Chinese atrocity in Tibet

There was a very disturbing video on rediff today showing the brutal atrocities committed on innocent Tibetan people.

http://ishare.rediff.com/filevideo.php?id=592894

I have many chinese friends that I have spoken to about the communist government and Tibet and most if not all support the Chinese action and merely parrot the official government version calling the Dalai Lama and the tibetans "seccesionist" "rioters" "we have liberated them from the Dalai lama" and other similar bull shit. It was some satisfaction that I managed to defeated them in debate and sort of was able to get a few of them to think beyond what their government brainwashed them with.

But then consider what the Chinese authorities do to their own people!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_re_us/as_china_tainted_milk

"Families whose children fell ill from tainted milk have come under pressure to drop compensation lawsuits, victims' advocates said Tuesday, showing the government's lingering uneasiness over one of China's worst contamination scandals.
Local officials were calling and visiting at least a half-dozen families, urging them to drop their cases against the dairies and accept a government-sanctioned compensation plan giving 2,000 yuan ($290) to most victims, said Zhao Lianhai, the father of a child sickened by the milk."

I think it is important to remember how Jawahar Lal Nehru, out first Prime Minister betrayed the Tibetan people and India by not doing anything and even actually supporting the Chinese "liberation" of Tibet!! It is common knowledge that Nehru was a communist and for him this was just another step in the ineveitable spread of communism. His statements supporting Stalins murdeous regime as well known.

This letter sent to Nehru by Sardar Patel requires reading in this context.

"My dear Jawaharlal,

Ever since my return from Ahmedabad and after the cabinet meeting the same day which I had to attend at practically fifteen minutes' notice and for which I regret I was not able to read all the papers, I have been anxiously thinking over the problem of Tibet and I thought I should share with you what is passing through my mind.

I have carefully gone through the correspondence between the External Affairs Ministry and our Ambassador in Peking and through him the Chinese Government. I have tried to peruse this correspondence as favourably to our Ambassador and the Chinese Government as possible, but I regret to say that neither of them comes out well as a result of this study. The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intention. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they managed to instill into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their so-called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means. There can be no doubt that during the period covered by this correspondence the Chinese must have been concentrating for an onslaught on Tibet. The final action of the Chinese, in my judgement, is little short of perfidy. The tragedy of it is that the Tibetans put faith in us; they chose to be guided by us; and we have been unable to get them out of the meshes of Chinese diplomacy or Chinese malevolence. From the latest position, it appears that we shall not be able to rescue the Dalai Lama. Our Ambassador has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions. As the External Affairs Ministry remarked in one of their telegrams, there was a lack of firmness and unnecessary apology in one or two representations that he made to the Chinese Government on our behalf. It is impossible to imagine any sensible person believing in the so-called threat to China from Anglo-American machinations in Tibet. Therefore, if the Chinese put faith in this, they must have distrusted us so completely as to have taken us as tools or stooges of Anglo-American diplomacy or strategy. This feeling, if genuinely entertained by the Chinese in spite of your direct approaches to them, indicates that even though we regard ourselves as the friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as their friends. With the Communist mentality of "whoever is not with them being against them", this is a significant pointer, of which we have to take due note. During the last several months, outside the Russian camp, we have practically been alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into UN and in securing from the Americans assurances on the question of Formosa. We have done everything we could to assuage Chinese feelings, to allay its apprehensions and to defend its legitimate claims in our discussions and correspondence with America and Britain and in the UN. Inspite of this, China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is one, at least outwardly, of scepticism perhaps mixed with a little hostility. I doubt if we can go any further than we have done already to convince China of our good intentions, friendliness and goodwill. In Peking we have an Ambassador who is eminently suitable for putting across the friendly point of view. Even he seems to have failed to convert the Chinese. Their last telegram to us is an act of gross discourtesy not only in the summary way it disposes of our protest against the entry of Chinese forces into Tibet but also in the wild insinuation that our attitude is determined by foreign influences. It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy.

