WND: Norwegian Terrorist Was “Darwinian”

Buffoon Award

This one surprised us — even though it comes from WorldNetDaily (WND) — the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.

Their headline story today is Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’. Note that the byline is “WND,” not the name of an individual author, so this article is the voice of their entire publication.

The reason that headline surprised us is because we’re well aware of the creationist practice of linking all evil to Charles Darwin, so when we learned that Anders Behring Breivik had published an online 1,500 page manifesto, we searched for a copy. Here it is: Breivik’s manifesto. It’s a long pdf file that takes a few minutes to download.

Hours before we knew about WND’s article we had already searched the manifesto for “Darwin” and for “evolution” (as we knew the creationists were doing). We didn’t find anything that disturbed us. Darwin’s Origin of Species was on a list of books he said he had read, but so was Orwell’s 1984, Rand’s Fountainhead, Homer’s Iliad, and several other classics, so Darwin’s presence on that list didn’t impress us. His half-dozen or so mentions of “evolution” were about societal changes, not Darwin’s theory.

But when we saw that Breivik took special care to criticize the views of Richard Dawkins, we assumed that not even David Klinghoffer — who specializes in such propaganda linkages — could make a Darwin connection in the case of this terrorist. Here’s some of what Breivik said about Dawkins, from page 1,331 of the manifesto:

Twice divorced, Richard spends his days popularizing the idea that everything, absolutely everything (including his marriage failures) can be explained through purely materialistic means. Raised in the Church of England, he decided that the theory of evolution better explained the universe than his religious understanding.

[…]

Richard has since written many more books promoting his interpretation of the mechanics of life, but he has a very clear agenda – to blame God and even the concept of God for all of man’s ills. He seeks to prove that mankind would be so much better off without any moral anchor, and without any moral judge except ourselves.

We thought Darwin was off the hook, even by the wildest stretch of the creationists’ imagination, but were wrong in the case of WND. Here are some excerpts from their story, with bold font added by us:

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.

[…]

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.

We’re not interested in Breivik’s religion. Well, it would have been interesting to learn that he was a creationist, but that didn’t seem likely (his targets weren’t science labs) so we didn’t bother to look for it. But we did want to know if there was anything that would let a crazed creationist claim that Breivik was inspired by the theory of evolution — and we didn’t find anything. WND, however, sees it differently. Let’s read more from WND:

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.

Where does Darwin fit into that? We continue:

And while characterizing himself as “Christian” and “Protestant,” Breivik says he supports “a reformation of Protestantism leading to it being absorbed by Catholisism.” [sic] 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.”

Again we ask — where’s Darwin? Get ready, here it comes:

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.”

That’s it? That’s what justifies WND’s headline? Yes, that’s all there is. So that you can reach your own conclusion — remembering that this is WND’s only “Darwin” quote — here’s the entire paragraph from Breivik’s manifesto, which is found on page 1,376. WND quoted only the first two sentences:

“Logic” and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level. Because, if a woman was purely rational, she would choose to not have babies at all, and instead live her life in a purely egotistical manner. We should strive to become a civilisation where the individual’s acquisition of wealth would no longer be the driving force in our lives. Instead, we would focus much more of our resources to better ourselves and our communities by channelling at least 20% of the budget to research, science and technology. Good welfare arrangements combined with embracing the ideal of perfection requires a solid cooperation/symbiosis (social cohesion) and is only possible in a monoculture where everyone has complete confidence to everyone. The problem with today’s society is that it has become fanatically egalitarian. In our quest to appease everyone (except the traditional cultural group) we have created a habit and tradition of cheering mediocrity and weakness. Your position in the “victim hierarchy” decides your position in society. It’s an illogical and self defeating development.

So there you are, dear reader. It’s all Darwin’s fault — at least in the opinion of WND.

See also: Discovery Institute: Breivik a “Social Darwinist”.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “WND: Norwegian Terrorist Was “Darwinian”

  1. Typically obsessive and irrational. If Darwin has surviving ancestors, I hope they’re safely guarded. This degree of blinding hatred directed at a peaceful 19th century biologist rivals any potential hate crime fanaticism that I know of.

  2. (My above comment should’ve read “Typically obsessive and irrational kneejerk response from the WND.” I wasn’t even referring to violent crackpot Breivik. My point is the WND may just be crazy enough to be potentially lethal. Their degree of tunnel-visioned, infatuated hatred is typical of unhinged fanatics. It’s a recurring red flag, is all I’m sayin’.)

  3. I agree with magpie61 that WND has so called “tunnel-vision”. The idea that they look for darwin in anything bad that happens, even when clearly not there speaks volumes for their bufoonary. I, and many other supporters of evolution that I know are aware that there are people who don’t believe in evolution who are perfectly nice people, and I like to think that I don’t go looking for the evils of creationism, except for where I know it to be. But WND and other creationist organizations seem to see everyone who doesn’t agree with them as evil.

  4. Pete Moulton

    “If Darwin has surviving ancestors…” Magpie61, Darwin was born in 1809; I doubt if any of his ancestors are still alive. Another cup of coffee, perhaps?

  5. Pete Moulton says: “I doubt if any of his ancestors are still alive.”

    Picky, picky.

  6. For those who may be interested in Darwin’s descendants, see the Wikipedia article on the Darwin-Wedgwood family:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_—_Wedgwood_family

  7. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level.

    WTF is “collective thought”? The collective doesn’t think — individuals think.

    This guy is raging crackpot, in addition to being a mass murderer.

    BTW, significant passages of Breivik’s manifesto are plagiarized from another manifesto, with key words changed to match Breivik’s hot-button issues (such as multiculturalism.)

    Care to guess whose Manifesto he plagiarized?

    …. Ted Kazcynski — the Unabomber.

  8. @Pete Moulton and SC:

    That’s not being picky, just accurate – thanks! Of course, I meant [common] descendants. I’m just glad no one asked me where the survivors were buried…

  9. My thought is that WND is playing the game of “He who gets there first with the most”, meaning that it doesn’t matter that they are propagating complete trash or complete lunacy (or both). It’s just that people will remember “Norwegian mass murderer = Darwin”. Regardless of how many people come in later and say, “That’s a whole lot of bollocks.”, they’ll primarily remember that first thing.

  10. I would like us all to stop using mass-murdering loonies as political footballs, if possible.

  11. Gabriel Hanna said:

    I would like us all to stop using mass-murdering loonies as political footballs, if possible.

    Huh? I had no intention of mentioning the subject, as long as the creationists avoided it — which I assumed they would. When it turned out I was wrong, I thought the allegation of a “Darwin connection” should be rebutted. I don’t see any political angle to t his.

  12. @SC: Not aimed at you, sir.

  13. WND is doing this, they aren’t the only ones; one reason tehy are doing it is in reaction to OTHER people who are doing it. Remember Jared Loughner? People were using him as a football too. Some of the same people as are doing it now.