17. October 2009 by admin.

How Gandhi and Nehru assassinated the Hindu nation. Both were a creation of the British to do their dirty work for them on the hapless Hindus. I have posted excerpts from  Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his freedom struggle by Radha Rajan

Excerpts:
 
When Savarkar was exonerated on charges of criminal conspiracy to kill Gandhi, one of the conditions during his release was that he should not be given any public reception nor should there be any public demonstration of rejoicing. This condition was inspired by Gandhi’s exhortation in 1937-38 to the political prisoners of Bengal not to be a party to any celebration, not to hold meetings or make speeches or hold celebratory processions.
The political doctrine, that Hindu nationalists must be neither seen nor heard, was beginning to gain ground. Savarkar was arrested again on 5th April, 1950 in the wake of the extremely foolish Nehru-Liaquat Pact, which like its infamous predecessor, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, gave more than it got in return. According to the Pact, the governments of India and Pakistan agreed that each shall ensure to the minorities throughout its territories, complete equality of citizenship, irrespective of religion; a full sense of security in respect of life, culture, property and personal honour.
It also guaranteed fundamental human rights of the minorities, such as freedom of movement, speech, occupation and worship. The pact also provided for the minorities to participate in the public life of their country, to hold political or other offices and to serve in their country’s civil and armed forces.
Savarkar opposed the Pact vehemently. He prophesized that while the Indian Government would keep its promise, the Pakistani Government would go back on the same; and the life, freedom and dignity of the Hindus in Pakistan would continue to be in jeopardy. Needless to say, Savarkar was proved right about the Muslim psyche not only in Pakistan but also in Jammu and Kashmir.
But Nehru whose determination to incarcerate Savarkar for life had been thwarted in 1948, was determined to either keep him in prison for the rest of life or silence his fiercest political critic forever. Towards this end, when it was driven home to Nehru that Savarkar could not be kept in prison endlessly without reason, his release on 13 July 1950 came with the debilitating condition that he would remain confined to his home and would abjure politics completely. Nehru continued where Gandhi had left off but with greater force because Nehru, like the British government before1947, could back his intent to decimate Hindu nationalists with ruthless use of state power.   Nehru was determined to clear the country’s political arena of Hindu nationalists and he was enabled in his de-Hinduising mission by the Indian Constitution which was drafted and approved by a Constituent Assembly where the Congress was in the majority and Congress members were hand-picked by Gandhi and Nehru. The Indian Constitution, slanting decisively towards religious minorities, owed much to the Motilal Nehru Report. 
The Motilal Nehru report was also the harbinger of the potentially divisive linguistic states as also the western liberal-Christian political tenet that the state shall not have any religion; ominously for the Hindus of the country, not one of these principles, which eventually went on to define the new Indian state after 1947, was challenged successfully in the Constituent Assembly.
The Indian Constitution derived equally from the Government of India Act 1935. Hindus and their interests were thus trampled under the feet of the combined might of a de-Hinduised Constituent Assembly, the Motilal Nehru Report and the GOI Act, 1935. They remain trampled till today. Nehru’s Congress in his lifetime and Nehruvian secular polity after Nehru continued to traverse the path of anti-Hindu politics of minority-ism; its results are there for all to see: Hindus have lost territory to Islam and Christianity in the North, North-East, East and West.
The anti-Hindu polity that prevails today has turned a Nelson’s eye to the rapidly changing religious demography in the country’s border and coastal districts. In stark contrast to how Nehru dealt with Hindu nationalists immediately after independence, the Muslim League, the Jamait-e-ulema-e Hind and its members suffered no persecution. They neither disbanded themselves nor were they banned by Nehru’s government. They lay low until such time that Nehru and Nehruvian secularism had rendered the Hindus completely impotent to reverse vivisection or even its consequences, and have now reared their heads again and this time the Hindus are confronting not just one Khilafat Committee, but innumerable jiahdi outfits with roots across the country and across the country’s borders, and with the same objectives as the Jinnah-led Muslim League before independence. So far, both secular Indian polity and Hindu organizations have proved incapable of handling the threat and they continue their jihad against the Hindus and their bhumi successfully and with little cost to them.  Gandhi and the Indian National Congress did to our revolutionaries and warriors of armed resistance what the British Government did to Aurobindo and Savarkar – laid debilitating conditions for release. Hindus must confront the ugly truth that while the British Government and the Gandhi-Nehru Congress adopted the same methods to disarm and decapitate Hindu nationalists, Hindu nationalists of the 19th and 20 centuries have also lost strength and spirit in the midst of war, leaving the battle-field unchallenged to their tormentors. The kshatriya had indeed been effectively disarmed and banished from public gaze.       Indian polity and the country’s public spaces have been de-Hinduised by state power and Hindus have been politically disempowered also by state power. Hindu interests and minority interests have been made into a zero sum game also by use of state power, as witnessed in the most recent turbulence in Jammu and Kashmir over the issue of land allotment for Hindu pilgrims during the Amarnath Yatra and the unchecked license permitted to Christian missionaries who hide behind the constitutional provision of freedom to practice and propagate one’s religion.
This book is intended to demonstrate to Hindus the origins and path of their disempowerment and to kindle in them a burning desire to capture and put in place self-conscious Hindu state power or Hindu rajya to protect and defend the Hindu rashtra. The Hindu nation must begin by questioning the concepts of freedom of religion, minority-protection and right to self-determination because the Hindu bhumi historically and without an Indian Constitution had made all religions and their adherents welcome to this land. This Hindu trait of not looking upon any faith as being inimical to dharma and the failure by Hindus to take note of the ultimate political objectives of all Abrahamic faiths has cost the Hindus and the Hindu nation very dear.  If the nation has to deal resolutely with forces and ideologies which threaten the territory and people of the rashtra and this includes jihad, the evangelical Church and anti-Hindu communism, then the nation has to assert its nationhood; one aspect of such an assertion will be the nature of the state or rajya which must necessarily be Hindu in ethos. Separatism, demographic imbalance, and increasing attacks against the state by Naxalism and other terrorist outfits owning allegiance to Communism, have to be dealt with not as law and order issues, but only as ideological issues which confront the core question of the basis of nationhood of this bhumi.
Secularism, for obvious reasons has failed to check and neutralize all threats to the nation’s territory and people only because it is in a state of denial, and has therefore failed to put in place structures and laws which will approach the threats rooted in the sense of Hindu nationhood. National security is best ensured only when the sense of nationhood is faultless and the threats to the nation or rashtra are perceived as threats to nation, nationhood and nationalism. Needless to say, the book seeks to demonstrate that there is no other nationalism on this bhumi other than Hindu nationalism.
The superficial convergence of interests between Hindus and Muslims in 1857 interrupted the continuing Hindu civilisational resistance and struggle against Islam, while Gandhi-inspired Nehruvian secularism has rendered all Hindu resistance to both Islam and the Church hors-de-combat. Hindu nationalists understand that the civilisational struggle against Islam and the Church has to be revived in order that it may be resolved decisively.  The destruction that has been wreaked by state power can be corrected without bloodshed only by return of state power to self-conscious Hindus. Only self-conscious Hindu state power can arrange the nation’s affairs to serve dharma and the dharmi. For such a state of affairs we must begin to question political ideas and concepts that originated in the West as a reaction to the predatory Church, to slavery and to colonialism’s invasion and forcible occupation of foreign lands.
Thus the concepts of religious freedom, self-determination, human rights became necessary to protect the disempowered victims of White Christianity – the natives of lands occupied by European colonizers whose numbers have been reduced to negligible numbers, and for victims of slavery. With great foresight European colonialist countries created the United Nations with a charter which, if one were to read the fine print with sound political sense, only serves to deter and punish any idea of revenge or determined correction of the legacy of colonialism in post-colonial independent nations.
However, the truth is that neither the countries forcefully advocating democracy and liberal political values, nor Islam which has never subscribed to contemporary, liberal Christian political ideology, nor the Jewish-majority Israel have been hamstrung by these concepts when they perceived a threat to their national identity and sense of nationhood. Till the present day we still see wars between nations, fought by the full might of state power, which are essentially Jewish Israel versus Islam, Jews versus the evangelical Church, West versus the rest and Islam versus the rest.
It is only in India that a de-Hinduised and virulently anti-Hindu political culture thwarts Hindus from resisting and fighting the predatory intentions of Islam and Christianity because as we pointed out in the Introduction, it is only in India that we have a state which does not derive from the culture and ethos of its majority populace and is therefore not obliged to protect Hindu interests and Hindu sensibilities. This state of affairs must change if the nation has to deal effectively with jihad and with disaffection and separatism arising from the untrammeled license enjoyed by the Church in India.          Concepts of minority-protection, self-determination and religious freedom cannot apply to the adherents of Islam and Christianity on Hindu bhumi under cover of democracy and constitutional rights. These provisions have to be reviewed, given the ultimate goal that these two minority religions have already achieved in Jammu and Kashmir and in the North-east.
That Pakistan and Bangladesh came into being because the Indian National Congress never had a sense of this nation, and because the continuing de-Hinduising trend in Indian polity has resulted in the perverted polity of J&K and growing separatism in the North-east, must goad Hindu nationalists into first reviewing and then correcting the course of anti-Hindu Nehruvian secularism as the guiding spirit of Indian polity. Such a course correction is mandated if there has to be real harmony among communities in this nation and not false peace resting on the artificial and un-natural idea of Nehruvian secularism, which is the Indian derivative of alien political ideas and trends which have little
 
to do with Hindu-civilisational tradition of statecraft and polity. The time has come to set down the coffins of Gandhi and Nehru from the unwilling shoulders of this nation.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Politics, Partition, Nehru, Gandhi, India | Print | No Comments »

17. October 2009 by admin.

I am tired of people who know nothing about any religion state, almost as a self-evident axiom, that “All religions are the same.” No they’re not!
 
Islam is VERY different from Hindu Dharma. Let’s talk statistics for a while, shall we? Can you guys guess what percentage of the verses in the Kuran speak of Kafirs? 63%! In other words, more than half the Kuran is simply hate speech about Kafirs. More than half! There is not one good thing Muhammad had to say about Kafirs. The Sira (his biography and collection of quotes and anecdotes) is more than 85% about his battles with Kafirs.
Islam IS about Kafirs. Get that right - Islam as a religion is about one topic alone - Kafirs. And we are all Kafirs. Yes, that’s right. We are what Islam is about. The only problem is that Islam does not say “Love these guys.” It says “hate them, kill them, behead them, humiliate them, “subdue” them, make them pay taxes, convert them…” Islam is all about “them” - the “them” being us Kafirs.
 
Islam is not a religion that focuses on itself and its people. It focuses on Kafirs. Isn’t that strange - that a religion should focus not on itself but on those who are not in it? Islam is all about “the evil others - the Kafirs.” The Kafirs who allowed Muhammad to do his thing when they could have killed him. But they showed great tolerance and let him mock and abuse them. But when he became powerful, he simply killed them or forcibly converted them to Islam.
 
Read the Upanishads (which form the spiritual core of Hindu Dharma). They don’t even talk about “us” or “them.” They simply discuss how the Atman (roughly translated to ’soul’) is related to the unity underlying all creation (called the ‘brahman’). There is absolutely no sectarian language there. No wonder Hindus, to this day, are unable to fully fathom this hateful ideology called Islam.
 
The Kuran is a manual of hatred and violence which seeks to divide humanity into “muslims” and “kafirs” and recommends permanent warfare between them. No wonder muslims are unable to live peacefully with any other community, anywhere. Because their religion only speaks of cultivating hatred towards others.
 
The world must no longer keep silent about this ideology. We must call it for what it is. Enough of the political correctness. Enough of the deafening silence. Islam declared war on us 1400 years ago. It is time we at least asked “Why?” Why are you killing us? What have we done? Just because an arab man 1400 years ago said you must kill us?
 
Is that reason enough to abandon all humanity, all rationality?

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

17. October 2009 by admin.

By Professor Paul Eidelberg
September 26, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Brzezinski for The Intercollegiate Review. Before citing some of the more relevant passages of that article, it should be borne in mind that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same reputation.

Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s Middle East adviser.

Long before he became Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet political systems. “This image,” he says, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.” Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an anti-Communist. In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.”

Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! Brzezinski is simply a moral or cultural (or historical) relativist, and relativism has certainly modulated Barack Obama’s mentality.

The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. His relativism prompts him to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes. With Brzezinski as his adviser, Obama will be more disposed to appease Iran and betray America’s allies, above all Israel.

Since Brzezinski is a relativist, he denies the existence of objective or trans-historical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another. (The members of the UN General Assembly must be pleased to hear this, despite the UN’s notorious record of condemning Israel without having ever condemned an Islamic state.)

Brzezinski’s relativism also makes him a “weather-vane” political scientist. He turns with the winds of power. Working in a pluralistic and egalitarian country like America—a secular society—he conveniently adopts tolerance as his operational principle on the one hand, and equality as his primary value on the other. He is quite at home with the moral equivalency that has shaped US foreign policy toward Israel and Islamic dictatorships.

Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism is evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. Obama is pursuing a very soft line toward Islam.

As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state. His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty. The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.” Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition.

“That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision.” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.” Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism.”

Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise.” Brzezinski could as readily say: “Yes, Muslims slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran”!!!

Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, the same that animated Abraham Lincoln. To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s political mentality — like that of countless other American academics — is anti-American. An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance. It may accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Communism, Obama, United State of America | Print | No Comments »