Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist? | Uncommon Descent
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
See followup at: Was Andres Breivik "not insane"?DLH
April 10, 2012
April
04
Apr
10
10
2012
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Norway's police perspective in 2012: Norway: Islamists, not far-right, main threat By REUTERS 01/17/2012 11:59
Despite Breivik attacks, police security chief says home-grown Islamic extremism poses higher threat than right-wing extremists. OSLO - Radical Islam remains the most serious threat faced by Norway despite the attacks by an Islamophobe extremist who killed 77 people last summer, the chief of the security police said on Tuesday. Janne Kristiansen, head of Norway's Police Security Service, said her agency would focus on broad-based dangers from home-grown Islamic extremism even though threats against public officials have risen since the July attacks, which targeted Norway's left wing.. . . "The number of violent right-wing extremists is still low," she said. She added that a rising tide of hate-filled debate on Internet sites brought "a significant source of uncertainty" to her overall threat assessment.
DLH
January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Norway killer Breivik is 'not psychotic', say experts 4 January 2012
The conclusion that Breivik was insane angered many people in Norway . . . Experts monitoring the Norwegian killer, Anders Behring Breivik, say they believe he is not psychotic, contradicting court-appointed psychiatrists. . . . Breivik's killings on 22 July were the worst act of violence Norway has seen since World War II, and have had a profound impact there.
DLH
January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Darwin himself could evidently see the 'writing on the wall' re Social Darwinism, desperately fearing it's manifestation, judging from the immense gratitude he expressed towards a friend of his for his observations about the African soldiers he knew. I believe he was one of their officers. This friend confirmed to Darwin, I believe in a letter, his own assesssment of the African slaves he had seen in Brazil, as being highly intelligent and possessing superb physiques - notably, in comparison with their Brazilian 'owners'. For these latter he felt a deep loathing and seemingly fathomless contempt, on account of their arrogant cruelty and indeed stupidity in relation to their African slaves.Axel
January 1, 2012
January
01
Jan
1
01
2012
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Sept. 20, 2011. Per kirosfocus's requests for “something more appropriate,” I changed the title to “Was Norway Shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?” and added a comment DLH
September 20, 2011
September
09
Sep
20
20
2011
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Did Anders Behring Breivik obey Jesus’ command?
Breivik was supposed to bring them before Christ so that they can be judged and executed, not carry out the execution himself.paragwinn
September 1, 2011
September
09
Sep
1
01
2011
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Breivik was supposed to bring them before Christ so that they can be judged and executed, not carry out the execution himself.
paragwinn
September 1, 2011
September
09
Sep
1
01
2011
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Chirp, chirp . . . [PS: BA you'll love this one!]kairosfocus
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
F/N: Looks like we need to heed Keynes' warning again, from the closing off of his 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.
We have some serious re-thinking to do. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 28, 2011
July
07
Jul
28
28
2011
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
More from John West. Clipping: _____________ >> Breivik's Social Darwinism rears its ugly head yet again in his discussions of global ecology and overpopulation. He argues that "radical policies will have to be implemented" to reduce the human population by more than half, or 3.8 billion people. (p. 1202) He writes that if "second and third world countries" cannot curb their production of human offspring, "nature will correct their suicidal tendencies as they are unable to feed their populations." (p. 1202) He further argues that Western countries should not interfere in this natural process, even if it results in mass starvation. "If starvation threatens the countries who have failed to follow our [population control] guidelines we should not support them by backing their corrupt leaders or send any form of aid." (p. 1202) Indeed, "[f]ood aid to 3rd world countries must stop immediately as it is the primary cause of overpopulation." (p. 1203) Perhaps the most blatant example of Breivik's Social Darwinism is his endorsement of "reprogenetics," a form of "positive" eugenics to allow human beings to take control of their evolution and produce better humans through genetic engineering. According to Breivik, "[t]he never-ending collective pursuit for scientific evolution and perfection should become the benchmark and essence of our existence." (p. 1199) He explains further:
The Nazis destroyed the reputation of "eugenics" by combining it to scientific racism and mass extermination. But seeking biological perfection is still a logical concept and I don't see why we should abandon it. We just have to make sure that we offer it as a voluntary option to everyone or at least start by legalising it (promotional voluntary reprogenetics or private reprogenetics). We should legalise reproductive technologies that will allow parents to create off spring with biological improvement (reprogenetics). This must be a non-coercive form of biological improvement which will be predominantly motivated by individual competitiveness and the desire to create the best opportunities for children. (p. 1200)
Breivik advocates "[t]he commercialisation and state/media encouragement of reprogenetics favoring the Nordic genotype" and "[t]he usage of large scale surrogacy facilities as a secondary reproduction option for countries to compensate for non-sustainable fertility rates. The donors of eggs and sperm will then exclusively carry the Nordic genotypes." (p. 1192) Breivik is clearly a madman and/or a moral monster, and his Social Darwinism did not "cause" his murderous rampage. Nor am I trying to suggest that modern Darwinists are somehow responsible for his heinous acts. Of course they aren't. But Breivik's call for a new eugenics--as opposed to his murders--is another matter. The most disturbing thing about Breivik's eugenics proposals is that they are not simply inspired by his own private demons. Instead, they largely spring from "mainstream" Darwinists, past and present. The part that comes from the past is Breivik's obsession about the preservation of the "Nordic" race, which he believes features "rare characteristics that have been acquired through an evolutionary process which has taken more than 1 million years." (p. 1158) Breivik claims that new cultural attitudes toward "race-mixing" are leading people of Nordic ancestry to act unnaturally and undo what a million years of evolution has produced. Here Breivik is echoing the concerns of leading Darwinian eugenists from the early twentieth century like Madison Grant, who is cited by name in Breivik's manifesto. (pp. 1152-1153) . . . . However, Breivik does not simply draw on Darwinian thinkers from years gone by. His proposal for "reprogenetics" comes from a mainstream evolutionary biologist currently on the faculty of one of America's most prestigious Ivy League institutions. The biologist's name is Lee Silver. He is a Professor at Princeton and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Silver is the scientist who coined the term "reprogenetics," and his 1997 book Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family features prominently in Breivik's lengthy manifesto in a passage that appears to have been cut and pasted from Wikipedia:
Reprogenetics is a term referring to the merging of reproductive and genetic technologies expected to happen in the near future as techniques like germinal choice technology become more available and more powerful. The term was coined by Lee M. Silver, a professor of molecular biology at Princeton University, in his 1997 book Remaking Eden. remakingeden.001.jpg In Silver's formulation, reprogenetics will involve advances in a number of technologies not yet achieved, but not inherently impossible. Among these are improvements in interpreting the effects of different expressions of DNA, the ability to harvest large numbers of embryos from females, and a far higher rate of reinsertion of embryos into host mothers. The end result, according to Silver, is that those parents who can afford it will be able to pick out the genetic characteristics of their own children, which Silver says will trigger a number of social changes in the decades after its implementation. Possible early applications, however, might be closer to eliminating disease genes passed on to children. According to Silver, the main differences between reprogenetics and eugenics, the "science" of improving the gene pool which in the first half of the 20th century became infamous for the brutal policies it inspired, is that most eugenics programs were compulsory programs imposed upon citizens by governments trying to enact an ultimate goal. Reprogenetics, by contrast, would be pursued by individual parents, who would be trying to improve their children with the same motivations that compel them to purchase expensive courses in preparation for standardised testing (e.g. the SAT).
Unlike Breivik, Silver does not advocate using genetic engineering to preserve the "Nordic" race. But he does argue that "reprogenetics" will allow human beings to take control of their evolution and evolve themselves into higher beings . . . >> _____________ In other words, there was more than enough information there to show the real roots of thought at work. Looks like the eugenics weed is trying to shoot up again, we have some serious rooting out to do. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 28, 2011
July
07
Jul
28
28
2011
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
F/N: John West drops the hammer on Breivik and the secularist spinmeisters who tried to turn this incident into a smear of Bible-believing Christians, here. (HT: UD News.) Money quote: ____________ >> To be sure, Breivik identifies himself as "100% Christian" in his manifesto (p. 1403), and he certainly talks incessantly about defending "Christian" civilization. But he also makes clear that his Christianity is a simply pose adopted for political reasons. Answering why he chose to align himself with a group supposedly espousing "Christian values," he states: "My choice was based purely [on] pragmatism." (p. 1380) He goes on to explain that "Christianity" has far more "mass appeal" than nationalism, white supremacy, or a revival of paganism, and so it is a more effective "banner" under which to build his movement. (p. 1381) In sum, Breivik views religion like Machiavelli viewed religion--as a political tool. It's worth noting that Machiavelli's The Prince is listed by Breivik as one of his favorite books. (p. 1407) As for his own religious beliefs and practices, Breivik frankly admits: "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie. I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment." (p. 1344, emphasis added) Indeed, Breivik acknowledges that he used to believe that "Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic." He continues: "Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f[or] example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well." (p. 1344, emphasis added) In other words, at best he views his embrace of religion as a psychological crutch to give him strength for his horrific activities. Although he adds that he has not yet actually prayed to God for strength, he expects that he may do so when he goes on his murderous rampage: "If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out... If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past." (p. 1345) Note the "if" in his statement about whether God exists. Breivik himself doesn't even appear to believe in God. He frequently identifies himself as a "cultural Christian," a term which he defines at one point as the same thing as a "Christian atheist." (p. 1360) Unsurprisingly, Breivik's idea of "cultural Christianity" has little to do with Christianity as most people would understand that term. For example, Breivik makes clear that to join his movement for cultural Christianity "[i]t is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus." (p. 1361) Indeed, Breivik would like to expand "Christianity" to include those who worship the Norse pagan god Odin. Breivik calls for the Christian church to be "re-create[d]... as a nationalistic Church which will tolerate and allow (to a very large degree) native cultures/heritage/thought systems such as Odinism." (p. 1361) And despite using the adjective "cultural," Breivik's "cultural Christianity" doesn't leave much room for Christians to actually influence society apart from social rituals. Indeed, Breivik emphasizes that he wants a secular European state where "[t]he Church and church leaders will not be allowed to influence non-cultural political matters in any way. This includes science, research and development and all non-cultural areas which will benefit Europe in the future. This will also include all areas relating to procreation/birth/fertility policies and related issues of scientific importance (reprogenetics)." (p. 1137, [my] emphasis added) As can be seen, Breivik harbors a special concern that Christians not be able to influence issues related to science and pubic policy "in any way." Why? Because he sees biological science--not traditional religion--as the ultimate savior of society. In his view, advances in biology will makes possible a vigorous new form of Social Darwinism that will save the Nordic race through positive eugenics. >> _____________ The more we probe, the more we see the real danger: the social darwinism that wreaked so much havoc in the first half of the C20 has not died out, it has gone underground. We need to expose its roots, all the way back to Galton and Darwin, and we need to frankly address the associated moral hazards in Darwinism and wider Evolutionary Materialism. Only when we again solidly ground moral principles in the foundations of our civilisation and its generally accepted as credible or reasonable worldviews, can we be sure that the problem has been solved. Evolutionary materialism is the root problem, and its habit of hiding in lab coats must be exposed. Over to Will Hawthorne for more. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 28, 2011
July
07
Jul
28
28
2011
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
Mung @ 219: "... And then she musters and posts what evidence she can that Hitler espoused Christianity." Exactly. Previous to that, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt, putting it down to a (very) poor choice of words chosen as part of a point made for rhetorical effect.Ilion
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
FG: Pardon, it matters a great deal what Hitler did to the Christian faith, at least if you care concerning truth and fairness. For, the underlying agenda out there is to smear Christians as Nazis, terrorists and the like, as we saw int his case -- again. And it matters because his tactics are tactics that have worked, and have been destructive. Now, Hitler was indeed popular in Germany, first because across the 1920's everybody else discredited themselves -- especially after the 1923 hyperinflation wiped out the savings and stability of the middle classes. the reads were a known threat and Hitler looked like a saviour. Then, after he got power in a backroom deal in 1933, someone burned down the parliament. The people were manipulated to think it was a conspiracy of the far left. The scared populace and parliament were tricked into giving Hitler an enabling act for seven years in the face of the crisis. Then Hindenberg died, then the next manufactured crisis was the claimed coup by the SA, and by the time that was over extrajudicial killings had been accepted and he Gestapo and SS were in control. The media were singing off the same hymn sheet, and the rest of the world was in economic crisis while Germany was beginning to prosper. remember, this was before the era in which the population would seriously believe that hey were being systematically and colossally lied to by their government. Our government are good men, they would not lie to us! maybe those wicked Englishmen like that criminal Churchill, but not OUR government. And the radio and newspapers are by decent upstanding people, they would not lie to us. And look, the newsreels at the theatres would not lie to us too. (Go look up the impact of the War of the Worlds theatre broadcast in the USA.) Only a few protests got out by "traitors" like the signatories to the Barmen Declaration. Meanwhile Hitler was breaking out of the perceived oppressions and injustices of the Versailles Treaty. then, the Czechs were oppressing our fellow Germans across the Border, and the Austrian mess needed to be settled, all successfully. Then, the Poles attacked Germany [yup, they had the dead bodies in Polish uniform to prove it -- courtesy your friendly local concentration camp of course], and the armies were on standby just in case . . . Then that ever so perfidious Albion and their side-kicks the french were at Germany's throat again. But our genius beat them, even over the achievements of the Kaiser's army. In six weeks. England was hemmed in and battered by the Luftwaffe, no threat to us. Then Russia tried to attack. But we were ready and beat them back, and were going to get rid of that menace to the East once and for all. then those English sky pirates were burning cities from the skies. And were shortly joined by their American cousins. And of course hardly anyone heard of the mass murders. (And the White rose movement that tried to warn were swiftly apprehended and executed.) Put all of this on top of a church whose theological leadership were in large part going apostate for generations. (As in, guess where Modernist or Liberal skeptical theology had its start.) Not too hard to figure out, is it. Resemblance to the sort of things that may well be beginning to happen is NOT coincidental. As in, that Breivik is a fundy Christian terrorist and would be theocrat, just like we thought. GEM of TKI PS: Do they really teach the actual history of the 3rd Reich in school, including what is was like to be living as a German in that era?kairosfocus
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Who cares if Hitler and the Nazi's 'adopted', 'espoused' or 'exploited' Chritianity? They were criminals of the worst kind, only interested in power and dominance. They would use or twist anything to suit their purposes. A far more important question might be why the majority (not all) of German Christians enthusiastically supported Hitler and the Nazi's. How did they square that with their beliefs and the teachings of their churches? fGfaded_Glory
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
Hitler’s regime espoused Christianity...
The Nazis adopted (if you prefer that to espoused) Christianity, at least culturally, as did Breivik.
If we prefer adopted to espoused you'll say adopted rather than espoused?
I do not think that Hitler was a Christian, and took care not to say so. I do not think the Nazi regime was Christian, and took care not to say so. What I intended to convey, and clearly failed, was that the Nazi regime exploited (I said, “espoused”, then tried “adopted”, but perhaps “exploited” will do better) Christianity, at least culturally.
And then she musters and posts what evidence she can that Hitler espoused Christianity.Mung
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Mung at 140 For quantitative evidence of "change over time" check out Mendel's Accountant That gives students full access to all population dynamics models and they can test for themselves the reality of how a species' DNA changes with time. They might even learn something from it!DLH
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Ilion: The title is not fair or balanced, in my opinion. Yes, this man was influenced by social darwinism, which is therefore an issue we still need to deal with 60+ years after Hitler. But equally, the proper question of drivers is not that of Darwinism as such. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
KF @ 210: "... Which is the bigger issue that made me hang around in this thread even when the headline was not changed." KF @ 214: "I must still insist that there is decisive evidence — from their own writings — that both Hitler and now this newest mad man, were social darwinists. ... So, again, let me ask DLH to revise the headline for the thread to something more appropriate." Hmmm ... speaking directly, it appears that KF is saying that the title of this thread is both correct and so incorrect that he'd prefer to have nothing to do with the thread.Ilion
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
F/N: I should note also that the inference of Hitler's social darwinism on the example of a key text does not hinge crucially on capitalisation or not. GUN may have a point on that minor matter, but that point is not material relative to the main force of the context of the remarks and the associations of the ideas and even terms Hitler used; which I highlighted in response to GUN's rebuttal.kairosfocus
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: I understand your statement that in effect your use of "espoused" was not intended to entail that Hitler was loyal to the Christian Faith. I do note that your use of the term, which has a fairly widely understood standard meaning, was bound to create serious misunderstandings, if you did not intend that meaning. I must still insist that there is decisive evidence -- from their own writings -- that both Hitler and now this newest mad man, were social darwinists. There is convincing evidence -- which you have unfortunately again chosen not to face and address on its merits -- that social darwinsm was seen as a mainstream applied science rooted in the established theory of origins, across the first half of C20. The concern is that such social darwinism has not gone away in recent years, but from this case, has only gone underground. It must be rooted out, and that implies acknowledging the real history of this movement starting with Darwin and Galton. In the wider context, it is clear that some very toxic talking points are being pushed, targetting Christians. In the teeth of easily accessible information, this new mad man was headlined across the globe as a fundamentalist Christian. Instead of equally headlining the corrections and doing a public self examination of such a dangerous failure, there has been a let's move on attitude. All of these need to be faced and dealt with, regardless of the problems with the headline for this thread. So, again, let me ask DLH to revise the headline for the thread to something more appropriate. GEM of TKI --------------------- Sept. 20, 2011 kirosfocus - Per your request for "something more appropriate," I changed the title to "Was Norway Shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?" and added a comment Sept. 20, 2011. Thanks for finding Breivik's statement and clarifying the issues of Social Darwinism. DLH kairosfocus
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
KF @ 210: ""Pardon, I must be direct." Now you want to be direct?Ilion
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
kf: I did not mean to imply that Hitler was a Christian. I cannot retract my claim that he was, because I did not make it. Sometimes the communication gulf here seems impossible to bridge, so all I can do to retract those comments I did make, as they clearly did not convey my meaning, and the meaning they inadvertently conveyed is one I most emphatically did not intend. I apologise for having failed to convey what I did intend. I also regret having, against my better judgement, returned to this thread. I will not post in it, or even open it again. LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
PS: My follow up comment in my own personal blog, which is mainly meant for Caribbean readers. I think we need to listen to Mr O'Reilly on this one, though I can hardly say that I give him or his TV channel an across the board endorsement.kairosfocus
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Pardon, I must be direct. First, kindly cf 137 above, which was directed specifically to you. The remarks you have made above are simply irresponsible. You were presented with the study papers regarding indictment for Nazi religious persecution of the Christian churches from the Nuremberg trials, and were pointed to the summary indictment section, written July 1945. You know, or should know what terms like espoused mean and will communicate, given your education level. It is clear that Hitler and co sought to subvert the Christian church and to mislead a Christianity-influenced culture, along the way to destroying the influence of the Christian faith, and substituting his own ideologies that would "justify" unlimited aggressive warfare, indeed the indictment speaks in terms of attempted world conquest (and not without justification). As touching eugenics, genocide and social Darwinism, we have a clear record from Hitler's writings from before he gained power, that shows just where he was coming from. I again highlight how part of the section shows Hitler giving the social darwinists' solution to Darwin's challenge on the breeding ratio of inferior and superior varieties of humans [Darwin spoke of in effect the Irish, the Scots and the English under slightly disguised terms], in Descent Chs 5 - 7. Nor is this any great surprise as the level of sponsorship for the eugenics movement in that time and the sort of ideas captured in the logo for the 1921 2nd Int'l Eugenics Congress, show just how this was seen as a culmination of the science on man, putting tremendous pressure on educated people, Christians and others to go along with "science," in the name of avoiding bringing their nations down tot the level of disintegration and mediocrity that would leave them helpless in the face of those that practiced "scientific" breeding principles, under "the self-direction of human evolution." Indeed it is that same mediocrity argument that Hitler takes up and uses to justify his Aryan racial superiority thought. Notice, the often neglected warning by H G Wells -- a student of Huxley -- in the opening of his 1897/8 popular novel, War of the Worlds, i.e. the implications of darwinism as applied to "favoured" and unfavoured HUMAN "races," were understood all too well a full generation before Hitler:
No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water . . . No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas. And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars. Their world is far gone in its cooling and this world is still crowded with life, but crowded only with what they regard as inferior animals. To carry warfare sunward is, indeed, their only escape from the destruction that, generation after generation, creeps upon them. And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?
Darwin himself, Ch 6 of Descent, 1870/1:
Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
And then, as though he had not now identified a major moral hazard, Darwin coolly returned to his discussion on why there age gaps int eh fossil record! (And, GUN et al, this is the record, whether or not you like it or can try to twist away from it. At least Wells had the decency to raise the issue.) I remind you, the Eugenics logo was also previously brought to your attention, but seems to have escaped your attention. 100 million ghosts from the century just past say: you dare not neglect this! I hope the lesson I assume you are learning from the error of asserting that Hitler "espoused" Christianity, is giving you an opportunity to reflect on the reasons why we are taking steps to speak out so strongly on what is now going on. Before it is again too late, bloodily too late. In particular, we know that evolutionary materialism is ancient, and that it has a terrible record that Plato warned us all about long ago. It is inherently amoral, having in it no IS that can ground OUGHT, which is enough to reduce it to absurdity for it is a certainty that we are in fact morally obligated creatures. Even the atheists trying to raisae rhe problem of evils, imply that in their arguments, reducing their favourite argument to absurdity. And, when we see that this same dangerous doctrine that in the past 100 years energised ruthless factions that in power took over 100 million lives though democides, is now being written into the very definition of science that we are supposed to swallow without question, we have reason to be deeply concerned. Multiply that by a situation where we are seeing in this thread the sort of slanders of Christians and denial of evident facts that Breivik was in fact a self-confessed social darwinist, and our concerns are multiplied again. let me clip from his remarks, as may be seen at 162- 3 above:
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.
Note, the we's and our. Worse, I and others have given very specific grounds for showing why Hitler was indeed a social darwinist -- a dominant view at the time [there are traces even in Churchill] -- and for tracing this back to Darwin's writings in especially Chs 5 - 7 of Descent of Man [which I do not see you engaging seriously, and GUN's puerile attempts above underscore reasons for concren rather than lifting hem]. So, please understand why I find your remark above ALARMING;
Hitler, like Breivik, exploited the Christian tradition to devise a eugenicist ideology that owes nothing to either Christ or Darwin. To call either Hitler, or Breivik either “Christian” or “Darwinian” is wrong . . .
But, demonstrably, this -- especially the highlighted --is false, a falsity that was pointed out to you with linked resources. For social darwinism and eugenics beyond reasonable doubt are traceable to Darwin's thought and direct claims in his public and private writings, and to the circle surrounding Darwin, indeed his family in succeeding years was deeply involved with the said movement, and used his name to promote it, e.g. cf. the activities of his son Leonard. Nor is his cousin Galton to be neglected in this. Again, kindly cf 137 above, which was directed specifically to you. Also, above I have documented just how deep rooted the accusations that are of concern are. It is not true that there has been an across the board retraction, and certainly not one given anywhere near so prominent a billing as the initial accusations. Nor have I seen any across the board serious, sustained self examination of the scandal of failure to do duties of care to truth and fairness that would begin to compare with the initial announcements. As you know, my participation in this thread is under protest, as I think the title -- even in the form of a question -- is wrong. This, despite my having documented the social darwinism above. The real issue on this point seems to be that social darwinist thought has simply gone underground, it is not truly dead, so it needs to be killed. On the broader question, the gleeful jumping on to accuse Christians and make them out to be the moral equivalent of and inspiration for terrorists -- in the teeth of vast and easily accessible evidence to the contrary -- is a telling sign about what has become ever so toxic in our civilisation, and especially its media culture. Where we see the use of immoral equivalency and the persistent attempt to push Christians into the same boat with IslamIST terrorists and Nazi mass murderers, that is willful slander and a grave reason for concern. Which is the bigger issue that made me hang around in this thread even when the headline was not changed. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
kf:
Dr Liddle I challenge you to read this and then explain what you have written above.
kairosfocus, I think I have explained what I wrote. But let me try one more time: I do not think that Hitler was a Christian, and took care not to say so. I do not think the Nazi regime was Christian, and took care not to say so. What I intended to convey, and clearly failed, was that the Nazi regime exploited (I said, "espoused", then tried "adopted", but perhaps "exploited" will do better) Christianity, at least culturally. There are numerous references to Christianity in Mein Kampf; a Christian motto was inscribed over the swastika on a belt buckle; Hitler's speeches made frequent references to God, and to Germany as a "Christian Nation". Wiki says (but I have not verified the citation):
In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views He was also, unspeakably, a racist a eugenicist, and the instigator of genocide. And my point is that it is no more or less justified to call Hitler, or Breivik, a Christian than it is to call him "Darwinian". Here is Hitler on eugenics: "Nature generally takes certain measures to correct the effect which racial mixture produces in life. She is not much in favour of the mongrel. The later products of cross-breeding have to suffer bitterly, especially the third, fourth and fifth generations. Not only are they deprived of the higher qualities that belonged to the parents who participated in the first mixture, but they also lack definite will-power and vigorous vital energies owing to the lack of harmony in the quality of their blood. At all critical moments in which a person of pure racial blood makes correct decisions, that is to say, decisions that are coherent and uniform, the person of mixed blood will become confused and take measures that are incoherent. Hence we see that a person of mixed blood is not only relatively inferior to a person of pure blood, but is also doomed to become extinct more rapidly. In innumerable cases wherein the pure race holds its ground the mongrel breaks down. Therein we witness the corrective provision which Nature adopts. She restricts the possibilities of procreation, thus impeding the fertility of cross-breeds and bringing them to extinction." Not only is it evil, which goes without saying, it is anti-Darwinian, and biologically incorrect. His model is not "natural selection" but "artificial selection" and he erroneously assumes that "natural selection" will eliminate "mongrels". It doesn't. Darwin didn't say so - and, if he had done, would have been wrong. And here is Hitler on Christianity: "The religious teaching of the Jews is principally a collection of instructions for maintaining the Jewish blood pure and for regulating intercourse between Jews and the rest of the world: that is to say, their relation with non-Jews. But the Jewish religious teaching is not concerned with moral problems. It is rather concerned with economic problems, and very petty ones at that. In regard to the moral value of the religious teaching of the Jews there exist and always have existed quite exhaustive studies (not from the Jewish side; for whatever the Jews have written on this question has naturally always been of a tendentious character) which show up the kind of religion that the Jews have in a light that makes it look very uncanny to the Aryan mind. The Jew himself is the best example of the kind of product which this religious training evolves. His life is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as his character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation." In other words, Hitler, like Breivik, exploited the Christian tradition to devise a eugenicist ideology that owes nothing to either Christ or Darwin. To call either Hitler, or Breivik either "Christian" or "Darwinian" is wrong. The press retracted; this OP needs to retract too IMO. As, kf, you agree.Elizabeth Liddle
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
F/N: A little bit on exposing the toxic climate being cultivated, here. Somebodies out there in media land and in talking head land have some serious explaining to do. I think we need to watch Mr O'Reilly's commentary here [not exactly a general endorsement!], and ponder on it. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
F/N: believe it or not, the blame the Christians line is apparently still being pushed as at July 25 in Wa Po. Cf Here, from a UCC modernist theologian and Chicago Theological Seminary prof who is an on Faith Columnist for that newspaper. Something is deeply, deeply wrong here. Something we had better do something about, fast.kairosfocus
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, You are not answerable to me. But you do seem to acknowledge that you are at least in same way answerable to the truth. Funny that. For a declared atheist.Mung
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
So what word can be properly used to describe someone who has not only allied themselves with that which is a lie, but who also then refuses to be corrected? I offered numerous opportunities in this thread to Elizabeth to amend, clarify or retract her statement without resorting to labeling it as a lie, even though that was in fact my first inclination. See my posts at: #130, #132, #141, #174 I thought perhaps she didn't really believe it. But incredibly, she is actually attempting to defend it! Now Elizabeth has in fact summed up the teachings of Jesus in the phrase, "love your neighbor as yourself." This was in fact itself a summary given by Jesus of the Law of Moses and is only one half the statement, here it is in full:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Are these sayings of Jesus what the Nazis espoused?Mung
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
From the confidential, declassified documents: THE NAZI MASTER PLAN THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES Description: This study describes, with illustrative factual evidence, Nazi purpose, policies and methods of persecuting the Christian Churches in Germany and occupied Europe. I. The nature of the persecution II. The problem of establishing criminal responsibility III. The Basic National Socialist Attitude toward Christian Churches IV. Policies adopted in the persecution of the Christian Churches V. Methods used to implement the policy of Persecution [July/6/1945] http://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/donovan/pdf/Nuremberg_3/Vol_X_18_03_02.pdfjunkdnaforlife
July 26, 2011
July
07
Jul
26
26
2011
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply