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
F/N: Just one pointer, from the 9th page of the PDF, on III The Nazi attitude to the churches. Dr Liddle I challenge you to read this and then explain what you have written above.kairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Hitler's ultimate plan was to destroy Christianity. From the declassified Nuremberg trials: [A link to further study the court documents and transcripts posted by Kairos from mung @201] “The Persecution of the Christian Churches…the Nazi plan to subvert and destroy German Christianity, which it calls it, an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest." Not fans of Jesus: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/weekinreview/word-for-word-case-against-nazis-hitler-s-forces-planned-destroy-german.html?src=pmjunkdnaforlife
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
PPS: Mung has linked the actual investigation postwar into the Nazi persecution of the Christian Church, kindly at least look at its table of contents.kairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: As the Barmen Declaration of Barth et al plainly said, the Nazis tried to subvert, pervert and overthrow the gospel based Christian faith, creating a counterfeit. Men paid for that courageous declaration with horrible suffering and even death. Have the courage and respect to recoginse this, please. GEM of TKI PS: this is what "espouse" means:
es·pouse (-spouz) tr.v. es·poused, es·pous·ing, es·pous·es 1. a. To take in marriage; marry. b. To give (a woman) in marriage. 2. To give one's loyalty or support to (a cause, for example); adopt. [Middle English espousen, from Old French espouser, from Latin spnsre, frequentative of spondre, to betroth; see spend- in Indo-European roots.] es·pouser n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--> There is a vast difference between this and what the Nazis tried to do and intended to do.kairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Onlookers: Kindly remember, all of this is in a thread where I AM PARTICIPATING UNDER PROTEST AS I THINK THE HEADLINE IS INAPPROPRIATE. The mad-bad man involved in this murder was plainly a social darwinist racist, who seems to have attacked those he saw as betrayers of the volk. He blasphemously redefined the meaning of Christianity, and subverted symbols that have a Christian root. He sought to intensify polarisation, and he was willing to murder nearly 100 people simply to grab headlines. He has snipped from and bent many ideas. But, on the point where much was made by way of trying to discredit me, it stands plainly demonstrated that this man is clearly influenced by social darwinism. Maybe I missed it but I have not seen any serious retraction of some very inappropriate assertions and insinuations made above, in the face of such direct proof form the man's own mouth so to speak. Let that tell you about what is really going on. So, let us all take some time out, and reflect. Then, let us do better. Good evening GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
GUN: Kindly observe the explicitly social Darwinist framework of the already linked, with the specific response to a problem posed by Darwin in Chs 5 - 7 of Descent of Man. I note further that the intensity of refusal to acknowledge an important moral hazard exposed right there in Darwin, and taken up across the world in the decades thereafter -- NB early Nazi laws were modelled on law in I believe California -- is simply telling me that this issue is not dead. Your failure to read in context where the clip from the man begins:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature [--> notice, the capitalisation] for a higher breeding of all life.
. . . and thus sets it onward in the light of "a higher breeding of all life," and "if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings [--> i.e. evolution viewed as progress] would be unthinkable" i.e evolution in context, are all too telling on wrenching this way and that to avoid the plain meaning and ideas context at work. Your attempt to wrench the words from their context and project them unto a different "creationist" one, is telling. Telling on the resort to a turnabout accusation in the wider context of a smear and the narrower context of a smear on a mass murder that is at stake in this thread. Something very dangerously poisonous is going on, onlookers, something that leads to the sort of pattern above; where AFTER it is indisputable that the main case in view and the background one are both shown to have key social darwinist influences, there is still a desperate attempt to divert the matter, turn it about, and cast blame elsewhere, on the actual victims of the smear that occasioned this thread in the first instance. This madness has to stop. Or, else, this is a warning of the sort of outright bigotry verging on hate and on the willful deception and slander flowing from that bigotry verging on hate, that are now lurking in our civilisation. Remember, the underlying context is that we have a problem of an institutionally dominant worldview, evolutionary materialism that pretends that it is science and that it is the view of the "brights" so that those who beg to differ are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. All the while that view inherently has in it no foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT, and ends up lending credibility to ruthless factions that think that -- as Plato warned 2350 years ago in The Laws, Bk X -- the highest right is might. Doubtless, that "might" includes might in manipulation and domination of institutions of influence, leading to the distortion of how we understand issues, history, people and especially disfavoured things such as he Christian faith and its scriptures and history. And yes, I got Avalos' jibes and the jibe of so many others involved with or travelling companions of the new atheists on the alleged "bronze age god" village atheist level talking point now being so routinely trotted out loud and clear, left and right. Sorry, the "god" of a priori evolutionary materialist scientism you have to answer for is a lot more recent than that and the effects of his disciples across the past 100 years have to be looked at very soberly. Certainly, that is what the ghosts of 100 million victims of democides at the hands of such ruthless factions across the past 100 years are moaning out to us in warning. It is worth pausing to look at what Plato had to say in warning c 360 BC:
[[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . .
We have been warned. And, it is time to look back at what has been going on, take stock and do better than this. New atheists, evolutionary materialists wearing holy lab coats and travelling companions, I mean you. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
EL: "Without a some mutual assumption of integrity, there can be no communication, so I bid you farewell too." Translation: unless you are willing to lie to yourself about what you see with your own eyes, then there can be no communication between us. Response: 1) you blew that assumption a long time ago; 2) I don't give a damn about "communication"; I care about reason and truth: I know I've told you that already ... perhaps I just didn't communicate it well enough; 3) I am so bummed that my "moral and intellectual superior" (in the words of some silly person in his first, and last, post on my blog) doesn't want to "communicate" with me.Ilion
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
kf: as I have said, consistently, in this thread: it is quite wrong to condemn a religion, or an ideology, or a scientific theory because someone misuses it. The Nazis adopted (if you prefer that to espoused) Christianity, at least culturally, as did Breivik. Both the Nazis and Breivik (as far as we can tell from his ramblings) promoted eugenics. That neither of those things says anything about either Christianity or Darwinism, except that sick minds will pervert any idea, whether good, bad or morally neutral, to their own ends. Which is why I was so angry about the headline of this OP, and why I share your concern about early reports that Breivik was a Christian Fundamentalist (which, unlike this thread, were corrected) and why I was also concerned about initial reports that the bomb was the work of Muslim terrorists.Elizabeth Liddle
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Here is Wiki, on that buckle's background. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Ilion, the same goes for you, I'm afraid. Without a some mutual assumption of integrity, there can be no communication, so I bid you farewell too. Peace LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
“Dr Bot: Kindly read here, in the dragon’s own voice. It is time to come out of being in denial. GEM of TKI” --His voice directly reflects those of Gobineau, H. S. Chamberlain, and other anti-evolutionists, and his arguments are precisely those used to argue AGAINST evolution (e.g. “sharp outward delimitation of the various races”, “uniform character”, etc). Hitler did not even believe in speciation. (I previously discussed some of his quotes here: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/darwin-as-racist-vs-darwin-as-anti-slavery-hero/comment-page-1/#comment-363121 “To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator. [--> note want of capitalisation, and recall, the dominant view of the time was an eternal nature, the Big Bang type cosmology only triumphed in the 1960's, indeed in 1925/6 when MK was written it was not yet proposed]” --That was a typo. I can find only one translation where it is lowercase, and “Creator” and “Eternal Creator” are elsewhere always capitalized in that particular translation, and every other translation (there are lots to pick from) have “Eternal Creator” capitalized in that instance (and every instance). The translation which has the phrase in lowercase, btw, has quite a few typos. He also very often speaks of a Creator and speaks of nature, man, and the universe as a creation (not just publically, but in more private settings such as can be seen in Table Talk), and thus it’s unlikely he believed that the universe was eternal. As for “nature” often being capitalized – well, that was just the normal thing to do at the time, especially in formal writing. It’s only in recent times that we don’t often capitalize such words: take a look at the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. I recall someone highlighting his use of “Eternal Nature”, which seems to be alluded to. So what did he mean by “Eternal Nature”? He didn’t mean it literally. Anyone who doubts me, try this – just google a text version of Mein Kampf and do a search for “eternal” and scan through the book, and see just how often he uses the term (a LOT) and how often it’s meant literally (rarely). He speaks of the “Etnernal Jew” and called Jews the “eternal blood-sucker” who took advantage of Germany’s “eternal financial troubles”. And did you know that “England which with methodical diabolism hunts Ireland's people to death in eternal revolutions” and that there’s an “eternal conflict between Germany and France”?goodusername
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
"Interestingly, you must assert to everyone here that you actually believe it to be the case that Hitler’s regime did in fact espouse Christianity." Even that would be lying ... for to "actually believe" that falsehood, one must undertake deliberate steps so as to avoid knowing the truth.Ilion
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
We do seem to have identified a certain disregard for the truth and for accepting responsibility for what one says. Time for me to go dredge up some prior statements by Lizzie about what a wonderful person she is and how she and she alone is responsible for what she says, etc.
Now I’ve had one too many accusations of lying from you Mung, so this is the last time I will respond to your posts for a while.
An excellent way to avoid lying is to not say anything. To anyone. Interestingly, you must assert to everyone here that you actually believe it to be the case that Hitler's regime did in fact espouse Christianity. Else you are in fact lying, and in fact you are a liar, even according to your own "only if I truly believe I am saying something false am I lying" definition. Perhaps some of your atheist friends will come to your rescue and make the case that you have failed to make and establish that Hitler's regime did in fact espouse Christianity. We'll see. I've resisted providing quotes to the contrary from Nazi sources because I don't want to further spread their filth. However, this may be of some relevance: http://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/donovan/pdf/Nuremberg_3/Vol_X_18_03_02.pdfMung
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: I have already pointed out that he belt buckle in question is a Nazified adaptation of the Prussian army belt that seems to have been in use in one form or another since the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 or thereabouts, i.e. 70 years. Similarly, the Nazi regime put the swastika into the Iron Cross, which had been in use since 1813. In short, and as was long since pointed out, they were subverting the Christian traditions and impacts on German culture. I find this disappointing. Especially, as the wider context (did you follow up the link on the Weikart Ayala exchange on Unbelievable?) is that there is an agenda to tr to suggest that Nazism was primarily rooted in Christian sources. This, to distract attention from the quite plain links in the already linked from Hitler's writings. So, when I see the sort of days of plastering int eh major media as happened on this new mad man, I think I have cause for serious complaint. ESPECIALLY with the same BBC that has already proved to my satisfaction after a one year complaints procedure that they are up to their eyeballs in anti-Christian bigotry that they think they can get away with. Something very, very, very rotten is going on Dr Liddle. Please, do better next time. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Of course, EL *is* lying. For, after all, she did not say that the Nazi regime tried to co-opt Christian phrases or symbols, she said that the Nazi regime espoused Christianity. Isn't she so cute when she stamps her (dainty or non-dainty) little feet?Ilion
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
No, Mung I am not lying, and I just linked to a picture of a belt buckle with a swastika and the words "Gott mit uns" which means "God with us" and I don't expect they meant the Jewish God or Allah, although conceivably they meant Thor. Now I've had one too many accusations of lying from you Mung, so this is the last time I will respond to your posts for a while. I don't mind if people disagree with me, or point out errors, even if I disagree that they are errors. But I don't lie, as I have told you, and you have no reason to think otherwise. So we will take a break from our conversations. Peace LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, what evidence do you have to support your assertion that Hitler’s regime espoused Christianity? Or are you in fact, lying?Mung
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Let's not forget: The underlying moral hazard problem of evolutionary materialism still continues to this day. A good illustration is from Provine's 1998 Darwin Day address, at U Tenn:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .
Take that challenge, present it as "science" with all the prestige that this implies, put it into a cultural matrix that has begun to lose a sense of the moral worth and equality of people as made in God's image through apostasy, and then see what happens when you have might makes right factions playing power games. That, sirs, is the recipe for a lot of what went wrong in C20, and it is a warning to us in C21. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
social darwinist=eugenicist social darwinist~= darwinian Darwinian evolution ~=eugenics Please stop making the associations. social darwinist=eugenicist. Call it by its own ugly name.Elizabeth Liddle
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
F/N: Let's not forget the other major issue, which JDFL nailed in no 5 above long since:
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.
This has been happening over and over again [it happened with the AZ shooting early this year for instance], and it needs to be put under the harsh light of public exposure and complaint, so that those who are doing it will be sufficiently ashamed -- or will realise it no longer works and discredits them -- as to stop.kairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Ben H Thanks. I think we need to diagnose this cancer right, to get it rooted out. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
F/N: Let's go back to where we began this morning in 162 - 3, with a clear smoking gun statement statement from this mad- bad- man's own mouth (and since he knew what he did was atrocious, he is mad and bad, not just mad):
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.
Now, obviously this is not the only influence on his behaviour, but it is clearly an influence. As can be seen in detail in the above 163, he says in effect that he is racialist- social- darwinist, and claims this is the overwhelming majority crypto- opinion. So, what was so hotly resented when inferred from earlier clips [national darwinist esp] yesterday as one of the influences on him, is in effect a matter of proof beyond reasonable doubt now. I do not know if his claim of a crypto- opinion is near to truth but if even 5 - 10% are like this, this is serious. We know where this went already. No sane person wants to go back there. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Onlookers: Why is it that we are being forced to prove over and over what should long since be generally known and accepted -- albeit unpleasant -- documented fact? Something is wrong here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
PPS: the Nazi stamp was of course to add the swastika.kairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle, The belt logo went back to the Franco-Prussian war IIRC, just as the original Iron Cross went back to c. 1813. Both were traditional German military symbols, not specifically Nazi. But of course they have been forever tainted. The Nazi attitude to Christianity was already documented above. GEM of TKI PS: I think you would be well advised to read the same as just linked for Dr Bot. There is no question that Nazism was social darwinist (or -- per Descent of Man chs 5 - 7, that such went back to CD himself as an application and context of his theory), and that this is documented in AH's main book, long before he attained state power. Kindly see above, somethings directed to you yesterday.kairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Dr Bot: Kindly read here, in the dragon's own voice. It is time to come out of being in denial. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
EL@174 But the fact that the Nazis condemned Darwinism as false science and ordered Darwin's books burnt proves that Darwin was to blame because the Nazis were simply trying to hide their real motives!! ;)DrBot
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Eocene: Iron Cross! (Bonnggg . . . echoing empty head . . . ) How could I overlook that connexion! I was so used to the Maltese type cross that I forgot the appropriation and use by the Nazis (and subsequent use by neo-Nazis). Yet another rotting-fish connexion. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
http://tksanders.com/godmitus.jpgElizabeth Liddle
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Hitler’s regime espoused Christianity
Really? You can of course support this assertion with evidence?Mung
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply