"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jul 2011 00:04

Theo_Fidel wrote: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.

IMHO, Breivik believes in adherence to the Christian customs, as a means of identification and allegiance to a Christian-based Culture.

He doesn't give two hoots about what is or is not in the Bible, which is a very far cry from being a Christian literalist, which translates to believing in everything that happens to be in the Bible, including Genesis and all. He doesn't believe in the Bible as the word of God or anything. At the most he is an agnostic. Even if he is a believer, nobody can tell from what he has written.

Theo_Fidel wrote:- His enemy is Islam not muslims. Not a race or community or grouping. Only Chritian literalists believe that.

His enemy is not Islam, but the presence of Muslims in Europe, for they bring in their Islam to Europe. He would not have a problem, if Muslims stayed in their lands and did whatever they do best among themselves. He would not be going and declaring a war on them there.

Theo_Fidel wrote:- 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.

Perhaps I have a different interpretation of what a Christian literalist is. The Battle of Vienna was a battle between two civilizations - one based on Christianity and the other based on Islam. It is the civilizational aspect that makes it "sacred", or an important date, and not because it had anything to do with Jesus or the Bible.

Theo_Fidel wrote:- 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.

Agreed.

Theo_Fidel wrote:- 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.

Literalism is about the mythology and dogma that belongs to one's belief system. Fundamentalism is about the connection to God, about the depth of the faith itself, literalism being one path of fundamentalism. Mysticism can just as much be fundamentalist.

Anders Behring Breivik is neither a literalist nor a fundamentalist. He is simply a Christian due to his allegiance to its culture, and his identification with the civilization based on Christianity. It is even doubtful whether he considers even its values as his own.

Theo_Fidel wrote:- What literalists want is cultural preservation. Christmas, Easter, Church services, marches, etc. They decry any weakening of these elements.

Many of these festivities have components which are heathen in origin. He would be completely happy if they celebrate Christmas by cutting a stuffed turkey, eating cakes and running around a Christmas tree opening their presents. Or going hunting for colored eggs on Easter.

He would probably appreciate the hoolaboola around these events as prescribed by Church but simply because of tradition and not because of faith.

What literalists would want is a celebration of Christmas and Easter according to Church doctrine, which is not the case with him.

Theo_Fidel wrote:- 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.

End of the World and all that is not what is of interest to him. His only interest is that Muslims leave Christians and Europeans alone and return back to Muslim lands.

Theo_Fidel wrote: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.

Probably because he knows that, he is not really enamored about being some bleeding heart Christian as one sees in America.

Theo_Fidel wrote: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.

That is a Crusader sword piercing the skulls of absolutist and exclusivist ideologies - Islam, Communism and Nazism.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Jul 2011 00:10

Is this going to change the Muslim behaviour in foriegn lands or change the lifestyle of muslims.
Will this create debate inside Islam and Islamic theology
Will this bring moderate Muslims to the forefront and give them dominant space.
Will Islam be a topic of discussion for change and modernization in the arab world.

------

These are some of th things they want to provoke with the publicity of the event

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Jul 2011 00:59

Acharya,

None of the above. Muslims have not been invited to this conversation. Breivik is not dumb.

By not attacking Muslims directly he has refused them a seat at the table.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Jul 2011 01:02

Theo_Fidel wrote:Acharya,

None of the above. Muslims have not been invited to this conversation. Breivik is not dumb.

By not attacking Muslims directly he has refused them a seat at the table.

There is an implicit message to the muslims with this attack. Nobody can deny that.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Jul 2011 01:14

message to muslims is indirect. the real message is to European Christians. will you shape up and fight or roll over and die?

that is the only question posed. now, Europe will try to figure out the answer.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Jul 2011 01:37

Rajesh,

I spent some time reading your response and I don't necessarily disagree with you conclusions.

Except for one thing, who Christian literalists tend to be. First, fundamentalists want a return to the early Church. Esp. as described in the letters of Paul to the different churches. They want a return to first principles. Depth of faith has no meaning. They believe that by returning to first principles they are closest to God though what they claim is desire for a personal relationship with God. For instance in, relation of man to woman, putting Christ first, de-emphasizing symbols they do not believe the early Church supported, eg. Christmas or Halloween considered Pagan as you pointed out. Its not uncommon to find fundamentalists at American malls railing against Christmas as a purely marketing tool.

