It helps to know what motivates a mass murderer — in this case, it’s the philosophy that derives from Darwinism, the only theory of origins accepted in government-run secular educational establishments worldwide.
Writer Jerry Bergman argues that ideas — good and bad — have consequences:
On Friday, 22 July 2011 Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik (he anglicized his name to Andrew Berwick in his manifesto) set off a bomb and 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. The bombing of government buildings in Oslo resulted in eight 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 others.
As Bergman notes, when news of Breivik’s atrocities became known, the media predictably gave it their own “spin”:
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 rightwing groups explained Breivik’s ideology and actions. One typical headline read ‘Norwegian Killer is Conservative Christian Fundamentalist’. Although, as is true of many persons, he had both some 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 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 the inclusion of his ‘if there is a God’ proviso when pondering his after-death destiny. — Ibid.
Far from adhering to the tenets of Christianity:
Breivik detailed in his document [his grand manifesto, '2083 European Declaration of Independence'] 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 the application of ‘national Darwinism’ should be at the core of our society. He does not believe that science should be left in private hands, suggesting it requires lavish and permanent support by the government.
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.” Breivik listed Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ as one of the more ‘important’ books that he has ever read. — Ibid.
In his manifesto, Breivik deplores how the Nazis used “negative eugenics” in their social programs. He doesn’t condemn their murders, however, only the bad publicity the Nazis gave to the notion. Instead, he has another kind of eugenics in mind:
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.”
Noting the social stigma of eugenics, Breivik wrote that, unfortunately, eugenics and reprogenetics are now “extremely politically incorrect to discuss” because of “the ‘negative eugenics programs’ of Nazi Germany …” — Ibid.
Of course, Breivik didn’t invent “reprogenetics”; he glommed on to the idea after reading the work of a Princeton scholar:
Breivik’s ‘reprogenetics’ proposal draws on the thinking of 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: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World’ is prominently featured in Breivik’s manifesto.
Reprogenetics involves applying genetic advances currently being perfected, including technological improvements in interpreting the effects of specific DNA on morphology, the ability to harvest large numbers of embryos from adult females, and progress to dynamically increase the current rate of successful embryo reinsertion into host mothers. 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.
… The major difference between reprogenetics and eugenics is that eugenics programs are compulsory, imposed by totalitarian governments attempting to achieve some idealistic, utopian goal such as a society of high IQ individuals.
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 spends much of his book attempting to dismiss what he perceives to be the major objections to his new eugenics. — Ibid.
In his book Remaking Eden, Silver sloughs off …
“… 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.”
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. — Ibid.
For Anders Breivik, the convicted mass murderer, the only members of the human race worth saving are the Nordic types—fair skin, light hair, and blue eyes. Indeed, anyone else not fitting that description is by definition sub-human in the Darwinian sense:
Breivik concluded that saving humanity required 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. — Ibid.
You can read all of Bergman’s article here. Silver’s book is for sale here. (Note that the 2007 paperback reissue has undergone a title change: Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family.)