On Fri­day July 22, 2011 Nor­we­gian Anders Brei­vik went on a kil­ling ram­page in Oslo, Nor­way, kil­ling 77 people and inju­ring many more. It was the worst ter­ro­rist attack in modern Nor­we­gian his­tory and one of the worst in modern Euro­pean his­tory (Ray­ner, et al., 2011). The bom­bing of Oslo govern­ment buil­dings resulted in 8 deaths, and the mass shoo­ting at a Wor­kers’ Youth League of the Labor Party on the island of Utøya resulted in kil­ling 69 people, mostly teena­gers, and inju­ring at least 96 other per­sons.

Brei­vik was born on February 13, 1979, the son of Wen­che Behring, a nurse, and Jens David Brei­vik, a Civil Eco­nomist. He was an intel­li­gent, sen­si­tive phy­si­cally strong young man who since ado­le­scence spent much time weight tra­i­ning, and using ana­bo­lic ste­roids to improve his phy­sic. In his early twen­ties he under­went cos­me­tic sur­gery to look more like what he jud­ged to be Aryan. Brei­vik wor­ked as a custo­mer ser­vice repre­sen­ta­tive wor­king with people from all nations and reportedly had good rela­tions with his custo­mers except he seemed to be easily irri­tated by those of Middle Eas­tern or South Asian ori­gin (Slack, 2011).

His Ter­ro­rist Kil­lings

To explain his ter­ro­rist actions he pro­du­ced a 1518 page 77,724 word docu­ment tit­led 2083 Euro­pean Decla­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence. One rea­son he gave for his kil­ling spree was because “Mar­riage is not a “con­spi­racy to oppress women”, it’s the rea­son why we’re here. …. Accor­ding to strict, atheist Dar­wi­nism, the pur­pose of life is to repro­duce” (p. 350)


Soon after the event the estab­lish­ment media, inclu­ding the Aust­ra­lian Broad­cas­ting Cor­po­ra­tion and the Cana­dian Broad­cas­ting Cor­po­ra­tion, clai­med that the influ­ence of fun­da­men­ta­list Chris­tia­nity and various right-wing groups explai­ned Breivik’s ideo­logy and actions (Sar­fati, 2011). One typi­cal head­line read Nor­we­gian Kil­ler is Con­ser­va­tive Chris­tian Fun­da­men­ta­list (Ano­ny­mous, 2011). Alt­hough, as is true of many per­sons, he had both right-wing and left views, his detai­led paper made his views very clear — and they had not­hing to do with Chris­tian fun­da­men­ta­lism.

The media almost totally ignored his viru­lent scien­ti­fic fun­da­men­ta­lism and Social Dar­wi­nism, inclu­ding his far-ran­ging pro­po­sal to revive Dar­wi­nian euge­nics inspi­red by the wri­tings of Prin­ceton Uni­ver­sity evo­lu­tio­nary bio­lo­gist Dr. Lee Sil­ver. They also ignored his agno­s­ti­cism, such as his “if there is a God” pro­viso when pon­de­ring his destiny after death (2011, p. 1345).
Brei­vik detai­led in his docu­ment that he was an una­po­lo­ge­tic champion of modern bio­logy and the scien­ti­fic evo­lu­tio­nary world­view. Breivik’s vision of “a perfect Europe” involved Social Dar­wi­nism, which he iden­ti­fied with “logic” and “ratio­na­list thought,” opi­ning that apply­ing “natio­nal Dar­wi­nism” should be at the core of our society (p. 1386). He does not believe that science should be left in pri­vate hands, but instead that it requi­red lavish and perm­a­nent govern­ment sup­port. He argued that fully 20 per­cent of all govern­ment spen­ding must be devoted to scien­ti­fic rese­arch (pp. 1188, 1386) and that science fun­ding is even more impor­tant than aid to the poor: “Wel­fare expen­di­ture should not take pre­ce­dent over the 20% fixed sum dedi­cated to science/technology, rese­arch and devel­op­ment” (p. 1195).

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).

The most bla­tant example of Breivik’s radi­cal Social Dar­wi­nism is his endor­se­ment of “repro­gen­etics,” a form of “posi­tive” euge­nics that enab­les humans to con­trol their evo­lu­tion to pro­duce bet­ter humans through euge­nics. Brei­vik even argued that the “never-ending col­lective pur­suit for scien­ti­fic evo­lu­tion and perfec­tion should become the bench­mark and essence of our exist­ence” (p. 1199, emp­ha­sis added).
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).

Brei­vik laments that the Nazi abu­ses have made imple­men­ting euge­nics more dif­fi­cult today:

We all remem­ber the hor­rors from WW2 where the Empire of Japan com­mit­ted atrocities against the Chinese by large scale mas­sacres and by using them as human test sub­jects … Nazi Ger­many and other countries did the same thing in a smal­ler degree … Unfor­tu­nately, the hor­rors of WW2 created a stigma associa­ted with all future rese­arch and advan­ces in … impro­ving humans bio­lo­gically by rem­oving neg­a­tive her­edi­tary factors (pp. 1189–1190).

Noting the social stigma of euge­nics, Ber­wick wri­tes that, unfor­tu­nately, euge­nics and repro­gen­etics are now “extremely poli­ti­cally incor­rect to discuss” because of “the ‘neg­a­tive euge­nics pro­grams’ of Nazi Ger­many,” namely
ste­ri­liza­tion and … expe­ri­men­ta­tion of human test sub­jects are factors used at that time … Many Euro­pean countries used to for­ce­fully ste­ri­lize Gypsies/Rom up to aprox 1972 to pre­vent them from bre­e­ding because they used to be con­side­red “sub-human” etc. These pro­grams are today referred to as “neg­a­tive euge­nics” due to these and other factors (p. 1190).

Brei­vik con­clu­ded that

we need to get over this taboo as soon as pos­sible because it is esti­mated that the Nor­dic geno­types will be extinct com­pletely wit­hin 200 years. This is mainly due to intermar­riage between Nor­dics and non-Nor­dics. Mul­ti­cul­tura­list doc­tri­nes have speeded this “indi­rect exter­mi­na­tion process” up furt­her in many Western Euro­pean countries so the extinc­tion might hap­pen soo­ner (p. 1190). 

He added that the most effec­tive way to pre­vent this is “by intro­du­cing neg­a­tive euge­nics pro­grams com­bined with eth­nic segre­ga­tion somewhat simi­lar to some poli­cies of the Third Reich” (p. 1190). He pre­dicts that those who sup­port repro­gen­etics will 

seize power wit­hin 30–70 years. And when we do we should refrain from com­mit­ting
the same mis­ta­kes of the past. Poli­ti­cal cor­rect indi­vi­duals will say: “Who cares if blonde people with blue eyes are extinct? We are all going to be dark skin­ned in the future any­way.” Wrong. … we have no inten­tion to allow … the indi­genous peop­les of Europe to be indi­rectly exter­mi­nated. The hypocri­ti­cal thing is that the same indi­vi­duals sta­ting this are likely to sup­port … the pre­ser­va­tion of rare spec­ies in the ani­mal king­dom (p. 1191).

Breivik’s obsesses about pre­ser­ving the “Nor­dic” race, which he belie­ves pos­sess “rare cha­rac­te­ri­s­tics that have been acqui­red through an evo­lu­tio­nary process which has taken more than 1 mil­lion years” to evolve this race (p. 1158). Breivik’s major con­cern is that modern libe­ral atti­tudes toward “race-mixing” are lead­ing people of Nor­dic ancestry to act “unna­tu­rally” and undo what a mil­lion years of evo­lu­tion has pro­du­ced. In this con­clu­sion he echoes the ideas of lead­ing early twen­tieth cen­tury Dar­wi­nian euge­nists inclu­ding Madi­son Grant, whom Brei­vik cited favo­rably in his mani­festo (pp. 1152–1153).

In his book Pas­sing of the Great Race (1918), Grant denoun­ced the Ame­ri­can “mel­ting pot” ideal because its ine­vi­table result was inter-racial mar­riage that he belie­ved, as did the Nazis, resulted in dege­ne­ra­tion of the “superior” race. Grant wrote “The result of the mix­ture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race rever­ting to the more ancient, gene­ra­lized and lower type” (1918, p. 16). Grant was espec­ially con­cerned about the degra­da­tion of the “Nor­dic races” because he belie­ved that Nor­dics were natu­rally the “rulers, orga­nizers and aristocrats.” He repeatedly cited the impor­tance of evo­lu­tion for his theory of his 1918 tome. 

He Relies on Modern Dar­wi­nists

Breivik’s call for a euge­nics revo­lu­tion was not inspi­red by his own pri­vate ideas but, instead, they spring largely from lead­ing main­stream Dar­wi­nists, past and pre­sent. His Social Dar­wi­nism was a clear part of the mix that cau­sed his mur­derous ram­page.
Alt­hough con­tem­po­rary scien­tists now dis­tance them­selves from Madi­son Grant’s racism, he was once highly respec­ted by the scien­ti­fic com­mu­nity. His many honors include board mem­ber of the pre­sti­gious Ame­ri­can Museum of Natu­ral His­tory in New York, and chair­man of the New York Zoo­lo­gical Society. Grant’s book, The Pas­sing of the Great Race, went through mul­tiple editions, each with a lau­da­tory pre­face by The Ame­ri­can Museum of Natu­ral His­tory pre­si­dent (from 1908 to 1933) and Colum­bia Uni­ver­sity zoo­lo­gist, Henry Fai­r­field Osborn.

Brei­vik drew not only on early Dar­wi­nian thin­kers but his “repro­gen­etics” pro­po­sal comes from a modern respec­ted evo­lu­tio­nary bio­lo­gist, Lee Sil­ver, a Prin­ceton Pro­fes­sor and Fel­low of the Ame­ri­can Associa­tion for the Advan­ce­ment of Science. It was Sil­ver who coined the term “repro­gen­etics,” and his 1997 book, Rema­king Eden: How Gen­etic Engi­neer­ing and Clo­ning Will Trans­form the Ame­ri­can Family, is pro­mi­nently featu­red in Breivik’s mani­festo.
Repro­gen­etics mer­ges exis­ting repro­duc­tive and gen­etic tech­no­lo­gies, all of which Sil­ver pre­dicts will become less costly, more avai­lable, and increas­ingly power­ful. Silver’s goal is for parents to be able to select the gen­etic cha­rac­te­ri­s­tics of their off­spring, which he pre­dicts will trig­ger major social changes, inclu­ding redu­cing gen­etic dise­ases and the bre­e­ding of superior humans.

Euge­nics, the “science” of impro­ving the gene pool, became infa­mous for the bru­tal poli­cies that its sup­por­ters prac­ticed in the 20th cen­tury. The major dif­fe­ren­ces between repro­gen­etics and euge­nics is that euge­nics pro­grams were com­pulsory, impo­sed by govern­ments attemp­ting to achieve some idea­li­s­tic, uto­pian goal.
Unlike Brei­vik, Sil­ver does not advo­cate using gen­etic means to pre­serve the “Nor­dic” race, but does argue that repro­gen­etics will achieve superior human beings by allowing humans to con­trol their evo­lu­tion. Alt­hough Sil­ver is con­cerned that whole­sale gen­etic engi­neer­ing could lead to a chasm between those who can afford gen­etic enhan­ce­ments and those who can­not, Sil­ver attempts to dis­miss what he per­ce­i­ves to be the major objec­tions to his new euge­nics. In his pro­lo­gue, Sil­ver explo­res
the ethi­cal argu­ments that have been raised against the use of this tech­no­logy. In most instan­ces, I will attri­bute oppo­sition to con­scious or subcon­scious fears of tre­ad­ing in “God’s domain.” Indeed, I will argue that nearly all of the objec­tions raised by bio­ethi­cists and others ring hol­low (Sil­ver, 1997, p. 13).

In his “The Desig­ner Child” chap­ter Sil­ver sounds very much like the euge­nists of a cen­tury past, argu­ing that tech­no­logy has now given us the power to direct our own evo­lu­tion and we must seize that power, opi­ning “While sel­fish genes do, indeed, con­trol all other forms of life, mas­ter and slave have switched positions in human beings, who now have the power not only to con­trol but to create new genes for them­selves” (Sil­ver, 1997, p. 277).
In his epi­lo­gue, Sil­ver offers a uto­pian vision of the future directed by intel­li­gence that would make some ear­lier euge­nists envious. Wri­ting a hypot­he­ti­cal his­tory of repro­gen­etics from some future date, Sil­ver details how humans have uti­lized gen­etic engi­neer­ing to evolve them­selves into God-like crea­tu­res, wri­ting the “cri­ti­cal tur­ning point in the evo­lu­tion of life in the uni­verse” was when scien­tists “made huge advan­ces in furt­her under­stan­ding the human mind, and they created more sop­hi­s­ti­cated repro­gen­etic tech­no­lo­gies, which they then used to enhance … the next gene­ra­tion” (Sil­ver, 1997 p. 293). 

By this means, Sil­ver con­clu­ded, each gene­ra­tion will achieve quan­tum leaps of evo­lu­tion, a con­clu­sion that resulted as our tech­no­lo­gical power con­ti­nued to rise up to a point that there exists

a spec­ial group of men­tal beings. Alt­hough these beings can trace their ancestry back directly to homo sapi­ens, they are as dif­fe­rent from humans as humans are from the pri­mi­tive worms with tiny brains that first craw­led along the earth’s sur­face (Sil­ver, 1997, p. 293).

Pro­fes­sor Sil­ver not only served as a major intel­lec­tual mentor to Breivik’s chil­ling demands for a new euge­nics, but Brei­vik embraced whole­sale both Silver’s repro­gen­etics pro­gram and his scien­ti­fic uto­pia­nism, again docu­ment­ing the fact that ideas cle­arly have con­se­quen­ces.
Brei­vik openly condemned Norway’s policy that con­tri­buted to inter-racial mar­riage, wri­ting that the “Mul­ti­cul­tural Inqui­sition may not threa­ten to kill you, but it does threa­ten to kill your career, and that goes a long way in achie­ving the same result” (2011, 526–527).
When advo­ca­ting euge­nics to jus­tify his ideas, Brei­vik noted that the Swedish govern­ment “applied Ger­man race laws from 1937 onwards” and “any Swede who wan­ted to marry an Aryan Ger­man was for­ced to sign an affir­ma­tion sta­ting that none of the German’s grand­pa­rents were Jewish” (2011, p. 638). Furt­her­more, in 1937 despite the evi­dence that Sweden “applied Nazi race laws, party mem­bers still get away with denoun­cing cri­tics of their immi­gra­tion poli­cies as neo-Nazis, racists or Fascists” (2011, 638). He con­clu­ded that Sweden 

pro­moted the idea of posi­tive euge­nics and for­ced ste­ri­liza­tion pro­grams against those with “weak genes.” This star­ted in Sweden even before Nazi Ger­many, and it con­ti­nued lon­ger…. As Adolf Hit­ler stated in 1927: “We are Socia­lists, ene­mies, mor­tal ene­mies of the pre­sent capi­ta­list eco­no­mic sys­tem (2011, p. 638).

Racism at the Core of His Ideo­logy

Breivik’s major con­cern, as was Hitler’s, was the puta­tive “rapid extinc­tion of the Nor­dic geno­types” (p. 1188). An example he cited is the data that showed the pre­va­lence of blue eyes among Euro­pean-Ame­ri­cans living in the Uni­ted Sta­tes which “have become increas­ingly rare among Ame­ri­can child­ren” (p. 1188). Berwick’s con­cern about inter-mar­riage was due to its euge­nic impli­ca­tions:

A cen­tury ago, 80 per­cent of people mar­ried wit­hin their eth­nic group. Blue eyes were rou­tinely passed down, espec­ially among people of Western and Northern Euro­pean ancestry. About half of Ame­ri­cans born at the turn of the 20th cen­tury had blue eyes … By mid-cen­tury that num­ber had drop­ped to a third. Today only about one 1 of every 6 Ame­ri­cans has blue eyes (p. 1188).

The rese­ar­chers assu­med that blue eyes may be related to increased life expectancy, but it tur­ned

out it has more to do with mar­riage pat­terns. A cen­tury ago, 80 per­cent of people mar­ried wit­hin their eth­nic group … As intermar­riage between eth­nic groups became the norm, blue eyes began to dis­appear, replaced by brown (p. 1188).

The pro­blem, Blei­vik argued, was cau­sed by the immi­gra­tion of various “non­whites into the Uni­ted Sta­tes, espec­ially from Latin Ame­rica and Asia, haste­ned the dis­appea­rance [of blue eyes]” (p. 1189). He added that in the past “euge­ni­cists used the dis­appea­rance of blue eyes as a ral­ly­ing cry to sup­port immi­gra­tion rest­ric­tions” (p. 1189).
Brei­vik con­clu­ded that saving huma­nity requi­res the appli­ca­tion of euge­nics and his mur­derous ram­page would pub­li­cize his con­cerns as spelled out in his mani­festo. In this lat­ter goal he was success­ful. He also was success­ful in showing that Dar­wi­nian euge­nics is still alive and well in the world.


Anders Behring Brei­vik was a young Nor­we­gian who became ena­mo­red with social Dar­wi­nism and his modern discip­les, such as Prin­ceton Uni­ver­sity Evo­lu­tio­nist Lee Sil­ver. He, as far as we know, on his own set off a power­ful home made bomb in 2011 in Oslo Nor­way and a short time later mur­de­red 69 young per­sons at a Youth league meeting. His goal was to bring atten­tion to his belief that modern Dar­wi­nian euge­nics could create a uto­pia and eli­mi­nate many of the major pro­blems of the world. His 78 thou­sand word mani­festo made clear in detail his moti­ves and goals for his ter­ro­rists attack on his own people. 

This event illust­rates the fact that euge­nic ideas are still alive and influ­en­tial in some areas of society and are, likewise, still very destruc­tive. It also illust­rates that rejec­tion of the Bibli­cal doc­trine of crea­tion of all human beings may lead to social Dar­wi­nism, racism and euge­nics. The ulti­mate means Brei­vik used to rea­lize his ideas are extreme, and his men­tal state is uncer­tain. And this indi­cates that per­so­nal featu­res also are impor­tant factors, in addition to the con­tent of his ideo­lo­gical con­vic­tions.

Ano­ny­mous. 2011. Nor­we­gian Kil­ler is Con­ser­va­tive Chris­tian Fun­da­men­ta­list. Atheism Forum. 

Grant, Madi­son. 1918. The Pas­sing of the Great Race, Or, the Racial Basis of Euro­pean His­tory. New York. Char­les Scribner’s Sons.

Osborn, Henry Fai­r­field. 1918. Intro­duc­tion to Grant pp. vii-ix.

Ray­ner, Gor­don, Dun­can Gard­ham and John Bing­ham. 2011. “Hunt for Bri­tons lin­ked to Nor­way kil­ler Anders Behring Brei­vik.” The Tele­graph, Lon­don. Sep­tem­ber, 23.

Sar­fati, Jonat­han. 2011. “Nor­way Ter­ro­rist: More Media Men­dacity.” August. HYPERLINK “http://creation.com/norway-terrorist-breivik-not-christian” http://creation.com/norway-terrorist-breivik-not-christian

Slack, Chris 2011. “Anders Brei­vik ‘was on Nor­we­gian secret ser­vice watch­list after buy­ing che­mical haul from Polish retai­ler.” Lon­don: Mai­lOn­line. July, 26.

Sil­ver, Lee M. 1997. Rema­king Eden: Clo­ning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books.

Liker du det du leser? Vipps noen kroner til Document på 13629

  • Guest

    Dette var en abso­lutt inter­es­sant ana­lyse av den under­lig­gende rasis­men i Brei­viks men­ta­li­tet.
    Og, med rasisme mener jeg at man anser ulike folke­grup­per, basert på deres ulike gen­etiske klus­tere, som å inneha ulik moralsk verdi.
    Rasisme er vidt for­skjel­lig fra:
    1) si at ulike folke­grup­per, grun­net ulik gen­etisk dis­tri­bu­sjon, har ulik dis­tri­bu­sjon i både fysiske og “men­tale” egen­ska­per.
    2) At kul­tu­rer kan ha ulik moralsk verdi.

    Det er meg, egent­lig, rev­nende like­gyl­dig, om 90% av Nor­ges befolk­ning om 500 år har brun hud.
    Der­imot er det ikke like­gyl­dig om
    a) Den pro­ses­sen fore­tas på tvers av øns­kene til den befolk­nings­grup­pen som opp­rin­ne­lig har hatt hevd på land
    b) Eller om sam­fun­net om 500 år ikke er len­ger et seku­lært demo­krati med respekt for men­neske­ret­tig­he­ter.

    Vi som lever idag har en selv­sagt moralsk for­plik­telse til å gjøre vårt for å for­hindre a) og b)-scenariene

    • Guest

       Jeg glemte å nevne noen kon­kret­punk­ter av hva som utgjør Brei­viks rasisme:
      Hans opp­tatt­het av at blå­øyd­het var noe som via stat­lige tvangs­til­tak skulle “beva­res” og for­ster­kes er nett­opp, det,.. rasisme, der noen gen­etiske karak­te­ris­tika skal opp­rett­hol­des.

      Jeg har selv blå øyne, men at dette skal over­le­ve­res etter­ti­den via tvang og stat­lig favo­ri­se­ring??

      Hjelpe og trøste..

    • Buddy Ogilvy

      Ad b): Gitt det vold­somme press vårt demo­krati har vært utsatt for de siste 40 år, den demo­gra­fiske utvik­lin­gen i Norge og Europa, og gitt FN-kjø­ret de siste årene mot ytrings­fri­het,  hvor lenge tror du skuta hol­der seg fly­tende? 

      Selv tip­per jeg at vi vil opp­leve et høy­tek­no­lo­gisk over­vå­kingsam­funn innen 20 år.  Min­ner om pro­le­nes plass i roma­nen 1984, 85 pro­sent av befolk­nin­gen. De fikk sulle med sitt, omtrent som fleste­par­ten av dagens befolk­ning sul­ler med sitt, apo­li­tiske og apa­tiske. Bare de som utgjorde en trus­sel mot mak­ten, fikk føle jern­hæ­len. 

      Tren­den i dagens sam­funn, der all oppo­si­sjon skal for­døm­mes og nå over­vå­kes som poten­si­elle ABB-klo­nin­ger, peker i ret­ning av mer og mer over­vå­king. Utvan­nin­gen av og mang­lende respekt for men­neske­ret­tig­he­tene (og indi­vi­dets ret­tig­he­ter!) peker i samme ret­ning: et tota­li­tært og under­tryk­kende regime. 

      Den som lever, får se. Det er spen­nende tider.

      • Guest

         Jeg set­ter mitt håp til de “sosiale medier”, fordi Twit­ter-revo­lu­sjo­ner i grunn­leg­gende demo­kra­tiske sam­funn, som det Norge er, i mot­set­ning til Egypt, kan bli til sen­trale kor­rek­ti­ver til beva­ring av demo­kra­tiet, ikke minst ved å skape omgå­el­ser til en hys­te­risk, sann­hets­for­nek­tende MSM og Aka­de­mia, som for tiden er pill råt­ten grun­net domi­nans av venstre­eks­tre­mis­ter med en anti­de­mo­kra­tisk “vivetbest”-mentalitet.

  • Stei­n­ad­ler

     Jeg må si jeg har pro­ble­mer med å se hvor­dan dette skil­ler seg fra annet mis­bruk av Brei­vik-saken for å sverte poli­tiske og/eller reli­giøse mot­stan­dere. Man kan jo bare søke opp hen­hold­vis Lee Sil­ver og Gerald Berg­man på net­tet så fin­ner man raskt ut at disse i flere tiår har befun­net seg på hver sin side i den lange og destruk­tive stri­den (i USA) mel­lom fors­kere innen bio­lo­gisk viten­skap på den ene siden og krea­sjo­nis­ter og antidar­wi­nis­ter på den annen. Og her synes man altså å ha fun­net at Brei­viks for­skrudde vink­ling av dette emnet kan benyt­tes for å sverte en mot­stan­der som Lee Sil­ver. For min del styr­ker det bare inter­es­sen både for pro­fes­sor Sil­vers bøker og for en del av de andre som har blitt utsatt for til­sva­rende for­søk på å etab­lere “guilt by associa­tion” ved hjelp av fjor­årets tra­ge­die.

    • Guest

       Er for­så­vidt enig med deg, Stei­n­ad­ler, at artik­kel­for­fat­ter i for sterk grad søker å klistre enkelte bio­lo­ger til Brei­viks pro­sjekt.

      Imid­ler­tid opp­le­ver jeg at Berg­mans ana­lyse inne­hol­der belys­ning av vik­tige faset­ter av Brei­viks men­ta­li­tet som står i kon­trast til PK-bilde:
      1) En god gjen­dri­velse av at Brei­vik skulle være noen slags “kris­ten­fun­da­men­ta­list”. Det er han sim­pelt­hen ikke.
      2) Hans fun­da­men­tale rasisme (opp­tatt­het av blå­øyd­het)
      3) Til en viss grad kob­let til 2), hans poli­tiske sosial­dar­wi­nisme, som mest knyt­ter an til tra­di­sjo­nell nazisme.
      4) Han synes å ha vel­dig lite fel­les med lais­sez-faire-vari­an­ten til sosial­dar­wi­nis­mens “far” Her­bert Spen­cer, en for øvrig sterkt mis­kjent figur i vår tid, som, eksem­pel­vis, krast for­dømte bri­tisk koloni­velde i sam­ti­den, fordi det var pre­get av tvangs­han­del (og poli­tikk til å under­støtte denne), sna­rere enn fri­han­del blant frie, like­ver­dige men­nesker.

      At Berg­man har noen ideo­lo­giske økser han brin­ger til torgs og øns­ker å benytte på sin kol­lega Sil­ver, sier mer om Berg­mans per­son­lig­het enn noe annet, men ana­ly­sen til Berg­man er like­vel spen­nende i å avdekke en tanke­struk­tur hos brei­vik som står sær­de­les fjernt fra, for eksem­pel, mil­jøet rundt Rustad&co på document.no

      • Buddy Ogilvy

        Kloke ord! 

        For å være litt kynisk: “Maktas” pro­blem er dog at antal­let men­nesker som fal­ler inn under punkt 2 og 3 er for få til at ABB blir  poli­tisk nyt­tig som stig­ma­ti­se­rings­ar­gu­ment. Det fins svært få rasis­ter og nazis­ter i Norge. (Selv nord­front måtte jo hente inn svenske nazis­ter for sin demo i Trond­heim)

        • Flora

          Nord­front sin demon­stra­sjon er blitt svært inter­es­sant sett i lys av opp­lys­nin­gene rundt SOS Rasis­mes infil­tra­sjon av NDL. Hvem hadde mot­de­mon­stra­sjon i Trond­heim? Hvem fil­met Nord­fronts demon­stra­sjon? Og hvem har fått medie­opp­merk­som­het ifbm demon­stra­sjo­nen? Alle spm har ett svar: SOS Rasisme!

          Og hva som er mest hin­si­des enhver for­nuft er at NRK Midt­nytt ga Ken­neth Fuglemsmo fra Tjen Folket et sta­tiv med mik­ro­fon og lot han uimot­sagt kom­men­tere demon­stra­sjo­nen. (Fuglemsmo og hans ideo­lo­giske fren­der har nylig truet og skremt bort to unge jøder som solgte døde­hav­s­pro­duk­ter på Trond­heim Torg).

          NRKs eks­pert­kom­men­ta­tor Fuglemsmo har uttalt bl.a. at
          Ingen har opp­nådd så store resul­ta­ter som fol­kene som blei ledet av kom­mu­nis­ter

          - Vi har ingen tro på en ren par­la­men­ta­risk over­gang til kom­mu­nis­men. His­to­rien har vist oss at væp­net revo­lu­sjon er den eneste måten arbei­derne kan frata bor­ger­ska­pet mak­ten

          Sita­tet (som rik­tig­nok ikke er Churchills) om at de neste fascis­ter vil kalle seg anti-fascis­ter tåler san­ne­lig tidens tann. 


          • Hei Flora ! Jeg hop­pet også i sto­len da jeg så denne Fuglemsmo få gi sin uhil­dede mening om Nord­fronts demon­stra­sjon ! Jour­na­list­stan­den lig­ger i koma, og har aldri ett kri­tisk spørs­mål til noe som helst. Alt er like greitt, lissom. At man­nen har lagt seg til et skik­ke­lig mul­lah­skjegg er for­mo­dent­lig en soli­da­risk hand­ling med de under­trykte mas­sene i Norge.

    • kje­til

       Guilt  by associa­tion er en like saa daar­lig ide for pro­fes­sor Lee Sil­ver som for andre!  Men, det er grunn til aa peke paa gal­ska­pen bak pro­fes­so­rens idéer om en moderne form for euge­nikk. ¿Kan disse idé­ene fun­gere? kan­skje. Men dett er uttrykk for uto­pisk tenk­ning, og er det noe vi skulla ha laert av det tyvende aar­hundre saa er det at  UTOPI DREPER.  Resul­ta­tet vil aldri bli hva man naivt oensket seg,

      • Stei­n­ad­ler

        Det ser ihvert­fall ut til at han har bekym­ret seg for at dette er en utvik­ling som uan­sett vil kunne komme til å følge sitt eget løp i det “frie mar­ke­det”. De siste sidene av en av bøkene hans som lig­ger åpent til­gjen­ge­lig på net­tet er ren science fic­tion. Hvor bok­sta­ve­lig skal man ta det ? Hans utgangs­punkt ser ut til å være at “ånden alt er ute av flas­ken”. Hva gjør man så ? Over­la­ter det hele til “mar­ke­det” ? I siste instans er vel hele det høy­tek­no­lo­giske sam­fun­net som sådan dre­vet av en form for “uto­pisk leng­sel”, gen­tek­no­lo­gien bare siste skudd på stam­men av en tek­no­logi­op­ti­misme som har gjen­nom­sy­ret alle moderne øko­no­mier. Skal man følge res­son­ne­men­tet så er vi alle­rede for lengst på vei mot “et dår­lig sted”  eller den ende­lige dyst­o­pien. I den sam­men­heng kan det jo like gjerne vise seg at “repro­gen­etikk” i en form vi knapt er istand til å fore­stille oss ender med å bli den rene nød­ven­dig­het.

        • kje­til

           Kan­skje. Vi ser alle­rede noen kon­se­kven­ser l land som India og Kina, hvor almenn til­gang til fos­ter­dia­gnos­tikk har foert til at sva­ert mange jente­barn abor­te­res. Hvilke sosiale pro­ble­mer dette vil foere til om noen aar kan det vaere vans­ke­lig aa fore­stille seg idag!   Men at mange mil­lio­ner av unge menn helt uten utsikt til aa finne seg en part­ner hvil ha kon­se­kven­ser.

           Fore­loe­pig tror jeg det er noe begren­set hva man kan si om et frem­ti­dig barn utfra fos­ter­dia­gnos­tikk, men etter­hvert som dette blir for­bedret kan det skje litt av hvert!

  • Kje­til7

    Er litt usik­ker på en del av påstan­dene her. Vi ser at eli­ten både i vårt land og i USA  i stor grad gif­ter seg med hver­andre. Dagens repro­duk­sjon er ofte styrt og ikke et pro­dukt av øye­blikk­s­hen­del­ser. Jeg tror der­for at eli­tene innen de ulike etniske grup­pene gif­ter seg og får barn med hver­andre, i en viss grad kan det fore­komme gif­ter­mål mel­lom de ulike etniske elite­grup­pene. Når vel­ferds­sam­fun­net rak­ner blir det sta­dig vik­ti­gere å få en part­ner som har de nød­ven­dige egen­ska­per knyt­tet til arv og miljø som sik­rer avkom­mets trygg­het. Den store mas­sen er man i sta­dig mindre grad opp­tatt, og her er jo enig med noen av påstan­dene her, en slik utvik­ling vil betinge over­vå­king og et “politi­korps”” som kan beskytte eli­tens poli­tiske makt sam­ti­dig som et pri­vat politi­korps kan beskytte eli­ten i  Deres boom­rå­der.

  • Aesop

    Apro­pos euge­nisme (rase­avl), så har Anfind­sen dess­verre åpnet for det inne i en tråd på Verdi­de­batt, nå i februar/mars.

    • Gjen­gir du Anfind­sen kor­rekt og med god vilje her? Det hadde vært på sin plass med en lenke, slik at kom­men­ta­ren kunne blitt sett i sam­men­heng.

    • Her er kom­men­ta­ren du leser at Anfind­sen åpner for rase­avl ut av. Rede­lig?

      Bøhn har bedt meg rede­gjøre for mitt syn på euge­nikk. Dette er imid­ler­tid et tema jeg knapt har beskjef­ti­get meg med. Jeg fes­tet meg ved at pro­fes­sor Nils Roll-Han­sen (knapt noen høyre­eks­tre­mist) under en fore­les­ning i viten­skaps­fi­lo­sofi ved UiO høs­ten 1994 sa noe om at vi i det lange løp ikke kom­mer utenom en eller annen grad av eller form for euge­nikk. Jeg hus­ker dette fordi jeg kvapp litt da han sa det.

      Jeg har senere for­stått at det fore­går en del drøf­tel­ser av denne tema­tik­ken i aka­de­miske kret­ser, og da jeg hadde en viss dia­log med Roll-Han­sen ifm med utgi­vel­sen av Selv­mords­pa­ra­dig­met for to år siden (han må selv­sagt ikke tas til inn­tekt for mine syne­spunk­ter), nevnte han i en epost at han var i ferd med å full­føre et bidrag han hadde skre­vet til Oxford Ency­clo­pe­dia of Euge­nics.

      Men, altså, dette er en tema­tikk jeg ikke har satt meg inn i, og som jeg der­for ikke kan uttale meg om. Jeg ser eugenics.net er ett av de første tref­fene man får når man goog­ler det engelske begre­pet, så det er tyde­lig at en del folk (på den ame­ri­kanske høyre­si­den i hvert fall) er opp­tatt av disse tin­gene.

      For min egen del vil jeg nøye meg med å gi Roll-Han­sen rett i at det nok vil bli vans­ke­lig å neg­li­sjere disse tin­gene fullt og helt frem­over. Blant annet vil jeg tippe at frem­skritt innen medi­sin og gen­etikk vil stille oss over­for nye, etiske dilem­maer. Jeg vil uan­sett mene at dette er et område der man bør gå meget for­sik­tig frem, gitt de nokså hor­rible, his­to­riske erfa­rin­gene vi alle kjen­ner til.”


  • bro­zak

    ABB og 99,9% av befolk­nin­gen har dette til fel­les: Troen paa at det er mulig aa skape en “bedre” ver­den. Troen paa at men­nes­ke­he­ten gjen­nom div. reli­gio­ner og ideo­lo­gier kan kon­stru­ere en per­fekt til­ver­else. Men denne troen leder til sta­dig nye kata­stro­fer fordi ver­den var per­fekt alle­rede i utgangs­punk­tet. Anbe­fa­ler stu­dier i taois­men og filo­so­fien om ikke­inn­gri­pen.

  • kje­til

    Silver’s goal is for parents to be able to select the gen­etic
    cha­rac­te­ri­s­tics of their off­spring, which he pre­dicts will trig­ger major
    social changes, inclu­ding redu­cing gen­etic dise­ases and the bre­e­ding of
    superior humans.”

    It is dif­fi­cult to beleave that a serious bio­lo­gist can be so naive. What if those “superior cha­rac­re­ri­s­tics” is cor­re­lated with gen­etic dise­ase,
    which is at least pro­bably the case?

    • Petter H

      Er det du som sier det som et er det et svar til Gerald Berg­man?

      Det får meg til å spørre, har Berg­man pos­tet denne artik­ke­len selv her på Docu­ment eller er dette en kopi? Leser Berg­man dette? I så fall burde vi fort­sette på engelsk.

      • kje­til

         Jeg soekte paa net­tet og kunne ikke finne denne artik­ke­len andre ste­der. det er hel­ler ikke angitt refe­rense. Saa den er nok skre­vet ori­gi­nal for docu­ment.

    • Stei­n­ad­ler

      The pro­portions of these “superior cha­rac­te­ri­s­tics” may be gra­dually dimi­nis­hed  any­way, by way of over­po­pu­la­tion and urba­niza­tion, even­tually lead­ing to extinc­tion. Fai­rly obvious cases would be those of schi­zoph­re­nia and pos­sibly Asper­gers syn­drome. It is a well-known fact now that the crea­tive mind does, in some deci­sive ways resem­ble the mind of people suf­fe­ring psycho­tic break­downs or com­plete per­so­na­lity dis­in­te­gra­tion. Auti­s­tic spec­trum syn­dro­mes are strongly cor­re­lated with hyper­sen­si­ti­vity – pos­sibly a coun­ter­se­lective trait in an ever­more chao­tic and dis­tur­bing urba­nized environ­ment. The schi­zoph­re­nic (mani­festly dise­ased) ver­sion of the crea­tive mind­set is highly over­re­pre­sented in urban enviro­ments. So, one might just as well argue that a num­ber of potenti­ally valuable traits alre­ady could be set on a path for extinc­tion and that gen­etics will not neces­sa­rily make tings any worse. It might in fact con­tri­bute to a height­e­ned awa­re­ness of indi­vi­dual cha­rac­te­ri­s­tics, pos­si­bi­lities – and needs.

      If, on average, those con­ce­i­ved with second form of the gene ulti­mately have more child­ren than those con­ce­i­ved with the first form of the gene, then with each gene­ra­tion, a lar­ger and lar­ger pro­portion of the popu­la­tion will carry the second gene form. Even­tually, there will come a time when the first form of the gene dis­appears, and only the second form sur­vives in all mem­bers of the spec­ies. It is the change in the forms of genes that a popu­la­tion car­ries that defi­nes evo­lu­tion. This is not what most non-scien­tists think of when they con­ce­ive of evo­lu­tion. They usu­ally ima­gine large-scale changes in the way a popu­la­tion looks or behaves. This “macro-evo­lu­tion” is sim­ply a result of large num­bers of minis­cule changes in many genes.

      Selection at this level is hap­pe­ning every day, and directly influ­en­ced by the tota­li­ta­rian influ­ence of the average. Why would the out­come of “repro­gen­etics” be any worse ?

      • kje­til

         Yes, there is no doubt that human evo­lu­tion still occurs. In Nor­way, about 25% of fifty year old men do not have own child­ren! That repre­sents a quite heavy selection pres­sure, but of course, we do not know against what, as nobody seems to have investi­ga­ted this. Still , one might do some gues­swork, and some factors this is selecting against could be.
        — low intel­li­genc
        — socially mal-adap­ted per­sons
        — shy­ness
        —- the autism spec­trum

        • Stei­n­ad­ler

          Over­all, rese­ar­chers have observed child­free coup­les to be more edu­cated, more likely to be emp­loyed in pro­fes­sio­nal and mana­ge­ment occu­pa­tions, more likely for both spou­ses to earn rela­tively high incomes, to live in urban areas, to be less reli­gious, to sub­scribe to less tra­ditio­nal gen­der roles, and to be less con­ven­tio­nal. Eco­nomist David Foot of the Uni­ver­sity of Toronto con­clu­ded that the female’s edu­ca­tion is the most impor­tant deter­mi­nant of the likeli­hood of her repro­du­cing. The hig­her the edu­ca­tion, the less likely she is to bear child­ren.

          It would seem to follow, logically, then, that the hig­her edu­ca­tion of fema­les does in fact lead to a loss of repro­duc­tion among the most intel­li­gent males and fema­les. A mere gene­ra­tion ago the more intel­li­gent women would have mar­ried edu­cated men in pro­fes­sio­nal and mana­ge­rial positions, but as the same women would not at that time have been highly edu­cated them­selves they were much more likely to repro­duce. So, in this way (a cer­tain side) to femi­nism may in fact be dum­bing down the popu­la­tion, well in accord with a num­ber of other social democra­tic prac­tices.

          • kje­til

             Yes, this is _one_ tenden­ce3. But one must also take in the com­pu­ta­tion the other­trend that I refe­ren­ced above, that so many men do not have own child­ren. Maybe these two tenden­cies balance?

          • Stei­n­ad­ler

             Not sure what you’re get­ting at here, or which tenden­cies you’re thin­king of as, pos­sibly, being balanced . But it might seem a rea­so­nable assump­tion that the tendency among hig­her edu­cated women, for not having child­ren, relates to a simi­lar trend among men. There pro­bably are other sub­groups at the other end of the scale of intel­li­gence, not having chil­den, and so per­haps one could ima­gine a balance, or in a sense a “tyranny of the mean”. Society as such though, may tend to be dum­bed down, as the next gene­ra­tion of “pro­fes­sio­nals and mana­gers” will be of somewhat lower intel­li­gence.

            In my view there can hardly be much doubt that the sys­tem does, in a way, coun­ter­se­lect true free­dom. Modern society sim­ply seems an ever more over­crow­ded, dena­tu­ra­lized cage. So, there could be anot­her factor here akin to that observed among cap­tive ani­mals. The obstruc­tions par­ti­cu­lar to “zoo life” may lead to a lower rate of repro­duc­tion among the more intel­li­gent as the “gil­ded cage” of moder­nity sim­ply does not fit the require­ments of a fully human being. For the average human being there might still be a sense of “pro­gress” as a very large part of our spec­ies did in fact for hund­reds, if not thou­sands of years, lead a dena­tu­ra­lized life of slavery and oppres­sion. Moving into the “gol­den cage” of moder­nity might of course (have) seem(ed) a bet­ter alter­na­tive then. So, my guess would be that modern society tends to select for crowdedness/captivity.