In the background of this, we have to consider what new situation now faces us as a result of the disappearance of Tibet, as we knew it, and the expansion of China almost up to our gates. Throughout history we have seldom been worried about our north-east frontier. The Himalayas have been regarded as an impenetrable barrier against any threat from the north. We had a friendly Tibet which gave us no trouble. The Chinese were divided. They had their own domestic problems and never bothered us about frontiers. In 1914, we entered into a convention with Tibet which was not endorsed by the Chinese. We seem to have regarded Tibetan autonomy as extending to independent treaty relationship. Presumably, all that we required was Chinese counter-signature. The Chinese interpretation of suzerainty seems to be different. We can, therefore, safely assume that very soon they will disown all the stipulations which Tibet has entered into with us in the past. That throws into the melting pot all frontier and commercial settlements with Tibet on which we have been functioning and acting during the last half a century. China is no longer divided. It is united and strong. All along the Himalayas in the north and north-east, we have on our side of the frontier a population ethnologically and culturally not different from Tibetans and Mongoloids. The undefined state of the frontier and the existence on our side of a population with its affinities to the Tibetans or Chinese have all the elements of the potential trouble between China and ourselves. Recent and bitter history also tells us that Communism is no shield against imperialism and that the communists are as good or as bad imperialists as any other. Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side but also include the important part of Assam. They have their ambitions in Burma also. Burma has the added difficulty that it has no McMahon Line round which to build up even the semblance of an agreement. Chinese irredentism and communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the western powers. The former has a cloak of ideology which makes it ten times more dangerous. In the guise of ideological expansion lie concealed racial, national or historical claims. The danger from the north and north-east, therefore, becomes both communist and imperialist. While our western and north-western threat to security is still as prominent as before, a new threat has developed from the north and north-east. Thus, for the first time, after centuries, India's defence has to concentrate itself on two fronts simultaneously. Our defence measures have so far been based on the calculations of superiority over Pakistan. In our calculations we shall now have to reckon with communist China in the north and in the north-east, a communist China which has definite ambitions and aims and which does not, in any way, seem friendly disposed towards us.

Let us also consider the political conditions on this potentially troublesome frontier. Our northern and north-eastern approaches consist of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the tribal areas in Assam. From the point of view of communication, there are weak spots. Continuous defensive lines do not exist. There is almost an unlimited scope for infiltration. Police protection is limited to a very small number of passes. There, too, our outposts do not seem to be fully manned. The contact of these areas with us is by no means close and intimate. The people inhabiting these portions have no established loyalty or devotion to India. Even Darjeeling and Kalimpong areas are not free from pro-Mongoloid prejudices. During the last three years, we have not been able to make any appreciable approaches to the Nagas and other hill tribes in Assam. European missionaries and other visitors had been in touch with them, but their influence was in no way friendly to India or Indians. In Sikkim, there was political ferment some time ago. It is quite possible that discontent is smouldering there. Bhutan is comparatively quiet, but its affinity with Tibetans would be a handicap. Nepal has a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force: it is in conflict with a turbulent element of the population as well as with enlightened ideas of the modern age. In these circumstances, to make people alive to the new danger or to make them defensively strong is a very difficult task indeed and that difficulty can be got over only by enlightened firmness, strength and a clear line of policy. I am sure the Chinese and their source of inspiration, Soviet Union, would not miss any opportunity of exploiting these weak spots, partly in support of their ideology and partly in support of their ambitions. In my judgement the situation is one which we cannot afford either to be complacent or to be vacillating. We must have a clear idea of what we wish to achieve and also of the methods by which we should achieve it. Any faltering or lack of decisiveness in formulating our objectives or in pursuing our policies to attain those objectives is bound to weaken us and increase the threats which are so evident.

