See Acharya's post above - more relevant to thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Husky
Sorry doesn't mean a thing when people have died, and entire civilisations have been destroyed (Greek, Roman, indigenous Australian, various African, native American of N, S, C America) by christianism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(sureshmoorthy All this diatribe reflects the schoolboy mentality of most Indians, who keep complaining to their mommies that 'they don't like us, they killed us, they're deceitful' etc. etc.. Complaining will not do. The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->"The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did."
Wrong. Christianity was a *devolution* from Greco-Roman, native American, etc. civilisations. For instance, christianism could only destroy Greek art, libraries, science and philosophy and the schools, temples, libraries in the Roman empire, and it destroyed the superior social structure of NA native Americans. Christianity introduced stupidity as something to aspire to. Its social darwinistic invention that "brute force (to push insipid ideology) is a substitute for civilisation, culture and evolution" is rather the same as islam's own number one principle. Islam also made many wins because it values nothing, just like christianism values nothing - they are the same death cult, their "treasure" is in the sky/afterlife. Here's how/why islam won a lot - social darwinism in action:
Islamâs Other Victims: India by Serge Trifkovic
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In his book The Story of Civilization, famous historian Will Durant lamented the results of what he termed "probably the bloodiest story in history." He called it "a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But what does Durant know. Sureshmoorthy will argue that it was a matter of superior evolution on islam's part (sureshmoorthy: "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did") that made the islamoterrorist invaders win over Hindu Bharat. That's on account of sureshmoorthy's viewing "All life" "in the context of Social Darwinism". Just like he will apply to the social darwinist model in arguing that the 500 Years of Indigenous Resistance was an attitude of that of losers:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(sureshmoorthy The aborigines and the native Americans to this day haven't joined the mainstream, they still refuse to be part of the 21st century. They're stuck in the pre-historic age, and their lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that. No wonder, they were annihilated by the Christian marauders. Mind you, this isn't a justification of Christian atrocities, but an objective glance at history to understand why these events took place at all.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><i>Of course</i> his opinion on history is "objective" <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo--> - when one factors out that it's seen through the eyes of someone infatuated with social darwinism, and someone who probably knows very little about Australian Aboriginals and native Americans but will use them as an "example" in his proof for why "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did". (Meaning: people who refused to assimilate into christoislamism. Note how joining christoislamism means 'evolving' to this social darwinist - quite predictable.)
Social darwinism is a christocolonial invention.
Only christoislamic-conditioned minds advocate social darwinism, because they see the christoislamic record and think it's a 'success story'. This is christoislamic mentality, of course - christoislamics are famous for arguing by numbers: that the vast numbers of christoislamics in the world (as opposed to the numbers in the past) "proves" that christoislamism is superior; and similar arguments. Social darwinists are christoislamic-conditioned peoples, similar to the kinds of people that advocate communism or its christoislamic offspring objectivism (Ayn Rand :yawn: - her reactive view's <i>so</i> obviously a product of the communism effect and the antagonism it produced: another dichotomy to add to the christoislamic family of ideologies).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(sureshmoorthy The aborigines and the native Americans to this day haven't joined the mainstream, they still refuse to be part of the 21st century. They're stuck in the pre-historic age, and their lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Many peoples in the world may choose to follow their traditional ways of life. But sureshmoorthy will probably side with those who insist on building schools amongst the Amazon rainforest tribes even though they already have their own system of imparting the education necessary for *their* lifes in *their* environment - an environment and way of life where most of modern education is irrelevant. To some brainwashed folks, progress apparently means that others not joining in (but instead, evolving towards their own future and at their own pace) deserve to disappear at the hand of encroaching westernisation/globalisation - such confused folks won't say 'deserve' but hide behind social darwinism and "objective" history. It's just christoislamic intolerance for allowing other ways of life. They're peeved: how dare such communities exist in the 21st century - they belong in a museum, not in the present! Adapt and assimilate or disappear, you ... you people "stuck in the pre-historic age" with "lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that"! Take that, Amazon rainforest communities!
Sureshmoorthy better hurry and export his grand opinions to Japan where the "dangerous" ideas of Fujiwara Masahiko on where Japan's real future lies should be stopped by all means. Sureshmoorthy can't allow Japan to prove by example that the western idea of progress as being inexorable (uncompromising) is not necessarily a way forward (but rather a sidetrack when such progress is at the expense and has been exclusive of much of Japan's native evolution of thought and life).
And here, sureshmoorthy talks about "us Hindus" while teaching us stoopid Hindoos about the "right" way to interpret Aurobindo and the "symbolic Deva-Asura wars":
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This has been beautifully and symbolically explained in Hinduism as well, in the form of Deva-Asura wars, which go on forever. Sri Aurobindo also supported this contention with his succinct but pregnant "All life is Yoga." What does all this mean? It means there's no such thing as equality, and that nature doesn't follow any moral laws in this evolution. Survival of the fittest is the name of the game, and evidently, a non-evolving race will NOT survive.
As Hindus, we must learn from history. ... So as Hindus, we <b>shouldn't concern ourselves with pitying certain groups, and antagonizing others who succeeded.</b> Au contraire, our only concern must revolve around how to evolve, how to adapt, and eventually, how to prevail. Unfortunately, instead of learning from these events on how non-reforming people were outdone by the rest, we're more interested in breast-beating and sympathizing with people who're totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Question is, why doesn't sureshmoorthy stop "antagonizing others who succeeded" (=christoislamicommunistics) altogether and just convert to the "superior" (in social darwinistic POV) ideology of christoislamicommuninazism?
And when sureshmoorthy says "us Hindus", who/what does he mean? Well, he makes it clear here - where he differentiates between Hinduism and Hindutva, and likes to (ideally) get rid of the 'religion' in Hinduism and make it a "non-religious, political, nationalism" (because Hindus are actually in the way of his vision, you see):
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=78130
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Do people here think <b>it's time we distinguished between Hinduism and Hindutva?</b> Let me explain what I am trying to say.
Savarkar was a non-religious, if not irreligious, person. He was extremely practical, and his was <b>a political Hinduism rather than a religious one. I think this is the right attitude, because the Hindu religion consists of so many different schools it'll be impossible to establish what Hinduism is.</b> As of today, Hinduism is synonymous with Gandhian ahimsa, tolerance, and the rest. Who knows, what it's gonna be tomorrow.
Almost everybody claims to be Hindu, including anti-Hindus like Lalloo, Mulayam etc. <b>So wouldn't it be better to identify ourselves as Hindutvadis rather than as Hindus?</b> Because Hindutva stands for nationalism etc., rather than pacifism, respect for all religions, and all the things present-day Hinduism represents, thanks to Gandhi and co.
Bottom line, the very word 'Hinduism' has not only become synonymous with pacifism, cowardice etc., but even anti-Hindus are religious, practicing Hindus in their personal lives. <b>That being the case, is it not better for the nationalists to separate themselves from this group, so that it'll be clear as to what Hindutva represents? Right now, thanks to sangh, Hindutva has become a religious movement rather than a political one, as Savarkar envisioned, and this antagonizes unorthodox Hindus, who otherwise may be interested in Hindutva.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Subverting meaning of Hinduism and Hindutva.
If he didn't appear so trivial and armed with self-defeating arguments, I'd have said mole alert...
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Husky
Sorry doesn't mean a thing when people have died, and entire civilisations have been destroyed (Greek, Roman, indigenous Australian, various African, native American of N, S, C America) by christianism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(sureshmoorthy All this diatribe reflects the schoolboy mentality of most Indians, who keep complaining to their mommies that 'they don't like us, they killed us, they're deceitful' etc. etc.. Complaining will not do. The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->"The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did." Wrong. Christianity was a *devolution* from Greco-Roman, native American, etc. civilisations. For instance, christianism could only destroy Greek art, libraries, science and philosophy and the schools, temples, libraries in the Roman empire, and it destroyed the superior social structure of NA native Americans. Christianity introduced stupidity as something to aspire to. Its social darwinistic invention that "brute force (to push insipid ideology) is a substitute for civilisation, culture and evolution" is rather the same as islam's own number one principle. Islam also made many wins because it values nothing, just like christianism values nothing - they are the same death cult, their "treasure" is in the sky/afterlife. Here's how/why islam won a lot - social darwinism in action:
Islamâs Other Victims: India by Serge Trifkovic
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In his book The Story of Civilization, famous historian Will Durant lamented the results of what he termed "probably the bloodiest story in history." He called it "a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But what does Durant know. Sureshmoorthy will argue that it was a matter of superior evolution on islam's part (sureshmoorthy: "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did") that made the islamoterrorist invaders win over Hindu Bharat. That's on account of sureshmoorthy's viewing "All life" "in the context of Social Darwinism". Just like he will apply to the social darwinist model in arguing that the 500 Years of Indigenous Resistance was an attitude of that of losers:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(sureshmoorthy
The aborigines and the native Americans to this day haven't joined the mainstream, they still refuse to be part of the 21st century. They're stuck in the pre-historic age, and their lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that. No wonder, they were annihilated by the Christian marauders. Mind you, this isn't a justification of Christian atrocities, but an objective glance at history to understand why these events took place at all.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><i>Of course</i> his opinion on history is "objective" <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo--> - when one factors out that it's seen through the eyes of someone infatuated with social darwinism, and someone who probably knows very little about Australian Aboriginals and native Americans but will use them as an "example" in his proof for why "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did". (Meaning: people who refused to assimilate into christoislamism. Note how joining christoislamism means 'evolving' to this social darwinist - quite predictable.)Social darwinism is a christocolonial invention.
