Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Bookmark and Share

Not a Christian; Analyzing Breivik's 'Manifesto'.

Supporting aspects of J-C civilisation is obvious but does not a Christian make.

by Ferdinand III

Breivik never wrote the Manifesto attributed to him. Over 2/3 of it are a series of plagiarized articles and materials from other authors. About 1/3 is spent outlining his plan for a Euro-wide uprising against Moslems and their cultural Marxist protectors; how to make bombs; and why he is going to murder innocents in the name of the counter-Jihad. The clue to the entire Manifesto is on page 1381 in a section where he asks himself questions and gives the answers, in a pseudo-Socratic dialogue. The question answered below was 'Why did you choose allegiance to a Christian group with pan-European values instead of a purely national/regional grouping?. Breivik answers himself with:

Pooling resources and especially knowledge is essential. Obviously, this cannot be achieved if you require that your potential members follow un-appealing principles and codes such as that of the national anarchists (at least many of them). A hateful ideology (white supremacist), death metal, Odinism, conspiracy theories does NOT have mass appeal. Some of the local nationalist factions have very controversial views and lifestyles that do not appeal to a broad specter [sic] of people.....Obviously, the PCCTS, Knights Templar does not have mass appeal as we are a relatively cynical/cruel/goal oriented armed resistance group. However, our primary foundational principles (a majority of them) still have mass appeal and are supported by as many as 50-60% of all Europeans. The reason for this is due to the fact that we oppose ALL hate ideologies and we consider it illogical to fight hate with hate. Of course, this does not mean that we will use less brutal methods in our operations.”

This is the core of the whole body and theory of Breivikism. The only way to fight the Moslem-cultural Marxist alliance was to use the broadest unifying platform possible, namely some theology which represented older European culture. By default Christianity has to be that tool. Clearly Breivik, at least as he considers himself, is not a Neo-Nazi, not a 'far right' Conservative, nor even really a Christian. Conservatives, Christian theology, aspects of nationalism, and even fringe Neo-Nazi groups are to be used to achieve the higher objective, namely the elimination of both Moslems within Europe, and their cultural Marxist-political protectors and abettors. Throughout the mostly copied manuscript, Breivik clearly attests to the fact that Christian culture is vital to roll back the Islamic, and that the European pre-post modern culture of Christianity, is vital, has appeal and can be resuscitated to deal with the twin threats of both cultural Marxism and Islam. He is right of course. But to go from that premise to mass murder is the work of someone who needs to visit the death penalty chair.

The butcher of Oslo, Breivik or Andrew Brewer of London as his Manifesto cover states, spent years accumulating the material for this long 1600 page dissertation. It appears that he compiled the work over a number of years, using many Conservative and anti-Jihad authors as his inspiration. He seems to have completed it sometime ago in 2007 or 2008, thus spending the last few years planning his carnage. It still unclear how he financed all of this. He gives 300.000 Euros as the total cost in bringing 'to market' [to use his phrase], the tools of terror. Some of the material is actually well-researched and detailed – even if plagiarized. The dichotomous brain of the insane – at one time lucid, at the next psychotic. Breivik was right about cultural Marxism, the benefices of Judeo-Christian culture, the millions killed by the Moslem Jihad over 1400 years; the destruction of higher purpose within Western society by the political-elite and their multi-cult programs, not to mention the corrosive effects of state socialism and welfare. A large part of his Manifesto is thus correct and full of facts. But to go from facts to murdering innocents is a step that only a psychopath can take.

But the point is this; detailing the benefits of J-C civilization is not the same as being a Christian. There is no proof that Breivik attended church or even believed in the New Testament. No Biblical passages are quoted in his Manifesto giving him impulse to murder Moslems. The same of course cannot be said about Moslem Jihadists who regularly quote the Koran. There are no long dissertations about why 'Christians' have to kill cultural Marxists or Moslems, based on scriptural illogic or mis-reading. Nor is there any evidence within the Manifesto that Breivik was motivated by Christian theology – something again that Moslems cannot claim since the Koran in over 700 phrases advances the idea of terror, war, and sending the Infidel to hellfire.

Look at it another way. Atheists have long pointed out that Christian civilization did produce the modern world – but that the faith of Christianity both aided and held back this development. Or in other words, the Christians in Europe created our modern world in spite of themselves. It is indeed a back-handed compliment but one does not conflate Atheism with Christianity. Stating the obvious – that faith through reason – and the tenets of J-C doctrine informed, developed and in a non-linear way created our modern consciousness is only to accept the obvious. But this does not mean you are an avid Lutheran or practitioner of Biblical fundamentalism. I would apply the same analysis to Breivik. He compiles the obvious, states the historically accurate and concludes that Christianity is indeed an important aspect of the counter-Jihad. This is just common-sense and not a Christian-only position.

As mentioned large tracts of the Manifesto are direct copies of other Conservative writers material. Fjordman, the Norwegian blogger and author dominates the mid-part of the Manifesto for example, which gave rise to media speculation [wrong as it turned out], that the popular blogger was indeed Breivik. On page 642 he says that 'I travel to America to recharge my batteries and I am not the only European Conservative to do so...' and on page 676 he says 'i am not a religious man', but this is Fjordman talking not Breivik. Did Breivik travel to America, did he consider himself an American Conservative which is a very large tent indeed full of sub-Conservative groups and theologies ? Does he agree with Fjordman statements and mean them to be depictions of himself? Who knows.

The media and political narrative that Breivik was a Christian is simply incorrect. Breivik was not a Christian – his manifesto  makes that clear. He never claims that he is a religious man, though he does admire and desire to defend Europe's Christian culture. He also wanted to recreate a pan-European Knights Templar Crusade against the Infidel Moslem living in Europe. The Knights Templar does already exist as an organization and is a branch of Freemasonry. The Templar Knights about whom I have written extensively [see here for instance], were fundamental in Europe's counterattack against the 400 year Moslem onslaught, the desecration of Christian Holy places, the murder of innocent pilgrims, and the reassertion of Christian political and military might. They were also history's first international banking and communications organization. But Breivik's weird objective to meld a new militant monkish Order and take the fight to Moslems in Europe is so deranged and unwieldy that no Templar Knight today or even in eras long gone would take it seriously.

Breivik also commends Darwin and states that science should always triumph over Christianity.

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. 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."

Darwinian theory led directly to theologies related to social and national Darwinism, 'might makes right' and dialectical racial ideas within the context of survival of the fittest. Darwin himself was a Deist, believing in part that a higher power or intelligence was responsible for the design and structure of nature. But that is different than linking Darwinian ideals with Christian theology. Many Christians are anti-Darwin, so Breivik's admiration for Darwinian theory would be at odds with the fundamentalists. I think it is fair to say that Breivik was likely a luke-warm supporter of Christianity and its theology, in so far as he could use it to achieve his own aims, which in megalomaniac form appear to be the elevation of himself as Europe's anti-Jihadic military and political leader. Maybe this man fantasized that he was Charles Martel, Charlemagne and Edward I all rolled into one.

The difference between Christianity and Islam is this: 30% of the Koran is openly anti-Jewish; 10% calls for Infidels to burn in hellfire and be kindling for the fire; and another 10 % openly advocates Jihad, violence and hatred of the non-Moslem. Much of the rest is about prostration to Muhammad [or Allah, both are the same in essence if you read the Koran]; and following rituals, Koranic law and appeasing the mood deity Al-Lah. There is no Golden rule, no free will, no free choice, no rationality nor individualism. These are just the facts of the Koran. None of these themes and categories exists within Christian texts.

The media always conflates Islam with Christianity. It is absurd. Much of the Bible is indeed irrelevant or simply useful as a historical narrative. The battles of the Old Testament have been archaeologically proven for instance. Great brains use these to prove 'violence' but these are specific actions against specific tribes by the political-military leader Moses and one of the great generals in history Joshua. There are no lurid texts about killing Infidels, sex slaving non-Jewish women, sending non-Jews to the hellfire, or replacing reason with blind obedience. The Koran is littered with such nonsense. Nowhere within Christian liturgy do we find what we have in the Koran.

Back to Breivik. Large tracts of his analysis are correct. Christianity is indeed an important element to roll back Marxism and Islam. But to call him a Christian for making such a claim is absurd. I have read many similar assertions from non-Christians and even Atheists who contemplate the troubles of Europe and wonder aloud if Christianity and the replacement of nihilistic Marxism with something more intelligent is not part of the solution.