculiar and pointed interest, but motivated by self-interest. Self-interest is all there is in the western 'regard' for Hindoo heathenism.
In every which way, the E and SE Asian heathens trump the west w.r.t. their approach to Hindoos and their heathenism. In the west, one needs to *search* to find a truly, actively sympathetic character who has no personal reasons for his bias. With E Asian heathens and SE Asian Taoists - it has been my experience - that they are as a rule disposed to regard Hindoos and their heathenism with favour and a kind eye. They're interested in Hindoos - for Hindoos' own sake. Their regard for Hindoos and Hindoo heathenism is not selfish. It is genuine. Of their own accord. And at all times, the heathens to our east are no threat to Hindoos.
INSERT:
Actually, here's an exercise. Next time some western person sounds repeatedly pro-Hindu or pro-Hindu nationalist, assume they're a 'convert'/dabble (do yoga etc) or have a spouse or love interest of some Indic religion. And ask them which of the two it is. And if neither is true, THEN report it all over twitter, since that would be a rarity (a miracle?) and totally news worthy.
To add another prominent name to a list alluded to in the following:
[quote name='Husky' date='08 April 2014 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1396973185' post='117185']
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.*
[...]
[* 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.]
[/quote]
The Rajeev2004 blog's twitter feed shows that "David Cohen" - whose positive remarks on India are oft retweeted by Rajeev - is married to one "Radha Bharadwaj". Anyway, I already guessed it/assumed it: there is almost never any other reason for 'western' people* to make pro-Hindu and pro-Hindu nationalist statements.
* Even if Mr Cohen were Israeli in ancestry - his surname is both Jewish and Scottish, IIRC - he'd still be considered "western" by E Asian populations and, to some degree, by myself too. (But will give him extra points if he has Israeli ancestry.)
Indian Hindus on twitter seemed to be cheering for the match (with one exception IIRC) - guess he's unanimously regarded a prize in Hindu nationalist circles? (I never hear such an applause for an ethnic Hindu nationalist marrying a fellow ethnic Hindu nationalist; surely such combinations must exist) - and for Mr Cohen being pro-Hindu. Apparently none of the Hindu nationalists retweeting Mr Cohen guessed Mr Cohen would have a Hindu wife. (Honestly, I can't believe everyone else didn't see this coming. It doesn't take a crystal ball, right?) It was surely so easy to guess: lots of western people married to Hindus are "pro-Hindu". They have to be.
I have nothing against Mr Cohen of course. I only know of him from some of his tweets reposted at RS, where he sounded sympathetic, and comes across as a nice person, just as many people in the world are. But I do note - once more - that he fits the pattern long observed and all too often seen: that, in western populations, only alien dabblers OR western persons married to/dating/crushing on Hindus tend to be pro-Hindu*. And their ever making pro-Hindu statements or assuming pro-Hindu positions is therefore always out of some degree of self-interest, and not because it is the Right position (one they would naturally have had/have considered, their apologists' demurs notwithstanding). It makes all the difference, after all.
* About this statement: "only alien dabblers OR western persons married to/dating/crushing on Hindus tend to be pro-Hindu" => Though neither is at all a guarantee, i.e. "pro-Hindu western person" tends to commonly imply dabbler or Hindu spouse, but the reverse is not a given: a western person being a dabbler or having a Hindu spouse does not at all imply the western person is pro-Hindu. (Sometimes they are merely neutral/don't care.)
So the score is still: of the prominent/visible persons, only the Jewish-origin doctor penning works under the pseudonym "Theodore Dalrymple" is positive about Hindus without ulterior motive and of his own choice.
Some western atheists - with no Hindu affiliations/relations - admire Hindu thought, other atheists consider Hindus respectfully too. But they do so passively. Am speaking here more about those pro-actively pro-Hindu. (E.g. tweeting the occasional pro-Modi or generally pro-Hindu statement (Cohen) or writing pro-Hindu articles (Gautier) or pro-Hindu books.) All these last tend to be - are exclusively? - either affiliated with Hindoos by marriage or with Hinduism by religion (dabbling).
Just can't admire or trust or feel comfortable with such people once I discover the source of their conscious positive treatment of Hindu religion is self-interest. And have so far never been wrong - which is a disappointment. Also, compare the mildness of Theodore Dalrymple's positivity with regard to Hindus, with the strength of the pro-Hindu stand assumed by dabblers and those married to Hindus. It's easy to detect.
As for dabblers: Elst has declared himself one, i.e. he considers himself a "Hindu" (though he vehemently denied it earlier in a comment at HK). So that -if his declaration were true- it answers questions regarding his sympathy: not an objective onlooker, which was already obvious by his peculiar and pointed interest, but motivated by self-interest. Self-interest is all there is in the western 'regard' for Hindoo heathenism.
In every which way, the E and SE Asian heathens trump the west w.r.t. their approach to Hindoos and their heathenism. In the west, one needs to *search* to find a truly, actively sympathetic character who has no personal reasons for his bias. With E Asian heathens and SE Asian Taoists - it has been my experience - that they are as a rule disposed to regard Hindoos and their heathenism with favour and a kind eye. They're interested in Hindoos - for Hindoos' own sake. Their regard for Hindoos and Hindoo heathenism is not selfish. It is genuine. Of their own accord. And at all times, the heathens to our east are no threat to Hindoos.
INSERT:
Actually, here's an exercise. Next time some western person sounds repeatedly pro-Hindu or pro-Hindu nationalist, assume they're a 'convert'/dabble (do yoga etc) or have a spouse or love interest of some Indic religion. And ask them which of the two it is. And if neither is true, THEN report it all over twitter, since that would be a rarity (a miracle?) and totally news worthy.