Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Breivik - Who made him do it?

  1. Jul 26, 2011 #1
    I just saw this video about some acquaintance Breivik had and I'm lost as to why he did what he did. Earlier I thought he was just plain crazy. But, now I'm not so sure.

    Just to be clear. I'm not willing to understand why he did it as the act itself is beyond any sensible analysis. Just who or what compelled him to do it.


    The video should explain what I'm getting at. In it his acquaintance hints that there may have been some group of people behind this that brainwashed him? If you look at things this way then these people should also be culpable (to a similar degree) for Breiviks actions. Furthermore, these groups that exist in Oslo should be dealt with in a mannerly fashion.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 26, 2011 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I've never been approached by any such groups, but I live in central Oslo.

    This guy is just speculating, but that is allowed.
     
  4. Jul 26, 2011 #3
    It sounds like the fellow in the interview new him about 25 to 30 years ago? The reporter was over-reaching a bit - IMO.
     
  5. Jul 27, 2011 #4

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    But then again, I have my own circuit and habitual places in Oslo that might be free of these pests.
     
  6. Jul 27, 2011 #5
    The way I understood his motivations is like this: Breivik had lost his belief in democratic process, but was still politically active. He then made the decision, that since he cannot influence the society through democracy, he might as well start influencing it through terror.

    Understanding criminals' motives and thinking can be controversial, because "understanding" is easily confused with "accepting". But I think I just succeeded in explaining Breivik's thinking in brief and neutral fashion?

    For the preemptive point of view, I would assert that if Breivik had believed that he can achieve something through democratic process, he would have stayed away from terrorism.

    Why then did he lose his faith in democracy? That's the mystery.

    ----

    One news article revealed, that the manifest revealed, that Breivik had been beaten by a Pakistani gang when he was young. That incident could have shaped his world view.
     
  7. Jul 27, 2011 #6

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Not so much a mystery if you want to start flicking through his http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89a_1311444384" on the problems with Europe, multiculturalism and how to deal with it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2017
  8. Jul 27, 2011 #7
    Oh well, I guess that's obvious in the end.

    Back to the original topic: I don't believe in the hypothesis that some right wing extremist group would have "manipulated" Breivik into to committing the terrorist act.

    They way I understood this is that Breivik did have some connections to some groups or parties, but apparently he decided to abandon these groups, because for some reason he became disillusioned by them.

    So, to me it seems that the right wing groups were too "moderate" for Breivik...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2017
  9. Jul 27, 2011 #8

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Perhaps he stopped believing in the power of the democratic process because he didn't want to believe in it, having a romantization of violence as the ultimate political tool.
     
  10. Jul 28, 2011 #9
    We could also ask "what made him do it"? This is pure speculation, because an amateur cannot make a medical diagnosis through Internet, but I'm just telling what I think:

    http://static.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/breivikkauneusjuttu2807JL_503_ul.jpg (On the right is a photograph taken on Monday. On the left is some older posing picture.)

    Considering the way he looks from front now, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy has got a tumor in his head.
     
  11. Jul 29, 2011 #10

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Or, a person looks quite differently when they are in their early 20s and their early 30s.

    Those "boyish" Anders pictures are those he himself has chosen to represent himself to the world with.
     
  12. Jul 29, 2011 #11
    Yes, but IMO he looks like he's above 40.

    This is how I would put some stuff together:

    Fact: Breivik has committed an act that is incomprehensible for ordinary folks.

    Fact: His eye balls point at different directions. (I haven't encountered evidence, that they have always pointed so.)

    Fact: He has admitted using anabolic steroids.

    Hypothesis: Possibly he has also abused anabolic steroids, since he isn't a serious bodybuilder who would know what he's doing.

    My opinion: He looks like at least 10 years older than what he really is.

    Considering the factors mentioned above, I would come up with:

    Hypothesis: He has a tumor in his head.

    Not a rigorous deduction, but I'm just telling that that would make sense. I can admit that I hope he has a tumor in his head, because then all this would make more sense.
     
  13. Jul 29, 2011 #12

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I find it interesting that on TV, in conversations and even here on PF people are rationalising Breiviks behaviour with all sorts of hypothesis such as he's mentally ill, he's ****ed up on drugs, he's got a brain tumour etc. I can't help but think that if he had been a radical muslim people wouldn't be questioning that he committed the crimes in the name of his religion.

    Personally I think he did all this because he fervently believes in his ideology, the fact that he hasn't used the word "god" has thrown people off the automatic free-passes that religion usually get's an allowed people to view how mental his ideologies really are.
     
  14. Jul 29, 2011 #13
    The islamic terrorism makes lot more sense that Breivik's act. The western world has been running oil crusades against the islamic world, and imposed imperial policies with violence, so it is no wonder that the islamic militants have responded to the war with a war.

    Breivik's act is lot more horrendous than the terrorist acts of the islamists.
     
  15. Jul 29, 2011 #14

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I'm not going to play terrorist top trumps but the defining difference here is that for Islamic terrorists (and I am using this definition to mean terrorists who commit terrorism in the name of Islam not terrorists who commit terrorism and happen to be Islamic) are embarking on a holy war. Their ideology is focused around the idea of a God, Breivik's ideology wasn't.

    NOTE: I am aware however of the Christian influence and ideas inherent within Breivik's ideology i.e. returning Europe to a culturally Christian state but IMO given what we know now he was not motivated because of religious ideology but because of political ideology.
     
  16. Jul 29, 2011 #15
    There is no room for analysis/rationalising in ideologies.
     
  17. Jul 29, 2011 #16
    It was not my intention to speculate that some tumor could have caused this all. Surely his conservative knights templar ideology and a struggle against "cultural marxism" played a key role. I was merely thinking that the final cause could have been a combination of non-mainstream ideology and a medical condition.

    I'll just emphasize what I said, and hopefully succeed in not making stuff more complicated:

     
  18. Jul 29, 2011 #17
    Stuff from Scandinavian media:

    I just read that in Norway a defendant has right to refuse from psychiatric examination, and so far Breivik has used this right. His lawyer has explained, that Breivik doesn't trust Norwegian psychiatrists, and has demanded foreign ones.

    It is not clear to me if this psychiatric examination means all medical examination in this context.

    It seems that this is a topic of which we'll hear more later.
     
  19. Jul 29, 2011 #18

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    ABB is fairly well-informed about Norway, and probably knows what foreigners do not, namely the extreme authority psychiatrists have in determining whether a person is fit to go on trial, or is to be judged capable of standing trial.
    In many other countries trials are held even if the defendant is a raving lunatic, and the psychiatrists' judgments are only brought in once a verdict is fallen.

    In Norway, the psychiatrists can close a trial before it is held, and as the publicity beast ABB is, I'm sure he desperately wants a full, open trial of him.

    Thus, this might possibly be a tactic from ABB to ensure that his lawyer does not influence the psychiatrists in judging him insane, which probably would be easier if they are fellow Norwegians.
    Geir Lippestad is a brilliant lawyer, and a conscientious one as well, and his remarks to the press that he personally regards ABB insane is probably a fishing tactic to see if he can get his client into less austere conditions at a mental hospital than ABB will face in a prison cell.

    Of course, "austerity" is a relative term, Norwegian prisons are quite luxurious, by American standards.


    Apart from this tactical duel with his own lawyer, it might be that ABB wants a foreign psychiatrist so that this psychiatrist will provide a better vehicle in his home country (say, the US) for ABBs ideas and personality, i.e, "spreading the word", so to say.
    Anders Behring Breivik is a narcissist, and wants to maximize publicity about his acts and intentions.
    What he does NOT want is to be swiftly relegated to the loony bin and pass into the memory hole for the world outside.


    Another possible point might be that ABB perfectly well knows that there are no psychiatrists in Norway who have first hand experience with serial killers like himself.
    He wants, perhaps, be judged sane by a top international expert, rather than insane by some local shrink. (Obviously, he regards himself as sane..)
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011
  20. Jul 29, 2011 #19

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is sad, Arildno. The gaming of Norway's legal system is just icing on the cake of ABB's savage acts. Is this guy going to be held in luxury for the rest of his life, even if the judiciary feels that he is an ongoing threat and can extend his sentences?
     
  21. Jul 29, 2011 #20
    Well he's clearly insane and delusional. There's no point in torturing him.
     
  22. Jul 29, 2011 #21

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Torture? This guy is going to be living in luxury the rest of his life in contrast to what probably billions of people have.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2011
  23. Jul 29, 2011 #22
    Ok. Then, tell us what kind of punishment do insane people deserve? I think what you call luxurious surrounding may be in reality an asylum.
     
  24. Jul 29, 2011 #23

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I can't say because it would violate forum rules.
     
  25. Jul 29, 2011 #24

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree that it is quite hard to call him insane in a "my brain made me do it" way. That he could focus on a plan for so many years, that he seems from his writings to have a fairly balanced view of himself, that he could carry out the plan to its conclusion, that he gave himself up at the end...this is going to be very difficult to explain with the usual labels, even psychopathy, narcissism, asperger's, that people are throwing around.

    He seems more like a conventional terrorist/religious/political fanatic - someone who really just believes in a cause and will go to any extreme in a systematic fashion because of that.

    The difference is that such a mindset usually needs a strong social context. Which is where extremist political or religious beliefs come in. But also most terrorists turn out to be strongly socially connected. They grew up in the same village or attended the same university. So candidate terrorists might be everywhere in some society, but it takes a group to work each other up to the level of acting on beliefs.

    Breivik clearly acted alone. But in this modern age, with the internet and computer games, etc, perhaps he became stoked up via this virtual community. He could spin a justifying web of ideas from the "weak connections" that the internet encourages.

    So it is not that Breivik is brain mad (though clearly he could be autistic spectrum, a wee bit psychopathically detached in the connectivity of his ventromedial prefrontal cortex and amygdala, a trifle narcissist). But he could be an example of the internet's ability to amplify known social constructionist phenomena (like the manufacture of willing terrorists), coupled to the means to act (his access to recipes for fertiliser bombs, to guns to do the job).

    His writings do seem to rule out any simple insanity plea.

    And an example of how organised he was (not a usual trait of the criminally insane) is how he inserted disclaimers that his manifesto was just a work of imagination.

     
  26. Jul 29, 2011 #25

    Drakkith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Clearly insane? Nonsense. He is a smart man who has planned this well ahead of time and knew EXACTLY what he was doing. His believed that what he was going to do was the correct course of action. I can easily see how he could sacrifice himself given such beliefs. The motives may be different from religious fanatics, but the power of belief is equal.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook