Anders Breivik sentenced

[MrSmith]

This is Breivik logic. He killed many because he believed the Muslim hoards were taking up resources that should only be entitled to the indigenous.

 

You could personally make the lives of many more comfortable by doing away with your computer. A couple of hundred quid gets a well and a hand pump. That little 8yr old girl won't have to drink poisoned water she had to trek 10 miles either way every day for.

 

Why would I do that, I believe the world is over populated, it’s not my fault someone decided to have a child they couldn't support.

 

I don't care if Breverik lives or dies, but it seems some of you would prefer him to live and the girl to die.

Which seems very strange logic to me.

[MrSmith]

And I bet that if the government did just that you'd be moaning about the amount of taxpayers' money being given to employ immigrants in the NHS.

 

 

The country is overpopulated as is the world, allowing more people into the country would therefore be illogical.

[chem1st]

But there are plenty of people on SF and in the wider world that agree with what he says about multiculturalism and immigrants.

 

OK they wouldn't (we hope) agree with his methods of fighting against multiculturalism and immigrants but they still share his views and ideas.

 

Are they insane?

 

Is it the belief that makes him insane or the actions that he carried out in order to uphold his beliefs?

 

Brevik is interested in Eugenics, you could say he was practising his own version of it. His manifesto confirms that he is, along with his actions.

 

http://www.document.no/2012/03/anders-breiviks-social-darwinism-and-mass-murder/

 

Breivik also stressed that science trumps religion: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings” (p. 1403). Breivik listed Darwin’s Origin of Species as one of the more “important” books that he has ever read (p. 1407). He lamented that

Social-Darwinism was the norm before the 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist (p. 1227).

 

Social Darwinism was never far below the surface in his extensive social policy discussions. It was even foundational to the solution of global ecology and overpopulation problems. He argued that “radical policies will have to be implemented” to reduce the human population by, he concluded, more than half, or down to 3.8 billion people (p. 1202). Furthermore, if “second and third world countries” are unable to curb their population growth, “nature will correct their suicidal tendencies” because they will be “unable to feed their populations” as Darwin stressed. Breivik believes that Western countries should not interfere even if mass starvation results: “If starvation threatens the countries who have failed to follow our [population control] guidelines we should not support them by … send[ing] any form of aid” (p. 1202). Indeed, “aid to 3rd world countries must stop immediately as it is the primary cause of overpopulation” (p. 1203).

 

I haven't read the document, just parts of it and peoples analysis. He is clearly in favour of Eugenics.

 

http://behindeverygreatfortune.blog.com/

 

A century ago the First International Eugenics Conference was held in London.

 

The Eugenicists also relied on the population control theories of Thomas Malthus who wrote,” All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.”

 

Many on here believe this to be true, yet it is not. As population has risen, so has the production of food and other goods. Production CAN rise further.

 

Sir Winston stated that the “… multiplication of the feeble-minded [constitutes] a very terrible danger to the race.”

-Surely natural selection would solve this? If we lived in an meritocracy anyhow.

 

The writer, H.G. Wells, conjured up a utopian society that would be ruled by healthy and intelligent elites. “The swarms of black, and brown, and dirty white, and yellow people … will have to go.” To foster world peace, he reasoned that fewer and better children were necessary. In order to achieve that, he believed that the unfit and feeble-minded should be sterilized.

 

Pretty common view, and shared by others of other races wrt other races.

 

George Bernard Shaw; “You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say ‘Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’”

 

“ I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short- a gentlemanly gas deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel.”

 

Very common on here. And chemists discovered such gases and they have been used in warfare, genocide, and are still used for executions. Some use them to commit suicide.

 

And all of these views, are somewhat inspired by Darwin.

 

People worship Darwin, he is a God to many people whom proclaim themselves to be athiest, the idol is on a £10 note. Some coins too.

 

Hitler, Brevik, multiple national governments have all killed in the name of Darwin, for the betterment of the race/taxpayer stock.

 

Breivik’s avocation of the “commercialization and state/media encouragement of reprogenetics favoring the Nordic genotype” was similar to the Lebensborn program that the Nazis used in an attempt to breed superior Aryans. Specifically, he advocated the use 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). He explained that the Nazis had the proper social Darwinist goals, but unfortunately they destroyed the reputation of “eugenics” by combining it to … mass extermination. But seeking biological perfection is still a logical concept … We just have to make sure that we offer it as a voluntary option to everyone or at least start by legalizing it …. This must be a non-coercive form of biological improvement which will be predominantly motivated by … the desire to create the best … children (p. 1200).

 

Ironically Brevik slates the Nazis for destroying the reputation of Eugenics by carrying out mass extermination, he then endorses Eugenics and destroys the reputation of it by carrying out mass extermination.

[melthebell]

I don't care if Breverik lives or dies, but it seems some of you would prefer him to live and the girl to die.

Which seems very strange logic to me.

nothing of the sort, in a perfect world both would live (brevick would live as long as he will in prison where he belongs)

[MrSmith]

nothing of the sort, in a perfect world both would live (brevick would live as long as he will in prison where he belongs)

 

I agree, in a perfect world with infinite resources they would both live, but the world is imperfect and we have limited resources. So using resources to keep Breveric alive seems illogical if you care about the child.

[melthebell]

but the world is imperfect

 

exactly, criminals and murderers (including members of the right) exist

[MrSmith]

exactly, criminals and murderers (including members of the right) exist

 

Has do starving children, you can't keep everyone alive, which would you prefer to live, the innocent children or the murderers.

[melthebell]

Has do starving children, you can't keep everyone alive, which would you prefer to live, the innocent children or the murderers.

sigh its not as simple as that and YOU know that

[MrSmith]

sigh its not as simple as that and YOU know that

 

Off cause it is, should resources be given to Breverick so that he can live or should the resources he will consume be given to the innocent so that they can live.

[Skirmisher]

Off cause it is, should resources be given to Breverick so that he can live or should the resources he will consume be given to the innocent so that they can live.

 

Its obvious

 

Hang the murderers and keep the innocents alive.