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
Lastly, I am so sorry for all the families affected by Breivik in Norway. I write this distant from all these current events but near to one that happened in 1996 in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia. Here a madman killed 35 people and injured over 20 others in a shooting spree on one day. I met and worked alongside support and social workers dealing with the aftermath. We worked with families deepy affected by his heinous crime. Healing is a long time coming and for many has not yet happened. Incidents like this we all hope are few and far between.AussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
Peter Quinn sounds almost as fanatical in his ability to twist other peoples words to support his own ideology as the madmen who commit atrocities like this. I agree with EL, this almost joyous hijacking of the act of a lone madman by some regulars at UD to support a political agenda makes me angry, and it is quite sickening to see the depths of depravity that some here will stoop to support their ideological position.DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
Also, “In 1912, in his presidential address to the First International Congress of Eugenics, a landmark gathering in London of racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world, Major Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son, trumpeted the spread of eugenics and evolution. As described by Nicholas Wright Gillham in his A Life of Francis Galton, Major Darwin foresaw the day when ‘eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, as Galton had hoped, but a “paramount duty” whose tenets would presumably become enforceable.’ The major repeated his father’s admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by ‘the spirit of civilization,’ society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst ‘without further delay’.” They go hand in hand. It is irresponsible not to say that one beget the other and are extricably linked. To my initial post it still stands: Legacy media have promoted this awful event as that of a "Christian Fundamentalist". He is not! But, IMAGINE if his Darwinian philosophical POV was the intro to the news story?AussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
G’day Elizabeth, You write: “But leave Darwin out of it, and don’t imply that “Darwinian” means “eugenicist”. It does not.” I’ll answer that through the words of Peter Quinn in “What Darwin’s Champions Won’t Mention”. “Adrian Desmond and James Moore in their 1991 biography, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, make clear that natural selection was intended as more than a theory of life’s origins. ‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image,’ they write. ‘But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start-Darwinism was invented to explain human society’.” ““Darwin played a prime role in bringing about a fateful confusion between cultural and racial differences, conferring new scientific authority and intellectual legitimacy on theories of human inferiority central to eugenics, the most destructive medical movement in history.” “...“by the time Darwin published the second edition of The Descent of Man in 1874, he had added Francis Galton’s eugenic theories and Herbert Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’ social philosophy to the mix, calling Hereditary Genius, Galton’s treatise on the biological nature of intelligence and moral character, ‘remarkable’ and Spencer ‘our greatest philosopher’.” ““Darwin’s work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new ‘scientific’ justification for labelling races, classes, and individuals as ‘inferior’. . . . Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that ‘a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class’ is the tendency of society’s ‘very poor and reckless,’ who are ‘often degraded by vice,’ to increase faster than ‘the provident and generally virtuous members’.” “All races, as it turns out, descend from the same ancestor but some are more descended than others. ‘I do not think that the Rev. Mr. Zincke takes an exaggerated view,’ Darwin declares, ‘when he says: “All other series of events-as that which resulted in the culture of mind in Greece, and that which resulted in the empire of Rome-only appear to have purpose and value when viewed in connection with, or rather as subsidiary to…the great stream of Anglo-Saxon emigration to the west”.’” “Sounding more like Colonel Blimp than Lieutenant Columbo, Darwin envisions a far grimmer future for races or sub-species less fit than the Anglo-Saxon. ‘At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world,’ he predicts. ‘At the same time the anthropological apes…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 civilized state…even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla’.” “Darwin is cavalier about the extermination of lesser breeds. He estimates that minimal force will be required, for ‘when civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race’.”AussieID
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
Quite. Frankly, I'm almost too angry to post right now.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT
EL:
I know of no person, atheist of otherwise, who was “happy about this”.
Polanyi:
... this is brilliant!
:)DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Polanyi:
Oh atheists were so happy about this, another reason to show why “religion is the root of all evil”, they are not going to like how this turned out. Thank you so much for this post, this is brilliant!
I know of no person, atheist of otherwise, who was "happy about this". Except, presumably, Breikvik.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
News (Denyse, I take it!):
Sorry, Elizabeth, it has got to come to light some time.
What has?
Note the addendum to the story above: [Note: The Finnish school shooter and the Columbine shooters also 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!”
Denyse, I don't doubt, firstly, that some evil fanatics cite Darwin to justify eugenics (although they could equally have used the experience of animal breeding to justify it, and I assume you don't want to ban the teaching of animal breeding). Second, someone who believes in eugenics is not a "Darwinian" but a eugenicist. Thirdly, Breikvik does not appear to have been a eugenist. He targetted not Muslims, the carriers of the culture he opposed, but young supporters of the left-wing party, one can only suppose, inasmuch as one can suppose any logic in the actions of someone so evil, because they represented the future of a political ideology that promotes multiculturalism.
In the age of Darwin worship, the memory hole awaits this stark fact. But maybe not this time. - UD News.
If you find evidence that Breikvik was a eugenicist, then that should not be swallowed up in any "memory hole". But leave Darwin out of it, and don't imply that "Darwinian" means "eugenicist". It does not. And to suggest it does, and that it is related to terrorism, is, well, I am, literally at a loss for words.
WIlliam Jennings Bryan was right: Darwinism should not be taught in schools.
"Darwinism" is not taught in schools.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
Polanyi "Oh DLH is so happy about this, another reason to show why “darwinism is the root of all evil” ..."DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
WIlliam Jennings Bryan was right: Darwinism should not be taught in schools.
Perhaps we can derive some 'oughts' from ID. I'm short sighted, so maybe I shouldn't be allowed to wear glasses, after all I was designed this way so what right have I to 'correct' this design 'feature'. Perhaps that is the point though, maybe it is intended that we fix what we perceive as flawed designs, and destroy what we perceive as broken - lets get rid of people with disabilities, after all they are design failures. Shouldn't we also be trying to protect the perfection of our design from contamination? Now lets decide what defined purity of design, race perhaps? (Wasn't this what Hitler argued!) It is very easy to construct a logic bubble to justify a prior goal. You could make a similar argument above from an evolutionary perspective. In both cases it is simply twisted logic designed to justify an ideological position - trying to derive an ought from an is. If I was designed then I ought to do this... If I evolved then I ought to do this... Neither the design hypothesis - we are the product of some intentional process - or evolutionary theory - we are the result of non intentional processes that operate when you have descent with modification - actually says anything about how we ought to behave.DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
Oh atheists were so happy about this, another reason to show why "religion is the root of all evil", they are not going to like how this turned out. Thank you so much for this post, this is brilliant!Polanyi
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
There is no doubt that such individuals like this Scandinavian have Nationist Socialists views. I live in Scandinavia and there are countless Neo-Nazi groups here who thrive on Darwinian Survival of the Fittest white Germanic/Nordic views and believe Scandinavia [Sweden, Norway, Danmark and Finland] should kick out the immigrants and go back to a more homogenous blonde haired-blue eyed society. So I don't doubt his Darwinian leanings which are no more than scientific justification for biggoted emtional views. But there was also a subject thread a couple of days ago where the commentors were also blaming Nazi propaganda and philosophy on Darwinian Principles, which I again believe are true. But what I don't understand are the so-called religious groups represented here pointing the finger[and rightly so] at the evils of Darwinian Thought, yet historically those same organizations gave their whole hearted support for Adolf Hitler and his Darwinian Racist schemes. Why ??? Why did the Churches[Protestant mostly] give their support for South Africa's Apartheid Laws ??? Why did the Protestant churches support and actually play a leading role in genecidal weeding out of the Aboriginal genetics of Australia ??? Clearly these activities developed and peaked just after Charles Darwin came out his "Origin of the Species" and "The Decent of Man". Why didn't the Bible help them to reject such Satanic thought, since clearly such racist ideas are not found in the original Christianity of the bible ??? Now before anyone displays righteous indignation here, just look at the historical records. Why recently the "Dutch Reformed Church" just apologized for their part in the South African racism. Clearly the 60+ million Christians[20+ M Catholic & 40+ M Evangelical Protestant taken from a middle 1920s census in just Germany alone] gave whole hearted support for Hitler's Darwinian views. Again the question is why and why not admit the mistake and move on ??? Both Atheisitc Darwinians and pseudo-Christians deserve blame for our world's astrocities. When I first came to Europe 6 years ago, I read about the French government's unconditional surrender to the occupying Nazis forces and a quote by a Reverend of the Mainz, Germany Evangelical Church who publically thanked God in prayer for sending Adolf Hitler to Germany as a Savior. Again, WHY ??? Maybe folks here should reserve judgement comments here until they examine their own church history. Otherwise you're coming off as bad as the gang as those degenerate Atheist forums. Maybe it would be healthier if the thread was closed altogether or at the very least admit the clear ignorant mistakes that were done by both sides.Eocene
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
tbh, I’d say it’s that kind of headline that feeds the very paranoid fanaticism that Breivik, tragically, embodies.
I agree, it is a shame this website is so tolerant of paranoid fanaticism.DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
The Finnish school shooter and the Columbine shooters also attributed their actions to Darwinism.
Where exactly does he attribute his actions to the theory of evolution? Can you provide a reference. Also, I notice that there is still a question of authenticity over the manifesto, and large parts of it were allegedly copied from the manifesto of Ted Kaczynski (The Unabomber).DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
Sorry, Elizabeth, it has got to come to light some time. Note the addendum to the story above: [Note: The Finnish school shooter and the Columbine shooters also 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.] WIlliam Jennings Bryan was right: Darwinism should not be taught in schools.News
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
Of course he was not a "Darwinian Terrorist". For shame. He was a deluded paranoid fanatic. What brand of delusion he entertained is of little relevance. What matters is the double delusion that the rightness of his delusion justified the killing of those who did not share it in the name of a greater good. From what we can glean from excerpts from his manifesto suggest that it was fiercely islamophobic, right wing, anti multicultural, and, that the culture he saw as under threat and in need of defence was a Christian conservative one. I'm sure every Christian conservative would dissociate themselves from his views - indeed simply not recognise them as Christian, as the Lutheran pastor who conducted one of the memorial services movingly said - just as every person who accepts Darwinian evolution as a supported theory for the origin of species would similarly dissociate themselves from those views. As would any atheist or liberal dissociate themselves from the views of Stalin or Pol Pot. I'd point out, however, that "Darwinian", unlike "Christian", "atheist", "conservative", or "liberal", is not a description of a belief system, nor is it a political ideology. It is a description of a scientific theory. Any belief system or political ideology is in danger of spawning deluded fanatics, and those fanatics my also entertain bizarre scientific theories - even invoke them to support their ideology. But scientific theories themselves are morally and ideologically neutral. They alone do not produce fanaticism. Belief systems and ideologies do. It was an appalling tragedy. To headline the first story about it as "A Darwinian Terrorist?" is, IMO, simply shameful. tbh, I'd say it's that kind of headline that feeds the very paranoid fanaticism that Breivik, tragically, embodies. I suggest you change it.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
Personally, judging by the manifesto snippet, I think Shakespeare was clearly to blame
Absolutely.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition
It's clear that the actions of the Norwegian killer are the logical outcomes of the bloodthirsty philosphy embedded in Shakespeare.Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
Prof. FX Gumby @4 I agree, madmen who commit these acts tend to hijack and distort existing ideas and ideologies to justify their own acts. Sadly I'm not at all surprised to see this tragedy hijacked and distorted to suit the political agenda here. I don't quite share the optimism you express in the last paragraph. Personally, judging by the manifesto snippet, I think Shakespeare was clearly to blame ;)DrBot
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
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.junkdnaforlife
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
I've glanced through his manifesto myself (easily found online). It appears that the media is indeed incorrect in labelling him a Christian fundamentalist, but it's also incorrect for WND to say he identifies himself as Darwinian. The word "Darwin" in various forms is used a total of 5 times in his 1518 page manifesto. If he were really a self-proclaimed Darwinist, you'd think Charles would get a few more mentions? One of the mentions is in a list of "other important books I've read (in random order)" which includes "The Bible, Avesta, Quran, Hadith, Plato - The Republic, Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince, William Shakespeare - First Folio, Immanuel Kant - Critique of Pure Reason, Homer - Iliad and Odyssey, Dante Alighieri - The Divine Comedy, Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - Communist Manifesto, Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species, Leo Tolstoy - War and Peace, Franz Kafka - The Trial, Arnold Joseph Toynbee - A Study of History." In the previous paragraph, he mentions Hobbes, Locke, Mill, George Orwell and Ayn Rand as being among his favourites. My point is that 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. I would hope the readers and writers here have the maturity and honesty to recognise that.Prof. FX Gumby
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
Legacy media certainly has portrayed Breivik's motivation as being "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist" all over. On the second day we heard (in Australia)the same script being read on TV. Again, what aspect of Christianity has been shown? The unaware masses will once again hear and associate Christianity with evil but where no link is found. Wouldn't it be interesting if the newsreader did indeed read out, "A Darwinian-professing terrorist ..." What if? What if!AussieID
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Well now it makes a bit more sense, if insanity can ever make sense,,, for it certainly didn't sound like any 'fundamentalist' Christian I ever met. My heart, and prayers, goes out for the families and communities. Praise You In This Storm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji2rLXr3cEUbornagain77
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Natural selection needs a boost, like me with a shotgun. ~ Eric Harrisbevets
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
1 6 7 8

Leave a Reply