Return of the Swastika: Hate and Hysteria versus Hindu Sanity, by Koenraad Elst.

................................................................................................

Return of the Swastika:

Hate and Hysteria versus Hindu Sanity,

by Koenraad Elst.

................................................................................................

Elst begins extremely well, in the first chspter; but first, in selecting the title, he's forgetting something - unless he's been unaware of it all along.

SWASTIK(A) BELONGS TO ANCIENT INDIA, ALWAYS DID; A SYMBOL AMONGST MANY, AN INTEGRAL PART OF HER LIVING CULTURE. THE VERY WORD SWASTIK(A) IS A WORD IN SANSKRIT LANGUAGE, THE LIVING LANGUAGE OF LIVING, ANCIENT CULTURE OF INDIA, AND THE VERY WORD SWASTIK(A) LITERALLY MEANS "A SYMBOL OF WELL-BEING.

So there was, has been, is, no "return"; Swastik never went away from India.

That nazis borrowed it, is a historical fact; and that they misused it, was their guilt, sin, crime. They too paid for the misuse by being shamed and defeated, starved and humiliated, instead of realisation of the ambition they set forth with - a world victory and an empire. That defeat, destruction, shame and more, was - not in small part - due to that misuse of a powerful occult symbol, which they had been warned not to risk, and chose to do it anyway.

As for Swastik as used in India, it's a symbol invoking blessings of Gods. They've known it, amongst many other occult symbols, for several millennia. In traditional homes, it's a part of everyday ceremonial "rangaavalie" (also called Alpana, or rangoli) drawn fresh on floor in morning, before temples in homes and before entrances of homes, by women or girls of the home, as an auspicious beginning of the day; it symbolises an invocation of goodwill from Gods, and a welcome for all who arrive at the doorstep, whether they be guests invited or unknown.

One may see this symbol built into the architecture of the home as a permanent symbol - invoking blessings of Gods in wellbeing of the home and its residents. And one might just as often see a star, five pointed or six pointed, too, amongst other symbols, whether by themselves or part of the same Alpana, often side by side in architecture of same house, too. This is true even of neighbourhood where Jewish homes are side by side with Hindus, and they know they've no reason for fear or worry. They've known it for centuries.

................................................................................................

Contents

................................................................................................

Foreword

Note from the Editor

The “Fascist” BJP: a Reality Check

1.1. “Hindu Fascism” and the BJP Government

1.2. “Hindutva Fascism” After the Fall

1.3. The Gujarat Textbook Affair

1.4. The Gujarat Textbook Affair, Bis

Mahatma Gandhi’s Letters to Hitler

2.1. Gandhi’s First Letter to Hitler

2.2. The Chances for Peace in 1939

2.3. Gandhi’s Second Letter to Hitler

2.4. Gandhi’s Sacred Duty to Address Hitler

2.5. Postscript

Hinduism, Environmentalism and the Nazi Bogey

3.1. A Preliminary Reply to Meera Nanda

3.2. Ecology, Religion and Nazi Secularism

3.3. Reincarnation, Race and Environmentalism

3.4. The Problem with Monotheism

3.5. Three Cheers for Modern Science

3.6. Anti-Paganism, the Oldest Hatred

3.7. Neo-Paganism and Nazism

3.8. Neo-Paganism vs. Neo-Nazism

3.9. Odinism vs. Nazism

3.10. Nazi Religious Policy

3.11. Nazi Secular Policy

3.12. Post-Christianity and Nazism

3.13. Friends, Foes, and the Aryan Invasion Debate

3.14. Occultism vs. Universalism

3.15. Religion and Hubris

3.16. Pro domo

3.17. Hate and How to Outgrow It

3.18. Appendix: Hindus and Neo-Paganism

3.19. Postscript: Report on a “Pagan International”

The Eternal Return of Nazi Nonsense

4.1. Critics and Believers

4.2. Paganism, Christianity, and Their Nazi-Secular Synthesis

4.3. Savitri Devi’s “Traditionalism”

4.4. Aryan Invasion from the Arctic

4.5. Caste

4.6. A Personal Testimony

4.7. Don’t Trust Savitri Devi

4.8. Pro domo

4.9. Postscript: More Old-New Writings

The Religion of the Nazis

5.1. An Underground Religion Comes to the Surface

5.2. The Way Out of Christianity

5.3. From Völkisch to New Age?

5.4. Secularist Modernism

5.5. Christianity, a Jewish Fabrication?

5.6. Religious Minorities and Nazism

5.7. Christianity and Nazism

5.8. The “New Right”

5.9. The “New Right”: How Right?

5.10. The New Right: How Important?

5.11. The New Right: What Religion?

5.12. Hitler and Krishna

5.13. Hitler an Incarnation of Vishnu?

5.14. Hitler and the Buddha

5.15. Appendix: Hitler’s Table Talk on Religion

5.16. On the Trimondi view of Krishna and the Buddha

5.17. Those Sinister “New Religions”

5.18. Christianity’s Unfulfilled Duty of Repair

5.19. Pagan Revivalism vs. Neo-Paganism

5.20. Heretics, Liberal to Nazi

Disowning Golwalkar’s We

6.1. Golwalkar’s Centenary

6.2. An Embarrassing Booklet

6.3. Disturbing Quotes 6.4. The Meaning of the “Race Pride” Quote

6.5. Withdrawing the Book

6.6. The Indian Approach to the Second World War

6.7. The Indian Approach to the Minorities

6.8. Conclusion

6.9. Postscript 1: Some RSS Feedback

6.10. Postscript 2: Mindless Praise vs. Mindful Debate

Islam and Immigration in Europe

7.1. Paki Come Home!

7.2. Bull-headed Historian Gets a Few Things Right

7.3. “Islamophobia” and the Right

7.4. “Islamophobia”, the Right, and Hindutva

7.5. Throwing Mud at Freedom Fighters

7.6. Trying His Hand at History

7.7. The Marxist Network

7.8. The Threat of “Islamo-fascism”

Return of the Swastika

8.1. New Age against Nazism

8.2. Magical Reasons for the Downfall

8.3. Hitler Hysteria versus Hindu Sanity

................................................................................................

The “Fascist” BJP: a Reality Check

1.1. “Hindu Fascism” and the BJP Government

1.2. “Hindutva Fascism” After the Fall

1.3. The Gujarat Textbook Affair

1.4. The Gujarat Textbook Affair, Bis

................................................................................................

Extremely well written account of facts about India, about Hindus, about prejudice in West against Hindus and India, about frauds perpetrated by West, leftist, and other, anti Hindus, including political factions, supposedly intellectuals and media, and - not surprisingly - including nazis of yore; about their twisting of facts to suit their agenda, and more.

................................................................................................

................................................

December 03, 2021 - December 03, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Mahatma Gandhi’s Letters to Hitler

2.1. Gandhi’s First Letter to Hitler

2.2. The Chances for Peace in 1939

2.3. Gandhi’s Second Letter to Hitler

2.4. Gandhi’s Sacred Duty to Address Hitler

2.5. Postscript

................................................................................................

Repeatedly, author makes a comparison between WWII and treatment of communist dictatorships by west; he describes latter as non-aggressive, containment, etc. It's incorrect.

Korea and Vietnam wars, to begin with, were neither non-interference nor quiet diplomacy, but very aggressive wars, especially the latter; the former, sandwiched as Korea is between Russia, China, and Pacific ocean, with Alaska so close, had to be conducted rather gingerly, at least on part of the dictatorships, but was aggressive enough on part of West, involving not just U.S., but even newly independent India's "peace-keeping force"; in short, a spectrum of world militaries.

These wars, conducted for containment of communism, were against aggressive spread of the ideology that would restrict individual rights and freedom, and as such were an earlier version of what allies did much later with Hitler - when, instead of stopping him at Rheinland, West had hoped for peace, until Hitler occupied Europe from Pyrenees to Balkans to Scandinavia to Baltics. West had learnt from WWII not to give so much time or benefit of doubt to a totalitarian aggressive country or ideology.

Yes, Tibet was ignored, and that's horrible on any account; Afghanistan wasn't, and was used instead to break up USSR with help of jihadists concentrated in neighbouring pak; this has exploded into another major horror for the whole world, not just for India but for Europe, U.S., Australia, Canada and more.

But a major factor that needs correction is taking off blinkers of a preference for abrahmic religions and prejudice against others; another is the easier and cheaper helping of aggressors while ignoring the gentle or advising them to die without cursing killers, as Gandhi did.

In short, Korea was equivalent of fighting Hitler for and in Rheinland, before he'd step elsewhere; ignoring Tibet was equivalent of the huge mistake by allies in browbeating Czechoslovakia into surrender, encouraging the aggressor to continue, which China did and has; and Afghanistan was equivalent of sponsoring a Nazi totalitarian dictatorship to wage war to contain communism, as was done while Stalin's choices were uncertain and allies didn't trust either of the two, except mistakes regarding jihadist terrorist groups were far more stupid, and were due to racism.

................................................................................................

................................................

December 03, 2021 - December 04, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Hinduism, Environmentalism and the Nazi Bogey

3.1. A Preliminary Reply to Meera Nanda

3.2. Ecology, Religion and Nazi Secularism

3.3. Reincarnation, Race and Environmentalism

3.4. The Problem with Monotheism

3.5. Three Cheers for Modern Science

3.6. Anti-Paganism, the Oldest Hatred

3.7. Neo-Paganism and Nazism

3.8. Neo-Paganism vs. Neo-Nazism

3.9. Odinism vs. Nazism

3.10. Nazi Religious Policy

3.11. Nazi Secular Policy

3.12. Post-Christianity and Nazism

3.13. Friends, Foes, and the Aryan Invasion Debate

3.14. Occultism vs. Universalism

3.15. Religion and Hubris

3.16. Pro domo

3.17. Hate and How to Outgrow It

3.18. Appendix: Hindus and Neo-Paganism

3.19. Postscript: Report on a “Pagan International”

................................................................................................

Koenraad Elst writes in response to a paper by Meera Nanda, who uses obfuscation and other trickery to convince her audience into confusing Hinduism with Nazism and more. Elst discusses various separate parts thus confused by her, and others she or other leftists of India have confused - Odinism and secularism, Christianity and Islam, antisemitism and Semitic, and more. Elst discusses a book by Christopher Hale about a journey into Tibet by a Nazi expedition.

"" ... There was simply no such transfer of esoteric knowledge. At the end of their trip, they were elated to have seen so many swastikas around them on Tibetan walls, and to have discovered a Nordic streak in the specimens of the Tibetan aristocracy whose skulls they had measured. Just some racist old hat, nothing profound, nothing even remotely esoteric.

"This, incidentally, does not keep some contemporary Christian preachers in Germany, where Buddhism is making big inroads, from claiming that the Buddha was one of the evil influences on Hitler. Nor does it keep pro-Chinese Communists from alleging that the Dalai Lama is a Nazi stooge. Imagined or inflated Nazi connections are the perfect stick with which to beat any chosen object of hate. The imagined Hindu-pagan-Nazi chain of amalgamation follows a well-established pattern.""

He's missing on some facts, in print at other sources. Hitler was advised in occult matters, reportedly, by some Tibetan lamas, and misused Swastik(a) despite being warned about severe dangers of the misuse; result was the devastation and defeat of Germany. That the book Elst refers to does not mention these details is not evidence that it did not occur or that Hitler was not into occult.

Elst goes into Meera Nanda confusing Hindus and nazis.

"Would Hindus now join the “dot-busters”, those White racist thugs in New Jersey who attack Hindus identifiable by the tilak (“dot”) between their eyebrows? Would neo-Nazis now join the Hindutva brigade in denouncing the political ambitions of the “white elephant” Sonia Maino-Gandhi, daughter of an Italian Fascist militant? Would Hindu nationalists jettison their alliance with Israel and embrace the Palestinian cause so warmly espoused by many neo-Nazis? Would they bring back British rule in accordance with Hitler’s public support of the British Empire as a model of beneficial White rule over inferior “mud people”? Would they turn into admirers of Islam, that martial and natalist religion praised by Himmler and adopted by some neo-Nazis as the White race’s best chance of survival? If those things start happening, then you know that the Hindutva-neo-Nazi link is real. If not, well, then not.

"Unlike neo-pagans, neo-Druids, neo-witches, neo-Odinists and such people, the neo-Nazis aren’t very interested in religion as such or in Hinduism specifically. It is race that makes them tick. That is, for example, why they don’t share the fear of Islam now widespread in Europe and cultivated by more moderate Right-wing parties with mass appeal. To the neo-Nazis, religion is but a fleeting and superficial epiphenomenon of race, and the lifestyle instilled by Islam may be more useful to the White race than the anti-natalist lifestyle of post-Christian hedonism. Now, in the racial equation, Hindus are brown-skinned, they make up part of the immigrant population in Europe and North America, and as such they are very much disliked by neo-Nazis. The cultural riches which Hindus may have to offer are insignificant compared to their racial foreignness and the threat of miscegenation which their presence in White society constitutes.

"There is only one possible thing that might endear Hindus to neo-Nazis: the theory that the “Aryan race” migrated from Europe into India and set up a racial apartheid system there, the caste system. This theory was a cornerstone of the racist worldview incorporated into the Nazi ideology. Unfortunately, it is this very theory which many Hindus, including the accursed Hindutva activists, have been polemicising against for the last decade or so. They insist that the caste system doesn’t have a racial basis, that Arya never meant a race, that it referred solely to Vedic culture, that Vedic culture is native to India, and that there was never an Aryan invasion. I don’t know if they are right, but that is certainly their position. Indeed, from Ms. Nanda’s earlier papers, I gathered the impression that she herself includes this Aryan non-invasion theory among the items of crank science put out by those hare-brained Hindutvavadis."

Elst seems to keep with the Aryan invasion theory, invented by British for the same reason that for example travellers on Central Railway in Chambal region don't believe in reserved seating on trains, and he also seems not to have realised quite that the word Aarya was misused and twisted by British, by Europe, by West in general and by nazis in particular - its a Sanskrit word, gas nothing to do with physical characteristics, especially colours, and has everything to do with a civilisation, the level of which was never understood in or by Europe, much less seen or lived.

"After the Aryan invasion debate became a big issue in the mid-1990s, the next development was an illustration of an old law of life: opinions are not accepted or rejected because of whether they are true or not, but because of the company with which they associate us, and the company from which they separate us. In the anti-Hindu common front led by the Marxists, very few people have the scholarly competence to judge the question of the Aryan invasion or non-invasion; but since the non-invasion theory is popular among the Hindu bad guys, all the secularists have united around the opposite theory. So, if the neo-Nazis want to make friends in India, they should address the Marxists and the Mullahs and the missionaries, for it is they who fiercely uphold the cherished theory of the Aryan invasion from Europe into India."

Elst responds to Meera Nanda.

"Ms. Nanda insinuates the pagan-Nazi connection repeatedly: “What worry me are three things. The long history of the Nazi and neo-Nazi involvement with occult and paganism. Most people don’t realize that Nazism was a revolt against universalistic and secular elements of Christianity which the Nazis ascribed to the influence of the Jews.”

"It is true that crackpot authors have made good money by propagating “the occult roots of Nazism”. The secret Nazi base in Antarctica, Nazi UFOs, the Nazi utilisation of the spear that wounded Christ, Hitler selecting his generals on the basis of their horoscopes, Hitler denying winter clothing to his soldiers because he believed that he could magically change the weather, Nazi attempts to tape the Earth’s energy at Stonehenge, the Nazi discovery of the Holy Grail (or the Ark of the Covenant, Shambhala, etc., etc.): all that and many other wonders fill the pages of their bestsellers. And it is equally true that various ideological groups, including the Christian missionaries, have deemed it in their own interest to pick up this line of propaganda, though in a trimmed and streamlined form to make it palatable to more serious audiences. Through this medium, the myth of Nazi occultism is now finding a place even in academic papers such as Ms. Nanda’s. But that doesn’t make it any more factual."

Elst responding to various parts of paper read by Meera Nanda at Lund, by patient and extensive analysis, in part says -

"Now that associating paganism with the Devil doesn’t scare people anymore, Hitler is employed as the new Devil, and Christian polemicists invest a lot in connecting him with paganism. In this case, Christianity is presented as universalistic (disregarding the deep cleavage between Christians, who believe themselves to be saved, and Hell-bound unbelievers, a profounder and more consequential division of mankind than anything taught by those accursed pagans), Hitler and paganism as anti-universalistic. Universalism, by which is meant in this context the unity of the human race and the assumption that equal norms and equal rights apply to all men, predates Christianity, such as in Stoic philosophy, and was revived in its non-Christian form by the Enlightenment. Contrary to appearances, it was also widely present in pagan religions, which were ethnic in fact but often universalistic in principle; in other words, they assumed the oneness of the human race, but their rituals and symbolism didn’t extend beyond a national or linguistic community for merely practical reasons. Typically, they recognised their own gods in other peoples’ pantheons, such as the interpretatio Romana of the Greek gods: Zeus = Jupiter, Athena = Minerva, and so on. To the extent that Christianity was universalistic, as distinct from the ethnocentrism of its parent religion, Judaism, it was due to the influence from the ambient cosmopolitan pagan-Hellenistic culture. Therefore, universalism didn’t need Christianity and was a broader presence than Christianity. If the Nazis revolted against the prevailing assumption of universalism at all, it was universalism in general that they revolted against, not only its Christian version.

"So let’s not get caught in this wily attempt to present Christianity and Nazism as opposite poles, universalistic vs. ethnic, which is one of the new lines of Christian apologetics, though propagated among Indian sophisticates under the guise of “secularism”. It is, for that matter, unclear what is meant by “secular elements of Christianity”, since the Christian religion is by definition a non-secular doctrine. Ms. Nanda says that Hitler ascribed this “secular element in Christianity” to the Jews, which is yet another “deep-thinking” attempt to present Nazism and Christianity as polar opposites: as if, when Hitler “superficially” railed against his Jewish arch-enemy, what he “really” targeted was Christianity with its secular elements. This has got things backwards: Hitler did not hate the Jews as a consequence of his second thoughts about Christian belief, but rather among the things he held against Christianity was its partial Jewish origin, because he saw the Jew as evil incarnate. The depth of Hitler’s Jew-hatred was of an altogether different magnitude than his quarrel with Christianity, which he had dismissed as a juvenile folly, but with which he was still on speaking terms."

" ... Apparently, she is tapping into a new line of Christian apologetics, parallel to the one outlined above, on the monotheistic “disenchantment of nature” which supposedly generated science. According to this new doctrine, Nazism was anti-egalitarian while Christianity, or its monotheism, was the source of modern egalitarianism (the same argument is used in India for Islam). This, again, is contradicted by the facts. Saint Paul emphatically affirmed the inequality of man and woman; this is of course not typically Christian, but it shows that modern notions of equality were lost on him. When he said that slaves and freemen and Jews and Greeks were all one in Christ, he didn’t deduce that this supernatural oneness should translate into a freeing of the slaves; on the contrary: the worldly differences lose their importance and can therefore be accepted all the more, so the slaves should draw consolation from this oneness in Christ while obeying their masters. The Church Fathers never questioned the institution of slavery, and Christians practised slavery for most of their history, as did their fellow monotheists in Judaism and Islam, along with most pagan societies. Slavery and racial inequality were justified with reference to the Bible and to Church teachings well into the nineteenth (the South of the USA) and even the twentieth century (South African Apartheid). At the dawn of the modern age, some Christians switched over to egalitarianism and abolitionism, but that was clearly under influences other than Christianity itself, which had been comfortable with feudalism, slavery and other inequalities as long as it reigned supreme."

................................................................................................

................................................

December 07, 2021 - December 16, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

The Eternal Return of Nazi Nonsense

4.1. Critics and Believers

4.2. Paganism, Christianity, and Their Nazi-Secular Synthesis

4.3. Savitri Devi’s “Traditionalism”

4.4. Aryan Invasion from the Arctic

4.5. Caste

4.6. A Personal Testimony

4.7. Don’t Trust Savitri Devi

4.8. Pro domo

4.9. Postscript: More Old-New Writings

................................................................................................

Elst is responding here to a publication by a European woman who published under the name Savitri Devi, presumably her married name since she also used a last name Mukherjee.

"Indeed, by Savitri Devi’s own account, naked German nationalism was always a bigger concern of the Ahnenerbe than all religious or esoteric flights of fancy combined. She relates how Heinrich Himmler, in his “only reference to the Ahnenerbe” in public, devoted his speech to praising his archaeologists’ discovery in East Prussia of plural layers of Germanic forts, “refuting the common opinion that East Prussia had once been Slavic” (p. 34). Of course, the Balto-Slavic character of the East Prussia region before the twelfth century is well-established and this archaeological finding cannot have altered that, except through an incorrect chronology (this was well before Carbon-14 dating) or a wilful misinterpretation in a German-narcissistic sense. In looking back on the confrontation between the German and the Balto-Slavic elements in and around East Prussia, Christian sympathies are with the German colonisers led by the Teutonic Knights, who, fresh from the Crusades in Palestine, imposed Christianity; whereas neo-pagan sympathies are with the natives who defended the last stronghold of European paganism and even managed to keep some pagan traditions alive under the Christian regime. Himmler’s sympathies clearly were not a matter of pagan versus Christian, but simply of German versus foreign. Yes, he sympathised with the Saxon resisters massacred in 782 AD by Charlemagne for refusing baptism, but they were Germans resisting the ambitions of a European ruler who belonged as much to Belgium and France as to Germany; by contrast, he didn’t care a fig for the Baltic pagans massacred by the thoroughbred Germans of the Teutonic Order."

As said before, Elst is either unaware about the real meaning of Aarya, or holds it unimportant compared to the twisted falsehood imposed thereupon by Europe, of a connotation purely physical that's nowhere inherent in the original word in Sanskrit or as it's understood in India for ever. He continues this bias towards western mistakes throughout, even though he could have corrected it easily enough, on most topics related to ancient Indian culture, or anything deep of importance.

Elst continues the theme he introduced in the previous chapter, namely, that Nazis and Hitler were secular.

" ... The Nazis didn’t replace the Christian religious salute Grüss Gott with a heathen counterpart like Grüss Wotan, but with the secular salute Heil Hitler. Turn it any way you want, but Hitler was a secularist."

This is true only if one does not take into account the fact that he wasn't merely a leader or a dictator, but was worshipped in all but name and formality, and if one defines worship as strictly within parameters of abrahmic definition of the word; of course, he wasn't literally put on a pedestal and offered incense.

Here's another instance of author's bias.

" ... swastika, which the Nazis hadn’t borrowed from India in the first place. The symbol is widespread among cultures on all inhabited continents (as she herself admits on p. 80), though the Nazis believed it was confined to Aryan cultures and those non-Aryan ones that had borrowed from them. It had been present in Europe for many centuries, not prominently but sufficient to make any borrowing from Asia superfluous. ... "

Fact is, Swastik(a) would have another name, at the very least, if it were equally common to any other culture; but it does not, which makes it logical to infer that whichever other culture did use it had borrowed it from India. That Hitler received it from Tibetan monks where another ancient culture flourishes in a subterranean level, although the at the level obvious Tibet is Buddhist, is known; Elst is either happy in his ignorance or chooses to ignore everything that would contradict western prejudices and demolish them.

In the following paragraph it isn't clear if this is a mistaken view only of the person he describes, or if Elst shares it.

"The second purported link between Hitler and Hinduism is the caste system. This is an endlessly recurring point in Savitri Devi’s autobiography and in the present two papers. In the Euro-racist view, which she upheld even when it went out of fashion after 1945, the caste system was a racist institution resulting from the Aryan invasion. Out of concern for their racial purity, the Aryan conquerors had imposed a prohibition on intermarriage with the natives, and this racist apartheid is what we know as the caste system."

But later on it's clearer - Elst does subscribe to not only Western falsehood of the fraudulently imposed Aryan invasion theory but every such precept, such as equating Hinduism with caste system and pretending West, or societies other than Hindu, have none; relating caste in india to race, to Aryan invasion and imagining there was an imposition of a caste system to avoid racial intermarriage, and false statements ascribing low castes to some of the most venerated sages of ancient India.

"Locating the origin of caste in a racial apartheid policy is entirely untenable, and not only because the naked eye and the most recent genetic research show that the Indian population is a highly mixed racial continuum. A strong observance of caste taboos exists among the most remote populations of India, such as the hill tribes, as well as in the mutual relations between the lowest “un-Aryan” castes. When you consider that even the modern state in India fails to impose its laws in all corners of society, how could the Aryan invaders in India’s northwest have imposed the passionate observance of caste taboos on communities they never even encountered in person? This was simply beyond their mettle. Castes often came about as pre-existing tribes getting integrated into the expanding Vedic civilisation with their group identities intact: tribal endogamy was preserved as caste endogamy. Regardless of their racial or geographical origins, castes were susceptible to considerable social mobility, not so much for the individual but for the community as a whole, such as by developing new economic sectors or by valiant participation in war. Vedic civilisation acknowledges among its greatest spokesmen members of “backward” (or what Savitri Devi would call “un-Aryan”) communities such as the Mahabharata’s author Vyasa, the Ramayana’s author Valmiki or the Tamil poet Tiruvalluvar. Its understanding of “Arya” is not as a racial nor even a linguistic term, but as a cultural term, a synonym for “Vedic”, neither more nor less."

Tribes were considered separate by British for the interest of Macaulay policy, of dividing India in order to crush it, just as various Indian spiritual streams were considered separate by them for exactly the same purpose; India did not consider Jain or Buddhist outsiders any more than a Vaishnava would a follower of Shankaraachaarya. Calling Vyaasa low caste is far more blasphemous than ascribing loose character to every unmarried mother of ancient judea would be considered by church of Rome, since caste is factually viewed very differently in India than by West with ignorance of West imposed in its view of India.

"When encountering a certain enthusiasm for Hitler among traditional pandits (including one pandit, Rajwade from Pune, quoted as predicting Hitler’s defeat, p. 58), she readily assumes that this is because they all see Hitler as an upholder of the caste order. But the only actual evidence to this effect is not a quotation from these scripture-hardened worthies, but a long presentation of a talk with her illiterate low-caste servant, the teenage boy Khudiram (pp. 74–78). In 1940, in the fishmarket of Calcutta, he had picked up the perfectly false rumour that Hitler was going to enshrine the pro-caste and pro-martial scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, as the supreme law of the Reich. ... "

This is getting horrible by the minute and by exponential leaps! Really western ignoramuses ought to leave India alone, or at least ask before they pronounce judgement. Ascribing a caste system vuew in context of Bhagawad Geeta is far worse than ascribing a normal epithet to every child conceived out of wedlock barring none, whether or not an exception is made along the lines imposed by church of Rome.

It can't get more disgustingly racist than this -

"Finally, let it be noted that she came to accept the independence of India as historically inevitable, but nonetheless expressed a nostalgic preference for the alternative: permanent British Raj; in other words, Aryan thoroughbred rule over the mixed-race Indians. She imagined how the Britons could have simply redefined themselves as Kshatriyas and stayed on as a quasi-Hindu ruling class. The historic precedent she musters for this ideal scenario is that of — who else? — the Greeks. After Alexander’s conquests, they ruled India’s North-West frontier zone: “They married among themselves. They married Greeks. But one of the last ones became Buddhist […] But they remained separate all the same. They were just Kshatriya kings or Kshatriya caste conquerors. If the British had followed their policy, they would still be here today.” (And Time Rolls On, p. 169)"

And here we see why West will never have a clue. Seeing always from a position of assumed - false - superiority, as they do, their heads are filled with physical characteristics, especially colours, unable to see that it's merely a result of millennia of living in dark, akin to uncooked meat, while a people who can and do tan in a week or bleach in two years of Nordic winters have a healthier skin. What West is incapable of ever comprehending is that which is right before their noses. Aarya is not, was never, about physical colours - quintessential Aarya being Raama, who was and always has been described as dark. For that matter, Mahaabhaarata was a war fought due to jealousy of lesser cousins because the poorer ones had the most beautiful wife, who is always described as dark.

"Therefore, on the vital issue of India’s freedom from British rule, Maximiani Portas was poles apart from the Hindu nationalists. She saw Indians as half-Aryans who had gotten lost in the wilderness and the inferior gene pool of the non-Aryan natives, in dire need of supervision by pure White Aryans who had repeated the good old Aryan invasion from Europe into India. The Hindus, by contrast, considered themselves Arya enough, rich in their most precious inheritance of Vedic civilisation, and happily free from any need of interference by barbarians whose lack of culture could not be made up for by mere skin colour, no matter how Moon-like. This bone of contention was fundamental, especially to the Aryan fantasist from France who settled in the Indian sunshine. She was not just foreign to Hindu nationalism, she was more emphatically attached to the opposite beliefs about Arya vs. “Aryan” identity than anyone."

................................................................................................

................................................

December 16, 2021 - December 18, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

The Religion of the Nazis

5.1. An Underground Religion Comes to the Surface

5.2. The Way Out of Christianity

5.3. From Völkisch to New Age?

5.4. Secularist Modernism

5.5. Christianity, a Jewish Fabrication?

5.6. Religious Minorities and Nazism

5.7. Christianity and Nazism

5.8. The “New Right”

5.9. The “New Right”: How Right?

5.10. The New Right: How Important?

5.11. The New Right: What Religion?

5.12. Hitler and Krishna

5.13. Hitler an Incarnation of Vishnu?

5.14. Hitler and the Buddha

5.15. Appendix: Hitler’s Table Talk on Religion

5.16. On the Trimondi view of Krishna and the Buddha

5.17. Those Sinister “New Religions”

5.18. Christianity’s Unfulfilled Duty of Repair

5.19. Pagan Revivalism vs. Neo-Paganism

5.20. Heretics, Liberal to Nazi

................................................................................................

Here Koenraad Elst discusses religious landscape of Germany, centred on the Nazi era.

" ... The authors concerned are perfectly aware that the allegation of Nazi connections is the single gravest allegation that can be uttered in today’s climate of opinion, and throwing that kind of allegation around lightly (as here by claiming in passing that “völkisch” and “New Age” are synonyms) is simply vicious. ... "

" ... Could this calumny be a Christian polemical attempt to discredit the most popular challenger to established religion among contemporary Westerners? Let’s rather put it down as an instance of careless copying from a false authority."

Elst persists in denial of occult reality at highest level of Nazi regime, and roots of the movement.

"Karla Poewe doesn’t offer any fodder to the consumers of the myth of Nazi occultism. We already knew that Nazi secularists like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann held anything occultist and obscurantist in contempt and ordered a number of successive crackdowns on it, and that Heinrich Himmler and Rudolf Hess were forced to practise their occultish hobbies discreetly. ... "

And he also persists in the falsehood of using the term Aryan in the sense nazis did, and West accepted; while in reality the very word is Sanskrit and belongs to India, and has nothing to do with the physical characteristics or colours that the low western intellect holds as sign of superiority.

" ... I would add that this corresponded to one of the crucial axes in the imagined Aryan/Semitic or European/Asian opposition: truth, along with wakefulness and freedom, is Aryan; while delusions and dreams, along with despotism and surrender, are Asian or Semitic."

The term Semitic applies to a race that includes Jewish and Arab races, and as such should be indicative of a Mediterranean racial heritage; Asian must include everything from Japan to Mediterranean, including Siberia. And opposing this with Aarya or Aryan is either a falsehood or amounts to holding India, in the sense of Indian subcontinent, the land enclosed between Himaalayan ranges and three oceans, including Sindhu valley and Brahmaputra valley, as a separate continent with her own culture, borrowed by West. Else it's a false portrayal.

Elst goes on record setting down known facts usually denied.

"And in some respects, Christianity is even quintessentially anti-Jewish. This observation is likely to hurt modern Christians like Prof. Poewe, so I don’t like putting it forth, but I’m afraid it is necessary. She inveighs against “an article of faith, ferociously held against all evidence to the contrary, that anti-Semitism has its source in Christianity” (p. 8). True, there have been occasional clashes between Jews and non-Jews in pagan Antiquity, such as in Alexandria, and some uncharitable remarks by Cicero and others, but these resulted from precise and contingent conflicts of interest, of the type documented by Amy Chua in her 2003 book World on Fire[4] for all kinds of ethnic groups coexisting within a country (as Poewe acknowledges: “In Indonesia, the Chinese are its Jews”, p. 15). They did not result from some anti-Semitic doctrine enshrined in their religion or philosophy. Indeed, there is no trace of anti-Semitism in the Iliad or the Edda.

"By contrast, confronting the spokesmen of Judaism was the main occupation of the Christian Messiah as per the central scripture of Christianity. While the Jewish Old Testament and the Islamic Qur’an have polytheism and idolatry as their main enemy, the New Testament never features Jesus arguing against those; instead, his confrontations are with the Pharisees, the progenitors of Rabbinical Judaism. It pictures the Jews as the main persecutors of Jesus and of the first Christians. It even has them commit the cosmic crime of demanding the death of God’s Only-Begotten Son. Later on, the Church gave the Jews a favourable treatment in comparison to the pagans (who didn’t survive to become the object of pogroms or of a Dreyfus affair), but it showed them their place as traitors to their Saviour. In 306, the Church synod in Elvira prohibited Jewish-Christian and pagan-Christian intermarriage, prefiguring the Nazi Nuremberg laws; in 337, the Church decreed death as the punishment for intermarriage. Some children alleged to have been ritually slaughtered by Jews were canonised as saints — what other religion has such central symbols of hostility towards the Jews? The German reformer Luther admittedly discarded the saints, but then he went on to write his own anti-Jewish tracts, which the Nazis eagerly reprinted."

Incorrect -

"However, we must concede Poewe’s claim in one important respect: in contrast with religious anti-Judaism, modern anti-Semitism, namely a hatred of Jews based on secular biological doctrines, is indeed not a product of Christianity. The stray pre-Christian cases of pagan-Jewish conflict were not based on some anti-Jewish ideology, nor can they explain or excuse the genesis of a distinctive Christian anti-Judaism. By contrast, post-Christian anti-Semitism was a full-fledged ideology in its own right."

Incorrect, because if a race across a continent has been conditioned as Europe was for seventeen centuries by church preaching hatred of Jews every Sunday, and with its teaching enforced via centuries of inquisition after having imprinted the flock with equating disagreements with church doctrine to hellfire, there's very little needed to promote antisemitism that was rooted in race rather than in faith - after all, the racial gap was clearly visible in Nordic latitudes, unlike Mediterranean cultures. Hatred had been planted and nurtured by church after council of Nicea when Christians united with Rome to avoid further prosecution by Rome, and instead blamed Jews for the execution that was done by Rome, not once but every day, of any Jews they thought dangerous to Roman subjection of Jews.

"The case of organized neo-pagan or otherwise unconventional religions, such as the Odinists and Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophists, was clear enough: even though some of their votaries certainly fell in with majority opinion and welcomed the Third Reich, their societies were officially disbanded in 1935. In subsequent years, their discreetly continued functioning was effectively stopped and many of their spokesmen were arrested, along with astrologers, runemasters and other occultists."

This wasn't because nazis, especially at the top, disapproved, as presumed or inferred by Elst; it's because, occult by very definition is about hidden matters, and it was dangerous for general public to know about sensitive matters, chiefly about negative prophecies that didn't please the top leader. So the roundup of astrologers and mediums began as soon as such prophecies appeared, even though they weren't publicised.

Crucial mistake here -

"Along the same lines, it would be far-fetched to exonerate the Catholic and Protestant Christians, the vast majority of the German people who voted Hitler into power. In the case of the pro-Nazi Deutsche Christen, Prof. Poewe wouldn’t deny this, but she wouldn’t accept them as real Christians. As for the anti-Nazi Protestants (the Bekennende Kirche), today their positions would still be denounced as half-hearted and on many counts even quite Right-wing, but they deserve some credit. The occasion for their protest against Nazi policies was eminently Christian: they could not agree to the Nazi demand that Jewish converts to Christianity be excluded from clerical functions in the Church. Since the Apostles themselves had been Jewish-born leaders of the early Church, it was impossible for a Christian to concede this demand."

The mistake being, assuming that nazis or Hitler were voted into power. They were definitely not voted to power, but were manipulated. Details are explicit in William Shirer's Rise And Fall of The Third Reich, apart from other official documents where he sourced his research chiefly.

" ... But in their day-to-day activities, even these principled Christians (like their fellow Protestants in occupied Holland or Norway) made all kinds of compromises with the regime, partly because of their Christian belief that all duly constituted authority comes from God and deserves our loyalty. ... "

Therein the chief difference between Europe and India.

" ... It is likewise known that the Nazis considered Pope Pius XII as an enemy, not at all as “Hitler’s Pope”. Using the Catholic network of monasteries and other institutions, he discreetly oversaw the saving of hundreds of thousands of Jewish and other fugitives from Nazi persecution during the Nazi occupation of much of Europe. In Western Europe, his bishops limited their cooperation with the occupation authorities and refused to recruit volunteers for the Eastern Front, even though the fight there was against “godless Communism” (but the boys who did go, nonetheless mostly did so from a Catholic conviction: “Either Rome or Moscow”). In Germany, Catholic and Protestant Church leaders jointly stood up to the Nazis to force them into halting the euthanasia programme for the mentally handicapped in 1939–40. In Spain, Francisco Franco’s Catholic dictatorship facilitated the escape of thousands of Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe."

???

"But then we also know that the Vatican greatly helped in Hitler’s rise to power by dissolving the Catholic Centre Party in exchange for a Concordat guaranteeing certain rights to the Church. And the Papacy never threatened Hitler or other top Nazi Church members such as Goebbels with excommunication, though this would have been a very powerful signal. Some Catholic theologians,[5] like some Lutheran colleagues,[6] did write in support of the Nazi regime. Anti-Jewish elements of Catholic folk culture, such as the Passion Play of Oberammergau, were eagerly enlisted into Nazi propaganda against the Jews. So, it is a mixed picture. ... "

Speaking of New Right, Elst vouches for their sincerity in one respect.

" ... Unlike in the colonial period, when Europeans, including the Nazis, took it for granted that they had a right to interfere in other peoples’ affairs and rule their countries as colonies, contemporary racists would by now be happy enough to be left alone in their own territory and leave other peoples to rule themselves. When they say they want the same rights for other races as for their own, including self-rule and self-preservation within their own borders, they usually mean it. ... "

But the bigger part is ignored here by both him and them. The colonial past is convenient to ignore or put behind for colonial masters. Not so for colonial victims, who suffered not merely loot, which was humongous, but far more, from massacres to destruction of cultures. Europe might not be the only guilty party here, for Persia and Egypt and India know what devastation was wrought by Arabs in name of Islam and Europe too knows, along with Asia including India, how destructive were Mongolian world conquests - recently copied in almist every way by nazis in Europe, from France to Scandinavia to Russia.

Germany had done it before, in recent times in WWI, and subsequently not only, fraudulently, pleaded unable to make reparations but blamed France for demanding them, but subsequently done far worse, and allies were divided successfully by the fraud.

And yet West refuses to see that a colonial past cannot be simply buried and forgotten - that the migration they are suffering an onslaught of is a natural response from the nations and lands they impoverished.

When someone in U.S. complains about genocide of "white" people (in reality, there are no white humans; animals and birds, yes, but humans are at worst pale due to millennia of ancestry in dark Nordic latitudes, so that nature had to make up for the deficiency by bleaching them before birth), they explain that integrated neighbourhoods must lead to intermarriages and consequently diminution of racial exclusive characteristics. But they fail to see that the havoc their ancestors as a collective wrought upon others, far more viciously destructive, isn't being directly avenged - it's only that the privileges they considered exclusively theirs are being now claimed by others a share of, and if they let the past victims have the better neighbourhood while they swap them for the not so glamourous ones, they can have the exclusivity.

" ... Time permitting, I accept invitations from that side, so that I spoke at their conference in Antwerp in 2000, if only as a stand-in for an announced speaker who had cancelled at the last minute for health reasons (Pim Fortuyn, no less, the Dutch liberal sociology professor who criticized Islam, subsequently went into politics, and ended up murdered by a Leftist). In the Nouvelle École issue of the same year, I had a little joust with Prof. Jean Haudry about the Aryan Invasion Theory, a thesis defended in the past by colonialists and Nazis, and now by European Rightists and Indian Leftists. As a privileged witness, I would consider it a reassuring fact that the Nouvelle Droite clearly doesn’t mind giving a hearing to people it disagrees with. That in itself is a commendable counterpoint to the prevalent leaden atmosphere of la pensée unique, or of the single, imposed opinion."

" ... When the Christian religion seized power in the Roman Empire, it took on an imperial form of organisation and started suppressing what of internal democracy had so far existed within its own communities. European kings who converted to Christianity (Clovis of Belgium and France, Olaf II of Norway, Vladimir the Great of Kiev in Russia) and imposed their new religion on the people, typically also strengthened their central authority at the expense of local autonomies and the rights of nobles and cities, or promoted their dynastic power over the older practice of elective kingship. Until well after 1945, the Catholic Church opposed democracy in principle and associated it with the godless French Revolution. At most, one might say that the Christian notion of the human person as a unique creature made in God’s image has indirectly contributed to the notion of the Rights of Man, a notion abhorred by the Church when deist and atheist revolutionaries proclaimed it."

"In the colonial period, missionaries fooled the natives of non-Christian countries into believing that Europe’s technological progress was the fruit of Christianity. In fact, the four inventions that changed Europe in the Renaissance and propelled it as a naval power were paper, printing, the compass and gunpowder — all four invented by the pagan Chinese. Every educated Christian knew that the birth of modern scholarship and science was due to the rediscovery of pre-Christian Greece and Rome. Heliocentrism was introduced against the opposition of the Church. Yet, when the Jesuits in China impressed the Chinese with the simplicity and accuracy of heliocentric calculations (in fact, they used Tycho Brahe’s hybrid system, with the Sun revolving around the Earth and the other planets around the Sun, thus keeping the Earth in the middle yet simplifying the kinetic relations between the Sun and the planets), they falsely presented these as a proof of the superiority of the Christian religion. And today, we find that even democracy is claimed as a contribution of Christianity."

In discussing a book by some Nazis with pseudonyms that compare Hitler with Buddha and Krishna, author quotes them mentioning "vengeful hindu demigods". If Hindus were anything like the abrahmic fanatics or even official institutions, this would instantly invite fatwahs for blasphemy, or even an inquisition. Instead, most Indians are ignorant of these and most other abuses heaped on them, pained only when it's beyond endurance, but on the whole aware that West is ignorant and incapable of knowledge.

"I might add that even the swastika is very weak as proof of a Nazi connection with Hinduism and Buddhism. To the Nazis, the swastika was not an exotic import product from India or Tibet but an age-old heritage of the Aryans, and of their own ancestors. Some wayward Aryans had taken it to the Orient, where Hindus and Buddhists came to embrace this exotic Occidental import product, but it was and remained first of all an Aryan symbol, at home in their European homeland. In Mein Kampf and in conversations, Hitler had clearly expressed his contempt for Hindus and Buddhists, so it is unlikely that he would have adopted the swastika as the national flag if he had considered it as a Hindu-Buddhist symbol."

Again, Elst favours the racist theories of West, unable to see what's right before him or anyone else - namely, the very words Aarya(n) and Swastik(a) are from Sanskrit language and it belongs to India; that if the symbol or the Aryans as a race were from elsewhere, the terms and names would be in a language not exclusively of India, and besides, Arya(n) aren't a race, that fraud was of Western invention. Hitler DID get Swastik(a) from Tibetan monks, did misuse it despite warnings by them to the contrary, and hence the terrible end of his kampf.

There is more, very disturbing, comparisons of the infamous European leader with Gods of India. Elst is merely reporting such atrocities by others, and registers his disapproval; but would his disapproval be quite so cool if it were, say, an Indian figure such as Vinoba Bhave or Jayaprakash Narayan or Anna Hazare, compared with the man on cross in every church?

At least theirs are not figures that offensive or that different.

" ... Terminological confusion around the word “Semitic” is a favourite weapon of hate-mongers trying to impute “anti-Semitism” to critics of Islam.

"That the Medieval Tibetan Buddhists considered Islam as their enemy is not due to some evil little idea of the Kâlachakra’s author, but of Islam’s own treatment of the Buddhists. As is well-known, the Buddhists monasteries and universities in the Gangetic plain were utterly destroyed by the Muslim invaders in the late twelfth century, putting the surviving monks and novices to flight, mostly to Tibet. The same scenario had already played itself out in the tenth century in Afghanistan and other parts of Central Asia, and that is when and why the Kâlachakra Tantrawas composed, complete with its tirade against Islam. The wholesale destruction of their presence in an entire country had perplexed the Buddhists, as they had never experienced such an outburst of fanaticism and seem to have thought that this was the end of the world, or something similar. This explains the apocalyptic tone of the Kâlachakra Tantra sufficiently."

" ... The Trimondis concede such corrective points here and there, but the overall thrust of their book is nonetheless to foster deep suspicions (some might call it “hate”) against Hinduism and Buddhism. This is also how most reviewers have understood it, or how they have lapped it up, as will be clear from the review excerpts on the Trimondi Website."

" ... I wouldn’t say that they deliberately mislead the reader, but the outcome will amount to the same. Thus, the Trimondis have Nazis and neo-Nazis praise Hitler as a Chakravartin, or universal ruler. The message conveyed to the non-specialist reader is that Buddhism contains a doctrine of rulership fit to underlie a Nazi-like regime (just as the Buddhist term Arya, “noble” as in “the four noble truths”, is left with the incorrect impression of it being the Nazi racial term “Aryan”, as indeed some Nazis misconstrued it). In reality, anyone describing Hitler as a Chakravartin simply shows he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word.

" In Hindu scriptures, the Chakravartin is described as a suzerain who receives tribute from subject rulers, but who respects the autonomy (swarâjya) and local customs (swadharma) of his subject nations. Is that what Hitler did? ... "

In saying that

" ... But even if Ashoka had been appropriate as a militaristic model for Hitler to emulate, it would still not follow that Hitler did what he did because he took inspiration from Ashoka. It is one thing to point out a few German scholars who knew about Ashoka and talked about him to their Nazi sponsors, but quite another to prove that these talks “led to” the atrocities for which the Nazi regime became notorious."

"Both are likewise mistaken in leaving the reader with the impression of an even more consequential causal connection, namely that between those religions themselves and National-Socialism. They could be read as having proven that an interest in Meister Eckhart, in Krishna or the Buddha leads to an acceptance of National-Socialism. Unfortunately, it is to that effect that their books are being or will be used: to spread suspicions against Europe’s minority religions, whether native or Asian."

Elst brings out the real motive behind the Trimondi accusations, namely, hiding the fact that Hitler admired Islam and its prophet Mohammad, precisely for the wars waged to finish off all others and enslave them - which Hitler did emulate, or attempted to, from the moment he rose to power.

For that matter, the Nazi cult too emulated that example, by meting death to those who disagreed with worship of their leader - and this worship wasnt a formality of speech but of lifelong servitude and offering of all else, too.

" ... He mocked the religious belief in any kind of divine intervention or help: “Why should men fight to make their point of view triumph, if prayer should be enough? In the Spanish struggle, the clergy should have said: ‘We defend ourselves by the power of prayer.’ But they deemed it safer to finance a lot of heathens, so that Holy Church could save her skin.” (English edition, p. 278; in the Spanish Civil War, the Church was under attack from the Leftists and was saved by General Franco, who commanded “pagan” Muslim troops from Morocco.) ... "

"(5.16–20 reproduce the complete text of an e-mail interview given to Christine Wong of the Sociology of Science Website,[11] which specialised in the interface of religion and politics. It came about as the conclusion of our correspondence about Karla Poewe’s book and was completed on 16 August 2006. Most of it was indeed published in spite of my rather liberal use of space.)"

"At any rate, in his last writings and talks, he increasingly referred to Jerusalem as a crucial battle-ground, a theme unknown to Buddhism but central to Biblical prophecies. Note also that his followers have renamed the sect as Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, a Kabbalistic symbol unconnected to Buddhism. So, Shoko Asahara’s preparations for violent struggle did coincide with a shift in emphasis from proper Buddhism to themes borrowed from Western esoteric literature, especially the pulp variety. Therefore, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Buddhism, even in its dark Tibetan form, underlies the sarin gas attacks in the same way that Islam underlies jihadist terrorism."

"Q. To briefly sum up, Poewe writes: “While the constitutions of Western liberal democracies preserve the freedom of new religions, I am not sure whether new religions, including New Age and neo-Paganism, preserve western liberal democracies. In Weimar they did not.”

" In the same years, Catholicism did not preserve democracy in countries it dominated, like Salazar’s Portugal, Franco’s Spain or the Nazi-allied states of Slovakia, Hungary or Croatia, nor even, for that matter, in anti-German but equally Catholic Poland."

Repeatedly, Elst tries to separate nazi racism from his own religion.

" ... The crackdowns on cults in 1935, 1937 and 1941, successively more thorough, were still very mild compared to the Bolshevik repression of religion, and they were dictated precisely by a concern that these cults were detrimental to national unity and security. Note that there was no such crackdown on Catholicism or Protestantism."

That was due to power equations. Hitler was aware that anti-church policies could go only so far, and that replacing church with nationalism, with himself as figure of worship, was inculcated in young with strenuous and compulsory training in youth camps, apart from schools. It succeeded until he lost the war.

"However, I agree with her basic view that leading Nazi ideologues were anti-Christian much like the Bolsheviks were, even if using other means. And she is entirely right in rejecting the view that Nazism was some kind of Christian Crusade. There I have to part company also with my Hindu friends who eagerly borrow Daniel Goldhagen’s argument in favour of Christian responsibility for the Holocaust."

Church responsibility for holocaust goes back to Roman enslaving of Jews and occupation of their land, continues through the executions including all crucifixions, and was continued by church after council of Nicea, when church joined Rome and turned on Jews, thereafter falsifying history, including that of Jesus. Seventeen centuries of venomous diatribe against Jews from the church pulpits cannot be shrugged off by wishful thinking any more þhan by claiming there were no signed documents ordering nazis to perpetrate genocide.

" ... Christians and particularly the Catholic Church were on hostile terms with the Nazi regime, though not with other authoritarian regimes that were allied with it at some point: Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Spain. In the case of Pope Pius XII, allegedly “Hitler’s Pope”, there is ample evidence from both sides for this mutual hostility. Nazi leaders and militants, as distinct from camp-followers and ordinary voters, certainly intended to replace the allegedly sentimental and internationalistic Christian religion with a more heroic and nationalistic doctrine.

"Secondly, the strong and essential anti-Judaic tradition within Christianity, which Poewe tries to deny, was of course real and in fact quite central to Christian teachings, yet in principle it was never “eliminationist”. Christian doctrine expected the Jews to shed their Judaism and embrace Christianity, like the Jewish-born Apostles had done. Of course, once the image of the Jews as an enemy had caught on among Christians, incidents of violence were inevitable, but there was never a Christian programme to eliminate the Jews physically, neither in Germany nor elsewhere.

"However, from the conflict between the Church and the Nazi regime, it doesn’t follow that they were poles apart. Christians in general and the Catholic Church in particular had by no means been won over to “liberal democracy”, which was then still mostly denounced as a Masonic-humanist aberration. The Church was still explicitly in favour of authoritarianism, and with its Papal infallibility, it had its own version of the Leadership principle. Christians then were still, in a very large majority, openly anti-Jewish, in conformity with the anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament, though on different grounds than the Nazis. It was perfectly possible to be both anti-Jewish and anti-Nazi."

It's rather a sanctimonious fraud, and a transparent one at that, when Elst says -

" ... while the Catholic Church as a foreign centre of authority was unacceptable to the Nazis, Protestantism was acceptable for many, and basic Christian values remained a living force for most, even for declared ex-Christians."

If he's talking about times before Nuremberg laws came into effect, there's some ground there; but most Germans were more than content to live in a nation where other humans were barred from work, public transport, buying food and even soap, sitting on a park bench in public park, and most other needs of human civilisation. After kristallnacht, there really was no excuse for anyone to claim Christian virtues unless the said virtues are identical with those preached and practiced by Nazi doctrines, which weren't exactly friendly to women either, expected as they were to satisfy any Nazi male who demanded any favours.

" ... Given that German and Christian history had been intertwined for so long, it could hardly have been otherwise. It was Luther who set the standard for the German language. He stood up against the interference of the internationalistic Papacy and spoke out against the Jews. Without the Order of the Teutonic Knights and their Christian Crusade against the Baltic pagans, there would have been no Prussia. No wonder that Himmler took them as a model for his own new Order, the SS. Moreover, people don’t lose their religious conditioning that easily. ... "

So Elst approves of genocide of a whole region in the name of his religion, which the Teutonic knights dud not because they cared about religion - they could have turned missionary preachers and practiced the so called Christian virtues of loving their neighbours, but no, they of course massacred the people wholesale in name of religion because it was more convenient than going to fight muslims in holy land, so far away and so uncertain if they'd be allowed therefrom to return home alive! Of course Hitler copied that, but it wasn't virtue, it was yet another genocide perpetrated deliberately by Germany, killing others so as to appropriate their lands for free. Prussia wasn't creation of Teutonic knights, it was butchered and occupied by them, and the language that was Prussian, not German, died with the last of the people killed in name of crusade.

" ... neo-paganism means the revival of ancient pagan religions, or what might be called more precisely “pagan revivalism”, then Nazism was definitely not neo-pagan. The Nazi ideologues were too proud to kneel before any God, whether Christ or Wotan. They were contemptuous of obscurantist religious practices, which could only sap the people’s energies needed for nationalist purposes. And they clearly didn’t care to live up to some central ethical principles extolled by ancient pagans, such as the Golden Rule, the imperative of “nothing in excess” or the warning against hubris."

No, they weren't bending to ancient Gods, they were creating themselves Gods, most of all their leader. And this wasn't the pretend humanity church preaches but never practiced, this was claiming status and worship accorded to Gods without any hypocritical pretence at humility such as practiced by church clergy.

"In principle, it is only right to revive a religion that was murdered by Christian suppression. In Christian mythology, the old religions disappeared because their adherents saw the error of their ways once they came in contact with the self-evident light of Christianity, but the true story involves plenty of coercion, material and political incentives, social pressure, and deceit. There is nothing much wrong with the religion of Heraclitus, Socrates or Marcus Aurelius, and no compelling reason why modern people shouldn’t revive it.

"But in practice, there are serious problems with this. First of all, only fragments of those religions can be revived, because in many cases, such as in Druidry, a lot of their contents, and especially the most precious and profound elements, have simply been lost without leaving any decipherable trace. ... "

This didn't just "happen"! It was achieved, deliberately and methodically, by church, wiping out traces of every indigenous culture and their knowledge, wisdom and more. Islam did it more thoroughly, by denying when possible, and even when such a claim is completely ridiculous, that that there was anything of culture before Islam invaded, anywhere at all. Church does it by another route, claiming every other religion is or was a practicing cannibalistic, human sacrificing, religion of killing, while claiming righteousness about her own inquisition genocides.

" ... And nowadays also a lot of “political correctness”: every new or purportedly revived religion on the market advertises itself at least as basically feminist, ecologist and tolerant, values they deny to Christianity."

Well for heaven's sake, how can any abrahmic religion claim feminism, especially the two later ones, deny as they do all but one male God and one or more male prophets, keeping women limited to strictly procreation and/or recreation, with no Goddess, much less Goddesses? They even burnt Jean D'Arc at stake, instead of considering if she were another of children of their own God! It's no one else but church itself that denied those values in Toto, not just to its creed!

"However, I would reject one objection that Christian preachers invariably raise against reviving pre-Christian religions: the supposed ethical evil inherent in them. Thus, they like to point out that the pagan Amerindians and many others practised human sacrifice. True, they did. So did my own Celtic and Germanic ancestors; there’s no point in denying it. But this is by no means intrinsic to non-Christian religion as such. It is a historical fact that a number of pagan societies have abolished human sacrifice without becoming any less pagan, such as the Zhou Chinese and the Republican Romans. The Hindus went even farther and abolished animal sacrifice, using vegetable substitutes instead (just as Catholics use the substitute of bread and wine for Jesus’ flesh and blood). The third Dalai Lama, whatever his faults as detailed by the Trimondis, is credited with abolishing not only animal sacrifice but also Sati (a widow’s joining her husband in burial or cremation) in Mongolia, though the Mongolians remained entirely non-Christian after that.

"Today, the new Leftist-nativist governments in Latin America are promoting expressions of pre-Christian religion, but I haven’t heard of any revival of human sacrifice yet. Likewise in Stonehenge and such neo-pagan places of congregation, I still haven’t heard of any sacrificed virgins. Pagan religions were based on what people actually experienced. Subjectively of course, in terms of what they thought they had experienced, but at least not without connection with the realities of their lives. Well, no modern neo-pagan seems to have the experience that any worthy aim will be realised by human sacrifice. No Amerindian today seems to believe that human sacrifice is necessary for making the Sun rise again tomorrow, as the Aztecs believed. The fairly reassuring reality of life without human sacrifice has broken the spell of that ancient belief, so a revived paganism can and will do without it."

If they ever did, that is, at all! Europe perhaps did, but why necessarily insist every other culture did? Except, of course, to horrify everyone into church by fear and revulsion about alternatives out there!

"Now, the whole argument of “Nazi paganism” pursued by militant Christians is aimed precisely at establishing the intrinsic evil of non-Christian religion and the necessity of embracing Christianity if we are to avoid a repetition of the Nazi crimes. ... "

Was it different before? Look at English language, and phrases such as "mighty Christian of you", "not cricket", or use of the word "white" in the context, as in "mighty white of you", signifying both race and proper code of conduct, simultaneously. All "other"s were, of course, understood as improper, dishonest, small, and unclean. (This, despite the obvious cleaner Indians who bathe every day, unlike Brits with weekly routine or Germans proud to advertise they don't see the need to shower or change more than one a month.)

Elst quotes Hindus and Jains practicing abortion despite prohibition by religion. He can than missionaries, British rule and Macaulay policy, for reducing respect for indigenous religions in India by continuous and false abuse that was heaped on them.

"Now that the Nazi Holocaust has become the standard of evil, many sects and movements play the game of tarnishing their opponents with the “Nazi” (or in the less accurate terminology imposed by Stalin, “fascist”) brush. Thus, George W. Bush calls the Hezbollah “Islamic fascists”. Christian fundamentalists campaigning against homosexuality accuse the Nazi leadership of having been homosexuals (“the pink swastika”), from which they want you to deduce that all homosexuals somehow carry the Nazi germ. Indian Communists denounce the Hindu nationalists as “Hindu fascists”, while in the Hindu nationalist paper Organiser, you find headlines like: “The Communists are fascists”. So it was inevitable that Christians would try to put all their rivals in the Nazi corner too: Krishna, the Buddhists, the New Age movement, the neo-pagans. And when the tables are turned on them and the real Nazi connections of Christians are pointed out, they hurry to disown these as “heretics”."

................................................................................................

................................................

December 18, 2021 - December 22, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Disowning Golwalkar’s We

6.1. Golwalkar’s Centenary

6.2. An Embarrassing Booklet

6.3. Disturbing Quotes 6.4. The Meaning of the “Race Pride” Quote

6.5. Withdrawing the Book

6.6. The Indian Approach to the Second World War

6.7. The Indian Approach to the Minorities

6.8. Conclusion

6.9. Postscript 1: Some RSS Feedback

6.10. Postscript 2: Mindless Praise vs. Mindful Debate

................................................................................................

" ... It could be argued, though, that this shunning of Golwalkar is unfair to him. As we shall see, he is denounced as a fascist on the basis of two passages in a single booklet written at the start of his career. By such criteria, most famous people who are quoted as authorities on moral and political matters could be crucified on a handful of less felicitous lines in their complete works. ... "

Surprisingly, nazis didn't claim inspiration from Shakespeare. They could very well have done so, and got away with life!

"But Golwalkar’s individual immaturity was representative of the immaturity so typical of the colonial condition. Original thinkers were few and far between in 1930s India, which looked up to the West and copied its models, often in a half-digested version. Jawaharlal Nehru was a parrot of Cambridge socialism, while Subhash Chandra Bose dreamed of a synthesis of Communism and fascism. Even the independent-minded Hindu nationalist Sri Aurobindo Ghose was more indebted to Western ideas than he would admit, such as in his evolutionistic reformulation of yogic ideals. ... "

Elst has hubris enough only comparable to Mao who insulted not only a little boy worshipped by a country without military and weapons, but Buddhism and Buddha, in his hubris.

Evolution had nothing to teach India, incidentally, India having had the concept crystallised in her very ancient tradition of Divine Incarnations.

Is Elst wrong on all counts? Likely on Subhash Chandra Bose, as well, even if he's closer to truth on Jawaharlal Nehru. Bose might have gone asking help from Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan, for practical purposes of fighting for freedom of India; he never conceded ideologically, and was not only able to prevail against Japan about leading military into India, but was the only man to tell off Hitler to his face about disapproval of racism of his regime, in the one meeting he had with him.

"For decades and until recently, the single most-quoted Hindutva statement was the following one from Golwalkar’s We: “The non-Hindu peoples in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language (…) they must not only give up their attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land and its age-long traditions but must also cultivate the positive attitude of love and devotion instead – in one word, must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen’s rights.” (1939: pp. 47–48, 1947: pp. 55–56)

"The Marxists, who usually do the quoting, pretend (and given their permanent state of hysteria when dealing with Hindu nationalism, possibly also believe) that this is a warrant for genocide, a “holocaust of the minorities”. Yet the text is quite explicit: far from wanting to kill or expel Muslims and Christians, Golwalkar even agrees to let them “stay in the country” and live safely in his Hindu Rashtra, only without citizen’s rights. ... "

And yet, how many atheists or non Christians denounce U.S. for the printed declaration on the currency? How many muslims refuse to consider a U.S. visa or visit, or even condemn their own muslim leader's photograph because images are firbidden by their religion? How many freedom-of-speech lovers denounce U.S. for questioning if an applicant is or has been leftist, and declare they wouldn't accept money in dollars?

Answers would be positive only within circles with little or no possibility in the first place of alternatives.

Point is, nations and communities are understood to have a right to decide for themselves, and expecting Hindus to be without such a right is the fascist stance.

" ... I don’t find that acceptable, and I assume the RSS has now sent the message that it rejects this option too, but it is at any rate totally different from genocide or ethnic cleansing."

As a born and brought up Catholic, shouldn't he be sitting on a hunger strike at gates of a Chinese embassy, demanding an apology at the very least, for government enforced policy of routine abortions of all children after the first? Or demanding Belgium close border with Netherlands and fence it with electric fences, as a sign of disapproval against what Dutch did to Indonesia?

"Instead, what he proposed for the non-Hindus is exactly the condition of “dhimmitude” that Islamic states in peacetime have always imposed on the non-Muslims. Even today, Saudi Arabia goes considerably farther in practising discrimination against the minorities than Golwalkar did in preaching it, since, for example, it doesn’t allow any form of non-Muslim worship on its territory, whereas Guruji did not propose to forbid Christian and Islamic cultic practice. Dhimmitude, an imposed third-class status for minorities, is bad enough, but those who denounce it in Golwalkar’s model would have more credibility if they also denounced it in the Islamic states, where it is not somebody’s private little idea on the yellowed pages of a juvenile exercise in political thought, but actual practice."

Indeed, a Hindu in that country risks arrest or execution or everything in between, just for being nonmuslim!

"Conspicuous by its absence in Golwalkar’s allegedly pro-Nazi statement is the term Nazi or the name Adolf Hitler. Before the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, it was perfectly acceptable in India, both among Hindus and Muslims, to praise Hitler and National-Socialism. Let us not forget that in the preceding years even the British leaders Lloyd George and Winston Churchill had spoken favourably of Hitler and his magic formula for reviving Germany after the humiliation of Versailles, something which Golwalkar refrained from doing, if only narrowly, and that even the later Leftist icons Salvador Allende and Fidel Castro were youthful admirers of the Führer and of his Italian colleague Benito Mussolini. As late as Christmas Eve in1940, Mahatma Gandhi wrote a letter to Hitler assuring the latter that he (Hitler) certainly wasn’t as bad as his enemies painted him.

"But Golwalkar did not want to draw attention to the existing regime in Germany as some kind of model to be emulated. On the contrary, elsewhere in the same book, he contrasts the militaristic barbarity displayed by the contemporaneous Germans with the Hindu “spiritual giants” who “stalk the world in serene majesty” and serve as the homegrown role models for modern India (1939: p. 32, 1947: pp. 39–40). He concludes the booklet with the un-Nazi vision of “one glorious splendrous Hindu Nation benignly shedding peace and plenty over the world” (1939: p. 67, 1947: p. 76). He also supports the Czech position against Germany on the disputed Sudetenland and deplores the Czechs’ failure to assimilate the Sudeten Germans (1939:38, p. 49; 1947: pp. 46, 57), clearly favouring the typical homogenisation policy of nation-states pioneered by the French revolutionaries in non-French areas of France. He holds the Czechs’ failure to assimilate their minorities up as a warning to the Hindus. What he focuses on is the incompatibility of two nations forced to co-exist within one state, any two nations, and that is the “lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by”."

"But surely this meant that Golwalkar supported the German hatred for “the Semitic races, the Jews”? Not at all. In his survey of nations whose experience and nationalism are to “serve as a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to profit by”, the very first one is the Jewish nation (1939: pp. 19, 30; 1947: pp. 25, 37). This was and is standard fare in Hindutva writings, starting with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s trail-blazing book Hindutva (1923), which speaks out in favour of the Zionist project. Hindu nationalists have always looked up to the mettle of the Jews, who managed to maintain their identity for two thousand years under adverse circumstances, and who even managed to revive Hebrew as their mother tongue and national first language, whereas Hindus aren’t even able to promote Sanskrit to the status of a national link language or pan-Indian second language. Hindu nationalist parties have always advocated the diplomatic recognition of Israel when Congress (until 1992) and the Communist parties opposed it."

"This, incidentally, explains the sudden popularity of this Golwalkar quote in anti-Hindutva writings. The main exploiters of this quote, the Indian Marxists, have seen their intellectual power centre expand from India to North America. In the US media and academe, they have cornered the same power position that they have enjoyed in India for decades, and they largely control the information flow from India to the American public, including the professional India-watchers in academe and the government. From there, they exercise a lot of influence on public political discourse back in India. However, to secure their position in the US, they have to deal with the powerful Jewish influence there.

"The Jews are not stupid and they know that in the Indian ideological spectrum, it has always been the Hindu nationalists who supported the Zionist project while the Leftists opposed it, just as it was always Hindus who let Jews live in peace in their own country, while Hinduism’s Christian, Muslim and Communist enemies have a rather darker track record in this regard. Indeed, some US Zionist groups co-operate with Hindu nationalists, teaching them the ways of modern communication and lobbying. As a result, in order to gain the upper hand over the Hindus in winning over Jewish opinion, the Marxists have to divert attention from today’s Middle East politics to other issues in order to paint their opponents as somehow even more anti-Jewish than themselves, or at least tainted by association with an even more anti-Jewish movement, namely National-Socialism. Hence their hyperfocus on this seemingly pro-Nazi quote of Golwalkar’s."

Elst can be smart, except when he's dealing with those above.

"Very often, the Marxists even add their own explication to this quote: “Here, Golwalkar is applauding the genocide of six million Jews.” That, of course, is a lie. Those who put forth this claim are either ignorant of history or shamelessly exploit their readers’ ignorance. The “purge” to which Golwalkar referred was the progressive exclusion of the Jews from public life and the policy of promoting their emigration. The Holocaust only took place in 1941–44 under specific and largely unforeseen war circumstances. In 1938 and until 1940, Nazi policy was still one of Jewish emigration. That’s not very nice either, but given their history, the Jews know better than most people that migration is a preferable alternative to persecution and death. In 1938, Hitler’s mortal victims were still counted in hundreds, Stalin’s in millions (which didn’t prevent Jawaharlal Nehru from visiting the Soviet Union, guzzling down all the propaganda fed to him on a guided tour, and praising it for the rest of his days). In that light, if anything is shocking in Golwalkar’s book, it is his innocent and highly uninformed inclusion of the Soviet Union in his list of examples of nation-building. "

Elst again, repeatedly, either through genuine ignorance or a deliberate benefit accorded those known to be in wrong, whether from principles of jurisprudence or due to affinity as in case of church, goes on claiming innocence of a planned extermination on behalf of Nazis, just as he denies role of church in promoting hatred of Jews for well over two millennia AFTER Rome had executed - amongst hundreds of other Jews - their king.

But - could he, could anyone, swear to the truth thereof? After Nuremberg laws and kristallnacht, was there ever any doubt?

Why didn't Jews leave? Because - apart from who wants to leave home? - they had nowhere to go.

And Hindus suffered the same at hands of Muslims in regions where the latter had majority, as Elst knows well, before and after partition of India, even apart from the estimated hundred million at a conservative estimate over the centuries of islamic invasions into India.

"Conspicuous by its absence is, most of all, the entire Nazi policy vis-à-vis the Jews as a possible model for the Hindu treatment of the Muslims. Not just extermination but even expulsion doesn’t figure in Golwalkar’s plans. On the contrary, whereas wanted Hitler first of all to dissimilate the largely assimilated Jewish minority, Golwalkar favoured the assimilation of the Indian Muslims into the “Hindu nation” from which their ancestors had been estranged by conversion."

"According to the Times of India’s Akshaya Mukul (9 March 2006), “We is considered the basic charter of Sangh”. Whether this is yet another Marxist lie or just an instance of the stark ignorance of the present generations of journalists, I don’t know, but the claim is at any rate untrue. For it to have become the founding text of the Sangh, We appeared in print 14 years too late, as the RSS was founded in 1925. (Likewise, contrary to recent propaganda, B. S. Moonje’s study tour of European military organisations and his favourable impression of the Italian paramilitary youth squads came too late to shape the RSS organisation, which had fixed the rules for its uniforms, training schemes, and so on in the preceding years.) And more importantly for us today, the book hasn’t played any such role since at least 1948, when the remaining stock of its fourth print was confiscated during the crackdown on all Hindutva forces after the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. The book was never reprinted after that, so that over 99% of all Sangh activists now alive have never even seen a copy.

"As a result, in practice, the RSS had already disowned the book more than fifty years ago. Doing so now is thus not “a major ideological shift”, as the Times of India claims. The only shift is from an implicit disowning to an explicit disowning, which is a historic event only because it breaks the long-standing RSS taboo on criticising the leadership. But the ideological decision of rejecting We had been made long ago. Indeed, it was Golwalkar himself who vetoed any further reprints of We. The late K. R. Malkani and other RSS elders told me that Guruji had mused about the book’s “immaturity”."

"However, none of those veterans ever told me that Golwalkar had “revealed that the book carried not his own views but was an abridged version of [Hindutva author V. D. Savarkar’s brother] G. D. Savarkar’s Rashtra Mimansa”, as is now reportedly claimed by pro-RSS Delhi University lecturer Rakesh Sinha, author of Shri Guruji and Indian Muslims (Suruchi Prakashan, Delhi 2006).[1] It may be true that Golwalkar said this, but what exactly would it mean? Some general ideas of Hindu nationalism were in the air, especially among Maharashtrian Brahmins like the Savarkar and Golwalkar families, and you find these in both books. Even so, whatever Golwalkar took from G. D. Savarkar and used in his own booklet, “this maiden attempt of mine” (1939: p. 3), he had made his own. He merely thanked Savarkar, whose book “has been one of my chief sources of inspiration and help”, and referred the reader to that book for “a more exhaustive study of the subject” (1939: p. 4). Clearly the contents of the two books were not identical. It is not as if Golwalkar wasn’t responsible for those ideas which he happened to share with or even borrow from Savarkar."

Was this the book that was responsible for the rift between RSS on one hand and Savarkar and those that held him in reverence on the other? Written by brother of Savarkar, it had been entrusted to Golwalkar for publication, but was published in Golwalkar's name under another title, instead; there were bitter words exchanged, when this was discovered, and amongst other people, Nathuram Godse and his close comrades had severed their ties with RSS due to this.

"It is painful to note the typical RSS clumsiness in this futile exercise in keeping Golwalkar out of the firing line. While trying to relieve him from responsibility for his own booklet, they don’t hesitate to accuse him of plagiarism. After all, in the book itself, neither he nor M. S. Aney in his Foreword ever acknowledged that “the book carried not his own views”. ... "

No one could claim they weren't his views unless he said so, but it was known that the book was almost identical with the manuscript given by Savarkar to him, of the writings by his own brother. It was plagiarism, however much Golwalkar agreed with the content. And if he'd disagreed, he need not jphave published it at all, much less under his own name.

"The attempt to distance Golwalkar from the contents of We by attributing the latter to another Hindutva writer are revelatory for the RSS state of mind regarding this embarrassing heritage. They want to salvage Guruji as an icon without attaching any implications to his writings. ... "

Sometimes Elst writes like an ass, due to sheer smugness. Theft is a far worse admission about someone you respect, especially intellectual theft, than unpopular views. RSS is being merely extremely honest, if they publicly admit Golwalkar stole work of G. D. Savarkar. They do not claim he disagreed, which would be asinine under the circumstances.

"The RSS originated in the context of the communal tension resulting from Mahatma Gandhi’s tragicomical involvement in the pan-Islamist Khilafat movement of 1920–22, culminating in the anti-Hindu pogrom known as the Moplah Rebellion. Its uniform was originally that of the Indian National Congress volunteers acting as security guards at Congress conferences. Its secretive style of functioning, with avoidance of written communication and emphasis on personal meetings, was taken from the armed freedom fighters of Bengal, a movement in which founder Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar had briefly participated. Those aspects of RSS life were purely pragmatic and provisional, but Golwalkar institutionalised them more firmly. ... "

On the other hand there are examples galore of institutions, political parties and religions that use lies and hypocrisy routinely, from the two later abrahmic religions to congress party in India to leftists in India and elsewhere.

"India is one place where a level-headed discussion of the history of the 1930s and 1940s is still possible. In the West, the typical textbook and media treatment of the history of the Second World War has gradually degenerated into unhistorical morality tales pitting pure black against pure white. Hitler has been placed outside human history and turned into a demon incarnating unalloyed evil, even though racialist thought and the rejection of democracy were widespread tendencies in those days. Anyone remotely associated with his camp is likewise blackened in every aspect of his life’s activities, even those long before or after the Nazi period; while Stalin is still whitewashed by virtue merely of having been an enemy (at least after 22 June 1941) of that demon. In India, by contrast, it remains to distinguish between the numerous different angles from which people got involved in this worldwide conflict, and to reserve a separate evaluation for colonial underlings trying to define their own position and pursue their own goals in the middle of forces they couldn’t control nor even understand."

It's tiring to keep seeing how oblivious Elst keeps being despite having acquired a level of knowledge of India, and that's chiefly die to a hubris of West, imagining West is important to everyone.

Not India, despite all the invasions and the colonial rules, and seeming eagerness to visit or migrate.

So the debates that are vitally important to India, and still not happening, aren't about Europe. They're about Gandhi and his appeasement of Muslims, his silence when Hindus were butchered by millions and his fasts demanding refugees from Pakistan be forced by government of India to return to Pak, even if only to be massacred, but still loving their muslim brothers as they killed them.

Few in India knew then what was really going on in Europe, but then, look at just how many people prominent in UK, US and other comparatively innocent lands were ro Hitler and antisemitic.

Elst, in his assumption that India cares about West, reminds one of the germans who, when informed that indian films had used Switzerland extensively for shooting, promptly assumed thst therefore india knew about German culture. They were visibly dismayed to learn how the films showed nothing but the beautiful backdrops, rarely mentioned the locations although viewers generally knew, had nothing to do with any culture except Indian, and whats more, viewers couldnt care less about the said other country or culture thereof, they were happy to see beautiful snow clad mountains because india loves, has always loved, Himaalayan ranges that are held as home of Gods. Films are shot in Swiss Alps, only because shooting in Himaalayan locations is far more difficult.

" ... By contrast, India officially and with good conscience celebrates the memory of Netaji (i.e. Führer) Subhash Chandra Bose, the socialist freedom fighter who opted, unpressured, for military collaboration with the Axis powers. The Communist Party (Marxist) in West Bengal has named an airport after Netaji and has a long-standing political alliance with his party, the Forward Bloc. Along with other Leftist parties, they proposed the octogenarian Mrs. Lakshmi Sehgal, the commander of Bose’s women’s battalion, as their candidate for India’s presidency in 2002. India’s entire political spectrum is united in celebrating Netaji as a sterling freedom fighter."

Elst is being disgustingly racist and oblivious of the obvious.

First and foremost, India knew little, and couldn't care less, about the evil Nazis. Why an indian leader should nit be called leader just because the evil nazi leader was, is only answered in such an odious way suggestively by a racist presuming supremacy of West and Europe. Subhash Chandra Bose was called Netaji by the soldiers he recruited for his Indian National Army, and they had every right to do so. Only a racist can imagine that it was copied from West.

Next Subhash Chandra Bose did not collaborate with axis or anyone else, he roped them in to support him in fighting for freedom of India, and had no more intention of joining them than Gandhi had of donning an RAF uniform and bombing Berlin. Subhash Chandra Bose was fighting for independence of India and he succeeded. Attlee responded, when asked why British left, that they could handle Gandhi for ever, it was effect of Subhash Chandra Bose that they couldn't handle, and ran away in a hurry, leaving over eleven millions dead with no government to handle the massacres.

India is recognising importance of other freedom fighters - other than Gandhi and Nehru - belatedly, although they were, some of them, mentioned before, but only two were put on huge pedestals. Now, others are slowly getting the recognition they deserve. And it's all about India.

" ... In India, by contrast, it remains the normal thing to exercise the human power of discrimination so as to distinguish between Netaji’s laudable patriotism and the reprehensible conduct of his tactical allies in distant countries. ... "

In India, the two parts are seen separately. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was the maverick who escaped the tyrannical British rulers and not only returned with an army consisting of Indians, but planted an indian flag in India. His tactical allies mattered to the very few who knew the danger of their victory, which does not include even Gandhi.

What Elst does not realise at all is that when it comes to India it's not the only time that matters turn upside down - a far bigger example is Churchill, without whom world just might have belonged to Hitler; but to India, he's the mass murderer who not only caused a million deaths by stealing harvest for his soldiers, but did not allow ships of aid sent by Roosevelt for India to proceed further than Australia - and, famously, said that a million Indians starving to death matter not a bit.

For that matter a US policy paper, come to light comparatively recently, exposes the policy during the early years, explicitly stating that if it comes to that, let India go (i.e., starve to death, all if India) but save Pak.

This was Christian bias. It's paying rich dividend in form of the terrorist factory favoured over the ancient home of knowledge and righteousness.

" ... Or did anyone think that falsely attributing a Golwalkar text (certified as Golwalkar’s by the author himself as well as by the author of its Introduction, M. S. Aney) to someone else is not dishonest? ... "

Elst assumes that he's right and RSS is incorrect in attributing the book to G. D. Savarkar, but in fact he's incorrect, and RSS is being honest in admitting that golwalkar stole the book. Elst is exposing, not only his ignorance, but racism as well.

" ... If it were true that “the common man’s idea of a leader is a person whom he can unabashedly and without reservation adore and worship”, then I would feel deeply sorry for that common man, and would with good conscience try to convince him out of this demeaning mindset. Fortunately, such need not be the case at all. The common man knows perfectly well from his own experience that nobody is perfect and that everyone can make mistakes, especially when still inexperienced, that everyone makes compromises once in a while, and that everyone is sensitive to outside influences, including the spirit of the times. ... "

Elst has perhaps missed the furore that greeted the film Da Vinci Code based on work of Dan Brown which in turn was based on Holy Blood, Holy Grail - and amongst other things, mentioned the gospels discovered hidden in the desert after all these centuries, despite desperate efforts by church of Rome to destroy all versions except the official one. There was an interview of a bishop on (BBC?), where the distressed bishop repeatedly stressed that those unofficial gospels had to be false, because they mentioned a side of his character in boyhood that doesn't tally with the official image at all. He didn't use the word official, but Elst surely knows how distressing church adherents find it to discover that Jesus was a married man with grown up children, and a wife pregnant when he was supposedly crucified (but might not have died on the cross at all, or even crucified), and the said wife escaped to Languedoc and gave birth to a daughter; meanwhile he might have died at Masada when hundreds of jews died in the siege by Rome.

Most "common" churchgoers find it distressing even to realise that his name might not have been Jesus after all!

" ... There is a prehistory to this tendency to “adore and worship” a leader. Some Hindus have long tended to deify their heroes, such as Rama and Krishna. In my opinion, this self-effacing glorification of fellow human beings is a tradition that has demeaned and materially harmed the Hindus. In the Vedic age, victorious fighters like King Sudas and sages like Vishvamitra or Agastya were praised, but not adored and deified. Even in the core narrative of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, Rama and Krishna are just human beings with human shortcomings; it was only in the final editing and in the interpolated chapters that the deification started. ... "

Arrogance and ignorance, typical of West. And of imperialists and missionaries.

" ... It is at any rate not unimportant little me who is reducing Golwalkar to his maiden attempt at political thinking. Instead, it is the highly influential secularist establishment that is doing this and that has been doing it for decades. But what has the RSS ever done to counter it? When I raise the issue, they hurry to respond to me, sort of, but when those in power do it, the RSS has always shrugged and pretended not to be affected. ... "

Because it isn't a stray person in combat zone that endangers you more, it's the guest you welcome under assumption of his goodwill who, if he brandished a sword in your dinner, is more dangerous. In short, if Elst is seen unibpversally as friendly to Hindus but us being disgustingly arrogant and racist, he's the more dangerous than the blindly hating leftists and others whose more ignorant attacks can be ignored.

" ... Amongst the innumerable facets of dharma (from Buddhist nihilism to Vaishnava monotheism), he chooses one aspect which he likes and understands and then follows it. ... "

Presumably the words in bracket belong to Elst, an Indian wouldn't be so presumptuous and ignorant and wrong all at the same time. Elst is like a blind man judging an elephant by his kniwledge of his own dog and horse. "Buddhist nihilism" is bad enough! But "Vaishnava monotheism", for heavens sake? Which Vaishnava coukd, ever, express any wish or preference for a monotheism, much less belief therein, without looking like an idiot?

Elst really has only superficial, word level, acquaintance with India, for sake of a career, it'd seem, with not even a pond deep comprehension.

" ... The use of Golwalkar’s questionable quotations has created a situation where not just the Sangh Parivar but any form of Hindu activism is denounced as “fascist”. If the RSS itself prefers to go through life carrying that label, that would still be its own privilege, but by having claimed so persistently that it is “the vanguard of Hindu awakening” and all that, by forever identifying any and every pro-Hindu effort with its own movement (a false claim eagerly echoed by the enemy), it has managed to burden every Hindu who isn’t a doormat with its own bad reputation."

The situation has nothing to do with anything anyone wrote or did, but much more with the fact that RSS or any so called Hindu association or political party dares to exist at all. Hindus are routinely abused in U.S. in school curriculum texts by select references that seem abusive and horror to West due to abrahmic slant of their mindset, and leftists or congress in India would abuse anyone who wouldn't put down everyone else in favour of erstwhile colonial rulers and their heritage, and those claiming that heritage. Even if Golwalkar had never published a book, much less mentioned Germany, it'd be irrelevant. RSS would be abused for any and every excuse that wasn't even an excuse, simply because they disagreed with Gandhi about being happy that Hindus were butchered by Muslims by millions.

Else why aren't leftists and everyone else calling Stalin Nazi for the two and three quarter year long pact, whereby Russia got part of Poland divided between Germany and Russia, apart from other territories? Was he sanctified thereafter by being attacked, and if so, why aren't Hindus sanctified by similar attacks from every quarter, fascist or imperialist?

"This is why in 2002 the Indian Development and Relief Fund (IDRF), an apolitical Hindu charity run by the nicest of Hindu Americans, became the target of a damaging smear campaign by US-based Indian Communists, the “Campaign to Stop Funding Hate”. It was enough to point out the RSS links to some of the projects that were being supported by them, and then to add – what else? – Golwalkar’s “race pride” quote, and numerous academics and reputable Non-Resident Indians were found who were willing to sign a petition aiming to cut off corporate philanthropy to the IDRF. Moreover, imagine that you are an American managing a company or leading an institution and you receive this letter cautioning you against this IDRF, which has been made a beneficiary of your philanthropy budget at the suggestion of a Hindu employee. Obviously, your confidence in this particular Hindu will be shaken, considering his “fascist” connections, no less, and his abuse of your confidence by making you unwittingly support this fascist charity. This may even have an impact on his employment status and promotion chances. So, RSS carelessness with fighting off all the Nazi-mongering libel has damaged not just the IDRF and all the people benefiting from its work, but also every other Hindu connected to it in any way."

And they'd do so, just because the said Hindu wasn't kowtowing to paki underworld. Elst hasn't understood politics of left in India at all.

"In this way, the Sangh Parivar’s cavalier attitude to its own reputation, neatly represented by its refusal to refute the charge of Golwalkar’s “fascism”, is doing harm to Hindu society as a whole and even to its friends and well-wishers. ... "

Elst won't learn. He wouldn't want to see that as long as India exists, the predatory beasts would abuse and attack, with lies. Simply because, India lives, with her own culture, and hasn't fallen like Persia or Egypt to Islam, or like Europe to Rome parading as church.

"“All the above argument is based on the assumption that Golwalkar’s quotations need defence. However, for many svayamsevaks who see a dire threat to our Bharatmata [Mother India] and believe in radical solutions for our problem, the quotations merely reflect a harsh truth. If they are not palatable, the fault lies in the disease (of Abrahamic faiths) and not in the pill (quotation) or the recommending doctor (Golwalkar).”"

Fair enough. Do California pay attention to criticism by jihadists about bikini on beaches?

" ... Kudos to the Christians for not limiting themselves to the arch-repetitive quoting from his We. ... "

This is about a publication in Kerala by church abusing Hindu Gods. Elst applauds them, and then claims to be a friend of Hindus?

" ... If the RSS were serious about its fondness for Golwalkar, it would at least use the opportunity to discuss those quotations and neutralise their negative impact by showing that they mean something else than what the Left pretends they mean.

"But instead, the RSS just looks the other way and “disowns” We by keeping it out of Golwalkar’s “complete” works, based solely on the ridiculous and mendacious plea that he hadn’t written the book himself, thereby accusing him off-hand of plagiarism. ... "

RSS isn't accusing, it's admitting; RSS does not say he disagreed, or someone else wrote it and falsely gave his name. He did steal the writing of G. D. Savarkar when the manuscript was given to him for help in publication, and there was a serious rift thereafter. RSS is being honest in admitting the plagiarism by him.

Elst is being obtuse, why? For the great game? Converting India by pretending to be a friend, Trojan?

................................................................................................

................................................

December 22, 2021 - December 22, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Islam and Immigration in Europe

7.1. Paki Come Home!

7.2. Bull-headed Historian Gets a Few Things Right

7.3. “Islamophobia” and the Right

7.4. “Islamophobia”, the Right, and Hindutva

7.5. Throwing Mud at Freedom Fighters

7.6. Trying His Hand at History

7.7. The Marxist Network

7.8. The Threat of “Islamo-fascism”

................................................................................................

"(Europe’s multiculturalist policies vis-à-vis Islam are, just like India’s so-called secularism, a fertile ground for hollow rhetoric about fascism. Chapter 7.1 is the text of an article written immediately after British security forces announced they had foiled an attempt to explode ten trans-Atlantic flights departing from Heathrow in mid-air and arrested over twenty alleged plotters in this terrorist project, most of them Britons of Pakistani origin, and three of them native British converts to Islam. It was published on several Hindu websites. 7.2–7 are my reply to a libellous article by Sanjay Subrahmanyam on the consequences of this incident for the standing of the Muslim community in non-Muslim societies. Ch.7.8 discusses the notion of “Islamo-fascism”, which is how many describe a threat hanging over the West in terms like that of Nazism in the 1930s.)"

"After the timely folding-up of yet another Islamic terror plot, the public’s attention is focused once more on the “Paki problem”. Over twenty Muslims have been arrested in connection with the alleged discovery of preparations to blow up a number of airplanes on trans-Atlantic flights departing from London’s Heathrow airport. They mostly hold British citizenship and were born in Britain, though they are of South-Asian origin, and come from well-settled families. To their British neighbours, fellow students or colleagues, they must have looked like success stories of integration into British society. And yet, they secretly wanted to terminate the lives of hundreds of anonymous Britons, not excluding those same unsuspecting neighbours."

And Elst worried about why RSS wasn't defending itself against abuse!

"This is only one incident, though apparently a very sizable one. We may even concede that the incriminating evidence is not yet fully in, so we shouldn’t judge in haste. But then, it is only one incident among many. The German police have just ended a Muslim plot to blow up trains; earlier this year the Canadian security forces prevented the planned assassination of the country’s political leadership; and worse than the failed terror attacks are all those that have succeeded. Remember the trains blown up in Madrid, the tourist centres blown up in Bali, the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, and so many others. Specifically Pakistani connections were in evidence in the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, on the public transport system of London on 7 July 2005, and in the endless series of terror attacks in India: buses stopped and all non-Muslims shot every other month in Jammu and Kashmir; repeated bomb attacks on trains and public buildings in Mumbai, from the big international trend-setter of 12 March 1993 (many synchronous explosions) to the latest one on 11 July 2006; on a political meeting in Coimbatore in 1998; on the Parliament buildings in Srinagar and Delhi in 2001; on temples in Gandhinagar, Ayodhya and Varanasi (the details of the latest temple attack in Imphal remain to be discovered); on a Diwali shopping crowd in Delhi, and so on.

"Yes, we know your excuses: that you are millions while the terrorists are counted in dozens, so most of you are innocent and unrelated to terrorism. Still, outsiders will wonder just how many of you are in the know when these “unrepresentative” and “isolated” young men make their preparations for acts of terror. How many of you shield suspects when the police comes looking for them? Just a question. And then the big excuse: that “this isn’t real Islam”, that “this great peaceful religion condemns terrorism”, that “terrorists have no religion”. We don’t believe this convenient plea, but we would still welcome it if it could actually dissuade would-be terrorists from their project. Why do you always address us, the non-Muslims, with those rosy stories about peaceful Islam? Why not go to the centres of militancy and repeat those sermons there? We don’t mean some perfunctory “open letter” meant for non-Muslim consumption, but an earnest effort to persuade the militant Muslims, one that doesn’t stop until the goal is reached. We suspect you have so far never tried this because in your heart of hearts, you are perfectly aware that Islam does condone these acts, and because you expect the militants to quote chapter and verse from your own Qur’an to justify their methods, reminding you of how Mohammed’s career mainly consisted in armed struggle against the infidels, and leaving you speechless."

Quite.

"Every South-Asian Muslim knows that his ancestors were Zoroastrians or Kalash Kafirs, Buddhists or Hindus. In dramatic circumstances, they converted to Islam as the lesser evil in preference to death or impoverishment, or third-class citizenship. Out of inertia or brainwashing, you yourselves have so far chosen to remain in Islam and not to undo their shame. Now that you are facing the consequences of being Muslims, namely the hostility provoked by never-ending Islamic arrogance and aggression, you have a good occasion to reconsider your religious identity. Drop this erroneous belief system that was forced upon you and come home to your ancestral community, where you belong."

"Now we come to Subrahmanyam’s central thesis: “It may not be a good time to be a Muslim, but it is a splendid time to be an Islamophobe.” This is the culmination of a gradual development of the last few decades: “Right-wing (at times neo-fascist) European writers had long railed against the migration of Muslims to that continent as ‘guest workers’.”

"I don’t know on what planet he’s been living lately, but most of us down here have a different impression. The new-fangled notion of “Islamophobia” and calls for its punishment are being pushed by powerful unelected bodies like the UN, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union, and also by leading politicians including the “mendacious” Tony Blair, who recently failed by one vote to pass legislation outlawing satire about Islam. In my country, Belgium, at least three so-called “Islamophobes”, two native journalists and a Turkish-born Catholic priest, are presently facing trial for this crime of opinion. The famous Italian Leftist journalist Oriana Fallaci (who was a resistance fighter against Fascism in her youth) and French novelist Michel Houellebecq have had to stand trial for their criticisms of Islam. But nobody is standing trial merely for being Muslim. And those are only the legal problems. Many more critics of Islam, particularly those of Muslim origin, have to live in hiding or under police protection.

"Coming to “neo-fascist” attitudes to Muslims, his information becomes less and less accurate. Genuine neo-fascists have railed against the immigration of non-Whites, some of whom may incidentally also be Muslim, but they are certainly not involved with “Islamophobia”. On the contrary, ever since Heinrich Himmler, their view of Islam is quite sympathetic. In the German neo-Nazi scene, the current heroes whose pictures are brandished in demonstrations are Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Hezbollah’s Sheikh Nasrallah. Recently there have been some conspicuous conversions to Islam among Dutch and British neo-Nazis, sensational only to those who have never studied the history of chummy Nazi-Muslim relations."

"As for European writers whose “rabid Islamophobia was at times paired with an ostensible admiration for Hinduism”, I must say I’ve never heard of any. There is a minuscule Rightist tendency of so-called traditionalists (a school started in the 1920s by French mathematician and Muslim convert René Guénon) who admire both Islam and Hinduism, as these are “traditional” cultures and thus purportedly far healthier than decadent Western modernity. On the opposite side, there are the racist simpletons who hate Hindus and Muslims alike, the kind who beat up Sikhs because they look like Osama bin Laden. However, with the ongoing polarisation regarding Islam, the main trend certainly is the one critical of Islam and indifferent to other immigrant religions.

"But if I as a European don’t know of any pro-Hindu Islamophobes around me, at least Subrahmanyam does: “It thus came to be a perfect marriage of convenience between the likes of the Belgian Koenraad Elst (closely associated with the radical Vlaams Blok, condemned legally for its racism and xenophobia, and reincarnated as Vlaams Belang) or the Frenchman François Gautier, and the Hindu far right.”

"First the general picture: Subrahmanyam pretends that François and I had first been “Right-wing European writers” who “had long railed against the migration of Muslims” and then discovered Hinduism and concluded a “marriage of convenience” with “the Hindu far Right”. This is a plain lie. Neither of us were ever involved with any movement alleged to be “Right-wing” or “far Right” before we discovered the problems Hinduism faces under the domination of India’s so-called secularists and their Islamic allies. Subrahmanyam is guilty of slander until he can produce such a piece of writing of Gautier’s or of mine predating our respective discovery of living (and suffering) Hinduism. The fact is that both of us only started wondering about the record and nature of Islam after having met Hindu victims of Islamic terror, great and small."

" ... The VB’s principal and original raison d’être was and remains Flemish independence, and more specifically, separatism. It wants to split Belgium, which may not be a good idea but which certainly would hurt certain vested interests. That is why the VB has been outlawed while Belgium’s several pro-Belgian anti-immigrant parties have not. Even legal scholars belonging to rival parties condemned the verdict as an assault on democracy.

"Note that Subrahmanyam takes it as a matter of course that ruling parties outlaw an opposition party, even one that happens to be the single largest party in the country in terms of votes. This shows his anti-democratic mentality, which has so often been in evidence among Indian secularists. India was declared a “secular, socialist” republic under the Emergency dictatorship without a proper parliamentary debate. In the mid-1990s, the secularists made attempts to persuade the courts to outlaw the BJP, then India’s largest opposition party. As an elitist and intrinsically despotic movement, Indian secularism implies hate not only of Hinduism but also of democracy.

"The movement of slander and repression against critics of Islam is one aspect of Indian secularism that has gained currency in Europe. Before 11 September 2001, every critic of Islam in Europe got identified with the far Right. In the 1980s, the secular Left was still hostile to Islamic religious obscurantism, just as it was against the Christian variety, and it favoured the natural assimilation of “guest workers” through trade-unionism and other joint progressive activities. But in the 1990s it started looking the other way or even mouthing pro-Islamic platitudes, since being anti-Muslim had acquired a Rightist aura, and being pro-Muslim was suddenly progressive. Just reread what the opinion hegemons used to write about Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh before and even after they were murdered. Fortuyn, the arch-liberal Islam-sceptical sociologist turned politician (who, in the Dutch elections of 2002, a week after being murdered, gained proportionately the most votes among the immigrant Hindu minority), had been equated with Hitler, Himmler, Mussolini, Milošević and lesser lights of the xenophobic scene. In 1992, an Amsterdam judge convicted Pak-born comedian Mohamed Rasoel for “anti-Muslim racism” (!): as an ex-Muslim, he had dared to write a book warning the naïve Dutch against the aggressive and intolerant features of Islam that he knew so well from his homeland.

"Even now, though no longer unopposed, this despicable attack on and misrepresentation of critics of Islam continues. In November 2003, Norwegian professor Kari Vogt denounced Pak-born scholar Ibn Warraq’s testimony Why I Am Not a Muslim[1] as “no more relevant for the study of Islam than The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for the study of Judaism”. To equate a work of critical and liberating scholarship with the notorious anti-Semitic forgery is simply vicious, and is of course not based on even a single point of actual comparison. Subrahmanyam tries a similar trick on Somali-born Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali:"

Elst deals with attack against Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Sanjay Subrahmanyam.

"Prof. Subrahmanyam has the good grace to mention the murder of Theo van Gogh in revenge for his documentary film Submission, about the oppression of women in Islam. For a proper understanding of relations between Islam and secular Europe, that murder remains a key event. But remarkably, our purported secularist utters not a word of sympathy for these everyday victims of Islamic obscurantism, nor for their murdered reporter. Likewise, he doesn’t spend a single word on the plight of the victims of fresh Islamic terrorism in Varanasi, Srinagar and Mumbai. His bleeding heart only bleeds for the community that has generated their murderers.

"Concerning the main theme of his article, I must agree with Subrahmanyam that peaceful Muslims are feeling the heat of slanderous insinuations. Being a frequent target of slander myself, I sympathise with them. But to keep things in perspective, I prefer being slandered to getting killed in a bomb attack on a London bus or a Mumbai train, or by a butcher’s knife in an Amsterdam street. Times are bad for Muslims, but even worse for some others.

"Subrahmanyam gives more detail of his newly discovered conspiracy: “Islamophobia provided the perfect cement between these European agitators on the one hand, and Sita Ram Goel and Arun Shourie on the other.” Thank you, professor, for this hint at the reason for your spiteful attack on me.

"In my paper “Harsha of Kashmir, a Hindu iconoclast?”, I had held Subrahmanyam’s dismissive review of Arun Shourie’s book Eminent Historians,[2] “History sheeter: Bull-headed Shourie makes the left-right debate a brawl”,[3] against the light (included in my book Ayodhya: The Case against the Temple[4]. There, he had lambasted both Shourie and Sita Ram Goel with a number of verifiable allegations that, upon scrutiny, all turned out to be false. My considered opinion was, “So, practically every word in Subrahmanyam’s evaluation is malicious and untrue. […] All it demonstrates is the bullying rhetoric so common in the debate between the scientific and the secularist school of history.” Unable to answer my observations, he had been smarting under this injustice against his secularist immunity from criticism, and finally found an opportunity for revenge.

"But here again, he has his chronology all wrong. We were not European agitators who stood up against Islamic encroachment on Western values and subsequently made contact with Goel and Shourie. On the contrary, meeting them was an essential part of our discovery of the exact nature of the Islamic problem. I am not aware that François has ever publicly applied the lessons learned in India to the European situation, as he hasn’t been living in European society for thirty years now, but I have. It was a straight case of India teaching Europe, in keeping with Syro-German professor Bassam Tibi’s observation[5] that the spread of Islam is forcing Europe into a situation where it can learn from India about the specific problems posed to secular states by an assertive Muslim minority.

"Subrahmanyam greatly dislikes foreign interest in the record of Islam in India: “Under their influence, Islamophobic French papers such as Le Figaro began to carry the most absurd claims regarding the greatest genocide in the world, an untold ‘holocaust’ that had been carried out by Muslims on Hindus over the mediaeval centuries.”"

"Yes, “most absurd”. That’s a serious indictment, the kind that requires being backed up with serious evidence. I’ll grant that the imposed brevity of a newspaper column must have prevented him from presenting his proofs. The exact magnitude of Islamic killings of Hindus is indeed one of the great question-marks of Indian history. Possibly it wasn’t the greatest genocide in the world, and I myself am on record as warning against the mindless use of the term “holocaust” in this connection (e.g. Saffron Swastika, pp. 815–828). This usage would be (1) sloppy history, because the two phenomena were different in size, scope, duration, intensity, motivation and consequences; (2) undiplomatic, because it ignores the Jewish attachment to the term holocaust as referring to their own unique experience; and (3) bad public relations because it fails to communicate to the public the unique and specific character of the Islamic oppression and slaughters of Hindus. However, we do at least know that it was a sizable slaughter, or series of slaughters, spanning centuries. We would already know a lot more about its magnitude if research into it hadn’t been blocked by Subrahmanyam’s own school of historians with their dogmatic denial of unpleasant data from the record of Islam.

"Further projecting his own penchant for conspiracies, the professor continues: “These authors also produced paranoid theories of a conspiracy of silence, involving both western and Indian academics, and a hydra-headed Marxist network, which was allied in their view to the radical evil of Islam. Ironically, 9/11 has given such views an audience that they would otherwise never have possessed.”

"As if there were any need for a conspiracy. In the modern world, with its worldwide access to the same information, all the people with the same ideological commitment can draw the same practical conclusions from the same incoming data. They don’t need to receive instructions from a mysterious spider at the centre of some web. Post-modern Marxism doesn’t rely on a central directive body like the Comintern anymore, but applies the principle, “Think global, act local.” The whole non-centralised Marxist network will apply the same unspoken guidelines when confronted with a similar challenge.

"Thus, when the Archaeological Survey of India held its court-ordered excavation at the disputed site in Ayodhya in 2003 and came up with the umpteenth proof of the pre-existing temple, all Leftist historians declared in unison that this evidence was false. Nobody had instructed them to do so, and in this case the details of their statements painfully exposed their lack of coordination. As I have reported in my booklet Ayodhya, the Finale: Science versus Secularism in the Excavations Debate (2003), some denied that the findings were the foundations of a building, others said that the foundations were part of something else than a temple, some specified that it had been a mosque (yes, one mosque can hide another one), and some that it had been a secular building. They’re not very good when it comes to proposing a persuasive theory, not as good as in the old days when the Comintern would have prescribed a single story for all to repeat.

"But in spite of this failure to convince listeners with a scientific temper, at least politically, their performance was successful. It sent a clear message to India’s politicians that Organized Secularism was united in denying the archaeological evidence, so they’d better follow suit. And effectively, the then BJP-led government and the subsequent Congress-led government have quietly proceeded as if the court-ordered excavations had never come up with anything at all. So, even when caught in the act of lying, the Marxist opinion hegemons are still capable of enforcing their policy dictates.

"The main concern of the Marxist network is not truth, that deceptive bourgeois construct, but power. In securing power positions for themselves and their protégés, they are quite effective. Ever since the late 1960s, when Indira Gandhi gave a free hand to the likes of Nurul Hasan and P. N. Haksar in the educational and cultural sector (in exchange for support from the Left during her initial intra-Congress power struggle), Marxists have been nominating Marxists and blocking access to people suspected of pro-Hindu opinions. When Indian Marxists settled in Western academe, the same dynamic was reproduced there. Indeed, their prime concern with “communal” issues was greatly welcomed by their Western counterparts, who were in the process of shifting from proper Marxism, with its focus on economic class struggle, to cultural Marxism, with its focus on group identity, anti-racism and counter-racism, and the demands of homosexuals and other minorities. Shielding Islam from critical rationality looked like an eminently post-modern project on which both parties could wholeheartedly agree.

"As the Jesuits used to teach: the Devil’s cleverest trick is to make people believe that he doesn’t exist. The Marxists want us to believe that their controlling presence in academe is a myth. Unfortunately, Prof. Subrahmanyam himself is a living proof of the Marxist network’s power position that he tries to deny.

"In 2002, the BJP-led government announced the endowment of a chair at Oxford for Indian History and Culture. Immediately a howl went up in the secularist media to denounce this “Hindutva attempt to saffronise higher education”. The chair was created, but the nominee was not some Hindutva stalwart nor even a relatively neutral scholar, but an outspoken enemy of Hindutva: our old acquaintance Sanjay Subrahmanyam. Instead of compensating to a miniscule extent for the overwhelming predominance of anti-Hindu academics by nominating a pro-Hindu professor for once, the BJP felt the need to prove its harmlessness to the secularist cause by nominating one of its own sworn enemies. Wasn’t that an impressive Marxist show of power? If you have the unfettered freedom to implement your agenda, you’re doing well; but if you can make your enemies implement your own agenda, then you really are powerful."

................................................................................................

................................................

December 22, 2021 - December 23, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Return of the Swastika

8.1. New Age against Nazism

8.2. Magical Reasons for the Downfall

8.3. Hitler Hysteria versus Hindu Sanity

................................................................................................

"Those who mistakenly claim that Hitler was an occultist predictably insinuate Hitlerian motives in all adepts of occultism. Yet, there is a vast occultist and New Age literature that takes positions opposite to his. Many people in that scene, with a typical lack of historical criticism, have lapped up the belief that Hitler and his associates, too, had dabbled in occultism, but they give it this twist: Hitler had played sorcerer’s apprentice and released forces beyond his control, or he had practised a “black” magic diametrically different from their own “white” magic, hence his evil and his downfall. As part of this effort, they have launched the canard that the right-facing swastika adopted by the Nazis is in the “wrong” direction, hence inauspicious, whereas in reality both directions were always equally in use, and if there was a preference, it was for the right-facing one, because it seems to fit the visible Sun’s daily revolution better."

Elst really ought to stop and try learning before pronouncing on matters that aren't a matter of democratic opinion any more than physics or mathematics are, only not quite so obvious.

"Reincarnation therapists have plenty of clients who remember past lives in Nazi camps, some of whom explain their current asthma as an after-effect of the gas chambers. Astrologers use Hitler’s horoscope as a school paradigm of how even well-aspected planets can come to no good if “their Zodiacal state is poor”: he had Moon in detriment and Jupiter in fall in Capricorn, Mars in detriment in Taurus, Saturn in detriment in Leo, so what else could you expect? The New Age is very much part of the anti-Nazi consensus."

Is Elst giving arbitrary details or real ones? With four major planets debilitated, how did the man rise so far out of ignominy, and have the effect that he did, even if only to crash again? As for reincarnation therapy clients, if indeed there is such a thing as reincarnation therapy, it's quite possible that a good many have returned, to have the effect linger from the trauma. If asthma is all they suffer from, it's a great mercy. After all, earth environment is far from great for even those who have escaped holocaust.

Elst describes an ad -

"“Most people are unaware that their chakras are permanently forced out of key by the current choice of musical key based on note A = 440 Hz, introduced [on the electronic media] at the initiative of Nazi Germany’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels in 1939. After the Second World War, this became the world standard and it is still the rule. All day long, from cradle to grave, you are being reprogrammed in this musical key which disconnects us from the key of the universe and from our 6th sense (intuition, instant knowing), which makes everyone easy to manipulate. The correct key is A=432 Hertz, in which Mozart composed and for which the Stradivarius violin was built. It’s not for nothing that the Borobudur has 432 Buddha statues. The key A=432 Hz heals the connection of music with the cosmos, our own process of cell division and the mutual tuning of our brain waves. […] During the workshop, you learn to attune your chakras to the right frequencies, which is of crucial importance in awakening your kundalini energy. You learn why front and backside of each chakra must be tuned differently. You visit the temple of Shiva, make contact with your God-self and your sound body (‘in the beginning was the Word’), and learn how to tune in perfectly to and with other people. Also, you can dance to music in A=432 Hz.”"

"If the number 432 shows up in a Buddhist context such as in the Borobudur, it is not because of tuning conventions necessitated by the peculiarities of Western music, but because it plays a role in Indo-European cosmologies, from the 432,000 guards at the gates of Walhalla to the 432,000 years in the Kali Yuga (also, in a Babylonian cosmology, the number of years from the Creation to the Flood). ... "

Latter does not necessarily negate the former here.

" ... The sombre choice of colours by the Nazis fits with the morbid choice of the skull as the symbol for the elite security force, the Totenkopf (death’s-head) SS. The New Age anti-Nazi section of the “occult roots of Nazism” school tends to hold that these negative symbols must have had an influence on the actual fate of the Nazi regime, both its crimes and downfall. The unwise colour scheme and the unusual and unstable position of the Nazi swastika on one angle “explain” why the Nazi regime was so short-lived.

"Likewise, the Nazi version of the twelve-armed swastika or “black sun” was perversely non-solar by being purposely black. And if “black sun” is interpreted in Râhu-inspired terms as “Sun in eclipse”, the perversity is complete. Every pagan culture that ever celebrated the Sun glorified its light and dreaded its temporary darkening during eclipses. All authentic Sun-worshippers would have rejected the celebration of the Sun’s darkening as nonsensical, evil and an omen of self-inflicted bad luck, which may then provide the occult “explanation” for the Nazis’ early defeat. Be careful with symbols, you might get what they foretell."

True, even though Elst doesn't know so.

"Meanwhile, some German members of the European Parliament (EP) proposed to outlaw any display of the swastika. Not that the EP has the authority to do this, but let that pass too. The proposal didn’t get far when some members from the former Soviet Bloc proposed the condition that Communist symbols be equally forbidden. With their residual anti-anti-Communism and their dreams of a Soviet-type super-state, our Eurocrats didn’t want that, especially when you consider that some of these symbols, like the raised fist and the Internationale, are still commonly used by the social-democratic parties dominating EU politics.

"Meanwhile, Asian immigrants continue to adorn wedding invitations with swastikas. The Jews in the Antwerp diamond business know and accept that their Gujarati Jain colleagues treat the swastika as a sacred and beneficial sign. The relaxed and self-respecting attitude to the age-old symbol among Asians contrasts with the irrational Nazi-centric attitude among Westerners, which seems only to be getting worse as the memory of Nazism recedes into the past."

"The swastika was traditionally the symbol of the thunder-god in the Germanic and Balto-Slavic world: Thor, Perkunas, Perun (equivalent to the Sanskrit Parjanya, a Vedic avatar of Indra), as also of their Roman counterpart Jupiter. It was in effect the original shape of what is known as “Thor’s hammer”, a poetic description (kenning) of lightning. It is only in the tenth century that the current shape of Thor’s hammer, which is an actual hammer, came into use as a symbol for northern European pagans to distinguish themselves from the Christians who brandished the symbol of the Cross. Because of the swastika’s association with the atmospheric god of thunder and lightning, the Finns and Balts adopted it as the emblem displayed on the airplanes when establishing their respective air forces.

"Sheeter admits, “The swastika design is not a Nazi symbol — it is a traditional Latvian motif from local folklore. […] Swastikas have featured in traditional Latvian knitwear for centuries, variously known as the Thunder Cross or Fire Cross, but it is feared that delegates, unfamiliar with local folklore, may take mittens decorated with swastikas amiss.”

"This is the world upside down. The Latvians are right about the swastika’s innocence, while the NATO dummies are wrong about the swastika’s purported Nazi essence; yet it is the Latvians who give in to the unjust misconceptions of their guests. I suppose we should spin this as a form of hospitality: indulging the guest’s ill-informed sensitivities. The occasion could have been used instead to educate the NATO delegates about its true meaning."

Elst has repeatedly stressed that Hitler did not receive Swastik(a) from Tibet or Buddhist monks or Hindus or India; Elst would mist likely lose a bet. Hitler did receive it from some monks in Tibet, which information wasn't documented for public consumption, as wasn't Hitler's use of occult, with or without help. As for origins, even the cross is far older than church, and in fact looks like nothing as much as a sword pointed down, not exactly symbol of peace unless the only alternative is sword not pointing down.

But that the symbol India has always known as Swastik(a) was borrowed from india via Tibet, not dug up from Latvia or Germanic past, is amply proved by the name thereof, not replaced by any of the presumably several names that were used in europe for centuries but aren't known to India through antiquity. Even Elst who keeps stressing that it doesn't belong to India hasn't bothered to find a name, only the significance. And at that, it's unclear how the symbol could be meant to signify lightening, while the sun or zodiac connection is clear.

"For another recent incident illustrating the Nazi-centric loss of perspective on the swastika, let us set our sights on the Flemish village of Maasmechelen. A fountain monument in the town square, when seen on air photographs recently circulated on the Internet, turns out to have a swastika shape. It has been there in front of the town hall for decades, “yet nobody ever saw a swastika in it”, Mayor Wim Terwingen explained to the newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws (25 July 2006). “That we never noticed this before, goddamn. I only hope the architect back then didn’t do it on purpose. In any case we’re going to change the shape of this fountain at once. The Technical Service is on holiday right now, but when they get back, this will be their first job.”

"The next day, another paper (De Standaard, 26 July 2006) relayed the comments of the two people principally responsible for this landscaping crime, “the shape of the age-old symbol misused by the Nazis in the Second World War”. Former mayor André Reul explains that the reshaping of the complex and the adjacent square had been undertaken in the late 1970s, during his own term in office: “I have only learned of this hooked cross just now […] I was not aware back then of the fountain’s planned design.”

"But Robert Tachelet, the now-retired architect who made the design, doesn’t understand the commotion: “Of course our team chose the swastika intentionally. It is an interesting shape that offers a lot of possibilities in architecture. Moreover the use of the swastika or hooked cross has been common for millennia. It is in evidence in the Greek, Roman and Germanic ages. In Hinduism the swastika is still in use as a symbol of prosperity. In my own work too the symbol has appeared several times. […] We chose this symbol purely because it is an interesting design element. It was never our intention to make a political statement. Those who find a reference to National-Socialism in the fountain’s design are in my opinion very short-sighted.”

"It seems that the short-sighted are ruling our part of the world. Once in a while, they feel reinforced in their prejudice by an event like this Croatian football incident: “Croatia to receive penalty for ‘human swastika’”, the Associated Press reported on 18 August 2006. About 200 fans of Croatia’s national football team formed a human swastika and gave the Olympic salute (“Nazi salute”, says AP) during the friendly game against Italy in Livorno, a stronghold of the Italian Left. Police eventually moved in, forcing the fans to stop. Croatian fans claimed to have been provoked by the jeering of their national anthem and the waving of the flags of the old, Communist Yugoslavia.

"Croatia has a grim history of Nazi collaboration under the Ustasha regime, which committed its own massacres without German orders, and even with the disapproval of the Germans. After the Yugoslav War of 1992–95, its image was seriously bruised, being both victim and bully (though the latter with NATO support, as against the demonised Serbs), and the taint of ethnic cleansing hung over the country’s international profile. In the process of its application for EU membership, the last thing its government wants is TV coverage of Croats defiantly reenacting their nation’s Nazi past. As a result, the national football boss, Vlatko Marković, hurried to label the act as “scandalous and despicable”, and federation spokesman Zoran Cvrk said: “It is terrible. Every form of racism, fascism or other, deserves the severest condemnation.” Well, go ahead: condemn racism and fascism to your heart’s delight. Condemn them in the slogans and profanities shouted by the Croatian hooligans. Even then, you still won’t find anything racist or fascist to condemn in the swastika.

"The swastika is free of blame. As the Hindu Council of the United Kingdom (HCUK) put it on its Website: “Hands off the sacred swastika!” After the European Parliament’s reaction to Prince Harry’s swastika prank, the HCUK posted a lengthy defence of the swastika’s innocence, featuring a big red swastika inscribed with, “I am innocent”. Its central and irrefutable thesis: “It was not the fault of Swastika that Hitler misused it.” Maybe we should thank Prince Harry for bringing the issue to a head, for this permanent conundrum of Western Hitler hysteria overruling Oriental sanity has gone on for too long.

"In 1955, Sri Lanka proposed to the International Red Cross to use a red swastika as its symbol for use in Buddhist and Hindu countries (seconded by India in 1957), but Western opposition eventually killed this eminently sensible and secular proposal. Fortunately, times are changing. In September 2006, the secularist government of Tajikistan held an “Aryan heritage day”, where “Aryan” effectively meant “pan-Iranian”. As part of the same national revival, Tajikistan had already lifted the Soviet-era ban on displaying the traditional swastika, or “Mithra’s wheel”. The Aryan heritage day received official support from the UN, that guardian of progressivism. Internal protest, rightly overruled by the democratically-elected government, was voiced by the Islamist opposition, which alleged that this amounted to a repaganisation of the country, reviving its Zoroastrian-cum-Buddhist past. That’s exactly what I hope it means."

Elst turns again to roots or past of Swastik(a).

"In the HCUK list of uses for the swastika, a few are well worth citing: “Greeks associated it with Apollo, their Sun God. Aztec, Maya and Inca civilisation also used Swastika freely […]. Swastika has migrated across many cultures, races and religions and has become the universal symbol. It is an amazing fact how this non-violent and kind symbol found its way even into Islamic mosques. The Friday Mosque in Isfahan, Iran, has […] beautiful and colourful images of Swastika design. People may think Swastikas would be oddly out of place in a Christian church, but the Swastika has a long history as a symbol for Christ. […] In Rome, it is called Crux Dissimulata because the early Christians concealed themselves, the Church did not adopt the crucifix until the sixth century when Christianity had become the official religion of Rome. […] Chinese Falun Dafa practitioners have been propagating worldwide for re-establishing the use of Swastika in its original purpose.”

"In Chinese, if the swastika appears in a text, it is read as wan, or “ten thousand”. As such, it is shorthand for the cry of support and jubilation: wan sui! (better known in its Japanese form: banzai!), “ten thousand years!” Metaphorically, it also means “all, universe”. On Chinese food packaging, it means “Buddhistically correct”, in other words, vegetarian.

"The modern West is thoroughly familiar with the benign use of the swastika: “Commercially it found its way to become the registered trademark of the world famous Carlsberg lager as early as 1881 and continued to be used up until 1938. […] The Iceland Steam Company still flies a blue and white flag with Swastika on it and they have refused to give up and continued to fly their flags as part of their heritage. […] New Mexico is the land of Swastika. Swastika was once a state symbol and appeared on all highway signs and state flags, now replaced by sunrays after World War II.”

"“To everyone’s surprise, a town named Swastika exists in Ontario, Canada. After World War 2, tremendous pressure was put on the residents of the town by the Canadian Government to change its name from Swastika to Winston to honour Winston Churchill, then Prime Minister of England, but the people fought back and retained the beloved name of their town.” Reportedly, one of the pro-swastika campaigners was Christopher Macaulay, a descendent of the much-maligned Thomas Babington Macaulay. They could provide the Hindus with a useful slogan: “The lovers, worshipers and friends of the Swastika must come forward with the winning slogan of Dr. Edis from Swastika Drug Company of Swastika, Ontario, Canada, with minor change from ‘Hitler be damned, this is our sign since 1922’ to ‘Hitler be damned, this is our sign since at least 8000 years before Christ!’”"

"“To many people’s astonishment, there is evidence of the existence of Swastika in Judaism and its free use in synagogues […]. A secret monastic brotherhood of Jews called the Essenes lived in Palestine from the second century B.C. to the end of the first century A.D. To them, the Swastika was a sacred sign representing the Wheel of Eternal Life. The Free Masons claim that the use of the Swastika derived to them from the masons who built King Solomon’s Temple. […] In Hinduism, the Swastika is often drawn inside Sri Yantra, what is known in Judaism as the Star of David. […] It is clear that Jews as well as other peoples across the globe have used the Swastika as a decoration, a symbol of pride, spirituality, good fortune, prosperity and love. […] The Jewish people and their nation must not forget the generosity, help, love and respect Hindus gave their people in the past. The Jewish people and the Jewish Nation Israel must have better understanding that their race has never ever been persecuted by Hindus, their Vedic or Sanatana Dharma (religion) and its sects, while the followers of Christianity and Islam persecuted their race as brutally as the Nazi regime, if not more. […] It would be a grave mistake on the Jewish part to believe that those people who worship Swastika are not sensitive and sympathetic towards the Jewish sentiments as well as the sufferings of the Jewish Holocaust, and are supporting Nazism by this public display.”"

Israel, in fact, thanked India as the first act of the Knesset, and Jews of India are more than familiar for centuries with all this - Hindu nonpersecution of Jews, the various symbols used by Hindus including Swastik(a) and six pointed star - and, too, five pointed star, among others - and the freedom Jews enjoyed in India, chiefly freedom from fear.

"As Servando González puts it in his unpublished lecture, “The Riddle of the Swastika” (1998), “It seems as if, after the Nazis appropriated the swastika and put it to their evil use, they contaminated this symbol forever. They have had the swastika hostage for more than 50 years. […] But the swastika had a long life before Hitler and the Nazis. It has been for centuries a symbol of peace, laughter, joy and good luck. […] Its Nazi links are only a minor speck in its very long existence. It is a symbol that deserves a better treatment from history. Also, leaving the swastika in Nazi hands is the worst disservice we can do to the Indians of North, Central and South America, […] to the peoples of Tibet, India and China, […] to the Basque, to the French, to the Greek, to the Swiss, to the Japanese and to the Irish, […] to the Ashanti of Africa and to the Tlingit of Alaska; to the Cuna in Panama and to the Navajo and the Hopi in the United States. […] Ripping off swastikas from buildings, purging art and history books from swastikas, or simply ignoring them, is neither a scientific, nor a rational way to deal with this subject. […] The Nazis and neo-Nazis have no registered copyrights on the use of the swastika. They stole this symbol from mankind and use it for their evil purposes. Allowing the Nazis an exclusive privilege for using this symbol is equivalent to an act of moral cowardice. The time is ripe to redeem this beautiful and enigmatic symbol, taking it from under Nazi control. We must bring it back to the illustrious place it deserves among other similar symbols in the long history of mankind.”"

................................................................................................

................................................

December 23, 2021 - December 23, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

................................................

December 03, 2021 - December 23, 2021.

Purchased November 29, 2021.

Kindle Edition, 268 pages

Published February 26th 2015 by Arktos

(first published February 18th 2015)

ASIN:- B00U2X7ATE

................................................

................................................................................................

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4404686879

................................................................................................

Reviews - Books I Read - DRJG

Thursday, December 23, 2021

Return of the Swastika: Hate and Hysteria versus Hindu Sanity, by Koenraad Elst.

Light Explodes Across Heavens

Blog Archive

Serene, Reflecting

Contributors

Followers

My Shelfari Bookshelf