Side by side with these external dangers, we shall now have to face serious internal problems as well. I have already asked Iengar to send to the External Affairs Ministry a copy of the Intelligence Bureau's appreciation of these matters. Hitherto, the Communist Party of India has found some difficulty in contacting communists abroad, or in getting supplies of arms, literature, etc., from them. They had to contend with the difficult Burmese and Pakistan frontiers on the east or with the long seaboard. They shall now have a comparatively easy means of access to Chinese communists and through them to other foreign communists. Infiltration of spies, fifth columnists and communists would now be easier. Instead of having to deal with isolated communist pockets in Telengana and Warrangal we may have to deal with communist threats to our security along our northern and north-eastern frontiers, where, for supplies of arms and ammunition, they can safely depend on communist arsenals in China. The whole situation thus raises a number of problems on which we must come to an early decision so that we can, as I said earlier, formulate the objectives of our policy and decide the method by which those objectives are to be attained. It is also clear that the action will have to be fairly comprehensive, involving not only our defence strategy and state of preparations but also problem of internal security to deal with which we have not a moment to lose. We shall also have to deal with administrative and political problems in the weak spots along the frontier to which I have already referred.

It is of course, impossible to be exhaustive in setting out all these problems. I am, however, giving below some of the problems which, in my opinion, require early solution and round which we have to build our administrative or military policies and measures to implement them.

a) A military and intelligence appreciation of the Chinese threat to India both on the frontier and to internal security.
b) An examination of military position and such redisposition of our forces as might be necessary, particularly with the idea of guarding important routes or areas which are likely to be the subject of dispute.
c) An appraisement of the strength of our forces and, if necessary, reconsideration of our retrenchment plans for the Army in the light of the new threat.
d) A long-term consideration of our defence needs. My own feeling is that, unless we assure our supplies of arms, ammunition and armour, we would be making our defence perpetually weak and we would not be able to stand up to the double threat of difficulties both from the west and north-west and north and north-east.
e) The question of China's entry into the UN. In view of the rebuff which China has given us and the method which it has followed in dealing with Tibet, I am doubtful whether we can advocate its claim any longer. There would probably be a threat in the UN virtually to outlaw China, in view of its active participation in the Korean war. We must determine our attitude on this question also.
f) The political and administrative steps which we should take to strengthen our northern and north-eastern frontier. This would include the whole of the border, ie. Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the tribal territory in Assam.
g) Measures of internal security in the border areas as well as the states flanking those areas such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal and Assam.
h) Improvement of our communication, road, rail, air and wireless, in these areas and with the frontier outposts.
i) The future of our mission at Lhasa and the trade posts at Gyangtse and Yatung and the forces which we have in operation in Tibet to guard the trade routes.
j) The policy in regard to the McMahon Line.

These are some of the questions which occur to my mind. It is possible that a consideration of these matters may lead us into wider question of our relationship with China, Russia, America, Britain and Burma. This, however, would be of a general nature, though some might be basically very important, e.g., we might have to consider whether we should not enter into closer association with Burma in order to strengthen the latter in its dealings with China. I do not rule out the possibility that, before applying pressure on us, China might apply pressure on Burma. With Burma, the frontier is entirely undefined and the Chinese territorial claims are more substantial. In its present position, Burma might offer an easier problem to China, and therefore, might claim its first attention.

I suggest that we meet early to have a general discussion on these problems and decide on such steps as we might think to be immediately necessary and direct, quick examination of other problems with a view to taking early measures to deal with them.

Vallabhbhai Patel, 7th November 1950

Origin of Christianity

I found this very fascinating piece of scholarship on the origins of Christianity. It is a must read and hopefully people will study about this religion from facts instead of religious propoganda.
I am pasting here excerpts from the article with important sentences highlighted to help reading.

If you ever wondered how there is so much similarity to Jesus Christ's birth and Krishna's and also why there are similarities in Jesus's teachings and Hinduism and at the same time why there are so many contradictions and differences, this brilliantly researched write up will help answer all these questions! It clearly shows how Jesus is an artificial construct!

TRUTH ALONE TRIUMPHS!!


The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorised the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine's main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods. The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).

Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)

Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine's point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilising religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine's problems. The smooth generalisation, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine's time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his "conversion" and "baptism" are "entirely legendary" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).

Constantine "never acquired a solid theological knowledge" and "depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions "strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state", but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute of foundation" and needed official stabilisation (ibid.).Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor. They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, "bound in leather" for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry). Their writings totalled "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them" (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).

Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate.
In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620). There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods-Apollo and Zeus-but the great bulk of common people idolised either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanised version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Saviour" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god. Julius Caesar was hailed as "God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race" (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalised on his coins as the "Saviour of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Saviour and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognised in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion. "As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".

How the Gospels were created

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organise the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art" (ibid.). "These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Saviour God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonising in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Just what is Christianity?

The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?

Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions". This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.

Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

Tischendorf's conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux's Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.

Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism-a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries.

Christianity is an adaptation of Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees, some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis), Greek philosophy and various aspects of Hinduism.

B. Raman on Varun Gandhi episode

This is a very good article by the former intelligence chief B. Raman on the Varun Gandhi Saga.

http://election.rediff.com/column/2009/mar/25/guest-ec-should-have-given-varun-gandhi-a-hearing.htm

"As I read the late night communication of the Election Commission to Varun Gandhi, son of Sanjay and Maneka Gandhi and grandson of Indira Gandhi, and his reply to the Election Commission, I was reminded of the exchange of midnight missives between his illustrious grandmother and the so-called syndicate in the Congress before the Presidential elections in the late 1960s in which V V Giri, supported by her, was elected and Sanjiva Reddy, supported by the syndicate, was defeated.

Indira Gandhi rightly viewed the machinations of the syndicate as an attempt to marginalise her in the Congress party and put a stop to her political aspirations. She fought back ferociously and ultimately prevailed. The syndicate did not forgive her for this. When the Congress lost the elections after the lifting of the Emergency in 1977, the syndicate had its moments of revenge. It got Sanjiva Reddy elected as the President and sought to humiliate her in every way possible. She ferociously fought back again and returned to power in 1980. Nobody remembers the syndicate. Its members have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Everybody remembers Indira Gandhi.

A grand-son of Indira Gandhi is now fighting ferociously against what he apparently sees as an attempt by a syndicate of so-called secularists to discredit him and crush his political aspirations even before he could take his first firm steps in politics. He has every right to fight against what he perceives to be the denial of the right of natural justice to him.

The extremely objectionable remarks alleged to have been made by Varun Gandhi during two pre-election meetings in the Pilibhit constituency should be strongly condemned by all right-thinking persons as distasteful, irresponsible and unworthy of a political leader if it is established that he did make those remarks.

If he had not contested those remarks and, on the contrary, if he had tried to justify them, there would have been no need for a further enquiry before condemning him. But he has contested the remarks which he is supposed to have made and he has not justified them. He has challenged the genuineness of the tapes and alleged that the tapes have been doctored.

In TV interviews, he has given a number of arguments as to why he contended that the tapes had been doctored. Many of his arguments could be dismissed as after-thoughts but not one, namely, his contention that in a tape he is shown as referring to a sister of his whereas he had no sister. If what he says about the contents of the tapes is correct, there is a serious mistake of fact in the remarks which he is shown as making. Where there is such a serious mistake of fact, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. He has not been given the benefit of this presumption.

There are certain procedural infirmities in the way the Election Commission has passed its order of March 22 against Varun. The first infirmity arises from the fact that the commission has passed an ex-parte order without giving Varun an opportunity to appear before the commission and explain his conduct. An ex-parte order is permissible if a person against whom an inquiry is being made was given an opportunity to appear and explain his conduct, but he did not do so. When a person fails to respond to a summons to appear before an inquiry body and explain his conduct, he is presumed to be avoiding the due process of the rules or the law. There is an automatic presumption of guilt against him.

