Finnish school shooter: Social Darwinism's role in mass murder

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/11/finnish-school-shooter-soc...

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Finnish school shooter: Social Darwinism's role in mass murder

Note: If you were linked to this story, be sure to see Update 1,
Update 2, and Update 3 below.

I just got done rejecting a large number of comments from people who
claim to enjoy this blog but nonetheless consider the report last
evening of the Darwinist sympathies of the Finnish school shooter to
be in poor taste.

(I suppose the Finns didn't know they were supposed to suppress that
part of the story, so that it would only be discovered thirty years
from now by a gutsy researcher ... )

First, it's rubbish that anyone who enjoys this blog was upset. This
blog has published many more pungent stories and I urge anyone who
doubts that to investigate the archives. While you're there, have a
look at the way in which scholar Richard Weikart found himself the
target of similar attacks for his careful study of social Darwinism in
From Darwin to Hitler.

Second, if people honestly think that the boy's social Darwinism
played no role in his shooting spree, I assume that they also think
that toxic religious beliefs play no role in Middle Eastern-directed
suicide bombings.

I disagree in both cases. Beliefs have consequences.

While we are here, I think that - while individual atheists can be
highly moral - materialist atheist creeds in the twentieth century
were demonstrably more likely to exterminate vast numbers of people
than any traditional orientations.

There are several good reasons for that, but the most obvious is this
one: The materialist atheist does not believe that there is any
underlying mind, meaning or purpose in the universe. In principle,
then, it is not true that humans are of more significance than tent
caterpillars. And if they are a problem, the materialist atheist who
is in power need not have any compunction in dealing with them in the
same way as a gardener deals with tent caterpillars. He faces no
judgment if he is wrong. He will someday be a corpse just like the
ones he surrounds himself with.

Yes, of course, an atheist may choose to behave differently from that,
as most do - except that materialist atheists do not in fact believe
in free will. So they aren't choosing to behave differently - they are
merely happening not to behave that way. Not much on which to build a
society.

And I'm supposed to take their "offended" posture seriously?

Someone mentioned Ann Coulter to me recently, and I happen to have her
book Godless out of the library. Those of you who get off on being
offended will really appreciate this:

The path between Darwinism and Nazism may not be ineluctable, but it
is more ineluctable than the evolutionary path from monkey to man.
Darwin's theory overturned every aspect of Biblical morality. Instead
of honor thy mother and father, the Darwinian ethic was honor thy
children. Instead of enshrining moral values, the Darwinian ethic
enshrined biological instincts. Instead of transcendent moral values,
the Darwinian ethic said all morals are relative. Instead of
sanctifying life, the Darwinian ethic sanctified death.

So it should not be surprising that eugenicists, racists, and assorted
psychopaths always gravitate to Darwinism. From the most evil
dictators to today's antismoking crusaders, sexual profligates, and
animal rights nuts, Darwinism has infected the whole culture. And yet
small schoolchildren who know that George Washington had slaves are
never told of the centrality of Darwin's theory to Nazism, eugenics,
abortion, infanticide, "racial hygiene" societies, genocide, and the
Soviet gulags. (p. 269)

<snip>

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/11/finnish-school-shooter-soc...

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Finnish school shooter: Social Darwinism's role in mass murder

Note: If you were linked to this story, be sure to see Update 1,
Update 2, and Update 3 below.

I just got done rejecting a large number of comments from people who
claim to enjoy this blog but nonetheless consider the report last
evening of the Darwinist sympathies of the Finnish school shooter to
be in poor taste.

(I suppose the Finns didn't know they were supposed to suppress that
part of the story, so that it would only be discovered thirty years
from now by a gutsy researcher ... )

First, it's rubbish that anyone who enjoys this blog was upset. This
blog has published many more pungent stories and I urge anyone who
doubts that to investigate the archives. While you're there, have a
look at the way in which scholar Richard Weikart found himself the
target of similar attacks for his careful study of social Darwinism in
From Darwin to Hitler.

Second, if people honestly think that the boy's social Darwinism
played no role in his shooting spree, I assume that they also think
that toxic religious beliefs play no role in Middle Eastern-directed
suicide bombings.

I disagree in both cases. Beliefs have consequences.

While we are here, I think that - while individual atheists can be
highly moral - materialist atheist creeds in the twentieth century
were demonstrably more likely to exterminate vast numbers of people
than any traditional orientations.

There are several good reasons for that, but the most obvious is this
one: The materialist atheist does not believe that there is any
underlying mind, meaning or purpose in the universe. In principle,
then, it is not true that humans are of more significance than tent
caterpillars. And if they are a problem, the materialist atheist who
is in power need not have any compunction in dealing with them in the
same way as a gardener deals with tent caterpillars. He faces no
judgment if he is wrong. He will someday be a corpse just like the
ones he surrounds himself with.

Yes, of course, an atheist may choose to behave differently from that,
as most do - except that materialist atheists do not in fact believe
in free will. So they aren't choosing to behave differently - they are
merely happening not to behave that way. Not much on which to build a
society.

And I'm supposed to take their "offended" posture seriously?

Someone mentioned Ann Coulter to me recently, and I happen to have her
book Godless out of the library.

Those of you who get off on being
offended will really appreciate this:

The path between Darwinism and Nazism may not be ineluctable, but it
is more ineluctable than the evolutionary path from monkey to man.
Darwin's theory overturned every aspect of Biblical morality. Instead
of honor thy mother and father, the Darwinian ethic was honor thy
children. Instead of enshrining moral values, the Darwinian ethic
enshrined biological instincts. Instead of transcendent moral values,
the Darwinian ethic said all morals are relative. Instead of
sanctifying life, the Darwinian ethic sanctified death.

So it should not be surprising that eugenicists, racists, and assorted
psychopaths always gravitate to Darwinism. From the most evil
dictators to today's antismoking crusaders, sexual profligates, and
animal rights nuts, Darwinism has infected the whole culture. And yet
small schoolchildren who know that George Washington had slaves are
never told of the centrality of Darwin's theory to Nazism, eugenics,
abortion, infanticide, "racial hygiene" societies, genocide, and the
Soviet gulags. (p. 269)

Apparently, they don't need to be told about it, actually. Young Pekka
Eric Auvinen only needed to embrace the ideology.

(I wonder if news authorities will be pressured to remove any
references to Auvinen's views from the story, to avoid "confusing"
people about Darwinism. That happens a lot here in Canada with
fanatical Islamists, who allegedly represent a broad spectrum of
society. That is about as true as Darwinism is, as you will see from
reading the linked story.)

Coulter goes on to say,

In his magnificent book From Darwin to Hitler, Richard Weikart
documents the proliferation of eugenics organizations in Germany
around 1900, all of which asserted their "scientific imprimatur by
claiming harmony wit the laws of evolution." Darwin's theory was
quickly and widely accepted among German biologists, a fact Darwin
noted with approval, telling a friend, "The support which I receive
from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will
ultimately prevail." Darwinism provided the lingo for "scientific"
racism at the onset of the twentieth century. Not only were all
eugenicists Darwinists, but nearly all Darwinists were scientific
racists.

I never thought social Darwinism made sense, being more in Stephen Jay
Gould's anti-social Darwininst Mismeasure of Man camp myself. But most
Darwinists thought it did make sense, and that is very well
documented. And, come to think of it,for much of his life Gould was an
indifferently loyal Darwinist.

Update 1:

Barry Arrington, the lawyer for the families of six of the students
killed at Columbine responds to the combox below:

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at
Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris' jounals; I
listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes,
including the infamous "basement tapes." There cannot be the slightest
doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting
on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: "YOU KNOW WHAT I
LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It's the best thing that ever happened to
the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but
it's all natural! YES!"

Elsewhere he wrote: "NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards."

I could

multiply examples, but you get the picture.

Here, Arrington reflections on the ethical agonies of questioning the
parents of Eric Harris.

Sorry, fanatical Darwinists. You must eat this one or back off. And
don't bother bugging the University of Toronto either. They know I am
teaching an adult night school course and they DON'T care.

Update 2. The Finnish school shooter's video has been removed from the
Internet. A source tells me

The Finland school shooter's video has been removed from the internet.
It is understandable that few media now want to cite his ideology at
length. Here website here still has a long citation of the boy's
statement. His strong ideological roots in Darwinism are more obvious
than you will learn from the mass media.
Here is a still-working link for what are said to be Auvinen's views.

Go here for story updates.

Here is a still-working link for what are said to be his views.
Go here, here, here or here (German) for other copies/believed
authentic items so far not purged.

Update 3

A friend sends a video clip of Dawkins making the point that a
fanatical faith can cause people to become violent.

Dawkins said [01:14 - 02:17]:

"If you teach children or teach people, that there is a virtue in
faith. If you teach people that it's OK to believe something in the
absence of evidence. Maybe even it's more virtuous to believe
something if there's no evidence than if there is and that's certainly
part of the message that gets across.

And that's what is told by the moderate, decent, middle of the road,
religious teachers. If you believe that, then if you have any tendency
toward extremism at all, there is really nothing to stop you pushing
your extreme views to the logical conclusion which is to kill people.
Why would you not if you've been persuaded that this is what Allah
wants you to do or Jehovah wants you to do? And you really really
really truly believe it and you've been talked to really really truly
believe it by those moderate teachers, then why wouldn't you blow
people up, blow yourself up, etc."

So, here we have a case of someone killing in name of Natural
Selection!

(My friend hat tips Telic Thoughts.)

Final reflections on this topic:

This tragedy has provoked an enormous outburst of protest from
Darwinists on account of my noting that the shooter's motive was
social Darwinism. On the rare occasions when a shooter's motive has
been anti-abortion advocacy ( Rudolph) or fundamentalist madness
( Yates), I have NEVER been excoriated by an anti-abortionist or
fundamentalist for openly discussing that fact. Indeed, these types of
cases were openly discussed among Christian journalists at a number of
gatherings in which I participated over the last decade, with
conspicuously little defensiveness. We had long accepted that some
forms of anti-abortion advocacy and fundamentalism are toxic.

So this storm of comments has been a real eye-opener for me (and I
probably rejected more than I accepted, so readers never saw all the
somniferous posturing I did). The storm suggests that - despite claims
- Darwinists have never dealt with the legacy of social Darwinism in
an emotionally healthy enough way to just put it all behind them. Now
that may be because the actual worldview of Darwinism necessitates
social Darwinism. Or it may be because no one has said, "let's just do
it." Or someone has said that, but the troops didn't get it. It's not
really my problem though.

I have now shut off comments to this post. That is principally for
reasons of time management.

I wanted to provide a resource on this
subject, and have done so.
Conspiracy theorists are welcome to invent
additional reasons for my actions if preferring to spend my time on
more productive areas seems unbelievable.

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/11/finnish-school-shooter-social.html

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Finnish school shooter: Social Darwinism's role in mass murder

Note: If you were linked to this story, be sure to see Update 1,
Update 2, and Update 3 below.

I just got done rejecting a large number of comments from people who
claim to enjoy this blog but nonetheless consider the report last
evening of the Darwinist sympathies of the Finnish school shooter to
be in poor taste.

(I suppose the Finns didn't know they were supposed to suppress that
part of the story, so that it would only be discovered thirty years
from now by a gutsy researcher ... )

First, it's rubbish that anyone who enjoys this blog was upset. This
blog has published many more pungent stories and I urge anyone who
doubts that to investigate the archives. While you're there, have a
look at the way in which scholar Richard Weikart found himself the
target of similar attacks for his careful study of social Darwinism in
From Darwin to Hitler.

Second, if people honestly think that the boy's social Darwinism
played no role in his shooting spree, I assume that they also think
that toxic religious beliefs play no role in Middle Eastern-directed
suicide bombings.

I disagree in both cases. Beliefs have consequences.

While we are here, I think that - while individual atheists can be
highly moral - materialist atheist creeds in the twentieth century
were demonstrably more likely to exterminate vast numbers of people
than any traditional orientations.

There are several good reasons for that, but the most obvious is this
one: The materialist atheist does not believe that there is any
underlying mind, meaning or purpose in the universe. In principle,
then, it is not true that humans are of more significance than tent
caterpillars. And if they are a problem, the materialist atheist who
is in power need not have any compunction in dealing with them in the
same way as a gardener deals with tent caterpillars. He faces no
judgment if he is wrong. He will someday be a corpse just like the
ones he surrounds himself with.

Yes, of course, an atheist may choose to behave differently from that,
as most do - except that materialist atheists do not in fact believe
in free will.

So they aren't choosing to behave differently - they are
merely happening not to behave that way. Not much on which to build a
society.

And I'm supposed to take their "offended" posture seriously?

Someone mentioned Ann Coulter to me recently, and I happen to have her
book Godless out of the library. Those of you who get off on being
offended will really appreciate this:

The path between Darwinism and Nazism may not be ineluctable,

is more ineluctable than the evolutionary path from monkey to man.

Darwin's theory overturned every aspect of Biblical morality.

of honor thy mother and father, the Darwinian ethic was honor thy
children.

I just got done rejecting a large number of comments from people who
claim to enjoy this blog but nonetheless consider the report last
evening of the Darwinist sympathies of the Finnish school shooter to
be in poor taste.

(I suppose the Finns didn't know they were supposed to suppress that
part of the story, so that it would only be discovered thirty years
from now by a gutsy researcher ... )

First, it's rubbish that anyone who enjoys this blog was upset. This

blog has published many more pungent stories and I urge anyone who
doubts that to investigate the archives. While you're there, have a
look at the way in which scholar Richard Weikart found himself the
target of similar attacks for his careful study of social Darwinism in
From Darwin to Hitler.

Second, if people honestly think that the boy's social Darwinism
played no role in his shooting spree, I assume that they also think
that toxic religious beliefs play no role in Middle Eastern-directed
suicide bombings.

I disagree in both cases. Beliefs have consequences.