What does Shankar Dayal Sharma Have in Common with Adolf Hitler ?

Both attacked Aryan fertility.

That Hitler did it with that of Gipsies, on the « expertise » of Portzschy, is very sadly known.

That is why he's the one fascist statesman, along with those of Ustashi, I really do not like as a statesman. He should have stuck to painting.

Less known but equally sad was the policy in India under Shankar Dayal Sharma, in the part of the world where Gipsies originate from :

The disassembly lines: Indian Women sterilized under industrial conditions
by James A. Miller on 1997 Jul 1
https://www.pop.org/content/disassembly-lines-indian-women-sterilized-under-industrial-conditions

I just checked what president of India was responsible for this crime.

1997 India had two successive presidents, what James Miller described was not newly introduced just after the shift, so, at least the president from early 1997 must be responsible for this crime.

Shankar Dayal Sharma (19 August 1918 – 26 December 1999) was the ninth President of India, serving from 1992 to 1997.

Fits the bill.

The sterilization camp was conducted in October 1994 at a rural hospital in the Palakkad district of Kerala, India.

Or wait, was president Sharma only targetting Tamils, as non-Aryans ?

Kerala is in the Tamil area.

Let's put it like this : Republic of India belongs to the Politically Correct world. When it hijacked Portuguese India, also referred to as Goa, Nehru was considered a hero and the Portuguese fascist dictator Salazar a villain.

But under such a « villain » as Salazar, at least Goa would not have had that sterilization camp.

Nehru paved the way for a villain like Shankar Dayal Sharma, and was, as introducing the two child policy, a villain himself.

However, as « India » (Republic of) belonged to the PC world, I would be surprised if Shankar Dayal Sharma had dared target Tamil fertility openly with more force than Aryan fertility.

So, I suppose, same things happened up where Aryans were living, North in Punjab and Rajasthan.

So, Shankar Dayal Sharma did same crime as Hitler toward Gipsies (at least the directly fertility related one, and if Gipsies consider Punjab and Rajasthan as home of their kinsmen), but is not as lambasted as he.

Politically Correct world does not want Republic of India lambasted.

I take my distance from Hitler (as a politician, he should have remained a painter), and from Shankar Dayal Sharma. I need not take any from Salazar or from Dollfuss, because they were not targetting Gipsies that way.

And yet, some Gipsies think I am the kind of « Nazi » who should just shut up ?

I saw two beggars coming to reclaim the places where I was begging with signs for my blogs, and it seems they would prefer me to have a comfortable time, but absolutely as little as possible be seen on the streets doing publicity for my blogs.

Even if I am not into Hitler, Portzschy or Shankar Dayal Sharma as politicians.

Perhaps they should ask themselves whom they listen to?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Paul of Constantinople
7.VI.2016

If I were a Pagan

I would per definition not be a Christian. But would I have any specific reason to reject Christianity?

In parts of the world where Paganism is prevalent, it seems the main objection to Christianity when it is met is "this is not the religion of our fathers". As a part of the Western world I could not make that objection. Indeed, the principle would turn in favour of Christianity: this IS the religion of my fathers.

But though that is true, Christianity is not just that, it involves claims that claim to oblige also those who do not have it as the religion of their fathers. Such claims of truth is why I could not stay with EXACTLY the kind of Christianity I met as a child - and I became a Catholic. Because one of the truth claims is Apostolic Succession guarding Apostolic Tradition in the right reception of the Books in the Scriptures.

So, what would my philosophical background be and how would it interfere with my accepting Christianity, if I were a Pagan? Note, not a Pagan of a certain school, like New Agers rejecting Christianity out of reverence for witches who were martyred for medical knowledge and such.

I would very probably if I were a Pagan without any definite antichristian prejudice conclude as Chesterton "if a Hill can be Holy - why not that Hill?" (Calvary) and "if a tree can be Holy, why not that tree?" (the Cross) and even if a man can be holy or divine (several Pagan gods are claimed to have appeared among the rest of us as men - Romulus, Odin and Thor and Frey, Krishna and Rama) why not that man, Jesus from Nazareth?

Not that I would want to try forgetting Christianity to be in a position to try this out, of course!

But if I had not yet accepted Christianity and was looking for answers, I would look quite as readily to Egyptian and Chinese and Sumerian claims the world was 40.000 years old as to claims by Vikings the world started and then we see a lot of heroes from around the Centuries following Christ (whom Odinism basically ignores, or its assessments of Him have not been preserved) and Caesar (whom Odinism did not ignore - East Anglia had a dynasty starting with 1) Woden - 2) Casere (=Caesar) - 3) Tydda, which unlike the Norse line looks less like Odin having actually lived "there"* and more like considering Caesar a "son of Odin" because he was an upstart). I would look at the Norse claim and see there was recorded history well before the Norse heroic saga begins. I would see the Egyptian claim and see there were lots of centuries for which we have no corresponding records of history. I am not sure how, without the light of the faith, my reason would have reacted on C14-method.**

But as we are dealing with a hypothetic Pagan I could recognise myself in rather than a real person, I might (though I came to these conclusions well after accepting Christianity, a full year or so, which is long time during a childhood, or for details even longer and with help from Creationist writer Edgar Andrews) that I would understand the problem of calibrating C14 in prehistoric times and reject as unwarranted optimism the solution offered "we know C14 content fluctuates and by how much". I could also hope I would be on my way to seeing how much better Hebrew line of history agrees with recorded history (especially after realising moot points about Egyptian and Babylonian chronologies), how it falls pretty much between Greco-Roman and Norse chronology on the one hand and Egyptian and Babylonian on the other hand, and how it is - as with Apostolic Succession for Catholicism beside the Protestantisms - adorned with a succession that if genuine warrants with high credibility though not mathematical certainty, the truth of its origins. Someone would then ask if I don't believe in Odin being a god and having created the world Marduk style? Well, his stay in Uppsala which is behind the Yngling Dynasty, involved no particular miracles of creation, no credible evidence he was what he claimed to be. Unlike the recorded life of Jesus from Nazareth. Which if believed involves a Creation which was not Marduk style at all.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library
St Narnus of Bergamo***
27-VIII-2014

* Not meaning East Anglia, but where the settlers of East Anglia came from. Of course, not saying they were right in considering Tydda as son of Caesar either. Of course, Odin could have named a son Caesar after the contemporary, after seeing he was lucky, perhaps trying to capture his soul in his son by rebirth after the Ides of March. In that case Wodans - Kaisars - Tuddion (to wager an early Germanic reconstruction of Tydda's name) would be correct as a genealogy, but the Caesar in it a namesake rather than identical to the man who died on Ides of March. But it is more probable (or at least more prosaic, which does not automatically mean greater probabilty) that the Tydda in question was a nobody, known to be a nobody and as having left no record of his father and retroactively called son of Caesar because his family didn't stay nobodies. He is probably the reason why a genealogy site has placed Odin and Casere in the centuries after Christ, not recognising that Casere means Caesar. And if so, their date for Tydda's life may be roughly correct.

** I might have rejected it on similar lines as Christian creationists even while bargaining more for Norse Paganism.

*** If anyone is looking for St Monica, she is celebrated 4th of May.