All of us, including the distinguished members of the EC, had served as bureaucrats. We had all done our training before we started our career. We had all attended courses in how to hold an inquiry and about the importance of being fair in an inquiry. There are detailed departmental orders in the government of India and the states as to how to hold a fair inquiry. All these orders lay down that every person against whom an inquiry is held has a right for a personal hearing before the inquiry officer twice -- before the inquiry starts and again before an adverse ruling is pronounced by the inquiry officer. If Varun Gandhi is to be believed, these dos and don'ts of a fair inquiry were not followed in his case.

The second infirmity arises with regard to Varun's contention that the tapes seem to have been doctored. The Election Commission has held that it was for him to prove this. How could he have explained to the commission as to why he thought that the tapes might have been doctored if he was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing. There are two ways of proving that a tape must have been doctored -- forensically or by pointing out serious mistakes of fact in the contents of the tape, which are glaring and could not have been made by him. It would have been but fair that he was given an opportunity to appear before the commission and explain why he contended that the tapes must have been doctored.

Priyanka Gandhi, another grand-child of Indira Gandhi, has reportedly advised Varun to read and understand the Gita better. She should too. In fact, all of us, who consider ourselves proud Hindus, should. In the Gita, Lord Krishna advises and convinces Arjun as to why one should sometimes fight even against one's kith and kin if there were strong moral grounds for doing so.
That is why Indira Gandhi fought ferociously against the syndicate of the Congress.
If Varun thinks that he should emulate his illustrious grand-mother and fight ferociously against what he sees as the unfair attitude of the syndicate of so-called secularists against him, he has every right to do so. "

B Raman

The UPA effect

A good analysis of the effect the Congress-UPA governance has had on India.

http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/mar/25/upa-will-cost-india-economic-superstardom.htm

"Given the profligate spending of the United Progressive Alliance and its self-proclaimed galaxy of economic geniuses, India now sports perhaps the highest deficit of any country: about 13 per cent, a far cry from the 5 per cent that the UPA has been promising us all along.
Yet again, the Congress has successfully brought India back to the verge of the 'Nehruvian rate of growth' of 2-3 per cent, which is an economic crime against humanity, imposing abject poverty on 250 million people."

"This in the name of programmes for the 'common man': such as the NREGS (National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme), the waiver of farm loans, and the windfall for bureaucrats.
Rs 70,000 crore (Rs 700 billion) for the NREGS, which, if we had truth-in-advertising, should be renamed 'National Employment Guarantee Scheme for Party Cadres', because 95 per cent of the funds ended up in their pockets "

Lies of the church

There was an article in today's Indian Express which clearly exposes the Indian Church's devious plan to malign the Hindu organizations as well the the ruling BJP. This is just one of the many episodes where Hindu organizations have been falsly accused to whip up anti HIndu sentiments. This gains significance with the elections coming up in April-May.

“There was no evidence to substantiate that the St.Anthony’s Church at Yedavanahalli was attacked by miscreants,” M Shankarappa, Deputy Superintendent of Police of Bangalore sub-division, said while deposing before the Justice B K Somashekara Commission of Inquiry on Monday.
The commission, which is probing the recent attacks on churches across the state, recorded the statement of the police officer. The Dy.SP said, “When I inspected the Yedavanahalli Church, there was no indication that someone had trespassed into its premises, after breaking open the windows and doors. There was no proof to substantiate that allegation,” he said during crossexamination by Satishchandra, advocate appearing for Hindu organisations.
It may be recalled that St.Anthony’s Church in Yedavanahalli which comes under Attibele police station limits was allegedly attacked by miscreants. The commission had also recorded the statements of Devaraj and Mallikarjuna, both representing Hindu organisations."

