Theories of Breivik
Here’s a Daily Mail article chock full of Breivik theories—why did he do it? They try to explain it by every theory except for the reason that he himself states clearly in his manifesto. The article is a window into some very clueless minds.
You mean, the article offers Non-Breivik Theories of Breivikian Extremism?
Dean Ericson replies:
Exactly, and all expounded with the most credulous idiocy. Here’s the headline:
A father who deserted him, a mother with the mind of a 10-year-old and a stepfather who bedded 500 women. Did Anders Breivik’s family make him a monster?
Dean Ericson continues:
They have to paint him as insane because if he isn’t insane then they would have to take seriously the reasons Breivik gives in his manifesto: that the treasonous Norwegian leftist elite is implementing a program of genocide against its own people. It’s unthinkable for the leftist establishment to countenance such a claim, so Breivik must be insane. Just like the old Soviet Union, where opposition to socialism was prima facie evidence of insanity.
Dean Ericson continues:
Another choice excerpt from the Daily Mail article:
- end of initial entry -
His mother’s friends depict her as a fragile but kindly woman, who doted on her son, to the point where preparing his meals was her daily concern. They also say she had a healthy curiosity with foreign cultures.
Oh, that EVIL woman! She’s Hitler! They must be crushed, drowned under a tidal wave of diversity!
However, one of the few immigrants in her apartment block—another Turk—has a very different opinion of Mrs Breivik, saying she shares her son’s bigoted world-view.
‘She always sits with a group of older, white Norwegians in the communal garden or at the local cafe and when we walk past they fall silent and follow us with their eyes, as though we are insects,’ he told me.
Can it be possible that, in his warped imagination, Breivik had deluded himself to believe his mother would tacitly approve of his savagery? It is a disturbing thought.
[end of excerpt]
Beth M. writes:
After 9/11, I was sort of surprised to see the biographies of those who had died—so many were 35- to 40-year-old men who were usually described as having a fiance or some similar arrangement. I knew that people, especially in high cost of living areas, were getting married later in life, but in the 70s when I was growing up, a man who was over the age of 35 was supposed to be beyond the “going steady” stage of life and it seemed odd to me that so many of the WTC victims apparently expected to live forever.
I don’t think we should gloss over Breivik’s home life and social/cultural milieu as causative factors in his pathology just because the liberal newspapers think that it explains EVERYTHING. Breivik was disgusted by his mother and sister and stepfather, and very angry with the father who abandoned him and left him to be raised in an all-female household with “no discipline.” And he lived in a Western culture of divorce and non-marriage. In decades past, Breivik would have been married by 25, and would have had at two or three children by now. His ability to put together a 1500 page manifesto and spend substantial amounts of money on traveling to foreign political meetings and buying tons of bomb-making material would have been quite limited. His focus in life would have been the future of his children. He would still have been deeply concerned about liberalism and Islamic immigration, BUT he would have been a lot less willing to be arrested and leave his sons to be raised with “no discipline” in a female-headed household while he served a prison term. By the time his children were at university, his passions would have started to cool as he moved into the comfort-seeking decades of life.
A wife would have give Breivik a more normal social life, and would have lowered his testosterone level, etc., but the promiscuity of his mother and sister made him suspicious of the constancy of modern womanhood. I think that you DO have to factor in modern life as part of what sent Breivik spinning out of control.
I just have one problem with your comment. It’s that we don’t have to read these motives into Breivik, since Breivik himself puts great emphasis on the sexual disorders of the modern West—especially as he personally saw them at work in his family—as a major factor in the Western suicide which he sees himself as trying to reverse. In other words, we don’t have to psychoanalyze him or find his supposedly hidden or unconscious motives, since he himself is clearly telling us his reasons for his act of terrorism. And Mr. Ericson’s point is that so many people ignore what Breivik himself is telling us, in order to push their own favorite theories of why he, under the impetus of supposedly unconscious impulses, did what he did.
James P. writes:
In the Daily Mail, Peter Hitchens says it was the steroids and amphetamines that made Breivik do it:
One more mass killer, one more drug-addled mind
It’s the drugs, stupid. In hundreds of square miles of supposed analysis of the Norway mass murder, almost nobody has noticed that the smirking Anders Breivik was taking large quantities of mind-altering chemicals.
In this case, the substances are an anabolic steroid called stanozolol, combined with an amphetamine-like drug called ephedrine, plus caffeine to make the mixture really fizz.
I found these facts in Breivik’s vast, drivelling manifesto simply because I was looking for them.
The authorities and most of the media are more interested in his non-existent belief in fundamentalist Christianity.
I doubt if the drugs would ever have been known about if Breivik hadn’t himself revealed this.
I suspect that mind-bending drugs of some kind feature in almost all of the epidemic rampage killings that Western society is now suffering.
Anabolic steroids were also used heavily by David Bieber, who killed one policeman and tried to kill two more in Leeds in 2003, and by Raoul Moat, who last summer shot three people in Northumberland, killing one and blinding another.
Steroids are strongly associated with mood changes, uncontrollable anger and many other problems. In my view, this link remains formally unproven only because no great effort has yet been made to prove it.
A serious worldwide inquiry should be launched into the correlation between steroid use and violent incidents.
Likewise with so-called ‘antidepressants’, whose medical value has recently been seriously questioned in two devastating articles in The New York Review Of Books by the distinguished American doctor Marcia Angell. Her words ought to be reproduced and circulated to all doctors.
I pointed out some time ago how many shooting incidents involved people who had been taking these suspect pills. Patrick Purdy, culprit of the 1989 Cleveland school shooting, and Jeff Weise, culprit of the 2005 Red Lake High School shootings, had been taking ‘antidepressants’.
So had Michael McDermott, culprit of the 2000 Wakefield massacre in Massachusetts. So had Kip Kinkel, responsible for a 1998 murder spree in Oregon. So had John Hinckley, who tried to murder President Ronald Reagan in 1981. They were also found in the cabin of the ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczynski, of whom more later.
Then there are the dangerous illegal drugs that are increasingly common since the State stopped bothering to prosecute users. Jared Loughner, who smiled so beatifically (like the equally unhinged Breivik) after murdering six people in Arizona, had been a heavy smoker of cannabis for much of his youth. The use of this allegedly ‘soft’ drug is increasingly correlated with mental disturbance, often severe.
All these poisons have their defenders, who will, I know, respond to the facts above with a typhoon of rage and spittle. [LA replies: “a typhoon of rage and spittle”? Doesn’t this kind of language suggest that it’s Hitchens himself who may be overwrought?] This is because they all have their selfish or commercial reasons for preventing a proper inquiry into their effects—which is all I am calling for here. Shame on them. They are disgusting.
The rest of us must consider more wisely. The human brain is a delicate and mysterious organ, of which we know amazingly little.
But we do know this. Several drugs, especially the testosterone that is in steroids, the SSRIs such as Fluoxetine that are in ‘antidepressants’ and the tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is the main ingredient of cannabis, have potent effects on brain chemistry.
Anyone can have unusual or unconventional ideas. Unkind conservative Americans used to play a game of guessing whether various alarmist statements about the environment had been written by the Unabomber—who lived in a forest hut and murdered people by sending them letter bombs—or by Vice President Al Gore, who lived in the Washington National Observatory with a Secret Service guard. It usually turned out that the wilder ones had been penned by Mr Gore.
And I have no doubt that the eloquence of writers can move people to action. William Butler Yeats feared that his patriotic poems might have set some Irishmen on the path to Easter Rising violence in 1916. But it is rational action.
Nobody but a madman—and steroids have in my view made Anders Breivik mad—could believe that mercilessly slaughtering the flower of Norway would advance any cause.
[end of Hitchens article]
Dean Erison writes:
Maybe reading Peter Hitchens’ columns destroyed his brain?
Daniel S. writes:
Just as the left and the mainstream right seek out non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism, so now the right is seeking causes outside Breivik’s obvious, clearly stated reasons for his terror attack. Of course much of this has to do with the paralyzing fear the mainstream right has of being accused of fascism and racism by the left. So if they ascribe Breivik’s actions to drugs, a broken family, or violent video games rather then seeing his worldview being grounded and shaped in the same anti-jihad, anti-multiculturalism espoused, however weakly, by many mainstream conservatives, then they hope to get of the hook of liberal criticism. It says more about these mainstream conservatives than it does about Breivik. Of course, that being said, drug use may have been a necessary condition for his act of violence, but it is not a sufficient one. Breivik is the sad, ugly consequence of state-enforced multiculturalism, the war being waged against European peoples by the liberal, globalist elites that rule their countries, and the refusal of those liberal elites to give a legitimate platform to genuine opponents of their evil program.
James P. writes:
Beth M. argues that a wife might have made Breivik a kinder, gentler, more responsible man. The problem with this theory is that women have a long history of involvement with terrorism—as leaders and soldiers in terrorist groups, as suicide bombers, and as facilitators of terrorism. As this study notes, Muslim women actively encourage their husbands and sons to become terrorists:
Palestinian women are becoming more involved in the struggle since the outbreak of the second intifada. They participate in demonstrations, take part in popular committees, and have appeared as heroines sending their sons to participate in the jihad … When men marry women who are linked to the global jihad or are very devout and radical followers of Islam, they can become introduced to social networks that may be involved in terrorist activities.
As one case study, in this CNN interview, the widow of the suicide bomber who killed the CIA agents in Afghanistan admitted that she’d helped radicalize him, and praised his martyrdom. Keep in mind that this man was a doctor and the father of her two children. Thus you would think he would be a man whose “focus in life would have been the future of his children” and who would not allow his political passions to leave his children fatherless, but this was clearly not the case.
To be sure, it is hard to imagine Breivik finding a Norwegian woman who would encourage him to launch a massacre, but the mere idea that “women civilize men” just by virtue of being female is false on its face. Women have played a central role throughout history in encouraging men to fight, and continue to do so today.
James N. writes:
I’m telling you, it’s Palin’s fault.
Do you mean, the campaign maps last year with Democratic incumbent districts placed in rifle sights (for which I strongly criticized her)? Or just in general? Like her very existence on the planet drives right-wingers to mass-murder leftists?
James N. replies:
It is beginning to seem that “It’s Palin’s fault” is crowding out all other delusional leftist theorizing about the ills that flesh is heir to.
My comment was sarcastic, of course, but I believe that SHE has been mentioned in both the British and European press in connection with this incident.
She is going to become (if she hasn’t already) the Emmanuel Goldstein of our time.
Dean Ericson writes:
In the manifesto Breivik writes he is taking “DBOL” (Methandrostenolone), a common body builder steroid. He’s taking it for a specific number of weeks in preparation for his “operation,” as he expects it will require physical stamina, and in his experience (he has used it before in physical training) it is effective. He also writes about taking a “stack” of ECA—ephedrine, caffeine, and aspirin—to increase energy, stamina, and focus. He makes it clear that he is taking it only for specific, demanding tasks and not as a daily, casual addiction. Ephedrine is an herbal stimulant made from the ephedra plant.
Posted August 4
Wikipedia on Ephedrine:
“Methylxanthines like caffeine and theophylline have a synergistic effect with ephedrine with respect to weight loss, and so does aspirin. This led to creation and marketing of compound products. One of them is known as the ECA stack, containing caffeine and aspirin besides ephedrine and is a popular supplement taken by body builders to cut down body fat before a competition. [ … ] Anecdotal reports have suggested that ephedrine helps studying, thinking, or concentrating to a greater extent than caffeine.”
The mindless press is trying to portray him as a drug-crazed addict out of his mind on powerful drugs. It’s not true, as anyone who reads the manifesto can see.
Here, instead, is my theory of Breivik:
Breivik, seeing personally the results of Norway’s disastrous multiculti-immigration policy and radical leftist agenda, combined with his reading of conservative critiques of the leftist multi-culti agenda, comes to the conclusion that leftist multi-cultural elites are in the grip of a demonic utopian fantasy and are waging a genocidal war against the European native population that will, if not stopped, destroy Norwegian and European civilization and its native white race and leave the remnants as miserable dhimmmis crushed under Muslim overlords. Breivik believes conventional politics is ineffective at stopping the leftists and only lulls opponents of leftism by giving them the illusion of resistance while the leftist program proceeds with its genocidal program. Breivik concludes that violent means must be employed as part of an effective resistance. Because Breivik is a warrior type of personality he begins planning a violent program of resistance and putting it in action.
That’s my theory. Call me crazy.
She [Palin] is going to become (if she hasn’t already) the Emmanuel Goldstein of our time.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 02, 2011 09:14 AM | Send
The most ironic thing is how she isn’t even far-right yet the media continues to depict her as such.