Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

WND examines Norway’s terrorist:

Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’

{See Updates below at 2:30 PM on actions; & at 10:30 PM on Breivik’s manifesto}

Norwegian’s manifesto shows Breivik not religious, having no personal faith Posted: July 24, 2011 © 2011 WND

WASHINGTON – A review of Anders Behring Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto shows the media’s quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a “Christian” may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims. . . . many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway’s Labour Party – as a “right-wing, Christian fundamentalist.”

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God’s existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe’s “Christian culture” as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.
——————————————————–
[Note: Also, the Finnish school shooter and the Columbine shooters attributed their actions to Darwinism. Barry Arrington here was the lawyer for the Columbine victims and

read through every single page of Eric Harris’ journals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but it’s all natural! YES!”

In the age of Darwin worship, the memory hole awaits this stark fact. But maybe not this time. – UD News.]

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.” . . . The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas. . . .

“I am very proud of my Viking heritage,” he writes. “My name, Breivik, is a location name from northern Norway, and can be dated back to even before the Viking era. Behring is a pre-Christian Germanic name, which is derived from Behr, the Germanic word for Bear (or ‘those who are protected by the bear’).” . . .Likewise, media reports frequently characterized McVeigh as a “Christian,” though he adamantly denied any religious beliefs or convictions – placing his faith in science. . . .Breivik adds, “I went from moderately agnostic to moderately religious.”

In a question-and-answer section of his manifesto, Breivik asks himself, “What should be our civilisational [sic] objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?”
His answer is hardly the response of a “Christian utopian”: “‘Logic’ and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level.”

Religious worship and study is never noted in the manifesto as part of Breivik’s routine in preparing for his mission of mass murder. . . .Breivik also points out that his association with Christian cultural values is one of political expedience rather than religious commitment or faith . . .Breivik also claims membership in the Freemasons, which many Christians consider to be a cultic organization.

More specifically, he calls himself a Justiciar Knight . . .”As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus,” he writes. “. . . Over and over again, Breivik goes out of his way to make clear to readers of his manifesto that he is not motivated by Christian faith.
“I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person, as that would be a lie,” he says. “I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. . . .

Read more: Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’
———————————————-
2:30 pm July 25th: Raising the title question raised issues faster than I expected. I support the excellent comments below by AussieID and kairosfocus.
Ideas have consequences. Should we not judge people by their actions?
Jesus observed:

Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.

Luke 6:44 NIV
Jesus commanded:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[”

Luke 10:27 NIV

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 13:34-35 NIV

Did Anders Behring Breivik obey Jesus’ command? The General Secretary of the World Council of Churches Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit,

“accused Norwegian gunman Anders Behring Breivik of blasphemy Monday for citing Christianity as a justification in his murderous attack on government buildings and a youth camp that left dozens dead. . . .” these actions in no way can express what is our Christian faith and our Christian values,”

For journalists to categorize Breivik as a “fundamentalist Christian” is a direct abuse of the public trust.

Did not Breivik apply “might makes right”? Communist regimes espoused Atheism and Darwinism. They collectively caused more than 94 million deaths to their own people as documented in The Black Book of Communism ISBN: 978-0674076082 –three times as many as all deaths in wars during the 20th century.
Objective statistics and actions suggest that Breivik acted on the social principles of Darwinism, not Christianity.
——————————————————————
10:30 PM July 25, 2011
Notes on: Anders Behring Breivik /Andrew Berwick A European Declaration of Independence
Breivik focuses on the expansion of Islam in taking over Christian countries in the Middle East, Africa, and then into Europe:
2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began

This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually. . . .Islam is certainly in a position to force unbelievers into Dhimmitude (as is happening in dozens of Muslim countries in varying degrees), and even to wage new jihads, this time with weapons of mass-destruction. . . .Islamic terrorism has started with Mohammed himself.

He cites: Muslim 3584; Islam & Islamic 3274; Christ & Christian 2447; law 695; Immigrant & Immigration 678; Jihad 602; Mohammad & Muhammad 311; Allah 300; Dhimmi & Dhimmitude 266; Sharia 140; Colonial Colonization 149; Maronite 112; Coptic 56; Orthodox 72

Breivik is concerned by:
“1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe” e.g.,

You cannot defeat Islamisation or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism… . . . More than 90% of the EU and national parliamentarians and more than 95% of journalists are supporters of European multiculturalism and therefore supporters of the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe;”

He cites: Marx & Marxist 1108; Multicultural 938; Political 1358; Correct 225

Breivik then addresses:
4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the
coming decades

This book presents the only solutions to our current problems. . . .The compendium/book presents advanced ideological, practical, tactical, organisational
and rhetorical solutions and strategies for all patriotic-minded individuals/movements.