Another news report also showing the deciet of the Christian organization is given below,

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=57924

"In connection with indulging in rampage in a banana plantation belonging to Babbukatte Nityadhar Church and trying to disrupt peace in the region, Ullal policemen arrested seven persons on Wednesday March 18.
They are Jayson Verghese (23), Vijit Sunny Rozario (21), Araki Alfred (20), Roshan Cutinho (26), all from Nityadhar Nagar and Ronald Roshan (22), a resident of Kuttar Prakash Nagar. They were produced in the court on Wednesday.
On Monday morning, the banana plantation was found to have been damaged heavily to look as if people belonging to a particular community had barged into the plantation, and a saffron flag had been planted there, signifying that Hindu outfits had been involved with the destruction. The incident took place at a time when Hindu Samajotsav was being organized in the city.
The policemen said that during interrogation, the arrested persons revealed, they wanted to disturb the peace in the region by projecting the incident as a handiwork of a particular community."

Here is a good example of how the Church spreads lies through the more than willing English Media to get sympathy and money from outside.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Church_cops_deny_Hindu_orphan_was_raped/rssarticleshow/3563997.cms

Every day the Christian news channels carry falsified reports of Christian suffering. All this is solely to create an atmosphere of sympathy in the west so that people open their pockets and fund the devious conversion activities of the evangelicals.

Excerpt of Rajiv Malhotra's talk (Taken from Indian realist blog) clearly shows how the missionary church is deeply embedded in the american policy making!

"But when I started to research on this, I saw a ‘Wall Street Journal’ front-page article two or three years ago titled “US Evangelists Driving Foreign Policy Intervention.” It is a very long article that showed a hundred years’ history of American evangelicals not only driving domestic policies like abortion, gay rights and (nowadays) stem cell research very successfully but also very strongly driving the foreign policy of the US.
The foreign policy evangelicals want is that the United States should intervene wherever in the world there is a pocket of Christians who consider themselves to be under threat. Once the United States agrees that that is the official policy of the government, then the evangelicals actually go to those areas in the world, trigger some trouble and use those incidents to bring United States intervention.
Now the dossier of such cases of persecution of Christians in India is growing in the US. It is a huge dossier and there are regular hearings in Washington in which the evangelicals invite those Indians who complain about such persecution of Christians. There is a long line of such Indians who are granted visa and travels grants to go to the US and give testimony in the Congress.
Also, there are well-organized networks in India which have been funded by these evangelical entities to provoke trouble, to monitor persecution and then go over to report and lobby in Washington for US government’s intervention. These incidents are splashed all over the US media. So one day the United States may decide that “Ok, the Hiindu Taliban has got hold of North India. We can go and intervene here and there and protect some Christianized pockets in South India. We have built our own base there and we have built a network of support.”

Indian History

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/FirstIndologists.htm

This is an excellent website with a lot of info.

Below is a nice statement from the site

Dr. Dipak Basu of Nagasaki University in Japan has written:

"The British historians glorify the Muslim rule in India and dismiss the Hindu period as myths and fantasy. They dismiss the Marxian analysis of the British oppression of India . They emphasize the improvements in administration, construction of railroad, universities, abolition of 'Sati' and 'Thugis' from India and ultimate peaceful transfer of power to Gandhi-Nehru. In that history, there was no freedom movement in India , no man made famines, no transfer of huge resources from India to Britain , no destruction of Indian industries and agriculture by the British rule, but only a very benign and benevolent British rule in India .
History according to the JNU or AMU is not much different."
(source: CPI(M) and Karl Marx - By Dipak Basu - indiacause.com)

Secularism in India?

A brilliant post by T.V.R. Shenoy exposing the duplicity and hypocrisy of our Indian communists.

http://election.rediff.com/column/2009/mar/24/guest-the-cpm-duplicity-in-kerala.htm

" Archbishop Daniel Acharuparambil, president of the Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council, is a busy man. Yet apart from his pastoral duties he has found enough time to pore over the list of Congress candidates. To such effect apparently that he was able to send a list of four Catholics to Sonia Gandhi who, in the Varapuzha Archbishop's considered opinion, deserved to get the Congress ticket from certain select constituencies.
If the good shepherd ever finds respite from tending his pet lambs he might, perhaps, ponder over a text somewhat removed from party politics. The Gospel of Matthew to be precise, which quotes Jesus Christ as saying, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
[Should the Archbishop be a trifle pressed for time with other matters in the run-up to the general election, I believe the line appears in the twenty-second chapter of the Gospel.]
A general election falls in the secular realm of the Caesars, does it not? Why then did the Archbishop choose to shatter the line between Church and State? Is this the famous 'secularism' which the Congress, the Communist Party of India-Marxist, and their allies are swearing to protect from the talons of the Bharatiya Janata Party?

This is scarcely the first time that the Roman Catholic Church has attempted to play a part in political matters. The government of Kerala had set up a Law Reforms Commission under the chairmanship of Justice V R Krishna Iyer. The commission made several proposals, and the Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council was quick to oppose some of them. Stephen Alathara, spokesman for the council, said the Catholic Church could never accept the recommendations for refusing concessions to parents with more than two kids, to permit euthanasia, and to do away with the provision that makes suicide a crime.
Population control, the right to die, and the decriminalisation of suicide are matters that affect non-Catholics? What, exactly, gives the Catholic clergy the right to dictate to the rest of us?
The recommendations of the Kerala Law Reforms Commission must await the end of the general election, so that is a battle for another day.
Although the Varapuzha Archbishop has caught most of the flak, he was scarcely alone in sending advice to 10, Janpath in Delhi. I understand that there were at least two others who offered advice.
One of them tried to veto a certain Congress candidate on the ground that the said candidate had married a non-Christian.
Forget 'secularism' and 'communalism', this is pure idiocy! Did the man even think of the person to whom he was addressing that letter before putting ink on paper? Sonia Gandhi was born a Catholic but she herself married a non-Christian, did she not? (One can argue over whether the late Rajiv Gandhi was a Parsi, through his father, Feroze, or a Hindu through his mother, Indira, but there is certainly no Christian on the family tree.)
Was it this last epistle that turned the scales? We shall probably never know but, to give credit where it is due, Sonia Gandhi ignored both the recommendations by two bishops and the objection of the third.
May I point out that this is one instance where the Congress leadership comes over trumps over its Left Front counterparts?
While releasing the CPI-M election manifesto, party General Secretary Prakash Karat made the usual thundering denunciation of "communalism". All very well good, but the BJP is not a force in Kerala, so the CPI-M general-secretary made it a point to single out the Muslim League.
Comrade Karat described the Muslim League as the most communal party in Kerala -- some reports said he made it the worst in India! -- and vowed to uproot it.
If the archbishop who spoke of "marriage to a non-Christian" was being silly, Karat was being utterly hypocritical. In order to take on the Muslim League in its strongholds the CPI-M has joined hands with a group called the People's Democratic Party.
Despite the innocuous name the PDP is a creation of Abdul Nasser Madani, the man charged in connection with the Coimbatore blasts. Though he was acquitted in that particular case the police are now investigating possible links between Madani and certain militants in Jammu & Kashmir. (According to reports, terrorists linked to the Lashkar-e-Tayiba and the Indian Mujahideen claimed that they had been in contact with members of Madani's family.)
Kerala's Left Front Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan said there would be no new probes against Madani as all the new reports are related to old events. This prompted former chief minister Oomen Chandy to point out the obvious: "Malayali militants get killed in Kashmir, a clandestine meeting takes place in Aluva, and militants hold a training camp in Vagamon. But still the home minister does not view any of these as new."
Incidentally, the CPI and the CPI-M certainly do not see eye to eye on Madani and his People's Democratic Party. CPI General Secretary A B Bardhan has specifically denounced Madani's group as "communal". This comment, by the by, came on the very day that the CPI-M party boss in Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, shared the platform with Madani at an election meeting.
Sections in the 'secular' media are baying for Varun Gandhi's head, asking the BJP to dissociate itself from its candidate. How much criticism have you heard about the blatant interference in politics of the Roman Catholic clergy in Kerala, or of the CPI-M's hobnobbing with a party that even the CPI denounces as "communal"? Or is it only Hindus and the BJP that must always prove their adherence to 'secularism'?"