It is only Literalists who subscribe to imagery and supporting symbols such as Christmas. At least from the few literalists I know. Literalists believe the Bible is in front of them so they can be as religious or Irreligious as they choose. They don't need context or depth of understanding. They tend to be very shallow & illogical.

Literalists of course are not a denomination so it makes it hard to follow all this.

If, as you say he merely wants to expel Muslims from Europe, why would he rail so hysterically against Islamization. Muslims are technically not necessary for that to happen.

Edit: Also WRT his symbol, it is not a Crusader Sword. The vertical represents a nail driven into flesh during Crucifixion. The Crucifixion was means of destroying sin on this earth. No doubt he means to do the same WRT those ideologies.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jul 2011 01:52

Theo_Fidel wrote:If, as you say he merely wants to expel Muslims from Europe, why would he rail so hysterically against Islamization. Muslims are technically not necessary for that to happen.

The demography of Muslims in Europe is a measure of Islamization of Europe. Both are here the same thing. It is not as if Europe is borrowing Islamic values, and these values are being reflected in the European structures. Far from it. What is apparent in the European structures is a certain tolerance for Muslims, without any associated Islamization.

So, it is about Muslims in Europe.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 29 Jul 2011 02:17

RajeshA wrote:The demography of Muslims in Europe is a measure of Islamization of Europe. Both are here the same thing. It is not as if Europe is borrowing Islamic values, and these values are being reflected in the European structures.

What is the extent of Islamic proselytization in Europe?

The Population of Muslims in the West: Immigration and Conversion

In Germany, the estimated 4,000 converts each year...still, less than 1 percent of Germany's 3.3 million Muslims are converts. A report by France's domestic intelligence agency, published by Le Figaro, estimated last year[5] that there were 30,000 to 50,000 converts in France.

One British newspaper however, the Independent, reports that the number of Britons converting to Islam has nearly doubled in the past decade, despite the fact that the UK has witnessed a rise in Islamophobia. This is according to a comprehensive study by inter-faith think tank Faith Matters.

Previous estimates have placed the number of Muslim converts in the UK at between 14,000 and 25,000, but this study suggests that the real figure could be as high as 100,000, with as many as 5,000 new conversions each year. By using data from the Scottish 2001 census - the only survey to ask respondents what their religion was at birth as well as at the time of the survey - researchers broke down what proportion of Muslim converts there were and then extrapolated the figures for Britain as a whole.

In the United states of America...Among native-born Muslims, slightly more than half are African American (20% of U.S. Muslims overall), many of whom are converts to Islam.

Re: the recurring pattern of anti-Islamist Christian and Zionist rightwingers rediscovering the need for Holy Mother church...Pope Benedict had first started the "save Europe's Christian roots" campaign. At that time he also expressed concern that lay and elite Europeans were converting. To what extent is this true?

Here's an article from the Moslem PoV refuting the Pope's charges of strategic proselytization efforts, but affirming that Westerners were embracing the true religion of the last prophet once their prejudices were removed by the Islamic media being published there:

Muslims Don't Proselytize West

Hakkar Mohammad, a senior expert at Muslim-Vatican ties, said Gaenswein's warning was triggered by the Vatican's fears of the increasing popularity of Islam in the West and the fact that it attracts lay people and the elite alike.

"More European notables, who enjoy great prestige among the European intelligentsia, are embracing Islam," he told IOL.

"The number of lay people who accepted the Muslim faith has tripled in many European countries like France," he added.

Mohammad said that nearly 114,000 Europeans embraced Islam this year.

"The Europeans have been willing to know more about Islam, particularly after the 9/11 attacks."

The last line is re-run often during enthusiastic khutbas, with a sense of wonder at how unfortunate violence can psychyologically impact the directionless, naive kaffirs and arouse their curiosity, eventually converting them to take up the gret cause of god. Seems like Breivik's violence against the same Westerners may attract a similar number of people to read his book and imbibe.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2011 04:33

Brevik belongs to the same tribe of "Christians" in the US who want the US to embark upon global military campaigns to accelerate events which would lead to the Biblical "Armageddon" as mentioned in the book of Revelations,and hasten the second coming of Christ.It is this kind of "neo-Crusader" (to coin a new word/tribe) support that Bubya Bush relied upon to win his election, and he was viewed by them as the first "neo-Crusader" leader who would bring this about.

Brevik and co. require this fundamentalist base,as Biblical "literalists" as some have said,in order to justify their bigotry and racism against the hordes of "Islamic invaders" in Europe today.Not too well known and written about are the activities during WW2 where the Nazis secret ambitions of chivalry,establishin anew chivalric order and recovering the Grail,etc. conducted by special SS forces during WW2.Freemasonry,because of its Judaic content was persecured by the Nazis in Europe however along with the other "untermenschen". The "neo-Crusaders" ,have very similar ideology to that of the Nazis/neo Nazis and could perhaps be decribed as being the "other side of the same coin".

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 29 Jul 2011 05:30

RajeshA wrote:So, it is about Muslims in Europe.

What is/would be his view about Europeans in other parts of the world? Americas, Australia and Africa. Even big chunk of christians in non-European world is due to European colonialization. In a way, those christians are byproduct of European christianization agenda. What should the natives of those lands feel?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jul 2011 05:37

Looking for roots of Breivik in "neo-Crusader" or "neo-Nazi" versions of Christianity may prove elusive. Rather he comes from a more fundamental fissure and tussle within Christianity itself. The main problem lies in the rather incomplete theory of "state" within Christianity - stemming from the initial anti-state origins of the movement and transformation under Roman imperialism into a supportive role for the imperialist state.

Islam has no problems in this - because there is a clear cut divinely-enjoined fusion of all state authority into the theologian. In that sense, not Christianity but Islam is the correct progenitor of Nazism - it fuses all authority - ideological, political, military - into one single gruppenfuhrer - Muhammad in his days and whoever can take that mantle of boss-Imam, is the "fuhrer".

The role of state in each religion is the key. It was contested heavily in Christianity because the theology left the question open, and in fact it was that gap through which the papal authority itself was challenged, and ultimately Europe became the "west". Muhammad, or whoevr had compiled texts using his name, closed this hole in that branch of totalitarian philosophy.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 29 Jul 2011 08:12

devesh wrote:message to muslims is indirect. the real message is to European Christians. will you shape up and fight or roll over and die?

that is the only question posed. now, Europe will try to figure out the answer.

Any reading of European history and one common theme that will be quite clear is that its usually the non-Europeans who have been shaping up to European desires or dying otherwise. Unless this is accounted for, Breivik's manifesto sounds like a delusion and a farce. This manifesto crap is more like a result of a declining xenophobic Europe unable to adjust to the rest of the world changing.

And I will bet my ass that the more the rest of the world "catches up", the more these over-inflated white egos (who have been fed tales of their high morality and civilizational attainments since birth) are going to have mental problems.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jul 2011 08:18

Theo_Fidel wrote: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.

Wow! That is a very interesting take and has opened a new door in my mind. Thanks.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jul 2011 08:43

brihaspati wrote:Looking for roots of Breivik in "neo-Crusader" or "neo-Nazi" versions of Christianity may prove elusive. Rather he comes from a more fundamental fissure and tussle within Christianity itself. The main problem lies in the rather incomplete theory of "state" within Christianity - stemming from the initial anti-state origins of the movement and transformation under Roman imperialism into a supportive role for the imperialist state.

Islam has no problems in this - because there is a clear cut divinely-enjoined fusion of all state authority into the theologian. In that sense, not Christianity but Islam is the correct progenitor of Nazism - it fuses all authority - ideological, political, military - into one single gruppenfuhrer - Muhammad in his days and whoever can take that mantle of boss-Imam, is the "fuhrer".

The role of state in each religion is the key. It was contested heavily in Christianity because the theology left the question open, and in fact it was that gap through which the papal authority itself was challenged, and ultimately Europe became the "west". Muhammad, or whoevr had compiled texts using his name, closed this hole in that branch of totalitarian philosophy.

Well the governance "hole" in Islam was only patched - putting a thin cover over a yawning gap which explains the ~~runaway success~~ pathetic bumbling of Islamic governments. But I digress.

The "tussle within Christianity" that you speak of seems to be a mirror image of the Islamic act of eliminating the munafiqoon and the pretenders so that the faith can be properly upheld. Ironic that it appeared in Norway of all places - maybe Theo Fidel's thoughts on this location are valid.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Jul 2011 10:26

shiv wrote:The "tussle within Christianity" that you speak of seems to be a mirror image of the Islamic act of eliminating the munafiqoon...

It is a very odd tussle. For instance I mentioned that Literalists do not actually have a denomination. Many of these warring groups can often be found within the same church, esp. the less hide bound ones. Sometimes you never know what you might hear in Church based on which faction gets its pastor/elder into the pulpit that week. Kinda fun that way. Usually the dead give away is the bible passages selected and who is selected to read them out. Some times the songs selected as well.

Literalists can usually be identified by their Guitar. They are usually young people, very big on youth fellowship, songs and prayer meetings. They rarely attend the richer congregational Church experience. They almost always believe in science, believe in Evolution and reject their parents process of faith. But there are some who reject some of these even, the young Earthers for instance. The promise keeper groups also tend to be literalist. Very tenuous on faith. They think the Bible is front of them, they know how to read, so why go any deeper. God is just a crutch to shore up their already construed beliefs. It wouldn't stun me to know that Breivik attended prayer/worship meeting with the very people he shot down. Christians are big on this. Carrying all the factions along. The memory of the inquisition and 100 year type wars still haunt most of us, even though we were not directly involved.

This is the first time in a long time this peace has broken down. A major realignment will likely now take place. Christians will do almost anything to maintain doctrinal peace. I don't think muslims understand this. Peace came to Europe only after all the random factions were eliminated or driven to America or found a stable national border.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2011 11:37

The merging together of religion and state under the Romans distored Christianity as its message-the teachings of Christ clearly make a disticnction between state and individual.Christ was not anti-state at all.When Christ was asked if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar (a ploy to try and trap him as a provocateur if he said no, and pro-Roman,the hated occupiers, if he said yes),he held up a coin and asked "whose is it".When told that it was Caesar's,he answered thus; "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's".A "Christian" therefore according to Christs teachings,HAS to obey the laws of the state of his country-be a loyal citizen, and the laws of the country in which he may temporarily reside.He also told Pilate when asked whether he was a "king" (of the Jews) ,that "my kingdom is not of this world,if not my servants would fight to prevent my arrest",meaning that it is a kingdom not of this world and not established as most earthly kingdoms are,by force.Love-of God and humanity,peace and truth are the cornerstones of Christ's teaching.

Sadly,many of the so-called "Christian" states and their leaders display the exact opposite in deeds.Neo-Crusader Brevik,like those leaders have completely lost the "Christian" plot! A Christian's battle should be within himself,fighting against evil and upholding the truth,not outwardly against humanity causing misery and suffering.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 29 Jul 2011 11:39

Theo_Fidel wrote:Christians will do almost anything to maintain doctrinal peace. I don't think muslims understand this. Peace came to Europe only after all the random factions were eliminated or driven to America or found a stable national border.

That,is true.The major peace-keeping processes in Europe have been successful by and large, after WWII. The scourge of WWII was terrible enough, and no one wants a third helping.This peace is what the people don't understand, that it is such a blessing, it has to be guarded.There are people in the Middle East who would happily disturb this peace, and containment of these groups is what has been going on ever since the beginning of Y2K.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Jul 2011 11:57

interestingly, last night discovery was showing a documentary on nato's secret armies - basically resistance groups in advance of a soviet occupation of western europe. these were ex soldiers and police, often former nazis and fascists - united in a common anti-communist zeal. the americans were more than happy to recruit former SS officers, etc. to man these shadowy organisations, some of which got carried away with themselves and their love for the gruppenfuhrer! this spawned quite a bit of right wing terror in europe in the 50-70's era - and i suspect encouraged the rise of the left equivalent in the baader meinhof gang and others. i knew about the gladio organisation in italy, and had heard about some of the others in other countries, but hadn't heard much about neo nazi terror in germany in that period. anyway - the point of the programme was that once the immediate soviet threat receded, these groups were turned inwards, to weed out communists within their own countries - perhaps leading to a spate of semi-state organised terror in countries like italy. i suppose as the ww2 generation has died out, a lot of the support for these groups has dwindled and with the demise of the soviet empire, even more so. i see these groups as borrowing from religion but not necessarily being religiously driven - ideologically. this is the 'groundwater' that i think breveik and his ilk are drawing upon

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Jul 2011 12:15

Philip wrote: Sadly,many of the so-called "Christian" states and their leaders display the exact opposite in deeds.Neo-Crusader Brevik,like those leaders have completely lost the "Christian" plot! A Christian's battle should be within himself,fighting against evil and upholding the truth,not outwardly against humanity causing misery and suffering.

