|
THE HALL
OF SHAME
"Mirror, mirror
on the wall, who is Just as a person may look in a mirror to find any imperfections in his appearance, the Human Race must look in the mirror of its own Conscience in order to identify and redress any moral and Spiritual defects. We are not demanding this from a vain wish to moralise, criticise, patronise or pontificate, but because the Human Race is facing the greatest dangers in its history which can only be averted by immediate and far-reaching changes in the attitudes, assumptions and behaviours which have brought us all to the verge of Disaster. The following represents a list of examples of individuals, organisations and governments who are known to have engaged in teachings or practices that: (a) are contrary to the Spiritual Laws of the Universe; (b) are actually or potentially harmful to Mankind's Spiritual and material well-being; or (c) constitute an act of aggression against India, her people, culture and religion. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH deliberately and systematically destroyed the culture and religion of Ancient Europe and other parts of the World. THE ISLAMIC EMPIRE, based in Arabia, the homeland of Islam, it has attacked, invaded and occupied other countries suppressing their religion and culture, in particular, India. The idea of a worldwide Islamic Empire or Theocracy (Khilafat) is as old as Islam itself and has been promoted by Islamic leaders from the days of Prophet Mohammad. Fortunately, Resistance to such an Empire is equally old as evidenced by the heroic anti-Islamic Uprisings: of the North African Berbers in the 8th century; the East Arabian Qarmathians in the 10th century; the West European Crusaders (1095-1291); the Spanish Christians in the 15th century; the East Europeans in the 20th century; and last but not least, the ongoing struggle of Indian Hindus against Islamic domination. MAHMUD OF GHAZNI, one of the first Muslim invaders of mainland India who raided the country in the 11th century is recorded by historians of the time to have declared that, "The whole country of India is full of gold and jewels and the whole aspect of the country is pleasant and delightful. Now since the inhabitants are mostly pagans and idol-worshippers, by the order of Allah and His Prophet, it is right for us to conquer them". He became particularly notorious through his destruction of the great Somanatha Temple thus setting an example which other men of evil disposition were only too eager to follow. GENGHIS KHAN, LEADER OF THE MONGOLS, followed into the footsteps of Mahmud of Ghazni. Driven by greed and a pathological desire to dominate other people and destroy their culture, he infamously invaded India in the 12th century CE. His descendants went on to found a Mongol (also Mogul or Mughal) Empire which dominated India until the 19th century. Greasy and indigestible meat dishes known as "Mogul cuisine" together with the hated surname "Khan" remain widespread in India even today, bearing witness to the painful history of her people. In line with this tradition, the name "Khan" has also turned up in terrorist attacks (Tel Aviv 2003, London 2005, etc.). Another "Khan" is the head of the Pakistani nuclear arms programme which aims to threaten, intimidate and bully India into surrendering to Islam. THE PORTUGUESE AND FRENCH BRANCHES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH desecrated and destroyed Hindu temples in South India. Like mosques throughout the Indian subcontinent, most Christian churches in India are built on razed Hindu temples. THE CHINESE COMMUNIST (MAOIST) GOVERNMENT has promoted anti-Indian activities in India and abroad from the beginning of its existence under the leadership of the Communist dictator Mao Zedong. Apart from the murder of some 7o million Chinese who opposed it, it has been responsible for the barbaric invasion and occupation of Tibet and the replacement of the Tibetan population with Chinese. Of particular concern is the fact that the Holy Mount Kailasa which has been sacred to Indians for millennia, continues to remain under Chinese Communist occupation making it difficult or impossible for believers to offer their prayers there. POPES JOHN PAUL II and BENEDICT XVI, leaders of the Christian (Catholic) World, have become notorious for their propagation of irrational and scandalous beliefs such as that "Eastern faiths are an obstacle to Salvation". How do they know? Which Eastern Faiths have they practised? Do they even know what the true teachings of Eastern Faiths are? We advise the followers of Western Faiths to practise what they preach and look at their own faults - the Inquisition, slavery, forced conversions, religious wars and genocide - before they criticise others. Otherwise, what they believe to be the Path to Salvation may turn out to be the Road to Hell. GRAND MUFTI ALI GOMAA, Spiritual leader of Egyptian Muslims, declared that "Yoga is an aberration the practice of which is forbidden under Islamic Law". To this we can only say that Muslims should think for themselves: could God forbid Yoga which is the Path of Unity with Himself? By no means! Therefore, beware of leaders who denigrate other faiths and remember that God knows best. He never said that Yoga is an aberration. Those who prevent believers from attaining Unity with God are doing the work of Evil. On this there can be no doubt. WINSTON CHURCHILL is celebrated by many as a war-time hero of almost divine status. Indeed, he distinguished himself through his single-mindedness and tenacity of purpose as British Prime Minister during the Second World War. However, his present-day admirers would perhaps be less pleased with their hero if they knew that, after the war, Churchill declared that, "We have slaughtered the wrong pig", meaning that the war effort should have been directed against Communist Russia rather than Nazi Germany. His preference for Fascism over Communism was no secret to his contemporaries. The fact is that, unbeknown to many today, Churchill had a distinctly dark side to his carefully staged official persona. Apart from being an alcoholic, he was also an incurable anti-Indian. Not only is he credited with racist utterances such as, "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion", but he was also a fierce opponent of the Indian struggle of independence from British occupation till the very end, subscribing to the view that "Liberty must be earned before it is enjoyed" - which the British had engraved over the entrance to their New Delhi Secretariat. When the Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin, suggested that Churchill might change his views if he only talked to some Indians, he retorted: "I am quite satisfied with my views on India, and I don't want them disturbed by any bloody Indians". RICHARD NIXON and HENRY KISSINGER. According to declassified documents and Oval Office tapes recording meetings between the two in the 1970s, former US President Nixon described Indians as "slippery, treacherous people". As if this was not offensive and racist enough, his National Security Adviser, Kissinger, replied that, "The Indians are bastards anyway. They are starting a war there. They are the most aggressive god-damn people around there." Unbelievably, the newspapers reporting this (see "The Times", June 30 2005, and others) failed to observe that such remarks were not only morally repugnant and reprehensible but also factually wrong. Firstly, it is difficult to see how Indians can be described as "slippery" and "treacherous" in comparison with the Taleban of Afghanistan and the military dictatorship of Pakistan (who are harbouring Osama bin Laden and other international terrorist leaders); the Islamic regime of Iran; or the Communist regimes of Russia and China; all of which came to power on promises of freedom and prosperity only to deliver brutal oppression and unspeakable misery. Secondly, India is surrounded by neighbours who are among the most aggressive not just in the region but worldwide. We only need to mention (1) Russia who has invaded, occupied and enslaved countless nations from Eastern Europe to Central Asia and beyond; (2) China who infamously invaded, occupied and enslaved the people of Tibet, apart from murdering 70 million of their own people; and (3) Pakistan who invaded and occupied Kashmir, murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent Indians. By contrast, India has never started a war except in self-defence, nor have her noble people ever made themselves guilty of the genocides and other crimes against humanity perpetrated by their neighbours. On the contrary, it is India who has found herself attacked, invaded, occupied, enslaved, humiliated, raped and mutilated by wave upon wave of inhuman aggressors, from the armies of Ancient Greece and Persia to the hordes of medieval Arabs and Mongols, and finally, modern-day European Colonialists, Chinese Maoists, Pakistani Jihadists and American Evangelists. In the light of these facts, Nixon's and Kissinger's remarks are indicative of unbelievable cruelty and lack of humanity. As a German-born Jew, Kissinger, in particular, ought to have demonstrated greater sensitivity and, above all, better knowledge of history. Clearly, some people never learn. Nor should they be entrusted with a position of leadership by a great nation like America. THE U. S. ADMINISTRATION, especially under President G. W. Bush, is collaborating with India's enemies such as Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China. It also appears to support the mass conversion of Indians by Christian fundamentalist organisations. What is important to understand is that while Americans in general are decent and hard-working people, their leaders have often indulged in actions which have caused immense suffering to other nations. For example, as President Bush admitted in a speech made in Riga (former Soviet Republic of Latvia) on May 7th 2005, the occupation of Eastern Europe by Soviet Russia during the second half of the 20th century, was "one of the greatest wrongs of history" which, we may add, happened with British and American consent (given at the infamous Yalta Conference of 1945, between US President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill and Russian Communist Dictator Stalin). Now if the fifty-year long occupation of Eastern Europe by Communist Russia is one of the greatest wrongs in history, then the centuries-long occupation of India must be even greater a wrong, especially when large areas of India remain under the occupation of Islamic and other foreign forces to this day - with American approval and support. Indeed, as far as India is concerned, no Western Power ever bothered to help her in her just struggle of independence from Britain. After Independence in 1947, the West was even less interested in India than before, forcing India to become close to Communist Russia. This in turn caused alarm among Western Powers, in particular, America who began to support Pakistan and China against India. As if being oppressed, exploited and robbed for centuries by foreign powers were not bad enough, India found herself being bled again by a Soviet-inspired domestic economy on one hand and a ruinous arms race against the China-Pakistan axis, on the other. What becomes evident is that America is directly responsible for much of the suffering the Indian people are enduring today. This being so, it is right for Indian people to expect Americans to appologise, repent and atone for all the injustice American leaders have done to them and their country. OSAMA BIN LADEN, an Arab of Yemeni origin, started his career as a US- and Pakistan- sponsored "freedom fighter" in the Western effort to end Soviet rule in Afghanistan. At the end of the Soviet (Russian Communist) era, he proceeded to put his energy and wealth into the creation of a worldwide Islamic Empire by means of terrorist activities designed to intimidate the World into submission to Islam. Following the 9/11 attack on New York, he is no longer officially sponsored by America, yet he continues to enjoy the support of Pakistan, America's ally in the Globalist Conspiracy against India. His activities in respect of India are practically indistinguishable from those of the Pakistani Government, armed forces and security services whose aim is to destabilise and destroy Indian economy in order to facilitate the infiltration of the country by Islamist organisations. It is essential to understand in this context that, the notion of a World-dominating Islamic Empire (Khilafat) is not the creation of modern-day Islamic terrorists like bin Laden, but it is as old as Islam itself and part and parcel of that religion. Without this concept, Islam would never have reached beyond the borders of Arabia, nor would its forces have invaded, occupied and subjugated so many nations on Earth. THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, working in parallel with the Islamist movement is attempting to destabilize and destroy Indian culture and civilisation. Particularly shameful is its systematic effort to convert especially disadvantaged Indians to Christianity and turn them against their Hindu brothers and sisters. However, it is not only the political and religious organisations of America that are responsible for anti-Indian activities. Individual Americans have also developed a taste for giving free rein to anti-Indian sentiments. The following few examples will suffice to demonstrate how serious the situation has become. PROFESSOR PAUL COURTRIGHT of Emory University has had the impudence to use the authority of academic work as a convenient disguise for developing and promoting the absurd theory that the trunk of the elephant-headed Hindu Deity Ganesha symbolises a "limp phallus" or penis. The truth of the matter is that Ganesha is worshipped by Hindus as "Remover of Obstacles", a function which elephants may well perform by means of their highly mobile trunk. Indeed, had the Professor done his job of academic research into the subject-matter he would have discovered that an elephant's trunk is quite dissimilar to a phallus in respect of both appearance and function. Unlike a "limp phallus", the trunk is a muscular part of an elephant's anatomy which is in constant motion, being employed for grasping, feeding and drinking. If anything, its capacity of lifting and hurling heavy objects bears comparison with a human arm which is a symbol of strength and not limpness. In the interest of academic discussion, Hindu scholars could theorize on the similarity of the body of Christ hanging on the cross to a lifeless phallus. They could speculate that, since Jesus was unmarried, his myth suggests an incestuous relation between him and his mother, and that the Christian God caused his own son to die in order to eliminate any competition in his affair with Jesus's mother whom, as the Bible says, he had earlier impregnated with his spirit. At the very least, they could argue that worshipping a wounded and dying man indicates an abnormal obsession with death and destruction. Given that Hindu scholars kindly refrain from descending to this level of discussion, Western scholars ought to demonstrate the decency of returning the favour and abstain from drawing parallels of this nature in respect of Hindu Deities. Apart from ignorance or insanity, the only logical explanation for this offensive choice of comparison is that it is intended to denigrate Hindu religious symbolism. In our opinion, this in itself suffices to disqualify the Professor as a serious scholar. For more on this subject click HERE. PROFESSOR WENDY DONIGER, University of Chicago, has chosen to support Prof. Courtright's theory on Ganesha despite its patent lack of scientific soundness. PROFESSOR SUSAN WADLEY, Syracuse University, has offended and angered Hindus with her scandalous interpretation of the holy scripture, Ramayana. PROFESSOR JAMES W. LAINE of Macalester College has similarly been in the business of publishing materials regarding the parents of the celebrated freedom fighter and national hero of India, King Shivaji Maharaj, which were offensive to Indians. PROFESSOR FRANCIS X. CLOONEY, of Harvard Divinity School, is a Catholic priest masquerading as "scholar of Hinduism". He has authored a number of books in which he uses the comparative study of Hinduism and Christianity as a tool for converting Hindus. Were such views restricted to just a few academics, they wouldn't constitute too big of a problem. However, when they threaten to become the main channel of information on Indian culture, in particular in university circles, this goes against the very principles of democracy and freedom so vehemently claimed by all Americans when their own culture is perceived as coming under attack. Westerners need to understand that, while Indian people welcome everybody who has a sincere interest in their country and culture, they wish to enjoy their national heritage without misrepresentations and malicious interferences from outside. While it is debatable whether and to what extent the above mentioned Professors qualify as evil, the fact remains that, had they taken the time to study Indian culture as experienced by Indians themselves, they would have been less inclined to offer their own pseudo-scientific interpretation of it. In any case, as such interpretation may be taken as "scientific fact" by the ignorant and the credulous and thereby contribute to the ongoing distortion of Indian culture by the Western media, it does deserve the qualification of evil in purpose if not in intent. This anti-Indian stance is, of course, nothing new among Western academics. As long ago as 1811, JOSEPH BODEN, a retired army officer who had served in the British occupation forces in India, bequeathed a large sum of money to the Oxford University for the establishment of a Chair of Sanskrit. Not, as one might think, in order to advance Indian culture. On the contrary, the idea was that a "more general and critical knowledge of that language will be a means of enabling my countrymen to proceed to the conversion of the natives of India". The first to masquerade as Boden "Professor of Sanskrit" was Horace Wilson, followed by a string of "Professors" busily engaging themselves in the fraudulent task entrusted upon them by their generous benefactor. We may observe that no Chair of Hebrew was ever created at Western Universities for the purpose of converting the Jews, nor a Chair of Arabic for the conversion of the Arabs. Indians were clearly singled out as a target by the esteemed "Professors" who shamelessly used the cover of academic work to go about their nefarious business. What becomes evident is that this blatantly anti-Indian, British-American Axis of Evil, was formed from the very beginning with the express intention to infiltrate, subvert, take over and destroy Indian religion and culture. Apart from the Academic World, the political and media Establishments