I would be interested to hear and see more of what this young man was into. I have been told by many, for years now, that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian fundamentalist. This is not the truth. So if “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” as the Left like to always say. Couldn’t “one man’s Christian Fundamentalist be another’s radical cult member?” First, from the AP:
SUNDVOLLEN, Norway (AP) — The 32-year-old man [Anders Behring Breivik] suspected in bomb and shooting attacks that killed at least 91 people in Norway bought six tons of fertilizer before the massacres, the supplier said Saturday as police investigated witness accounts of a second shooter.
Norway’s prime minister and royal family visited grieving relatives of the scores of youth gunned down in a horrific killing spree on an idyllic island retreat. A man who said he was carrying a knife was detained by police officers outside the hotel, as the shell-shocked Nordic nation was gripped by reports that Norwegian gunman may not have acted alone.
The suspect in police custody – a blonde blue-eyed Norwegian with reported Christian fundamentalist, anti-Muslim views – is suspected in both the shootings at Utoya island and a massive explosion that ripped through an Oslo high-rise building housing the prime minister’s office two hours earlier, killing seven people. He has been preliminarily charged with acts of terrorism.
Oddny Estenstad, a spokeswoman for agricultural material supplier Felleskjopet, confirmed Saturday that the suspect in custody purchased six tons of fertilizer 10 weeks ago. Artificial fertilizer is highly explosive and can be used in homemade bombs…..
Firstly, Christian means Christ like. A fundamentalist Christian takes what Jesus said to be literal truth (the Bible, Jesus’ Resurrection, creation, and the like). So
So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
So what would a fundamentalist say of this verse? This is not to say that one should not defend oneself against attacks or criminals, it is to say however that actions of violence toward a political end — like saving what many thought was their political leader prophesied about in the past — is forbidden. There are, however, liberal fundamentalists that like to rip from a historical time-period an event in the Old Testament where the Hebraic agrarian society [farmers] have to defend themselves against people (the Assyrians for instance) that would fillet their enemies alive and display their mangled corpses as a warning to those who opposed them. These liberal fundamentalists extrapolate that violence they perceive as unjust onto all Christian fundamentalists as normative. Please. But I ingress.
So what are a few things already making my head tilt? The Telegraph has this:
On the Facebook page attributed to him, Mr Breivik describes himself as a Christian and a conservative. It listed his interests as hunting, body building and freemasonry. His profile also listed him as single. The page has since been taken down. Police chief Svinung Sponheim said that internet posting by Breivik suggested he has “some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views”.
I know of no conservative Christian that would be keen on Freemasons. In fact, most Christians have wild eyed conspiracies involving this gnostic sect. Continuing they say,
Police officials have also said that the suspect appeared to have posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies.
What does this sentence mean? Do they consider Christian Identity or KKK type sites, Christian fundamentalism? More info will come out, I am sure… but this is what I am use to (and most of this comes from my old blog under the tag, Crazed Gunmen Bios). And please keep in mind the following which was believed around the time of all these happenings:
- A Rasmussen poll shows that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.… 26% are not sure. That is 60% of Democrats who either blame bush directly or are withholding judgement because he might have been involved. Sick. Republicans reject this view 7-to-1.
And also keep in mind the tendency of the media:
The media called John Patrick Bedell, the Pentagon Shooter, a right-winger, probably a Tea Party member. However, one can rightly as what Tea Partier would believe the following:
- – Shoot at the Pentagon and hate the military?
- – Are registered Democrats?
- – Hate George Bush and the whole Bush family?
- – Think 9/11 was perpetrated not by Muslims but by Republicans?
- – Grow and smoke marijuana?
- – Read left-wing anti-Bush books?
- – Are anti-war?
- – Talk about “economic justice”?
- – Think the Vietnam War and the Iraq War were not merely mistakes but were part of a government conspiracy?
The Pentagon shooter is linked to several gay rights groups along with PETA, NPR, various drug legalization orgs, Greenpeace and Al Franken. Not your typical Tea Party member, eh? Or, there was Joseph “the bomber” Stack. Another immediate member of the Tea Party (hence a conservative and/or Christian) according the media almost immediately after the attack. Interestingly enough, his written manifesto lines up well with Michael Moore movies.
