Multiculturalism is for the Birds – 4
Diversity is not multiculturalism
The riots with racial overtones engulfing London and other parts of UK in the first week of August 2011 seem to have been timed fortuitously to quickly vindicate Anders Breivik’s act of terror in Norway on 22 July, allegedly against multiculturalism.
The writer had drawn a parallel to events in India where Sonia Gandhi’s UPA has literally created a brand new phenomenon called Hindu terror. Some very striking points of similarity between Anders Breivik and Hindus who have been arrested for acts of terror –
· While all of them allegedly belong to some known organization or political party (Abhinav Bharat, Progress Party), they acted as individuals with little or no backing from the organizations to which they belonged
· All of them, according to available reports were trained and funded by shadowy figures who have not been identified so far
· All of them were chosen for their commitment to a defined political ideology related to multiculturalism
· All of them supposedly used ammonium nitrate and fuel oil to manufacture IEDs
· All of them were amateur terrorists, first time offenders, almost certain to be arrested
If Christian terrorism sent the signal that Europe and America had reached the end of their multiculturalism tether and wanted it to end, inventing the phenomenon of Hindu terror sent the signal that resistance by Hindu nationalists to multiculturalism would not be countenanced. The Generic Church, it was clear wanted multiculturalism like jihad to end in Europe and America but wanted it alive and active in India.
(Editor's Note: All social evils racism, slavery, genocides, trail of tears, banishment to reserations, intolerance of extreme nature in the West needs to be forgotten as the thing of the past and attention needs to be focused on India for all social evils that do not even have the fraction of the magnitude of the violence and disrespect for human life evinced in the West thoughout the last several centuries and especially in the 20th century continuing into the 21st century,- obviously a double standard. )
And that is why the plot to launch new-wave Christian terrorism and Hindu terrorism must have been hatched around the same time by the same forces for exactly opposite reasons.
Multiculturalism is a misnomer for warring monotheisms. When Prime Minister David Cameron said state multiculturalism had failed in the UK and Hillary Clinton, while on a state visit to India last month said she was going to Chennai to get a sense of the city’s culture, two of the world’s most influential political leaders used the word culture in entirely different ways.
When David Cameron spoke about state multiculturalism what he actually meant was government policy to invite people of different races, different religions and different countries to make the United Kingdom their home so that Pizza and Paratha, Bharatanatyam and Flamenco could live together happily ever after. It is not surprising that multiculturalism failed in the UK and is failing everywhere in the world.
Elsewhere the writer had observed that the Hindu nation is formed on the basis of what unites us, what we have in common while Abrahamic religionists fragment their countries into smaller countries and states on the basis of how they differ from each other.
If all three Abrahamic religions owe allegiance to the same god and hold the same prophets in reverence, why are Christians and Muslims at each others’ throats in several parts of the world; why are Muslims and Jews at each others’ throats in the middle-east; why did Christians persecute the Jews over centuries?
Fundamental and irreconcilable differences among them which make them warring monotheisms are –
· Judaism holds the cults of Jesus and Mohammed to be heretic faiths
· The Jews do not believe that Jesus is either the son of god or even the promised messiah and are still waiting for God fulfil his promise to the Jews
· While Muslims revere Jesus as one of the messengers of God, they do not believe that Jesus is the son of god while Christians do not believe God spoke to Mohammed through Angel Gabriel
· Even as the Jews are still waiting for God to send them the promised Messiah the Muslims have pronounced Mohammed to be the last Prophet
All three Abrahamic siblings share the common belief that the last and final war before the end of time/end of world will be fought among themselves to decide who among them is god’s chosen people. For this final confrontation to take place, the world must be rid of all other (false) gods and all other (illegitimate) religions so that only their one true god remains to rule the world and only they, the three Abrahamic siblings remain to fight the last war.
This is not culture; this is the Abrahamic worldview or the world as the Abrahamic religionists view it. According to this worldview –
· The world is divided broadly as Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic
· The non-Abrahamic world, the territory and people, must be transformed to become Abrahamic
· This entailed either converting the people to one of the Abrahamic religions or forcibly taking over the territory and bringing it under the rule of an Abrahamic king
· The noun Messiah is transliteration of the Hebrew noun ‘Mashiach’ which derives from the verb ‘mashach’ which means to anoint. Mashiach or Messiah literally means the anointed one. In the Abrahamic worldview, only three categories of people are anointed – prophets, priests and kings. The prophet was considered as representing god to the people; the priest represented the people in all their interactions with god and the king protected the people, ruled over them and defended the territory (the kingdom or nation) which belonged to the god of Abraham. The person so anointed, prophet, priest or king, then became divinely enabled so that he and he alone was chosen by god and authorized by god to serve god and fulfil god’s purpose
· The purpose of the god of Abraham was to first subjugate and enslave the people who did not owe allegiance to the god of Abraham (Abrahamic kings and god’s soldiers did that), then take away the territory of these non-believers (their kingdom and nation) and bring both people and territory under the control of the god of Abraham after destroying the (false) gods and their places of worship
· This was god’s task and purpose which he entrusted to prophets, priests and kings
The Abrahamic worldview where the world is divided into two adversarial, conflicting segments, therefore placed the adherents of Abrahamic religions in a constant state of war – against non-Abrahamic nations, peoples and gods and among themselves as countdown and empowerment for the final showdown which will decide who among them is the chosen people of the god of Abraham.
This explains why –
· The Jews have always tried to control money and resources which makes up for their numerical inferiority because one is born a Jew and is never converted to the Judaic faith
· The prophets – Israelite, Ishmaelite both have such violent histories
· Islam and Christianity must expand into every continent of the world using violence, and leaving behind a trail of abuse and total destruction, even as both of them persecute the numerically inferior Jews across continents and deny the Jews any settled place to live
· Almost every pre-Islam and pre-Christian faith in all the continents, entire nations, tribes and kingdoms have been destroyed for ever with no living trace of these once prosperous, thriving and vibrant religions and civilizations; they are all, people and continents both, either entirely Muslim or Christian or neatly carved up between both
· Why the Pope can speak from both corners of the mouth at the same time; one corner of the mouth says freedom of religion be damned, multiculturalism be damned, secularism be damned, he does not want ‘Asiatic, Muslim Turkey inside Christian Europe; while the other corner of the mouth says at the same time that he will plant the cross in Asia; Muslim Turkey will not be allowed to move into Christian Europe but the white Church must be permitted by secular India to enter and expand across the territory of Hindu India, Confucian China and Buddhist Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Myanmar
Contrast the Abrahamic worldview with Hindu worldview –
· Dharma is supreme, even our gods are subject and subordinate to dharma
· Dharma can be embodied not only in gods but also in humans and non-humans
· A Hindu acquires his worldview not from understanding time, space and the cosmos first (western science and philosophy) and then place the individual within this understanding but by knowing the nature of the individual first and proceeding from that to understand the nature of the rest of the world – time, space, and cosmos
· The journey within the self and from the self to the world is a Hindu’s religion, his spirituality
· God (devas) is the name Hindus give to the extraordinary power, intelligence which permeates all creation
· Because this power, this intelligence (god) is already present, already permeates the world, Hindus do not have to be in a constant state of war with the world to bring any nation or kingdom under the control of our devas
· There are as many gods as there are humans and as many layers of understanding the truth that every god, every method to know the truth, so long as it is subjected to and governed by dharma, is legitimate and deserving of respect
· Wars were waged by kings to establish dharma and the victorious king had to be a dharma vijayi and not a lobha (plunder) or asura vijayi (rape, plunder, murder, mayhem and destruction)
· Within the Hindu nation, Hindus who worshipped Shiva or Vishnu, Kali or Aiyanar, mountain or river, stick or stone or his parents, even if he chose not to worship anyone or anything (that itself indicated simply one level of understanding and he would be born again and again until the fruits of his karma enabled him to know the nature of the self; after that words like belief or non-belief become redundant) could all live together without killing in the name of their god because everything was god and godly when the worshipper was ruled by dharma
· When people lived by dharma and were ruled by dharma, there were no multi-cultures as the Abrahamic world understands the word; there was only one worldview and all creative expressions proceeding from this worldview was culture.
Monotheisms cause multiculturalism and multiculturalism breeds conflict and wages war. Wherever Abrahamic religions exist and their adherents the very nature of their god and their responsibility to fulfil their god’s purpose inevitably places them in constant state of war against the rest of the world.
Within the Hindu nation, Islam and Christianity both are at war against the Hindus. Hindus have to be forced to give up their dharma and their worship either by terror, fear, bribes or blandishments (religious conversion) followed by eventual control of territory (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jammu and Kashmir, North-East, south Tamil Nadu, the eastern and western coastal regions) until Hindu India is fragmented into Christian states like East Timor or South Korea, or Muslim states like Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan.
The rise of Hindu nationalism once again after 1909, in the second half of the 1990s decade rests on the understanding –
· All gods are not the same
· All religions do not have the same objective and so do not lead to the same goal
· Hindus have never conquered territory, enslaved other nations and cultures in the name of their gods and will therefore resist efforts by Abrahamic religions within the nation and outside to make Hindu India another Abrahamic fiefdom
· This means Hindu nationalists will not allow religious conversion and will not surrender Hindu territory to Islam or Christianity
· Will not allow Muslims and Christians in India to claim Hindu territory because their god and their religion has placed this religious mandate upon them
That is why Hindus are reacting violently to increasing Muslim and Christian provocations. When Hindus use force against the constantly warring adherents of Islam and Christianity, they are only protecting their dharma and defending their native land, their janmabhumi.
If India and the rest of Asia have to be transformed for the last war or Armageddon, India’s Hindus must always be kept in a state of weakness, they must never be allowed to capture state power.
It is to attain this objective, to break the backbone of Hindu nationalism again as they did in 1909, that Hindus defending their nation have been labelled terrorists. If the state in India had derived from Hindus then the state would ban religious conversion, the Hindu state would resist forcefully any territorial claim by Muslims and Christians.
But the post 1947 state in India does not derive from the Hindu nation; it derives from Gandhi’s understanding of nation and Nehru’s un-Hindu and anti-Hindu ideology for governance.
Gandhi’s unnatural and unreal understanding of the Hindu nation was typical of general Hindu foolishness that all gods are the same and all religions have the same goal. Gandhi failed to acknowledge even in 1947 when the Hindu nation was vivisected that Islam and Christianity both are mandated by their god and prophets to conquer Hindu territory.
It is this stubborn foolishness which made Gandhi think that Hindus and Muslims, Hindus and Christians in India are brothers because they have the same ancestors. Gandhi should have read the Bible and the Koran with political sense to grasp the political objectives of both books of revelation. Both books declare, a brother is he who worships the same god; if your blood brother worships another god, he is an infidel; convert him or kill him.
Gandhi had no such political sense and Nehru was an irreligious man; and that is why the Hindu nation, governed by the Gandhi-Nehru INC, is destined to be enslaved by Gandhian sense of the nation –
If Hindus believe India should be peopled only by Hindus, they are living in a fool’s paradise. Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, and Christians who have made India their home are fellow countrymen; they will have to live in unity if only for their own intests. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms, nor has this ever been the case in India. (Hind Swaraj, Chapter X, The Condition of India (cont.): The Hindus and the Mahomedans, pp 52-53)
Savarkar on the other hand suffered from no such delusions –
As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India, several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. Our well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities… The solid fact is that the so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of a cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and the Moslems. When time is ripe you can solve them but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition of them. (Savarkar’s Presidential address to the 19th session of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha at Karnavati (Ahmedabad) in 1937)
To make sure the Gandhian sense of nation prevails in India and to make sure that Hindu nationalism never raises its head to threaten the movement towards the two stage Apocalypse-Armageddon end of world, the US is making moves, going by this news report, to interfere actively in India’s internal affairs:
The legislative process in the United States Congress on the bill tabled by Congressman Frank Wolf and co-sponsored by Representative Anna Eshoo from California promises to be a fateful happening for the 'defining partnership' between US and India. It is titled as 'To provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia'. A hearing has been already held by the House of Representatives although the Indian media hasn't yet apparently caught on what is unfolding on the Hill. The bill has bipartisan support, especially from Christian Conservatives, and there is strong likelihood of it becoming law. India is specifically mentioned as one of the countries where the US will closely monitor the plight of the minorities. The bill demands the creation of the post of a special envoy in the State Department specifically to monitor countries like India. Pakistan has been included in the scope of the bill along with India, but China is not- although Beijing has been openly defying the Vatican's right to control the appointment of Church functionaries in China. As the text of the bill envisages, the proposed US special envoy is expected to:
a) "promote the right of religious freedom of religious minorities" and recommend "appropriate responses" by Washington to instances of violation of the rights;
b) "monitor and combat acts of religious intolerance and incitement targeted against religious minorities";
c) "work to ensure the unique needs of religious minority communities... including the economic and security needs of these communities";
d) work with Indian NGOs and take up with the GOI any Indian laws that are "inherently discriminatory" to minorities; and,
e) raise the issues on the multilateral fora, including the UN and the OSCE.
1 million dollars will be allocated annually to facilitate the work of the special envoy in undertaking activities such as conducting investigations. The bill says: "The Special Envoy should be a person of recognised distinction in the fields of human rights and religious freedom who shall have the rank of ambassador and shall hold office at the pleasure of the President." It seems the Barack Obama administration may already be having a nominee in mind.
From all appearances, the law would be geared in the Indian context to bring under the scanner the working of the Sangh Parivar organisations which have often been implicated in violence against minorities. Most certainly, the latest moves by public organisations in the US to monitor the activities of the Sangh Privar outfits in America now assume even greater significance.(http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/07/30/us-may-bring-sangh-parivar-under-scanner/)
The proposed Communal Violence Bill, the arrest of Pujya Swami Aseemanand and Sadhvi Pragya and the proposed Bill to monitor rights of minorities in America are all of the same piece.
This explains why Hindu PIOs felt compelled to explain Dr. Subramanian Swamy to protestors at Harvard University in the following Abrahamic multiculturist idiom -
I cannot understand how anyone can call Dr.Subramanian Swamy a BIGOT. Dr.Swamy’s brother-in-law is Jewish, his son-in-law Muslim, his sister-in-law Christian and his wife Parsi. One of his two daughters is married to an Indian Muslim with whom he has closest relations, and therefore how can he possibly be a bigot against the Indian Muslims or Christians.
Multiculturalism is for the birds; the Hindu twit (Concluded)
13th August, 2011.