He admires the Knights Templar as repulsing Islam and recovering Jerusalem. He uses: Europe 4275; Resistance 327; Solution 232; Patriot/Patriotic 224; Knight 610; Templar 221; Justiciar 326; Crusade 230; Malta 31; independence 84; Norway 219; Viking 13; martial 24; Hitler 53; Jesus 62; Darwin 4

Though dismissed as a “nut”, Breivik is tapping into the “clash of cultures” between Islam and the West. He had more than 7000 facebook friends before publishing his manifesto. There are numerous books on Islam and Europe and over 143 million hits on Islam Europe.

He may have committed his atrocity thinking to attract attention to his manifesto. This neither condones nor explains Breivik’s demonic/murderous actions, but might explain some of his frustrations.

————————————-

UPDATE September 20, 2011:  kairosfocus asked ((163) , (213) So I changed from “Norway shooter a Darwinian terrorist?” to “Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?” to emphasize that this is a question not a statement, and it refers to the social not biological consequences of Darwin’s writings (within severe title length constraints). I wrote this post to challenge the assertion that Breivik was a Christian terrorist when Breivik himself said he was not a religious Christian. I showed that there is significant evidence that Breivik loved/supported Darwin. (169); quotes Breivik talking as a Social-Darwinist, emphasizing “we”:

Social-darwinism was the norm before the [sic] 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel [in context, 80 – 90%]. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist.

; That is NOT to say that Social Darwinism was Breivik’s only or primary motivation as numerous posts below explore. Yet the moral and social consequences of Darwin’s writings strongly impacted the 20th century and continue to do so. DLH

Comments
Eocene: First as you seem Norwegian, my condolences in your time of mourning. Please help see that some common sense measures are taken so the sort6 of situation where the cops took 90 minutes to arrive does not happen again, and the situation where you have sitting ducks in a shooting gallery does not happen again. If this mad man could get away with this you can be assured organised terrorists are taking note. Next, I am sorry, the locus of cultural blame is a lot closer to home than those often harassed men and nowadays women who stand in our pulpits. If you look up the Barmen Declaration, you will see that the warning against Hitler and co was issued by actually many of the leading Christian theologians of the time starting with Karl Barth. And, I am afraid evo mat scientism has been a god of our age, and like all idols, it has proved hollow. And, surprise -- NOT -- this latest apostasy demands blind conformity, indeed to dare to suggest that scientific theories are provisional and should be studied in light of methods, strengths and weaknesses has been treated as heresy by the Darwinist heresy hunters. We have seen all of this before. When will we learn from history? We now need to deal with the world as we see it, not as we wish it had been. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: "Sadly, the failures of Christendom — that partly christianised culture now moving on to secularism and neo-paganism in various forms — are not that hard to explain, even among church members and even ardent supporters." === The supporters as you call them are only as good as the leadership which directs them. The leadership of Christendom failed miserably in most of Europe from it's introduction into Europe towards and during both world wars her. The parishioners for the most part were trained to follow and obey what the clergy dealt them. People were indoctrinated to never questions the ecclesiastical hierarchies. As a result of the horrible failures of the clergy especially during WWII, the majority of central and Northern Europe are for the most part Secular Atheists. Seriously, despite what any census records say, the membership roles listed for statistical sakes are merely nothing more than traditional eye candy for propaganda purposes. Ask the average Sven and Inge on the streets and they don't believe there is a God. When I live in Great Britain in the 1870s, there were still several WWII veterans who said they couldn't believe there was a God where both sides were supposedly praying to the same God for victory. The bottomline is that the standards and principles for the ways Christains were to conduct their lives NEVER changed. The real reprehensible ones are the clergy of all those churches. Had they not stuck their collective biased noses into politics[and this goes for all those nations] then certainly Christianity would have been a true force for piece. Though church going mat still seem to be strong as ever in certain parts of the USA still, in Europe it's a shambles. They have no one else[Atheists, Muslims, whatever] to blame but themselves. No doubt if business had of been taken care of properly way back when, then there would never have been so-called perceived enemies such as TalkOrigins.org , TalkRational.org, Infedels.org - etc - etc - etc and no need for a UD, Discovery Institute, etc. ---Eocene
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
"design emerges from the properties of the universe itself", properties of the universe are part of the design not a consequence of it. "but meaning, purpose, beauty, goodness and, love.” No creator = no purpose or meaning or anything else. Accidents have a purpose or meaning? I think not.deric davidson
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Eocene: Sadly, the failures of Christendom -- that partly christianised culture now moving on to secularism and neo-paganism in various forms -- are not that hard to explain, even among church members and even ardent supporters. We start from the premise that we are finite, fallible, morally fallen [virtue is a stumbling lifelong struggle for the best of us] and too often ill-willed. Blend in an entirely too common willingness to adhere to the spirit of the age. Add in the "scientific" prestige of darwinism, including social darwinism from the 1860s on. Infuse the intoxicating spirits of jingoistic nationalism and the racism and tribalism that are a longstanding global challenge. Then, just watch the people stand aside and look as they -- verbally or literally -- kill our prophets. Look up the story of the Barmen Declaration. Call it by its ugly name: apostasy, in the spirit of the counterfeit of Christ, the antichrist. Bernard Lewis is apt, from his 1990 essay on the roots of Muslim rage:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Charles Darwin: "The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence." clipped: James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA: “…people of African descent appear to be innately less intelligent than white Europeans.” What does Sam Harris say about aforementioned jem: “Watson’s opinions on race are disturbing, but his underlying point was not, in principle, unscientific. There may very well be detectable differences in intelligence between races. Given the genetic consequences of a population living in isolation for tens of thousands of years it would, in fact, be very surprising if there were no differences between racial or ethnic groups waiting to be discovered. I say this not to defend Watson’s fascination with race, or to suggest that such race-focused research might be worth doing. I am merely observing that there is, at least, a possible scientific basis for his views.” Residual fragments of root ideologies responsible for mankind’s most horrific century can be clearly identified within Sam Harris’s secular “reason”. Funny how it seems to be white men of comfortable economic standing namely from the US and England that are trying to indoctrinate the world in neo-Darwinism.junkdnaforlife
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, Respectfully, anything that we believe affects our worldview. If someone believes in materialistic Darwinism then that will affect how they view the world and most assuredly other people. How can it not? All beliefs affect our worldview. Will Provine's view of 'good' and 'evil' are a direct and honest result of his belief in materialistic Darwinism. What other view could he possibly come to?ellijacket
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
kf: yes, of course science can be abused. That makes absolutely no difference to the truth or otherwise of the science. Science is about what is, not about what ought to be. To conflate the two is a major mistake, whether it is made by fanatical ideologues or people who disagree with the science. The fact that Truman ordered the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki says absolutely nothing about the truth or otherwise of e=mc^2. BTW there's an excellent (IMO) article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/25/anders-behring-breivik-norway-extremists which should give us all, as internet denizens, pause for thought.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: I am afraid The Beard is just a tad eggy. Let's clip Descent of Man, Ch 6, for record:
Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
The real concern I have here (and have long had as the link shows) is that, having made a horrendous point that highlights a major moral hazard in his theory, Darwin calmly went back to his main point in the context, explaining that there will be gaps in the fossil record. Similarly, there are even worse remarks on the Turks and the Europeans from one of his letters, here from Bevets' page:
I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. Letter to W. Graham July 3rd, 1881
Sorry, if we look for roots of social darwinism as a direct inference from darwin's thought [don't forget the infusion of Malthusianism and Malthus' positive checks!], they lie rather close to home, right from the original title of origin, or rather sub-title: the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. We need to face that, face its consequences over the past 150 years, and soberly address them. For science can be seriously abused, as the 100+ million moaning ghosts of the last century plainly tell us in grim warning. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
And the stupidest thing about this whole "social Darwinism" thing is that the only conceivable relationship between Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory and "social Darwinism" is the part that no-one disagrees with, and which long preceded Darwin anyway - namely selective breeding. Does anyone here dispute if you want to win the Largest Marrow prize at your village Fruit and Produce show, what you need to do is to sow only seeds from your largest marrows, and discard the others? It's true, right? And does that mean it's right to apply it to people? No, of course it doesn't. gah.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
I was born in 1952. Go figure.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
"If you're going to San Francisco Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair ..." Elizabeth, you're turning into a hippy!!!AussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
"We live in a universe in which design emerges from the properties of the universe itself, and not only design, but meaning, purpose, beauty, goodness and, love." Lizzie Liddle - atheist.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Ah you've been pipped at the post by the others Lizzie! But I do respect, but disagree, with your attempt! Big Smiley Face!!!AussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
"Let me summarise my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us about gods, ethics, meaning of life, life after death, and free will: Absolutely nothing." Elizabeth Liddle - Atheist.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
"We live in a universe which has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference". Dicky DawkinsAussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
"‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either." William Provine - AtheistAussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
True, Elizabeth. True.AussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
Sat 11 June Day 41 … I prayed for the first time in a very long time today. I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail. ---Diary of Anders Behring Breivik, as reported in The Guardian 07-24-11Pedant
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Atheism, though, can not see anything as, you call it, ‘morally reprehensible’ because everybody’s morality is different and there is no definite Wrong or Right. There just IS.
This is untrue. Also irrelevant. But untrue.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
"Social darwinist" ~= "Darwinian". And it's a bad term anyway. Actually even "eugenicist" is euphemistic. What we have here is racism, in all its ugliness, albeit dressed up as a culture war. Norway shooter a racist terrorist? Yes, it looks like it. And that would be a far better headline for this OP.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Breivik [manifesto]: "Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce. - Social-darwinism was the norm before the 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel.junkdnaforlife
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
G'day Elizabeth, My points have nothing to do with Breivik's belief in eugenics, etc. I still will link eugenics with evolution because one grew naturally from the other (and although you link it to the time period of the early 20th Century, liberal eugenics is still being pushed with genetically-engineered "haves" and "have nots" being the possible outcome. This is, of course, based on Darwinian themes!) You also wrote, "Yes, the eugenicist thinking of the early twentieth century owed something to Darwin’s theory." Something? SOMEthing? A little more than just 'some thing' Elizabeth, please! Atheism, though, can not see anything as, you call it, 'morally reprehensible' because everybody's morality is different and there is no definite Wrong or Right. There just IS. Again, to exploit a tragedy is wrong. So, you will also agree that legacy media is wrong is tainting this awful event as one in which Christianity has been thoughtlessly slandered? (The families are, of course, the most pressing facet here for care, but this blog is purely bringing up a point) So, you will lend your voice to correcting this view?AussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
kairosfocus - yes, I agree, the BBC should not have described him as a Christian Fundamentalist. Nor should early reports, as with Oklahoma, have pointed at Muslim terrorists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/charlie-brooker-norway-mass-killings?intcmp=239 I fully agree that the BBC should not have used that description, and, indeed, the British papers have been at pains today to point out that his religious affiliation seems to have been cultural, not a reflective of his belief. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/jul/24/norway-anders-behring-breivik-beliefs?intcmp=239Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
EL and BB: 1 WND did incorporate relvant materials as I clipped above. 2 This man clearly has social darwinist influences. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
What was truly inexcusable in this case is something also reported by WND through linking an external story:
