Hitler is a product of #ChristoIslam—all totalitarianism is. He was simply a good choir boy. His targeting of Jews simply built on pogroms Catholic Popes had done earlier. His "Yellow badges" for Jews came from Islamic Caliphs treatment of minorities.
The polemics against BJP/RSS as "fascist/Hitler" are simply that, deranged polemics. They are based on 1 or 2 quotes from World War II times, a time when SC Bose, actually met with Hitler. An enemy of the enemy (the British) was considered a friend. The polemics have no basis.
Unlike those who self-identify as communists, "fascist" is a term of abuse, not a self-description. It can't be taken seriously.
Communists, on the other hand, self-identify as the inheritors of the legacy of mass-murderers Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
Fascism and communism are European ideologies, born of totalitarian religion. They are only meaningful in other cultures when people themselves claim to follow these ideologies. Even so, Communists have murdered many more than European fascists ever did.
So there is hard to imagine a bigger term of ideological abuse than calling oneself as "communist"—an inheritor of a legacy of genocide a likely genocidal maniac with the slightest bit of power. Even in India, communists are by far the biggest killers.
In cruelty they are matched only by their Islamist brethren. Communists in India have been known to kill a child and make the mother eat it, much like #ISIS. The ideology makes one immune to moral reasoning or conscience. Tag commies on this thread.
Communism borrows from its religious forebears in its totalitarianism—you must believe or you'll go to commie-bourgeois hell. Anyone standing in the way of their utopian fantasy of "revolution" will be attacked. Never mind it always ends in dystopia.
Thus European ideologies of Nazism, fascism and communism are siblings birthed by European religious thought (which spawns “rationalism” as well). Their rivalry is sibling rivalry. Their totalitarianism arises in a culture of exclusive monotheism.
Collaboration of Hitler and Islamists is an under-reported saga. In fact there are close ideological parallels, cemented by their common hatred for Jews.
It’s laughable when Indian “seculars” and Islamists label Hindus, who protected Jews, as “Hitler.”
So much spin on how Hitler was not Christian. 1. Hitler was raised Christian 2. Pogroms against Jews were common to Christians—Hitler just had the "final solution" 3. Nowhere did Hitler renounce Christianity, though he may have criticized, as insiders do.
Most of the Nazis were Church-going Christians. They would go to Sunday Church and come back and order massacres of Jews and Roma "gypsies."
Hitler never adopted "Swastika." He never uses that word. The Christian "hooked cross" was translated as Swastika by the English pastor who translated Hitler into English. Typical Christian spin, to avoid how deeply the Nazis embodied Christian values.
Christians are hilarious, they don't even own up to their heroes.
Christians persecuted Jews in Europe much before Hitler. Pope Innocent III, mandated that Jews wear Yellow Badges to be seen separate; Hitler re-instituted that.
Hitler's "final solution" was to the Christian theological problem—of Jews not accepting Jesus as the Messiah.
Hitler never used the word Swastika. His called his symbol the Hooked Cross (Hakenkreuz). A Christian pastor translated that word to "Swastika" to hide its Christian connotation—propaganda and lies are the foundation of the Church.
China systematically demolished narratives of Islam and Christianity in China. It declared Islam a mental illness and made sure it controlled all Churches and Church appointments, only authorized sermons could be taught.
It colonized Tibet, inter-married, indoctrinated a Chinese-nationalist Tibetan generation.
India fanned separatism. It allowed false histories in Kashmir, separatism of language, promotion of Urdu and Persian script. It allowed mosques to preach hate and separatism. If it were acting like China, it would have outlawed Persian script and controlled every mosque and sermon. It would have taught the history of Islamic conquest and barbarity to every child. China can promote false narratives in Tibet for integration; India cannot even promote true narratives for what was always part of us.
Similarly in Punjab, India treated Khalistan as a law-and-order problem rather than a narrative war. It allowed fake separatist narratives to flourish. Rather than promoting scholars and narratives which show the unity of Sikhs and Hindus it allowed separatist narratives to flourish. What would China have done?
Same story in the North East. India gave a free reign to Baptist missionaries who converted the indigenous people and taught them to hate India. Separatism come downstream of that. There was no attempt by India to reverse the narrative.
The narrative soft war and the hard war must go together. If you ignore the soft war, you get stuck with constantly fighting the hard war. And the hard war victory will only be temporary tell the false narrative is overturned.
Absolutely, Dravidianism is another false narrative.
All great civilizations were bound by a common narrative. "Secularism" is not a narrative that can bind anything. Minoritism and appeasement create centrifugal forces which split the nation apart.
China's new set of XUAR Religious Affairs Regulations, 2024.
In this it is required that religions promote content for social harmony and interpret religious teaching and rules in line with China's requirements for development and "in line with traditional Chinese culture."
What if India said, mosques and Churches can only teach and promote what is in line with traditional Hindu culture of pluralism and teaching hate and separatism is a cognizable offence?
Reading the book "Hindu polity" and remembering that India has tried, experimented with, and forgotten more forms of governments than the West can remember.
And yet we think "democracy" was this great Western innovation to civilize us.
The A-rajak are non-ruled states. There is a Western fantasy of "egalitarian" society where all are equals with no rulers. (It's a fantasy because nowhere in the world it exists).
Well India tried it a few times. It doesn't work. It's where the word "arajakta" comes from.
The "Arajaka" state with the "rule of law" rather than of a person was a subject of derision, because it inevitably failed. But what evidence did we crown it as the best?
Reading "Two Centuries of Silence"—the lament of the Persians in having the barbaric Arab Muslims impose their religion and culture on the advanced Persian Civilization.
We are not the only ones with this lament. This happened across the world. We are the ones who survived.
There was really nothing much of value in Arab lands, and the little that was useful was ruled by the Persians who were looked up to by the Arabs.
This is the environment in which Islam emerges from.
"These Bedouin tribes led predatory lives and on their minds there was nothing but greed, profit worship, and what satisfied their most primitive desire...their life’s sole interests were lust, wine, and fighting."