"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 26 Jul 2011 19:02

nachiket wrote:
Fidel Guevara wrote:In an Indian context, what would happen if a hyper-jingo had gone on a killing spree, killing various WKK-wallahs and appeasers from certain parties and certain publications, what would have been the general response within BR? Universal condemnation, I am sure, but would not a few (perhaps more than a few) have secretly cheered such an action?
You are a BRFite. Would you have cheered him? Best to ask the question to yourself, no?

I will condemn such an action due to the cruelty and wickedness that it represents.

As for the political message, I will support the message that the act was intended to convey.

The unfortunate reality is that to send such messages, one needs to adopt the same methods as used by the Jihadis. Harbans' last post hit it bang on. Cultural Marxists == PSec/WKK. Breivik was trying to send a message of fear to the appeasers. Hence the frequent reference that there are many others like him. And the truth is, there are, perhaps not directly associated with him, but lurking in the shadows out there.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jul 2011 19:12

harbans ji,

My position is that I don't want to make parallels between what Anders Behring Breivik wrote and the Indian context. The messenger is important. Let his views be taken up by the mainstream, start being debated openly in Europe and West, and once those views and vocabulary become accepted and common-place there, then we can start mapping it to the Indian context. The messenger would then be different.

I don't want us to be on the bleeding edge of this new movement. It is okay to wait a few months before importing the ideology in the manifesto over to India. The rod is still too hot!

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 26 Jul 2011 19:15

RajeshA wrote:harbans ji,

My position is that I don't want to make parallels between what Anders Behring Breivik wrote and the Indian context. The messenger is important. Let his views be taken up by the mainstream, start being debated openly in Europe and West, and once those views and vocabulary become accepted and common-place there, then we can start mapping it to the Indian context. The messenger would then be different.

I don't want us to be on the bleeding edge of this new movement. It is okay to wait a few months before importing the ideology in the manifesto over to India. The rod is still too hot!

Rajesh, agree with you there.

In a few months, once the term is mainstream, we will have a new addition to the BRF glossary - "Cultural Marxist". But let's wait a bit, while the European soul-searching progresses...

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 26 Jul 2011 19:21

The unfortunate reality is that to send such messages, one needs to adopt the same methods as used by the Jihadis.

This is the crux, the fear, the cause of cognitive dissonance. will the Psecs, libs only learn and respect violence? We don't know the answer yet. Too early, but only indications and trends. All of them point to the fact that most Psecs respect violence. Respect the imam Bukhari's. Respect the Paki's. Respect the privilege of being considered a protected 'pseudo respected Dhimmi' in contrast to a 'rabid dog fundamentalist'. Mani Shankar Aiyers, A Roys, Digvijay Singh's and so many more are testimony that legitimate pressures and stances don't really work. Anders didn't think Europe has much time. Everyone knows JIhad is also immigration and womb borne. 2083 has significance in that aspect. With Anders it's not that Islam is being disliked more. on the contrary it's being understood that the violence is natural to the doctrine. And that that violence is being rationalized and allowed to grow and prosper under the "cultural marxist". The chilling part is that Anders realized that this type of act will bring this up in a jerk. Thats the chilling and very sad part of this act of terrorism. I very much doubt this is going to be a one off incident..

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jul 2011 19:24

I think European "Cultural Marxists" underestimated the spirit of the Serbs! Now comes the revenge!

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 26 Jul 2011 19:29

nachiket wrote:
Fidel Guevara wrote:In an Indian context, what would happen if a hyper-jingo had gone on a killing spree, killing various WKK-wallahs and appeasers from certain parties and certain publications, what would have been the general response within BR? Universal condemnation, I am sure, but would not a few (perhaps more than a few) have secretly cheered such an action?
You are a BRFite. Would you have cheered him? Best to ask the question to yourself, no?

Nachiket ji.It is not just about cheering.If someone would have gunned down a group of Hindus/nationalists the very same leftists/socialists/marxists/wkks would have cheered it and laid the blame on victim's foot.Remember somnath chatterjee.He once stated that Hindu pilgrims burnt in Godhra massacre deserved to die or something to that effect.

Remember one thing.We are in a war with leftists(who in turn protect islamists/ej types) over the Indian civilization.And no mercy will be shown to nationalists from the leftist side.So why shed tears when leftists are dead.This is a "No quarters given and none asked for" type of struggle.And the only way the nationalists can win it , is when they accept the following motto in spirit.
"Ruthless,Merciless,Remorseless"

By the way I want to ask those leftists who are denouncing this act. where were they when Norweigian girls were being raped by islamists because of leftist policies.Where was their indignation or outrage then?

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 26 Jul 2011 19:31

I have been constantly trying to penetrate the mind of Anders, with the querry as to why he did this. His reasoning deserves mention, it is clear as far as venting the feelings of disapproval for the growing terrorrism emanating from Islamic states is concerned.They (the countries that spawn terror) are, by constant push on the terror agenda, hardening a wall around themselves, and not being a part of the global fora for global peace, and this irks everyone.Yet this does not explain why he killed so many young people aspiring to be members of the Nordic Labour Party. It can be argued that he knew of plans of the Labour Party to bring in more of the "multicultural people" into Norway, which felt threatened by, thus took this violent measure.However,this is also an act of terror,what he did,and is not justified.No killing is justified by the feelings one may have against someone. The alternative is always to debate such issues (thanks to the oldies here, we have BRF).

In a way,this event heralds the rise of Christian fundamentalism taking a decisive turn in Europe particularly. Now it depends on how the rest of the christian world looks at it, and forms opinions about it.Some seeds have been sown in some minds and will either flourish or dwindle.I pray the seeds of any form of terror,hatred,and revenge, always dwindle,to make the world a livable place.

Most of the christians I have met in my life of 50+years are warm,friendly,as wild as I am,perhaps more friendly than I am,and in general very decent.I work everyday amongst muslims and christians, and I do not find any fundamentalism emanating from either.We argue,we discuss, we thrash out issues.When they go to pray,I go and chant my beads.

Fundamentalism, is a much misunderstood word,often linked with terrorists,specially by politicians.Fundamentalism and intolerance are related.People rush back to fundamentalism the moment they feel their existence as a commune is threatened.Every individual tries to defend the group he belongs to, it is but natural. yet, when not threatened, people are more accomodative and less fundamentalist.Threat perception is one thing that is gradually polarising the world into fundamentalist camps.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 26 Jul 2011 19:36

My position is that I don't want to make parallels between what Anders Behring Breivik wrote and the Indian context.

Rajesh Ji, yes i know it's your position, why bring BRF into it? That's why we analyze and juxtapose different scenarios and links. You may not want to make parallels, but the parallels are so obvious that it makes no sense to brush them under the carpet. What i posted almost from my first post, will be mainstream because that is the root truthful cause of the incident. Anders by killing 90 odd innocent kids attending some liberal convention has only thrown just one basic question: How ill the Psec/ lib/ WKK/ Cultural Marxist learn how ugly, unfair and untruthful their behavior is. By violence? I think that so far Psecs and Wkk's have been admirable of the most violent and pure.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 26 Jul 2011 19:44

sanjeevpunj wrote:However,this is also an act of terror,what he did,and is not justified.No killing is justified by the feelings one may have against someone. The alternative is always to debate such issues (thanks to the oldies here, we have BRF).

In a way,this event heralds the rise of Christian fundamentalism taking a decisive turn in Europe particularly. Now it depends on how the rest of the christian world looks at it, and forms opinions about it.Some seeds have been sown in some minds and will either flourish or dwindle.I pray the seeds of any form of terror,hatred,and revenge, always dwindle,to make the world a livable place.

Sanjeevpunj ji , Maybe you see it as an act of terror.But many others would think of it as an event in a much wider war.May be killing of anysort is not justified.But then key word is not justification but requirement.What is Justified is not relevant and has never been.What is required is important.Indian soldiers killing Pakistani intruders might or might not be justified depending on an individual's perception.But it was/is definitely required.

Regarding Christian fundamentalism , I am unable to see how Brevik is one.Maybe you can explain better.He is an anti leftist/anti marxist.But he is not a christian fundamentalist except in the eyes of mainstream media which is again predominantly leftist(all over the world).

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 26 Jul 2011 19:45

Remember one thing.We are in a war with leftists(who in turn protect islamists/ej types) over the Indian civilization.And no mercy will be shown to nationalists from the leftist side.So why shed tears when leftists are dead.This is a "No quarters given and none asked for" type of struggle.And the only way the nationalists can win it , is when they accept the following motto in spirit.
"Ruthless,Merciless,Remorseless"

Rajesh Ji, we have it here. How is this (sentiment) different from Anders' sentiments when he did what he did? Obviously Darshan Ji hasn't understood or read what we are posting as yet, or what we are saying, but irrespective. This line of thought is pretty mainstream. This anger is mainstream, not 'right wing'. This sentiment has been expressed multiple times here and mainstream Rediff, TOI message boards. It's all over. Why brush that sentiment aside when it is real? Why brush Jihad as non existent when the sentiment for Jihad is real? Why not look at the issues and see how we may avoid the war and the violence. That is why i have stressed this here. I fail to understand why you want to brush it aside on this forum.

PS: Apologies Darshan Ji, quoting from your post. No offense intended. Just proving that 'nationalists' do have grieviences against Psec/ WKK types.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jul 2011 19:49

harbans ji,

If you wish to draw parallels, there is hardly anything I can say or do to stop people. But the question is where are you drawing the distinction between the actions of Anders Behring Breivik and the general view and prescription of BRF, if both follow the same logic, as you imply! And why would that distinction hold?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Jul 2011 19:50

darshhan ji, which leftists did Breivik kill? He ended up slaughtering innocent children and random government workers. Neither the Islamists nor the "Cultural Marxist" leaders he refers to were hurt in any way. Breivik was a deranged lunatic. Possibly a well-educated and articulate deranged lunatic, but a lunatic nonetheless. The only thing he has ended up hurting (besides the families of innocents) is any future peaceful democratic movement against psecs and fake liberals in Europe and other parts of the world. (Indian leftists have already grabbed the opportunity and started drawing parallels with so-called "Hindu fundamentalists". Psecs in Europe will do the same with any right wing org in their part of the world).
Breivik put every anti-marxist in the world on the backfoot with his horrendous act.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 26 Jul 2011 19:53

harbans wrote:
Remember one thing.We are in a war with leftists(who in turn protect islamists/ej types) over the Indian civilization.And no mercy will be shown to nationalists from the leftist side.So why shed tears when leftists are dead.This is a "No quarters given and none asked for" type of struggle.And the only way the nationalists can win it , is when they accept the following motto in spirit.
"Ruthless,Merciless,Remorseless"
Rajesh Ji, we have it here. How is this different from Anders' act? Obviously Darshan Ji hasn't understood or read what we are posting as yet, or what we are saying, but irrespective. This line of thought is pretty mainstream. This anger is mainstream, not 'right wing'. This sentiment has been expressed multiple times here and mainstream Rediff, TOI message boards. It's all over. Why brush that sentiment aside when it is real? Why brush Jihad as non existent when the sentiment for Jihad is real? Why not look at the issues and see how we may avoid the war and the violence. That is why i have stressed this here. I fail to understand why you want to brush it aside on this forum.

Harbans ji, You are wrong on one count.I am not angry..I am just being objective.So you cannot quote my post for your assertion.I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong.You must have made your own observations.But honestly you cannot see my emotional state on an internet forum.

By the way no where I am saying that one needs to kill somebody.I am just saying what it will take to win against leftists and I stand by that.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 26 Jul 2011 19:55

nachiket wrote:darshhan ji, which leftists did Breivik kill? He ended up slaughtering innocent children and random government workers. Neither the Islamists nor the "Cultural Marxist" leaders he refers to were hurt in any way. Breivik was a deranged lunatic. Possibly a well-educated and articulate deranged lunatic, but a lunatic nonetheless. The only thing he has ended up hurting (besides the families of innocents) is any future peaceful democratic movement against psecs and fake liberals in Europe and other parts of the world.

It was a labour party convention or so I have heard.Although this has again been suppressed by media.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Jul 2011 20:01

darshhan wrote:
nachiket wrote:darshhan ji, which leftists did Breivik kill? He ended up slaughtering innocent children and random government workers. Neither the Islamists nor the "Cultural Marxist" leaders he refers to were hurt in any way. Breivik was a deranged lunatic. Possibly a well-educated and articulate deranged lunatic, but a lunatic nonetheless. The only thing he has ended up hurting (besides the families of innocents) is any future peaceful democratic movement against psecs and fake liberals in Europe and other parts of the world.
It was a labour party convention or so I have heard.Although this has again been suppressed by media.

The people he killed were still innocent. And by killing them Breivik became the monster he so despised. I hope nobody else makes that mistake.
As an aside do you agree that Breivik's actions hurt the nationalist anti-psec movement more than the leftists?

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 26 Jul 2011 20:03

Lalmohan,

Why am I friends with him??

I am not, we were in our late teens early 20's. I am now 46.

I tend not to socialise with people who would kill my relations in the Indian Army.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jul 2011 20:10

nachiket wrote:As an aside do you agree that Breivik's actions hurt the nationalist anti-psec movement more than the leftists?

Nobody uses the words p-secs in Norway!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 26 Jul 2011 20:10

By the way no where I am saying that one needs to kill somebody.I am just saying what it will take to win against leftists and I stand by that.

I know Darshan Ji, just was telling Rajesh Ji that sentiment against Psecs is very comon. Not everyone translates that 'war' to killing as did Anders. Glad you understood my quoting you in that context. Meant no offense at all. It's natural to dislike people like Digvijay, Aiyers and A Roys.

The only thing he has ended up hurting (besides the families of innocents) is any future peaceful democratic movement against psecs and fake liberals in Europe and other parts of the world. (Indian leftists have already grabbed the opportunity and started drawing parallels with so-called "Hindu fundamentalists". Psecs in Europe will do the same with any right wing org in their part of the world).
Breivik put every anti-marxist in the world on the backfoot with his horrendous act.

You put that view point very well in your post and in many ways it is right. A whole lot of anti-marxists who prefer a quieter and more sober manner of tackling the WKK types have been put on the back foot. But it's yet to be seen what sort of success/ attention that this incident draws. Agree with Rajesh Ji here. This thing is red hot. It's still time to for us to draw the final conclusions on his acts. His motivations have become clearer though.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 26 Jul 2011 20:16

They were kids, he shot at the cutest looking girls first, It cannot be justified in a thousand years.It is a grave error of judgement he committed by killing those,in the hope that he will start a revolution,and these are sacrifices made towards that.That is surely very insane.He should have blown himself up as a sacrifice,after publishing his agenda and manual. That would be called a sacrifice for a cause. His dad also told the press that Anders should kill himself.Darshhan,as nachiket says,and I agree, not a single leftist was killed by Anders.The labour party neophytes were killed, mostly people from cross cultural diaspora.There is and will never be a justification for heinous crimes.I beg to differ, Darshhan ji.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Jul 2011 20:17

RajeshA wrote:
nachiket wrote:As an aside do you agree that Breivik's actions hurt the nationalist anti-psec movement more than the leftists?
Nobody uses the words p-secs in Norway!

Calling them by any other name doesn't change who they are.

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 26 Jul 2011 20:18

nachiket wrote: As an aside do you agree that Breivik's actions hurt the nationalist anti-psec movement more than the leftists?

In the short term likely he has hurt his cause more. However, just as in India, the liberals are the "mainstream", and nationalists are individuals. In public spaces, in our offices and our parties, it is far more common to hear liberal views being expressed, than hard-core nationalist views. One aspect of being liberal is that you "pooh-pooh" the right-wing view as being unimportant and just a fringe view.

Now with Anders' viewpoint expressed in a very comprehensive essay (I'm at page 85 so far), this topic is going to come up more often, and the open and frank exchange of ideas can occur more easily, as more jingos come out of the closet and express their views.

That is one of the side-effects of this act...to start the conversation in earnest instead of dismissing the right-wing as being fringe. Try it out in your place of work, if it is safe to do so...raise the topic (of Anders' motivation) in an offhand manner and see how your colleagues move the discussion forward.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jul 2011 20:25

Why are you all so much in agony - that this man has jeopardizd all anti-Marxian, anti-anti-Indic positions?

Why does the horrendous history of Christianity, Islam or Marxian-communism still not put those ideological positions in jeopardy? Why does even the horrible genocide of 1947 and 1971 at the hands of Islamists still doe snot jeopardize Islam? Why is not Stalin's actions and Lenin's actions [yes he was also responsible for ordering mass-murders] or Mao's actions or the modern Maoist actions in India still not jeopardize the underlying ideology? How can our media and so-called intellectuals - still always claim that some "people" take it to the extreme - but Islam or Christianity or Marxism cannot be or should not be "demonized" for the actions of a "few" "individuals"? Even when I repeatedly point out that the core ideology of both Islam and Marxism-Leninism has gratuitious violence and coercion and repression on those do not "belong"?

I think what Brevik stands for - those parts of his ideological outpourings that go against Islam, Islamism, Islams role vis-a-vis other civilizations - and most importantly the traditionally subversive role of that section of European elite which always collaborated with Islamists out of political and ideological weaknesses - primarily the modern leftists, Marxians, pseudo Marxians, neo-Marxians, should not be seen as having been jeopardized by the action of "one" or even a "few individuals". The underlying philosophy cannot be "demonized" - can it? simply because it advocates a "defensive" counter-jihad against a culture that seeks to decimate and impose its own form of barabarity? If Lenin and the writer of the Quran is not a "loony" and not a "violent deranged psychopath" for freely and openly declaring the right to coerce and physically repress those who do not belong to their respective ideologies or those who do not submit to their ideologies - and those ideologies are still somehow justified and cannot be demonized - why help the followers of those ideologies claim political space by trying to demonize any ideology that opposes Islamism and Leninism?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jul 2011 20:27

I would suggest to all those who wish to analyze Anders Behring Breivik's views, they should download the manifesto and the 2083 - Knights Templar Video. Most video hosting providers are taking it down.

torrent: 2083 A European Declaration of Independence

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Jul 2011 20:30

Fidel ji, I disagree. Any peaceful nationalists and anti-marxists like ourselves will now be more subdued while making their arguments because Breivik gave the marxists a powerful weapon to beat us with. Breivik's example will now be used by leftists all over the world to make their arguiment that right wing nationalism is dangerous. And the aam janata will be more likely to buy it now. What's worse the psecs will now do an equal-equal between islamic terrorists and Breivik saying "See, there are loonies on both sides." Breivik made things decidedly worse for anyone opposing psec-ism and fake liberalism anywhere in the world. You could say he is one of the worst anti-marxists the world has ever produced.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jul 2011 20:39

Just as in desh - the p-sec propaganda tries to create the superficial impression that all Indians are p-secs to the core of their heart, there is this same propaganda to an extent in Europe. Does ir reflect the reality in desh? Just becuase people have not voted out p-secs yet? well they did not do so for a long long time in WB, which was taken as indicative of overwhelming support!

People everywhere are cautious, especially in Europe. They have seen violence and they are wary. That does not mean that they will not drop off their "secular" mask at the drop of the hat - when appropriate times arrive. The current "left-of-centre" labour politics in many European countries - socialist/green - are struggling. The Norway courts have a reason to fear greater dissemination of Brevik;s ideas. You see, the rashtra and the regime always shows which side it has chosen to protect when forced to choose - desh or Europe - no difference.

Yes as some have speculated - there is going to be fall out even on the Indian community. There are many who do not like any shade of brown. They will use the public sentiments to get their own. But more so is the Islamist taqyia which makes Pakis pretend Indianness whenever in trouble. Any deception is "jayez" when it is a case of saving an Islmist life or interest - especially faced with non-Muslim aggression.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Jul 2011 20:41

Significance of utoya island summer camps

Every summer, some 700-1,000 Labour youths from all over Norway have gathered for political debate and seminars covering topics like international solidarity, environmental issues, education, vocational training, and how to fight racism and xenophobia.

The AUF is a multi-cultural organisation, with a very clear stance against racism and xenophobia, and the island has always been a buzzing ethnic melting pot.

The AUF summer camp at Utoeya is the place our party leader and other prominent leaders always simply have to attend.

The fact that our present party leader and Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, has spent parts of his summer holiday on the island every year from the age of 14 clearly proves this point.

The summer camps at Utoeya always generate massive media coverage, and regularly set the national political agenda.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 26 Jul 2011 20:50

harbans wrote:Cultural Marxism==Psec, liberalism for Anders.

The analogy is not valid, if we look deeper. The forces that were manipulating Breivik are the same as the forces supporting p-secularism in India.

To give another example - the authorities of the day were completely aware of Nathuram's plan to bump off Gandhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinat ... and_Gandhi). Yet they stood by and let him complete his deed. The greatest beneficiary of Nathuram's action was Nehru (who was favored to be the PM by the Brits). To make matters more interesting, Gandhi was brought back to India from South Africa by the Brits as a loyalist who would help them control the natives. He had outlived his utility.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 26 Jul 2011 20:51

Comment below Hindu article about material in the killer's manifesto -

The unfortunate thing is that most Hindutvadis and right wing Islamphobes don't realise that the huge massacres that did happen in the medieval period in North West India were done by the Mongols who were Buddhist and animist at that time. The killed not only Indians but also Muslims in Iraq and Iran and enslaved many thousands to take them to Europe which are the origin of the Roma people. Gengis Khan and his generation were all Buddhists following shaman customs and didn't become Muslims until the third generation.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jul 2011 20:52

nachiket wrote:Any peaceful nationalists and anti-marxists like ourselves will now be more subdued while making their arguments because Breivik gave the marxists a powerful weapon to beat us with. Breivik's example will now be used by leftists all over the world to make their arguiment that right wing nationalism is dangerous. And the aam janata will be more likely to buy it now. What's worse the psecs will now do an equal-equal between islamic terrorists and Breivik saying "See, there are loonies on both sides." Breivik made things decidedly worse for anyone opposing psec-ism and fake liberalism anywhere in the world. You could say he is one of the worst anti-marxists the world has ever produced.

At least in Europe, and I will comment only for Europe, w.r.t. this issue, the anti-Marxists had already become domesticated by the "political correctness" machinery. For one thing, he has liberated them from it. Now these "peaceful" anti-Marxists can say whatever they want, and claim that if these issues are not talked about in a democratic manner, the issue would pour out in form of violence.

Secondly as I mentioned in a post earlier, the "Cultural Marxists" have really been put in the docks. They have to answer the charge whether they are by a deliberate policy been destroying the cultural fabric of the society or not, whether they have been sweet-talking the Islamic threat or not, etc. They are the ones on trial. Not anti-Marxists.

With his act, Anders Behring Breivik has conferred respectability to the Freedom Movement, the anti-Islamic Movement. Why? Because they are dealing with these issues democratically in a law-abiding manner. When one now would talk of Geert Wilders, one would not say, the Far-Right, but rather one would consider them mainstream, because all of a sudden Anders Behring Breivik has shown what "Far-Right" can be! So his act, establishes a new mainstream movement!

The Marxists have their loony fringe - the Naxalites, the Maoists, etc. They are not apologetic about the ideology because of that. And neither is there a need for the Freedom Movement to be apologetic either.

More than that, Anders Behring Breivik has provided the world with a well-researched and a well-argued ideological manifesto. Something people were perhaps lacking as anti-Marxists.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Jul 2011 20:58

the comment about mongols killing hindus is wrong - yes some did, but the animist mongols of the early waves did very little of it - though they killed many muslims. later turko-mongols who were muslims did kill more hindus, but the turkic invaders and their afghan brethern (all muslims) did the most

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 26 Jul 2011 20:59

RajeshA wrote:I would suggest to all those who wish to analyze Anders Behring Breivik's views, they should download the manifesto and the 2083 - Knights Templar Video. Most video hosting providers are taking it down.

torrent: 2083 A European Declaration of Independence

Snippets from Section 1.2, on characteristics of Islamic Negationism. This guy is very wordy, and really should have had a condensed version of this 1,500 page opus, if he wanted his ideas to be read widely.

1. Head-on denial: The crassest form of negationism is obviously the simple denial of the facts. This is mostly done in the form of general claims, such as: "Islam is tolerant", "Islamic Spain was a model of multicultural harmony", "the anti-Jewish hatred was unknown among Muslims until Zionism and anti-Semitism together entered the Muslim world from Europe". Since it is rare that a specific crime of Islam is brought to the public's notice, there is little occasion to come out and deny specific crimes.

2. Ignoring the facts: This passive negationism is certainly the safest and the most popular. The media and textbook-writers simply keep the vast corpus of inconvenient testimony out of the readers' view. This includes most of the information about the systematic slaughter, torture and enslavement of non-Muslims in historical and present context (including Genocides and Dhimmitude), demographic developments which show the systematic and gradual Muslim takeover of societies (Including Kosovo, Lebanon and now in many Western European countries) and al-Taqiyya.

3. Minimising the facts: If the inconvenient fact is pointed out that numerous Muslim chroniclers have reported a given massacre of unbelievers themselves, one can posit a priori that they must have exaggerated to flatter their patron's martial vanity - as if it is not significant enough that Muslim rulers felt flattered by being described as mass-murderers of infidels.

4. Whitewashing: When one cannot conceal, deny or minimise the facts, one can still claim that on closer analysis, they are not as bad as they seem. One can call right what is obviously wrong. This can go very far, e.g. in his biography of Mohammed, Maxime Rodinson declared unashamedly that the extermination of the Medinese Jews by Mohammed was doubtlessly the best solution.

5. Playing up unrepresentative facts: A popular tactic in negationism consists in finding a positive but uncharacteristic event, and highlighting it while keeping the over-all picture out of the public's view. For instance, a document is found in which Christians, whose son has forcibly been inducted in the Ottoman Janissary army, express pride because their son has made it to high office within this army. The fact that these people manage to see the bright side of their son's abduction, enslavement and forced conversion, is then used to prove that non-Muslims were quite happy under Muslim rule, and to conceal the fact that the devshirme, the forcible conversion and abduction of one fifth of the Christian children by the Ottoman authorities, constituted a constant and formidable terror bewailed in hundreds of heart-rending songs and stories.

6. Denying the motive: Negationists sometimes accept the facts, but disclaim their hero's responsibility for them. Thus, Mohammed Habib tried to exonerate Islam by ascribing to the Islamic invaders alternative motives: Turkish barbarity, greed, the need to put down conspiracies brewing in temples.

7. Smokescreen: Another common tactic consists in blurring the problem by questioning the very terms of the debate: "Islam does not exist, for there are many Islam’s, with big differences between countries etc." It would indeed be hard to criticise something that is so ill- defined. But the simple fact is that Islam does exist: it is the doctrine contained in the Quran, normative for all Muslims, and in the Hadith, normative for at least all Sunni Muslims.

8. Blaming fringe phenomena: When faced with hard facts of Islamic fanaticism, negationists often blame them on some fringe tendency, now popularly known as fundamentalism or Wahhabism. This is said to be the product of post-colonial frustration, basically foreign to genuine Islam. In reality, fundamentalists like Maulana Maudoodi and Ayatollah Khomeini knew their Quran better than the self-deluding secularists who brand them as bad Muslims. What is called fundamentalism or Wahhabism is in fact the original Islam.

9. Arguments ad hominem: If denying the evidence is not tenable, one can always distort it by means of selective quoting and imputing motives to the original authors of the source material; or manipulating quotations to make them say the opposite of the over-all picture which the original author has presented. Focus all attention on a few real or imagined flaws in a few selected pieces, and act as if the entire corpus of evidence has been rendered untrustworthy. If the discussion of inconvenient evidence cannot be prevented, disperse it by raising other issues, such as the human imperfections which every victim of crimes against humanity inevitably has (Jewish harshness against the Palestinians, Hindu untouchability); describe the demand for the truth as a ploy to justify and cover up these imperfections. If the facts have to be faced at all, then blame the victim.

10. Slogans: Finally, all discussion can be sabotaged with the simple technique of shouting slogans: prejudice, myth, "racism/Islamophobia". Take the struggle from the common battlefield of arguments into the opponent's camp: his self-esteem as a member of the civilised company that abhors ugly things like prejudice and Islamophobia. After all, attack is the best defence.

Nothing really new for us on BRF; however it shows that Anders also thought along very similar lines, albeit in a more European context. If you were to use the Paki behavior as a frame of reference, your could come up with direct similar examples for their behavior.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jul 2011 21:00

nachiket wrote:Fidel ji, I disagree. Any peaceful nationalists and anti-marxists like ourselves will now be more subdued while making their arguments because Breivik gave the marxists a powerful weapon to beat us with. Breivik's example will now be used by leftists all over the world to make their arguiment that right wing nationalism is dangerous. And the aam janata will be more likely to buy it now. What's worse the psecs will now do an equal-equal between islamic terrorists and Breivik saying "See, there are loonies on both sides." Breivik made things decidedly worse for anyone opposing psec-ism and fake liberalism anywhere in the world. You could say he is one of the worst anti-marxists the world has ever produced.

You can excuse dropping your "peaceful" nature whenever you can claim that you are onlee being defensive. There is no reason to be ashamed of the right-wing position. Brevik's methods are wrong, out and out so - just as the Bolshevik putsch was wrong, or 1947 massacre of Sikhs and Hindus by long-previously-planned and organized by ML gangs - all with substantial degree of the rashtra turning a blind eye and in some cases the ML leadership using the state machinery to protect their own goons. Some of these massacre-sponsors went on to be come icons of their Islamic nations - like Jinnah or Suhrawardy. If they and their non-Muslim apologists are nit ashamed - or the apologists of Lenin, Stalin or Mao are not ashamed - why should you be ashamed of your underlying ideological position?

The right response should be to turn the Marxian-leftist Islamist p-sec logical procedure directly to Brevik and his supposed ideological position. Yes of course such violent methods are bad - but should we not also see what grievances led to such actions? Was there any "provocation"? was the state not engaging the "minority" opinion? what about the economic factors that underlie all expressions of such terroristic violence? there must be a socio-economic and primarily economic cause? such violence should not be met with matching violence but with understanding, sympathy, respect for minority demands and claims! Exclusivity is a fundamental right - isnt it? If Islam can claim this right everywhere - why cannot a Christian minority claim the same? If Islamist mullahs can freely call for imposition of the Sharia in UK or other places of Europe - why cannot another religious minority claim something similar?

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 26 Jul 2011 21:04

nachiket wrote: The people he killed were still innocent. And by killing them Breivik became the monster he so despised. I hope nobody else makes that mistake.
As an aside do you agree that Breivik's actions hurt the nationalist anti-psec movement more than the leftists?

Nachiket ji , People like you demonstrate demonstrate the strength of Indian civilization.For more than a thousand years every imaginable atrocity has been committed on our people.Millions have been massacred , more have been enslaved and degraded.Yet many of us(not me though) retain our humanity.We still give benefit of doubt to those who might not mean well to us.

But too much of goodness in Indics is also not a good thing.We have also suffered in past because of this.

As far as impact of Brevik's actions on counter-psec movement(in Europe) is concerned ,I am not the best person to answer that.Maybe someone located in Europe can enlighten us.But I will tell you this , whenever a protracted struggle is being waged between two entities , the conclusion(victory or defeat) is decided by a combination of factors.Willpower,sustained focus,resourcefullness and ruthlessness among other factors decide the outcome of such a struggle.So in my viewpoint this event may have some impact in short term but such an impact will be minimal as far as long term outcome is concerned.Now the counter psecs might say that Brevik's massacre of innocents damaged their cause but then if that that is their thinking they never deserved to win in the first place.

There is also a fundamental rule of insurgency(if one can assume that this Brevik guy was an insurgent).This rule comes into play when you start looking at things from a military/tactical point of view especially in the context of insurgencies/resistance movements.

"Repetition is always more important than scale"

Need I say more

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jul 2011 21:32

What about the need for "nuanced" criticism of the Christian-right-anti-Marxian-anti-Islamist position - just as we are told ad nauseum as to why our congrez-left demands "nuanced" treatment of Islamism?

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 26 Jul 2011 21:49

harbans wrote: A whole lot of anti-marxists who prefer a quieter and more sober manner of tackling the WKK types have been put on the back foot. But it's yet to be seen what sort of success/ attention that this incident draws. Agree with Rajesh Ji here. This thing is red hot. It's still time to for us to draw the final conclusions on his acts. His motivations have become clearer though.

Harbans ji , The problem with peaceful and quieter anti marxists is that they have been on the backfoot all along and it seems like this century will be no different.The reason is that the leftists/wkks control almost every institution from Academia to media and from bureaucracy to Judiciary.They are the ones who control the national discourse and this won't change , not peacefully atleast.Much before Brevik massacre they were of the opinion that Hindus eat foetuses that have been ripped from the wombs of pious muslimas with a trishul.This opinion will be still there years from now with or without Brevik massacre.So why even bother with what these lefties think or say.Why even get in a race for moral high ground with lefties when they wouldn't even recognize your achievments.I say let us stop being defensive.Who are they to judge us?If they want to judge let them start with Stalin.Polpot,Mao,Kim jong il ,castro etc.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 26 Jul 2011 22:03

brihaspati wrote:What about the need for "nuanced" criticism of the Christian-right-anti-Marxian-anti-Islamist position - just as we are told ad nauseum as to why our congrez-left demands "nuanced" treatment of Islamism?

+1.Brihaspati ji What about socio economic reasons behind Brevik taking up a gun?I mean we always hear of islamists taking up guns because of poverty or because some other muslims thousands of kms away were being suppressed by Israel or India.I am sure that Brevik snapped because of the severe persecution of christians by islamists in islamic Lands.

Also there was an economic recession in which he might have lost his savings which might have led to these actions.Also Norway doesn't have a sunny climate which can lead to depression and scientific research has shown that depressed people are more prone to violence.It seems like Norweigian govt has failed to provide him the right medical or economic care and has thus failed to fulfil its human rights obligations.Such being the case it is the Norweigian govt and world community at large which is responsible for this massacre.

I would say that it is unfair to blame Brevik alone for this incident.

Also I read somewhere immediately after this massacre that Brevik's mother said that her son was just like any next door boy and wouldn't hurt even a bird.

For more information on link between poverty and terrorism check this out

http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a133047.html

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 Jul 2011 22:06

Page 930/1516

Prioritised targets:
- MA100 political parties - cultural Marxist/multiculturalist political parties. Prioritised targets
include HQs or annual meetings of MA100 political parties
- Annual media conferences (concentrations of journalists, 500 journalists +)
- Category A and B traitors (individual executions/assassinations)
- Major EU HQ’s (Brussels or elsewhere in Europe)
- Government buildings with high concentrations of category A and B traitors
- Any major “cultural Marxist/multiculturalist” building
- Any Western European state media channel HQ (cultural Marxist/multiculturalist
propaganda centers)
- Any mainstream Multiculturalist media HQ (preferably left wing)
Certain university/college faculties; faculty of journalism, sociology, political science. Also
faculties housing so called “diversity or middle eastern studies. These are notorious cultural
Marxist/multiculturalist nests for tomorrow’s leaders. Target staff -
professors/teachers/lecturers. Students are considered acceptable indirect targets as f.
example 95-99% of journalism students will support multiculturalism indirectly/directly.
...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Jul 2011 22:31

RajeshA wrote:I think European "Cultural Marxists" underestimated the spirit of the Serbs! Now comes the revenge!

Good brave Serbs, there contribution toward saving Europe from ROP is equivalent to Sikhs/Martha/ Rajputs etc.The are proud people and i have the pleasure of knowing few dozens of them . In Mid Eighties, Serbs were the onlee community which repetedly showed up to demonstrate solidarity with Indics at the time when Jihadis and Khalistanis were co-ordinating their anti India activites in Massarland.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jul 2011 22:32

they have their own wkk's too now!

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 26 Jul 2011 22:39

brihaspati wrote:Why does even the horrible genocide of 1947 and 1971 at the hands of Islamists still doe snot jeopardize Islam? Why is not Stalin's actions and Lenin's actions [yes he was also responsible for ordering mass-murders] or Mao's actions or the modern Maoist actions in India still not jeopardize the underlying ideology? How can our media and so-called intellectuals - still always claim that some "people" take it to the extreme - but Islam or Christianity or Marxism cannot be or should not be "demonized" for the actions of a "few" "individuals"?

One obvious reason is that Naxals or Islamists are perceived to be underdogs fighting against privileged oppressors, be they "Zionists" or big and hegemonistic "upper caste Hindu" India.

Note how TSP even defines itself as a tactical haven to guarantee the safety of the subcontinent's Moslems "minority". One can see how they define the reference frame of their identities in order to project a psychological effect. Thus, these idealogies of revenge and justice attract a pro-survival affinity psychology in humans, versus the anti-survival fear psychology coming from what is seen as the unjust status quo establishment. Like Robin Hood. But Breivik is a white supremacist ranting against what are seen as a poor refugee immigrant underclass.

We can't take our cues from anti-Moslem Westerners, and certainly not their Breiviks. I agree with Harbans here, that even if Breivik's grouse reflected many of our own civilizational memories and present day problems, his method and madness is incompatible with our Dharma and needs to be condemned. Our critique of this incident needs to reflect this distinction also.

IMHO, if right-wing groups in India were to directly attack culpable targets inside TSP itself, they would not be susceptible to "Cultural Marxist" propaganda as when they even verbally confront questionable elements within our nation. Add to that an initiative to create social justice and opportunity for one's less fortunate brethren. These would be elements of dharmic chivalry that no one can undermine.

Instead, if right-wingers think that they need to "first" tackle p-secs and crypto-Pakis within the country "before" they can handle TSP itself, then that is already on the backfoot. No need for a Breivik to put them on the backfoot.