Scientists Confirm Lost Continent Of Gondwana Under Mauritius

From Phys.org:

Scientists have confirmed the existence of a “lost continent” under the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius that was left-over by the break-up of the supercontinent, Gondwana, which started about 200 million years ago.The piece of crust, which was subsequently covered by young lava during volcanic eruptions on the island, seems to be a tiny piece of ancient continent, which broke off from the island of Madagascar, when Africa, India, Australia and Antarctica split up and formed the Indian Ocean.“We are studying the break-up process of the continents, in order to understand the geological history of the planet,” says Wits geologist, Professor Lewis Ashwal, lead author on the paper “Archaean zircons in Miocene oceanic hotspot rocks establish ancient continental crust beneath Mauritius”, published in the prestigious journal Nature Communications.

By studying the mineral, zircon, found in rocks spewed up by lava during , Ashwal and his colleagues Michael Wiedenbeck from the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) and Trond Torsvik from the University of Oslo, guest scientist at GFZ, have found that remnants of this mineral were far too old to belong on the island of Mauritius.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-lost-continent-mauritius.html#jCp

 

Durga Devi Molested By Shiva’s Warriors?

The Jallikattu protests get stranger and stranger.

First, there is the whole notion of an uprising around the bull, the animal associated with Shiva.

That takes place just around the time of  the inauguration of Donald Trump, who positions himself as a stud-bull in the china-shop of  emasculated Western politicians.

[We notice that Eric Margolis wrote a short piece at LRC that appeared after this post, calling Trump a “bull in the Middle East china shop.”

And Ron Unz has now come out identifying the female protests against Trump as a color revolution.

Well, you heard it here first..

The protests for the “masculine”  warrior sport (veera villayatu) contrast with the massive feminist dominated protests around the world against Donald Trump.

Then came news that the protests had become hijacked (allegedly) by other more violent protestors, holding up anti-Modi and anti-PETA posters.

These have been lumped together with protestors holding up more provocative posters, of Osama Bin Laden and deceased LTTE leader, Prabhakaran.

The provocations were apparently from extreme-left, Naxal, and secessionist Tamil groups, from several newspaper accounts and the accounts of the organizers of the protests themselves.

Now comes a report that the chief cop on the scene, a head constable by the name of Durga Devi, was molested and attacked at the Ice House Police Station, which was then torched.

Durga is the female consort of Shiva and is also a popular embodiment of the Indian nation. 

[See my posts on Draupadi Vastraharan, to which the custodial rape of Devyani Khobragade was compared, as well as the picture of Durga deployed by pro-nanny demonstrators.]

Just a coincidence? Or one too many to be a coincidence?

The Indian nation (Durga), law and order, and feminism under attack from “Tamil secessionism” (Shiva) and unreconstructed patriarchal masculinity/religion.

There is video available of the outrage. But then so do the protestors have video to support their claims.

Each side claims the other’s video is morphed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Islamic Thinkers Or NWO Operatives?

From the blog of a Muslim sociologist, an analysis of a leading Islamic thinker from Afghan, who turns out to have been a freemason and possibly a British operative:

Jamal ud Din Al Afghani, and Muhammad Abduh are documented to be freemasons in the service of British Government, through their membership in the Oxford freemasons movement established for the purpose of creating Salafi movement in outside Britain under the freemason control which was established by Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Doubts over the relationships between Salafi leaders at the start ( Jama ul Din al Afghani and Muhammad Abdu) and the British government are spelled as documented reports that both leaders were members of the Oxford freemasons which was established in the 1820’s. The group of missionaries was appointed by a combined movement of Oxford University, the Anglican Church, and Kings College of London University, under Scottish Rite Freemasonry, as part of a plot to foster the creation of an occult brotherhood in the Muslim world, dedicated to the use of terrorism on behalf of the Illuminati in the City of London (1)

The leading promoters of the Oxford Movement were Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Palmerston of the Palladian Rite, and Edward Bullwer-Lytton, the leader of a branch of Rosicrucianism that developed from the Asiatic Brethren. The Oxford movement was also supported by the Jesuits. Also involved were the British royal family itself, and many of its leading prime ministers and aides.

Benjamin Disraeli was Grand Master of Freemasonry, as well as knight of the Order of the Garter. It was in Coningsby, that he confessed, through a character named Sidonia, modeled on his friend Lionel de Rothschild, that, “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Of the influence of the secret societies, Disraeli also remarked, in Parliamentary debate:

www.hasanyahya.com

“It is useless to deny. . . a great part of Europe ­ the whole of Italy and France, and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries ­ are covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutional government. They do not want ameliorated institutions; they do not want provincial councils nor the recording of votes; they want. . . an end to ecclesiastical establishments.”(2)

Throughout his forty-year career as a British intelligence agent, Jamal ud al Afghani was guided by two British Islamic and cult specialists, Wilfred Scawen Blunt and Edward G. Browne. E. G. Browne was Britain’s’ leading Orientalist of the nineteenth century, and numbered among his protégés at Cambridge University’s Orientalist department Harry “Abdullah” St. John B. Philby, a British intelligence specialist behind the Wahhabi movement. Wilfred S. Blunt, another member of the British Orientalist school, was given the responsibility by the Scottish Rite Masons to organize the Persian and the Middle East lodges. Al Afghani was their primary agent.

Very little is known of Jamal ud Din al Afghani’s origins. Despite the appellation “Afghani”, which he adopted and by which he is known, there are some reports that he was a Jew. On the other hand, some scholars believe that he was not an Afghan but a Iranian Shiah. And, despite posing as a reformer of orthodox Islam, al Afghani also acted as proselytizer of the Bahai faith, the first recorded project of the Oxford Movement, a creed that would become the heart of the Illuminati’s one-world-religion agenda.”

Until The New Year….

With that Dandachi post, I feel I’ve done my bit for now.

Curtsey     Credit: Pixgood.com

I want to spend some time organizing my posts. They run into the thousands. No use doing the foot-work for other people and not getting my own research into books.

Besides, the ease with which people can be made to take their eye off the ball (Trump! Anti-Semites! #BlackLivesMatter! #WhiteLivesMatterToo!) has got me thinking how much people want to be deceived.

And why that is.

A link back from Graham Hancock, the well-known writer (thank you, sir), has got me thinking.

Time to hibernate and let it all buzz…

Image result for christmas candles

The Deliberate Neglect Of India’s Scientific History

Professor Alok Kumar of the State University of New York, the author of two books on the contributions of Indians to science, points out the deliberate neglect shown to Indian scientific history :

Asserting that modern science would be unrecognisable without the contributions of ancient Indian scientists like Aryabhata and Sushruta, a noted Indian-American scientist has rued that there is a concerted effort to ignore these figures, whose contributions to science is at par, if not more than those of Pythagoras and Aristotle.

“Just imagine erasing the name of Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Plato from the current philosophy texts because it is an old past. Will it be just and fair? The answer is no. However, this is exactly the case when we ignore our own heroes, Aryabhata, Kanada, Varahmihir, Brahmgupta, Charaka, and Sushruta, in India unjustly,” Alok Kumar told PTI.

A professor of physics at the State University of New York at Oswego, Kumar, who was born and educated in India, is the author of two books that documents the contribution of ancient Hindu scientist to the modern day science including Sciences of the Ancient Hinduswhich was released last year.

His third book ‘A History of Science in World Cultures: Voices of Knowledge’ is due this year.

“Modern science and medicine would be unrecognisable, and far more primitive, without the immense contribution of the ancient Hindus. They invented everyday essentials such as our base-ten number system and zero as a numeral,” he said.

“The ancient Hindus also developed a sophisticated system of medicine with its mind-body approach known as ayurveda; detailed anatomical and surgical knowledge of the human body, including cataract surgery and the so—called plastic surgery; metallurgical methods of extraction and purification of metals, knowledge of various constellations and planetary motions that was good enough to assign motion to the Earth; and the science yoga,” Kumar said.”

The Humble Genius Behind Sweet Potato Pie

George Washington Carver, one of the greatest scientific geniuses who ever lived, was a poor slave boy, with neither father nor mother. Carver is credited not just with hundreds of inventions stemming from the peanut, but with reviving the southern economy.

Incidentally, he also popularized the use of the sweet potato in the South, a root that has replaced pumpkins on many a Thanksgiving table:

 

You have to be someone to get a National Monument named after you, and George Washington Carver was someone – not in his own estimation, but by universal acclaim.  His own estimation of himself was summed up in his words, “Without my Savior, I am nothing.”  He sought his Creator for guidance in all things, and gave God the credit for all his discoveries.  Rightly does a National Monument deserve to be named for him, because his story is an inspiration to all Americans.  It is one of overcoming odds and serving one’s fellow man, achieving greatness by good works, and devoting oneself to serving others.  It is a great American success story for which black Americans, and all Americans, can justly find inspiration.

For an example of doing science the Genesis way, it would be hard to find a better example than George Washington Carver.  God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28).  Liberal environmentalists hate this verse because they misunderstand it.  It does not mean to run roughshod over the land, exploiting it for selfish purposes.  It means to manage it as stewards of the Creator, for He alone is the one who owns “the cattle on a thousand hills … for the earth and its fullness are mine” (Psalm 50:10–12), and “the earth is the Lord’s, and those who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1).  Carver knew that “It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture” (Psalm 100:3).

Since He is the Creator and Owner, we are mere stewards, accountable to Him.  Now it goes without saying that a good steward has to know the state of affairs of what he is managing.  So what does the Genesis Mandate mean?  It means, in effect, “do science.”  Science was the very first occupational career the Creator gave to the only beings He had made in His image, endowed with personality, intellect, will, and emotions.  Science (the understanding of the world) and environmental stewardship (the responsible management of it) are what dominion is all about.  Implicit in this view is that the world is a vast puzzle to solve, an endless store of natural wonders to explore.  It was in this spirit that Carver humbly asked, “Mr. Creator, why did you make the peanut?” then went to discover over 300 uses for it.  But we get ahead of our story.

Carver’s story is all the more remarkable because of the obstacles he had to overcome.  He was born practically a non-person in Civil War times, the nameless son of poor slave parents on a Missouri farm around 1864.  His father had been trampled to death by a team of oxen before young George had any memories of him.  His mother and sister had been taken by slave raiders in the night, never to be seen again.  Barely six months old, the boy and his older brother Jim were adopted by German immigrants, Moses and Susan Carver.  Jim was the stronger one; little George was short, weak, sickly, shy, stuttering and nearly mute.  Who would have expected great things from this unfortunate child?  Yet the Carvers noticed special aptitudes in him – curiosity, keen observational skills, and love of nature.  To this, they added discipline, hard work, and respect for God’s holy book, the Bible.  And they gave him a name to live up to: George Washington.

The Carvers were too poor to give him much more than that, but it proved sufficient; little George was ready to face a world of prejudice and start from the bottom up without complaining.  At age ten, with a silver dollar and eight pennies in his pocket, Carver walked alone the ten miles to the nearest colored boys school in Neosho.  He would find a barn to sleep in at night, and do any odd jobs a neighbor might need, from washing dishes and cooking to planting, to pay for food and tuition.  Abuse from other kids or white folks did not break his spirit.  Carver knew how to pray.  He always sensed the Lord was with him, and he knew that his loving heavenly Father would take care of him and direct his paths.  Besides, the trees and plants were too interesting to make him self-conscious over his own hardships.

Passing each test and scaling each hurdle, George won the hearts of classmates in a Kansas high school.  He developed many interests in which he excelled.  Those who know him primarily for his achievements in agricultural science might be surprised to learn that George Washington Carver was a singer, artist, piano player and debater.  His spiritual aptitude took root in his fellowship with the YMCA.  Throughout his life, he felt the sting of racial prejudice, even witnessing a lynching of another black man by the KKK.  The white folk who knew George stood up for him when racial slurs came at him.  He remained friendly, open, and diligent in everything he did, rising to the top of his class with high grades.  He was accepted to Highland University on a scholarship.

Upon arriving at Highland in Kansas, he was in for another major disappointment.  He entered the President’s office and announced that he was George Washington Carver, the one who had received the President’s own letter of acceptance.  “Young man, I’m afraid there has been a mistake.  You failed to inform us you were colored.  We do not take colored students here at Highland.”  The President would not be moved by the fact that George had spent everything he had to come.  His skin was just not the right color.  The feeling of dejection can only be imagined, as he walked around the strange town wondering what to do next.  He never felt more lonely in his life.  Again, he prayed.  He decided he would find a college that would take him.  He would work, save his money, and he would study hard, and God helping him, he would succeed.

It would not be easy.  He took a homestead in west Kansas and endured a blizzard alone in his cabin, and more loneliness..  Then word of a new college that would take coloreds came to his attention, and at age 26, he spent the ten dollars he made from selling his cabin and land, traveled to Indianola, and entered Simpson College.  The rest is history.  Though now older than most of the students, and seemingly the only black student, George rapidly excelled and made high grades.  He transferred to Iowa State and became the first black man to earn a bachelor’s degree.  Even prejudiced white folk made way for this rising star.  He was invited to teach, and earned a master’s degree in agriculture in 1896.  His work on plants and plant diseases was getting recognized.  It came to the attention of Booker T. Washington.

Booker T. Washington, a friend of Abraham Lincoln, had founded Tuskegee Institute fifteen years earlier as a place to provide blacks an opportunity for higher education.  He gave Carver a strange proposition that a mercenary man would have snubbed with utter disdain:

I cannot offer you money, position, or fame.  The first two you have.  The last, from the place you now occupy, you will no doubt achieve.  These things I now ask you to give up.  I offer you in their place – work – hard, hard work – the challenge of bringing people from degradation, poverty and waste to full manhood.

With a good deal of prayer and soul searching, Carver accepted.

Upon arriving in Alabama, George Carver was stunned to find he had no lab, no books, no equipment, no helpers, and no curriculum.  He would have to build the entire department from scratch.  He was even expected to share a room with another faculty member.  On top of that, he was expected to raise chickens and do other tasks he did not particularly care for, and the students were not that interested in learning what he had to teach.  But Carver had learned to take life as it came and make the most of it.  It was never easy; his relationship with Booker T. was often strained, the latter trying to keep the institution from going broke, and the former more visionary than resources permitted.  But they needed each other, and complemented each other, as iron sharpens iron (a fact George never fully realized till after Booker’s death).

So from the ground up at Tuskegee, George set to work with the equivalent of two loaves and a few fishes, handing them over to the Lord to multiply them.  Improvising a lab with old bottles and spare parts, and a microscope donated by his Iowa friends, he slowly got his balky students on track and began spinning a list of achievements that overflowed by the bushels.  His classes did experiments with sweet potatoes, trying to increase crop yields.  From five bushels an acre to ten, then twenty and thirty … they reached eighty bushels per acre, a feat thought impossible by seasoned farmers.  His all-time record was 266 bushels per acre, with the proper cultivation and fertilization.  Carver’s abilities in agriculture must have seemed like magic.  He experimented with crop rotation and found ways to replenish the soil.  His list of useful products from common crops began to grow, including delicious meals from cowpeas and industrial products from sweet potatoes.  As a ministry of help to poor farmers, he and his students put a classroom on a wagon.  They traveled from farm to farm, showing farmers how they could improve their yields.  George Washington Carver was poised to save the South from the devastation of the Civil War to new dangers on the horizon.

Southern farmers, by tradition, were stuck in a cotton rut.  Carver realized that not only did this deplete the soil, but the devastating boll weevil was slowly working its way east from Mexico and Texas at about 100 miles per year.  He realized its arrival in the South would wipe out the cotton economy.  Peanuts and other legumes, he demonstrated, replenished the soil.  Not only that, they were extremely versatile and healthy.  Grudgingly at first, the farmers took his advice to try growing the silly goobers, doubtful that anyone would buy them.  Carver tried to convince them that peanuts were an ideal food source.  Taking his cue from Genesis, where God had said to Adam and the animals, “I have given every green plant for food” (Genesis 1:29–30, 2:9), he figured there must be more there than meets the eye.  The threat of the boll weevil forced some farmers to take his advice and grow peanuts, but some became angry when they could not find a market for them.  This drove Carver to launch a series of amazing discoveries.

As he would tell the story later, he went out to pray (as was his daily practice), and asked God why He made the universe.  The Lord replied that was a mighty big question for a puny man.  Carver tried a smaller question, why did you make man?  As God kept narrowing the scope of his inquiry, he finally tried, “Mr. Creator, why did you make the peanut?” With that, the Lord was satisfied, and told him to go into his lab and find out.  In a Spirit-filled rush of discovery, Carver separated peanuts into their shells, skins, oils and meats and found all kinds of amazing properties and possibilities.

Most of us have heard this one of Carver’s many claims to fame, that he discovered over 300 uses for the peanut, but have you ever seen the list?  You can find it on websites, but here are a few samples for the pure amazement of what came out of that humble Tuskegee lab: soap, cooking oil, milk, rubber, glue, insecticide, malaria medicine, flour, salve, paint, cosmetics, paper, fertilizer, paving material and (of course) peanut butter, peanut brittle, peanut clusters, and dozens of other food products.  He amazed the faculty and students one day by serving an entire meal – appetizer, main course, side dishes, beverage and dessert – out of peanuts: soup, salad, milk, coffee, bread, mock chicken, peanut ice cream, and a variety of candies and cookies.  His peanut milk was indistinguishable from the dairy kind.  Farmers no longer had to worry about having a market for peanuts!

In 1921, the United Peanut Association of America, now a thriving group of farmers thanks to Carver’s help, sent him to Congress to testify about a tariff bill.  The weary Congressmen, bored from days of other tariff arguments, allotted him ten minutes.  Two hours later, their eyes were still bulging from his displays of products he had made.  His lively and sometimes humorous presentation had them spellbound.  The law passed easily.

Peanuts were just one of many plants Carver’s magic with chemistry transformed into useful products.  He invented 35 products from the velvet bean and 118 from the sweet potato.  How many of these things do you have around the house: adhesive, axle grease, bleach, briquettes, buttermilk, chili sauce, ink, instant coffee, linoleum, mayonnaise, meat tenderizer, metal polish, paper, plastic, paint, pavement, peanut butter, shaving cream, shoe polish, synthetic rubber, talcum powder, and wood stain.  These and many other products Carver produced from plant materials.  George Washington Carver became the father of a new branch of applied science called agricultural chemistry or “chemurgy.”  The extent of his discoveries in this field are breathtaking, and unlikely to be surpassed by any one person again.

Just a few of these products could have made a man rich, but Carver made them available freely.  As a servant of God, he felt the Creator should have the credit for putting all this richness into the plants He had made.  Carver did not seek fame, but his work brought him world-wide renown; Teddy Roosevelt visited him at Tuskegee and said, “There’s no more important work than what you are doing right here.”  He never made much money in his 40+ years at Tuskegee.  Driven by the needs of those he served there, he turned down a lucrative offer to work for Thomas Edison.  He gave generously from his meager assets.  Despite a high-pitched voice he inherited from a bout with whooping cough in childhood, he was a popular speaker.  Projecting a visage of integrity, with rhetorical intensity characteristic of a black preacher, Carver inspired the young to rise above their hardships, as he had, and make their life count.

All who knew George Washington Carver were impressed by his spirituality.  Carver would often rise at 4:00 in the morning and go into his favorite woods to pray.  Each day he would ask, “Lord, what do you want me to do today?“ and then do it.  The goodness of God and the richness of creation was often on his lips.  He said, “I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in.” 

Millets Preferable To Quinoa In India

There is a craze in India for adopting the organic alternative grains that are fashionable among American consumers.

The problem is that those grains, like quinoa, are mostly imported from central and southern America, regions that are well within the economic reach of well-to-do America, but are a ridiculous form of ostentatious consumption for India.

Living on the other side of the globe, with far less purchasing power, and with many more constraints of  soil, land, technology, and climate, Indians have to be smarter than this.

India already has a whole range of traditional cereals that are far more nutritious and far easier to produce than polished rice:

Alternative.in:

When seeing nicely packaged ragi biscuits in the health section of supermarkets, one could almost get the impression that millets are indeed becoming fashionable again. However, the statistics speak a different language: Changes in consumption trends over the past decades, coupled with state policies that favour rice and wheat, have led to a sharp decline in millet production and consumption.

In the 1950s, the area under millet cultivation in India exceeded the area cultivated under either rice or wheat, and millets made up 40% of all cultivated grains. However, in the early 1970s, rice overtook millets, and in the early 1990s so did wheat. Since the Green Revolution, the production of rice and wheat was boosted by 125% and 285% respectively, and the production of millets declined by -2.4%.

Although India is still the top millet producing country in the world, by 2006, the millet growing area was only half that of rice, and one fifth less than wheat. The share of millets in total grain production had dropped from 40% to 20%. This has dire agricultural, environmental and nutritional consequences.

Not just urban food preferences, state policies also play a major role in the shift of consumption habits. For instance, the Public Distribution System has promoted rice and wheat uniformly across India, completely disregarding local climatic conditions, agricultural traditions and food cultures. Polished rice became the cheapest and most readily available foodgrain, and as a consequence the most popular one. The change in preferences was aggravated by notions of cleanliness, purity and sophistication of refined grains versus the more down-to-earth “coarse” grains.

Millets contain a high amount of fibre, which earned them the derogatory name “coarse grains” and often degrades them to animal feed. However, in a time where urban consumers tend to go overboard on refined products, the extra fibre in millets might just be a great boon. Fibre is essential not just for good digestion and a healthy bowel; it also has a positive impact on blood pressure and blood sugar levels.

Furthermore, millets are richer in several nutrients than rice, wheat or corn. For instance, they are rich in B-vitamins such as niacin, B6 and folic acid, as well as calcium, iron, potassium, magnesium, zinc and beta carotene. Each millet variety has a different nutritional profile. The table below compares several millets, wheat and rice with regard to selected essential nutrients. Millets are also ideal for people suffering from gluten-intolerance.

Millets are truly miraculous grains in terms of their nutritional value, and even more so in terms of their humble requirements as agricultural crops. They are ideal for rainfed farming systems – the majority of India’s small and marginal farms. The rainfall requirement of millets is only 30% of that of rice. While it takes an average 4,000 litres of water to grow 1 kg of rice, millets grow without any irrigation. Millets can withstand droughts, and they grow well in poor soils, some of them even in acidic, saline or sandy soils. Traditional millet farming systems are inherently biodiverse and include other important staples such as pulses and oilseeds. They are usually grown organically, as millets do not require chemical pesticides and fertilizer.

Organizations that promote millet cultivation and consumption for security of food, nutrition, fodder, fibre, health, livelihoods and ecology across India are joined in the Millet Network of India (MINI), an alliance of over farmer organizations, scientists, civil society groups and individuals.

Millets are richer in several nutrients than rice, wheat or corn. Pic: Flickr, Creative Commons

Millets are available in organic stores, from organic online retailers, in supermarkets and various other shops. They can easily be integrated into any kind of diet.

Here’s how you can use millets at home:

•Mix millets with other grains or use by themselves like rice
Make soft and tasty idlis from whole jowar
•Add some millets to your dosa batter
•Enjoy puffed jowar as a snack, breakfast cereal or sprinkled on salads for a nice crunch
Use foxtail millet rava for a more nutririous upma
•Add millet flours to rotis; for cakes and raised breads, mix them with wheat flour, as millets do not contain gluten.”

How To Read The News

I’ve been watching the mainstream Western media critically since about 1991, when Gulf War I took place. That’s a total of nearly 25 years.

Including this blog, I’ve written literally tens of thousands of pages about news images and stories. Tens of thousands.

For academic superstars, Marxist professors, State Dept honchos, and intelligence operatives.  They were not fools and none of them took me for a fool.

Here is what I’ve learned:

  1. Don’t be overwhelmed by detail and “noise”. You’ll lose the big picture. The noise is where the propaganda is. Tune it out.
  2. Don’t leap to take the bait. Let things come out on their own and then try to fit the pieces in.  Don’t force the pieces. Instead, change the narrative.
  3. Follow the money.
  4. Follow the money.
  5. Follow the money.
  6. What happened yesterday, happens today, and will happen tomorrow. History repeats itself.  Read history. Fit the politics into the history and not the other way around.
  7. Follow the money.
  8. Everything in the mainstream is suspect.
  9. Everything in the alternative media is also suspect, in a different way.
  10. The truth is not hidden. It’s hiding in plain sight. It’s hidden by fog, noise, and distortion, not by outright concealment.
  11. Listen to outsiders, the unknown, the marginal.
  12. Follow facts, not people. Trust no media figure completely.
  13. Follow the money.
  14. Look inside yourself to understand other people’s motives, responses, and reactions. People are not different.
  15. Look outside yourself to understand other people. People are different.
  16. Embrace cognitive dissonance. Learn to entertain contradictory interpretations in your mind without striving  prematurely for a conclusion.
  17. Learn to live without certainty about many things. Probabilities are good enough, most of the time.
  18. Don’t study any phenomenon in isolation. Study it from as many angles as you can. Connect.
  19. Don’t discount any theory, however outlandish. Reality is much weirder than you think it is…..or can think it is.
  20. Follow the money.

Malhotra Trounces American Professor

Hindu activist Rajiv Malhotra’s brilliant rebuttal of plagiarism charges by an American professor, Andrew Nicholson.

Nicholson, having borrowed liberally – without any acknowledgment whatsoever– from traditional Indian pandits, had called Malhotra a “plagiarist,” even though Malhotra cites him over thirty times in his book:

Dear Andrew Nicholson,

I am glad you have entered the battlefield so we can get into some substantial matters. Since this is an extended article, I want to go about it systematically, starting with the following clarifications: I used your work with explicit references 30 times in Indra’s Net, hence there was no ill-intention. But I am not blindly obeying you, contrary to your experience with servile Indians; hence your angst that I am ‘distorting’ your ideas is unfounded. My writing relating to your work can be seen as twofold:

  • Where I cite your work.
  • Where it is my own perspectives.

You are entitled to attribution for ‘A’ but not for ‘B’.

Regarding ‘A’, I am prepared to clarify these attributions further where necessary. But, as we shall see below, I am going to actually remove many of the references to your work simply because you have borrowed Indian sources and called it your own original ideas. I am better off going to my tradition’s sources rather than via a westerner whose ego claims to have become the primary source. This Western hijacking of adhikara is what the elaborate Western defined, and controlled system of peer-reviews and academic gatekeepers is meant to achieve, i.e. turning knowledge into the control of western ‘experts’ and their Indian sepoys.

Regarding ‘B’, let me illustrate by using the very same example you cite as my ‘distortion’ of ‘your’ work. You wrote in your book that Vijnanabhikshu unified multiple paths into harmony. This is correct. That comes under ‘A’. But I add to this my own statement that Vivekananda does the same thing also. This is important to my thesis that Vivekananda built on top a long Indian tradition, and not by copying ideas from the West as claimed by the neo-Hinduism camp. This is ‘B’ – my idea. Your complaint is that by asserting this about Vivekananda, I am distorting you. You fail to distinguish between ‘A’ and ‘B’ because you assume that you are the new adhikari on the subject and anything in addition to or instead of your views amounts to a distortion. I see this as a blatant sign of colonialism.

You are carrying the white man’s burden to educate the Indians even about our own culture. Please note that Vijnanabhikshu is an important person in our heritage and there are numerous commentaries on his work. Yours is not any original account of him. You got this material from secondary sources. But by complying by the mechanical rules of ‘scholarship’ you got it into western peer-reviewed publications, and hence you claim to be the new adhikari. Furthermore, nor was Vijnanabhikshu the first to unify Hinduism. I have sources of the unification of various Hindu systems that go back much further in time and you do not seem to be aware of these. My point is that Vivekananda stands on the shoulders of many prior giants within our own tradition. I cited you to the extent it worked for me but did not stop there; I took it further than you have.

Sir Williams Jones started this claim to be the ‘new pandit’ in the late 1700s when he was a top official for the East India Company. Today that enterprise is dead in one sense, but has revived and reincarnated into new forms. You do not seem conscious that your position is not only arrogant but also puts in the parampara of Sir William Jones.

I re-examined your book lately and find too many ideas taken from Indian texts and experts that are cleverly reworded in fancy English. Let’s take a look at bhedabheda Vedanta. My teacher of this system has been Dr Satya Narayan Das, head of the Jiva Institute in Vrindavan, who spent considerable time with me while I was writing Being Different where I first explained my understanding. He is considered one of the foremost adhikaris today in this system, and adhikar in our tradition is not a matter of producing publications (with lots of quotation marks and obedience to other rules), but mainly requires actual experience of what is being said. Without the inner experience of the states of consciousness being discussed, it is at best secondary knowledge.

This experience is not a simple matter for western Indologists who spend hours going through other western interpretations and Sanskrit dictionaries. By complying with the procedural requirements of citations, etc. they suddenly claim to have become the new original and primary source. This system needs to be questioned, and I have written extensively about the syndrome I call the peer-review cartel. (You can read my debate on this a decade back on Rediff.com)

Therefore, I intend to delete most of the references to your book for bhedabheda, because it is clear that you lack the adhikara as per our system. I do wish to credit you in some respects but nowhere close to what you demand. It amazes me that there is nothing original in your explanation of bhedabheda, as your knowledge is obtained from reading Indian texts, western interpretations and sitting at the feet of Indian pandits to learn. Unfortunately, western Indology does not recognize what the pandit teaches you as his work, because it is oral and not written in a peer-reviewed (hence western supervised) publication. So the whole protocol of claiming something to belong to you as the author is a sort of technology of thievery. Fortunately, Indians have started claiming back their bio-heritage such as Ayurveda from such thievery that is being done by westerners claiming that Indians never filed patents as per western rules. It is time to also claim our intellectual heritage back.

Indian pandits know their materials by heart and it is orally transmitted, and they do not have the ego to claim authorship. They are very humble and hence get taken for a ride. They are duped by any ‘good cop’ from the west who comes in Indian dress to talk to them nicely and bamboozle them into believing that he is a friend of the tradition. Westerners can pick their brains freely, without which you would not be able to learn; but then you go back to the West and have the arrogance to call it yours. As per your Western protocol, you thank the pandit in some preface once, and feel that it suffices. But if you want that my 30 references to your work fall short then by the same token, please note that you, too, ought to be acknowledging your pandits and Indian textual sources in every single paragraph, if not every sentence.

Only that portion of your work which you feel gives truly original thoughts can become yours and make you its adhikari. If you would be kind enough to send us a list of what you consider original thoughts in your book, and that I have used these because they are not found anywhere else except in your work, then I would gladly bow to you and thank you profusely. But whatever portions (which is almost the entire book) are merely your rehashing the Indian materials in fancy English, over those I do not grant you the status of ‘ownership’.

….. What frightens your colleagues is that my book will educate our traditional pandits about your methods of exploitation. Let me frighten you even further: All my books are in the process of being translated into Sanskrit, specifically for the purpose of education of young pandits about the issues I raise. So my target reader is not folks like you, but our own pandits and others who claim this as their heritage and practice. I am especially interested in those who did not sell out to western sponsorship, foreign tours, etc. These will comprise my home team. I am only doing a humble service to inform them about the issues and remedies.

This is why more and more Indologists will be asked to come out of the woodwork and defend the old fortress. In the process they will also expose themselves. But that fortress is crumbling and my work merely accelerates the process of India once again becoming the center of Indology and not a subservient satellite of it.

Indian authorities should demand the return back to India of the 500,000 Sanskrit manuscripts that are lying outside India in various Western universities, archives, museums and private collections. These are our heritage just like old statues and should be returned since they were mostly taken by theft during colonial rule. I consider these more precious than the Kohinoor diamond. Right now, it is western Indologists like you get to define ‘critical editions’ of our texts and become the primary source and adhikari. This must end and I have been fighting this for 25 years. Now we finally some serious traction, thanks in part to people like you who attack and give me a chance to make my case more openly. Please note that what happens to me personally is irrelevant, and I am glad if attacks like this awaken more people.

My response to you is nothing personal, but serves to educate my own people. You are a glaring example of what I have called a ‘good cop’, i.e., one who goes about showing love/romance for the tradition. But at some time his true colors come out when he does what I have called a U-Turn. You would make an interesting case study of the U-Turn syndrome, for which we ought to examine where you got your materials from, and to what extent you failed to acknowledge Indian sources, both written and oral, with the same weight with which you expect me to do so.

To suit their agendas, westerners have pronounced theories like ‘nobody owns culture’ and ‘the author is dead’. Our naïve pandits are too innocent to know any of this, but I wish to inform them. The claim that nobody owns a culture makes it freely available to whosoever wants to do whatever they choose to do with it. Hence, Indian cultural capital is being digested right and left. The contradiction is that the west is ultra-protective about its ‘intellectual property’ and your obsession to squeeze more references/citations out of me illustrates this.

By declaring that the ‘author is dead’, the West says the contexts and intentions of the rishis are irrelevant. They are dead and nobody knows what they meant. So ‘we’ (the Western Indologists) must interpret Indian texts by bringing our own theories and lenses. This has been the basis for the Freudian psychoanalysis of Hinduism, and all other Western theories being applied. If the original author is dead, the material does not belong to anyone. It is public domain. So whoever has more funding and powerful machinery will determine how it is interpreted. However, the same ‘nobody owns culture’ principle does not apply to what you consider as your ‘property’. Indians need to wake up to this game.

[This same foul game is played by anti-IP libertarians who operate from the same assumptions of the colonialists, old and new.]

They need to stop funding Western Indology and develop Indian Indology. The ‘make in India’ ideal should also be applied here. Expecting Indologists to change because you dole out money is like feeding a crocodile expecting him to become your friend. For the first 10 years of my work in this area, I gave away a substantial portion of my life savings in an unsuccessful attempt to fund and change the Indologists’ hearts. But they play the good/bad cop game with skill. I learned a great deal because I was acknowledged as the largest funder of western Indology at one time. Then I stopped and became their harshest critic. I have on file a lot of grant correspondence with Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, to name just a few. Naturally, they worry that I am exposing their secrets. One day I will get someone to organize all that material into a publication.”

 

Why Christians Must Defend Their Traditions

The argument is made that Christians best imitate Jesus by not taking offense at insults and attacks on their traditions and icons.

There are many reasons why this is false.

There is the obvious one that Jesus himself did not tolerate the desecration of the Temple.

He actively threw the money-changers out of its precincts, over-turned their tables, chased away their animals, and put them out of business.

Then, there is the invective Jesus used  – “serpents,” “devils,” “liars,” “hypocrites.”

Is this Jesus meek and mild?

No.

There never was a Jesus meek and mild.

That is a concoction of well-bred, middle-class Sunday School misses.

They cannot be blamed for knowing nothing about real men, but we can.

Jesus slept out in the open, with only stones for his pillow.

He went for days without food or sleep.

He preached and healed in sun and rain on the hills and on the lake-shore, in front of sweaty, restless crowds of thousands of peasants.

He worked and lived with illiterate fishermen and carpenters, who drank and swore.

He routinely castigated the lawyers and scribes and the powerful members of the Sanhedrin.

Indeed, the entire Gospel story is the story of the relentless persecution of Jesus by the religious “mafia” that had an iron grip on the spiritual life of the Judeans.

That was the iron grip that Jesus broke on the cross.

So, using Jesus as an excuse for our cowardice doesn’t work.

But there are other reasons.

As the symbols of a tradition are denigrated with impunity, they lose their power over the minds of the young.

Young people don’t yet have the experience or discernment to filter out the abuse and distortion.

The young go by what they are told, not so much in words as in deeds, by their elders and their peers.

When the adults around do not respond to the tidal wave of filth and abuse directed at the Christian tradition, the young do not take Christianity seriously.

They see it only as the butt of jokes. The punch-line of comedy routines.

Faith flourishes with physical persecution. The shedding of blood creates martyrs.

But faith is hard-pressed to survive Saturday Night Live and a moral martyrdom of unending, undefended humiliation.

Jesus Christ will survive it. So will his saints.

But the rabble who perpetrate this barbarism and the cowards who countenance it will not survive with their  humanity intact.