Breivik - Who made him do it?

  • News
  • Thread starter Willowz
  • Start date
  • #1
184
1

Main Question or Discussion Point

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:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
I've never been approached by any such groups, but I live in central Oslo.

This guy is just speculating, but that is allowed.
 
  • #3
149
0
It sounds like the fellow in the interview new him about 25 to 30 years ago? The reporter was over-reaching a bit - IMO.
 
  • #4
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
But then again, I have my own circuit and habitual places in Oslo that might be free of these pests.
 
  • #5
2,111
17
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.
 
  • #6
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
2,111
17
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.
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:
  • #8
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
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.
 
  • #9
2,111
17
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.
 
  • #10
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
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.
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.
 
  • #11
2,111
17
Or, a person looks quite differently when they are in their early 20s and their early 30s.
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.
 
  • #12
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
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.
 
  • #13
2,111
17
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.
 
  • #14
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
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.
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.
 
  • #15
184
1
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.
There is no room for analysis/rationalising in ideologies.
 
  • #16
2,111
17
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:

I can admit that I hope he has a tumor in his head, because then all this would make more sense.
 
  • #17
2,111
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.
 
  • #18
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
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.
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:
  • #19
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
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?
 
  • #20
184
1
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?
Well he's clearly insane and delusional. There's no point in torturing him.
 
  • #21
Evo
Mentor
23,138
2,679
Well he's clearly insane and delusional. There's no point in torturing him.
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:
  • #22
184
1
Torture? This guy is going to be living in luxory the rest of his life in contrast to what probably billions of people have.
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.
 
  • #23
Evo
Mentor
23,138
2,679
Ok. Then, please tell us what kind of punishment Brevik deserves? (open question)
I can't say because it would violate forum rules.
 
  • #24
apeiron
Gold Member
2,013
1
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.
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.

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Breivik-describes-his-personal-interests.html


Norway shooting: Anders Behring Breivik describes his personal interests
In a section of his 1500-page 'war plan' setting out a massacre of nearly 100 people, Anders Behring Breivik answers in miniscule detail questions about his personality.


Q: Can you describe your strengths and flaws as an individual?

I consider myself to be a laid back type and quite tolerant on most issues. Due to the fact that I have been exposed to decades of multicultural indoctrination I feel a need to emphasise that I am not in fact a racist and never have been. My Godmother (being baptised when I was 15 years old), Amelia Jimenez and her husband, came to Norway as political refugees from Chile. In retrospect I understood that they were Marxist political activists but I didn’t comprehend these issues at the time.

Our two families have been very close throughout my childhood and youth. I’ve had several non-Norwegian and Muslim friends. I spent a lot of time with Onor, a Turk, Jonathan an Eritrean, Raol and Natalie from Chile, Arsalan Ahmad Sohail, Faizal and Wazim from Pakistan. I’ve had dozens of non-Norwegian friends during my younger years, Bashir from Somalia, Pablo from Chile, Odd Erling – adopted from Columbia, Lene – adopted from India have been good friends and a couple of them still are today.

Q: Can you describe your strengths and flaws as an individual

A: I’m an extremely patient and a very positively minded individual. I have obviously changed my ways over the years and am now driven by idealistic goals and work for the interests of my countrymen and all Europeans. Most people would not acknowledge the work yet (nor are they likely to appreciate it during my lifetime) but this is an irrelevant fact for me. With time they will understand what is going on around them and that what we are trying to accomplish will benefit not only them, but most importantly their children and grandchildren.
Related Articles

As for current flaws in my personality I guess have many stereotypical flaws. F example; I sound quite self righteous at times and I don’t like admitting it when I’m wrong, although I usually do. I still have a relatively inflated ego, with a constant need to feed on an intellectual level.

This is a quite common flaw and I try to suppress it although know I fail as most people do. Also, over the years I’ve generally been perceived as quite arrogant (even downright unpleasant at times, the last few years). This is likely due to the fact that I do not care as much as I did for creating or preserving social relationships due to my life choice. I guess it is also due the way I choose my rhetorical approaches, which is to a certain degree only an indirect defensive mechanism.

I, as most people, like to think I have a superb self confidence. But people who show signs of arrogance usually often use deliberate defensive manifestation to camouflage intellectual or social insecurity or perhaps they just don’t care. I guess the root to a majority of human flaws is linked to mans fundamentally flawed nature. We want acknowledgement, appreciation and/or love so we strive to be as perfect as we can be.

These human instincts often undermine the need for a pragmatical mindset. As for social skills or skills facilitating interaction and communication with oterhs; I know I mastered them a lot better before I started my self-engulfing studies several years ago. Social skills is an art form that requires continuous practice, and many of the people I know are masters at it. I know I could be as well but it would require a different lifestyle.

I do not accept or acknowledge many of the established “social rules” as I view it as irrelevant noise which takes us away from what is needed of us at this point in time. In any case; a majority of devout intellectuals have significant social flaws due to the fact that their choice of life (theoretical analysis) usually results in a scenario where they are “unplugged” from the “game” for too long.

At which point they would need at least a year or two studying/updating the fundaments of social rhetorical engagement). In depth analysis and theoretical studies doesn’t exactly go hand in hand with advancing your social skills which is more related to the skills of interaction and communication; sales, entertainment and manipulation. Unfortunately, many of my friends who are masters at it are apolitical and usually end up wasting their superb social skills on manipulating women into one night stands. If I were to focus on the social aspects of the conservative revolution (instead of the intellectual) I would rather use these abilities for something useful; for political consolidation/recruitment purposes.

However, it is very hard to be a master at theoretical analysis and master social skills as it is in many ways the anti-thesis of each other. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a flaw but the area of social skills I have neglected the most is; “Game” interaction - PC small talk, entertaining skills/PC humour. I simply do not want to waste my limited time on BS or irrelevant social noise.
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.

3. A Declaration of pre-emptive War (book 3)
LEGAL DISCLAIMER (for certain chapters in Book 2 and Book: 3. A Declaration of pre-emptive War):
Book 3, “A Declaration of preemptive War” and certain chapters in book 2 in this compendium, titled “2083”, and all related research files describes a hypothetical response to a perceived threat (so called cultural Marxist/multiculturalist atrocities and the threat of Islamisation). As such, it is a fictional description regarding how it could be like if Islam would be dominant in Europe. The concept of the story/plot is based on what it would be like if certain Christian/conservative/nationalist resistance groups/individuals chose to oppose these so called perceived threats and enemies. It describes in shocking detail how they would most likely rationalise/think/justify/argue and behave towards these perceived threats/enemies. This books chapter 3 describes how a “fictional” resistance group is emerging and how it would operate from the so called “Phase 1 through Phase 3” in order to prevent these perceived threats and atrocities from futher manifesting and to prevent an alleged future Muslim takeover. It also describes specifically how this hypothetical fictional group, “PCCTS, Knights Templar”, would choose to respond towards the so called ”enablers” or the so called “cultural Marxist/multiculturalist” elites that are allegedly allowing millions of Muslims to enter Europe.The book contains detailed strategies (guerrilla tactics, instructions to execute, political campaigns etc.) which normally would be partly incriminatory to anyone who published or distributed the book (had it not been fiction). It also describes indirect and direct armed and non-armed strategies towards these so-called “traitors” – referred to as the cultural Marxists/ multiculturalists. The motivation for this “fiction-writer-approach” is to contribute to create a new type of innovative writing style. By defining, in a horrifically detailed way, a fictional scenario, the reader will be shocked due to the “hopefully” credible and extremely detailed elaborations. It should be noted that the author, as a sci-fi enthusiast, wanted to bring and create a complete new writing style that has the potential to shock the reader with an incredibly credible fictional plot (written in first, second and third person narrative). T
 
  • #25
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,862
4,606
Well he's clearly insane and delusional. There's no point in torturing him.
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.
 

Related Threads on Breivik - Who made him do it?

  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
12K
Replies
4
Views
762
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Top