Contra-Asheesh Shah, Part III

©Lucio Mascarenhas.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles

[See also Contra Asheesh Shah: Part I & Part II]


Thank you for your latest letter — another load of pompous inanities, chockful of hypocrisy.

The convert's first care is to witness to his new-found faith. And so, presuming that you, Asheesh Shah, with a Gujarati Hindu name, are a convert, what faith do you witness to?

You declare and proclaim that you are a "Practising Roman Catholic". Indeed!

You, a self-styled and self-qualified "Practising Roman Catholic" wrote us your first letter without any provocation on our side. And in that first letter, you wrote: Yo do not have to put up with any of this Indian nonsense. Please pack your bags and go back to fucking potugal. Simple! And in your latest missive, you reiterate that original message: As in my first request, you do not have to put up with this Indian nonsense, Fuck off back to Portugal And so, this is your pious language of a self-certified "Practising Roman Catholic"! What utter, shameless hypocrisy!

However, I am not really surprised. You are a worthy acolyte of the Great Fornicator, the Patron of Sodomitism, Paederastism, Adulteries and Fornications, the Antipope and Arch-Heresiarch, John-Paul II! [See The Piety & Modesty of John-Paul II]

Of course, it is possible that you are a half-breed, born of a Gujarati Hindu and a Goan, with your father nominally "converting" to Christianity. I have seen that happen, when a Christian, man or woman becomes so careless of his or her faith that he / she has no problems marrying a non-believer, and raising children with a mixed belief in the true God and in the false "gods" of the pagans.

Yet other Hindus evince a desire to convert because they are enamoured of some Christian girl and hope thereby to gain her favours. I have had several Hindus approach me over time with a "desire" to convert, but with no real interest in Christianity. A little probing reveals that the true cause is the hope of winning some Christian girl, and nothing more. I have known men who married Christian girls in Church and then forced them to re-marry again in temples, and thereafter lived as Hindus once again, raising children as pagans.

Most Hindus view Christian girls as "Westerner Trophies", although they would much prefer the original westerner, a White Woman to flaunt as proof of his victory.

Again, there is the problem of "Catholic" vs. Catholic. The "Catholic", as against the Catholic, is really a follower of the New Religion, which, like Hinduism, believes "Sarva Dharma Sambhava" — "All religions are good and lead to salvation". This is opposed to the authentic Catholicism, which is exclusionary. A Hindu man can convert to this "Catholicism" and still remain truly Hindu, and worship his demons — his Ba'alim — without any scruple of his conscience.

Are we a small and insignificant people? Then what forces you to devote your attention to us? Certainly, we did not call upon you first — you did, and we only have been defending ourselves against your insults. Therefore, why do you complain, you snivelling brat?

And if what we write is "waffle" (ah, yes, you are a great philosopher and dispenser of wisdom!) what compels you to pay us any attention? We have not asked you for your favours, therefore, why do you complain, you snivelling brat?

What is become evident, too evident, is that your fat posterior cries out to heaven for the acquaintance of a stout cane, in order to purge you of your brattishness...

Have I failed to grasp "even a basic understanding of the English language"? Don't congratulate yourself on your "smartness" so fast.

The meanings provided in the dictionaries are not a revelation to me. You are a greater idiot than I believed you to be, if you believe this.

The Dictionaries give both meanings — a true colony, and a dependency also called as a colony but not really so. But a Dictionary is neither infallible nor is it a guide to usage; it merely records the current usage. Current usage does not guarantee the popular meaning from being in error. And that is in fact what it is.

A colony cannot be both of the given meanings, for they are mutually exclusive — that much is relentlessly logical. A more intelligent person would have noticed that.

I had sought that you begin to think originally. Unfortunately for you, you have still not taken my advice. A COLONY is a territory where the people from one land come in, settle, and either displace or kill off the original people, so that the newcomers are the demographic majority. A DEPENDENCY is merely a territory that is conquered and ruled. A Dependency can be either a colony or not a colony. I stand by my definitions. They are more precise and exact than those provided by the dictionaries.

There is a third definition, to which also the name "Colony" is sometimes given. This is also called a "Factory" in English, and a "Campos" in Portuguese. This is a community of colonists implanted in the middle of a vast aboriginal population. In such a case, there is a sharp distinction in meaning between that of the actual colony and such a community.

The Romans planted such colonies in all their conquests. The Phoenicians, from modern Lebanon, planted Carthage in Ifriqia, modern Tunisia, and Cartagena in Iberia, modern Spain, etc.

In none of these case was there a true effort at extensive colonisation of the entire country involved.

The Greek colonies, on the contrary, in Italy, Asia Minor, the Black Sea, etc., were true colonies.

The Falklands are both a true Colony and a true Dependency. The Falkland Islands have been colonised by Anglo-Scotch colonists.

You are such a hypocrite. You pretend that Goa, though evidently not a colony, was still nevertheless, in your perverse distortion of words and meanings, a Portuguese colony. This lie is the basis of your pretension that we Goans are descendents of Portuguese colonists — interlopers, and you evidence your bad faith when you invite us to "return" to (Iberian) Portugal. Those words can only mean that you pretend that we are colonists and descendents of Iberian Portuguese colonists — which is undeniable and irrefutable evidence of your bad faith and hypocrisy!

You can sneer all you want, but that will not change history one bit. No historian questions the historical fact that a delegations of Goans, led by Timmoja and Mala Pai, went to Vijayanagara seeking liberation from the Sultanate of Bijapur, and that the Emperor of Vijayanagara sent them onto the Portuguese, and recommended to the Portuguese that they take up the appeal.

I would suggest that you speak with better respect of the Soviets and the Russians, seeing that they are practically the sole real allies of the Indians, brothers in crime!

None of the Goan patriots seek to "covey (sic!) the impression that Goa was some how a free standing entity with no substantial linkage to Portugal with a recognised and independent government of its own". You have fabricated that out of whole cloth.

Goan travel documents, the Documento para viagem, was a document that only applied for travel from Goa to India and back. There is therefore no basis for asking why it was not used elsewhere. As for international travel, Goans always travelled on proper Portuguese passports. Between 1961 and 1974, that is until the Communist "Revolution" in Iberian Portugal, the Government of Greater Portugal maintained the rights of Goans; Goans continued to sit in the Parliament in Lisbon, and a Goan provincial administration was maintained in exile.

Even despite the Communist "Revolution", and the consequent secession of Iberian Portugal from the Greater Portuguese State, thus abandoning the Ultramarine Provinces of Portuguese Guinea, Portuguese East and West Africas, Portuguese Timor, etc., to the local Communist traitors and catspaws of the Soviet Imperialists, Iberian Portugal recognizes to this day, despite its "treaty" with the Indian Union, the right of Goans to continue to be Portuguese citizens.

You are a blockhead if you believe that the World Court judgement was against Portugal and for the Indian Union. And anyway, I do not give too much credence to the World Court or the United Nations. Both are insincere political organisations established in order to further the worldwide anti-Christian revolution, to further the Jewish Agenda to dissolve Catholic states and to bring about a re-alignment of states favourable to the Jewish Agenda.

Portugal made a mistake joining the UN, and it made another mistake when it applied for justice from the World Court. It was well that Portugal did not demean itself by taking its case to that bunch of hypocrites.

England, Germany and other Protestant Powers have been built by perpetrating Genocide against the Catholics. England perpetrated Genocide against the Catholics of England (York & Lincoln), Scotland (the Highlands), and in Ireland, among other places. Similarly, the United States was established by the large scale Genocide of aborigines, and in a shameless robbery of lands from New Spain (Mexico), easily over 75% of the present territory of the USA. Today, after having achieved their goals, and secure in their robbery, they can afford to indulge in a hypocritical denunciation of "Ethnic Cleansing" as practised by the Serbs — especially when it was necessary to appease the Muslims by carving out a Muslim state in Europe, even though the Muslim Serbs are not a separate nationality, being distinguised only by their adherence to a different religion, and even when they are only 35% of Bosnia's population.

Bosnia is the Pakistan of Serbia and is the only "Political State" in Europe not named for a people but for a river, the Bosna, like the artificial states of Africa and the New World — Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Niger, Nigeria, Volta, Gambia, the two Congos, etc...

The Apostate West, which betrayed and back-stabbed the Serbs and perpetrated Crimes Against Humanity upon the Serbs in order to appease the Muslims world-wide, received its rewards, its Guru-Dakshina on 9/11.

But "Ethnic Cleansing" is not condemned when it has affected the Germans of Sudentenland or of Silesia, at the end of World War II, because the Germans were considered enemies.

That is a hypocritical definition of "Ethnic Cleansing"; good when to my convenience, bad when not.

But do you, who pretends to be a "Practising Roman Catholic", affirm that "Ethnic Cleansing" is always a moral evil? How, then, do you justify the Express Command of God, given to Israel, Moses and Joshua, to utterly exterminate the Canaanite aborigines of Israel? Was this not "Genocide"? Was this "Genocide" not also a "War Crime"?

If it was a "War Crime", then the expulsions of the Moors and Jews from Iberia by Spain and Portugal were also "War Crimes", as also the expulsion of the Hindus malefactors from Goa.

But if you truly believe these to be immoral, then you are a liar when you pretend to be a "Practising Roman Catholic". You hypocrite, you cannot both have your cake and eat it too.
The claim levied by the Indian Union upon the enclaves of Portuguese and French East Indies in the Indian Sub-Continent is based upon a Hindu version of "Irredentism". However, this irredentism is not a real one, but a feigned or pretended one: What is 'Irredentism'?

Irredentism is a political ideology. As an ideology, it has a limited purpose.

Irredentism is the claim made by members of one nationality that all the territories populated by members of their nationality be unified into one single national state, even if that means secession of these territories from existing states.

What is an "Irredenta"?

An "Irredenta" is any territory populated by one nationality but governed by a state that is not ruled by that same nationality exclusively.

What was the moral basis of the Indian Union's claim over Goa?

The Indian Union's claim over Goa consisted in a pretended or feigned "Irredentism". It was claimed that Goa (Portuguese India) is a natural ethnic extension of the Indian Union, and that it was the moral duty of the Indian Union to recover it; and the moral duty of the Portuguese to not resist.

However: The Indian Union is not either a nation nor a homogenous group of nations.

However: Goa was integrated into Portugal in 1510 while the Indian Union — which was birthed by the English on the battlefield of Plassey — has formally and solemnly refused to extend its "irredentism" even to Burma, Ceylon and Pakistan, separated from it in 1937 & 1947 — or to Bangladesh and Maldives, separated from Pakistan and Ceylon subsequently. Again, the "Irredentism" of the Indian Union does not extend to the rest of the East Indies — to Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Brunei, Singapore, Indochina, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, etc. The Indian Union does not even pretend to any "Irredentist" right over these lands and peoples!

What is "Anti-Enclavism"?

"Anti-Enclavism" is the political ideology that claims that the territory of a state must not include enclaves or patches of territories that are not under its sovereignity, i.e., the belief that the territory of a state must be determinedly continuous.

"Anti-Enclavism" is evil because it rejects the rights and dignity of human beings and exalts over them the value of holding land, regardless of its people.
It becomes very evident that there was no legal or moral basis for the Indian Union's pretensions of a claim over and to Goa; it was, purely and nakedly, a land grab! That and nothing more!

Therefore, I have conclusively proven that India never had any moral or legal basis to levy any kind of claim upon Goa. It did not have it in "Irredentism", and in fact, its claims lie baldly upon nothing other than the "Doctrine of Territorial Continuity", a kind of idolatry of land, to the utter disregard of peoples.

Such a doctrine is unconscionable and a threat to mankind, for it has already thrust mankind into many ugly wars, and is still capable of causing more misery to mankind.

It is a doctrine of brigands and robbers, of misanthropes and malefactors. It cannot confer any rights upon those who rob others of their rights, nor can it, as a matter of fact.

To sum up:

India has had no moral or legal basis to prefer a claim or pretension to and over Goa, over the territories of Portuguese India. India's actions are illegal, null and void.

The lawfulness of its actions — its mendacious pretension of rights over, and its campaign of terrorism and its invasions against, Goa rest upon nothing more or less than the lawfulness of the robber to rob, and of the thief to thieve.

It's right to hold Goa, once stolen, is the right to hold stolen property and not to restore it.

Its moral basis is sheer mendacity in crime and a pure and unadulterated humbug heaped upon pure and unadulterated humbug heaped upon pure and unadulterated humbug. That, and nothing more.
Lastly, I warn you: If you once again write obscenities, I will ban you. The use of obscenities may be acceptable in your "Roman Catholicism", but it is not in mine.

Lucio Mascarenhas
From: "Asheesh Shah" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Free Goa - Bharatis are the ones going to Portugal
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:04:19 +0000

Now now, I do not believe I have ever head so much waffle from such a small people about some this so irrelevant in all my life

First some corrections, I am a practising Roman Catholic. All Roman Catholics are not anti Indian and fortunately all those who hate goan quislings do not necessarily have to be Hindus. I do nevertheless believe a fate similar to Quisling for them would not be a bad idea.

Second, as for my deficient education , what can I say Ė Mr DeíMello my goan school master, my goan primary school and the regular evening tuitions at the goan institute have a great deal to answer for. By the way none of these institutions were in India. As I have been saying for a long time, and fortunately you appear to concur, you canít depend on some of these goans

Letís cut to the chase. In this long and failed attempt to re-educate me in history you begin with a description of a colony. Something that is so important and so fundamental in this discussion. As is sadly obvious from the definition, (as listed below) from two different editions of the Oxford English Dictionary that despite giving the impression of being so well read, you have failed to grasp even a basic understanding of the English language. Your definition is not even within a mile of what the English think it means

colony [noun]: 1 a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful and often distant countrys. colony [noun] (pl. colonies) 1 a country or area under the control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country. 2 a group of people of one nationality or race living in a foreign place. Your Definition A colony is a territory where the people from one land come in, settle, and either displace or kill off the original people, so that the newcomers are the demographic majority. On the contrary, a territory that is merely conquered and ruled without being colonized in a dependency. The Portuguese arrived by invite! Yeah really! What did they send you a cable or did they call in person? Please for your own sake donít use this one again. The most recent users of this excuse were the Soviets. Remember Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and most recently Afghanistan. Apparently they were also invited, what a coincidence. The only difference being that in their case they eventually took the hint when the invitation was withdrawn and they went back home. In less then 15 years they have accepted the foolishness of their actions and no longer pine for kingdom lost. You on the other hand just canít take a hint.

You persistently attempt to covey the impression that Goa was some how a free standing entity with no substantial linkage to Portugal with a recognised and independent government of its own. Ok letís say it was. Letís start with an example. Despite being invaded and occupied by Iraq, Kuwaiti travel documentation was willingly accepted by all nations for international travel. In the case of the invasion of the Falkland Islands (a true Dependency) documents issued in Port Stanley by the government of the Falkland Islands could still be used for international movement. I both these cases it was so, as these foreign occupation were deemed to be illegitimate and illegal.

If there was any doubt of the legality and legitimacy of the Indian reoccupation, please do tell me how many countries on a world wide basis recognised travel documents issued in Goa in the name of this alleged dependency. If you feel that the list is to long all answers can be enclosed is a separate spreadsheet.

Now, about the World Court. You arenít a Pakistani are you? They are the only other people who do not understand the difference between the words ĎInconclusiveí and ĎLostí. Portugal lost the case when it attempted to force the Indian government to give it access to the territories of Dadra & Nagar-Aveli, it failed, repeat failed. So much so that it never appealed to this institution again when Goa was reoccupied.

As for, in you own words Ďexpelling pagansí. Please let me remind you this is recognised at an international level as a war crime today. For you to speak of it in such an off handish manner is nothing better than shameful. This is exactly what the Muslims were saying and doing in East Timor. By your descriptive thatís OK. Shame on you.

The Portuguese have a great deal to answer for. The chaos that they left behind in Mozambique, East Timor and Angola has cost these nations at even the most conservative estimate 5 million dead. They left behind no institutions, government or nationhood. At least in the case of the British no such deed was ever committed. They had the foresight to prepare such nations for Independence. The Portuguese did this in Africa for they were more powerful and organised than the locals and essentially got away with it. In Indiaís case no such opportunity was provided. They were summarily thrown them out. It seems somehow Ok for a strong Portugal to go all over the world and take possession of foreign lands but when a stronger opponent moves them on, Oh my God, this is illegal...


As in my first request, you do not have to put up with this Indian nonsense, Fuck off back to Portugal

Asheesh Shah
PS If you believe that Salazar was a democrat do I correctly understand that you approve of the "New State Constitution"?

©Lucio Mascarenhas.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles
Hosted by