Is the above not the same as the grossly misused concept of jihad in islam?

Why can not this also be subverted just as easily as jihad has been and imbibing this with a meaning that the other side terrorists have given it, thereby eclipsing completely the original intent and and substituting it with new malevolent content?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Jul 2011 12:42

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yah! Phillip. Christianity does not say anything like that. Where did you get that from. Sounds very silly IMHO.

Not only that the entire Church/State separation thing is quite contrived. There was NO separation till the 16th century renaissance. Wonderful Christian states they proved to be.

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 29 Jul 2011 13:00

What is the difference between "cultural marxism" and "multi-culturalism" ? Intuitively it seems like cultural-marxism means all cultures are equal-equal only and multi-culturalism should intuitively mean that all cultures bring something unique and wonderful to the table and so all cultures should be cherished. Arent these 2 things contradictory ? And it seems like Breivik is not happy about either. Why ? Can somebody who understands these european nuances explain ?

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 29 Jul 2011 13:21

Multi-culturalism generally refers to all cultures / religions being tolerated equally, without any value judgements as to the relative merits or demerits of any one of them. So basically multi-culturalism places the utmost emphasis on tolerance - even when these individual cultures themselves might not be tolerant of others.

Cultural Marxism is of course a new term that Breivik's manifesto popularizes - essentially meaning the same thing. The similarity to Marxism is that (a) it imposes a dogma in the cultural sphere similar to the dogma of state-ownership on the economic side, (b) it propagates the belief that all cultures are equivalent and no distinctions can be made between them, obviously drawing upon the Marxist theme of eliminating all 'class' hierarchy.

The opposite of multi-culturalism / cultural Marxism can be many. The least extreme is David Cameron's 'muscular liberalism' - certain basic liberal values need to defined as overarching for the nation that all cultures / religions would be required to adhere to. The most extreme solution is of course Breivik's - certain cultures are allowed to exist and all others would be eliminated from the region.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 29 Jul 2011 14:08

A common set of values needs to be worked out for a perfect society to exist, but arriving there is quite something else.The task is no doubt daunting.Religious Tolerance and Peaceful Communal Co-Existance were two important ideas of Gandhi, which were respected worldwide but not followed much, I have met people in the Middle East, who praise Gandhi.

Breivik is not willing to acknowledge the fact that all European governments are trying to ensure that various cultures exist peacefully, He finds that much damage has been done, and his own culture is being compromised.His sudden appearance on the radar is a warning shot to a particular culture-islam,which he feels Europe is threatened by, and his dance with Hindutva is to ensure that his views are accepted by the 3rd largest religion of the world, so a working alliance of christianity and hinduism can put terrorists back in their place. I feel eventually,the result will what is obvious already, more cooperation between christians and hindus will cause an awakening that will not be subdued any more.Pakistan keeps raising its head to ensure this doesnt happen, but it is happening.

However it is always so sad that youth must be sacrificed. He could alternatively have tried to convince these 100 young people, that look whats happening, lets raise the issue in Europe, and alert the people.He could have done this without killing a single person.He chose the gory alternative instead, to usher his manual, which he felt could have been banned from day one, had he released it peacefully, and led to his arrest.He knew arrest was imminent,either way,so he chose to show his anger by the insane outburst. No one is permanently insane, they return to normal. One can see this in the light of a play of three qualities within the human mind -ignorance,passion and goodness. When ignorance predominates, one can act wrongly and produce negative results,without realising it, when passion dominates, one can act positively with some plus or minus results, and when goodness dominates, one can act positively with all positive results.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Jul 2011 14:21

the fundamental question underneath multi-culturalism is "how much should immigrant communities merge/blend in with their host communities?" in the early days of immigration (post ww2) into europe, there was a tacit expectation that foreigners would blend in to the mainstream - and the expectations were high that they would and should. host communities had a great deal of prejudice and fear about the immigrants, particularly when it came to safeguarding jobs, etc. these things accelerated in the 70's when the economic shocks started to remove the jobs for life guarantees of ordinary working folks. tensions reached a peak then about home culture and immigrant culture - with the immigrants on the backfoot. in the 80's and 90's things reversed somewhat with that early wave of immigrants becoming assimilated, the jobs situation reaching a new equilibrium and through intermarriage and other social normalisations, communities became more accepted/assimilated, etc. overlaid onto this was multi-culturalism, driven by the ideological left, which championed the tolerance of diversity and difference - which usually led to the erosion of the home culture - particularly at a time when it was being overwhelmed by a very dominant and strident american pop culture. i think this left many europeans confused about identity and heritage, etc. things might have reached a point of stability except for the injection of new waves of migrants - from the horn of africa, the maghreb, and turkey/iraq/kurdistan and bangladesh which changed the immigrant dynamic from just "foreign" to "muslim". these people also brought with them the resurgence of the global jihad and i think this is what has led to the 'european right' now feeling completely besieged - vienna II if you like. the left will be loath to admit its errors with mutli-culti - but even blair's memoirs hints at this.

western societies have to find an equilibrium with globalisation - the new inflows of people, the change in the balance of power (back towards India and China) and changed economic realities. more multi-culti is probably not the answer - like i said, some communities found a balance, others are sticking out very painfully.

incidentally the US solved this problem by the "melting pot" - an enforcement of 'everyone is now american'; although even then the problem is not entirely solved.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 29 Jul 2011 14:34

Arjun wrote:Multi-culturalism generally refers to all cultures / religions being tolerated equally, without any value judgements as to the relative merits or demerits of any one of them. So basically multi-culturalism places the utmost emphasis on tolerance - even when these individual cultures themselves might not be tolerant of others.

Cultural Marxism is of course a new term that Breivik's manifesto popularizes - essentially meaning the same thing.

RajeshG wrote:What is the difference between "cultural marxism" and "multi-culturalism" ? Intuitively it seems like cultural-marxism means all cultures are equal-equal only and multi-culturalism should intuitively mean that all cultures bring something unique and wonderful to the table and so all cultures should be cherished.

Wrong.

I've been given to understand that I need to accomodate, be sensitive to cultural aspects of people around me who are of different culture. They may be labourers, taxi divers, coolies in Kolkata of UP/Bihar origin or IT pros of any of the Southern states. This is one mindset one is suppoed to cultivate in a cosmopolitan city like mine.

There is another prevalent/growing mindset, I don't subscribe to by the way, that suggests that I disrespect my tradition and heritage, that I adopt the worst of contemproray Western life style to look 'liberal', that I adjust my political views to be counted in 'civil society'.

Are these mindsets the same and the one?

Multi-cultularism has no ethnic bias but the liberal/left/marxist has a pronounced/well publicised bias for Islamism. Are the two phenomenon same?

Actually it is the Marxists that have appropiated multi-culturalism to further their political agenda by selective application of the principle. Hence, the two 'looks similar'.

Not only that, in BRF itself, a large section of covert Marxists hide behind the veil of multiculturism and even worse try to masquerade here as nationalists.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Jul 2011 14:46

SRoy wrote:
Multi-cultularism has no ethnic bias but the liberal/left/marxist has a pronounced/well publicised bias for Islamism. Are the two phenomenon same?

Actually it is the Marxists that have appropiated multi-culturalism to further their political agenda. Hence, the two 'looks similar'.

Not only that, in BRF itself, a large section of covert Marxists hide behind the veil of multiculturism and even worse try to masquerade here as nationalists.

Where ever islam has reared its head it has very quickly wiped out marxism.

I fail to understand this death wish of the marxists.

Covert marxists on BRF??

unlikely, saar.

Maybe just some youngsters who are dabbling their toes in it for the novelty onlee.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 29 Jul 2011 14:58

chetak wrote: Where ever islam has reared its head it has very quickly wiped out marxism.

I fail to understand this death wish of the marxists.

Yes, provided these two are the only thought processes in a given space and time.

If there is a third dominant/significant thought process present these two will turn against it, individually or in partnership. Simple explanation, the dominant/significant thought process presents an ideological opposition.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Jul 2011 15:28

SRoy wrote:
chetak wrote: Where ever islam has reared its head it has very quickly wiped out marxism.

I fail to understand this death wish of the marxists.
Yes, provided these two are the only thought processes in a given space and time.

If there is a third dominant/significant thought process present these two will turn against it, individually or in partnership. Simple explanation, the dominant/significant thought process presents an ideological opposition.

I agree, because after the joint decimation of the third force, marxism can only turn against it's old friend or painfully endure bits of it's nether regions being snipped away.

The marxist death is only after islam has reared it's head and never before. This is often violent and dramatic in an example making sort of way. Talk about useful idiots.

A bit like the fate of the male spider after it has done the dirty.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Jul 2011 15:55

SRoy wrote:
Multi-cultularism has no ethnic bias but the liberal/left/marxist has a pronounced/well publicised bias for Islamism. Are the two phenomenon same?

Actually it is the Marxists that have appropiated multi-culturalism to further their political agenda. Hence, the two 'looks similar'.

Not only that, in BRF itself, a large section of covert Marxists hide behind the veil of multiculturism and even worse try to masquerade here as nationalists.

+1. Absolutely.

You guys should not forget super-comprehension fueled prevarication of some BRF members.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 29 Jul 2011 19:16

abhishek_sharma wrote:
SRoy wrote:
Multi-cultularism has no ethnic bias but the liberal/left/marxist has a pronounced/well publicised bias for Islamism. Are the two phenomenon same?

Actually it is the Marxists that have appropiated multi-culturalism to further their political agenda. Hence, the two 'looks similar'.

Not only that, in BRF itself, a large section of covert Marxists hide behind the veil of multiculturism and even worse try to masquerade here as nationalists.
+1. Absolutely.

You guys should not forget super-comprehension fueled prevarication of some BRF members.

If I am right one of them also goes by a name which ironically is extremely holy to Hindus.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Jul 2011 19:49

Victims of the Oslo bombing and Utoeya shootings

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jul 2011 20:19

^

Looks like this guy hit the soft-belly of labour party, to send a message.

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 29 Jul 2011 20:25

Unintended consequences for right-wing authors quoted by Breivik

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... -your-work

The Toronto Star is the largest left-wing paper in Canada, and the counterassault against Breivikism has begun:

Spare a moment to feel pity for a small but select crowd of people in Canada, the U.S. and Europe. They’re the agitators who woke up last Saturday to find that the Norwegian monster Anders Breivik liked them. As in, he liked their opinions, he quoted them in his so-called manifesto and they — only lurking on the margins of decency before then — are now themselves hated worldwide.

In fact I am surprised that Breivik, with so much research, did not quote from BRF. Actually for the best, else he would have quoted verbatim from some of the classic posts by people such as "Shiv, the noted nationalist thinker from India"

on "Bharat Rakshak, a leading website in the war against Cultural Marxism". I think we can do without that level of publicity!

The online hate that so-called Muslim-haters displayed was instantly turned back on them and their discomfiture must be terrible. One former Ryerson student who was involved in a minor quarrel over Catholic-versus-Muslim prayer rooms was mentioned by Breivik. The poor man is collateral damage. He sounds stunned now. I’m trying to imagine how he will survive a basic Google search done by prospective employers.

Message: do not talk about your right-wing views. Else the consequences will be pretty bad, and can impact your career. Be a multi-culti and things will be fine.

Do not read Brievik’s footnoted little booky-wook. I read it at 3 a.m. only because I had a severe case of food poisoning and it seemed wrong to waste perfectly good nausea. What better way to pass the time than exploring the damp folds of a psychopathic brain. The clock ticked.

OMG! So many people are reading Breivik's manifesto...we must put a stop to this or people might wake up and see reality!!

It is thick with misogyny, just like the online world itself. Women-hating is so common now that most commentators haven’t noticed that he hated women as much as he hated Muslims, maybe more. Breivik, a mommy’s boy who lived off his mother, had a curlicued sexuality. But so do many hateful people.

"Not only did Breivik hate Muslims, he also hated women! At least Islam gives us honour and respect, unlike this cruel, cruel loser (who actually lived with his mother, hah) "

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 29 Jul 2011 21:50

'I may have influenced the Norwegian mass murderer' says British extremist who admits being in contact with Anders Breivik online

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jul 2011 22:15

Well isn't it natural that all these "Cultural Marxists" would try to hit Breivik under the belt, making stupid insinuations about his sexuality, his relationship with women, his living with his mother, etc.

Breivik wrote that he moved back with his mother, to save costs, for he invested everything in his mission.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 29 Jul 2011 22:22

RajeshA ji and other Europe-based members:

What do you observe is the actual extent of Islamic proselytization in the UK and the continent? I had made a previous post, but could use some feedback. Thanks.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 29 Jul 2011 22:31

Oslo attacks: EDL member Paul Ray admits he may have been Anders Breivik's inspiration
A founding member of the English Defence League has admitted again that he may have been the inspiration behind the anti-Muslim ideology of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik.
Source:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ation.html

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jul 2011 23:35

sanjeevpunj wrote: Breivik is not willing to acknowledge the fact that all European governments are trying to ensure that various cultures exist peacefully, He finds that much damage has been done, and his own culture is being compromised.His sudden appearance on the radar is a warning shot to a particular culture-islam,which he feels Europe is threatened by, and his dance with Hindutva is to ensure that his views are accepted by the 3rd largest religion of the world, so a working alliance of christianity and hinduism can put terrorists back in their place. I feel eventually,the result will what is obvious already, more cooperation between christians and hindus will cause an awakening that will not be subdued any more.Pakistan keeps raising its head to ensure this doesnt happen, but it is happening.

sanjeevpunj ji

I know your intentions are good. But could you please avoid bringing Hinduism into this discussion?

Islamists's manifesto is their holy book. Breivik's manifesto is not the end in itself. It is just the first step towards Christian holy book. What happens after his Phase III is not explained in his book.

Christianity can never be compatible with Hinduism as long as it keeps its 'monotheism and revealed truth' and 'proselytism'. As far as Hindu civilization is concerned, (sic) secularism is nothing but Christian Taqiyya to keep the church away from governance.

TIA

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 29 Jul 2011 23:58

RamaY wrote:
sanjeevpunj wrote: his dance with Hindutva is to ensure that his views are accepted by the 3rd largest religion of the world, so a working alliance of christianity and hinduism can put terrorists back in their place. I feel eventually,the result will what is obvious already, more cooperation between christians and hindus will cause an awakening that will not be subdued any more.
sanjeevpunj ji

I know your intentions are good.

Christianity can never be compatible with Hinduism as long as it keeps its 'monotheism and revealed truth' and 'proselytism'.

And we know your intentions are also good

Alliances are temporary and single fronts are managable. I see it as good opportunity, Jihadis and Marxists...two birds with one stone.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jul 2011 00:27

Carl wrote:RajeshA ji and other Europe-based members:

What do you observe is the actual extent of Islamic proselytization in the UK and the continent? I had made a previous post, but could use some feedback. Thanks.

Carl ji,

I know that some years ago, there were every now and then somebody putting up a few stands in the universities, trying to explain more about Islam etc. After 9/11 as the interest in Islam peaked, there was a lot more outreach.

From what I know of Germans, in some of them, the leftist kind, there is enough self-hate, a product of the Nazi-horror brain-washing, that those who are not well-integrated in their leftist friends-circles, but are rather lone wolfs, often fall prey to such proselytizing. There are also lots of people, who are a bit misfits in society, again not having deep friendship networks, who jump from one philosophy to the next, dabbling in Christianity, human rights, and what not, and they too are often easy prey. Then there are the Muslim young men, who flirt with European women, get these women attached to them, and at some point manipulate them to convert to Islam if they wish to continue the relationship beyond a certain point. Few Muslims are laïcitists enough to let their women stay the way they are.

Among East Germans, the Church had already weakened, and in families, where there was no confession, if any of them wishes to explore his/her spirituality, it is just as likely he/she would look at Islam, as at Christianity, or even something else. The Polish however are very attached to their Catholicism. I have noticed that the Russians, Georgians are also quite willing to explore their own pre-Communist faith - Russian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, etc. Other East Europeans are usually somewhat less religious. All of them believe in the Almighty Vodka.

There are also Germans, and other Europeans, who in their demeanor itself, may be aggressive or violent, sometimes from the far-right scene, who are also easy prey. From the Far-Right scene, they get their anti-Jewish attitude, and that common denominator is sometimes used by Muslims themselves to get them to convert. As natives and converts, these become especially very pious and Islamic and Muslims also use these as poster boys.

These are just my impressions. Can't really tell you much in numbers and statistics.