The two posts above are related to each other. Gypsies are merely the Indian converts to christianism that Europeans interact with. This now includes Indian sheep in India, such as in the christianised coast of the country, which upon conversion has become part of Japhetite territory (since all Hamites are subordinate to Japhetites and Semites as per christianism and consequently also islam).
The whole Italian-navy vs Indian sheepified fishermen 'incident' was part of longstanding christian tradition: it can have come as no surprise to anyone least of all the sheepified that the Japhetites (christianised Italians in this case) would shoot their much-hated prey the Hamites/the gypsies (Indian fishermen off the coast of India). It's what the Indian sheep signed up for: *they* enrolled willingly - even if not always knowingly perhaps - in the biblical hierarchy, to join in the ranks of the Hamites to be mistreated by the Japhetites. It was their choice to make and they made it. I hope Hindus weren't wasting their vocal chords and indignation in asking for justice. The Indian christian fishermen got biblical justice: the bible insists Hamites are born slaves to the Japhetites and Semites after all.
Yes, it happened in India's territory and India is still a majority Hindu nation - and had this happened to Hindu fishermen, Hindus should certainly take action/seek instant and total retribution. But it happened to Indian christians who are subordinate to the christian casta system. If their kind shoots and kills each other, there's little Hindus need do. And it works out better ultimately for Hindus: fewer christoterrorists to invade Hindu sacred spaces and terrorise the Hindus and their imagery of Hindu Gods, the way a christoterrorist had recently attempted to stomp on a Shivalingam (news item on that somewhere further above in this thread). If only the Italians had got to him too before he tried his little stunt, I'd be the last to complain. (I don't get paid to care about cannibal sheep, sorry. They can look after their own. Actually in this case, the south Indian church itself came out in defence of the Italian marines who had shot the convert sheep, which further demonstrates that the Indian church knows exactly what Indian converts' place is in the christian hierarchy and that they are entirely in agreement with it. And while it seems discriminatory and unjust and plain wrong, such is the nature of christoislamic religion. They screech against various heathen religions that exhibit something they dub "caste", but only in order to conceal their own blatant, innate, bigoted and implacable hierarchy.)
The message Hindus should send to the christianised sheep everytime something like this happens is: "You're on your own/You know this is what you signed up for, right?" There should be no remonstrance, especially as christian sheep always propagandise that Hindu Indians were terribly mistreated by their own heathen kind and that christianism will treat them better and thus won converts for (the mere and empty *promise* of) this reason. No? By converting out, they picked out who they wanted to be connected to: they'd rather be slaves to alien masters, than remain members of their ancestrally-related heathen family. So their newly adopted ... associations can come out in support of them. But then they *didn't*, instead the Italian officials did the opposite by trying to get the Italian murderers off the hook and were supported in this not only by the Indian church but aided and abetted by the barely-crypto and quite-christist Indian government. Like I said, biblical justice. Works like shariah. It rules the sheepified faithful. Heathens' hands are tied. Oh what to do.
What I came here for.
A book from the mid-80s offers a fleeting summary of what elsewhere is detailed in pages and chapters. But a summary suffices for IF, people here are familiar with other cases to not require the explicit details:
* A late 90s book that surprisingly has many of the same observations in the same order and with a lot of the same sentence structure (plagiarism???) and yet is listed under a different author and publisher, remarks at this point:
The first-mentioned 80s book cannot be mistaken for having any sympathy, since it regularly repeats obvious (i.e. admittedly fictional) christian dawaganda folktales in favour of christianism and against Russian religion.
There's nothing particularly "political" about Vladimir's conversion. He was quite hardcore about bashing Russian religion after his conversion, which he wouldn't have been if it had been a merely political move.
Many christianised nations have a Constantine and a Helena, which is even more the rule for the christianised countries of the "western" hemisphere.
Anyway. The above was how Russia was - as admitted, forcibly - converted to christianism. No one pretends it was a voluntary conversion where the populace supposedly "saw the light" of jeebus. It was the usual top-down conversion strategy employed by missionary religions. Two or maybe 2.5 centuries prior and further south, Tibet had been similarly forcibly converted, though to Buddhism. It also happened upon the local monarch marrying some Indian(?) Buddhist(s) who then worked the usual missionary 'magic' on their husband to convert him and thus Tibet became Buddhist. (Repeat: as per Encarta "Buddhism was first introduced into Tibet through the influence of foreign wives of the king, beginning in the 7th century ad.") Thereafter began the periods of serious persecution of the indigenous Bon religion by Buddhism (briefly mentioned in the article reposted here), with Bon severely persecuted into near-extinction. (The same top-down conversion routine had been attempted against many Asian nations, BTW.) Many 'great' Indian Buddhists eagerly invaded Tibet (were invited over by their converted sheep in Tibet) and terrorised the local religion some more. Russia's native religion is no more christian than Tibet's native religion is Buddhist. (If it were, then clearly the "finders keepers law" is what is being appealed to, and then the same people may equally pretend that Tibet belongs to China simply because China took it over. But neither the Tibetan geography nor its native population belong to China.)
It's all the same behaviour by Replacement Theologies. Same tactic employed too: top-down conversion strategy. It's only when that and the subsequent converted-government's enforced violence against the native religion fails (or hasn't yet succeeded), that the Replacement Theologies resort to exclusively lying against their "competition", i.e. dawaganda. Oh and inculturation, encroachment and mangling of native religions.
Christianism like islam is a mono-gawd religion, whereas Buddhism etc are not (have no Gods actually). The similarity does not rest in both being "monotheistic" religions, but rather, of both having the same monotheistic tendency. I.e. both types of religion are missionary - opposite of ethnic - religions: they're self-declared "universal" religions that expect to be universally adopted (or will try whatever means to *get* themselves universally adopted) and thus try to plant themselves everywhere and supplant the native (views of native) religions. That's why Buddhism peddles falshoods about native religions' Gods and when it can't get rid the laity entirely of them, it finally attempts to turn the memories of these Gods into bodhisattvas. Christianism does the same, but tries to turn them in christian saints.
In short, christianism etc and Buddhism etc are Replacement Theologies. They replace ancestral religions. This is why Buddhism is not a "paganism" (and never regarded itself as such), despite Indian self-declared experts on "paganism" going about peddling that Buddhism is a so-called "paganism" alongside Hindus' religion. Hindus' religion is like Daoism and Shinto and GrecoRoman religion. In contrast, Buddhism replaces these. That christianism doesn't accept any of these (the way islam ultimately doesn't accept christianism and other "religions of the book" despite these being equally monotheistic) is merely because there is an internal pecking order between all missionary religions. The most savage and violent wins. Buddhism (and other non-ancestral religions of this kind) is simply not at the top of *that* food-chain. It only ingests paganisms. It gets itself ingested by missionary religions more determined than itself, whereas islam is a giant-killer that will readily devour even christianism where it can.
The 2 plus points to Buddhism in the comparison is that first, in E Asia and non-Indian SE Asia, the Bauddhified laity is more heathen than Buddhist and hence is not belligerent (doesn't plot to convert others) and, many never having been properly converted, can't let go of their own ancestral Gods either. Not that there haven't been repeated attempts to cure them of such ongoing heathenism.... Secondly, Buddha's statements are open to interpretation (the way some Buddhists later made out that he had been a proponent of vegetarianism, whereas earlier Buddhists hadn't attributed such a stance to the Buddha), so the fangs that are seen in the missionaries who are on fire for their new religion are not a necessary part of the religion itself.
The whole Italian-navy vs Indian sheepified fishermen 'incident' was part of longstanding christian tradition: it can have come as no surprise to anyone least of all the sheepified that the Japhetites (christianised Italians in this case) would shoot their much-hated prey the Hamites/the gypsies (Indian fishermen off the coast of India). It's what the Indian sheep signed up for: *they* enrolled willingly - even if not always knowingly perhaps - in the biblical hierarchy, to join in the ranks of the Hamites to be mistreated by the Japhetites. It was their choice to make and they made it. I hope Hindus weren't wasting their vocal chords and indignation in asking for justice. The Indian christian fishermen got biblical justice: the bible insists Hamites are born slaves to the Japhetites and Semites after all.
Yes, it happened in India's territory and India is still a majority Hindu nation - and had this happened to Hindu fishermen, Hindus should certainly take action/seek instant and total retribution. But it happened to Indian christians who are subordinate to the christian casta system. If their kind shoots and kills each other, there's little Hindus need do. And it works out better ultimately for Hindus: fewer christoterrorists to invade Hindu sacred spaces and terrorise the Hindus and their imagery of Hindu Gods, the way a christoterrorist had recently attempted to stomp on a Shivalingam (news item on that somewhere further above in this thread). If only the Italians had got to him too before he tried his little stunt, I'd be the last to complain. (I don't get paid to care about cannibal sheep, sorry. They can look after their own. Actually in this case, the south Indian church itself came out in defence of the Italian marines who had shot the convert sheep, which further demonstrates that the Indian church knows exactly what Indian converts' place is in the christian hierarchy and that they are entirely in agreement with it. And while it seems discriminatory and unjust and plain wrong, such is the nature of christoislamic religion. They screech against various heathen religions that exhibit something they dub "caste", but only in order to conceal their own blatant, innate, bigoted and implacable hierarchy.)
The message Hindus should send to the christianised sheep everytime something like this happens is: "You're on your own/You know this is what you signed up for, right?" There should be no remonstrance, especially as christian sheep always propagandise that Hindu Indians were terribly mistreated by their own heathen kind and that christianism will treat them better and thus won converts for (the mere and empty *promise* of) this reason. No? By converting out, they picked out who they wanted to be connected to: they'd rather be slaves to alien masters, than remain members of their ancestrally-related heathen family. So their newly adopted ... associations can come out in support of them. But then they *didn't*, instead the Italian officials did the opposite by trying to get the Italian murderers off the hook and were supported in this not only by the Indian church but aided and abetted by the barely-crypto and quite-christist Indian government. Like I said, biblical justice. Works like shariah. It rules the sheepified faithful. Heathens' hands are tied. Oh what to do.
What I came here for.
A book from the mid-80s offers a fleeting summary of what elsewhere is detailed in pages and chapters. But a summary suffices for IF, people here are familiar with other cases to not require the explicit details:
Quote:In 988 when Vladimir I [monarch of Russia] made the political decision to accept Christianity, he also married Anna, the sister of the Greek Emperor, whose capital Constantinople was the centre of the Greek Orthodox Church. There followed a period of enforced Christianization and Vladimir ordered the pagan idols to be burned or hacked to pieces. Perun [major Russian God, one of the Russian's Trinity] was tied to a horse's tail, thrashed with metal rods and eventually cast into the River Dnepr.* Afterwards, Vladimir had the citizens of Kiev baptized in the waters of the Dnepr and churches built where idols had stood. But away from the towns in the remote hinterlands of Russia the old pagan ways continued to exist for centuries.
Sometimes the old gods were merely given new new names. Veles, god of cattle, was transformed into Saint Vlasii, who is depicted in Russian icons surrounded by cows, sheep and goats. Perun was replaced by the Prophet Elijah who, according to the Old Testament, could also call down rain or fire from heaven. Not so very long ago superstitious peasants might say during a thunder-storm that it was Elijah, or Il'ya as they called him, riding across the sky in his fiery chariot in pursuit of devils. The devils tried to escape by turning themselves into animal or even human form; that is why the Russian peasants were wary of strangers and locked their doors and shut their windows while the storm lasted. On Il'ya's feast day (20 July in the calendar of the Russian Orthodox Church) in many parts of Russia cattle were sacrificed just as they had once been at the feet of the idols to Perun.
* A late 90s book that surprisingly has many of the same observations in the same order and with a lot of the same sentence structure (plagiarism???) and yet is listed under a different author and publisher, remarks at this point:
Quote:Even though Christianity was the new official faith in Russia, Christian missionaries found it enormously difficult to stamp out worship of this king of the gods [=Perun]. In Novgorod he was apparently tolerated well into the Christian era, as records show that the statue of Perun was solemnly flogged each year to rid it of demonic forces.(Similar "tolerance" seen in islamics spitting at the "devil" at the black stone in Mecca, where the statues of the Arabian Gods had stood before islamics broke these.)
The first-mentioned 80s book cannot be mistaken for having any sympathy, since it regularly repeats obvious (i.e. admittedly fictional) christian dawaganda folktales in favour of christianism and against Russian religion.
There's nothing particularly "political" about Vladimir's conversion. He was quite hardcore about bashing Russian religion after his conversion, which he wouldn't have been if it had been a merely political move.
Many christianised nations have a Constantine and a Helena, which is even more the rule for the christianised countries of the "western" hemisphere.
Anyway. The above was how Russia was - as admitted, forcibly - converted to christianism. No one pretends it was a voluntary conversion where the populace supposedly "saw the light" of jeebus. It was the usual top-down conversion strategy employed by missionary religions. Two or maybe 2.5 centuries prior and further south, Tibet had been similarly forcibly converted, though to Buddhism. It also happened upon the local monarch marrying some Indian(?) Buddhist(s) who then worked the usual missionary 'magic' on their husband to convert him and thus Tibet became Buddhist. (Repeat: as per Encarta "Buddhism was first introduced into Tibet through the influence of foreign wives of the king, beginning in the 7th century ad.") Thereafter began the periods of serious persecution of the indigenous Bon religion by Buddhism (briefly mentioned in the article reposted here), with Bon severely persecuted into near-extinction. (The same top-down conversion routine had been attempted against many Asian nations, BTW.) Many 'great' Indian Buddhists eagerly invaded Tibet (were invited over by their converted sheep in Tibet) and terrorised the local religion some more. Russia's native religion is no more christian than Tibet's native religion is Buddhist. (If it were, then clearly the "finders keepers law" is what is being appealed to, and then the same people may equally pretend that Tibet belongs to China simply because China took it over. But neither the Tibetan geography nor its native population belong to China.)
It's all the same behaviour by Replacement Theologies. Same tactic employed too: top-down conversion strategy. It's only when that and the subsequent converted-government's enforced violence against the native religion fails (or hasn't yet succeeded), that the Replacement Theologies resort to exclusively lying against their "competition", i.e. dawaganda. Oh and inculturation, encroachment and mangling of native religions.
Christianism like islam is a mono-gawd religion, whereas Buddhism etc are not (have no Gods actually). The similarity does not rest in both being "monotheistic" religions, but rather, of both having the same monotheistic tendency. I.e. both types of religion are missionary - opposite of ethnic - religions: they're self-declared "universal" religions that expect to be universally adopted (or will try whatever means to *get* themselves universally adopted) and thus try to plant themselves everywhere and supplant the native (views of native) religions. That's why Buddhism peddles falshoods about native religions' Gods and when it can't get rid the laity entirely of them, it finally attempts to turn the memories of these Gods into bodhisattvas. Christianism does the same, but tries to turn them in christian saints.
In short, christianism etc and Buddhism etc are Replacement Theologies. They replace ancestral religions. This is why Buddhism is not a "paganism" (and never regarded itself as such), despite Indian self-declared experts on "paganism" going about peddling that Buddhism is a so-called "paganism" alongside Hindus' religion. Hindus' religion is like Daoism and Shinto and GrecoRoman religion. In contrast, Buddhism replaces these. That christianism doesn't accept any of these (the way islam ultimately doesn't accept christianism and other "religions of the book" despite these being equally monotheistic) is merely because there is an internal pecking order between all missionary religions. The most savage and violent wins. Buddhism (and other non-ancestral religions of this kind) is simply not at the top of *that* food-chain. It only ingests paganisms. It gets itself ingested by missionary religions more determined than itself, whereas islam is a giant-killer that will readily devour even christianism where it can.
The 2 plus points to Buddhism in the comparison is that first, in E Asia and non-Indian SE Asia, the Bauddhified laity is more heathen than Buddhist and hence is not belligerent (doesn't plot to convert others) and, many never having been properly converted, can't let go of their own ancestral Gods either. Not that there haven't been repeated attempts to cure them of such ongoing heathenism.... Secondly, Buddha's statements are open to interpretation (the way some Buddhists later made out that he had been a proponent of vegetarianism, whereas earlier Buddhists hadn't attributed such a stance to the Buddha), so the fangs that are seen in the missionaries who are on fire for their new religion are not a necessary part of the religion itself.
Death to traitors.