"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

[sanjeevpunj]

Source:http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/christianity.htm
I am quoting Stephen Knapp,whose writings can also be found at http://stephen-knapp.com/

Great Indian sages, such as Sri Aurobindu and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of the Art of Living, have often remarked that the stories recounting how Jesus came to India to be initiated are probably true. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar notes, for instance, that Jesus sometimes wore an orange robe, the Hindu symbol of renunciation of the world, which was not a usual practice in Judaism. "In the same way," he continues, "the worshiping of Virgin Mary in Catholicism is probably borrowed from the Hindu cult of Devi." Bells too, which cannot be found today in Synagogues, the surviving form of Judaism, are used in church-and we all know their importance in Buddhism and Hinduism for thousands of years, even up to the present day.

There are many other similarities between Hinduism and Christianity, including the use of incense, sacred bread (prasadam), the different altars around churches (which recall the manifold deities in their niches inside Hindu temples), reciting prayers on the rosary (Vedic japamala), the Christian Trinity (the ancient Vedic trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as the creator, maintainer and destroyer respectively, as well as Lord Krishna as the Supreme Lord, the all-pervading Brahman as the holy ghost, and Paramatma as the expansion or son of the Lord), Christian processions, and the use of the sign of the cross (anganyasa), and so many others.

Further in the article, Stephen Knapp concludes: The Vedas, for instance, which constitute the soul of present day Hinduism, have not been composed in 1500 B.C., as Max Muller arbitrarily decided, but may go back to 7000 years before Christ, giving Hinduism plenty of time to influence Christianity and older civilizations which preceded Christianity.
Thus, we should be aware of and point out the close links which exist between Christianity and Hinduism (ancient Vedic culture), which bind them into a sacred brotherhood. Conscientious Christian and Western scholars can realize how the world humanity's basic culture is Vedic through proper research.

[Rahul M]

Nostradamus must be vindicated in this centurty. As per his prediction, Man (mohan) is Delhi is wearing turban at this juncture of Mlechhas Hannaye Nammah!!

now that you mention it, nostradamus says that a blue turbaned fellow will be the antichrist and lead the world into chaos yada yada. I hope it's not MMS.

p.s. I hope people know that nostradamus has been understood to be a fraud.

[Manny]

He is a mass murdering insane criminal who needs to hang

But..his views on the matter are 90% right on! And screw the lefties who are trying to stick this right wing christian nut job who they collude with every day, who they support, who they nourish and set against the Hindus, on the Hindus.

[Rahul M]

sanjeev ji, there is a surprising amount of uncanny similarity between the legends of jesus' life and that of buddha, a fact that was acknowledged by vatican but with the rider that buddhism stole those from christianity. you will find many references if you google buddhist roots of christianity.

p.s. what is this thread's objective right now ? I can see it is pushing BR's dictum on no discussion on religion.

[paramu]

Nice strategy. When a christian fundamentalist does unacceptable level of violence, blame it on Hinduism.

In the past we saw this strategy applied to nazis too.

[shiv]

Nice strategy. When a christian fundamentalist does unacceptable level of violence, blame it on Hinduism.

In the past we saw this strategy applied to nazis too.

Yes but Hinduism survives only because it recognizes that violence is necesary to eliminate religions that call for punishment and death to people who do not follow those religions. It is wrong to say that there is some kind of mysterious never before never afterwards promotion of non violence in Hindu belief. Hinduism recommends violence where necessary and there is absolutely no need to be defensive about that. Religions like Christianity and Islam merely gathered up a monopoly on violence in the name of their Gods. Everyone was supposed to be spared and blessed if they followed Christian or Islamic God. Opponents of this could be killed or punished violently. Hindus don't need to create a "God" and "belief" straw men to incite killing. For Hindus killing (such as that in war) is based on sense of right or wrong that does not use God as a crutch. "Only a follower of X God will be spared" is a "007 licence to kill" type of tactic followed by Christianity/Islam.

It is a kind of double whammy self goal that Hindus first think they should not be violent and then feel guilty that violence is being attributed to Hindus. That is bullshit.

[paramu]

My point was that instead of accepting the existance violent fundamentalists in religions of peace and love, they find it easy to blame Hinduism for the influence on the culprits. Now the discussions will be deflected on the evil influence of Hinduism on their peace loving followers.

[Dhu]

Hindus don't need to create a "God" and "belief" straw men to incite killing. For Hindus killing (such as that in war) is based on sense of right or wrong that does not use God as a crutch.

That is true for "being" in general among the heathens- the Bhagavat Gita states explicitly that all entities/beings must perforce act (perform karma)- even if not doing anything, they still act and generate karma. It is only in Secularism/Monotheism where it is “stated” that action is the result of self-ideology (will) or conforming to an out-ideology (Will). These ideologies must necessarily be ready-made social theories/theologies and they take many forms, eg maintaining "Liberty", maintaining "Democracy", Maintaining "Order" and "Human Rights". It sounds quite pleasant but Theories will fail at all points during the normal course of existence. Instead of "considering" such failure as a matter of course and “seeking” a better way, the Seculars/Monotheists problematize this as 'hypocrisy' (the cardinal sin of action/reality/fact not conforming to “ideal”) (but, in fact, these misfortunates have access to no other paradigms). We can say that this “hypocrisy” is the lever of the demagogue, elite, rabble-rouser, what have ye, but in fact “hypocrisy” is a function of the limits of the conceptualizing framework.

Also, what if the "Liberty" being "espoused" is of the type that Bush espoused in Iraq or of the "Liberation" that the Missionaries promised the Native Americans. Or, worse yet, what if the "Brotherhood of Man in Christ" itself is some such. Saying merely that man is "misapplying" the "perfect principles" is arbitrary. The evidence is that the overarching Western-type Social Theories and Christoislamic Theologies necessarily result from such *secondary level problematizations* such as representing the fact of a rebellion in a society as “a principled refusal to idol-worship a false authority”. And such representations are always distortions of the actual human experience. And invariably the pursuit of these ideal states (homogeneity) results in untold monstrosities, eg the enthusiastic elimination of 90% of cultural diversity by the Missions while pursuing “World Peace”.

[Arjun]

...The Western world struggles with cognitive dissonance. An article in Salon that has generated a lot of debate going by the multitude of comments: Breivik Christian

Note to conservatives: Anders Breivik is a Christian

He's no evangelical, but to pretend the Norway terrorist doesn't identify himself as Christian is dishonest
By Alex Pareene

This, apparently, is the right-wing talking point du jour on the terror attacks of July 22: Anders Breivik, the perpetrator, was not a Christian.

Here's a portion of an email I got last night that baffled me:

Just to be clear, the killer was, in fact, not a Christian and said so explicitly several times in his writings... So, in fact, "in fact" was the wrong term to use...

I thought, foolish me, that Breivik had repeatedly and forcefully argued that he was waging a war on behalf of European Christendom. I guess while I wasn't paying attention, everyone decided to make up a new reality.

It looks like Bill O'Reilly was on the forefront of this bizarre argument:

Also Breivik is not attached to any church, and in fact has criticized the Protestant belief system in general. The Christian angle came from a Norwegian policeman not from any fact finding. Once again, we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.

Breivik chose to be baptized at age 15. He self-identified as "Christian" on his Facebook page. He thought "Christianity should recombine under the banner of a reconstituted and traditionalist Catholic Church" or, later, under a new (traditionalist) European Church.

Breivik is not an American-style evangelical Christian. He is not a "fundamentalist" in that sense. Though he does identify with American cultural Christian conservatives. And he considers himself to be fighting in the name of "our Christian cultural heritage." He supports a reconstituted Knights Templar devoted to winning a war against Islam in the name of Christianity.

All of this says "Christian terrorist." His goals -- the restoration of a pure Christian world in its "traditional" home -- were analogous to the stated of goals of al-Qaida.

Does he go to church? Does he believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ? Is he a biblical literalist? I have no idea. There's plenty about him that would lead a devout Christian to consider Breivik "not a 'real' Christian." Here's the thing about that: The same is true of all self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of terrorism.

He's a sick perversion of Christianity, sure. But if he "doesn't count" as a Christian solely because no one this evil should "count" as a Christian (which is O'Reilly's other argument -- "no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder," he said) then no terrorist should "count" as a representative of his faith.

You can make the argument that he's not a "true Christian," but it's sick and Orwellian to just make shit up claiming he never identified as one.

[Agnimitra]

So if I don't believe in the existence of God I can express genuine doubts about the Vedas which require me to believe in God.

No sir. No. The vedas are a human expression of the existing truths of the universe, truths that some people may choose to call by the name "God". As such the knowledge of the Vedas remains unchanged and unchangeable even if it were expressed in another language such as Urdu or Norwegian to make other humans understand. Among Hindus knowledge itself is God.

Saying that the Vedas were handed down by some unseen God is making Vedas samesame as Bible-Quran - which it never was and never will be.

That's true Shiv ji. Veda is kala akshar bhains baraabar if sentiment or action are decoupled from knowingness in meditation.

Bruce Lee uvaacha:

[IndraD]

"The biggest problem in Norway is that there is no real free press, there is a left-wing angle on all the political topics so most people are going around like idiots," said one post, according to Searchlight.

In a statement on its website the EDL denied any official connection and said Breivik's own manifesto had criticized them.

"I have never personally met this man, I've never had no interaction with him, never had any dealings with him," said EDL founder Stephen Lennon.

GROWTH IN EXTREMISM

The Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE), another right-wing group name-checked by Breivik, doubted whether the Knights Templar Europe existed.

"I've done extensive research into our organization and there's no link at all," Stephen Gash, a self-professed English nationalist from SIOE, told Reuters. "I don't think he's actually affiliated to any organization as far as I can make out apart from this one he's made up, this Knights Templar."

Senior British police officers have said far-right movements are on the increase but lack the organized structures of other groups and tend to be "lone wolves."

"Mostly, I have to say, they tend to be less organized. It tends to be the concept of the 'lone wolf'," John Yates, until last week Britain's top counter-terrorism officer, told lawmakers in 2009.

Feldman said even the lone wolves tend to come from a community or have supporters who shared the same ideology, if not their violent intent.

"(These are) people who say I've got to go that one step further and be the person who starts this civil war," he said, adding Breivik's manifesto itself posed the greatest concern as "a DIY kit for potential terrorists."

"It gives you everything from blending in to explosives manual, to how to kill without remorse and who the targets should be," he said. "To me this is one of the most chilling documents I've ever had the misfortune of reading."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... Y620110726

[RajeshA]

...The Western world struggles with cognitive dissonance. An article in Salon that has generated a lot of debate going by the multitude of comments: Breivik Christian

Note to conservatives: Anders Breivik is a Christian

He's no evangelical, but to pretend the Norway terrorist doesn't identify himself as Christian is dishonest
By Alex Pareene

This, apparently, is the right-wing talking point du jour on the terror attacks of July 22: Anders Breivik, the perpetrator, was not a Christian.

Here's a portion of an email I got last night that baffled me:

Just to be clear, the killer was, in fact, not a Christian and said so explicitly several times in his writings... So, in fact, "in fact" was the wrong term to use...

I thought, foolish me, that Breivik had repeatedly and forcefully argued that he was waging a war on behalf of European Christendom. I guess while I wasn't paying attention, everyone decided to make up a new reality.

It looks like Bill O'Reilly was on the forefront of this bizarre argument:

Also Breivik is not attached to any church, and in fact has criticized the Protestant belief system in general. The Christian angle came from a Norwegian policeman not from any fact finding. Once again, we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.

Breivik chose to be baptized at age 15. He self-identified as "Christian" on his Facebook page. He thought "Christianity should recombine under the banner of a reconstituted and traditionalist Catholic Church" or, later, under a new (traditionalist) European Church.

Breivik is not an American-style evangelical Christian. He is not a "fundamentalist" in that sense. Though he does identify with American cultural Christian conservatives. And he considers himself to be fighting in the name of "our Christian cultural heritage." He supports a reconstituted Knights Templar devoted to winning a war against Islam in the name of Christianity.

All of this says "Christian terrorist." His goals -- the restoration of a pure Christian world in its "traditional" home -- were analogous to the stated of goals of al-Qaida.

Does he go to church? Does he believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ? Is he a biblical literalist? I have no idea. There's plenty about him that would lead a devout Christian to consider Breivik "not a 'real' Christian." Here's the thing about that: The same is true of all self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of terrorism.

He's a sick perversion of Christianity, sure. But if he "doesn't count" as a Christian solely because no one this evil should "count" as a Christian (which is O'Reilly's other argument -- "no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder," he said) then no terrorist should "count" as a representative of his faith.

You can make the argument that he's not a "true Christian," but it's sick and Orwellian to just make shit up claiming he never identified as one.

Quoting the whole article here again!

Anders Behring Breivik identifies himself as a Cultural Christian.

He does not source his ideology to the Bible, nor does he claim heavenly sanction for his terrorist act. He does not claim to be doing God's work. He also does not claim to be a religious man or affiliated to some church. So he is not a Religious Christian.

The terrorism of Al-Qaida is justified by terrorists on the basis of their interpretation of the Qu'ran. All of Al-Qaida claim to be doing God's work. The are all Religious Muslims, hence their terrorism is also called Islamic Terrorism.

There is no scope of an equal equal.

[Atri]

We called Hindu Kush as "Paariyaatra Parvat" (पारीयात्र पर्वत).. I think we should popularize that name here..

[Lalmohan]

or north western himalaya if we need to use an anglo-sphere term

[ManishH]

+1 to that Atriji.

Use of exonyms was an important means to establish territorial claims and rekindle remembrances of civilizational influence. There are vedic exonyms for a lot of rivers and most regions of Afghanistan as well that need to be popularized. Probably start with a bharat-exonym dictionary like BRF dicitionary.

[Arjun]

Anders Behring Breivik identifies himself as a Cultural Christian.

He does not source his ideology to the Bible, nor does he claim heavenly sanction for his terrorist act. He does not claim to be doing God's work. He also does not claim to be a religious man or affiliated to some church. So he is not a Religious Christian.

The terrorism of Al-Qaida is justified by terrorists on the basis of their interpretation of the Qu'ran. All of Al-Qaida claim to be doing God's work. The are all Religious Muslims, hence their terrorism is also called Islamic Terrorism.

There is no scope of an equal equal.

There is no equal-equal in my mind, however there are a couple of facts that are important -

1. The driver for Breivik's action was not his religiosity - but it was most definitely a sense that his culture and way of life was under threat and would disappear if he did not take action. And that culture that he self-identified with can be described as 'cultural Christianity' which he perceived to be under threat from the twin forces of immigrants (especially Muslim immigrants) and cultural Marxists.

2. More important - & the other key factor to remember, is that the Church and sections of 'activist' Christians in India, as I am sure you are aware, have never been ones to pass up on the chance to portray an equal-equal between Islamic terror and supposed 'Hindutva' fundamentalism. Given how untenable and far-fetched THAT idea is - my larger issue is this: why would you want to take a nuanced approach towards elements who would not be willing to reciprocate with a similar nuanced approach when the boot is on the other foot?

[ManishH]

From wiki, on capital punishment in Norway ...

- The last execution in peacetime was carried out on 25 February 1876
- The last execution took place on 27 August 1948

So Breivik would spend the rest of his life augmenting the "manifesto".

[RajeshA]

2. More important - & the other key factor to remember, is that the Church and sections of 'activist' Christians in India, as I am sure you are aware, have never been ones to pass up on the chance to portray an equal-equal between Islamic terror and supposed 'Hindutva' fundamentalism. Given how untenable and far-fetched THAT idea is - my larger issue is this: why would you want to take a nuanced approach towards elements who would not be willing to reciprocate with a similar nuanced approach when the boot is on the other foot?

Anders Behring Breivik's has himself criticized the efforts of Christian Churches to push Christianity in India.

He is in favor of "Cultural Protectionism"! His ideology of "Cultural Protectionism" basically favors the original local tradition of a region, in India that would be the "Hindu Continuum" vs Islam and Christianity!

So even as one condemns him for his terrorist act, and one distances oneself from his ideology as mirroring our concerns for the time being, I don't see a need for misrepresenting his ideology.

Frankly it is not really a nuanced approach, but a very apparent misrepresentation.

[RajeshA]

From wiki, on capital punishment in Norway ...

- The last execution in peacetime was carried out on 25 February 1876
- The last execution took place on 27 August 1948

So Breivik would spend the rest of his life augmenting the "manifesto".

He will come out in 2083 at 106 once Europe is Independent, to become President like Nelson Mandela!

[Lalmohan]

press reports yesterday suggested that by means of an insanity conviction he can be kept locked up forever under norwegian law, about the only way he can be kept incarcerated. his crime will be so shocking to mango norwegians that they will not want to see him out for a very long time

in jail he will find his aryan birathers, and one day he will repeat the famous line from the movie "Blues Brothers" - i.e. "Gruppenfuhrer, I have always loved you..."

[sanjeevpunj]

p.s. what is this thread's objective right now ? I can see it is pushing BR's dictum on no discussion on religion.

I am staying off this thread for a while.Time for me to unwind for the weekend!

[Arjun]

Anders Behring Breivik's has himself criticized the efforts of Christian Churches to push Christianity in India.

He is in favor of "Cultural Protectionism"! His ideology of "Cultural Protectionism" basically favors the original local tradition of a region, in India that would be the "Hindu Continuum" vs Islam and Christianity!

So even as one condemns him for his terrorist act, and one distances oneself from his ideology as mirroring our concerns for the time being, I don't see a need for misrepresenting his ideology.

Frankly it is not really a nuanced approach, but a very apparent misrepresentation.

Funnily enough, as regards Breivik himself I would agree. His actions were barbaric and reprehensible - but like I had posted a few pages back on this thread - in my mind he does not satisfy the definition of a racist or supremacist. He would probably not have been in favour of Norways' long-standing support for the LTTE for example - he says as much in an excerpt from his manifesto. Its a valid question as to who is the bigger racist - Is it the Norwegian government that tried to exports its own morality and 'mutli-cultural' code by supporting a terrorist organization that kills over a thousand in Sri Lanka or is it Breivik, who gunned down close to a hundred in a barbaric rampage against 'multiculturalism'?

I myself am a big supporter of David Cameron's 'muscular liberalism' policy - who shares with Breivik his distaste for multiculturalism - but obviously does not share the 'solution' that Breivik came up with.

Net-net, whether Breivik is a 'Christian terrorist' or not is dependent on the context. If the audience is one that is prepared to move beyond simplistic labels (on a reciprocal and objective basis) the primary driver of Breivik's angst as 'Cultural Marxism' is a good one to focus on. But we have to remember that reciprocity is important and the same objective standards would need to be applied in the case of other religions as well.

[Lalmohan]

i also believe we are giving his references to hinduism too much credit. he is citing examples to bolster his anti-islam agenda - seeking approval for his views and acts. despite some references in the western press, i don't think outside india, anyone is taking these references too seriously. the hunt is on for other nazi-nutjobs hiding in the shadows all over europe, i am certain that whilst all the intel agencies have been monitoring the jihadis, the nazis have been quietly building their strength - although they actually attract very few dedicated 'party workers'. i wouldnt mind a gang war where the nazis and jihadis slaughter each other, but unfortunately since both are cowards, only innocent people are going to get killed in the cross fire

[RajeshA]

p.s. what is this thread's objective right now ? I can see it is pushing BR's dictum on no discussion on religion.

The thread was named wrongly to begin with. It was set up to discuss Breivik's terror act and ideology and European reaction to it.

"Breivik & Breivikism" would have been an appropriate choice for title. Or "Cultural Protectionism".

I had suggested we discuss this in the "Islamism & Islamophobia" Thread!

Anyway ....

[brihaspati]

Some discussion on religion will spill over into this because Breivik himself bases his thesis on religion rather than race, and because he takes an anti-islamist and anti-Marxian position, all the usual suspects will jump up and down trying to connect it to Hinduism.

There are two parts to analyzing Breivik: (1)what factors led to Breivik developing his thesis (2) How his actions in Oslo are being used by others.

In the first part lost of analyses can be done. But it is the second part which is more urgent to understand and counter.

We should understand that Marxists and Islamists and mainstream Christians realize very well that Breivik is just another step in the long continuation of the organized, monotheistic, church-like tradition of one form of totalitarianism that has long taken roots in the "revealed" traditions - and of which the Roman and derivative Christian churches, the Muhammadan jihad [my name for Islam and Islamism], Marxist totalitarianism, and Fascist totalitarianism - all are the historical stages. You can see the same anti-civilization anti-culture, prophetic harangue about the need for destruction of previous orders and of its "revolutionary" trasnition.

Therefore these people realize the danger of identification of their own totalitarian agenda in the agenda of Breivik, and they are frantically trying to allocate that identification to Hinduism - which they think is unorganized, no strong iconic and identifiable centre and superhuman revealer, and incapable of resistance - and thereby protect themselves from exposure.

[shiv]

i don't think outside india, anyone is taking these references too seriously.

I bet my left testimonial and half my right one that the one group that is going to pick up those references are the Pakis - although their propagandu apparatus has taken body blows in the recent past. The likes of Fai and oh cho chweet wimmen interlocutors with a sympathetic US press over the decades ensured that gaandmasti about SDRE beliefs was given far more mileage than is fair. But I expect some references - in due course, to be followed by echoes in the words of the usual bunch of self-flagellators.

I drop the subject herewith. Unless provoked by discussions/media.

[shiv]

If Brevik's name had been Abdul Pakistani the religion motive would have been clear to everyone and denied by Pakis

If he had killed in the name of Christianity, then Islamic zealots of the world would have celebrated the "exposure" of "real christianity" as proof that islam does not have a monopoly on murder

Breivik, it seems to me, was too clever for all that. I am sure he had thought through the possible consequences. His action has focused on terrorism against soft, innocent targets without taking any focus off any specific type of religious fundamentalism. He has highlighted wanton terrorism without allowing any religion to claim relief because "They did it".

If you believe in science, probability and statistics - the next act that we will hear of in the world that mimics Breiviks' terror will come from Islamic fundamentalists. Please call out my error on here if that is wrong. And by then a lot more people will have read Breiviks holy book

If there can be any joke in this horror story, one could ask, "If this was not religious terrorism, was it actually secular terrorism? If it was secular terrorism then what the fuch was everyone talking about after every terror attack in the past when people said "Oh but terrorists have no religion". Does Breivik's act have less religion than other attacks? Why not declare all terrorism as "secular?"

[RajeshA]

If there can be any joke in this horror story, one could ask, "If this was not religious terrorism, was it actually secular terrorism? If it was secular terrorism then what the fuch was everyone talking about after every terror attack in the past when people said "Oh but terrorists have no religion". Does Breivik's act have less religion than other attacks? Why not declare all terrorism as "secular?"

The thing is that Breivik has told the Europeans exactly what to look for - rapes, terror, intimidation, demographic expansion, Shariah calls in neighborhoods, etc.

Anytime that happens now, his followers would start shouting, "Look he told us so! It is because you 'Cultural Marxists' are not doing something about it, that pushed Breivik to go amok"!

Anything wrong that Muslims do from now on in Europe, would only bolster the support for Breivikism! The terror act is still fresh, so he is still under fire! But when Islamism strikes again, and people are disgusted, more people would run to join the "Justiciar Templar Knights" or whatever...

[brihaspati]

If Brevik's name had been Abdul Pakistani the religion motive would have been clear to everyone and denied by Pakis

If he had killed in the name of Christianity, then Islamic zealots of the world would have celebrated the "exposure" of "real christianity" as proof that islam does not have a monopoly on murder

Breivik, it seems to me, was too clever for all that. I am sure he had thought through the possible consequences. His action has focused on terrorism against soft, innocent targets without taking any focus off any specific type of religious fundamentalism. He has highlighted wanton terrorism without allowing any religion to claim relief because "They did it".

If you believe in science, probability and statistics - the next act that we will hear of in the world that mimics Breiviks' terror will come from Islamic fundamentalists. Please call out my error on here if that is wrong. And by then a lot more people will have read Breiviks holy book

If there can be any joke in this horror story, one could ask, "If this was not religious terrorism, was it actually secular terrorism? If it was secular terrorism then what the fuch was everyone talking about after every terror attack in the past when people said "Oh but terrorists have no religion". Does Breivik's act have less religion than other attacks? Why not declare all terrorism as "secular?"

No, religious terror happens only if it is not associated with Islam. "terrorism has no religion" is true onlee if that religion is Islam.

I still fail to see why people are not asking the same "nuanced" question about "grievances", "sense of dispossession", and "threat to way of life" while acknowledging that "violence on innocents" [but then who is not an "innocent"? if Afzal guru can be an "innocent"! Even Qasab has his own legitimate grievances - probably starting with grievances like "why does the Kaffir exist?", "why do Hindus exist?", "why does India exist and not everything is Paquiland?", "why do Kashmiri Pundist remain hindus or why do they not leave their property and their usable women behind and leave the pureland of Islamist kashmir valley?"] is a simple case of "misguided" sentiments! But we must, we must look into the grievances behind this violence - sympathetically, without violent retaliation, and "concessions" from the "majority to the minority" [onlee if it is Islamic majority then concessions can be demanded from non-Islamic minorities too]?

Is not Breivik also a "minority" with "grievances" against "perceived threat to his way of life"?

[brihaspati]

I think ideologically-tactically Breivik has won. He has copied the Paki method as well as those sections of the Christian Church politicos methods and of course the Marxian leftists - that has always indirectly condoned Islamist violence on India, by every time focusing demands on "grievances" of Islamists, and the need for no-retaliation, no harsh counter-measure, "integration"=="more and more concessions to Islamist exclusivist demands" - successfully. Even taking vicarious hurt for what is allegedly being done on communities at a long distance, one identifies with - is old hat and sympathetically referred to for Islamist action about supposed atrocities in Kashmir and Palestine and Iraq in lands far away from those alleged sites or repression on Islam.

In trying to prosecute Breivik - they will be forced to act strictly on legal terms, in fear that trying him ideologically will expose the deep hypocrisy with which the "west" and the "church" has treated Islamist violence rather favourably as long as such violence was directed at hated and looked down upon communitie slike the Jews or the Hindus - and in the process will make him a martyr. At most they will create cases of sexual "deviance" and perversion, which again will be magnificent self-goals - because any deviation from what currently goes on in that domain in that region will look like going back to saintly ascetism. Childhood trauma, and abuse will be bad moves - because they are used often to justify Islamist actions.

So in the end, Breivik has adopted the Islamist strategy successfully. In the long run his position has already won.

[Lalmohan]

there are already stories of breveik's childhood trauma at parent's divorce, hanging out with dodgy paquis in his teens, getting beaten up, am waiting for some sort of romantic rejection (possibly from a beautiful immigrant girl) to rear its ugly head, fascination with guns, being a military groupie, distorted world view, etc., etc. - scarily there are many people like him around, but few pick up the gun.

his lawyer will plead insanity for him even if he doesnt, he will be tried in camera, it will be a depicted as a columbine incident++
khel khatam, paisa hajam

[vera_k]

No parallels between Norway massacre and Hindutva

What is interesting about the Norwegian who murdered scores in cold blood in the name of some ideology is described by a large section of the European media as a 'Christian Fundamentalist'. Knights Templar was an armed Christian movement created in 12th century by Christian fundamentalists with blessings and support from the Catholic church.

His ideological position on issues like immigration, multiculturalism, etc. is no different from that of the likes of UK Prime Minister David Cameroon or German Chancellor Angela Merkel or French President Nicholas Sarkozy. Breivik was also an admirer of the 'Tea Party' of Sarah Palin and of course his role models include Russian President Vladimir Putin.

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

America's own Taliban
A fast growing right-wing politico-religious presence plans to implement an end-times, Christian theocracy in the US.

Paul Rosenberg Last Modified: 28 Jul 2011 10:44

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 36524.html

IMO, this article on Al Jazeera is required reading for anyone following this thread.

[Fidel Guevara]

his lawyer will plead insanity for him even if he doesnt, he will be tried in camera, it will be a depicted as a columbine incident++
khel khatam, paisa hajam

I beg to disagree. "Breivikism" is already entering the mainstream discussions, and as more people read his bible, they will be able to call out the government's actions in Breivik's terms.

Previously the good people of Europe may have had a vague sense of disagreement with some new appeasement by their psec govts, but now they will be able to use the specific term "this is Cultural Marxism". He has instantly popularized a whole "new" ideology and terminology.

As he himself put it, his book is the product, and his act of murder was simply the marketing tool to make people buy the product.

So, no I don't believe we have seen the last of this phenomenon...Breivik himself will not be around but his ideology will spread, that too in a very fertile ground.

[Theo_Fidel]

Breivik is most definitely a religious Christian literalist. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand the way literalism works on the Christian side and to misunderstand Christian faith it self. First the Christian fundamentalists are a different group. They believe in return to first principles. Typically on the Pentecostal branch. They want a direct connection to God.

Breivik is a trending Literalist. Or simply a trending Christian Terrorist. He is a Martyr. At least in his mind he is. He is also very confused and that muddies the position he takes. But mostly towards literalism.

- His enemy is Islam not muslims. Not a race or community or grouping. Only Chritian literalists believe that.
- The point is to keep the Islamic hordes out of Christendom, as they were kept out in Vienna 1683. This is a critical date for Christian literalists. Almost sacred.
- His battle is not with Chritian atheists. Typically literalists have no problem with Christian Atheists (born Christian don't renounce). Their war is with the active Liberal group. Note that most of those camp goers were probably active Church members themselves. This is the group that sets political policy.
- Literalists don't require a personal connection with God. They believe that his revelation is already in front of them in the form of the Bible. No further instructions required. They can consult as they feel like it.
- What literalists want is cultural preservation. Christmas, Easter, Church services, marches, etc. They decry any weakening of these elements.
- What they want is a civil war, which they believe the Christian Horde will win. With Atheist, Fundamentalists and the Faithful on their side. End of the world and all that.

One of the odd things to remember is that the Vikings were the last to join Christianity in Europe. They simply beheaded the first missionaries to turn up. It took centuries of effort to get them to merge. Breiviks ancestors were very culturally insular.

One should remember that Christians who opposed the crusades were destroyed as enemies as well. At that time the Crucifixion was seen as a blood sacrifice for God. Take a look at the symbol he chose.

[Fidel Guevara]

America's own Taliban
A fast growing right-wing politico-religious presence plans to implement an end-times, Christian theocracy in the US.

Paul Rosenberg Last Modified: 28 Jul 2011 10:44

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 36524.html

IMO, this article on Al Jazeera is required reading for anyone following this thread.

Good article, however the US electoral and legislative system has too many checks and balances to make this easy. Sundry militia with serious grievances have existed in the US every since the Minutemen; however there is no research that indicates that this flavor of Christian right-wing theocrats is increasing significantly in popularity. Anti-Obama feelings don't directly translate to support for Sarah Palin.

[sanjeevpunj]

The rapid decline of freedom in the world after 9/11 has provoked different types of responses.The mind of Anders is easy to understand when we put ourselves in his shoes.However the action is still not the best action to emulate, and I would never recommend that.His argument that this heartless killing is justified as it achieves the glorified target he had in mind of awakening the people, is not palatable at all.I wrote earlier, and I write again,he would have really succeeded in his message more if he had sacrificed himself.That works better to attract public support.What he did has been seen as cowardly, not brave.Who can call such an action brave? Shooting unarmed people? Is that brave? What people always look for is a Hero.What he has gone down as is a possible lunatic killer though that has yet to be declared after a trial, it is subjudice currently.
Interestingly,there was a movie called IF in 1968, produced in UK. I feel this movie must have inspired him and the group he claims to belong to.

A scene from the movie.
If.... is a 1968 British allegorical drama film produced and directed by Lindsay Anderson satirizing English public school life. Famous for its depiction of a savage insurrection at a public school, the film is associated with the 1960s counterculture movement because it was filmed by a long-standing counter-culture director (Lindsay Anderson) at the time of the student uprisings in Paris in May 1968. It includes controversial statements, such as: "There's no such thing as a wrong war. Violence and revolution are the only pure acts". It features surrealist sequences throughout the film. Upon release in the UK, it received an X certificate.Read more about the movie here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If....

Just by mentioning this possibility I do not mean he was influenced by this movie, his thinking is very clear and independent.He managed to pre-conceive many consequences, and the execution was near perfect.Beyond that, he deserves a little more credit for working hard for many years to write such an exhaustive manual.Europe has been changed by the likes of Hitler,who were writers. This young man is also in a similar category.It might impact Europe profoundly, as time will eventually tell. It is a case that will not be forgotten easily.

[Theo_Fidel]

One of my Colleagues just pointed out something.

There is no outpouring of sympathy for muslims in Europe. If anything there is a hard silence for provoking a situation where Christian extremists kill the protectors of muslims in Europe. In essence this is carte blanche for the liberal Christians in power to remake the immigrant issue how ever they feel like it. Muslims have lost the right to question them and their actions.

[sanjeevpunj]

^^^Rightly so,why should it be.Its time something is done,to prevent one civilisation from destroying another.

[RamaY]

One should remember that Christians who opposed the crusades were destroyed as enemies as well. At that time the Crucifixion was seen as a blood sacrifice for God. Take a look at the symbol he chose.

Look at the swastika on the skull.