Breivik’s worldview, if we can call it that, is not easily characterized. Some have branded him a “Christian terrorist.” He does write that he hopes the “Church gains more or less [a] monopoly on religion in Europe,” but also that “it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.” In keeping with this latter view, he lauds the work of Princeton University molecular biologist Lee M. Silver, who is an advocate of stem cell research and human cloning. So Breivik can’t easily be described as a religious fundamentalist.
Breivik also wants a big cut in aid to developing countries in the hopes that this will reduce world population by 4.5 billion — an exercise in population control I don’t think the pope, much less Scandinavia’s Lutheran Church, would favor. Without pause, he voices admiration for the United States’ Tea Party, while calling for more regulation of capitalism and a “Scandinavian light model” of redistribution, including “giving women more incentives to have children in the form of various welfare incentives.”
One could call him a fascist, and he does subscribe to Arian racial theory. But Breivik also makes fulsome denunciations of Hitler and belittles today’s neo-Nazis as fools. He is certainly hostile to Islam and quotes many right-wing authors and bloggers who obsess about the coming of “Eurabia.” But his rants against feminism, Marxism, and Western sexual mores are little different from those made by Osama bin Laden. He doesn’t call for Western women to be put behind the veil. But he estimates that 50 percent have slept with more than 20 men and are thus “sluts,” thinks society should “discourage” all women from having full-time careers, and blames “current destructive matriarchal policies” for most of what he sees as wrong with Europe.
As I said: this guy is NO Christian… and has an important problem of ideological coherence.
Norway attacks: Was Breivik a Christian terrorist? – Christian Science Monitor (news.google.com) To be sure, among those who identify Christianity with the teachings, behavior, codes, and life of the early church, sometimes called “primitive Christianity,” the acts of Breivik have less than nothing to do with the Acts of the Gospels. His logic is seen as a deep distortion, of, say, the spirit of the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the meek … blessed are the peacemakers … blessed are the poor in spirit…”… “Are we capable of seeing the distinction between a dude acting alone with, at this point, no following and a large global movement with many leaders and supporters?” Mollie asks finally. ”Supporters of Islamic extremism are a minority in most Muslim countries. But there’s a dramatic difference between the level of support a killer such as Osama bin Laden had and the level of support a killer such as Breivik has. Media coverage should not ignore that distinction when pushing the moral equivalency meme.”
Why Islamist terror dwarfs Breivik’s brand: Almost nobody supports “Christianist” violence (nydailynews.com):Breivik’s ideology does not represent the same sort of threat that Islamism does because it is not shared by nearly as many people, governments or institutions. Aside from a handful of anonymous Internet postings, there have been no avowals of support for Breivik’s mass murder. No influential Christian preachers have praised what he did. There were no celebrations in the streets, nor has any government applauded his attempt to “save” Europe from “Islamization.” The only organizational backing for Breivik’s massacre appears to have come from a 12th century crusader outfit called the “Knights Templar,” which, as far as we know, exists nowhere but in his own deranged head.
Contrast that condemnatory response with Saddam Hussein‘s remarks after 9/11 – an attack carried out by a transnational terrorist organization sheltered by the then-government of a sovereign state. Saddam said that “the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity.” Crowds of Palestinians, meanwhile, took to the streets and handed out candy.
While these reactions were certainly the exception among most Muslims, smaller-scale terrorist attacks committed against coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on civilians in places ranging from London to Madrid to Peshawar, Pakistan, are regularly legitimized by Islamic clerics who claim huge followings.
More evidence of the stupidity of the MSM on their reports about mass-killer Anders Berwick:
“Andrew Berwick” didn’t just watch Dexter, he found it “hilarious.” He wrote: “I am currently watching Dexter, the series about that forensic mass murderer. Quite hilarious. I’m also looking forward to watch the new movie-series about Carlos the Jackal (the Marxist-Islamist and Che wannabe scumbag).” He mentioned Dexter a second time in a list of other television programs he likes, a fanboy mixing explosives chatting about his viewing habits.
The Dexter series is about a forensic analyst for the Miami Police Department, on the surface a mild-mannered and psychopathically deceptive lab technician, secretly a serial killer. A brutal, methodical, self-justifying serial killer. The Dexter series is dedicated to glamorizing serial killing, with a focus on the mechanics of execution. A show explicitly and unashamedly glamorizing evil, justifying evil, and training in the specific operations of evil. With, of course, the occasional post-modern ironic, self-referential moment of doubt, to make it all a bit more socially acceptable.
Without shame. Without abhorrence.No shaming for Dexter’s author, directors, actors, producers, advertisers. No shaming for them for being cited in “Berwick’s” compendium, no stern demands for censorship from the New York Times or the always trendy European media.
… If asked by someone in the media or law enforcement about the Norway mass murderer’s enthusiasm for their show — what will Showtime, CBS, Daniel Cerone, Clyde Phillips, Melissa Rosenberg, Clyde Phillips, Chip Johannessen and Michael C. Hall say? That they are not responsible for being watched and cited in a madman’s ranting?
But then, if they are not responsible — if this trendy brutal show’s producers and writers are not responsible for influencing Breivik — then why are the media holding responsible these other political leaders, writers, human rights activists and journalists worldwide who oppose brutality rather than making a buck off it?
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor. Image via Wikipedia
This is an excerpt from a very interesting article written by Alan Dershowitz for Hudson review, about the views expressed by Norwegian ambassador to Israel, Svein Sevje.
First of all, terrorism against Israel began well before there was any “occupation”. The first major terrorist attack against Jews who had long lived in Jerusalem and Hebron began in 1929, when the leader of the Palestinian people, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, ordered a religiously-motivated terrorist attack that killed hundreds of religious Jews-many old, some quite young. Terrorism against Jews continued through the 1930s. Once Israel was established as a state, but well before it captured the West Bank, terrorism became the primary means of attacking Israel across the Jordanian, Egyptian and Lebanese borders. If the occupation is the cause of the terror against Israel, what was the cause of all the terror that preceded any occupation? Continue reading →
The others are all corrupt. And Pope Benedict is a “cowardly, incompetent and corrupt Pope“. He is a “cultural Christian“, something that would be very interesting to the political elites: the religion only as a “culture”, but meaning no more to the human being.
In order to stop Islam, Breivik argues, you need to put together a broad coalition. Can the Christian churches become part of it? Breivik explains that he was not taken to baptism by his quite agnostic and upscale parents, but at age 15 elected to be baptized and confirmed in the Norwegian Lutheran Church. He later became persuaded, however, that Protestant churches have sold out to a leftist and pro-immigration agenda, and that they should merge into the Catholic Church, which has at least maintained a modicum of European tradition. However, by continuing the dialogue with Islam, “Pope Benedict has abandoned Christianity and all Christian Europeans and is to be considered a cowardly, incompetent, corrupt and illegitimate Pope”.
It will be, accordingly, necessary to get rid both of the Protestant and Catholic leaderships and to call a “Great Christian Congress” in order to establish a new European Church. This Church will be granted a religious monopoly in the new Europe but in turn, Breivik writes, “the 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”. In short, Breivik’s is a cultural Christianity, an instrumentum regni for a new political elite which would confine the Church to purely spiritual and cultural matters.
Add to this that he doesn’t know anything about what it means to be a Christian, that he doesn’t really believe in anything and that he isn’t quoting the Scriptures or stating that he wanted to save “Christian souls” (wouldn’t be the adequate means, at all), and I can safely ask: why this guy is named a Christian?
So, let me see: it’s OK for Palestinians to use violence, but not for Breivik. It’s OK to kill Israelis, but it isn’t to kill Norwegian people. Well, for me killers are always killers, and both Palestinian terrorists and Breivik are murderers. If you support violence of one side, the other will sooner or later begin using and defending it too.
“In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture,” Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.
I don’t normally reproduce entire articles, but this is a great one, as it sums up my position on this issue too:
Friday’s horrifying and depraved murders do not change a single thing about the jihadist threat we face, but they could make our fight against jihad more difficult by granting the other side a series of potent rhetorical weapons — including patently false claims of moral equivalency and incitement. How do we respond? With the truth:
First, we have to acknowledge the horror. One of the troublesome habits of Islam’s more radical defenders is their nearly inexhaustible capacity to excuse, minimize, and rationalize jihadist violence. Conservatives (at least the ones I’ve read) have not rationalized Friday’s evil acts, and America must do all that it can to help Norway track and destroy any additional affiliated terror cells. It’s a shame that Norway did away with the death penalty, because justice demands that Anders Breivik pay the ultimate price for his depravity.
Second, we must continue to expose the extent and reality of the “Grand Jihad.” Anders Breivik’s crime does not change a single fact on the ground in America, Europe, the Middle East, or Southwest Asia. It is still true that Europe has a large and growing problem with an unassimilated Muslim minority; it is still true that jihadists command tens of thousands of fighters and control all or part of Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, and Pakistan; it is still true that a fundamentally anti-Semitic worldview grips much of the Muslim world; and it is still true that the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to take advantage of the Arab Spring in Egypt.
Third, we must hold the line on tactics. It is simply not incitement to advocate all the actions that Andrew McCarthey, Mark Steyn, and others have advocated in the decade since 9/11 (indeed, even longer). Calling for creative use of law enforcement, skillful and firm use of diplomacy, increased public awareness, and decisive application of military force consistent with the laws of war is not incitement. Anyone who equates, say, support for drone strikes, Gitmo military commissions, or hearings into the prevalence of jihadism with a call for vigilante violence is simply not to be taken seriously.
An utterly depraved, nominally Christian, bizarre right-wing extremist committed a horrific crime. Our hearts go out to the victims. Yet our commitment to fighting jihadists is undiminished — lest other attacks from other terrorists wreak similar havoc on the lives of the innocent.
Anders Behring Breivik told a Norwegian judge on Monday his bombing and shooting rampage that killed scores aimed to save Europe from a Muslim takeover, and said that “two more cells” existed in his organization.
Breivik’s remarks at the closed-door custody hearing were relayed by the judge, Kim Heger, at a news conference.
The killer has previously said he acted alone and police had earlier said they were trying to confirm this.
But after Breivik’s claim about other cells, police attorney Christian Hatlo said “we cannot completely rule out” the possibility that others were involved in Friday’s attacks.
Police revised the death toll downwards to 76 from 93, saying eight people were now known to have died in the bomb blast in central Oslo, and 68 on the island of Utoeya.
It was not clear whether Breivik is in fact part of an organization, although he has written about a revival of the Knights Templar, a medieval order of crusading monks.
“It is true that he sees himself as a crusader and some sort of Templar knight,” said Marcus Buck, a political science professor at Norway’s University of Tromso, referring to an online manifesto that Breivik appears to have authored and which draws inspiration from medieval Christian crusaders.
“But he doesn’t seem to have any insight into Christian theology or any ideas of how the Christian faith should play any role in Norwegian or European society,” Buck wrote in an email message. “His links to Christianity are much more based on being against Islam and what he perceives of as ‘cultural Marxism.'”
From what the 1,500-page manifesto says, Breivik appears to have been motivated more by an extreme loathing of European multiculturalism that has accompanied rapid immigration from the developing world, and of the European Union’s growing powers, than by Christianity.
“My impression is that Christianity is used more as a vehicle to unjustly assign some religious moral weight,” to his political views, said Anders Romarheim, a fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies. “It is a signifier of Western culture and values, which is what they pretend to defend.”
“I would say they are more anti-Islam than pro-Christian,” Romarheim said in reference to what appear to be Breivik’s views.
So this guy is as Christian as I am a Martian. He doesn’t understand Christianity and only considers himself as Christian because he thinks it’s the opposite to Islam. He isn’t either defending Christian culture or ideas, as reason, logic and dialectics, which are the basis of the evolution of thoughts and ideas, have nothing to do with killing unarmed boys (or civilians) at a summer holiday camp.
The Left – including the mainstream media, and stealth jihadists themselves, like the ubiquitous Muslim Brotherhood legacy group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations – won’t even bother to contain its collective glee over the fact that Breivik is a “right-wing Christian.” The narrative is already being constructed that will use him to tar everyone on the Right, particularly vocal critics of Islamic fundamentalism. This is the same Left that hijacks any and all discussions of Islamic terrorism by jumping up to insist that all Muslims must not be smeared because of the actions of a “tiny minority of extremists,” that not all terrorism is committed by Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists. Of course, no responsible anti-jihadist has ever made such claims, but the Left never bothers to concede this. By contrast, instead of living by the standards they demand of the Right,lLeftists will now be perfectly happy to politicize Breivik’s terrorism and use him to tar everyone on the Right – Christians, conservatives, anti-jihadists, the Tea Party – everyone. And in fact, they have already begun attempting to link the Norway terrorist to Sarah Palin, of all people.
Breivik is a terrorist. His targeting of helpless schoolchildren makes him no better than the slaughterers at Beslan. But that doesn’t make everyone concerned about unfettered Islamic immigration, jihad, or the rapid disintegration of Europe’s cultural heritage a terrorist or even a sympathizer. There is no connection between the legitimate, courageous, lawful work of notable anti-jihadists and such evil. No true Christian, conservative, or responsible critic of jihad would condone Breivik’s despicable, cowardly acts or deem them to be in accordance with our beliefs and values. Much less would we celebrate those acts, unlike our Islamist counterparts. But denouncements of Breivik will be purposefully ignored by the Left.
Nor does it make Islamic terrorism any less of a threat.
There is another thing people are not insisting in sufficiently: there is no basis for calling him a Christian, because, even if he considers him as that (and that is not very clear, after his more than probable faked FB page), there is no evidence than Christianity as a whole supports this guy. There is even less evidence that there is a “jihad” theory inside Christianity (“love thy enemy” seems a pretty different idea…).
Parts of the manifesto written by the suspect in Norway’s terrorist attack were taken almost word for word from the writings of “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski.
The passages copied by Anders Behring Breivik appear in the first few pages of Kaczynski’s manifesto. Breivik changed a Kaczynski screed on leftism and what he considered to be leftists’ “feelings of inferiority” – mainly by substituting the words “multiculturalism” or “cultural Marxism” for “leftism.”
For instance, Kaczynski wrote: “One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.”
Breivik’s manifesto reads: “One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is multiculturalism, so a discussion of the psychology of multiculturalists can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of Western Europe in general.”
Breivik did not cite Kaczynski, though he did for many other people whose writings he used in his 1,500-page manifesto.
He used at least one portion verbatim: “Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.”
This title is as legitimate as any other that has been going on through internet. Anders Behring, the killer of 86 (last hour: police revises down attack death toll to 76) teenagers in a Youth Labour camp, is either a madman or a sadist. Or both. He apparently supported anti-Jihad sites, but I can strongly say we can not (and will not) support his crimes, which are unjustified at all. You could ask why T&P would need to issue such a comment.
But it is necessary (despite it’s stupidity for any sound person): as he is (supposedly) an anti-Jihadist and “a Christian” who doesn’t like Islamization, now everyone who dares to criticize Islam and considers himself as that, should be held accountable of his crimes. That’s nonsense: we, at T&P, have never supported indiscriminated violence, against everyone who is at a location, being exactly what every Islamist terrorist does, every time he/she explodes a bomb and that we criticize here everytime we’re able. Violence should only be used, at a last resort in war, and even in war, there are laws and practices that rule it. And we know that, except some fringe elements that we just don’t link at all because they are as dangerous with their words as any Islamic extremists, most anti-Jihadists are just peace-loving guys who are absolutely shocked by cruelty, murder, amputations, rapes, honor killings, discrimination, etc. that is going on under Islam nowadays.