More important stuff above.
Sorry to interrupt.
Devagiri,
The set of related posts in The letters thread starting with its post 37 has related info, using bits from Will Durant's The Case for India and other stuff). It also contains a count - in its later post #38 - but that takes into account only the Indian genocide due to christoBritish-induced famine and diseases. (The set of posts was called: "Christianism's genocide of Hindu Dharma and Hindus: Christian Britain's CALCULATED genocide of Hindus and Bharatam.")
Maybe you can use it. Hit christianism where it hurts.
But to say it was "the British" is to hide the truth, and helps no one. (Plus, the other side always makes the opposite claim when singing the praises of colonialism: and so it is too that later christian sheep, such as Dinace d'Souza, are willing to recognise that colonialism was entirely a *christian* force. The difference is that they applaud it.)
E.g.
(1) "The Belgians" did as much damage as they could to the Congo, a genocide of some 10 million Congolese was a high proportion of their population. But were they "merely" to be described as "Belgians"?
(2) The "Conquest of Paradise" (i.e. the "1492: Conquest of Paradise", as the film was also called) by - who was it now, oh yes, "The Europeans" - was the near-utter decimation of indigenous. But is "the Europeans" the right descriptor? They admitted it was all because "Deus Volt" - which gives away their real identity.
(3) Describing Rwanda's genocide as having been enacted by "Rwandans" due to long-term brainwashing by their "colonial European social engineers" (but they were missionaries for a reason, right, the reason is called variously "The Great Commission") - also conceals what interested parties deeply wish to keep concealed: what christianism (catholic and anglican) had to do with the genocide.
(4) The "Vietnamese" govt terrorising its own in the 60s, and "the Americans" and their bosses in that separate "Italian state" clamouring to nuke Vietnam wasn't devoid of ideology either.
(5) And it wasn't some ideologically-neutral "the Portuguese" who terrorised, mutilated, broke and murdered Hindus in the Goan Inquisition.
Set the record straight. It was christianism.
- It was the christian British, same as it was the christian Portuguese.
- Just as it was the christian (catholic) Belgians terrorising Congo. And the missionaries were big fans of the terrorism.
See "The brutal colonisation of the Congo" at http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4b.htm#Congo
- Just as "the New World" was conquered for christ and its population pounded into the earth by and for christianism.
For Americas, see http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm#Americas
- Just as Rwanda's genocide was entirely due to christianism.
On Rwanda, see http://freetruth.50webs.org/D3.htm#Africa
which quotes from
"Christian Churches and Genocide in Rwanda - a paper by T. Longman for the Conference on Genocide, Religion, and Modernity"
- Just as the govt terrorising Vietnam's Buddhists was a christian (catholic) government. And the Americans insisting that the catholic President Kennedy nuke Vietnam were christian (catholic) bishops, with full support from the Vatican.
On Vietnam see http://freetruth.50webs.org/D3.htm#Vietnam
There's sufficient official documentation cited and quoted in the above links.
But. See a pattern?
Then name it.
Tell the whole truth.
No one is served by stories on an ideologically-void "British". It was a *gawd*-ordained empire. Their song - sung every christmas/New Year in British households - was "gawd save the king/queen". And the British 'contribution' to the conquest of Americas - and its colonialism elsewhere - was also expressed in those terms: "For gawd, king and country". In that order.
[color="#0000FF"]People keep imagining that evangelism was the "religious arm" of a "secular exploitative colonialism". That is entirely wrong. It was always the other way around: it was the "secular arm" of christianism that served christianism - i.e. the 'secular' christian governments/nations worked for christianism, being driven by it. (See also note at bottom.)[/color] And even the British missionaries plaguing India - in their more careless moments - admitted it, certainly earlier on. Most other "Europeans" were less secretive about their gawd-ordained purpose.
Those who destroyed Greece and Rome - i.e. destroyed the Roman empire and all of Hellenistic civilisation - were not "the Vandals/(Visi)Goths/Barbarians" or "the Romans themselves".
Gibbon tells it as it is (as did the traditional GrecoRomans themselves): the christians destroyed Greece and Rome.
See the page on what christianism did to Greece and the ancient world: http://freetruth.50webs.org/A1.htm#AncientWorld
(And in the section "Blaming the Northeners for the fall of Rome" at http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3c.htm#BlamingNortheners
the ex-catholic monk Joseph McCabe sets the record straight: the "Barbarians" didn't cause it. And didn't contribute to Rome's fall until they converted to christianism.)
Christianism destroyed everything listed above and much much more. Just like islam destroyed Persia, and Dharmic territory upto Afghanistan, Turkestan, Arabia, ... (need one go on)?
It has always been ideological motivation in the christoislamic ideology which drove its possessed to total war and submission. They were NEVER wars for mere resources where christoislamism were concerned.
And heathens really should understand that.
Well, to be fair: the ancient GrecoRomans could see it plain as day, and have left us words to this effect (some of which survived). And the 16th (or was it 17th) century Japanese and Chinese worked it out too. But with our hindsight of some 2000 years - well, jeebus of the gospels wasn't invented until some centuries after "0" (see the section "Canonical Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Epistles" at http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview2.htm), but now's not the time to be pedantic about dates -
anyway, with our hindsight of some 2000 years, Indians still choose to be blind.
[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]
The page http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4e.htm#MissionsColonialism doesn't do even remote justice to the fundamental nature of the 'relationship' between colonialism and christianism, thinking the two merely 'piggybacked' - i.e. making it sound like mere opportunism on christianism's part. Not.
But the bold bit in the next statement taken from there is true for a reason:
"Appalled, the reader will follow the interconnections and the interplay of both movements [missionary and colonial], whereby often the two cannot be separated from each other."
The above is from the KirchenKritik.de review of "Teurer Segen - Christliche Mission und Kolonialismus" by Gert von Paczensky. The review is called "Costly blessing - Christian mission and colonialism. What has been committed in the name of Christ". And KirchenKritik is German for 'church-criticism' or something.)
The statement is: "christianism (through its agents, the christians) has got away scotfree with every dastardly act and has cultivated an image of being essentially a decent or at least invisible ideology."
Its invisibility and deniability is astounding. But it would be less so if people would just point it out. Like "western/European" people have done. E.g. Gibbon and McCabe (for Rome, Greece), Chapman Cohen etc (for revelations on Congo), Timothy Longman and German news (for explaining, respectively, what actually caused the Rwandan genocide and the ideological identities of the perpetrators), Avro Manhattan for Vietnam (and Yugoslavia),
the modern person calling himself 'Kelsos' who owned the now-defunct "The Christian Heritage" site (for information on what really happened in the Americas, and for his huge timelines on christianism, etc), people like Paul Axelrod and Michelle Fuerch (on Goa), etc. etc. etc.
Maybe "the Europeans" aren't the disease.
On the ancient christo-relationship between christianism and its "secular arm" - the following applies more universally:
- See this chapter from Joseph McCabe - look for all occurrences of "secular arm".
- Also see:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...er_22.html (on this page too, look for the phrase "secular arm")
This is part of christianism. It's how it works and why it works like this.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...er_23.html
Things may have watered down (because christianism has become dependent on secular govts since WWII and 'secular' govts more independent from christianism since then), but in christianism 2 things are Still On:
1. Destroy other (unconverted being kaffiri) nations, destroy it for christianism
2. Don't be *seen* to have blood on your hands: i.e. the church (congregation of christians)=christianism takes care to be seen to be free of others' blood. Unless it can gloat in public about the 'miraculous' victory of christ.
Sorry to interrupt.
Devagiri,
The set of related posts in The letters thread starting with its post 37 has related info, using bits from Will Durant's The Case for India and other stuff). It also contains a count - in its later post #38 - but that takes into account only the Indian genocide due to christoBritish-induced famine and diseases. (The set of posts was called: "Christianism's genocide of Hindu Dharma and Hindus: Christian Britain's CALCULATED genocide of Hindus and Bharatam.")
Maybe you can use it. Hit christianism where it hurts.
But to say it was "the British" is to hide the truth, and helps no one. (Plus, the other side always makes the opposite claim when singing the praises of colonialism: and so it is too that later christian sheep, such as Dinace d'Souza, are willing to recognise that colonialism was entirely a *christian* force. The difference is that they applaud it.)
E.g.
(1) "The Belgians" did as much damage as they could to the Congo, a genocide of some 10 million Congolese was a high proportion of their population. But were they "merely" to be described as "Belgians"?
(2) The "Conquest of Paradise" (i.e. the "1492: Conquest of Paradise", as the film was also called) by - who was it now, oh yes, "The Europeans" - was the near-utter decimation of indigenous. But is "the Europeans" the right descriptor? They admitted it was all because "Deus Volt" - which gives away their real identity.
(3) Describing Rwanda's genocide as having been enacted by "Rwandans" due to long-term brainwashing by their "colonial European social engineers" (but they were missionaries for a reason, right, the reason is called variously "The Great Commission") - also conceals what interested parties deeply wish to keep concealed: what christianism (catholic and anglican) had to do with the genocide.
(4) The "Vietnamese" govt terrorising its own in the 60s, and "the Americans" and their bosses in that separate "Italian state" clamouring to nuke Vietnam wasn't devoid of ideology either.
(5) And it wasn't some ideologically-neutral "the Portuguese" who terrorised, mutilated, broke and murdered Hindus in the Goan Inquisition.
Set the record straight. It was christianism.
- It was the christian British, same as it was the christian Portuguese.
- Just as it was the christian (catholic) Belgians terrorising Congo. And the missionaries were big fans of the terrorism.
See "The brutal colonisation of the Congo" at http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4b.htm#Congo
- Just as "the New World" was conquered for christ and its population pounded into the earth by and for christianism.
For Americas, see http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm#Americas
- Just as Rwanda's genocide was entirely due to christianism.
On Rwanda, see http://freetruth.50webs.org/D3.htm#Africa
which quotes from
"Christian Churches and Genocide in Rwanda - a paper by T. Longman for the Conference on Genocide, Religion, and Modernity"
- Just as the govt terrorising Vietnam's Buddhists was a christian (catholic) government. And the Americans insisting that the catholic President Kennedy nuke Vietnam were christian (catholic) bishops, with full support from the Vatican.
On Vietnam see http://freetruth.50webs.org/D3.htm#Vietnam
There's sufficient official documentation cited and quoted in the above links.
But. See a pattern?
Then name it.
Tell the whole truth.
No one is served by stories on an ideologically-void "British". It was a *gawd*-ordained empire. Their song - sung every christmas/New Year in British households - was "gawd save the king/queen". And the British 'contribution' to the conquest of Americas - and its colonialism elsewhere - was also expressed in those terms: "For gawd, king and country". In that order.
[color="#0000FF"]People keep imagining that evangelism was the "religious arm" of a "secular exploitative colonialism". That is entirely wrong. It was always the other way around: it was the "secular arm" of christianism that served christianism - i.e. the 'secular' christian governments/nations worked for christianism, being driven by it. (See also note at bottom.)[/color] And even the British missionaries plaguing India - in their more careless moments - admitted it, certainly earlier on. Most other "Europeans" were less secretive about their gawd-ordained purpose.
Those who destroyed Greece and Rome - i.e. destroyed the Roman empire and all of Hellenistic civilisation - were not "the Vandals/(Visi)Goths/Barbarians" or "the Romans themselves".
Gibbon tells it as it is (as did the traditional GrecoRomans themselves): the christians destroyed Greece and Rome.
See the page on what christianism did to Greece and the ancient world: http://freetruth.50webs.org/A1.htm#AncientWorld
Quote:Gibbon ends his work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:Gibbon is talking about christianism onleee.
"I have described the triumph of barbarism and religion."
(And in the section "Blaming the Northeners for the fall of Rome" at http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3c.htm#BlamingNortheners
the ex-catholic monk Joseph McCabe sets the record straight: the "Barbarians" didn't cause it. And didn't contribute to Rome's fall until they converted to christianism.)
Christianism destroyed everything listed above and much much more. Just like islam destroyed Persia, and Dharmic territory upto Afghanistan, Turkestan, Arabia, ... (need one go on)?
It has always been ideological motivation in the christoislamic ideology which drove its possessed to total war and submission. They were NEVER wars for mere resources where christoislamism were concerned.
And heathens really should understand that.
Well, to be fair: the ancient GrecoRomans could see it plain as day, and have left us words to this effect (some of which survived). And the 16th (or was it 17th) century Japanese and Chinese worked it out too. But with our hindsight of some 2000 years - well, jeebus of the gospels wasn't invented until some centuries after "0" (see the section "Canonical Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Epistles" at http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview2.htm), but now's not the time to be pedantic about dates -
anyway, with our hindsight of some 2000 years, Indians still choose to be blind.
[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]
The page http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4e.htm#MissionsColonialism doesn't do even remote justice to the fundamental nature of the 'relationship' between colonialism and christianism, thinking the two merely 'piggybacked' - i.e. making it sound like mere opportunism on christianism's part. Not.
But the bold bit in the next statement taken from there is true for a reason:
"Appalled, the reader will follow the interconnections and the interplay of both movements [missionary and colonial], whereby often the two cannot be separated from each other."
The above is from the KirchenKritik.de review of "Teurer Segen - Christliche Mission und Kolonialismus" by Gert von Paczensky. The review is called "Costly blessing - Christian mission and colonialism. What has been committed in the name of Christ". And KirchenKritik is German for 'church-criticism' or something.)
Quote:The Brits have gotten away Scotfree with many a dastardly act and have cultivated an image of being an essentially decent peopleSo have "the Belgians" (for instance).
The statement is: "christianism (through its agents, the christians) has got away scotfree with every dastardly act and has cultivated an image of being essentially a decent or at least invisible ideology."
Its invisibility and deniability is astounding. But it would be less so if people would just point it out. Like "western/European" people have done. E.g. Gibbon and McCabe (for Rome, Greece), Chapman Cohen etc (for revelations on Congo), Timothy Longman and German news (for explaining, respectively, what actually caused the Rwandan genocide and the ideological identities of the perpetrators), Avro Manhattan for Vietnam (and Yugoslavia),
the modern person calling himself 'Kelsos' who owned the now-defunct "The Christian Heritage" site (for information on what really happened in the Americas, and for his huge timelines on christianism, etc), people like Paul Axelrod and Michelle Fuerch (on Goa), etc. etc. etc.
Maybe "the Europeans" aren't the disease.
On the ancient christo-relationship between christianism and its "secular arm" - the following applies more universally:
- See this chapter from Joseph McCabe - look for all occurrences of "secular arm".
- Also see:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...er_22.html (on this page too, look for the phrase "secular arm")
Quote:In every part of Europe the tribunals of the Inquisition now became busy with witches. Between 1320 and 1350 the tribunal at Carcassonne tried more than four hundred cases of magic, and of these one-half were executed. At Toulouse six hundred were charged, and two-thirds of them were handed over to "the secular arm" for execution; lest, of course, the spotless robes and white hands of the Church should be stained with blood. There was a terrible massacre at Berne, and large numbers were burned in Italy. Even an English bishop was accused at Rome of paying homage to the devil; and from Ireland came one of the most definite early cases of alleged witchcraft.
This is part of christianism. It's how it works and why it works like this.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...er_23.html
Quote:And now let us take a glance at the solemn ceremony which closed the work of the Inquisitors. On a Sunday morning they gathered the culprits, the clergy, and the people in some great church or public square, and read out the sentences. The unrepentant were then handed over to the secular authorities with a recommendation to mercy -- and a stern assurance, from the Pope, that unless those men and women were burned at the stake within five days the magistrate or prince would be excommunicated and the city or kingdom laid under the appalling blight of an interdict. Then the Dominican or Franciscan agents of the Pope washed their hands, and these modern Catholic apologists ask us to observe how clean they were.
Things may have watered down (because christianism has become dependent on secular govts since WWII and 'secular' govts more independent from christianism since then), but in christianism 2 things are Still On:
1. Destroy other (unconverted being kaffiri) nations, destroy it for christianism
2. Don't be *seen* to have blood on your hands: i.e. the church (congregation of christians)=christianism takes care to be seen to be free of others' blood. Unless it can gloat in public about the 'miraculous' victory of christ.