• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
It was in British Columbia that Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton-North Delta) also lost on the Liberal ticket.

Also among the Liberals’ losers was Gurbax Singh Malhi, five-time winner from Bramela-Malton-Gore Gaon. He lost to Bal Gosal of the Conservatives in a fight that saw youngster Jagmeet Singh (NDP) put up a splendid fight. While Malhi finished a poor third, Jagmeet almost caught up with Bal Gosal in a virtual unpredicted Conservative wave.

Glamour girl of Liberals, Ruby Dhalla, too lost convincingly in Brampton-Springdale to fellow Indo-Canadian Parm Gill. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110504/main7.htm
From my blog post @ http://indicrace.blogspot.com/2011/05/ja...llout.html

Post the nuclear issues in Japan brought about by the earthquakes and tsunami, international sympathy flowed in and everyone had kind words to say to the Japanese especially on how resilient they are or on how orderly their conduct was during the crisis! I agree, we completely support the Japanese in their struggle against the odds and stand by them during their hour of crisis and need. Now that the crisis has pretty much toned down in its ferocity and the Japanese have been able to bring things almost back in control, I will now share my thoughts on the incident.

Post the 1998 Pokhran nuclear tests carried out by the Indians, the Japanese were frothing in the mouth running around advising on the "ethics" which discourage nuclear tests. Punitive sanctions were imposed and Japanese quickly scrambled on to their moral high horse. And if you thought it was the Japanese government alone putting up the sham altruism then I have some news for you, ordinary Indians in Japan were refused accomodation/renting of home in Japan by the Japanese commoners. This was because the Indians had "endangered" the world by their irresponsible nuclear tests. Fair enough! The moral high horse is indeed a tall animal. Come 2011 tsunami in Japan and half the world got a taste of harmful radiation let out by the Japanese. Now what do we have to say about it? Well, the post mortem concluded that the issue came about as a result of lack of proper maintenance by the Japanese engineers/maintenance personnel in the nuclear plants. I am not going into the specifics of which plant it was or which location it was mainly because it does not matter. What matters was that incompetence/negligence by Japanese engineers/technicians/personnel brought about the nuclear radiation leaks and which spread across half the planet. Now, you did not see Indians climbing onto their high horses did you? We did not curse the Japanese and deny them housing in India, did we? This my friends seperates the Japanese from the Indians.

If you are now thinking that the Japanese reaction during 1998 was brought about by the fact that they had direct nuclear attacks on them by Americans in 1945 and there is no one better than them to understand the pain that nuclear weapons inflicts on people then think again! They were no saints before the nuclear attacks. One has to read their conduct during their WWII campaign in Burma and China and if you feel shocked then get yourself a "comfort woman" like the Japanese Generals got for their soldiers by forcibly kidnapping native women. So are we saying that the Japanese deserved what they got in 1945 then all we say is that pain yields pain and crime yields crime. What you sow is what you reap. In the East it is a multi-thousand year concept called Karma. The Japanese follow Buddhism which revolves around Karma so it is not that they did not know! That they created Zen Buddhism to disassociate from anything authentically Indic is another matter. All we say is that Japanese are no saints and they have just about enough credibility to lecture on altruism and ethics as do the Australians, Pakistanis or Americans. And for all their nuclear weapon experiences why on Earth do they have nuclear power plants in Japan? The fact that the Japanese don't have nuclear weapons has to do with the fact that they are on a tight leash by that other "ethical" altruist nation, the US. If Japan had won the second world war then this article would have been in Japanese praising the emperor on having survived the nuclear leak without a scratch on his royal Japanese lineage butt!

For all the Indian journalists who frothed in their mouth and started hopping mad that Indian nuclear reactors are unsafe if a tsunami were to strike us then get this into your brains, Kalpakkam survived the tsunami without a scratch due to a well thought design for an auxiliary generator to cool the plant whilst everyone knows what happened to the Japanese power plants. Whilst us Indians are quick to jump on our own and term out workers as lazy/lethargic and incompetent, to them, I point the Japanese personnel whose incompetence caused the nuclear leakage fallout.
BERLIN: Iran temporarily withdrew flyover rights for the plane carrying German chancellor Angela Merkel to India on Tuesday, forcing it to circle over Turkey for two hours before the rights were restored and she could land in New Delhi. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...661530.cms

"An unusual start to the India trip," Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert wrote on his Twitter account. "Iran temporarily denied flyover rights for the Chancellor's plane. A late landing in Delhi."
[url="http://blogs.forbes.com/afontevecchia/2011/06/13/roubini-warns-of-euro-break-up-as-greek-credit-rating-tumbles/?partner=europe_newsletter"]Roubini Warns Of Euro Break Up As Greek Credit Rating Tumbles [/url]
"We are very thankful to Ansar Burney. He was in regular contact with us and he played an important role in raising donations for the cause," the sailor's father, a state government employee, told IANS over phone from New Delhi. "We were happy to see our son. We are thankful to the god for his safe return," he added.

Somali pirates hijacked the Egyptian-owned ship in the Gulf of Aden Aug 2, 2010. The pirates released the ship and the crew after a $2.1 million ransom was paid to them by a Pakistani organisation. Apart from the six Indians, the 22 hostages included 11 Egyptians, four Pakistanis and a Sri Lankan. http://news.in.msn.com/national/article....id=5231794
from stratfor

Quote:What the Norway Attack Could Mean for Europe

July 22, 2011

At least 17 people have died and more have been injured in an explosion in downtown Oslo and a shooting at a Labor Party youth camp outside the Norwegian capital. Norwegian police arrested the shooter at the camp and believe he is connected with the explosion, though others could be involved.

The significance of the events in Norway for the rest of Europe will depend largely on who is responsible, and the identity of the culprits is still unclear. However, STRATFOR can extrapolate the possible consequences of the attacks based on several scenarios.

The first scenario is that grassroots Islamist militants based in Norway are behind these seemingly connected attacks. Grassroots jihadist groups are already assumed to exist across Europe, and this assumption — along with previous attacks — has bolstered far-right political parties' popularity across the Continent. Many center-right politicians have also begun raising anti-immigrant policy issues in order to distract from the ongoing economic austerity measures brought about by the European economic crisis. If grassroots Islamist militants are found to be the culprits in Norway, it will simply reinforce the current European political trend that favors the far right. That said, some far-right parties, particularly in Northern Europe, could get a popularity boost sufficient to push them into the political mainstream, and possibly into government.

If an individual, grassroots or organized domestic group with far-right or neo-Nazi leanings perpetrated the attack, the significance for the rest of Europe will not be large. It could lead to a temporary loss of popularity for the far right, but long-term repercussions for the far right are unlikely since these parties have begun tempering their platforms in order to attract a wider constituency.

There is also the possibility that the attacks are the work of a skilled but disturbed individual with grievances against the Labor Party. This possibility would have few long-ranging repercussions beyond a reworking of domestic security procedures in Norway.

Another scenario is that the attack was carried out by an international group which may have entered the country some time ago. Regardless of the time frame, if the culprits crossed a border to get into Norway, other European countries will feel very vulnerable; Norway is Europe's northern terminus, and if international militants can get to Norway, they can get to anywhere in Europe. This vulnerability could severely damage the Schengen Agreement, once a symbolic pillar of Europe's unity, which has been under attack in the last several months. The agreement allows visa-free travel between the 25 countries in the Schengen Area (most of which are EU members, but the Schengen Area does include some non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland). The agreement came under pressure when Italy threatened to allow migrants fleeing the Libyan conflict and Tunisian political unrest to gain temporary resident status in order to cross into France. It was Rome's way of forcing the rest of Europe to help it with the influx of migrants. The solution proposed by France and Italy was to essentially establish temporary borders "under very exceptional circumstances." Later, Denmark reimposed border controls, supposedly due to an increase in cross-border crime.

The attack in Norway, if it involved cross-border movements, could therefore damage or even end the Schengen Agreement. Other European countries, particularly those where the far right is strong or where center-right parties have adopted an anti-immigrant message, could push for further amendments to the pact.

A transnational militant plot against a European country in the contemporary context could also be significant for European defense policy. When the 2004 Madrid attack and 2005 London attack happened, many in Europe argued that the attacks were a result of European governments' support for U.S. military operations in the Middle East. This is no longer really the case for Europe, although European forces are still in Afghanistan. It is much more difficult to blame Europe's alliance with the United States for this attack. As such, Europe could very well be motivated to take ongoing efforts to increase European defense coordination seriously. Current efforts are being led by Poland, which is doing so mainly because it wants to increase security against Russia's resurgence, not because of global militancy. The problem with Warsaw's plan is that it has little genuine support in Western Europe, other than France. An attack on Norway could, however, provide the kind of impetus necessary for Europe to feel threatened by global events.

The last scenario is that the attack is linked to Norway's involvement in the campaign in Libya. If the Libyan government is somehow connected to the bombing and/or shooting, the rest of Europe will rally behind Norway and increase their efforts in Libya. This scenario would essentially close off the opening in negotiations prompted by a recent move by Paris and other European governments saying they would be open to Moammar Gadhafi's remaining in Libya.
Just to do with this line from the above post:

Quote:but long-term repercussions for the far right are unlikely since these parties have begun tempering their platforms in order to attract a wider constituency.
Not just the far right, but also the extreme right (=neo-nazism) is into donning plainclothes (literally) to woo more support.

I thought an article that appeared in the Independent may be relevant to the statement in the quoteblock above (i.e. not necessarily relevant to the particular attacks in Norway). It's information that would be useful for India's Dharmics to know for general purposes - again: not necessarily in the context of what happened in Norway, because, as is known, there are various groups called "right/rightwings" in Europe, with a difference between:

a] a particularly anti-islam sentiment/stream in Europe,

b] a more rightwing anti-"all [non-European] immigrants" stream (but to be objective: the countries of Europe *are* the homeland of various European populations; one can imagine that there exists a sense of discomfort in seeing the demographic changes started in the last century and the wish to preserve their country for themselves. However the arguments - and arguers - tend to be blindly racist rather than people whose argument is that they wish to be their own independent people in their own independent land). Anyway, this stream at times uses [a] to push its own agenda,

c] and then there's the extreme fascistic/neo-nazi type group (it's specifically a product of nazism/the reviving shadow of nazism) - at times it's still very organised. It tends to be particularly anti-semitic (a nazi hangover: they will even whine about Israel which is some distance off, merely since they find it unacceptable that Jews continue to exist despite nazism's best efforts). Another nazi hangover is that they are also often anti-gypsy - violently so. As well as them being against all non-Europeans (they've learnt to be offended by these in the interrim since nazism, since it's the extension of nazi racist policies anyway: to antagonise all non-Arischen).

(c] tends to particularly, prominently exist (be revived) in Germany and some other countries with a fascist/nazi past - as they can't seem to get rid of this bent of mind (it's a recurring mental disease once caught. Like the never-ending knee-jerk anti-African "black" insanity in the US: the society reinforces this or reintroduces this periodically.)

Note that (a] is a proper subset of (b] in the sense that all persons in (b] tend to also not want muslim immigrants, while (c] is generally all-inclusive of (b] but not necessarily of (a]: since neo-nazis frequently choose to consciously side with islam to harangue Israel/Jews yet again. (c] is also often the group famous for holocaust-denial, though there are certainly also elements in (c] proud of the holocaust. Sometimes, those that are proud of the holocaust yet calculatedly resort to holocaust denial, in order to exhonerate the nazis (in the public/world's eyes) from the "vile monstrosity" image they earned for themselves - and in this too, they once again find reason to blame Jews: that the Jews "conspired" to "impose" the "monster" image on "innocent Germans". It's the lingering anti-semitism of christianism: christianism was always good at concocting anti-Jewish libel in the form of "Jewish conspiracies" against "christendom/the Arischen/usw".



Quote:Hiding in plain sight: Germany's Neo-Nazis ditch skinhead look

Far-right groups are hoping to win votes by blending in with mainstream society – but they are still clinging to the hate crimes.

Tony Paterson reports in Berlin

Tuesday, 5 July 2011

[image caption:] The political mainstream of the far-right NPD is keen to distance itself from violence, and supporters are changing their looks to improve the party's election chances

The summer fete was well under way in the normally sleepy village of Lübtheen in the Mecklenburg region of eastern Germany. Locals tending stalls outside low red brick houses offered home-baked bread and smoke-cured sausage. They hardly noticed the group of well-groomed young men in orangeT-shirts mingling with the crowd and distributing balloons and leaflets.

"The shirts they were wearing were exactly the same colour as those usually worn by Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives at campaign rallies," Ute Lindenau, Lübtheen's mayor, told The Independent. "Nobody had the slightest idea that the men were all neo-Nazis until after they had left and people had time to study their vile propaganda."

The new and almost covert style of canvassing was being practised by Germany's neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD), which is fighting to retain parliamentary seats in key elections in the eastern state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern this autumn. The party first won seats there in 2006 after mounting a virulent campaign against foreigners. It also has seats in the east German state of Saxony

For Mrs Lindenau, the tactic was not much of a surprise. As a committed anti-Nazi and the mayor of a town known as a far-right stronghold of the east, she has watched the NPD gradually shed its skinhead image in an attempt to appeal to more voters. "These days the neo-Nazis are almost invariably polite and they make an effort to look respectable. They seem to have realised that the skinhead look is a vote loser," she said.

Mrs Lindenau's observations have now been borne out by Germany's Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BVS), the equivalent of Britain's MI5. In a report published last week, the domestic intelligence agency concluded that the country's far right had all but completely shed the aggressive skinhead image it was renowned for in the 1990s. "Members of the far right scene prefer to wear clothing or brands that orient themselves more towards general trends in youth fashion," the report noted. "The more noticeable skinhead culture is becoming increasingly less interesting for far right extremist youths."

But the less aggressive image adopted by the German far right has not resulted in a corresponding drop in violence. On the contrary, the BVS found that the number of neo-Nazis prepared to use extreme violence to convey their political message had increased dramatically, from 5,000 in 2009 to 5,600 last year. The report put the total number of far right extremists at 25,000 and noted that the number of far right crimes in the former communist east had risen by an alarming 40 per cent.

The kind of violence meted out by Germany's growing "autonomous nationalist" groups was graphically illustrated in March this year at the trial of members of a banned neo-Nazi group called Sturm 34. In a style reminiscent of the campaign mounted by Hitler's Nazis to make German towns and villages "Jew-free", Sturm 34 set about trying to make the east German town of Mittweida "insect-free and brown".

"Brown" is a German byword for Nazi. By "insect-free", the group signalled that it was out to rid the town of anyone who held a different opinion to its own. The court heard how the gang patrolled Mittweida and set about "insects" – mostly punk rockers and vagrants – with baseball bats and boxing gloves filled with sand to double the effect of face punches.

Sturm 34 persecuted the town's inhabitants for months before police finally intervened. In one particularly brutal incident the gang appears to have practised a favourite form of neo-Nazi assault called "kerb biting" in which the victim's lower jaw is smashed against a kerbstone with a kick from a steel-capped boot.

Experts on the far right say that in public the NPD's political core goes out of its way to distance itself from such behaviour in public. Many of its members have exchanged skinhead haircuts and boots for an almost preppy look.

Michael Weiss, the author of a new study on neo-Nazi dress codes entitled Hide and Seek, says the increasingly ordinary appearance of far-right extremists means they can often blend in at left-wing demonstrations or in sports stadiums. "These people no longer stand out," he said.

To recognise each other, neo-Nazis now resort increasingly to an array of about 150 secret codes, according to Mr Weiss. These include the number 88 on T-shirts or other garments. The eight represents the eighth letter of the alphabet, so 88 corresponds to HH, for Heil Hitler, a phrase banned in Germany along with the swastika.

Neo-Nazis have also started to wear the black and white Palestinian Kaffiyeh scarf – a garment once the preserve of the far left at demonstrations – in an attempt to signal that they are against Israel. "Their style incorporates elements from rock and pop culture. Neo-Nazis now have piercings," Mr Weiss said.

In Mecklenburg, where the NPD's popularity may be just enough to enable it to stay in parliament after this autumn's state election, the party's attempts to garner support have not been confined to a new dress code. The Social Democrat-run state government recently became so concerned about the party's attempts to infiltrate schools and youth groups that it insisted teachers sign a declaration pledging their commitment to democracy.

However some of the far-right party's politicians have not managed to hide behind the new guise of respectability. Sven Kruger, a building contractor who is also an NPD politician, has been exposed for using a sign to advertise his company which shows a sledgehammer smashing what looks like a Star of David. His premises were searched last year and prosecutors discovered photographs of German Jewish community leaders which were suspected of having been used as targets for pistol shooting practice.

Finding new support

* Germany banned Hitler's National Socialist Party in 1945, but the neo-Nazi NPD was allowed to form in West Germany in 1964 and made some short-lived political gains during that decade, although it has never entered a national government.

The party found new support in east Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and has since won seats in eastern state parliaments.

The government tried to ban the NPD in 2001, but the constitutional court overruled it.

The NPD merged with another far-right party, the German People's Union (DVU) last year. It is estimated to have 6,600 members and 25,000 supporters, many of whom belong to other neo-Nazi groups.
Husky watch his video and understand

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/norway-suspect-deems-killings-atrocious-needed-013354792.html"]Norway mourns victims of anti-Islam "Crusader"[/url]
Quote:SUNDVOLLEN, Norway (Reuters) - Norway mourned on Sunday 93 people killed in a shooting spree and car bombing by a Norwegian who saw his attacks as "atrocious, but necessary" to defeat liberal immigration policies and the spread of Islam.

In his first comment via a lawyer since his arrest, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, said he wanted to explain himself at a court hearing on Monday about extending his custody.

"He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary," Geir Lippestad said.

The lawyer said Breivik had admitted to Friday's shootings at a Labour party youth camp and the bombing that killed seven people in Oslo's government district a few hours earlier.

However, "he feels that what he has done does not deserve punishment," Lippestad told NRK public television.

"What he has said is that he wants a change in society and in his understanding, in his head, there must be a revolution."

Oslo's acting police chief Sveinung Sponheim confirmed to reporters that Breivik would be able to speak to the court. It was not clear whether the hearing would be closed or in public.

"He has admitted to the facts of both the bombing and the shooting, although he's not admitting criminal guilt," Sponheim said, adding that Breivik had said he acted alone.

Real nazi are only a minority.Most so called nazi are those who aren't easy whit crimes comited by imigrants.
Has anyone read this blog? Scary! Also, I wonder what happened to the person who was blogging. Nothing after this first blog entry



I was part of various analysis teams of Indian intelligence agencies during the 80’s and 90’s and now live a anonymous life in a distant land. What I am going to propagate over a 3 part series in the next few days might seem very farfetched and even fantastic to most people and many conspiracy theorists might gleefully accept it as vindication for whatever they have been screaming from rooftops for quite some time now. My attempt though is neither to please any one nor to prove someone else wrong or right; it is just to come out with the truth as we perceived it. Most of the theory that I am going to put forward in part 1 is the work of us 5 people in 1991 while analyzing all the intelligence inputs over the years in connection with the assassination of former Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. We in the intelligence parlays termed it as “the Rajiv brief”. Most conclusions that we had come up with were unanimous and unequivocal. I must hasten to add that many parts of this so called “the Rajiv brief” were also part of an earlier analysis done in the mid 80’s by another team investigating the conspiracy angle to Mrs Indira Gandhi’s death. Theoretic overlapping in terms of evidences, intelligence briefings and logical conclusions between these two analysis reports might be common, but there are also significant points of divergence in both of these reports and since I have been privy to both I would suggest that the number of points of convergence between both sets of analysis far outnumber the differences. Sometime in the middle of 1992 we were suddenly asked to debunk the whole theory and change our line of thinking by powers that be, and we had to let go of a “very strong” case that we were building then. Of the core group of 5 analysts who were working on that case, 3 are no more (all died of normal causes) and 2 of us are still living anonymously without being in touch with each other. This is my attempt (after almost 2 decades) to complete “the Rajiv brief” and take it to its logical conclusion with the benefit of hindsight. I must warn though, that this is at the end of the day, just a theory based on intelligence inputs and field analysis built on a very plausible premise. It is an attempt to fill in the blanks between the “if’s” and “buts” of history with the luxury of retrospective intelligence.
From Breivik's "manifesto"

Quote:If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past." (p. 1345)

Breivik is notable for jettisoning all traces of ideology: explicit mentions of race theory and any concern for orientalist or internationalist "engagement" with the East. The entire edifice and basis of European nationhood is supported solely on the basis of a left-right dichotomy. The left-right dichotomy is sufficient to attack Islam, and it can even incorporate those elements which confounded Hitler such as the (purported) Semitic origin of the Aryan Christ or the need to establish purity of race, maintain elaborate race migration theories, and postulate scytho-ruski incursions to the east when the more formative aryan ones fail, etc. As such, Beivik's use of just the left-right dichotomy renders mute several of the justificatory ideology questions which plagued his fore-runners (and even the likes of Dienekes and his brand of sidekicks including one "Unz foundation fellow" of Bengali muslim extraction (these have suddenly "gone agnostic" on a number of "key questions" and timelines have been contracted to the post-christ period).

For Breivik, the left is constituted solely in relation to domestic issues, and their internationalist role in projecting Euro soft power is not acknowledged. Possibly because there are no remaining pagans to demonize in Europe, understanding of the left-right, good-cop-bad-cop routine is compromised among the lay population, unlike in target societies like India where the left and the "right" (Monotheists) are openly allied at both elite and lay levels. in India, the left-right interpretative framework casts Hindus as just another ideo-group rather than as nativ heathens. Thus Breivik's "endorsement" has prevented a framework for interpretation of the Hindus grievances against both the monotheism of Islam and Christianity.

Breivik has shed ideological deadweight and baselined at a "heathen cultural level" where the euro-imperialist deeds of genocide and their relation to "belief" can be nullified by simply claiming so. In this he is very similar to the rascal pope, benedict, who really does not give a damn about jesus but does care about "Europe". No justification of unified Europe (within Christendom) is required as in times past; this is already the commonplace notion after 2000 years of forceful "unification" by the Church. Submerged concerns for the possible Orientalist origins of the unifying ideology and the dependence of the "aggrandizing" self-image (which is independent, declared, obvious, non-relational, non-negotiable, revelatory, and self-professed) upon an orientalist mirror image (which is irrational, etc) have also been taken care of by Breivik, by refusing to "specualte" upon Orientalist lines.

I thought it was generally agreed that the Islamist-Christist fight in Europe was a respite for Hindus and should be encouraged. With Hitler's tantrum, india progressed to Freedom. Then why the unease with the modernist hitler Breivik. Is it because he has turned the muslims into "jews" and given them a lever for further aggrandization? Hitler's nemesis the jews never impinged upon India, but the Muslims are our shameless tormentors. ..............
[color="#0000FF"]^ What people *want* to be reading is the above post ^[/color]

Amazing find of that Breivik quote in your opener, Dhu.

Quote:From Breivik's "manifesto"

Quote:If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past." (p. 1345)
Note he speaks *solely* of the christian gawd. Says it all.

Until you found Breivik's statement, it seemed a piece of the puzzle missing. It was too absent of ideology, too strained.

- The vocal Breivik - moreover vocal about his affection and yet curiously abstract about the object thereof, and so the visible news and commentary also kept saying (even in their occasional arguments for a half-hearted christianism in his behaviour - but excused as "devoid of actual conviction").

- The wholly silent church, that was never silent before when it first came to consolidating territory for christ (Europe) or for reclaiming its total domination over it (down to WWII and after, it was still vocal and active in its attempts to regain Europe for christendom). Eventually after WWII, it would try to make itself completely invisible in its attempts at domination - since it had burnt its hands so publicly before that (which resulted in an expensive cover up operation to keep its self-proclaimed pristine image). And more recently, the church in its European territories has at most been seen bleating that "Europe's civilisation is christendom" to lecture the perennially hijacked natives to "return or be damned: look at islam encroaching".

Quote:the rascal pope, benedict, who really does not give a damn about jesus but does care about "Europe".
No, no letting christianism off the hook. Benedict IS a christian. He IS a catholic.* And, like JPII, he is a fundamentalist (anti-Vatican II) catholic. I.e. old school (Latin mass onlee, exorcisms, etc <- these are important cues, not to be dismissed). I.e. Bad News. He believes alright. He believes in catholicism. And also in the catholicism (universality, enforced) of catholicism.

This is very well-stated:

Quote:No justification of unified Europe (within Christendom) is required as in times past; this is already the commonplace notion after 2000 years of forceful "unification" by the Church.
Like you said, there never was a Europe until now. The identity of a "Europe" is a christian, racialist one. (In this context, I think it was FrontPageNews that admitted that N Africa - which includes Arabic-speaking islamic countries like Tunisia etc - would have been called "Europe" today, had islam not taken it from christianism, which had itself stolen it from the natives. Note that the racialism that spun-off from/goes hand-in-hand with christianism would have turned the Arabic populations into "oryans" as a direct result of their having remained christian. The Irish and E-Europeans/Russians are now Oryan when they were never allowed to be before. And the US even dismissed the Germans as no more than miscegenated Huns before that.)

* Constantine, except for a few historians who do not mince words and a few christian theologians "historians" who know better and are not shy to say it -

Constantine is otherwise generally not allowed to be christian by conviction. But he was. The afore-mentioned "few historians" showed that he was. His actions showed that he was. He did not fully publicly profess until later. And yet (of course) apologetic "secular" history has made him a christian by opportunism, only for political expediency and hence "not actually christian". But his christianism was not in any doubt to him or to his most faithful mother who raised him and brought him up to be exactly what he was (=death to the Hellenistic nation for the glory of christ), nor was his ideological motivation in doubt to the many christians who for centuries came after (let alone to his enthusiastic biographer who IIRC also invented christian history: the churchman Eusebius). Yet "secular history" speaks of Constantine's christianisation of the empire as a "merely political operation". But it was powered by ideology. (It's called christianism). The same ideology that drove his mother Helena to uproot major sacred sites in Hellenistic space and vandalise them with jeebus houses of horror. The native Hellenismos was destroyed for that ideology.

Constantine's first war was with Hellenismos. And it *was* a war (which, after him, was resumed by all christian emperors) against the native religion. They were willing to destroy the empire over ideology. And were thereafter eager to rebuild a newer, larger empire with it: "Europe", the christian empire.

So if Benedict says "Europe" more often than he harps on "jeebus", it is not that he does not care about jeebus - the christian empire is for ("the glory of") jeebus alone, however non-existent, and so too is the reclamation of it - but because when the church says "Europe", it is expressly synonymous (as it ever was) with christendom.

For christendom, Europe's warring princes put aside their differences for a while and formed ~one rank against islam. (Except that orthodoxy was always catholicism's Unfinished Business.) Ideology first, booty second.

For christendom - plus All Wealth And Land Welcome - was the conquest of the "New World" and expansion into it. For christendom, Europe claimed all territories still occupied by heathenism everywhere, like Helena had done before (and as all of Asia has been proclaimed once more for christian conquest now).

For christendom the church would conspire with Hitler: an eye on retaking Europe with such a promising faithful to rule the world, as their "secular arm" had done for them before. The church's nasty Knights of Malta etc were part of various fascist ops.

Nothing is done but that it is motivated by christendom. Some heretic and even occasional unbelieving popes of the early and medieval still knew (and declared!) the ideology was all a sham, others were most serious about christendom (even when they conveniently mixed up the order of importance between the temporal and spiritual). But the current pope and his predecessor JPII, like the Pius-es leading upto and during Hitler most certainly Believe.

Never discount that the church you see has ideology. Else you won't understand its motivations or actions: Benedict and JPII truly believe that the state of the weakened church in Europe is partly due to the laxity of the catholic church (includng how they have let go of their most stringent laws regarding catholicism) - and the redirection back to encouraging latin mass etc is very indicative in this - and they believe that their state is stuck in a vicious cycle due to the church/christendom losing its sheep and the faithfulness of its sheep.

Ironic that in all ways christianism is a perverse distortion of heathenism. But it needs must be: christianism is the antagonist of heathenism, for which it *made* itself into what it is now - all the trappings of a heathenism, but a hollowness of falseness inside.

Christendom *believes*. Even if its belief is unjustified, even if it is a tendency to superficiality on their part, the intensity of their determination on jeebus/christianism's behalf is not to be underestimated.

US may perhaps use faithful christian footsoldiers (even up to the last president) with the actual puppeteers being generally disinterested in matters other than continuity/internal stability, control and expansion for resources, but the current church (under current leadership) is very religious. And those in charge have shown that their intention is to ensure all future popes are of the same mould.
Breivik was a christian? What a surprise.
Excerpt from Gautam Sen:

Quote:The UK never gave up the ambition of subjugating India anew despite handing over power to native rule, which had little to do with Gandhi’s non violent protest. It was Britain’s exhaustion in the aftermath of World War II and bankrupt economy, combined with fear of revolt by its colonial Indian troops that persuaded a malicious flight. However, Britain presided over a bloodbath to establish the Pakistan it had cynically incited, which is now haunting much of the world. The Americans quickly understood how important India was for the assertion of global power with the onset of the Cold War. As Lord Curzon had explained long ago, Britain would be nothing without India and its vast human and material resources. India offers virtually unlimited manpower for fighting wars, increasingly difficult to find from among their own pleasure-seeking citizens. Americans and Europeans also have smaller families nowadays and are therefore unwilling to sacrifice their fewer offspring. In addition, India is large enough to assure vast wealth for any ruling elite, domestic or foreign, even if the majority of the population remains mired in destitution. This has happened throughout Indian history, whether during Islamic, Christian or contemporary déraciné Hindu rule, bequeathing Pharaonic wealth and life styles of luxurious excess for the few and poverty for the many.

The subordination of India for the pursuit of world power is therefore a necessity for the incessantly born-again, Christian US and its European allies.
But Indians have long become experts at dying for other people and others' ideological causes.

Even in the narrower case, can see how Gorkhas/Gurkhas now have formed an international mercenary organisation: bodyguards for global hire (literally). Once upon a time - as all things in the Hindu fairytale - their forces were exclusively for their ancestral Hindu religion alone. Now it still retains some trappings of Hindu religion - in the war cry and all, perhaps even sentiment - but it is uttered on others' behalf. Anyone's behalf: even the Amir of Kuwait was looking to hire their services now - wanting the best of the best to guard his islaminess - and of course, Claudia Schiffer was already famous for her Gorkha bodyguard(s), and I think Madonna "just had to have them" too, etc.

While many Gorkhas fought on the native side, an entire contingent of them also fought "valiantly" for Britain. All the way in E Asia. Shedding their blood to obtain that most coveted of all prizes for the international heathen (or maybe for Hindus only): the Victorian cross of valour, for services rendered. And so they even won as many as were handed out to the native Brits themselves. "Equals at last."

I'd have said, with Gorkhas and others in mind, that Baba Ramdev - and other Hindus threatened by christoislamism like the now-murdered Swami Lakshmanananda - should hire some of our own men to protect them. It seemed that the Gurkhas offering their services for a fee would be an advantage in locating professionals willing to take on such a dangerous task as protecting a Swami Lakshamananda repeatedly turned out to be.

And I'd have said it, even though they have become famous throughout the world for their willingness to nowadays die for no other purpose than a determined bravery for the sake of it.

Except there's that obvious drawback to such a suggestion: that if the enemies of the same vulnerable Hindus offered more money to these new Soldiers Of Fortune, these could well cross over. A very Indian predicament. (As would be were one to find them hired for someone like Prachanda or Sonia etc. All these need to do is foot the bill, after all.) The christian-maoist Prachanda himself declared he wants them back in his country, rather than in Britain. Perhaps he wants their offspring to swell his own ranks. (There may be sufficient monies+valuables in the closed treasure chest of Pashupatinatha to pay for a lot of things Prachanda may want.)

But it really is too much to ask Hindus to fight for Hindus & Hindudom as Hindus. Money, brute-force bravery (i.e. to succeed or die in the attempt as the end in itself - no matter who you're working for; as mentioned, Gorkhas and other Hindus won their fair share of british medals of valour, including what sound like cross-shaped ones, for protecting the empire's interests*), someone else's nation, alien tyrannies, local tyrannies, absolutely *anything* else/any other reason will do - including even anyone else's ideology.

* Seems a bit ironic yelling out Kali's own name before attacking E Asian heathens for the British Crown. (And possibly get a cross out of it.) A bravery that's uniquely Indian too.

Indians - of heathen origin - don't lack bravery or numbers or willingness (even to die; nor even to mindlessly shoot the defenceless of their Hindu kind on "orders"). They just have no direction of their own. (Not counting the temporary pull of nationalisms and other sentiment.)
On this statement:

[quote name='Husky' date='01 August 2011 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1312204720' post='112328']So if Benedict says "Europe" more often than he harps on "jeebus", it is not that he does not care about jeebus - the christian empire is for ("the glory of") jeebus alone, however non-existent, and so too is the reclamation of it - but because when the church says "Europe", it is expressly synonymous (as it ever was) with christendom.[/quote]


2 Multiculturalism is for the birds

Radha Rajan


The first important step in Europe towards self-description came in 2002 from Pope John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger, now incumbent Pope; in America, around the same time the process of self-description was marked by Samuel Huntington’s Who are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (Simon & Schuster, 2004) and a renewed national debate over whether the Pledge of Allegiance (not to be confused with the Oath of Allegiance) was mandatory for all students in American schools.


As the European Union was emerging from its chrysalis, the Pope had to speak up, as others had, to emphasize Europe’s Christian-ness before Multiculturalism was made Europe’s defining virtue.

Q: There is a debate over the inclusion of the word ‘God’ and references to Europe’s Christian past in the preambles of the future [European] Constitution. Do you think there can be a united Europe that has turned its back on its Christian past?

A: I am convinced that Europe must not just be something economic [or] political; rather, it is in need of spiritual foundations.

It is a historical fact that Europe is Christian, and that it has grown on the foundation of the Christian faith, which continues to be the foundation of the values for this continent, which in turn has influenced other continents.

(I.e. to Ratzy and his predecessor JPII: Europe = christendom. It certainly was so in the medieval christian past.)

It is imperative to have a foundation of values and, if we ask ourselves what that foundation is, we realize that, beyond the confessions, there are no others outside the great values of the Christian faith. And this is why it is imperative that in the future Constitution of Europe mention is made of the Christian foundations of Europe. (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from an interview given on 1 December 2002 to a group of journalists at the Catholic University of St. Anthony, Murcia, Spain)

Europe is a cultural and not a geographical continent. It is united by its culture which gives it a common identity. The roots which formed … this continent are those of Christianity. (Josef Ratzinger prior to his election as Pope Benedict XIV, in an Interview in Le Figaro, August 2004, putting the case for the exclusion of Turkey on religious grounds)

(Note how heathen nations - in particular Bharatam - are not allowed to be *heathen* civilisations even though that is exactly and innately what they are. Instead, heathen nations are described by the christowest and christos inside the country as having no history, no religions, not defined by religion, only random geography and happenstance. I.e. as blank slates awaiting conversion, and whose history can be claimed for christianism, such as via the late St Thomas fables imposed onto factual history.

Note also how there is no recognition of the traditional Roman Empire and all things Ancient Greek being [i]Hellenistic
. They too are turned neutral, as if there is a phenomenon to be called "GrecoRoman civilisation" without mentioning how this is exclusively owing to Hellenismos and identical with it.

In contrast, what's now called "Europe" was originally no more than unrelated geography shoved together by an alien ideology foisted on its various inhabitants - as Dhu said: 'No justification of unified Europe (within Christendom) is required as in times past; this is already the commonplace notion after 2000 years of forceful "unification" by the Church.')

Turkey [is] an Asiatic nation, its capital is not in Europe, 95% of its population is outside Europe. Turkey has a different culture, a different approach, a different way of life. Letting it in would be the end of the European Union. (Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, French President 1974-1981, President of Commission for drafting the EU Constitution set up in 2002. Widely taken to mean he doesn’t want Turkey to join because it is a majority Muslim country)

Europe’s founders, like Adenauer, De Gaspari and Schuman, put their Christian [Catholic] faith at the centre of their political lives. How can we underestimate, for example, the fact that in 1951, before beginning the delicate negotiations which would lead to the adoption of the Treaty of Paris, they wished to meet in a Benedictine monastery on the Rhine for meditation and prayer? (Pope John Paul II, 7 November 2003, Audience with members of European Christian Democrat Foundation, appealing to have Christianity mentioned in the EU Constitution)

We will be joined to a Europe in which the Catholic religion will be the dominant faith, and in which the application of the Catholic Social Doctrine will be the major factor in everyday political and economic life. (Shirley Williams, British Labour Minister and later co-founder of Social Democrats)[/i]

Besides turning the Genesis on its head by attributing human Founders for Europe and besides giving short shrift to geography, the following ideas emerge unambiguously from these statements –

+ The then Pope, the incumbent Pope and important political leaders in Europe declare firmly that Europe is Christian

+ The bare-faced lie that Europe grew on the foundations of Christianity

+ That Europe is not a geographic but a cultural entity and Europe’s Founders put their Christian faith at the centre of their political lives

+ The Generic Church will not acknowledge, much less legitimise any pre-Christian past or roots for Europe

+ The incumbent Pope and a former President of France (the spectre of Algeria was haunting France) do not want Muslim Turkey within the Christian European Union which would effectively make Turkey a European country


Other things in the article:

Quote:This is not the only instance when the Church has rejected multiculturalism on its turf. The Church closed ranks and rejected the Muslim demand to build a mosque adjacent to the Basilica of Annunciation in Nazareth. The Basilica of Annunciation is built on the site where the Church claims Angel Gabriel told Mary she would give birth to Jesus.

Muslims claim that the site is important to them too historically because it is the final resting place of Shahib-al-Din, nephew of Saladin who commanded the Jihadi army which defeated the Crusaders in 1187. The Israeli government at first permitted the Muslims to build the mosque and the marble cornerstone was unveiled with much fanfare on November 23, 1999.

The Christian world reacted with anger over the Muslim demand and over the Israeli government’s decision to allow the mosque to come up next to the Basilica. This notwithstanding the fact that Nazareth is important to both Christians and Muslims; that the site in question is historically important to both communities; most significantly, notwithstanding the fact that Muslims today constitute two-thirds of Nazareth’s population.

Considering the lectures on pluralism, freedom of religion and rights of minorities which the U.S and the Vatican have given to India’s Hindus, this makes interesting reading –

A special Israeli government committee is debating whether Nazareth officials should allow Muslims to continue building a mosque alongside the famous Basilica of the Annunciation.

Israeli officials created the committee in response to a new wave of international appeals. Israel decided in 1998 to allow the mosque’s construction, despite protests from Nazareth’s Christians. The Vatican, the White House, and an international coalition of Catholic and Protestant Christian church groups have opposed construction.

Critics have said that the new mosque could physically overwhelm the adjacent church site and threaten the delicate status quo between Nazareth’s Muslim Arab majority and Christian Arab minority.

The mosque might contain multiple spires that would tower over the black-coned dome of the basilica, says Dave Parsons, a spokesman for the International Christian Embassy, one of the groups protesting the construction.

“It will demean the basilica and force Christians to run a gantlet from the main street to the church,” Parsons said. “We want the city authorities to restore the public plaza and establish a buffer zone against any future encroachment attempts.” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002...27.33.html)

Quote:America fares no better than Europe at self-description and dealing with multiculturalism. Samuel Huntington, like President Kennedy before him described the United States of America as a Nation of Immigrants. For “an anguished, frantic, over-burdened academic producing scholarly works”, the description was a travesty of truth which condemned Native Americans and African Americans to non-existence by leaving them outside the pale of this popular description.

Native Americans were native or indigenous to the continent and Bering Strait theory notwithstanding cannot be termed immigrants; and the forcible transportation of Africans to the American continent can hardly be termed immigration. If we discount from Huntington’s description the blatant falsehood of calling European Christian genociders, invaders, freebooters, settlers-by-force, slave holders and slave traders as immigrants, what remains of the American populace – Germans, Irish, Scandinavians, Latin Americans and Asians – fits the description. America is a nation of immigrants.
Ah yes, the Bering Strait theory: wasn't that the one where the eternal-aliens threatened "You native American peoples are as much immigrants (albeit earlier) as we are".

At least Hindus can stop pretending that "America" (or the rest of the "Americas") has anything to do with christianism or belongs to "Americans". It belongs to native Americans alone. It is - as it ever was - the sacred native American homeland, belonging to them, their ancestors and the Gods of the indigenous. And so it remains forever, regardless of the ongoing, institutionalised, self-deluding indoctrination about how these lands now "belong" to christianism and foreigners - which are loud claims advanced solely by said christian foreigners (including the well-trained parrots like the various Dinace de Souzas), to drown the fear they feel of discovery of their crime of having silenced the rightful indigenous heathen owners altogether. But the rest of the world is quite aware of the truth.

Native Americans should continue striving for their own/their land's complete independence, as they had been doing actively for the last 500+ years. Their rightful claims on their own homeland should never be abandoned. E.g. everywhere online where some alien usurper declares that "America is a christian nation" to propagate the christian lie, even a sole native American heathen voice making its presence felt by stating the terrifying (because indisputable) truth of the matter, should suffice to immediately expose the christian falsehood and render it inadmissable.
Scientists have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.

ScienceDaily (July 26, 2011) — Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

"When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority," said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. "Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame."

As an example, the ongoing events in Tunisia and Egypt appear to exhibit a similar process, according to Szymanski. "In those countries, dictators who were in power for decades were suddenly overthrown in just a few weeks."

The findings were published in the July 22, 2011, early online edition of the journal Physical Review E in an article titled "Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities."

An important aspect of the finding is that the percent of committed opinion holders required to shift majority opinion does not change significantly regardless of the type of network in which the opinion holders are working. In other words, the percentage of committed opinion holders required to influence a society remains at approximately 10 percent, regardless of how or where that opinion starts and spreads in the society.

To reach their conclusion, the scientists developed computer models of various types of social networks. One of the networks had each person connect to every other person in the network. The second model included certain individuals who were connected to a large number of people, making them opinion hubs or leaders. The final model gave every person in the model roughly the same number of connections. The initial state of each of the models was a sea of traditional-view holders. Each of these individuals held a view, but were also, importantly, open minded to other views.

Once the networks were built, the scientists then "sprinkled" in some true believers throughout each of the networks. These people were completely set in their views and unflappable in modifying those beliefs. As those true believers began to converse with those who held the traditional belief system, the tides gradually and then very abruptly began to shift.

"In general, people do not like to have an unpopular opinion and are always seeking to try locally to come to consensus. We set up this dynamic in each of our models," said SCNARC Research Associate and corresponding paper author Sameet Sreenivasan. To accomplish this, each of the individuals in the models "talked" to each other about their opinion. If the listener held the same opinions as the speaker, it reinforced the listener's belief. If the opinion was different, the listener considered it and moved on to talk to another person. If that person also held this new belief, the listener then adopted that belief.

"As agents of change start to convince more and more people, the situation begins to change," Sreenivasan said. "People begin to question their own views at first and then completely adopt the new view to spread it even further. If the true believers just influenced their neighbors, that wouldn't change anything within the larger system, as we saw with percentages less than 10."

The research has broad implications for understanding how opinion spreads. "There are clearly situations in which it helps to know how to efficiently spread some opinion or how to suppress a developing opinion," said Associate Professor of Physics and co-author of the paper Gyorgy Korniss. "Some examples might be the need to quickly convince a town to move before a hurricane or spread new information on the prevention of disease in a rural village."

The researchers are now looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples. They are also looking to study how the percentage might change when input into a model where the society is polarized. Instead of simply holding one traditional view, the society would instead hold two opposing viewpoints. An example of this polarization would be Democrat versus Republican

Quote:[color="#FF0000"]Malnourished India gifts $2bn to the EU – M.D. Nalapat[/color]

“Tragically, India’s leaders are generous only with the money of the common citizen. They themselves continue to live in the same luxury as did the British colonial rulers in the era before “freedom” came to the Sub-continent. The top leaders travel in special aircraft, at huge cost, while 300 million people in the country starve each night. Each of them has a retinue of several hundred security personnel, most of whom are there only to “shock and awe” the ordinary citizen with the might and majesty of the powerful.” – Prof. Nalapat

[color="#800080"](Cost of christianism in India.)[/color]

Although India’s ruling politicians ignore the fact, especially during their frequent travels abroad, the reality is that more citizens of the world’s most populous democracy go to bed hungry each night than do in Sub-Saharan Africa. More than 300 million Indians are malnourished, a testament to the fact that nearly seven decades in power has not been enough for the country’s leaders to wipe away the poverty that descended on the country during British rule. While several Mughal emperors were cruel, and more than a few of them rapacious, yet in 1820 the Indian sub-continent accounted for 23% of global output. Indeed, the very battleship in which Lord Nelson defeated the French at Trafalgar was made in India. However, colonial policy was designed to choke off local manufactures so as to encourage the import of goods from the UK. Hence by the time the Union Jack was lowered from Delhi for the last time on August 14,1947, the sub-continent was contributing less than 1% to global output. Churchill had further succeeded in ensuring the death of 9 million in famines that rolled across North India during the 1939-45 war with Germany and Japan.

Wealth was drained from India to Europe – principally the UK – for many generations. And now, once again, a similar process is unfolding. While there has been some comment on the Commonwealth Games scam, the reality is that for years, practically every major procurement has been a scam. In the case of the “modernisation” of large airports, for instance, equipment has been sourced mainly from suppliers in Europe, and there is talk within the bureaucracy that a particular political family with close links to a European country was behind several of the contracts. While Home Minister Chidambaram has forbidden the security agencies from monitoring the activities of this family and its relatives abroad, concerned officials say that the latter are acting as middle persons in facilitating mega-deals between Indian government and private agencies and suppliers based in the EU. Altogether, the volume of such transactions is reported to have crossed $ 6 billion in as many years. Only in the case of the Commonwealth Games procurements has there been any official enquiry into such purchases, and even here, the Central Bureau of Investigation is more concerned about protecting those higher up than the jailed MP, Suresh Kalmadi, from exposure than it is in finding out the truth. Small wonder, as selection to the CBI is made from among those officials most pliable to political and other pressure.

With all the money flowing from India towards the EU economies – cash earned not by a dysfunctional government nor even by corporates but by the sweat of millions of Indian nationals toiling in foreign countries – it would seem that there was no need for Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh ( the duo who run India) to fork out $2 billion in what is in effect a cash dole to the EU.[/color] Even schoolchildren are aware that the money so generously being given to European countries by the IMF will never come back, given the fact that not only the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) are bankrupt, but Italy and in fact, France, as well. Only by bluff is the EU avoiding default, a bluff in which international rating agencies are playing a shameful role. These have consistently sought to artificially raise the cost of borrowing in Asia by giving low scores to local economies, while keeping borrowing costs low in Europe and in North America by giving scores that are absurdly high. The US, for example, has a Triple A rating when the country is bankrupt and is relying on China, Japan and the GCC to avoid a slide into financial chaos. China in particular, based mostly on the advice given to the Chinese Communist Party by economists and others trained in the US and Europe, has invested a dangerously large amount in the US dollar and in the Euro. This $3 trillion hoard would have been better invested in real resources across the world than in money assets that have weak fundamentals.

It is understood that both Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh have been eager that India show itself to be a “responsible stakeholder” by forking out cash to the stricken European economies. Generosity to other countries has been a hallmark of the gentle Prime Minister of India. In 1993, he agreed to allow Russia to convert its worthless roubles at a rate many times in excess of what the market – that he constantly talks about – was decreeing. As a result, India has ended up paying a subsidy of nearly $15 billion to Moscow. Tragically, India’s leaders are generous only with the money of the common citizen. They themselves continue to live in the same luxury as did the British colonial rulers in the era before “freedom” came to the Sub-continent. The top leaders travel in special aircraft, at huge cost, while 300 million people in the country starve each night. Each of them has a retinue of several hundred security personnel, most of whom are there only to “shock and awe” the ordinary citizen with the might and majesty of the powerful. The VVIPs stay in huge colonial bungalows, each of which costs upwards of $50 million, while just a few kilometers away are festering slums denied the amenities needed for a proper existence. It is in this spirit of waste for VVIPs and starvation for the poor that $2 billion has been gifted, and with more to follow. The indications are that the total asked for from India is $5 billion, so that the country can be “fully responsible”.

Bureaucrats known for their loyalty to political dynasties have been placed in key posts, so that they may continue to protect their patrons. There is therefore little chance of accountability. Meanwhile, the Sonia-Manmohan team go about seeking to shut down Indian business by constantly raising the cost of borrowing. In just the past year, interest rates for Industry have gone up by nearly 4%. Given that the profit of most enterprises is only about 7%,this means that a higher interest bill has wiped out the bulk of profit. As a consequence, investment in fresh plant and machinery has been stopped, and hiring has slowed down. Under the Sonia-Manmohan team, annual increase in productive employment is less than 10% of what it was under Vajpayee, despite the shrill sounds of “concern for the poor” with which political speeches are so liberally peppered. Should the Reserve Bank of India continue to follow the Sonia-Manmohan line of ever-rising interest rates ( which is the policy favoured by the EU, China and the US for India, as it ensures that Indian companies get handicapped in competing globally), then several sectors of the economy are going to get sick within a year, especially Telecom and Infrastructure. The result will be a loss of confidence in the banking system, because of a huge increase in loans that the companies will no longer be able to repay.

On the one hand, companies are ordered to purchase expensive equipment sourced from abroad because of the secret pressure of political families with links to foreign suppliers. On the other, the cost of money has been raised to a level that is making commercial activity un-economic. Not that any of this is of concern to Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the man who in the 1980s – again as Finance Minister – argued against colour television technology being developed in India, “as citizens should make do with black & white television”. Of course, it would be wrong to blame Mukherjee, for the inhabitants of Raisina Road ( India’s Beltway) now that the hapless Finance Minister can do little other than obey “orders from the top”. Meanwhile, foreign suppliers based in Europe have worked out an effective way of competing with cheaper products sourced from Asian countries. They ensure that their intelligence and security agencies pass on warnings about Asian suppliers to their Indian counterparts. Seven decades after “freedom”, India’s security agencies still believe implicitly in what they are told by UK, French and other agencies. As a result, while European suppliers are getting Red Carpet treatment, Asian suppliers are being blocked from competing,” on grounds of national security” which of course no one can argue about, and the reasons for which are never made public. And with good reason, for the fact is that several such decisions have been taken for commercial reasons rather than on genuine grounds of national security. It is a sad development when the Hidden Hands behind mega-procurement from abroad can manipulate agencies so as to ensure the success of the suppliers that they have links with. These same foreign companies also use Indian agents to blacken the reputation of those few Indian agencies that refuse to cooperate in their selfish designs. Recently, there has been a campaign of calumny against selected security agencies, carried out by known agents of foreign countries and enterprises, a campaign in which an unsuspecting media has participated In the midst of all this confusion, perhaps a further $3 billion gift of cash will be sent from starving India to well-fed Europe via the IMF. Truly, the world is an amazing place! – Pakistan Observer, Islamabad

» Prof. Nalapat is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Kanataka State, India.

Dinesh De Souza can write a sequel to his Two Cheers For Colonialism. Two Cheers For Christianism in India: how christianism still manufactures slumdogs in India by creating (in direct proportion) millionaires abroad and among the 'native' traitors.

Christianism never left India <-> India never got its independence. The parasitic invasion just became more "Indian-looking". And Indian christians' alien allegiances - owing entirely to their shared alien ideologies - are never in any doubt. It's just like how the Indian ummah always works for the global ummah/islam.

But despite the outwardly more Indian appearance to the ongoing christian oppression, the consequences for the genuine natives remain just as before: mass famine and oppression (and of course deliberately induced mass farmer suicides, see links at the Rajeev2004 blog), all while alien nations grow fat on the wealth of the starving Indian populace, even as the christowest and its native convert slaves then use some of this wealth to sell the bible and anti-Hindu propaganda in India some more. And the cherry on the cake is when, after the christians first steal the wealth from the native heathens, they make a big show of their "christian charity" vs "evil uncharitable Hindoos, destined for 'Hindoo' destitution, <blablabla>" (cue Dinesh de Souza's book to record the spin for the christo-archive). It's Lose, Lose for the natives while the dynamic duo of converts-aliens Wins And Wins Again. [Not to mention alien dabblers stealing all the private Hindu religious literature they can get their hands on - since time is running out - and apparently even acquiring (illegally of course) stolen Temple moorties. But admittedly, that last is all Indians' own fault: for "converting" aliens. They invited this particular strain of parasitism.]

Read above alongside the excerpt from Gautam Sen already pasted in #255. Repeat:

Quote:The UK never gave up the ambition of subjugating India anew despite handing over power to native rule, which had little to do with Gandhi’s non violent protest. It was Britain’s exhaustion in the aftermath of World War II and bankrupt economy, combined with fear of revolt by its colonial Indian troops that persuaded a malicious flight. However, Britain presided over a bloodbath to establish the Pakistan it had cynically incited, which is now haunting much of the world. The Americans quickly understood how important India was for the assertion of global power with the onset of the Cold War. As Lord Curzon had explained long ago, Britain would be nothing without India and its vast human and material resources. India offers virtually unlimited manpower for fighting wars, increasingly difficult to find from among their own pleasure-seeking citizens. Americans and Europeans also have smaller families nowadays and are therefore unwilling to sacrifice their fewer offspring. In addition, India is large enough to assure vast wealth for any ruling elite, domestic or foreign, even if the majority of the population remains mired in destitution. This has happened throughout Indian history, whether during Islamic, Christian or contemporary déraciné Hindu rule, bequeathing Pharaonic wealth and life styles of luxurious excess for the few and poverty for the many.

The subordination of India for the pursuit of world power is therefore a necessity for the incessantly born-again, Christian US and its European allies.
[url="http://news.taaza.com/source/6064-lakh-carat-diamond-reserves-in-chhattisgarh.html"]13 lakh carat diamond reserves in Chhattisgarh[/url]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)