The Limits of Diversity


Neal Horsley

(Christian Gallery News Service, July 24, 2011) The death toll is now at 93 in the Norway Terror Rampage allegedly accomplished by Anders Behring Breivik acting alone.

Without being insensitive to the horror of dozens of young people being gunned down by a man who appears to be more likely to show up on a fashion runway than dressed like a policeman methodically intent on murdering everyone in sight, it is necessary to point out that this event is designed to give the world an opportunity to examine the limits of diversity.

What Has This Got To Do With Diversity?

Fact 1: The massacre occurred at a Youth Camp being conducted by Norway's ruling Labor Party described in news accounts as a "left-wing" Political Party.

Fact 2: Breivik is described as a Christian Fundamentalist.

The Premise

The premise of this article is that Breivik massacred young people to make a point about what he thought about the definition of Diversity emerging in the modern world. While Breivik has yet to acknowledge that goal, evidence allows us to anticipate what he will eventually disclose.

The following image shows what the word "Diversity" means today to many, if not most, young people, young people like those who attended the Youth Camp of Norway's ruling political party. (Note these young people did not create this image, they were trained to be models for the image by the people who own the businesses selling clothes and other consumer items in this world.)

Now think for a minute whether there might be a connection between Breivik's choice of a youth camp for Norway's ruling left-wing political party as a target for terrorism, and the world's emerging definition of diversity.

Documenting Terrorism As Explanatory Symbol

As a reporter I have spent years documenting the connection between terrorist activity and the explanatory symbols created by those terrorist activities.

Over a decade ago, I was one of the reporters who documented the intent of Rev. Paul Hill to create a symbol that would help others understand how to use terror to effect legalized abortion. When Rev. Hill stated, "I hope others will follow me in [killing abortionists]" there was little doubt that he killed abortionists to create a living explanatory symbol showing how to end legalized abortion.

A few years later in the aftermath of 9/11 I wrote an article entitled "Leaving Las Vegas: How Las Vegas Fueled the 9/11 Terrorists" that documented how the pilots of the 9/11 jetliners used Las Vegas to justify for themselves their terrorist attacks on the USA. In that article, I tried to explain why spending the time to understand what motivates terrorists is the key to finding a way to eliminate the temptation to terrorism.

On Sept. 14, 2004, I wrote:


I issue the disclaimer above because we are moving to a place and time where if a writer actually tries to explain why terrorists do what they do the way they do it, the writer will be seen to be a terrorist himself. For example, in the immediate aftermath of the attack by Chechen terrorists on Sept 1, 2004 that resulted in the death of scores of Russian schoolchildren, Russia President Putin erected a terrible milestone on the path I am describing. "Anyone who feels sympathetic towards such provocations will be viewed as accomplices of terrorists and terrorism," Putin said.

While at one level anyone with children agrees with what Putin said, on another level what he said, if actually implemented in law, would literally make it impossible for a reporter to talk accurately about a deadly conflict where terrorist activity was involved without, according to Putin’s definition, becoming “accomplices of terrorists and terrorism.”

Why? It is impossible to accurately relate the facts about conflicts between people without actually sensing what both parties to the conflict are sensing. The only way a reporter can sense what the people involved in the conflict are “sensing” is to, at least in some degree, become “sympathetic.”

Merriam Webster defines sympathy as, “1 a : an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other…” In order for a reporter to work effectively, it is essential that they be first and foremost a homo sapiens who is able to recognize fellow homo sapiens when they encounter them and then they must be able to feel what they feel. It is this ability to actually recognize and sympathize with other homo sapiens that is the fundamental prerequisite for any truthful or honest reporter. In other words, unless a reporter can sympathize with the subjects of the report, the reporter cannot “feel” what the subjects of the story are trying to explain when they relate the facts of the story as they see them from their point of view.

When Putin decrees that anyone who “feels sympathetic” to terrorists will be viewed by government as “terrorists” then he prohibits the single most important prerequisite required for accurately reporting a story. Under such “laws,” Russian reporters must stop trying to explain both sides of deadly conflicts and become nothing more than mouth pieces for one side in the deadly conflict. Either that or they will be arrested as “terrorists” themselves.

To date, Russian President Putin’s formula has not been applied in the USA. In fact, Time magazine directly violated Putin’s formula about the same terrorist attack that killed the Russian children in its report entitled “Hostage Bloodbath Highlights Putin's Chechen Failure” by Tony Karon on Friday, Sep. 03, 2004. He reported, “The Russian crackdown, which began late in 1999 as Putin sent in troops to reverse the autonomy granted the region by former President Boris Yeltsin following a series of unsolved apartment bombings in Moscow — a brutal campaign that struck a popular chord and served as the would-be president's introduction to Russian voters — has certainly given Chechens plenty of reason to contemplate attacking Russians. Thousands of Chechens have been killed in the course of the crackdown, and scores of fighting-age men continue to simply disappear following visits to their homes by Russian forces.”

Tony Karon could not have written those words unless, at some level, he had been able to feel “sympathetic” to the “thousands of Chechen” people who “have been killed.”

Does that mean that Tony Karon is a Chechen terrorist? To Vladimir Putin it does. To me, and I hope to you, it means that Tony Karon is trying to be a responsible reporter, providing an honest account of the terrible conditions out of which deadly conflicts always emerge.

The point is this: it is not wrong to sympathize with both sides in a deadly conflict, even when you are on one of those sides and people are trying to kill you. It is this ability to rise above the conflict and see it as it really is that separates our species from all others on earth. In fact, it is precisely this ability to see both sides in the midst of terrible battles that allows the path to peace/victory to be found.

I say all that about Putin to say this: it is not only necessary and proper for you to actually try to see Las Vegas as the 9/11 terrorist leaders would have seen it, it is absolutely essential if you want to be able to avoid future terrorist attacks."


The Stakes Continue To Grow

In 2004 when the Las Vegas article was written it was potentially dangerous for a Christian to write anything that could be remotely interpreted as not murderously hostile to Muslim terrorists. But no legal action was taken against me for writing the "Leaving Las Vegas" article; probably because all I did was write words that could be defended as a reasonable version of some brand of "truth".

But that soon began to change.

In 2010 I was arrested for trying to explain the dangers of diversity to Elton--Sir Sodomite--John and am now facing a 10 year prison sentence for telling him, not what I would do to him for calling my Lord Jesus Christ a homosexual, but for telling Sir Sodomite what my God intended to do to him unless he repented of his sexual "diversity."

It was then that I came face to face with the fact that speaking a defensible brand of "truth"--even when that brand of truth came directly from the Christian bible--in public in the USA was becoming grounds for arrest and lengthy incarceration in what some might reasonably categorize as American Gulags.

Understanding the powerful temptation to rage such a knowledge created in me I realized that the Muslim terrorists were not the only people the citizens of the emerging secular nations needed to be concerned about.

In order to try to head off the kind of event we saw in Norway this week, I posted an article entitled, "Why The Militant Christian Camp Is Growing..." The article pointed out that the news media was ignoring the emerging militant Christian camp by focusing exclusively on the Muslim terrorists, and I speculated that such news media ignorance would incite militant Christians to do exactly what Breivik did in Norway.

Why? Terrorism is evidence that the terrorists cannot find an acceptable audience to provide leverage for their goals, goals deemed to be more important by the terrorists than life itself.

So What's The Point?

You might doubt that I understand Breivik's motivation: the evidence is admittedly not complete. But I have little doubt that if Breivik even hinted that he had read my articles I would be immediately arrested. And for what? Tying to alert people that what this world calls diversity is actually a war being waged against the Laws of the God of the Muslims and the God of the Christians.

Such wars are the rule of history, not the exception.

Learning From Andersonville

Andersonville was a prisoner of war camp in Georgia during the War Between the States. (Bear with me, there is a connection between what happened there and what's happening in the world today).

As the Civil war continued, Georgia lacked the resources to adequately police Andersonville so a line was drawn near the prison walls called the dead line and any prisoner who crossed the dead line was shot. Other than that, Georgia troops did not enter the camp. They only opened a door, tossed in what little food was available, then closed the door and let the prisoners decide who would be allowed to eat.

That meant over 20,000 yankee prisoners were on their own.

The first people who took over the prison camp were thieves and murderers and sodomites who found themselves in natural consensus as to who got what. Their methods of control were those normally employed by outlaws.

Shortly Yankee officers organized a competing force and a war was fought among the Yankees in Andersonville using sticks, tooth and claw. The leaders of the robbers, murderers and sodomites were hung from the only two trees inside the prison. And order--such as it was--came to Andersonville.

Those who think they can pretend God is like Barney the Purple Dinosaur, only a figment of the imagination of man, must understand that a world war has already begun over what President George Bush, the elder, called "The God Thing."

As the events in Norway demonstrate, this is an unlimited war. There are no non-combatants.

Either we find a way, like the officers at Andersonville, to control the murderers and sodomites, or this world will learn what it means to go up in flames.

Mark my words.

Horsley for Governor Defines the Limits of Diversity