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
kairosfocus I appreciate your profound insites of the mind of a madman. Don't let these darwinists tell you that you don't know what how such insane peopl think. Benben h
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
PS: Dr Bot, had you looked at 162 above you would have seen that the issue of explicit social darwinist influence on this man has been on the public record (including at UD) before I raised it.kairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
kf:
As one who is already on record how the above headline should be changed, I do not need to say more on that subject, save to again publicly ask that DLH do so.
Noted, with gratitude. I'd like to add my voice to the request.Elizabeth Liddle
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Mr MacNeill: As one who is already on record how the above headline should be changed, I do not need to say more on that subject, save to again publicly ask that DLH do so. However my remarks just above point to the significance of the moral hazard injected into science, education, thought, policy and culture in the late C19 by Evolutionary Materialism riding on the coat tails of Darwinist evolutionary theory. Across C20, in various guises, this was responsible for giving the ideological and worldviews foundation for democides and genocides going well past 100 millions, and for the horrors of the eugenics movement beyond that. This madman is evidence that this thing is still with us yet, just underground. Who to tell, with a cleverer lunatic, it may yet surface in the face of a charismatic politician presenting himself as saviour of the nation or a continent or a civilisation. That already happened. So, we have to address the IS-OUGHT gap, we have to face the implications of evolutionary materialism and its "scientific" cover. We have to make it crystal clear that ought is real and vital. As a part of that we are going to have to look back at some very painful chapters of the past, and then we will have to seek a reformation of education, institutional science and culture. This horror in Norway is a wake-up call, and we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by those who would prefer that we pay no attention to what happened with the man, and what happened with the response -- I heard some incredible statements by Norwegian pols on BBC this morning about their police performance -- and the media response. The fact is, for DAYS, I was picking up, drumbeat, the unfounded assertions that this was a right wing fundy, Christian wacko. A bit of serious due diligence work would have shown this is not so, and that the cluster of influences actually at work point in some very unwelcome directions. Similarly, there seems to be a willful determination in too many influential quarters to not look at the issue of IslamISM as a threat, and to in fact use this as a turnabout rhetorical occasion -- that is a meaning of kairos too -- to pound on those who have tried to warn against a real threat. It is too late to think that we can now go back to oh just a madman, too much has been turned on this incident already. So, we need to look very seriously at what is going on with our civilisation, and face some things we would rather not face. As at this point, "let us now look away . . . " comes across to me as ENABLING BEHAVIOUR. Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Allan MacNeil #166 "The alternatives . . .are pure political propaganda of the most morally reprehensible kind." Is not your accusation based on YOUR misscharacterization of the headline from a question to a statement the in itself a morally reprehensible act? Furthermore, you assert a question has the same moral reprehensibility as Hitlers 11 million murders, or Stalin's 20 million murders, or Mao's 60 million murders, Or the communists > 100 million murders conducted by acting on Darwin's evolution in the 20th century? What happened to YOUR moral compass?DLH
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
this is in a context where we already saw that he was taking steps to conceal his extremism ...
... by writing about it, apart from the bits about how he was inspired by Darwin, which were so cleverly concealed only YOU are able to uncover them. Sorry, but my explanatory filter is flashing DESIGN in big red letters. Allen is quite correct:
Ergo, the only morally responsible heading for this post is: “Norway shooter a narcissistic psychopath” ... and the other two alternatives ... are pure political propaganda of the most morally reprehensible kind.
It's a shame you lack the moral fibre to admit this.DrBot
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Of course this madman was influenced by many streams of thought, and in turn he has sought to influence all sorts of things, up to and including a clash of civilisations. However, he is a warning that to a significant extent social darwinism is not dead, it has only gone underground. One of the warnings we need to heed comes form some of the closing words of Keynes' General Theory:
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. [and obviously this is not just Hitler or Stalin and it is not just economists] I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
That should tell us some of the weight of moral responsibility that comes with scholarship. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Now CNN is reporting that both Anders Behring Breivik's attorney and his father are asserting that he was and is insane: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/26/norway.terror.attacks/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 Ergo, the only morally responsible heading for this post is: "Norway shooter a narcissistic psychopath" and the other two alternatives: "Norway shooter a Christian fundamentalist" and "Norway shooter a Darwinian terrorist" are pure political propaganda of the most morally reprehensible kind.Allen_MacNeill
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Dr BOT: I am sorry, you have just proved that you are unwilling to examine even an explicit confession of his sympathies and influences [NB: this is in a context where we already saw that he was taking steps to conceal his extremism], and face the implications thereof. That's saddening, but that is what you have now demonstrated in the above; beyond reasonable doubt. It is also telling. Please, think again. Good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
i.e disguised by burial deep in the document:
LOL - he certainly was declaring explicitly that his actions were inspired by the theory of evolution then wasn't he. I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself KF and the reasons why you are so desperate to hijack these horrific events in order to justify your own distorted and fanatical perspective on science and history. I really am quite disgusted by you, such behaviour has no place in civilised society.DrBot
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Smoking gun: The following clip gives a bit of the context for the second bullet point in 162 above, from p 1227, i.e disguised by burial deep in the document: ___________ >> So why is tribalism and our ethnic heritage so important? Despite what the Marxists would like to believe, our genetical heritage is the most important cultural marker as it is a visual proof that you represent a certain culture, certain traditions, a certain identity. How you look will in a blink of an eye tell people a thousand things about you, who your ancestors where, tells you a lot about your mentality, and your countries or regions achievements the last few years. These thousands of pieces of information is forwarded by the blink of an eye to another individual. If you however do not have any genetical affiliation, people will only be left with a lot of questions. Where are you from, are you Muslim, are you a tourist, what culture do you represent, are you an integrated individual, are you an assimilated individual, are you the new imported servant class or are you adopted? This is what most people ask themselves when they meet an individual. I would f example instantly know, from recognition, that another person is an undiluted Norwegian or not and most other people would as well. Preferentialism based on looks and ethnic origin is the rule for 80-90% of Europeans People who are familiar with “the game”; the socio-economic rat race where looks, culture and economy are the deciding factors know how the unwritten rules work. We say something, some politically correct BS like it’s the inside that counts, or that all ethnic groups are equal, but we don’t really mean it. The only reason lie publicly and even to our friends is because our countries are ruled by a Marxist entity and we are not allowed to say the truth. Social-darwinism was the norm before the 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist. >> ____________ Let's zero in to the key point:
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 going to be as close to an outright declaration as you are going to get from such a clever man in this age. It is plainly fair comment to conclude on this, that he is indeed social darwinist -- and note his earlier remarks that "science" must take priority over scriptures [which speak to the fundamental equality of people as being made in God's image] -- and holds that 80 - 90% of the population secretly agrees with him but conceals out of fear of the power elites. This underscores the cogency of my earlier inference of social darwinist influence, and that is to be viewed in the context that this was seen prior to about 1950 - 70 as an application of the results of "science," indeed as applied science. Some heated remarks and assertions of immoral equivalency above need to be withdrawn. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
F/N 2: While this is bound to make blood boil, we should note what Mrs O'Leary has now pointed to at CEH in a follow-up post, in the context that we must realise that this man has been concealing his root motives to evade police attention. It is not just number of references to particular words, but the structure of his thought that counts: ____________ >> Support for Darwinian ideas can be seen in several places in his manifesto:
* While arguing against the feminist destruction of marriage, he said, approvingly, “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.” * While lambasting political correctness, he spoke approvingly of social Darwinism: “Social-darwinism was the norm before the [sic] 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist.” * Supporting segregation in Africa, he said, “Nevertheless, people who are very short sighted will consider these policies quite cynical or darwinistic. However, long term, it is the most humanistic and responsible approach.” * The first thing he said when describing his vision of a perfect Europe was: “‘Logic’ and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies.”
As for his family background, it is clear neither of his parents, step-parents or siblings were Bible-believing Christians, and in his lengthy description of his personal life and beliefs, Biblical Christianity appeared to be the farthest thing from his mind. His “conservatism” was more about whether he allied with skinhead neo-Nazi hip-hop vs. leftist heavy-metal music. His personal summary of his political views is: “Cultural conservative, revolutionary conservative, Vienna school of thought, economically liberal.” . . . >> _____________ Revealing.kairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
Footnotes: 1: Think strategically in analysing this demonically ruthless fellow. He long planned something, and the mass killing -- with a 6 ton bomb as a distraction! -- was plainly designed to get headlines and trigger discussions that would not otherwise happen. 2: Worked to the extent of making a lot of people wade through a 1500 pp document by an otherwise unknown person. So, he is sending a message and making a call to form up/join his new Knights Templar -- notice his resort to Latin. (Maybe, English, in his mind, is the new Latin -- save it is far more widely spoken?) 3: It is likely that he has some sort of secret network he contacted offline, though perhaps not actual confederates in the attack -- past mass shootings show that his range of casualties is possible for one accurate, fast shooter. It is normal for people to perceive more than one person in such circumstances. Until firm evidence turns up, hold this part with a grain of salt. 4: He is responding to a real enough problem, the IslamIST -- note my shift and specific emphasis, I am talking about maybe 10% of the Muslim world, per a Saudi prince's estimate -- agenda. (Have a look at the 1982 world plan recovered by Swiss Financial police here, and the civilisation- jihad- settlement strategy recovered in the HLF trials here [cf esp pp. 21 ff, English begins p 15]. There was also a map and discussion of a 100 yr world conquest programme on the net. There is a considerable body of evidence of a global IslamIST strategy to bring the world under Allah, his prophet, his warriors and his law; a strategy that is being actually pushed on the ground. The 1991 document is particularly revealing of how it works. Even paranoids have enemies.) 5: He sees himself as breaking through media censorship by any means necessary -- notice,t he ruthless, factionalist amorality, similar to what Plato warned against -- and setting up the resistance movement of the native peoples, and probably has taken on board the point that it was the Christians who were the nucleus of survival and recovery in the post Roman world of collapse in Europe. 6: So, he sets out to find a way to remake Christianity and Christendom in his image, note his aim as already clipped at 25 ff above (cf. single post here):
“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.” . . . . 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.” . . .
7: His thought is pretty clearly structurally fascist, in effect looking for the ruthless, messianic figure to lead the titanic struggle against the existential threat, in light of a key point of common identity and unity that is in the end ethnic: not just nationality but culture.
(Sidebar: I hold that such out of control political messianism is inherently a species of anti-Christian idolatry. Caesar is God's servant to do you good and to guard the civil peace of justice, with reasonable powers of taxation as a means to those ends per the consensus of the governed; he is not properly a saviour- figure, and should he want to become that, he has become a counterfeit saviour. I firmly believe in constitutional democracy, and suspect that a constitutional monarchy may be the most long term stable form of government.)
8: Oddly, Fascism --as its kissing cousin Nazism reveals in its name: National SOCIALISM -- is actually a movement of the left, i.e. it is statist-collective in focus [fasces are a bundle of twigs gaining strength from unity and subjugation to one will . . . ], not individualist in focus. But in a world where the left is dominant, fascism is relatively right.
(Sidebar, 2: Truly right wing thought in former days was monarchist, then later on libertarian-individualist ranging over into anarchist. US style "Conservatives" are more or less a bit right of centre, and libertarians like many in the tea party are a bit to the right of that. The right has changed since the death of monarchy, and since the era of the rise of the social welfare state.)
9: So, plainly, we should not allow this horrible incident to cloud our judgement on the global challenge of IslamISM and the need for a measured, careful, respectful but firm response. (I suspect this man expected to trigger a clash between the new media space and the traditional, secular-left dominated mainstream media. He has succeeded in that as this very blog shows.) 10: At the same time, the longstanding polarisation in our civilisation is heated up through this incident, and we must not forget the ease with which initial speculation on Islamist attacks morphed into the all too common plotline -- oops, this is an echo of the plotline for an early episode for a BBC series Bonekickers [IIRC] that I unsuccessfully complained of to BBC trust (they were simply not listening, and were frankly smug in their stance that hey had a right to smear by fiction . . . ) -- on yet another murderous right-wing fundy theocratic Christofascist nut. 11: Maybe, we now have another reason for that London location! 12: In this context, let us be careful to observe the subtle influence of the devaluation of human life, respect for rights, respect for liberty, etc etc, that can all be significantly traced to the subtle cultural effects of the rise of evolutionary materialism as a "scientific" view over the past 150 years. (Notice this man's references to "science" and the "scientific," not just directly to Darwin and to words re-interpreted in that context. Don't forget that Marx et al spoke of "scientific" socialism.) 13: In that context, we had better be aware of the inescapable IS-OUGHT gap at the heart of such evolutionary materialist thought, and we had better face it frankly and do something about it; 14: especially when that feeds into the notion of one race, one ethnicity -- here, blending genes with memes in a cultural matrix -- being superior, and winning a contest for survival of "favoured races." _______ A real mess . . . and you will understand my pessimism about our civilisation. (If you want to know my bet: make sure your kids and grandkids learn Chinese. [And, ironically, this is also Prester John II: Christianisation is a strong trend in China, similar to the Roman Empire across C2 - 3.]) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
Just for any future references on Scandinavian News in English, Folks here on either side may want to bookmark this link. http://www.thelocal.se/ What you'll find if you do a search in the paper's archive on any of these right or left wing extremist groups is that there are countless screwball organizations here in Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden, Dänemark and Finland. Both sides , Atheistic Left and Christian Right absolutely hate each others guts and regularly duke it out in protests and gangland style fighting. I was over in So-Cal this past June and told friends and family that the News over in the USA just doesn't report on alot of the daily chaos that happens over here in Europe. There are constant demonstrations and riots in one form or another. This European Union Socialist Utopia is anything but some type of paradises. Almost every weekend there is some sort of Socialist protest in town squares over here and it doesn't matter if their ideology is leftwing atheistic communistic or rightwing Christian Nazis , the point is there are many and not so united because both extremist sides fight even among themselves. Here is the German English News by the same news organization. Interestingly they also have forum comments at the end of each article and the same political ideological bickering and fingerpointing that is prevalent here exists there. http://www.thelocal.de Okay everyone, have fun. I believe this thread has worn out it's discussion with neither side admitting nothing. Why is that not suprising ???Eocene
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
The great fault here is always the attempts to connect evil deeds to common opinions and so discredit those opinions. its a conviction everywhere that murderers are not motivated by evil designs but by the opinions claimed to be behind their intents and then actions. This man was evil by any standard of mankind. He murdered anybody in his way. No targets here. it does not come from his opinions which are probably common. I am a "fundamentalist" Christian. I am opposed to feminist attacks against marriage and opposed to immigration, now and past, and very opposed to multi culturalism. A longer list still. To tell me that my beliefs are in any way responsible for such evil is to be a great attack of itself of innocent people acting out of integrity and intelligence yet with contrary views to prevailing decisions. If he acted out of Christian or darwinian impulses it was still just evil intentions at work here. I'm sure he was deranged and then evil and it didn't matter about his beliefs in common things. that was not what made him deranged or evil. Hold the line on any absurd accusation of connecting evil deeds to opinions. No connection is possible.Robert Byers
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
I have a total of four blogs. The oldest is The Evolution List: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/ currently #181 among all science blogs netwide. I also maintain a blog for my evolution course at Cornell: http://evolution.freehostia.com/ which is updated every summer (i.e. when the course is in session). I sometimes mirror posts at The Evolution List and the course website, especially if the posts touch on material being discussed in class. I am also very slowly filling in my blog on evolutionary psychology: http://evolpsychology.blogspot.com/ mostly by reworking the chapters of my audio textbook on the same subject. Finally, there is a "historical artifact" blog on evolution and design: http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/ which is now closed to comments, and which I maintain as a record of the notorious evolution/ID seminar course I offered at Cornell in the summer of 2006. As for the quotation about evolution from a Cornell website, all instructors at Cornell have complete freedom to define the subject matter of their courses. Therefore it should come as no surprise that I disagree with some of the definition you quoted, for the reasons I discussed in my earlier comment. And yes, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the real focus of the dispute between evolutionary biologists and supporters of ID is not natural selection per se, but rather on the source of the variations which are either eliminated or preserved in the demographic process we refer to when we use the term "natural selection". The "engines of variation" produce the various phenotypes that are either preserved or eliminated, and therefore also determine both the tempo and scope of evolutionary change. If an ID supporter can also assert that evolution (i.e. what Darwin called "descent with modification") has occurred (as Michael Behe, William Dembski, and many of the moderators and regular commentators at this website have asserted), then the real dispute is not over evolution per se, nor is it over all four of the conditions/prerequisites of natural selection (i.e. variety, heredity, fecundity, and demography), it is mostly about the source of the first of these prerequisites. IDers assert "you can't get here from there" and EBers assert "yes you can", and then the fur starts to fly...Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
Allen, interesting post at your blog. Is this a new host or do you maintain more than one blog?
...this would require that natural selection be a process in and of itself, rather than the outcome of the four processes listed above.
Assuming natural selection is not itself a process, how have you not just relocated the problem of teleology to four processes rather than one process? IOW, have you really got rid of it?Mung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
Allen, thank you for your response. My comment was, of course, intended as humor. Unfortunately it came at your expense for which I apologize. I hope you realize that the material I quoted did in fact come from the Cornell web site.Mung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
"This is a non-sequitor. You are using an incredibly fallacious statistical survey. You have to actually read the pages and use your mind ..." Of course. But then, some persons here will "ague" something like, "Dennett *does not* say that consciousness is an illusion or that minds do not really exist."Ilion
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
In comment #138 Mung asked:
"Allen, is that what you teach your biology students?"
No. This is what I teach the students in my evolution course: http://evolution.freehostia.com/ Unfortunately, my textbook is not yet completely uploaded in .pdf form. It will be by the beginning of the fall semester. It will also be available starting September 15th as a series of audio CDs from The Modern Scholar (like The Teaching Company, only better). If anyone reading this would like to access the course packet, the password is "evolutioncp" without the quotation marks. As for the assertion that "evolution is a fact", I spend almost the entire third class in the course refuting this assertion. The theory of evolution, like all scientific theories (indeed, like virtually all concepts developed by humans) is an inference, not a fact. One can observe a dropped rock fall to the ground. This observation constitutes a fact. One can observe many rocks falling to the ground, measure the acceleration with which they do so, and then formulate a mathematical equation that precisely describes such movement. This is an inference. Ergo, both evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory are both inferences, not facts. If you are interested in how one goes from "facts" to "inferences", you can go here: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/tidac-identity-analogy-and-logical.html As for my introductory biology/physiology summer course, we only have time in six weeks to cover scientific methods, biochemistry, cell biology, animal physiology, neurobiology, molecular genetics, and Mendelian genetics. Evolution gets mentioned occasionally, but usually isn't covered in "skin-in" physiology courses.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
the word philosophy* You can do a search of Capital Volume 1 for the words "communism" or "socialism" and find that both words combined only occur five or six times. Does it, therefore, not reflect a key influence?Phaedros
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
See 10:30 PM update to main post briefly examining Breivik's manifesto. Further WND articles: Norway's terrorist: Not alone after all? International effort widens net in search of possible suspects Norway shooter considered WMD, jihadi alliance 'We want control of our own countries in Western Europe' DLH
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
"An average of one mention per 300 pages does not reflect a key influence." This is a non-sequitor. You are using an incredibly fallacious statistical survey. You have to actually read the pages and use your mind in order to interpret his actualy words and thoughts to determine. You can't just sit there and do a search for how many times a single word occurs and then determine it's hardly about that. You might do a search for how many times the philosophy occurs in some philosophical paper or tract, find it hardly occurs, and then conclude that it's "hardly" about philosophy. That, as can plainly be seen, is ludicrous.Phaedros
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
People like this guy and that insane kid from Arizona are just posesed imop. If you search their pasts deeply enough you will find the origin of their demons and possibly the places where they conceeded their wills to them. It does not matter wether one thinks they are a follower of Christ. The world is full of people like Judas, who sell out their faith for small things that are coveted.Frost122585
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
KF, Onlookers and those who's blood is superficially boiling :) "F/N 2: And in this context the title page begins to smell very much like rotten fish." Yes, exactly! "1: 1982 — the Muslim Brotherhood world subjugation plan, so 2083 is 101 years beyond this." You would know more about this than I. "2: 2083 is also 400 years past the lifting of the last siege of Vienna by the Turks, Sept 12 1683; led by Jan Sobieski, king of Poland." Interesting. "3: Maltese cross, not Latin cross, tied to Knights Templar — Dan Brownish link? But in any case, a military monastic order." Wasn't it also a symbol used by the Nazis? One of the witnesses stated that he was "dressed like a Nazi" with certain insignias. "4: Cross is of course going to be a red flag to those expecting Right Wing theocratic Christian nutcase." Of course it is. If he was found eating bread when they arrived to nab him they would find some way of tying the bread to Christianity, since Jesus ate bread. Hey, whatever works. "5: Why the anglicised name and location in London? Why write in English? Apart from international language, he probably sees the anglophone world as the strength base of his neo-warped christendom." Yes. At the very end of the "manifesto" he admonishes "patriots" from other nations including Spain, France and Germany to produce translations of it. I suspect that for him English would be more familiar to a Spaniard than Norwegian. He intends this to be an international movement. Also, at the beginning, he addresses his manifesto to all people in Europe, and seems to intend this as a uniquely European struggle, but interestingly enough he also addresses it to "my friends in the US." "6: Now let’s see where he buries the redefinition of Christianity: p. 1361, in his QA section." He clearly has no understanding of the fundamental teachings of Christianity. "7: BTW, That puts a very different colour on pushing the fundament remark late too, p. 1386. He is HIDING things." I think he's hiding that he's not really interested in politics; he just wants to kill people. He set off the bomb as a diversion because he knew he would have more time to kill more people on the island if he kept the Norwegian police busy in Oslo. This guy calculated everything. He also recorded every detail of his bomb manufacturing enterprise, including his budget, how he came across the farm that he purchased, where he rented the car from, how he removed the rental car stickers from the vehicle so he could pass the car off as his own when meeting with the owners of the farm. He didn't really mention what his "mission" was, and he didn't even mention shooting people (as far as I read), and the fact that he published this all before the massacre on the island further demonstrates that the bomb was a diversion. The "manifesto" too was part of that diversion. I think he knew that the bomb would not be as effective as point blank shooting, because at this time of year in Oslo, most government officials are on vacation. Also, he was running out of money and chose to carry out his "mission" sooner than later (he was prepared to do it at any time of his choosing, as he was quite good at considering potential problems), so his last couple of weeks consisted of a frantic attempt to make his bombs operational by mid July. He mentions several other cell units (8b and 8c), but I think that's all a front too. I think he acted alone. What is appalling is that he recorded about visitors who came to the farm while he was in the middle of bomb manufacturing, and none of these people seemed to notice what was afoot, not even the daughter of the owner of the property, who walked right into the building where the task took place in order to collect some belongings. Had she arrived when she initially intended - which was several days before, he wouldn't have had time to hide anything; since her intent was to be there in 1/2 hour. His attitude towards the potential of being caught prior to the "mission" was to not get paranoid about it. If it happens, it happens - another calculation. He wouldn't have killed anyone in that manner. This was a man of some interesting moral compromises, which seem to place his intent in question. For example, he's an avid fan of TV shows such as "True Blood," which clearly present a cultural view of multiculturalism, that is contrary to his own. It doesn't make any sense to me that he's willing to kill for his beliefs, but he doesn't object to being offended by a TV show. Simply doesn't add up. Another thing that doesn't add up is how anyone in their right mind (well of course he wasn't in his "right mind") could think that a political movement could gain ground from such an act. The act and the political/social POV don't exactly add up, except for the one thing that lends support, and that one thing requires belief - Darwin-based views on the value of human life. He's just a deranged (but very intelligent and calculated) mass murderer. I wouldn't even go so far as to call him a terrorist. He wanted to get caught apparently; possibly because he couldn't stomach the thought of living the rest of his life as a fugitive. So he even calculated the act of getting caught. This man relished the thought of committing a (for him exhillerating) act of mass mayhem, and so he planned it and carried it out, understanding full well and planning on the consequences. Politics had nothing to do with it. He used politics and religion as a convenient ploy and excuse. So apparently something drove him to it other than religion. I wouldn't say that Darwinism drives people to do such acts, but it certainly builds the groundwork for deranged yet strangely logical and calculating individuals to excuse them; namely - "I may get arrested and spend the rest of my life in jail, but that will be the end of it." There will be no final judgment - and in Norway there isn't even a death penalty. If with Darwinism or even atheism one can design their own meaning to their lives, such logic must also be applied to this deranged and evil killer. He found the meaning to his life and lived it out - there's nothing in Darwinism or atheism to say that he can't - he derived his worldview from a European culture that has largely abandoned long held Christian morality for a secular ethic based in what they call "science" but really isn't. If this makes your blood boil, please don't be angry at me for saying so, for you have no moral basis from which to disagree.CannuckianYankee
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
tgpeeler:
I’m curious. Just to be clear, a human is more important than a fish? Right? How about an ape? Or a whale? A reptile? A plant? Bacteria? Where and how do you draw the line? On what basis?
Well, as you probably realise, I don’t subscribe to the Chain of Being stuff anyway. - Elizabeth Liddle
Mung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
"Chief of Norway’s intelligence police, PST, Janne Kristiansen says that Anders Behring Breivik was not extreme in his views on the internet. She would rather call him a moderate." This is also apparent from some of his "manifesto." He urges his readers to be as friendly as possible to neighbors, giving them bites to eat when they visit, and he felt bad about not being able to invite his prodding family over to his farm (not wanting to be found out before his "mission" was accomplished), stating that it's important when planning a "mission" to maintain ties with one's social group. In other words, he was a master of "blending in," and not drawing attention to himself. That's how he was able to plan such a crime for 10 years and not get caught, even while manufacturing bombs on a rental property on which at times he received visitors, including local police. So he appeared as a regular guy next door rather than a radical. Even on-line he avoided the more radical websites and preferred a blog by the anonymous "Fyordman," who, while somewhat racist, is not exactly a neo-nazi. Also, his views on God can be somewhat deciphered from one of his daily notes written from the farm several days before the attack, where he prayed to God (after not doing so for a very long time), demanding that God take the side of the European "Patriots" and help them in their struggle. So his "religion" (if you can call it that) is one not of submission to a higher power, but an attempt to manipulate God to do his own bidding. No wonder he didn't pray much.CannuckianYankee
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
F/N 2: And in this context the title page begins to smell very much like rotten fish. 1: 1982 -- the Muslim Brotherhood world subjugation plan, so 2083 is 101 years beyond this. 2: 2083 is also 400 years past the lifting of the last siege of Vienna by the Turks, Sept 12 1683; led by Jan Sobieski, king of Poland. 3: Maltese cross, not Latin cross, tied to Knights Templar -- Dan Brownish link? But in any case, a military monastic order. 4: Cross is of course going to be a red flag to those expecting Right Wing theocratic Christian nutcase. 5: Why the anglicised name and location in London? Why write in English? Apart from international language, he probably sees the anglophone world as the strength base of his neo-warped christendom. 6: Now let's see where he buries the redefinition of Christianity: p. 1361, in his QA section. 7: BTW, That puts a very different colour on pushing the fundament remark late too, p. 1386. He is HIDING things. Okay GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
F/N: Why attack the leftie "allies" as he sees them, instead of say a Mosque? I suspect he thinks this is attacking what makes euro culture weak in the face of the Islamist tidal wave. Then, the predictable reaction - notice how it is echoed above -- against "christians" will help trigger the polarisation and militancy he wants to replace conventional Christian ethics. Sick.kairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
UPDATE: document.no observes: ____________ >> Hans Rustad 25.07.2011 kl. 23.41 Chief of Norway’s intelligence police, PST, Janne Kristiansen says that Anders Behring Breivik was not extreme in his views on the internet. She would rather call him a moderate. Her statement is an embarrasment for the media who since Friday has made a big fuzz about Behring Breivik’s writings on the net, amongst others this website. Her dismissal of his opinions as almost moderate suggests that the media employs guilt by association by deliberate design. In an interview with the newspaper VG, Kristiansen reveals that they had an eye on Breivik after he was on a list of people bying sensitive chemicals from Poland. But his name was put on hold, there was no reason to put him under surveillance: his behaviour on the net did not give reason for concern.
- He may have had a few breaches of traffic rules on his record. But he has deliberately arranged his life so as not to draw the attention of the police. He has also deliberately desisted from violent exhortations on the net. He has more or less been a moderate, and has neither been part of any extremist network. He had registered weapon, and was member of a pistol club, Kristiansen enumerates to VG. The most surprising is that he has managed to live like this for such a long time. Everything he did, he had a legitimate reason for. It had raised an alarm if I had bought a few tons of fertilizer, but not if a farmer does, she adds. >>
____________ Take it for what it's worth. Let's infer . . . 1: This monster was one smart, cool cookie. He PLANNED this, for years. 2: Imagine, buying 6 tons of Ammonium Nitrate is not going to trigger attention, as this is a farmer. And of course the fuel oil is for the farm machines. If ANFO is about as dense as stone, we are looking at maybe 2+ cu m of stuff, could fit in the back of a pickup truck. 3: And if his online writings were deliberately designed not to draw attention, then it becomes doubly important to look at subtle clues, such as how he manipulated the term "christian" and how he redefined "logic," rationalism, culture etc. 4: After all it is evident that his design was to become a mass murderer out of the blue to highlight the agenda he proposed. 5: Demonically mad, but that is not inconsistent with being very, very smart. 6: And, I bet he counted on the secularised media misreading him and casting blame on Christians, to trigger a further polarisation in the civilisation. 7: I suspect he thought the polarisation would make for a more militant new cultural identity, a new, cultural christendom movement -- to counterbalance Islamism and its secularist left fellow travellers -- that redefines Christian symbols and heritage into what he wanted. 8: And of course that would set up the next level of war of civilisations and cultures and nations he wanted. (In his twisted mind he is sparking the resistance movement.) 9: Lost in there, the core Christian ethical commitment highlighted in 25 on above. 10: He clearly think the euro culture and people will win the national darwinist struggle, this time around too. (Recall Darwin in his 1881 letter on how the turks got beat, and the social/racial darwinist spin that lurks in that letter.) Sick. Demonically sick. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 8

Leave a Reply