Is Anders Behring Breivik a “Christian”? Not so much, it turns out.
Not that facts stop the mainstream media propaganda machine from attacking the religion they hate more than any other (that’s YOU, Jesus):
The lamestream media is tripping all over itself to pin “Christian fundamentalist” on Anders Breivik’s murderous terror spree in Norway. Of course to do so, the lamestream media had to make a decision to ignore the terrorist’s
own manifesto. In it, he claims he wants to launch a “crusade” against those who would destroy Europe’s traditional institutions, which he rightly points out are the product of Christian civilization. However, he further states that it is not necessary (!!!) to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior to qualify under his definition for the word “Christian”. Or in the words of Breivik’s manifesto:
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.” (source)
So apparently, if you are an European atheist who wants to continue to enjoy the political and cultural benefits of Christianity, in Anders Breivik’s terrorist world that makes you a “Christian”. And if you murder a bunch of people in the name of Christianity, that makes you an even better “Christian”. Of course, it goes without saying that the lamestream media will jump at every opportunity to smear Christianity, so they are running with the terrorist’s definition of what constitutes the same without any context or opposing points of view.
Now if the terrorist turned out to be a Muslim, and murdered all those people in the name of Allah, you can bet the lamestream media would be breathlessly filling their rags full of Muslim apologetics explaining why it’s impossible for a true Muslim to commit acts of terror because “Islam is a religion of peace.”
And wouldn’t you know it, the revolutionaries masquerading as the media are now trying to link the murder spree in Norway —and— the murder spree in Arizona that left six people dead and thirteen more wounded to–yep, you guessed it–Sarah Palin.
Jesus and Sarah Palin. Public enemies number one and two on the left’s hit list.
We find out that Breivik’s link to “Christianity” was manufactured AFTER THE FACT. See that proof here.
The UK Guardian correctly points out that:
The Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who shot dead more than 90 young socialists at their summer camp on Friday after mounting a huge bomb attack on the centre of Oslo, has been described as a fundamentalist Christian. Yet he published enough of his thoughts on the internet to make it clear that even in his saner moments his ideology had nothing to do with Christianity but was based on an atavistic horror of Muslims and a loathing of “Marxists”, by which he meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan.
Jesus told us that we must be born again through faith in Him (see John 3:1-16). He told us that He is the Living Water Who alone can quench our thirst for life (see John 4:5-26). Jesus was clearly not speaking about “Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform”; He was speaking about a personal transformation in Him and through Him.
Liberals argue that Breivik says he is a Christian and therefore he’s a Christian. I wonder if they would affirm their logic if I said I was a liberal and then went on a murder spree. Would my claiming I was a liberal be enough to vilify liberalism even though I don’t believe in any of the key elements of liberalism? I have a feeling it wouldn’t work that way. What if I started calling myself a New York Times reporter? Would that mean I am one? So the fact that the Bible and 2,000 years of orthodox Christian tradition that affirms that one needs to have a personal encounter with Jesus Christ in order to be saved (which is what makes you a “Christian”) ought to be important. Ought it not?
To make a further distinction between Christianity and Islam, Islam literally IS following a set of rules. And this is not an attack against Islam; Muslims themselves would affirm this. You do not pray and receive Allah or Muhammad into your heart. There is no theology of being personally filled with the Spirit of Allah within Islam. Nor do Muslims call Allah their “Father.” Christianity is not “acting” a certain way; the Christian life only begins after receiving Jesus Christ by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2;8-10). You receive a new life in Christ. Or you are NOT a “Christian.”
Anders Behring Breivik specifically denies that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. But Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me” (John 10:14). He is not a Christian.
The mainstream media is simply profoundly dishonest and depraved in refusing to treat Christianity in terms of its own central claims.
The second thing the mainstream media has routinely done is link Anders Behring Breivik to the “far right” and describe him as a “right-wing radical.”
First of all, this is a tactic that LEFT-wing “journalists” have been employing since they were taught by their communist handlers. As I pointed out in a previous article:
To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism. Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316]. Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative. If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing. If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie. If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist. And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.
“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”
As Gene Edward Veith points out:
“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.” Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.
Hate and intolerance is bad, therefore leftwing media propagandists define it as “Christian.” And racism is bad, therefore leftwing media propagandists define it as “right-wing.”
Here’s a brief summary of a McClatchy article that ran on page 1 of the Los Angeles Times on Monday, July 25:
far-right extremists … far-right and anti-immigrant parties … right-wing fanatics … far-right groups … a right-wing extremist … right-wing political muscle … Right-wing radicals … right-wing activism … right-wing extremists … Far-right radicals … far-right extremist communities … far-right groups in Sweden, Russia and other parts of Europe …
Well, tell us your opinion. Do you think this loon maybe came from the political right???
Other than one assertion after another, there is not a single shred of evidence that Breivik was “right-wing” rather than “left-wing.” It’s really just assumed. I mean, after all, the guy was a racist and he was anti-immigrant. What more do you need? It’s the same bogeyman-building project we’ve seen for going on a hundred years: “If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.” The left is good, so the right must be evil. And “reporters” can assign whatever is negative to them. The right is bad by definition. And said definition was created by the left, so you can know it’s legitimate.
Well, is it the “right-wing” that’s racist?
“I’ve organized huge numbers of conversations among workers about immigration, comprehensive immigration reform. And there is significant worker opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. And, appallingly, among African-Americans. People have gone overtime in trying to organize a battle royale – right? – for the country between African-Americans and Latinos on this whole issue. So I’ve got a feeling it’s got some legs. […]
On white workers, I think we’ve got some real problems. I’ve spent a lot of time in Wisconsin and places like that where I have heard some of the most anti-immigrant sentiments around. It’s also, and this is where you get the black workers first; it’s so fucking rabidly racist – ’till black people get scared. They don’t just mean you. So you can organize them quicker.”
“F-ing rabidly racist,” huh? But wait a minute. The SEIU couldn’t BE more “left-wing.” Remember Andy Stern and his “Workers of the world unite – it’s not just a slogan anymore. It’s the way we’re gonna have to do our work”???
Labor unions have ALWAYS been left-wing. But lo and behold, they have also ALWAYS been racist:
By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped. AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.
Democrats were the party of slavery, and the party of the Klu Klux Klan (and see the link here for a thorough treatment). They were the party of the Klanbake at the 1924 Democrat National Convention.
Let’s see how that trend has continued. In the fact that the last politician who had not only been IN the Ku Klux Klan, but a Grand Wizard, was a DEMOCRAT who continued to SERVE as a Democrat until his death last year.
Or how about more recently, in former President Bill Clinton:
“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”the former president told the liberal lion from Massachusetts, according to the gossipy new campaign book, “Game Change.”
The book says Kennedy was deeply offended and recounted the conversation to friends with fury.
After Kennedy sided with Obama, Clinton reportedly griped, “the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”
Or for that matter in Hillary Clinton, at least according to liberal Obama supporter Michael Pfleger, preaching in Obama’s own church:
“When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’
Then out of nowhere, ‘I’m Barack Obama!’
Imitating Hillary’s response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, ‘Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’”
And how about liberal protestors who first called the Tea Party “racist” and then said of Clarence Thomas:
Quote from liberal protestor about black Justice Clarence Thomas: “Put him back in the fields He’s a scumbag. He’s a dumbshit scumbag. Put him back in the fields. [And what about Justice Samuel Alito?] Alito should go back to Sicily.”
Another liberal “Common Cause” protestor took that racist ball and ran down the field. Of black Justice Clarence Thomas she said, “String him up” [as in “Lynch him!”]. Another liberal said of Justice Thomas: “I dunno, ’cause I’m all about peace, but I would say torture.”
Like this, maybe?
Yeah, you string that black man up, liberals. You torture him. You put his “kind” back in the fields where they belong. You use your organizational power as a labor union to keep him down and out of a job. He ought to be serving coffee, not running for president. Hillary Clinton ought to be president, because after all, she’s WHITE and ENTITLED.
Here’s another very recent example of racist bias and the left versus the right:
Juan Williams’ Wife: NPR Liberals Are Hypocrites
Wednesday, 20 Jul 2011 11:34 AM
By Ronald Kessler
Delise Williams, the wife of Fox News contributor Juan Williams, tells Newsmax that “so-called liberals” at NPR treated her — a light-skinned African-American — as if she didn’t exist.
“The NPR people were hypocrites because they are supposed to be the liberals who are accepting of all kinds of people and inclusive, and they were the most exclusive group in my experience of going to events related to work that I have ever seen,” says Delise, a former social worker who is the daughter of a doctor.
Juan Williams’ book “Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate” hits bookstores next week. It reveals that for years before NPR fired him, NPR executives harassed him over what he did or did not say on the air.
NewsmaxTV interviewed Juan about the book, including how Fox News President Roger Ailes expanded Juan’s role at Fox and made sure he would not suffer a pay cut because NPR had fired him over what he had said on Fox.
In the meantime, Delise says that she and Juan were the only blacks at NPR parties, a point confirmed by Juan. In general, both say, African-Americans were found only in low level jobs such as security guards.
So other than – to paraphrase that SEIU Vice President, “fucking rabidly left-wing” pseudo-journalism – why on earth would ANYBODY with even a scintilla of objectivity assume that just because someone is racist or anti-immigrant, they must therefore be “right-wing”???
These “journalists” and “reporters” are biased to the cores of their shriveled little cockroach souls. They have been playing this same dishonest flagrently biased game for so long it is unreal.
If you read them and assign them any credibility at all, you are filling your own soul with lies. And it is long-passed time for you to quit stupidly and naively filling your soul with blatant lies and propaganda.