Norway police arrived 90 minutes after gunman fired at youth on island Published On Sat Jul 23 2011 OSLO, NORWAY — Police arrived at an island massacre about an hour and a half after a gunman first opened fire, slowed because they didn’t have quick access to a helicopter and then couldn’t find a boat to make their way to the scene just several hundred meters offshore. The assailant surrendered when police finally reached him. Survivors of the shooting spree have described hiding and fleeing into the water to escape the gunman, but a police briefing Saturday detailed for the first time how long the terror lasted — and how long victims waited for help. The shooting came on the heels of what police told the Associated Press was an “Oklahoma City-type” bombing in Oslo’s downtown: It targeted a government building, was allegedly perpetrated by a homegrown assailant and used the same mix of fertilizer and fuel that blew up a federal building in the U.S. in 1995 . . . . A SWAT team was dispatched to the island more than 50 minutes after people vacationing at a campground said they heard shooting across the lake, according to Police Chief Sveinung Sponheim. The drive to the lake took about 20 minutes, and once there, the team took another 20 minutes to find a boat. Footage filmed from a helicopter that showed the gunman firing into the water added to the impression that police were slow to the scene. They chose to drive, Sponheim said, because their helicopter wasn’t on standby. “There were problems with transport to Utoya,” where the youth-wing of Norway’s left-leaning Labor Party was holding a retreat, Sponheim said. “It was difficult to get a hold of boats.” At least 85 people were killed on the island, but police said four or five people were still missing.
Another report linked through WND adds:
Suspect in Norway attacks bought six tons of fertilizer Published On Sat Jul 23 2011 SUNDVOLLEN, NORWAY—The Norwegian man suspected in a bombing and shooting spree that killed at least 92 people bought six tons of fertilizer before the massacre, the supplier said Saturday as police investigated witness accounts of a second shooter . . .
Something was seriously wrong with the first responder system, and it is clear that we now need a system of armed volunteer marshals for public events in remote places or other places where large numbers of people could be harmed in the time it takes for SWAT teams to arrive. For instance, why was not the Norwegian Navy equivalent to the Seals on-call? Similarly, we need something to deal with security checks on those who buy large quantities of Ammonium Nitrate fertiliser, a known high explosive. A law on nitrate compounds would do. Prof Gumby has a solid point on the Norway terrorist/mass murderer:
Breivik was first and foremost a nut. Attempts by any side to shoehorn him into their opponents’ camp are simply shamefully cheap debating tactics and blatantly ridiculous. The same goes for any mass murdering nutcase . . .
If the mass media would do due diligence (as WND, headline aside, seems to have done), that would be a foregone conclusion. But unfortunately, JDNA also has a sobering point, given the poisonously polarised atmosphere currently spreading like a disease across our civilisation:
Prof. FX Gumby, yes from your rundown of his books you list he looks like a mixed bag of crazy. However, what we are dealing with here (at least in the US) is two day 24 news cycle blast from the legacy media beating the “right-wing Christian fundamentalist” drum. The manifesto is out sure, but the populace is fully submerged and marinating in the original slime smear. This is how it works. Smear slime on page one, retraction or correction a week later buried on page 37 next to a Sears lawnmower ad. So a little balance is in order.
It is high time that we called the media to account for such smear tactics. And it is high time that we made up our minds that we are in an era of mass murder by terrorists and madmen of all stripes, so we need to take reasonable common-sense measures to protect ourselves, at a youth camp, in church, at a sports event, in a pizza restaurant, on a crowded street, in a bus, in an airliner, on a cruise ship. It is time for us to get rid of our knee-jerk, cleverly cultivated aversion to an armed citizenry. I vote for an internationally recognised volunteer corps of armed marshalls, equipped with appropriate weaponry up to and including automatic weaponry where appropriate. And for the rest of us, I think we need to resurrect an old form of sport and martial arts, the quarterstaff. This should now become a part of the regular school curriculum, right next to supervised firearms training and associated safety training. Is our civilisation serious? That is the real question. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
WND should have included this comment about atheists from page 1307 in the manifesto: "A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?" "If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."barrybowen
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
And yet, global media, up to and including he once great BBC could not pick that up and strike a reasonable balance on the merits? That makes me sick. Heart-sick. Beware when something in the mass media fits your favourite stereotypes just a bit too well!!! Such is functionally specific and complex, so it is likely to be an artifact of design, not a mere natural happenstance. That is, yes, I am applying the explanatory filter, common sense version, to media information to detect propagandistic designs. (And you thought the ID EF was useless?) Now, let us clip some pretty explicit core ethical instructions from the Christian rule-book [specifically the New Testament], which would immediately identify whether this man's ideas and behaviour are legitimately Christian:
Rom 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. 1 Pet 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,
“Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. 11 He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”[a]
13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear[b]; do not be frightened.”[c] 15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil . . . . 4:14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? . . . 19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.