- Anti-health care system= Sicko
- Anti-Capitalism= Capitalism, a Love Story
- IRS cronyism with businesses= Capitalism, a Love Story
- Anti-Bush= Fahrenheit 9/11
- Blames Big Corporations for job issues= The Big One
- Hates George W. Bush and his “cronies”
- Hates Big Pharma
- Hates Big Insurance
- Hates GM executives
- Hates organized religion
- Refers favorably to communism
- And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.
Now isn’t this fascinating. James von Brunn , the white-supremacist suspect in the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting in which the guard who was shot has now tragically died, describes the relevance of evolution to his sick thinking. He’s obsessed with “genetics.” He writes in his manifesto (emphasis added):
Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God’s children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal. These genocidal ideologies, preached from the American pulpits, taught in American schools, legislated in the halls of Congress (confirming TALMUDIC conviction that goyim are stupid sheep), are expected to produce a single, superintelligent, beautiful, non-White “American” population. Eliminating forever racism, inequality, bigotry and war. As with ALL LIBERAL ideologies, miscegenation is totally inconsistent with Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally deprived mongrels. Throughout history improvident Whites have miscegenated. The “brotherhood” concept is not new (as LIBERALS pretend) nor are the results — which are inevitably disastrous for the White Race — evident today, for example, in the botched populations of Cuba, Mexico, Egypt, India, and the inner cities of contemporary America. (Here’s the PDF version of Von Brunn’s “manifesto.”)
This wacko despises Christianity, too, though not quite as much as he does Judaism. Like Hitler in Mein Kampf, he draws lessons from his interpretation of Darwinism.
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.” (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy [New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942], pp. 161-162)
One must keep in mind that this militant atheism is harmful and needs to be countered with Biblical principles. For instance, one article points out the following:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” (G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30)
From another post of mine:
While Mr. von Brunn is currently being made out to be the poster child of the Republican Party, even a cursory look at his professed views shows he is the avowed enemy of the GOP in its current incarnation. Among many others, Mr. von Brunn hates,
- Rupert Murdoch
- Fox News
- George W. Bush
- John McCain
- Weekly Standard
- Iraq War
- believed that 9/11 was an “inside job.”
Given this political sketch, Mr. von Brunn would feel at home at Camp Casey, Cindy Sheehan’s antiwar outpost in Crawford, Texas, and at the Daily Kos convention, rather than partaking in a National Review cruise with pro-Israeli war hawks Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson. It’s not Charles Lindbergh’s Republican Party any more. And it hasn’t been for more than a half-century. But don’t tell that to the facile minds at the DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] and CNN.
I need to point out here that most violence comes from the Left. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc., were all trying to find violence at Tea Parties, even the signs people carried were less violent than union or Democratic political marches. When violence was found to be done in the name of Islam, hosts would say they wished it was from a Tea Party member, or, after realizing many blacks supported the Tea Party, they even manufactured racism when they couldn’t find any!
(On this next video, watch your volume level)
UPDATE, he does seem very Christian (minus the violence and belonging to a Gnostic organization)… here are his own writings, translated (thanks to Reason.com). Much of it could be written by a conservative commentator, minus the violence:
The Other McCain has some good UPDATES
From the BBC (via The Other McCain):
Mr Breivik was a member of a Swedish neo-Nazi internet forum called Nordisk, according to Expo, a Swedish group monitoring far-right activity.
Here we get a definition forming of “Christian” Fundementalist. B.S.!
ALSO ~ Libertariam Republican is up to dat with the UPDATES!!
Also from LR:
Anders Behring Breivik might prove to be less of a conservative, and more of a populist.
This from FoxNews Twin Cities:
“He recently claimed that politics today was not about socialism vs. capitalism but nationalism vs. internationalism.”
Blogger Doug Sanders has contacts in Norway. They have offered a rough translation of some “collective writings” on the internet of Anders Behring Breivik.
There are some references to libertarians and conservatives which could be interpreted as him expressing positive viewpoints on both groups. At one point he even mentions the US Tea Party.
However, there’s also this passage which suggests that he may have been more socially conservative yet economically left-liberal, i.e. Populist.
The main axis is the economy and culture. They were right-wing culturally but leftwing economically. Liberals like of course to tag them as right wing as well as anti-socialists refer to them as leftextreme.
The third axis authoritarian vs liberal is inappropriate to use as a marker.
Quite bizarrely, he seems to have a knowledge of American politics, and at one point makes the statement “a Republican in the U.S. is a libertarian…”