of the Western World are only too eager to participate in this Globalist Conspiracy. CHARLES KENNEDY and GEORGE GALLOWAY, British Members of Parliament, have expressed the view that the war in Iraq was the cause of the 7th July 2005 London Underground bombings. We know that politicians will use anything to promote their agenda, but this is simply going too far. Not only does such a stance promote lies and twisted thinking but it encourages the planners and perpetrators of such atrocities in their belief that their message is being taken as intended. Moreover, once innocent people start believing that they are guilty of something, they will be open to endless blackmail and intimidation. Could Kennedy and Galloway possibly be right? To answer this, let us first look at the historical facts: they show that Islamic forces have carried out unprovoked attacks on non-Islamic nations ever since Islam took over in 7th century Arabia. Islamic extremists, therefore, are quite capable of attacking innocent people even without proper reason, merely to impose their will on peaceful people. What becomes evident is that this is an age-old conflict which was started neither by Tony Blair and George Bush nor by the British National Party, but by Islamists themselves who insist on establishing a World-dominating Islamic Empire (Khilafat) against the wishes of other nations - and over the dead bodies of everyone else, if necessary. Secondly, how do the above politicians know that Iraq was the cause of the London attacks? Have they personally met and discussed the issue with the bombers? Were they appointed to speak on the bombers' behalf? Or is it just that, for political or psychological reasons, they cannot resist the urge to sympathise and identify with the terrorist "cause"? Finally, if the Western war on Iraq really is the "cause" for anybody to bomb the London Underground, why was it Pakistanis (born and raised in Britain) who masterminded and committed the atrocity and not Iraqis? There are hundreds of thousands Iraqis living in Britain. Not one of them joined the terrorist mob. This alone suffices to burst the politicians' propaganda balloon. If Messrs Kennedy and Galloway know for a fact that the Iraqi people have appointed Pakistanis to speak and act on their behalf, then let them produce the evidence. If they cannot do so, then let them do their job which is to represent the British people and not masquerade as mouthpieces for lunatic fringe elements. KEN LIVINGSTONE, the Mayor of London, is reported to have declared that "Islamic extremism is being fuelled by the West". Comrade Livingstone, who likes to compare Jewish journalists to Nazi concentration-camp guards, certainly knows a lot about fuelling conflicts. Let us spell out something else that he does know but chooses to keep quiet about. The fact is that the act of "fuelling" presupposes the existence of the thing which is to be fuelled, for example, a fire or engine. While the West may be blamed for fuelling Islamic extremism, it cannot be blamed for creating it. The fire of Islamic extremism has been alive for many centuries, indeed, from the very beginning of Islam. Extremists are, by definition, people who hold extreme views and act in extreme ways to enforce those views. If the intention of Islamic extremists is to create a World-dominating Islamic Empire (Khilafat), they will still hold those views and continue to act in accordance with them, regardless of what the rest of us do. As for the fuelling of Islamic extremism by the West, it has taken place in various ways: 1. Through the encouragement, by the Leftist-liberalist Front, of the Islamist view that the more pressure Islam puts on the non-Islamic World, the more power it will acquire. This encouragement has been carried out through the leftist-liberalist-controlled political, education, religious, legal and media systems of left-leaning countries like Britain. 2. Islamic extremism has been encouraged by Christian Church leaders who, having lost most of their former power and influence, collaborate with the Islamist camp in its fight against Eastern Faiths, in the vain hope of getting a share in the Worldwide Islamic Empire once it has been established. Among these we may mention the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali. 3. Islamism has also been encouraged by the Capitalist camp through arms sales to and oil purchases from Islamic countries, among other things. This has created immense wealth for a few Islamic potentates who then donate some of their income to extremist causes. More directly, Capitalism has actually trained, armed and financed extremist groups in its attempt to defeat Communist hegemony in Asia. Particularly distasteful and irresponsible was the arming of Afghan Islamist militants and the sales of arms to Pakistan whose army and secret services have played a major role in the rise of Islamic terrorism. What is important to understand is that the Globalist Entity is not a solid bloc but a loose alliance of conspirators who conspire not only against outsiders but sometimes against fellow conspirators. After all, a conspirator's work is to scheme and conspire. We must not forget that the Western Globalist Conspiracy is a Force of Disunity and Discord which opposes the Eastern Tradition of Unity and Harmony. As such, it is comparable to a pack of wolves, sometimes collaborating in coordinated attacks on a common victim, sometimes making each their own separate kill and sometimes attacking each other. Their killing instinct, at any rate, may be fuelled as much by opposition as by weakness, appeasement and surrender. TONY BLAIR. In the wake of the 7/7 attack on London, the British Prime Minister made known his intention to fight the evil ideology of Islamic extremists. It must be remembered that Tony Blair has made similar promises before. Indeed, he came to power on the promise to be "tough on crime and the causes of crime". Unfortunately, under his Left-wing (Labour) Government, crime has risen instead of falling. Islamic extremism, in particular, has sharply risen. The Labour policy of "integrating" the Muslim community by helping it build more and more mosques, Islamic centres and schools as well as allowing unrestricted immigration from Islamic countries, in particular, Pakistan, failed completely. Moreover, the authorities have done little to prevent either the recruitment by terrorist organisations of volunteers from British universities and colleges or the collection of millions of pounds annually from British mosques for terrorist purposes. All this made the 7 July atrocity possible, indeed, inevitable. Under Tony Blair's Leftist Government, British-based Islamic extremism has been allowed to become a threat not only to Britain herself but to numerous other countries, including India. The boost to the extremist cause is, of course, not only material but also moral: if the leaders of the war on terror, that is, Britain and America, allow these things to go on in their own country, the only possible conclusion terrorists can draw is that the "war on terror" is just a scam like "the war on crime", "the war on drugs", "the war on poverty" and many other wars the Western World has waged from the 20th century and before. In other words, empty promises designed to fool voters. We have demonstrated above that the strategy of the Leftist-liberalist camp is to try and defeat Capitalism with the help of radical Islam. As leader of the Leftist Labour Party, Tony Blair clearly belongs to this category. We must not forget that the Prime Minister's wife, Cherie Blair, once openly declared her sympathy for Palestinian suicide-bombers who, she believes, murder innocent Jewish women and children not because they choose to but because they are driven to such acts by their desperate situation. It is not unreasonable to assume that her husband shares some of these ideas. This would explain: a) his inaction with regard to the obvious rise of Islamic extremism in Britain and elsewhere; b) his bizarre insistence that the European Community grant membership to Turkey - a backward Islamic country which in most people's view does not meet the economic, social, cultural and political requirements for membership; and c) his introduction of laws which make it illegal to criticise Islam. Tony Blair's case seems clear. The conclusion which must be drawn is that Islamic extremism can only be defeated by first defeating its powerful ally, Leftist-liberalist Extremism. Leftist-liberalism is the evil ideology which must be defeated and a man like Tony Blair is not the man to do it because he is one of the leaders of the Leftist-liberalist Camp (alongside Kennedy, Galloway and Livingstone). He is part of the problem, not the solution, though he may not be aware of this. We shall now briefly examine the conflict itself. Speaking of Palestine, it is clear that both Israelis and Palestinians have committed atrocities against each other. The question is, Who started the conflict? As before, we have to turn to history for an answer. The fact is that, between the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century CE and the rise of Islam in the 7th, the area known today as Israel enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity under Christian European rule. The main religious denominations at that time were Christianity and Judaism. Like much of the Middle East, Palestinians themselves belonged mainly to the Christian faith. All this changed, however, with the introduction of Islam into the region from Arabia, in the 7th century. What is important to understand is that Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was not just a religious reformer. He was also a military leader. Some of his main campaigns were conducted against the Jewish tribes of Arabia who had refused to submit to his rule. It is not for nothing that Mohammad met his death by being poisoned by a Jewish woman in retaliation for his actions against her people. (Islamic tradition or Hadith has it that he was served a dish of mutton laced with poison, causing him to die a slow and agonising death. A strange reward for the "Apostle of God"!) It is indisputable, therefore, that the seeds of the Arab-Jewish conflict were sown by Mohammad himself. Following his death in 632, one of Mohammad's wives organised a powerful army and secured the township of Mecca, thereby ensuring the establishment of Islam as a political and military force. Just a few years later, in 638, the forces of Islam invaded Israel and in 691 raised the "Dome of the Rock" right on top of the remains of the Temple at Jerusalem which had been built centuries before by the Jewish Kings Solomon and Herod. This was a cynical move, calculated to ensure that the Jewish people can never reclaim their ancestral heritage. If we really want justice, then an international court should examine all the historical and archaeological evidence and decide who is right and who is wrong. Curiously, this has never been seriously considered by anybody. Instead, the whole World, led by the likes of Cherie Blair, automatically sides up with the Islamist version of events! Incidentally, the Crusades, which took place between 1095-1291, are defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Current English as military expeditions intended to defend the Western World against earlier Muslim attacks on the West: the occupation of Israel in 638; the invasion of Spain and France in 711-733; the destruction of Jewish and Christian Temples at Jerusalem in 1010, etc. In the light of the historical evidence, it becomes apparent that the suffering of present-day Palestinians is largely the result of their own violent past for which, as Muslims, they must assume responsibility instead of blaming it on others. In particular, it is important for Muslims to understand that they cannot claim ownership of the disputed land while denying the same to their Jewish neighbours. The acknowledgement of this fact must be the first step towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict. In addition to this, the following measures must be taken: 1. The disputed land must be divided in a way that is
fair to both parties. The above measures must be enforced by the International Community in the interest of World justice, peace and stability. The fact that Britain, America and other leading nations are unwilling to even contemplate such steps towards a solution demonstrates that their intention is to perpetuate the conflict so as to use it as a political tool for the advancement of their own vested interests. Due to the fact that ordinary people are often ignorant of the truth behind political events, the words and actions of public figures can have a devastating effect on a nation's destiny. The media's role in the promotion of twisted thinking is often more subtle but can have an equally devastating effect. THE TIMES. An otherwise respectable British paper, "THE TIMES" regularly publishes articles referring to non-Muslims as "infidels", that is, "unbelievers". Firstly, from a historical point of view, this is incorrect. Non-Islamic religions such as Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity existed long before the introduction of Islam. Their followers, therefore, cannot be described as non-believers with reference to a religion that didn't exist. If anybody is an "unbeliever", it is the followers of Islam who chose to reject, and disbelieve in, the religions which were already established at that time. Secondly, from a religious point of view, this is also incorrect. It may be that some non-Muslims are Atheists, but the majority believe in the God of their own denomination and, in consequence, qualify as believers for all practical purposes. It is, therefore, wrong for the media to describe us non-Muslims as "unbelievers". From a moral and psychological point of view, describing non-Muslims as "unbelievers" without ever applying this term to Muslims themselves, gives the impression that non-Islamic faiths constitute unwarranted religious deviations which entitles Islamist extremists to punish the followers of such faiths according to Islamic law - which prescribes the death penalty for apostasy and other offences of this nature. Another important issue is the media's treatment of Indian-related matters. For example, apart from the customary negative image of India journalists love to convey - such as poverty, corruption, "forced marriages" and crime - the India-Pakistan (or Hindu-Muslim) conflict is almost without exception presented in a biased way. The fact that thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed by the Muslim and Christian invaders of India, which morally and legally entitles Indians to reclaim at least some of their religious sites, is simply brushed aside as "nationalism", "communalism" or "fundamentalism". We wonder whether Western publications like "The Times" would be prepared to apply the same standard to Jewish property confiscated or destroyed by German Nazis during the Second World War. In its article, "The act of small-time losers" (July 14 2005), "The Times" urges us to compare the Islamist atrocities with those committed by neo-Nazis. Why neo-Nazis? What atrocities have neo-Nazis committed that would bear comparison to the Islamist attacks on Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Mumbay, New York, Bali, Beslan, Madrid and Iraq (to name just a few)? Not only does associating Islamists with neo-Nazis not solve the problem but, on the contrary, it merely muddles the issue and dangerously distorts the truth which is that it isn't the neo-Nazis who sympathise with the Islamist cause but the Left-wing-liberalist front who dreams of defeating Capitalism with the help of Islam. Left-wing-liberalist principles do not appear to thrive in Islamist societies (see Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia); an Islamist victory, therefore, would mean the end of the Left-wing-liberalist movement. So why ally oneself with the Islamists? - one may ask. The answer is that Left-wing rule may thrive for a while in some parts of the World (see Russia, China, India) but the World will never be ruled by Left-wing fantasists because human society must be based on some form of rational order. Therefore, the Left-wing dinosaur, who has one foot in the grave and the other in the Communist era, is well aware of its imminent extinction. Its main objective is not to win - as this is impossible - but to ensure that: a) the Capitalists don't win either; b) it remains itself in power, for the time being, with the help of the Islamic electorate; and c) it does as much damage as possible to the Capitalist cause, again with Islamist help. Thus Left-wing-Islamist collaboration is a tactical alliance which makes sense from the desperate point of view of a failed and moribund movement. It is clear that Islamist strategies are more akin to those of the Left-wing-liberalist camp than to neo-Nazi ones. This explains the mutual Left-wing-Islamist sympathy and collaboration. See, for example, the left-wing Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone's shameless invitation to Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a known Islamic fundamentalist. As if Britain didn't already have enough fundamentalist preachers as it is! By contrast, neo-Nazi-Islamist collaboration is virtually non-existent. Nor must we forget that the prophets of Communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, were advocating "Revolutionary Terrorism" long before the rise of Nazism. Indeed, Nazism was to a large extent a reaction to Communist terrorism. By the time Nazism came to power, Communism had already claimed millions of innocent lives. Therefore, let us not twist and pervert history lest we return to Neanderthal times or worse. What renders the equation or comparison of Islamism with neo-Nazism so dangerous, is that it creates the false impression that Islamism is just an insignificant lightweight force in the political arena of Western society. It is no such thing. The Islamist cause enjoys the support of hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide - from ordinary believers to governments, armed forces, secret services and oil-rich financiers. Islamism is sufficiently vicious and dangerous to merit a category of its own. It needs no comparison with anything else apart from itself as an integral element of Islam and as the engine that has driven the latter to invade, occupy and subjugate countless nations from its very beginning in the Middle Ages to the present day. In its discussion on a new law (proposed by the Labour Government on the demand of Muslim leaders) which would make it a criminal offence to criticise Islam, The Times ("This law will protect believers not beliefs", July 20 2005) styles Muslims a "marginalised group". It then goes on to say that such a law will extend the protection already afforded to Sikhs and Jews "to Muslims, Christians and atheists too". Hindus, a substantial minority in Britain, are not even mentioned! So, which minority is being not only marginalised but altogether excluded by the British media? The fact is that, journalists who twice in the same article enumerate Britain's main religious denominations while ignoring Hinduism, are not journalists but agents of anti-Indian Islamo-Globalism. In its editorial "Indian Summer, Delhi and Washington seal a natural and fast-growing alliance", The Times eulogises the left-wing Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, for his determination "to seize the opportunities that Globalism offers". Let us be very clear what these Globalist "opportunities" are: giving up Indian Culture and Civilisation which has illummined the World for millennia and surrendering to Capitalism, Communism, Christianity and Isllam; embracing Coca-Cola, sun-glasses, chewing-gum, cigarettes, coffee, alcohol and drugs; consumerism, credit cards, violence, terrorism, AIDS, pollution and crime; and becoming the rubbish heap of the Globalist Empire instead of being a leader among nations. Another important aspect of the problem is the media's systematic failure to explain the historical background to the Hindu-Muslim conflict, without which no proper understanding of the current situation is possible. This anomaly leaves the readers with the false impression that Indians (or Hindus) are unreasonable, aggressive and violent people who attack Muslims for no apparent reason and who insist on building temples on Muslim holy places. This has the effect of humiliating, denigrating and stigmatising Hindus in the eyes of the Western public and reinforces the Islamist extremists' resolve to wreak vengeance on the Hindu people, leading to further escalations of the conflict - which according to established media practice is then automatically blamed on the Hindus. If, as "The Times" (July 14 2005) states, "the trail of the London bombers leads back to Pakistan", how can Pakistan be "our friend and ally"? When will the devious and irresponsible media come to their senses and see that Pakistan cannot be "our ally in the war on terror" and "a haven for terrorist training camps", at the same time? THE BBC was found guilty by the BSC (Broadcasting Standards Commission) of giving preferential treatment to Muslims and Muslim-related issues. As this indictment is official, we need not go into details. Suffice it here to say that, as an influential news network, the BBC ought to simply report facts and not manipulate them in favour of any political or religious denomination. In breach of this important principle, the BBC is not only clearly left-leaning but also favours Islam over other religions. This, once again, demonstrates the collaboration between the Leftist-liberalist camp and Islam. The media must give up their parasitic and subversive existence and honour their duty to society, which is to report facts without putting a spin on them. If the media told the plain historical truth which is that, Islamic forces have invaded, occupied and subjugated Hindus for centuries, then the general public would understand that Hindus have as much the right to redress historical wrongs as they have to defend their cultural and Spiritual heritage against present-day attacks. In the same way as the media have spent decades explaining to the German people that they did certain things in the past which were wrong, they must now also put all their combined efforts into making it absolutely clear to the Muslim people that Islam has in the past made itself guilty of some terrible crimes and that any attempt to glorify or repeat such crimes will not be tolerated by the World Community in any form or shape. So long as the media and their inhuman political allies refuse to do so, we are entitled to accuse them of a criminal Conspiracy against the Human Race, in general, and against the Indian People, in particular. On their part, Muslims must understand two things: 1) there is no proof that Islamic culture and religion are better than others, and 2) there is no proof that Muslims, in particular leading figures, always tell the truth. Muslims, therefore, must ask themselves which is wiser: to blindly follow their leaders or to find out for themselves what the historical facts are? They must ask themselves, Why did Islamic Arab armies invade Israel, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Persia and India immediately after the establishment of Islam in Arabia? Did they do it out of some strategic necessity such as self-defence? This is hard to believe as these countries were not even prepared for war, which explains why they were so easily defeated. Did they do it out of a desire to impose Islam on the World? If so, then this was a criminal and repulsive act. Moreover, what happened to the Hindu and Buddhist people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir? Why were Sufi saints murdered by the Islamic authorities in Muslim-occupied Persia? What happened to the Jewish, Christian and Pagan inhabitants of Arabia? Why was Prophet Mohammad poisoned by a Jewish woman? Why do the Scriptures of the Mandaeans or Sabians, an ancient Middle Eastern faith, describe Mohammad as "the son of slaughter" and "a demon who creates much evil in the World"? Is this a reference to the Muslim Arab invasion of Iraq, the home of the Mandaeans, in 636 or some other atrocity Islamic scholars are hiding from us? If the Quran is the Word of God, why does it misinterpret other faiths? Why does it tell women to dress modestly in order to avoid being molested when the evidence from Islamic countries shows that Islamic dress does not protect women against being molested, raped or even killed? These are extremely important questions to which Muslims have a duty to urgently find answers. Otherwise, they will continue to inhabit a dream-world in which Muslims are always right and non-Muslims wrong - a dream-world which is slowly turning into a nightmare for all. PRINCE ALWALEED BIN TALAL OF SAUDI ARABIA has donated 17 million euros for the creation of a "Centre of Islamic Culture" (i.e., Indoctrination) in Paris, France, while his government systematically suppresses Yoga, Hinduism and other faiths in his own country. The House of Saud is responsible for the construction and financing of thousands of mosques and Islamic centres around the World, many of which are controlled by Islamist extremists with links to international terrorism. Perhaps the best - albeit not the only - proof for the Great Islamist-Globalist Conspiracy is the fact that the amount of space, time and importance dedicated to Yoga by the media and their political allies is insignificant in comparison to other issues which are extensively covered. Why do they never even as much as mention that the Ultimate Solution to poverty, disease, wars, terrorism, natural disasters and crime, that is, the Supreme Road to Salvation, is Yoga which is the Path of Unity with the Supreme? This being so, it is our duty to expose the conspirators wherever we can. And it is the duty of all right-thinking people to join us in our work of World-Illumination that the Truth may be revealed and Mankind may be turned back from the brink of Disaster before it is too late. The World cannot be saved by building more and more churches and mosques. What the World urgently needs is Temples of Unity (Yoga Layas) and shrines to the Supreme Lord of Unity and Goodness (Shiva). When the Temples of Unity outnumber the houses of discord, then Peace, Unity and Harmony will prevail. Until that day, Mankind will blunder in the dark, blaming the wrong people, taking the wrong decisions and going down the wrong path. To better understand the true scale of the Globalist Conspiracy, we must be aware that such subversive activities are not the sole prerogative of the Anglo-Saxon-Islamic World. THE BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT, for example, allows the systematic destruction of the Amazon rainforest in order to grow soya beans for China and beef for the West among other things. The Amazon is a unique habitat and home to native tribes, the last survivors of ancient civilisations (incidentally, also called Indians) who, like the Hindus of India and the Buddhists of Tibet, are being decimated by the onslaught of Western Globalism. As part of the Globalist Conspiracy, the indigenous people of America (from Alaska to Brazil) are either exterminated by poverty and disease, murdered in cold blood or converted to Christianity without any attempt being made to study or preserve their unique culture before it disappears for ever. SONIA GANDHI, formerly known as Antonia Maino, leader of the pro-Western Congress Party of India. One of the main characteristics of certain foreigners living in India is their pathological desire to destroy Indian culture (see Joseph Boden, above.) Sonia Gandhi is no exception to this. An Italian-born Roman Catholic who married into the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, she has been spreading her power-seeking tentacles across the political arena of India ever since the death of her husband, Rajiv Gandhi. While Indira Gandhi, former Prime Minister and mother-in-law of Sonia, maintained at least some contact to her ancestral faith (through her Guru and Yoga teacher Swami Dhirendra Brahmachari), the new Congress leader appears not only to have no knowledge of India's true Spirituality but to be positively opposed to it. To understand the problem India is facing today, we only need to take a look at the World's leading countries: America, Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Britain, France. Their leaders all are born in their respective country and belong to the local culture and religion. India, with a population far greater than Russia, America and most other leading countries, is the only odd one out with a leader who is not only a foreigner but also a non-Hindu (according to some accounts even anti-Hindu). If none of the above mentioned nations are prepared to even contemplate being led by an Indian Hindu, why should India be forced to put up with a European Christian as a leader? The people of Africa, Asia, South America and the Arab World all are struggling to free themselves from their European masters. Why should the people of India be the only nation on Earth to give up their hard-earned freedom and willingly go back to the days of foreign-imposed slavery and colonialism? Why does not the West impose a Western leader on China? Is it because Hindus are officially seen as easier to push around than Chinese Communists? After all, even Afghanistan and Iraq have their own, Muslim leaders. So this is why it is imperative for India, as a Hindu nation, to have a Hindu leader: because otherwise the Indian people will remain excluded from the "Democracy", "Equality" and "Freedom" other nations keep talking about, and because without a leader of their own Indians will continue to be treated as the lowest of the low! Unfortunately, foreigners are not the only enemies of India. Among Indians themselves there are plenty of ignorant and misguided characters who not only delight in assuming an attitude of servitude towards India's Western enemies but also actively seek to inflict as much damage as possible on the Indian people and destroy everything that is sacred to them. ATAL BEHARI VAJPAEE and LAL KRISHNA ADVANI, leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are two of the most prominent examples of India's home-grown enemies. Having come to power in 1999 on promises of putting an end to the anti-Hindu machinations of the Congress-led Central Government, they turned their back on the Hindu cause as soon as they achieved their own self-seeking ends. While dishonesty and deception can be safely expected from most politicians, siding up with the enemy amounts to treason which is a capital crime and mortal sin. As India is the Bastion of True Spirituality on Earth, any act of treason against India constitutes a crime against humanity and against God. What India urgently needs in this hour of darkness is not spineless politicians - or any politicians at all - but Heroes like Shivaji, Kartikeya, Virabhadra, Bhairava and Mahakala, with courage, holy justice and righteous fury in their veins to strike terror into the heart of the enemy and crush him underfoot so that he never again raises his hand against the Holy Land of India or dares to harm her noble children. Politicians had better listen to the people or else the people are going to drop them and turn to Spiritual leaders instead - who are our true leaders anyway. Home |