Why is it that we find nowhere in the major media coverage any serious reflection of the sort of ethical teachings that I have just excerpted? No-one in even the most basic degree shaped by the teachings of Christ,the Apostles and Prophets, would condone, contemplate or worse actually carry out the sort of attack we have just seen in Norway. And contrary to the criminologist trotted out by BBC, this man is clearly demoniaclally, coldly mad. It seems he murdered about 100 people simply to grab global headlines for his demented cause, after he laid out his foul, Hell-scented fulminations at 1,500 pp length. If that is not demoniacally, criminally insane -- and yes you can be both mad and bad once you have a measure of rationality to think about moral issues -- and "thou shalt not kill" is not that hard to grasp -- I do not know what "madness" means. Then, that settled, let us now strike a nuanced balance, first expressing sympathies and condolences, and calling for common-sense correctives. For instance, in an era of Jihadi attacks how is it that a nation at war with Jihadism would allow a large scale retreat centre to operate without a fast security call-up and/or onsite people knowledgeable in how to -- and equipped with the tools to -- respond to a bombing or shooting attack? It is decades ago that Israel had to deal with waves of mass murders by shootings, and their common sense conclusion was that the attacks stop shortly after the first armed responders turn up and reply to the shooter in kind, as recently happened in the US in an attack on a church. So, teachers in schools etc were armed, and the number of successful incidents went way down. Of course, that does not eliminate the phenomenon, e.g. there was a sleeping family massacred recently. Similarly, right after the 9/11 attacks, I took the view that the best solution was that sound frequent travellers should be recruited into a voluntary corps of sky marshals, given training and licenses. And should be armed with appropriate weapons, non-lethal and lethal. [ . . . ]kairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
AussieID: "Darwinian evolution" is the name for the scientific theory put forward by Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species". If you (or anyone else) wants to make the case that any terrorist was inspired by any writing by Darwin, or by anyone else that drew on that theory to justify an ideology, then don't call it "Darwinian", because not only is it not how the word is normally used, it invites equivocation between a scientific theory, which is morally neutral, and an ideology, which is not. Yes, the eugenicist thinking of the early twentieth century owed something to Darwin's theory. But call it by its right name: eugenicist. Darwin may or many not have been one; whether he was or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not his scientific theory is right or wrong. Breitvik may or may not have been a eugenicist (he doesn't seem to have been one to me, but it's possible - a lot of right wing fanatics are) but that does not make him a "Darwinian terrorist", any more than the likely fact that he accepts Newtonian physics makes him an "Newtonian terrorist". Nor do we call alchemy "Newtonian" just because Newton happened to think it had merit. Eugenics is morally reprehensible. That it is tells us nothing about whether Darwinian evolutionary theory is right or wrong, nor does holding the view that it is probably correct make one a eugenicist. To imply otherwise is to exploit a tragedy in aid of a divisive point-scoring exercise that has absolutely nothing to do with science.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Folks: I think we need to take a breath and calm down. Media whipped up hysteria -- e.g. the BBC was drumming out the same talking points being complained of at a rate of speed not seen in recent years -- is hardly the best mood to think straight in. (And BBC's failure to do due diligence is a far more serious offence to me than a headline such as the above, Dr Liddle. I do not agree with the headline, but it can be seen as pointing out how the attempt to twist the case from the patent case of the mad man it is, into yet another poisonously laced caricaturing attack on Christians -- remember the fulminations of TWT et al and their thereat made against my family only a few weeks back? -- is ill founded,a s one can find references enough to say St Darwin and his ideas to make much the same inference on clips taken out of context.) Next we need to put on our common sense, non-politically correct thinking caps, updating what my old grade school teachers used to say. Let's knock the chief poisonous talking point on the head right away. Oh how handy it has been [cf WND article here] for the spin-meisters to find this man referring to Europe's historic -- and now largely dead -- Christian culture as a counterweight to Islamist aggression, and talking in one breath about a hudna [temporary truce agreement with an Islamist state . . . usually up to 10 years] with the Islamists in parallel with an expulsion of Muslims and a "crusade" to reconquer some historic lands of Christendom now under Islamic control. Clipping the just linked:
Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist." Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture. Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural [note the cultural reference] Christian Europe." . . . . "I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed," he writes. "We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once, but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities." . . . . Breivik adds, "I went from moderately agnostic to moderately religious." In a question-and-answer section of his manifesto, Breivik asks himself, "What should be our civilisational [sic] objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?" His answer is hardly the response of a "Christian utopian": "'Logic' and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level." . . . . Breivik also points out that his association with Christian cultural values is one of political expedience rather than religious commitment or faith "My choice has nothing to do with the fact that I am not proud of my own traditions and heritage," he explains. "My choice was based purely pragmatism. All Europeans are in this boat together, so we must choose a more moderate platform that can appeal to a great number of Europeans – preferably up to 50 percent (realistically up to 35 percent)." . . . . "As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus," he writes. "Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation [sic] but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order." . . .
A perfect illustration of those nasty right wing theocratic fundies, isn't it? NOT -- and, plainly, explicitly not. How much more explicit did this man have to be than:
"As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus," he writes. "Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).
[ . . . ]kairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
G'day DrBot, I disagree that anything has been 'twisted' to support an argument. I see too many Darwinian defenders who don't want to read anything that smears that reputation of the Beard. I hope noone here would hijack this madman's actions to benefit their cause. Having said that, though, why would legacy media sell a story with a base that he was a "Christian fundamentalist"? THAT is hijacking on a HUGE scale. I hope you are similarly offended by their actions and will say so in your next post.AussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply