I must be doing something right….or maybe Mr. Stix isn’t as popular a writer as I thought, since he’s actually taking the trouble to respond.

First, I apologize. The article was not by Mr. Stix, he was simply citing it….apparently written by a blog-buddy called Federale.…who turns out to be ex of Homeland Security and a former Federal agent.…now blogging about immigrants.

In that case, the distortions are even more scary, but now much more understandable.

My bad. Will correct.  My excuse is I love puns and got carried away when I saw the name. It’s a hazard of trying to keep up and deconstruct propaganda, as it’s put out.

Still,  the correct attribution actually makes my claim about state propaganda that much more compelling in this case.

On other points made in his refutation by Stix:

1. I am a coward. Um, check out my blog.

2.  I am a “Glibertarian.” Um not quite. Check out my blog. Classical liberal.

3. I am a high-caste Hindu. Um no.  Middle-class in origin. Upper middle-class at present. Christian by birth and descent.

Not all Indians are primitive savages, that is the thesis that has got Mr. Stix upset

I actually do not wear a bone in my nose and have been seen frequently in churches – Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran and CSI. I am a member in good standing of some. And have even sung and conducted choirs in Catholic churches.

However, churches in the US are often far too left-wing for my taste.

4.  Thomas Woods, Ilana Mercer, no problem.   I like them both, when they stay on track and don’t ignore the Israeli mafia blackmailing governments, here or elsewhere.

Woods even cited one of my pieces in one of his books, so I cannot be a “glibertarian.” I routinely criticize them and have got into trouble with them for criticizing Rothbard, Hoppe, Block and Kinsella…..

I dropped out of their fan club, because I am not an anarcho-capitalist.

Oh and I did write another book, with a libertarian, who has a conservative following. I notice, like some others I’ve mentioned, Stix dropped my name off that book, conveniently. So he really can’t complain if I didn’t attribute him, by accident, can he?

So these bizarre factless slurs and name-calling of which I seem to be the sole recipient, to what do I attribute them?

Christianity and high civilization?

Why is it other people’s much more sharply-worded blogs don’t get attacked in such scurrilous terms?

Why shouldn’t I draw the conclusion that there is in fact pervasive racism, suppressed, and maybe excerbated, by laws?

Still, I cannot get worked up about a random blogger who’s more a victim of propaganda than anything else.

So, a very good day to you too, Mr. Stix. Hope you feel better soon. You’re one of the imperial state’s many victims. A moral victim.

PS

I didn’t bother to refute anything else by Federale/Stix  because in a way their own writing discredits them.  If the masses don’t bother to study and just accept something said by someone because he’s one of them, then that’s the fault of the masses.

But just to give you an idea of how badly this guy distorts stuff:

1.  Stix tries to cover up Federale’s wrong analysis that Devyani was upper-caste and this was about caste Hindus upset about being “touched.” He did this by claiming, first, that she is a Sanskritized Shudra, not a Dalit.

This is an after- the-fact concoction, because the reservation system is in fact very specific and if she identifies publicly as Dalit, that’s what she is.

Dalit is the self-styling of the former “untouchable.”

2. Sanskritization has nothing to do with Devyani’s position, because her mobility has been caused by the reservation or quota system, instituted by a socialist government.

3.  A strip-search, involving inspection of the cavities, did occur and the US Marshals admitted it. The Marshals admitted they did a standard strip-search, which since 2012, by ruling of the Supreme Court, does indeed involve examination, but not penetration, of the cavities.

4. The  Indian government removed the barriers that were placed to PREVENT the free-flow of traffic near the American Embassy, which was a superogatory privilege, granted unilaterally, and with no reciprocity, to the US. The barriers were there so that the diplomats could walk across to the American school without a problem even in mid-day, which wouldn’t have been possible given traffic-congestion in Delhi.

They removed that, because it was a courtesy, and no government would continue to give courtesies unneeded to a country that just submitted a senior consular office to what is custodial rape, under Indian law at least.

The Indian govt in fact upped the security to the US embassy because they were probably aware that there could be a staged provocation to follow, in order to cast the Indian Gvt in a bad light.

As it is, the State Dept. attempted to elicit the maximum mileage by misreporting what happened.

However, with the net, people do get to read the papers and see what’s actually happened.

5. Hinduism is not simple polytheism. Hinduism is not even very clearly a defined religion, as the Abrahamic religions are. However, the core of Hinduism, which includes the Vedas and Upanishads, contains the philosophical content.

This is generally called Panentheistic, which is something quite different. Panentheism can be polytheist or monotheist.  Hindu panentheism contains both strands. However Brahma, Siva, Visnu operate very much like the Trinity of the Christian Church, as do the principles of Satva, Rajas, and Tamasa.

Polytheism certainly exists as a practice, but it is not a simple polytheism by any means. Icons in Hinduims operate like the icons of the Orthodox church.

Beyond that, there are also animistic belief and more polytheistic practices, followed by lower-castes and out-castes, which upper castes looked down on, in just the way Federale looked down up on those practices…..

But today, lower-caste practices have been elevated, by Cultural Marxists, just as alternative practices in the US, have been elevated by them.

So Federale/Stix are both confused on the subject, which, admittedly, is complex and not easy to understand or explain.

But hey, we’re not talking Mircea Eliade or Jaroslav Pelikan here….

Patrick Buchanan on the blank check for war given to Israel:

“Last weekend, the Obama National Security Council finally belled the cat with a blunt statement by spokesperson Bernadette Meehan:

“If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action [against Iran], they should be up front with the American public and say so.”

Exactly. For whether or not all these senators understand what they are doing, this is where their bill points — to a scuttling of the Geneva talks and a return to the sanctions road, at the end of which lies a U.S. war with Iran.

A majority of Democratic senators have thus far bravely bucked AIPAC and declined to co-sponsor S.1881. However, all but two Republican senators have signed on.

If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the GOP has once again caught the war fever, the party should be quarantined from the White House for another four years.”

The post that got Ron Unz purged from the American Conservative on July 20, 2013

Ron Unz:

“For the last half-century, the overwhelming majority of immigrants, especially illegal ones, have been non-white, and the resulting racial fears have been a central motivating force driving many of the most zealous restrictionists, who fear being swamped by a tidal wave of “the Other.”  However, I believe that racial considerations, whether fully conscious or not, might also be found on the other side of the issue, helping to explain why our national leadership today so uniformly endorses very heavy foreign immigration.

America’s ruling financial, media, and political elites are largely concentrated in three major urban centers—New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.—and all three have contained large black populations, including a violent underclass.  During the early 1990s, many observers feared New York City was headed for urban collapse due to its enormously high crime rates, Los Angeles experienced the massive and deadly Rodney King Riots, and Washington often vied for the title of American homicide capital.  In each city, the violence and crime were overwhelmingly committed by black males, and although white elites were rarely the victims, their fears were quite palpable.

One obvious reaction to these concerns was strong political support for a massive national crackdown on crime, and the prison incarceration of black men increased by almost 500% during the two decades after 1980.  But even after such enormous rates of imprisonment, official FBI statistics indicate that blacks today are still over 600% as likely to commit homicide than non-blacks and their robbery rate is over 700% larger; these disparities seem just as high with respect to Hispanic or Asian immigrants as they are for whites.  Thus, replacing a city’s blacks with immigrants would tend to lower local crime rates by as much as 90%, and during the 1990s American elites may have become increasingly aware of this important fact, together with the obvious implications for their quality of urban life and housing values.

According to Census data, between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians increased by one-third in Los Angeles, by nearly 50% in New York City, and by over 70% in Washington, D.C.  The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which declined, often substantially, in each location.  And all three cities experienced enormous drops in local crime, with homicide rates falling by 73%, 79%, and 72% respectively, perhaps partly as a result of these underlying demographic changes.  Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices.  It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an important but unspoken factor in shaping their views..”

Michael Rozeff:

We are looking at large numbers of traitorous Senators promoting very dangerous ideas that are expansionist and interventionist in nature. They have built up a structure of lies, falsehoods, exaggerations, false enemies, false threats, impossible aspirations for dominance, and misperceptions. We are looking at people who feign respectability, reasonableness, honesty, loyalty and intelligence but who, when they promote war against a President who is succeeding in bringing a degree of peace, must be counted as among the lowest of the low, people that we must revile and reject as “leaders”, people that we must see as enemies of the interests of the peaceful pursuit of happiness. These same people will, by and large, turn their guns against the American people and be most supportive of the national security state.

The following senators are Senate co-sponsors of this bill. Beside each name is the dollar amount of AIPAC contributions to that senator in the years 2007-2012.

Mark Kirk $925,379
John McCain $771,012
Mitch McConnell $430,925
Robert Menendez $344,670
Kirsten Gillibrand $326,937
Mary Landrieu $296,409
Benjamin Cardin $267,542
Charles Schumer $248,149
Robert Casey $192,550
Roger Wicker $158,861
Mark Warner $149,151
Susan Collins $139,518
Mark Pryor $138,250
John Thune $123,725
Roy Blunt $120,500
Joe Manchin $117,110
Pat Roberts $116,900
Bob Corker $114,770
David Vitter $112,619
Kelly Ayotte $111,899
Michael Bennet $109,126
John Cornyn $107,000
Saxby Chambliss $103,650
John Barrasso $99,050
Orrin Hatch $91,500
Jeff Sessions $86,550
Marco Rubio $86,200
Lisa Murkowski $85,900
Lindsey Graham $84,515
Daniel Coats $82,733
Richard Blumenthal $80,640
Joe Donnelly $72,911
Dean Heller $71,100
Richard Burr $70,850
Robert Portman $68,815
John Hoeven $67,535
Mike Johanns $63,635
James Inhofe $60,000
Charles Grassley $57,600
Jerry Moran $53,400
Thomas Coburn $47,445
Michael Crapo $45,750
Mike Lee $45,030
James Risch $41,750
Patrick Toomey $40,500
Ted Cruz $39,354
Mark Begich $36,727
John Boozman $34,250
John Isakson $31,600
Michael Enzi $31,600
Richard Shelby $27,250
Deb Fischer $26,400
Chris Coons $20,774
Tim Scott $15,310
Ron Johnson $10,400

Times of India:

“Based in New York, Batra had successfully represented the former Indian Consul General Prabhu Dayal against allegations of sexual exploitation by his maid.

“The core problem here is that Sangeeta willfully, voluntarily and with free will entered into three contracts: an oral contract followed by two written agreements, with the first and third contracts each calling for Rs 30,000 to be paid per month. Then, Sangeeta, alone, was twice interviewed by the US Embassy to negotiate the fraud upon the US Embassy, aided by her-executed Fake Contract, and Sangeeta did so successfully,” Batra told PTI.

[Batra seems to accept that one of the contracts – the one shown to the US Visa office  – was fraudulent. Devyani K’s contention is that it wasn’t and that the first and third, for Rs. 30,000, constituted money to be paid to the maid’s family in India. However, that second contract itself would violate US labor laws, which require all monies to be paid in the US, so I read. Ms. Khobragade probably did not know that  or thought it was permissible since both she and the maid were Indian citizens, the contracts were drawn up in India, and they were protected under Indian labor law. Since the full terms of payment actually fulfilled US requirements, she may not even have known that it was in conflict with US law.]

[Another point is the US Visa office A3 visa is probably illegal itself and unnecessary.]

Times of India:

“Of course, once Sangeeta agreed to work as Devyani’s domestic worker, Sangeeta gave her ‘Blue’ passport to Devyani, who then got Sangeeta her Official ‘White’ passport, with obvious ‘cancellation’ of the Blue passport,” he said.

Sangeeta then traveled on her White passport on November 24, 2013 to New York, and later it was missing, as reported in the FIR when she left Devyani’s home in June 2013, he added.

[Lila: That is, Sangeeta herself took the white passport from the house. She couldn’t travel on it to go home, because it is an official passport that would be invalid if she reneged on her terms of agreement. So Bharara’s charge that DK took her passport or prevented her from traveling is bogus and confused.]

Times of India:

“Hence, the claim that Devyani, was somehow preventing Sangeeta from traveling on her Blue passport is incomprehensible – as Sangeeta had her White passport, which Sangeeta knew, she could not use to go back to India, given her violation of her employment-terms,” Batra alleged.

“Additionally, with an arrest warrant for Sangeeta issued on November 19, 2013, by the Delhi High Court and her husband listed as an Accused #2, Sangeeta’s claimed desire to return to India is not credible,” Batra claims, referring to the allegations made by the federal prosecutor in the indictment that the maid wanted to return to India.

“Finally, since Philip Richard was an employee of the US Embassy in Delhi, Sangeeta was always empowered to seek advice and counsel from Philip’s employer, prior to her entering into two contracts for Rs 30,000,” Batra said.

[Lila: That is, with close family ties to the head of the anti-trafficking and anti-terrorism unit in the US embassy, Wayne May,  Sangeeta had plenty of ability to get further advice on the exact nature of her contract. She could not have been pressured by Devyani to make her appearance in the US visa office.]

Time of India:

Relying solely upon Sangeeta’s unadorned word, the indictment accuses Devyani of overworking and exploiting her and lists hours she claims to have worked – as much as “94 to 109” hours a week, including Sundays, he said, adding that the hours claimed by Sangeeta could be challenged.

Lila:  Witnesses whom the US judge did not include have already testified seeing Sangeeta on off-days.

Times of India:

Batra also questions the US decision to give T-visa to the family members of Sangeeta.

“That our State Department required our Justice Department to file criminal charges against Devyani, while giving Sangeeta and family a T-visa, under these circumstances is nothing short of an avoidable itch becoming a roaring rash. “Sinful human trafficking, modern day slavery, this is not – no matter the powerful incentive of getting a T-visa causing one to fake being trafficked.”

Derrick Bell’s Rules Of Racial Standing:

FIRST RULE

The law grants litigants standing to come into court based on their having sufficient personal interest and involvement in the issue to justify judicial cognizance. Black people (while they may be able to get into court) are denied such standing legitimacy in the world generally when they discuss their negative experiences with racism or even when they attempt to give a positive evaluation of another black person or of his work. No matter what their experience or expertise, blacks’ statements involving race are deemed ‘special pleading’ and thus not entitled to serious consideration.

[Lila:That is, even on India and Indians, my opinion has to be confirmed by white observation, or it is demoted to special pleading. However, even the most uninformed white person can pronounce on anything under the sun, be completely wrong, and still be taken seriously. His objectivity is taken for granted. I can only be taken seriously on my own when I back a position that white society as a whole wants to see promoted and sees some advantage to itself in having a non-white person also “validate it.” ]

SECOND RULE
Not only are blacks’ complaints discounted, but black victims of racism are less effective witnesses than are whites, who are members of the oppressor class. This phenomenon reflects a widespread assumption that blacks, unlike whites, cannot be objective on racial issues and will favor their own no matter what. This deep seated belief fuels a continuing effort – despite all manner of Supreme Court decisions intended to curb the practice – to keep black people off juries in cases involving race. Black judges hearing racial cases are eyed suspiciously and sometimes asked to recuse themselves in favor of a white judge – without those making the request even being aware of the paradox in their motions.

[Lila: I don’t believe that whites constitute an oppressor class, en masse, obviously, since many whites are oppressed themselves and many non-whites join with the oppressor class. However, I do believe that white populations, relative to the central banking cartel – which is the main cause of the proliferation of war and poverty in the modern world – are privileged victims, in that their oppression – which is also severe – is cushioned by their position in the epicenter of power.]

THIRD RULE
Few blacks avoid diminishing t of racial standing, most of their statements about racial conditions being diluted and their recommendations of other blacks taken with a grain of salt. The usual exception to this rule is the black person who publicly disparages or criticizes other blacks who are speaking or acting in ways that upset whites. Instantly, such statements are granted ‘enhanced standing’ even when the speaker has no special expertise or experience in the subject he or she is criticizing.

[Lila: This was especially noticeable in cases like that of Trayvon Martin, when any non-white who could support the general white perception of the case was trotted out.]

FOURTH RULE
When a black person or group makes a statement or takes an action that the white community or vocal components thereof deem “outrageous,” the latter will actively recruit blacks willing to refute the statement or condemn the action. Blacks who respond to the call to condemnation will receive superstanding status. The blacks who refuse to be recruited will be interpreted as endorsing the statements and action and may suffer political or economic reprisals.

FIFTH RULE
True awareness requires an understanding of the Rules of Racial Standing. As an individuals understanding of these rules increases, there will be more and more instances where one can discern their workings. Using this knowledge, one gains the gift of prophesy about racism, its essence, its goals, even its remedies. The price of this knowledge is the frustration that follows recognition that no amount of public prophesy, no matter its accuracy, can either repeal the Rules of Racial Standing nor prevent their or prevent their operation.

Zee News

“Those comments absolutely do not reflect US Government policy, nor were they made on any official US Government social media account,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson, Marie Harf, told reporters at her daily news conference. “

Marie Harf wisely put a bit of distance between the State Dept. and the Facebook remarks of the chatty May couple.

She was wise to do it. No educated and sophisticated observer would consider Mrs. Mays blabbings on social media reflective of the beliefs of the State Dept. which has many fine scholars. Indians of an older generation  still recall the good-will generated by fine American representatives like Chester Bowles.

But the issue is not whether May represents each State Dept official. Of course, he doesn’t.  He does however represent all of them, as a collective. And so does his wife.

It’s also not the specifics of what he said. It’s the general tone of the blogging, which shows entitlement and self-absorption, which while excellent attributes for socialites and celebrities are terrible ones for security chiefs, diplomats and international representatives.

One can understand how a person from a very affluent country might find even a posh enclave in Delhi unbearable.

One can’t understand how a senior diplomat in a country counts not one “native” to whom she is close enough to share even public postings on social media.