Only christoislamic-conditioned minds advocate social darwinism, because they see the christoislamic record and think it's a 'success story'. This is christoislamic mentality, of course - christoislamics are famous for arguing by numbers: that the vast numbers of christoislamics in the world (as opposed to the numbers in the past) "proves" that christoislamism is superior; and similar arguments. Social darwinists are christoislamic-conditioned peoples, similar to the kinds of people that advocate communism or its christoislamic offspring objectivism (Ayn Rand :yawn: - her reactive view's <i>so</i> obviously a product of the communism effect and the antagonism it produced: another dichotomy to add to the christoislamic family of ideologies).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(sureshmoorthy
The aborigines and the native Americans to this day haven't joined the mainstream, they still refuse to be part of the 21st century. They're stuck in the pre-historic age, and their lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Many peoples in the world may choose to follow their traditional ways of life. But sureshmoorthy will probably side with those who insist on building schools amongst the Amazon rainforest tribes even though they already have their own system of imparting the education necessary for *their* lifes in *their* environment - an environment and way of life where most of modern education is irrelevant. To some brainwashed folks, progress apparently means that others not joining in (but instead, evolving towards their own future and at their own pace) deserve to disappear at the hand of encroaching westernisation/globalisation - such confused folks won't say 'deserve' but hide behind social darwinism and "objective" history. It's just christoislamic intolerance for allowing other ways of life. They're peeved: how dare such communities exist in the 21st century - they belong in a museum, not in the present! Adapt and assimilate or disappear, you ... you people "stuck in the pre-historic age" with "lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that"! Take that, Amazon rainforest communities!Sureshmoorthy better hurry and export his grand opinions to Japan where the "dangerous" ideas of Fujiwara Masahiko on where Japan's real future lies should be stopped by all means. Sureshmoorthy can't allow Japan to prove by example that the western idea of progress as being inexorable (uncompromising) is not necessarily a way forward (but rather a sidetrack when such progress is at the expense and has been exclusive of much of Japan's native evolution of thought and life).
And here, sureshmoorthy talks about "us Hindus" while teaching us stoopid Hindoos about the "right" way to interpret Aurobindo and the "symbolic Deva-Asura wars":
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This has been beautifully and symbolically explained in Hinduism as well, in the form of Deva-Asura wars, which go on forever. Sri Aurobindo also supported this contention with his succinct but pregnant "All life is Yoga." What does all this mean? It means there's no such thing as equality, and that nature doesn't follow any moral laws in this evolution. Survival of the fittest is the name of the game, and evidently, a non-evolving race will NOT survive.
As Hindus, we must learn from history. ... So as Hindus, we <b>shouldn't concern ourselves with pitying certain groups, and antagonizing others who succeeded.</b> Au contraire, our only concern must revolve around how to evolve, how to adapt, and eventually, how to prevail. Unfortunately, instead of learning from these events on how non-reforming people were outdone by the rest, we're more interested in breast-beating and sympathizing with people who're totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Question is, why doesn't sureshmoorthy stop "antagonizing others who succeeded" (=christoislamicommunistics) altogether and just convert to the "superior" (in social darwinistic POV) ideology of christoislamicommuninazism?
And when sureshmoorthy says "us Hindus", who/what does he mean? Well, he makes it clear here - where he differentiates between Hinduism and Hindutva, and likes to (ideally) get rid of the 'religion' in Hinduism and make it a "non-religious, political, nationalism" (because Hindus are actually in the way of his vision, you see):
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=78130
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Do people here think <b>it's time we distinguished between Hinduism and Hindutva?</b> Let me explain what I am trying to say.
Savarkar was a non-religious, if not irreligious, person. He was extremely practical, and his was <b>a political Hinduism rather than a religious one. I think this is the right attitude, because the Hindu religion consists of so many different schools it'll be impossible to establish what Hinduism is.</b> As of today, Hinduism is synonymous with Gandhian ahimsa, tolerance, and the rest. Who knows, what it's gonna be tomorrow.
Almost everybody claims to be Hindu, including anti-Hindus like Lalloo, Mulayam etc. <b>So wouldn't it be better to identify ourselves as Hindutvadis rather than as Hindus?</b> Because Hindutva stands for nationalism etc., rather than pacifism, respect for all religions, and all the things present-day Hinduism represents, thanks to Gandhi and co.
Bottom line, the very word 'Hinduism' has not only become synonymous with pacifism, cowardice etc., but even anti-Hindus are religious, practicing Hindus in their personal lives. <b>That being the case, is it not better for the nationalists to separate themselves from this group, so that it'll be clear as to what Hindutva represents? Right now, thanks to sangh, Hindutva has become a religious movement rather than a political one, as Savarkar envisioned, and this antagonizes unorthodox Hindus, who otherwise may be interested in Hindutva.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Subverting meaning of Hinduism and Hindutva.
If he didn't appear so trivial and armed with self-defeating arguments, I'd have said mole alert...