Terrorism

Inside the Mind of Anders Behring Breivik

|

Many people have been asking why a man driven by a hatred of Islamic immigrants would aim his fire at native Norwegian teens. The short answer is that Anders Behring Breivik's animosity wasn't limited to Muslims; the demonology that he embraced gave just as prominent a role to those westerners he saw as enabling and abetting jihad. And in Breivik's belief system, that group included the Labour Party. His manifesto includes a telling passage about a birthday celebration that Breivik attended in 2008. It's an unnerving glimpse at the mindset that led to the mass murders in Oslo and Utøya:

I noticed the woman who celebrated her birthday was working as a judge. A majority of the people at the party where jurists—judges and lawyers in the public sector. I chatted with most of the people at the party. It really struck me how incredibly politically correct everyone were, as if they were all members of the Norwegian Labour Party. I have never before experienced a group of people who are completely freaked out about discussing political issues relating to multiculturalism and Islamisation. I noticed a majority of these people were Labour Party sympathisers. I guess they don't really have a choice considering the fact that they are all climbing the public sector hierarchy. A thought occurred. The judges during WW2 who had party affiliations with the NS or any affiliation with the SS were prosecuted and imprisoned. Is it therefore only fair that judges of high rank with party affiliations to the Labour Party and the other parties who support multiculturalism (and therefore Islamisation) is to be considered category B or C traitors? They obviously have a considerable responsibility and should be considered traitors of their people.

By 2011, apparently, the ranks of the alleged traitors included not just jurists with views that Breivik opposed but teenaged activists in the same party.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: Sex, Violence, and Frozen Bodies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I do find it creepy that teenagers have a political party camp to go to. Can’t free nations resist indoctrination until atleast the age of majority?

    1. Can’t free nations resist indoctrination until atleast the age of majority?

      Public schools?

      1. good point, but atleast its ostensibly non-partison. A Labour Party camp is not even remotely subtle.

        1. The operative word is “ostensibly.”

        1. Yep – Notice they didn’t have so much as a bow and arrow at a summer camp to return fire with? That camp gives me the douche-chills.

          1. They did have security guards. It appears that one, the crown-princess’ step-brother, was among the dead.

            I expect that Breivik shot them first.

            1. I heard on the radio this am that the security guards were unarmed. Not sure how accurate that report was.

              1. I heard on the internet that the guards were armed only with gravlax. Not sure if it’s accurate.

                1. i make a kick-ass gravlax.

                  brining … it’s what’s for dinner!

              2. An unarmed security guard is nothing but a greeter.

                1. An unarmed security guard is nothing but a greeter.

                  But he’s got a badge!

            2. I heard on the internet they had sticks and stones, but words obviously didn’t hurt Breivik. Not sure how accurate that report was.

    2. Norway is experimenting with lowering the voting age in the upcoming local elections. In some cities people under the age of 18 are allowed to vote.

      1. those in charge must be afraid of losing an election.

        1. Don’t count the young people out.

          If my 9-yo daughter were allowed to vote, it’d be a straight libertarian ticket.

          She’s so sick of the stupid rules on her playground essentially barring kids from playing on the monkey bars, she’s ready to take it to the ballot box.

      2. America’s experiment with that in the 1960s didn’t turn out too well.

      3. Good idea, we should lower the voting age and add an upper voting age limit.

        1. On a serious note, we should consider not allowing people to vote who receive any direct form of government funds (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)

          1. Would you extend that to government employees?

              1. Please extend that to not allowing congresscreatures to vote on legislation unless they give up all government salary and perks.

            1. Since they receive direct government funds, I think the answer is obvious.

          2. That would have the same effect as my upper voting age limit at least on old people. I am partially serious though, it is absurd that the people the government has the least effect on have the most voting power.

            1. But they had to get thru all those ages first, in some country or other.

      4. I wish we’d do that in this country. Then maybe we could get sane laws about: the age when drinking is permissible, the age of consent, the age at which driving is permissible, and (hopefully) cutting down on the ridiculously out-of-line benefits for senior citizens…

    3. True, and if he believed that Labor was some sort of multicultural equivalent of the Nazi party, I suppose have a Labor Youth organization was probably not healthy for his psychosis. Not that it would justify the attack even if they were actual Nazis.

    4. WJC attended Boys’ State, a political camp, and look at how well he turned out.

    5. Re: Lost_In_Translation,

      Can’t free nations resist indoctrination until atleast the age of majority?

      The camps, the indoctrination… It is just one degree of separation from this.

      1. stopped clocks…

      1. Jesus Christ…..that dude is straight from lefty central casting! Just like the pseudo Jeremy Zilber from the “The Old Negro Space Program” video….if you will.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..6xJzAYYrX8

      2. I’m surprised that those books used the terms “mama”, “mommy” and “daddy” in their titles. Aren’t we supposed to avoid the use of terms that imply traditional gender roles?

        The sample pages from the books provide some wonderful factoids. “Democrats make sure schools have great teachers.” That’s good to know.

  2. One suspect arrested in Panhandle toddler’s slaying

    Police say they’ve arrested one suspect and are searching for another in the shooting death of a Pensacola toddler.

    Pensacola Police Chief Chip Simmons says the 18-year-old man was arrested Saturday in Hammond, La.

    Simmons says he will be charged with murder in the shooting that killed 19-month-old Ty’Quarius Moultrie last week at a Pensacola apartment complex. The shooting also wounded a man.

    The arrest Saturday came just hours before Ty’Quarius’ funeral. More than 400 people attended the service. Nothing else happened.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/201…..andle.html

    1. Re: Another isolated incident

      Another “Isolated” Incident.

      Angelina County jury finds man guilty of evading arrest after being mistaken for burglar in his own home

      In his closing arguments, Taylor reminded jurors that Sauceda’s behavior throughout the incident led police to believe he was a criminal.

      “His behavior was more consistent with a burglar than an innocent person, and that’s what got us here today,” Taylor said. “If you’ve got a language barrier, you find somebody to help accommodate. Is it reasonable that you close the door and lock yourself in your room? I don’t know that it is.

      “This whole incident could have been avoided very easily if he would have said, ‘Me llamo Marco. Es mi casa.’

      So now a person has to PROVE to the tax-fed and jack-booted leeches that entered HIS home armed, dangerous and threatening, that THEY made a mistake?

      The owner of the house, Marco Sauceda, suffers from mental retardation. He locked himself in his own bathroom, scared to death, when the tax-fed and licensed leeches bursted into his own home, thinking he was a burglar. He was arrested and tried for “resisting arrest,” despite the fact that he did nothing wrong nor was there any reason to enter HIS home: It so happens that the cops entered the wrong house, as has happened too many times which are ignored by Mr. “Isolated Incident” here.

      1. The owner of the house, Marco Sauceda, suffers from mental retardation. He locked himself in his own bathroom, scared to death, when the tax-fed and licensed leeches bursted into his own home, thinking he was a burglar. He was arrested and tried for “resisting arrest,” despite the fact that he did nothing wrong nor was there any reason to enter HIS home: It so happens that the cops entered the wrong house, as has happened too many times which are ignored by Mr. “Isolated Incident” here.

        Nothing else happened.

        1. Shades of Prof. Gates?

          1. Maybe if Gates had mental retardation and couldn’t speak english.

            1. Still, in a free society, we do not take the side of tax feeding public sector bullies-even if they proclaim that they were only doing their jobs or that they were only acting to protect the property the person they arrest.

            2. Maybe if Gates had mental retardation and couldn’t speak English.

      2. Too bad we can’t send that jury to a summer camp and tell Breivik they’re Labor Party activists.

    2. Gack, what sort of idiot names their kid “Ty’Quarius”?

      1. just asking that question is RACIST.

      2. I believe it is the dawning of the Age of Ty’Quarius.

        1. When the moon is in the Seventh House
          And Jupiter aligns with Mars
          Then peace will guide the planets
          And love will steer the stars

          This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
          The age of Ty’Quarius
          Ty’Quarius!
          Ty’Quarius!

          Harmony and understanding
          Sympathy and trust abounding
          No more falsehoods or derisions
          Golden living dreams of visions
          Mystic crystal revalation
          And the mind’s true liberation
          Ty’Quarius!
          Ty’Quarius!

          When the moon is in the Seventh House
          And Jupiter aligns with Mars
          Then peace will guide the planets
          And love will steer the stars

          This is the dawning of the age of Ty’Quarius
          The age of Ty’Quarius
          Ty’Quarius!
          Ty’Quarius!

          1. Re: Warren T,
            You, sir, have way too much time in your hands.

  3. Another fucking monster, as if there weren’t already enough. Kyrie Eleison.

  4. The short answer is that Anders Behring Breivik’s animosity wasn’t limited to Muslims; the demonology that he embraced gave just as prominent a role to those westerners he saw as enabling and abetting jihad. And in Breivik’s belief system, that group included the Labour Party.

    I’ve always said that come the revolution and the peasant revolt, The Enlightened? are more likely to be the on the business end of it than leading it.

    Russia Today’s take.

    1. Should we be worried about you murdering kids, slappy?

      1. Slappy doesn’t consider the children of “mud-people” to be worthy of the appellation “kids”; he refers to them as “offspring”.

    2. I wonder what the Norwegian version of A3P is?

  5. Good looking teens trapped on a small island with a well-armed shooter? – Where can I buy this game?

    1. Good looking teens

      Careful. The feds won’t blink an eye at the simulated slaughter of minors, but they’ll freak out if you find those minors attractive.

    2. Too soon…WAY too soon. Try back again in about…never.

      1. If gallows humor is made criminal, only criminals will be funny.

        1. But there has to be humor involved, right?

        2. Not suggesting criminal charges, just a wee bit of voluntary sensitivity to the sensibilities of those of us who see nothing humorous in the deaths of innocents. As far am I’m concerned you have the right to make fun of bleeding babies with their little arms blown off and I have the right to consider you a morally bankrupt cretin.

          1. But could you change your name to Mopey Pest for the sake of accuracy?

      2. Hey, you want me to start going on with my anti-Christian schtick?

        1. Try complaining about Palin’s Bachmann’s bad treatment by the Liberal Media. That’ll set John off again. MNG will join in. Boring cat fight will ensue.

          1. John needs to understand the legitimacy of the vagina rest entirely with its status as a member of the Democratic Party. MNG needs to understand that the sole custody of legitimate vaginas being the Democratic party means all male members of the party are pussies as well.

        2. shriek’s is funnier.

          1. Re: BakedPenguin,

            shriek’s is funnier.

            Funnier in the sense that he’s pathetic, yes. Like guy-setting-himself-on-fire funny…

            1. Like guy-setting-himself-on-fire funny

              When done properly and under the right circumstances, such a man can be not only not funny, but a spark a revolution. Evidence. the Tunisian man whose self-immolation set off a revolution throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

            2. Like guy-setting-himself-on-fire funny…

              That’s how I meant it.

    3. And the winner of this thread is…MONGO!

    4. Battle Royale II : The Arctic.

      1. They already made Battle Royale 2, and it sucked as badly as the first rocked. 🙁

        1. I read the book before I knew there was a movie. Imagine my excitement when I realized I could actually watch this thing on screen!

  6. The majority of those murdered by Islamists are Muslim. The attacker justifies violence with xenophobia, but ends up attacking his own people, because attacks on one’s own people are easier.

    1. True, he should have grabbed a lance and horse and assaulted Palestine or Lybia. Lazy motherfucker.

      1. Lost, the moral of the story is to not follow hate mongers. That guy who promises to “get the rich” is likely to go after you too.

        1. Crazy people be crazy. Its well understood.

      2. Or the Moorish invaders of Spain.

      3. This would’ve instantly made him an internet hero. Of course, being blonde in Palestine is grounds for death I believe, so he’d be shot on sight.

    2. For example:

      The Syrian government claimed early on that Syrian protesters are backed by Israel and the USA. It has killed over a thousand Syrian protesters this year (France 24).

      The situation is analogous. Fortunately, folks like Breivik don’t lead any European nation.

      1. The Syrian government aren’t Islamist.

        1. Good catch, affenkopf. However it is xenophobic, so the pattern still fits.

        2. no, and neither was the PLO, but they used religious extremism when it was useful. Nationalism and religious extremism have been close (if uneasy) bedfellows for a long time.

        3. The Syrian government aren’t Islamist.

          Yet.

      2. They may not be overtly Islamist, but they sure provide a lot of support for those who are.

        And, they are Muslim (as are their goons). Funny how that “Muslims shall not kill Muslims” rule is observed only when convenient.

        1. They are a different sort of Muslim than the ones they’re killing ‘though.

    3. “The attacker justifies violence with xenophobia, but ends up attacking his own people, because attacks on one’s own people are easier.”

      That’s on par with burning down your own neighborhood when you don’t like the way a trial came out.

    4. Um, seriously though? This guy seems like a somewhat intelligent guy who used that intelligence to try to justify a complete moral monstrosity…

      You would think that he would understand enough about probable to results to aim his fire in some direction other than the one that would popularize his putative enemies.

      What fucking monster…

    5. Exactly. Ther would have been much more blowback if he opened fire at a mosque. he’d probably be treated the same by authorities, but now there’s much less chance that someone will behead his parents or cousins.

    6. kind of like how PETA nuts don’t attack bikers with leather jackets.

      1. … and Greenpeace doesn’t attack navy bases for using seal lions and dolphins for harbor defense.

  7. Many people have been asking why a man driven by a hatred of Islamic immigrants would aim his fire at native Norwegian teens.

    Did Breivik really “hate” Islamic immigrants?

    1. As far as I can know from reading his manifesto: Yes.

      Is there something that makes you think he didn’t?

      1. The lack of supporting quotes from the manifesto or his message board postings.

        I do not hate Muslims at all. I acknowledge that there are magnificent Muslim individuals in Europe. In fact, I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some who I still respect.
        “Why didn’t he kill Muslims?” seems like a really stupid question.

        1. In the sentence before that, he said, “If they stopped all Muslim immigration and started the deportation of all Muslims.” He doesn’t hate them, he just wants the forced deportation of all of them.

          1. Forced deportation doesn’t mean hate. I don’t hate Fred Phelps, but …

          2. He is a bit more tolerant of Muslims in Norway than Abe Lincoln was of Blacks in America.

            1. Watch out, the Lincoln cultists will jump ugly on you.

        2. “I can’t be a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot. Some of my best friends are [insert minority here]”

          1. Breivik is prejudiced and xenophobic. His actual hatred is political, rather than ethnic.

            Deportation is what many(if not most) 19th Century American abolitionists proposed for Black Americans. Would you say that was a manifestation of “hate” for them?

            1. It certainly was not a manifestation of their respect for a black person’s basic human rights and his protection under Natural Law.

            2. No, I would not necessarily.
              Nor would I compare Breivik to 19th century abolitionists.

              1. Not even the Kansas “faction”?

            3. “Deportation is what many(if not most) 19th Century American abolitionists proposed for Black Americans.”

              True story.

    2. But mostly he hated those who “betrayed” him, just like how moderate muslims are the first targeted by extremist muslims.

  8. Roger Daltrey sounds off. Jesse Walker and Mike Riggs faint dead away….

    1. Poor Slappy, torn between loving Breivik and being jealousy for not having courage of your convictions to go on your own murder spree.

      Must be a confusing day to be a racist, nationalist, and bigoted shitbag.

      1. Must be a confusing day to be a racist, nationalist, and bigoted shitbag.

        Being a xenophobe means never having to say your sorry.

        To people who look different than you.

      2. Well, if Roger Daltrey thinks immigration is ruining his nation, then we all ought to take a step back and really think about…er, I dunno. How he stays in such great shape, maybe.

        1. How he stays in such great shape

          He eats a lot of beans.

          1. Ken Russell is genius.

    2. Yeah, the native lower classes in Britain are such a harworking bunch.

      Check Britain some time. Its the Asian and Carribean immigrants that are starting and running businesses while Anglo-Saxon yobbo layabouts whinge while collecting the dole in rundown council flats that make American public housing look palatial.

      The fucking decadent little island would have sunk giggling into the sea decades ago if the “pakis” and “nignogs” weren’t keeping it afloat.

        1. No one likes us; we don’t care….MILLWALL!

          1. No one cares about you, you don’t like that.

            1. affenkopf, those are the actual lyrics of a Millwall fight song.

      1. ++ I pretty much root for the immigrants as the only salvation that people have. Mummy Blair and allowing violence advocating clerics to live on the dole were pretty much the breaking points for any sympathy I had for them.

    3. Has Daltrey ever been on the People’s sexiest man cover? That is an incredible oversight if he hasn’t.

  9. 21 year is the max prison term in norway for any crime. 21 years in a cushy scandinavian prison for 90+ murders. 21 years

    1. Thats 21 years IF he’s convicted for the crimes. A good lefty lawyer will get him off for diminished capacity or something.

      1. it’s every lawyer’s job to get his client off the hook for whatever it is they’re accused of. their politics don’t really matter. calling them a leftist diminishes the insult.

    2. Imagine you could time machine back and tell the Vikings their descendants will become a pathetic bunch of statist pussies.

      1. Swedish socialism is just a bump in the road for them. They have been a capitalist powerhouse for their entire modern history of the last several centuries. Hence, why they could afford the indulgence of a left wing turn. Even with that u-turn towards damnation, they are still a capitalist powerhouse because they cleaned up significantly by reforming the state in the 90’s. Don’t bet against them.

        1. Swedish socialism is just a bump in the road for them.

          Pillaging is just wealth redistribution.

    3. Accoring to the Guardian that’s not eintirely true:

      There is controversy too over whether a sentence handed to Breivik will be increased to reflect his threat to society. Under Norwegian law Breivik faces a maximium 21 years in jail, but this can be extended under certain circumstances.

      1. they can extend it 5 years at a time if the prisoner is deemed dangerous. but i wouldn’t hold my breath. he’ll be a model prisoner. scandanavians love to forgive and forget

        1. I am guessing they will deem him dangerous until he’s dead.

          1. Re: Neu Mejican,

            I am guessing they will deem him dangerous until he’s dead.

            Nah – once he convinces the “experts” that he embraces multiculturalism, they will deem him rehabilitated. It would be the PC thing to do, after all…

            1. You think people who are sympathetic to PC are going to go soft on a mass murderer who chose targets on the basis that they were (becoming) sympathetic to PC?

            2. Really? That would not comport with multicultural practices, i.e., the caucasian double standard. See the plight of white farmers in South Africa.

            3. The difference, of course, is that among the “experts” there will probably one or two who counted friends or relatives among his victims.

    4. Wouldn’t that be 21 years for each murder? 21 x 90 [or whatever it is] > 21.

  10. Krugabe complains that ratings agencies are too hard on sovereign debt.

    The fact the U.S. has held the highest possible rating for years (despite having had defaults in every century, some of them quite severe) is not a factor in Krugabenomics. His citation is a nation where the national psyche would rather starve than default on debt and pioneered the multigenerational mortgage.

    1. Why would anyone still pay attention to Krugs. He’s now a caricature of his caricatures caricature.

      Please pay attention to meeeeeee! I’m still relevant.

    2. Multigenerational mortgages. It is what lead to serfdom in tsarist Russia. Would not surprise if Krugnuts finds such an evil compelling.

  11. Many people have been asking why a man driven by a hatred of Islamic immigrants would aim his fire at native Norwegian teens.

    I guess I understand why people try to understand psychos like Breivik, but at some point don’t you have to concede that if these nutjobs had logically-sound thoughts they probably wouldn’t go around killing 80 people in a day?

    1. It is dangerous to explain away Breivik as being a nutjob. He is not insane. He knew what he was doing and took action based on the logic of his political views.

      1. Bullshit. No political views rationally cause you to conclude that you need to do this. yeah, he is not completely irrational. But that doesn’t mean his thoughts are representative of anything but him. Charlie Manson was rational too. But I really don’t think there is much to learn by thinking about the White Album predicting the apocalypse.

        1. “No political views rationally cause you to conclude that you need to do this.”

          Mao? Stalin? Poll Pot? Hitler?

          1. True. I suppose if this guy were part of a movement rather than one loan nut, his views would be important to understand. Fair enough.

            1. Unfortunately, he might be viewed as a martyr by some. I hope I am wrong but there are plenty of xenophobes in Europe (as well as in North America). What I do think is unfortunate is that some on the left have seized on this and used it to smear wide swaths of people who are not violent but who disagree with the left in one way or another. It is important to remember that the political spectrum*** is quite different in Europe than in the United States.

              *** I think all political spectrums are useless but it is even more useless to try to apply Europe’s spectrum to North America.

              1. But liberals will use it to libel their opponents. That is how they roll.

                1. Oh irony.

                  1. That is what they did with Giffords and OKC NM and what they are trying to do with this. How am I wrong? I know they are your team and it embarrasses you. But sometimes life is like that.

                    1. The irony, John, is in your attempt to libel your opponents with accusations of libel.

                    2. It is not libel if it is true NM.

                    3. It is not libel if it is true NM.

                      Is it true?

                      [sigh]…you are accusing a group of using the actions of an individual to libel the reputation of another group. You don’t even bother to cite an individual in the first group as an example…it is “just the way they roll.” It is a text book example of irony. You could avoid it by complaining about an individual who attempts to libel a whole group based on the actions of an individual.

                    4. That is what they did with Giffords and OKC NM

                      Who are “they”?

                      and what they are trying to do with this.

                      Who are “they”?

                      How am I wrong?

                      You are conflating individual partisans with “liberals” writ large.

                      I know they are your team

                      Who are “they”? What team are you accusing me of being on?

                    5. Who are “they”?

                      Christiane Amanpour on This Week painted this guy as right wing when in fact his economics are decidedly left wing.

                      Do you want John to name every instance he comes across?

                    6. Who are “they”?

                      Christiane Amanpour on This Week painted this guy as right wing when in fact his economics are decidedly left wing.

                      Do you want John to name every instance he comes across?

                      If John wants to avoid the irony, he would need to keep the accusations at the level of the actor, not the group he thinks they represent.

                      As for the “right wing” versus “left wing” thing…I am not sure Amanpour’s label is inappropriate in the context of Norway’s politics (I didn’t see/read it, so I am just taking your report at face value).

                    7. I am not sure Amanpour’s label is inappropriate in the context of Norway’s politics

                      Her audience is American not Norwegian. Also being anti-multicultural and being multicultural transcends left/right politics.

                      Furthermore in the anti/multicultural dichotomy there is a distinct political philosophy that is neither but is libertarian in nature. ie do what the fuck you want just don’t force me to do it.

                      Amanpour’s description of this guy’s politics is biased on several levels….and i should point out that it is a bias found among many left leaning journalists.

                      Why the fuck did she even bring left/right politics into it? It isn’t a left/right thing it is an anti-multicultural thing.

                    8. Her audience is American not Norwegian.

                      Okay. Did she somehow imply that he held beliefs that were similar to the American right wing?

                      Also being anti-multicultural and being multicultural transcends left/right politics.

                      Okay. Did she imply otherwise somehow?

                      Furthermore in the anti/multicultural dichotomy there is a distinct political philosophy that is neither but is libertarian in nature. ie do what the fuck you want just don’t force me to do it.

                      Okay. Did she imply otherwise?

                      Amanpour’s description of this guy’s politics is biased on several levels….and i should point out that it is a bias found among many left leaning journalists.

                      Like I said, I didn’t see it, so I have to take your word for it, but your description makes me skeptical.

                      Why the fuck did she even bring left/right politics into it? It isn’t a left/right thing it is an anti-multicultural thing.

                      Perhaps because the Norwegian police described him as having ties to the right wing. Just a guess.

                    9. “Christiane Amanpour on This Week painted this guy as right wing when in fact his economics are decidedly left wing.”

                      The bizarre notion that “right” = “laissez-faire” and that anyone who opposes laissez-faire is therefore a “leftist” shows an incredible ignorance of history. Most right-wing parties and thinkers in most countries in most eras of history have favored government intervention in the economy, and have denounced classical liberals (seen as a threat to Church, Family, Tradition, etc.) as well as socialists. (The interesting thing is that some of these “traditionalist” or “cultural” conservatives are themselves atheists or agnostics–but they see religion as essential to preserving society.)

                      Breivik definitely is a cultural conservative, as he claims to be. Of course this does not mean that cultural conservatives should be found guilty by this association–most cultural conservatives do not believe in kiling their adult enemies, let alone teenagers whose “crime” is that they are in training to be social-democrats (and therefore “politically correct” “cultural Marxists” “multiculturalists” “enablers of jihad” etc.–these are all the same thing to Breivik.) But Ross Douthat is right to acknowledge that some of Breivik’s ideas have a definite pedigree in the European Right.

            2. True. I suppose if this guy were part of a movement rather than one loan nut, his views would be important to understand.

              So the convictions of a lone wolf Islamist terrorist woudldn’t be important to you?

              1. The Islamist is part of a movement. There is more than just one. Unless you can show me there are thousands of people out there who think like this guy and are prepared to act on it, his motives are pretty unimportant.

              2. If lone wolf Islamist terrorists were as rare as Norwegian mass murders, no.

                1. How about the motivations of the troops / pilots / drone operators who have deliberately killed and mass murdered tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of muslims in Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan?

                  Is there some kind of moral superiority to be accorded soldiers who wear the Empire’s uniform when they murder civilians as opposed to the individual who murders without being ordered to do so by the state?

                  1. Yes there is a moral superiority. they are not murdering civilians Mike. I can’t keep you and shrike straight half the time.

                    1. They are not intentionally murdering civilians.

                      If you are claiming that no civilians have been killed by us in Iraq, your dumber than I thought.

                    2. Yes, they are and they have.

                      Part of being a big boy is leaving one’s love of nation state at the door.

                    3. BTW, Anthony Gregory, writing today at LewRockwell, agrees with me.

                    4. BZZT! Appeal to authority, please try again.

                    5. Nobody gives a shit what the lunatics at LewRockwell have to say. Well, except for you, but that is because (like you), they are a pack of race-and-Jew baiting yokels. That ilk is completely devoid of intellectual gravitas; all I ever see there are self-serving, content-and-fact-free polemics. Fuck LRC.

                    6. are a pack of race-and-Jew baiting yokels.

                      You took the words out of my mouth! We’re proud of you son.

                    7. One can hate the anti-intellectual fear pimps at the SPLC and hate the neo-Confederate knuckle-draggers at LRC…all at the same time!

                    8. But it takes a particularly talented person to hate the SPLC, hate LRC, and suck on me so well.

                      Only you Rev. Blue Moon….

                    9. I laughed.

                    10. I danced.

                    11. Shrikey….you got your own sock puppet! Adorable.

                    12. ….they are a pack of race-and-Jew baiting yokels

                      Yeah because you never see anything posted by a non WASP at LRC…..and that makes perfect sense as their twin patron saints (Rothbard & Von Mises) are both jewish. Nothing ever from Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams….Stephen Greenhut…..they sure hate them faigs too….cough cough Justin Raimondo. Those southern bastards wouldn’t even let poor Burt Blumert help out financially because he was a member of the “tribe” if ya know whut I mean.

                      Do some fucking homework dimwit.

                    13. I have done plenty. Gary North, Joe Sobran, Sam Francis – all contributors to LRC. All bigoted nutbars. Is that “guilt by association”? Yes, but so fucking what? Don’t associate with redneck morons if you do not want to be considered a redneck moron.

                    14. I have done plenty.

                      And yet you still manage to get it wrong and remain smug about it. Well played sir….well played.

                  2. deliberately killed and mass murdered tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of muslims in Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan?

                    1. Prove that it was deliberate
                    2. Prove that number
                    3. What, exactly, is the difference between “killed” and “mass murdered”? Was that “and” really necessary.

            3. one loan nut

              Fanny Mae?

        2. It’s not about explaining that you “need” to do this. The rationalization is that such an action would be an effective way to advance your goal.

          Being a psychopath makes executing such an action possible. And I don’t consider psycopaths to be “crazy”.

          I don’t much care for the terms “crazy” or “nuts”. It’s a lazy way to write off someone’s actions. It’s insanely easy to make a moral case against what he did. Why be lazy and invoke nuts/crazy?

          1. Instead of nuts how about “unimportant”?

            1. Why exactly do you want us to stop thinking about his motivations, John?

      2. I agree. This is a very slippery slope. If we can blame this crime on mental illness we could using the same thought process blame almost any crime with some kind of motivation that we find the slightest be distasteful on mental illness. You are removing any aspect of personal responsibility for crime.

        1. I don’t think recognizing that somebody is acting illogically is the same as removing any aspect of personal responsibility for crime.

          1. Some are trying to go beyond claiming mere illogical thinking. Some are claiming mental illness is involved.

            Spending half your salary on lottery tickets is illogical, but not necessarily insane. Claiming that the Devil made you buy those lottery tickets – that is insane.

            1. That’s a fair point, and I certainly don’t know enough about the facts (nor have remotely sufficient expertise) to diagnose Breivik with a mental illness. That being said, I still don’t think recognizing mental illnesses is the same as absolving people of personal responsibility.

            2. Claiming that the Devil made you buy those lottery tickets – that is insane.

              Fuck you!

            3. Spending half your salary on lottery tickets is illogical

              Not necessarily. If you value the utility of the rush associated with gambling plus the utility of the pleasure of fantasizing about winning plus the expectation value of the monetary award more than you value the money spent on the lottery tickets, then buying the tickets is not illogical.

              Similarly, ABB’s actions may have been logical to ABB. Bumping off a few future facilitators of policies that ABB disagreed with plus the publicity may outweigh the negatives in ABB’s estimation.

        2. Ultimately, the purpose of trying someone for a violent crime is to reduce or eliminate the danger of those criminal acts. Part of that is deterrence for the criminal and for others, but most of it is simply removing the individual from society while he or she is a danger to others.

          The dichotomy between personal responsibility and criminal insanity is one created by those who view prison or execution as punishment or revenge and don’t want the accused to escape “justice” by being absolved of his crime by reasons of insanity. This is nonsense: if your response to this incident is that we need to take revenge on this dude, then frankly you are no better than he is.

          By all means, remove him from society because he’s a danger whether he’s insane or not; but his motivations should be entirely irrelevant to his sentence except insofar as they impact the likelihood of him performing another such act in the future.

          This is a large part of the reason why I prefer exile to prison. Prison is a kind of torture that is viewed as righteous by the bloodthirsty public who celebrate things like prison rape as an eye for an eye. Exile to me says, “You’re outta here, and don’t come back” but breaks the cycle of violence.

          1. Exile criminals to where? Another state? Country? Island-in-the-middle-of-nowhere? The Phantom Zone?

            I think you’ve been reading way too much of some sort of sci-fi.

            1. Exile criminals to where?

              Well, the space shuttles aren’t being used anymore …

            2. An island would work. Easy to blockade, but it gives them enough freedom to try to form a society. Hey, it worked for Australia. 🙂

      3. I’m sorry, but from everything I read I feel very confident saying the guy was a nutjob. I agree that it’s instructive to try to figure out what makes somebody like that tick so that we can at least try to prevent such attacks in the future, but my point was more that people seem surprised that his actions seemed irrational (why not attack Muslims instead?) when his actions belie the fact that he is not a rational individual.

      4. It is dangerous to explain away Breivik as being a nutjob. He is not insane. He knew what he was doing and took action based on the logic of his political views.

        You do realize that being a nutjob gives you these political views which then justify your actions.

        He was a nutjob. And the most dangerous kind.

        1. And let me remind everyone that being a nutjob doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for his crimes. The actual nutjob defense is very, very narrow and my guess is he won’t qualify. At least under US law…

        2. You do realize that being a nutjob gives you these political views

          No, I don’t realize this. Disagreeing with Norwegian immigration policy and multiculturalism doesn’t automatically imply nutjobhood, neither does agreement with Norwegian immigration policy and multiculturalism. I hope you are not defining disagreement with government policy as insanity.

          1. No I’m being admittedly glib, but I’m also referring to the real specifics of his beliefs. The one’s that justify him shooting up a kids’ daycamp.

    2. I agree. Who cares what he thought. He is nuts. It is not like you are going to find anything interesting or valuable there.

      1. Are you suggesting that there is no distinction between evil and insane?

        1. Less than we think. And evil is a lot less interesting than we imagine it to be.

          1. Perhaps (although this particular attack sounds a plot out of a Batman or Die Hard movie), but it’s worth retaining the label “evil” in order to pass judgment on those that deserve it. And this fucker is evil, regardless of his motivations.

        2. At a certain point they become indistinguishable.

    3. I think the problem is that his plan was fairly complicated (a two-stage attack, with the first and more dramatic stage intended to distract authorities while he carried out the second stage), which shows evidence of complex thought. He couldn’t have been completely lost to reality.

      1. from the little we know of this guy, he doesn’t seem “crazy” in the way that loughner was. and even though he may have planned and executed this alone, his political views are far from unique. this anti-jihadist thing is growing

    4. if these nutjobs had logically-sound thoughts they probably wouldn’t go around killing 80 people in a day?

      While his actions are certainly a sign that “there’s something wrong with anyone who could do this,” I think it is important to make a distinction between the kind of crazy we are talking about with this guy, and schizophrenia or other psychosis like we had with Loughner. Much different animals. It does not appear this guy is out of touch with reality. He’s more [fill in your favorite despot here] crazy than Loughner crazy.

      1. Why is it important to make the distinction? There is nothing important or interesting, unless you are psychiatrist, to be gained from considering either person’s motive.

        1. Why is it important to make the distinction?

          A schizophrenic individual deserves many accommodations and considerations in the judicial process that would be inappropriate to apply to a case like this.

          There is nothing important or interesting, unless you are psychiatrist, to be gained from considering either person’s motive.

          Motive, means, opportunity…yadda yadda.

          1. If you are trying the guy in court, sure. So I will grant you that the Court will want to know. But why should the rest of us care?

            1. Why are you worried that others find it interesting?

            2. There is nothing important or interesting, unless you are psychiatrist, to be gained from considering either person’s motive.

              Reading this again…I find it, actually, a pretty amazing statement.

              John spends most of his time here commenting on the supposed motivations of “the left” of “liberals” (they’re jealous, the need to control, they don’t care about climate change…it is just a way to get their socialist policies implemented), and yet doesn’t see anything important or interesting to be gained from understanding the motives of others.

              Odd.

              1. Re: Neu Mejican,

                John spends most of his time here commenting on the supposed motivations of “the left” of “liberals” (they’re jealous, the need to control, they don’t care about climate change…it is just a way to get their socialist policies implemented), and yet doesn’t see anything important or interesting to be gained from understanding the motives of others.

                Odd.

                I totally agree – every fringe actor’s mental health should be studied and his motives understood, no matter if the mental disease is leftism or nationalism; both are equally scary, especially considering the string of murders leftism has left over the past 100 years, and nationalism over the past 200 years.

                1. Tribalism/nationalism/xenophobia seems to be the underlying motivation for this particular nut. If there is any parallel to US politics, it is the rhetoric of anti-immigration. People who try to draw parallels to the tea-party are on the wrong track (if they are out there…I haven’t seen a first hand example of this), but parallels to the “minutemen” crowd are not as far fetched.

                  The idea that a culture is weakened by the incorporation of new views and perspectives is one of the most tiresome, but persistent.

                  1. Put my two cents, NM and OM are right. Why would we not want to know what causes personal boundaries to flay and succumb to committing ultra-violent actions.

                    What sparks righteous furor? A feeling of helplessness as your opponents holds all the cards for several decades, dictating policy in the smarmiest, condescending way possible? Should we be concerned if our own interest triumph over those of others no mater how much we feel our contempt for them and their interests to be justified?

                    I’d like to know the story inside and out. Like an after accident vehicle diagnostic, you might actually find something useful so long as you remain honest in your interpretation.

                    1. alan,

                      I agree for the most part. One of the dangers of dismissing an incident like that as a ‘lone nut’ is that it makes it easier to ignore the political dimensions that were so important in motivating their actions. People did the same thing with OBL and crowd after 9/11. They acted like his motives were mysterious, when in fact he was very open and up-front about why he did the things he did. Same with the unibomber, or this guy. They did what they did for political reasons. What made them feel that the means they chose would lead to the ends they desired? Understanding that is an important question.

                    2. I understand your qualifier there. It is a little absurd for a multi-millionaire to feel like an outsider. I have seen it before though where a person retains their formative beliefs before they acquired wealth. My boss at the time of Waco came up to me and said, ‘Motherfuckers, burned them alive!’ That is how I found out about it. He had not been a radical since his college days, but right then and there, he was indistinguishable from Abbie Hoffman.

                  2. The idea that a culture is weakened by the incorporation of new views and perspectives is one of the most tiresome, but persistent.

                    Equally tiresome is the idea that some Muslims aren’t trying to replace other cultures, not simply wanting some Islamic views to be incorporated.

                    1. j-hi|7.25.11 @ 2:58PM|#

                      The idea that a culture is weakened by the incorporation of new views and perspectives is one of the most tiresome, but persistent.

                      Equally tiresome is the idea that some Muslims [put your dis-preferred cultural group here] aren’t trying to replace other cultures, not simply wanting some Islamic [put your dis-preferred cultural group here] views to be incorporated.

                      Yep, some people are intolerant of the ideas of others. It is true. Some of those people are Muslim. It is true. Many religions (notably Christianity and Islam) have as part of their belief system the idea that their religions views should be actively promoted among non-believers.

                    2. Many religions (notably Christianity and Islam) have as part of their belief system the idea that their religions views should be actively promoted among non-believers.

                      True, but active promotion is not the same thing as committing violence to punish non-believers. In the West, it is Muslims who are committing acts of violence, not Christians. Pretending otherwise is ignoring reality.

                    3. Not sure what your qualifier “in the West” is meant to do here as it is largely true that neither group, for the most part, commits acts of violence. American Christians have perpetrated violence at least as often as American Muslims (and I am limiting this here to acts that their perpetrators link to religious motivations).

                      In the “non-Western” part of the world, I see sectarian violence based on religious identity to be pretty common. Do you see otherwise?

                  3. The idea that a culture is weakened by the incorporation of new views and perspectives is one of the most tiresome, but persistent.

                    I would not describe it as such. The idea of a persistent culture is not in and of itself toxic. It is the idea that violent coercion to enforce (state enforced or otherwise) a persistent culture that is toxic. It should also be noted that it is as toxic as the idea that culture should be directed and changed through the use of violent coercion.

                    I think this is very important to point out as it makes a pretty strict line between leftist views of culture and cultural freedom and libertarian views of culture and cultural freedom.

                    The left want to change and manipulate culture to their own ends. Libertarians want culture to go on what ever path it goes and that the individual should be able to choose his/her own culture without fear of violence.

                    1. The left want to change and manipulate culture to their own ends. Libertarians want culture to go on what ever path it goes and that the individual should be able to choose his/her own culture without fear of violence.

                      I am not sure that is exactly accurate. There is more nuance on both sides. For the libertarian, of course, there is the idea that certain cultural rules are non-negotiable and require enforcement via the state. On the left, the concept is not about changing/manipulating the culture for their own ends, per se, as the goal of the manipulation is to remove what are perceived as the distorting influence of powerful players in the culture so that individuals can be more in charge of their own life.

                      The main advantage libertarianism has is that radicalization of the libertarian world view leads to coercive violence being sanctioned in smaller and smaller realms.

                      Both libertarian and leftist philosophies endorse the concept of the people having the right to use mass violence in response to abuses of power. The primary difference is who is considered a legitimate target.

                      As to your point about persistent culture…I think I disagree. Persistent culture is a toxic concept in and of itself. It always sets up an us versus them mentality which is at the root of most violent conflict.

                    2. Persistent culture is a toxic concept in and of itself.

                      So reading a 200 year old book written in English or listening to Bach is toxic?

                      Give me a fucking break.

                    3. For the libertarian, of course, there is the idea that certain cultural rules are non-negotiable and require enforcement via the state.

                      Name one.

                      On the left, the concept is not about changing/manipulating the culture for their own ends, per se, as the goal of the manipulation is to remove what are perceived as the distorting influence of powerful players in the culture so that individuals can be more in charge of their own life.

                      So who is the power player when I have to suck the cock of my local planning department in order to get a permit to hold a folk music festival?

                      The left only want to put the reins of cultural control into the hands of the state.

              2. There is nothing odd about it all. IF this guy were part of some larger movement, then what he was thinking would be significant. But he is not. He is a lone nut. And the motivations of a lone actor are really of very little interest or importance. If there were 1000s of people who agreed with this guy and were willing to kill in furtherance of their cause, his ravings would be important to understand. But since there is only him, it doesn’t matter what he thinks.

                You just so desperately want to associate him with your enemies or at least accuse the other team of hypocrisy. Not everything is blue team red team partisanship NM. Some things just are what they are.

                1. You just so desperately want to associate him with your enemies

                  I don’t have anyone (group or individual) that I would consider an enemy.

                2. There is nothing odd about it all. IF this guy were part of some larger movement, then what he was thinking would be significant.

                  How would you determine if he wasn’t part of a larger movement if you didn’t try and understand his motives? HE says he is part of a larger movement. HE claims he has associates ready to act in similar ways. He may be wrong on that count, but understanding his motives is utilitarian, at the very least.

        2. Why isn’t this same statement true of Bill Ayers?

          1. I think Ayers is one of the biggest bores on the planet. So it is true about Ayers. If you were talking to me Fluffy.

      2. Much different animals. It does not appear this guy is out of touch with reality.

        This. Which is why, at least under US law, he’d never be able to take an insanity defense. As batshit crazy as he is.

  12. If anything, the appropriate punishment for this is death by electrocution. Of course, the chance of capital punishment being reintroduced in fucking Norway are nonexistent, so I guess the guy’s getting a roof over his head and three meals a day. For murdering in excess of 90 people. Wow.

    That doesn’t even compute. What a colossal mind-fuck.

    1. Of course, the chance of capital punishment being reintroduced in fucking Norway are nonexistent, so I guess the guy’s getting a roof over his head and three meals a day.

      Do I think the guy deserves a slow and painful death? Yes. Do I think he deserves a roof over his head and three square meals a day? No.

      At the same time, will I accept merely letting him rot in a jail for the rest of his life in exchange for making sure the state never executes another innocent person? Abso-fucking-lutely.

      1. Permit the execution for that one guy, and that’s it. Of course, allow them to do that, and they might just legislate it back into existence universally again.

        As much as I love capital punishment for utter scum, the fact that innocent people are executed also is disgusting.

        1. bills of attainder aren’t my favorite thing, and that would be the functional equivalent.

          don’t we have a metric assload of threads about the stupidity of kneejerk change the law (or make a new one) impulse based on a single incident?

          iow, if the DP is wrong, against norwegian values or whatnot, they shouldn’t change it because of this murderous piece of shit

          it’s “letting the terrorist win” if they change their VALUES for one guy

          1. *likes dunphy’s comment*

      2. At the same time, will I accept merely letting him rot in a jail for the rest of his life in exchange for making sure the state never executes another innocent person? Abso-fucking-lutely.

        Agreed. The state must never be permitted to execute anyone for any reason. The door is either closed or wide open: the behavior of governments ensures that there is no middle ground.

        1. The state must never be permitted to execute anyone for any reason.

          Absolutely. The fact that a person who likes to kill might escape or be released back into society on parole or after serving a sentence and then kill dozens of innocent people should never be considered. The deaths of innocents stacked up by those who would be executed under capital punishment mean nothing in comparison to the occasion execution of an innocent by the state.

          Private sector murder is better than public sector murder. That is the libertarian position.

          1. Better hope you don’t become one of those wrongly convicted. Tyrants like you point to statistics to back up your preferences, but don’t consider the humanity behind those statistics. “What are a few dead brown people in the inner city? I’ll never be one of those. But I can state with authority that the world would be a better place if it is acceptable for the state to murder a few of them.”

    2. What does it matter to you how he is punishes, as long as he is prevented from acting again? Do you think a more painful execution will help his soul in the afterlife, or what?

      I don’t get the concern over how someone is punished. It’s not going to change anything.

      1. Revenge is a perfectly natural human desire.

        1. But is it useful as public policy?

          1. But is it useful as public policy?

            So you are in favor of eliminating punitive damages for civil cases?

            When can we expect that letter from you to Obama asking the government to give back those billions to BP?

      2. What does it matter to you how he is punishes, as long as he is prevented from acting again?

        Justice must have a vengeance component to it not only as a preventative deterrent. Otherwise you would have vigilantes running around killing criminals.

        Criminals must suffer for the suffering that they caused, not simply be rehabilitated.

        Maybe if we were a different species that did not have a universal inborn understanding of revenge and retribution, but that won’t happen until after the singularity.

  13. If ever there was a time to bring back the Blood Eagle…

    1. “Scaphism, also known as the boats, was an ancient Persian method of execution designed to inflict torturous death. The name comes from the Greek word skaphe, meaning “scooped (or hollowed) out”.

      The intended victim was stripped naked and then firmly fastened within a face-to-face pair of narrow rowing boats (or hollowed-out tree trunks), with the head, hands and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey to the point of developing severe diarrhea, and more honey would be rubbed on his body to attract insects to the exposed appendages. He would then be left to float on a stagnant pond or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individual’s feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects, which would eat and breed within his exposed flesh, which?pursuant to interruption of the blood supply by burrowing insects?became increasingly gangrenous. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that dehydration or starvation did not kill him. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days.

      In other recorded versions, the insects did not eat the person; biting and stinging insects such as wasps, which were attracted by honey on the body, acted as the torture.

      Death by scaphism was painful, humiliating and protracted. Plutarch writes in his biography of Artaxerxes that Mithridates, sentenced to die in this manner for killing Cyrus the Younger, survived 17 days before dying.”

      That aside, he deserves to die. Conveniently, I’m sure that to construct an electric chair in the 21st century wouldn’t cost much at all.

      1. Hey! That’s my shtick!

        1. Oops. Sorry. Full credit to you. Please, don’t mutilate me.

          ._.

      2. That sounds more appealing the more I read it. I can think of a few people barely worthy of such a death.

        1. Who?

          1. Ed Schultz and Rush Limbaugh come to mind.

  14. I’ve been busy… how many twits are trying to claim Brevers is the product of American talk radio?

    1. You wouldn’t like the answers you’d probably get if you talked to enough people in Europe’s largest countries.

      1. I probably wouldn’t like ANYTHING they would say.

        So, did this nutcase get a contact buzz from walking past someone who was listening to a Limbaugh podcast?

        1. Are you kidding me? No! He just walked by the American Embassy, saw the flag, and went apeshit. If he’d listened to Limbaugh, or read the Constitution of the United States, he would have killed HUNDREDS of people instead. Get your facts straight, yank redneck xenophobe!11!!!!

          1. That’s MISTER Yank Redneck Xenophobe.

            Observe the fucking protocols.

            1. Sorry, blood. I was too busy being the submissive, utterly dependent surf and “swallowing”. Protocol wasn’t on my mind, mate.

              1. Are you the Brit AND the European socialist douchecunt, at the same time?

    2. Here’s what “Fjordman”, who is quoted numerous times in his manifesto, has to say about the US:

      ? If the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire then the USA is the Diversity Empire, committed to spreading Multiculturalism and genetic Communism around the world, especially to white majority countries.

      ? The United States will not survive this century. It will be split into several countries according to ethnic, racial and perhaps even ideological lines. There is no such thing as a universal nation. People want to live with their own kind. The only ones who are not allowed to do so are whites, and they are starting to get tired of this double standard.

      BTW wtf is “genetic commmunism”?

      1. “Your sperm will be sent for re-education!”

      2. wtf is “genetic commmunism”?

        Sounds like it might be “all men are created equal”.

  15. Dude clearly has some very serious issues, no doubt.

    http://www.web-privacy.au.tc

  16. I’m a liberal but anyone who tries to use this guy’s views in an American context is grasping at straws. The US right is very different from the European right. Even the anti-immigrant factions of the American far right right aren’t as openly and brashly xenophobic as the European far right. You would never here someone like Breivik say for example “I’m just against illegal immigration”. No, he’s against all non-white immigration period and believes in national racial purity.

    Aside from that the economic views are also quite different. One of the justifications for xenophobia among the European right is that you can only have a welfare state if your nation is 100% white. You don’t hear that here.

    Tarring him as a teabagger is just the left wing equivalent of trying to turn American liberals into Leninists. “Right” and “Left” just don’t translate across the Atlantic.

    1. ^This, a thousand times over.

      Let me be the first to commend you for saying it openly, as its something that I don’t think a lot of liberals in this country would have the nerve to say.

      The European Right is far more ethnically driven than the American Right. Moreover, the European Right is far more (if only in rhetoric even) accommodating of the state.

      I tend to think that a large part of the reason for this is the top-down leadership of the multiculturalism advance. As a result, the European Right is far more reactionary and views itself as swimming against a tide of multiculturalist propaganda. Here in the U.S., although diversity is the official accepted value among elites, it trickles down among the mainstream through much more free associations such as work, community, and school. Due to this, the American Right does not presently on a large scale the same outright racial character.

      1. Yes, I think that’s mostly spot on. At least from my readings.

        And as you point out, the European right is (broadly speaking) much more statist as well which makes their nativism even more dangerous. They’re much less enamored with free markets than the US right.

    2. “Right” and “Left” just don’t translate across the Atlantic.

      I think “Left” translates pretty well – watering down of the concept of private property, confiscation of private wealth in order to serve the common good, etc. The European concept of the “Right” doesn’t translate all that well to the US. The biggest problem, though, is that there is no European equivalent to Constitutionalism – the deliberate limiting of government under the constraints of delineated powers.

    3. The US right is very different from the European right.

      Oh bullshit.

      Europe has classical liberals who are multicultural and believe in economic liberty. Europe also has economic statists who are full blown racists yet the left and the left wing media label both as “right wing”

      The exact same phenomena happens here in the US.

      Nothing unique about it all.

  17. Warrant Served in Poisoned Dogs Case

    A search warrant has been served at a home in a trailer park in Lincoln Park after ten dogs were found poisoned to death, according to the San Diego Humane Society. Animal Field Officers were called to the trailer park last Saturday and found five dogs dead upon arrival. They found three more poisoned dogs dead last Sunday and two more last Monday morning. The dogs belong to several different owners. Many of them suffered violent seizures, foaming at the mouth. None of the dogs were shot. Local libertarians disappointed.

    http://www.nbcsandiego.com/new…..54929.html

    1. LEAVE THE POLICE ALOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE!!!!!

    2. Re: Another Isolated Incident

      Another “Isolated” Incident.

      June 19 2011 – Police say a man fired at them before he was shot dead by police officers in Hampton during a drug operation at a house Saturday morning.

      The invaders who murdered Hampton, Virginia resident William Cooper swiped about $900 in cash. They seized his gun collection. They took the Lexus from his driveway. By some oversight they neglected to extract the gold fillings from his teeth.

      While they made off with a decent haul, the robbers were doubtless disappointed that they couldn’t locate the large stash of illicit prescription drugs they had expected to find. They had the luxury of tossing the home at leisure without worrying about being interrupted by the police – on account of the fact that they were the police.

      William Cooper, a 69-year-old retiree who suffered from the familiar variety of afflictions attendant to age, was startled awake on the morning of June 18 by two men who had barged into his home with their guns drawn and ready. Since he lived in a neighborhood in which home invasions (of the non-State-sanctioned variety) were commonplace, Cooper slept with a loaded handgun on his nightstand. He made an entirely proper but regrettably ineffective use of that weapon in an effort to repel the intruders, and was gunned down in his bedroom.

      [That is, he was MURDERED.]

      The police raid was triggered by an unsubstantiated tip from a still-anonymous informant that the NASA retiree — who walked with a cane and, according to his neighbors, never seemed to have any visitors — was illegally selling prescription drugs from his home. After they murdered Cooper, the police found about two-dozen different prescription drugs in the home, including various painkillers and medications for blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes.

      No dogs were murdered – just a man trying to defend his home from who in the end were the most dangerous kind of intruder: tax-fed and jack-booted thugs who, “fortunately,” were not hurt. Just another incident ignored by Mr. “Isolated Incident” here.

      1. $900 in cash. I see where you’re going with this. Clearly going to use it for the illegal purchase of prescription drugs. Very sly OM.

      2. Yeah. I’m cool with this…not much play in the media.

    3. . None of the dogs were shot. Local libertarians disappointed.

      Well, now that the police are on the case…

  18. It is puzzling because the actual operation of the killer’s plan has a definite craftiness to it, but he didn’t think very craftily about exactly what the fallout of his attack would be.

    He probably should have tried to frame the ruling party for anti-muslim demagoguery. For example, hanging large heretical posters outside the government buildings. Or planting anti-islamic materials on the AUF youth camp island, and then filming it and releasing it to the internet where it would enrage muslims.

    1. Most deliciously Machiavellian!

    2. Maybe he thought that Labor would overreact in order to punish moderate work-within-the-system xenophobes (more stringent hate-crimes laws or whatever), thus pushing some of those moderates to feel that they had to fight back with violence?

  19. semi-related: Anti-Tax group receives bomb threat
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/07…..mb-threat/

    1. But that’s a justifiable threat; you see, if taxes are gone/lower, how are the parasites going to survive? Surely you’re not a parasitophobe!

  20. A nutjob? Definitely not. A psychopath? No, certainly not someone who is doing this for enjoyment or even impulsively. Someone who thinks he’s doing The Right Thing ?? Yes.

    actually… his thoughts are quite logical (which is more than I can say about all the people jumping to conclusions early on, ironically enough).

    Of course, whether or not they are ethical is different matter, nor do I do I even agree with him (though several points do merit discussion), and certainly not with his actions, but the points he makes ARE coherent and reasoned out based on the premise he uses with a sort of logical consistency that’s rare among the usual knee jerk zealots for any particular set of issues.

    Unfortunately most any issue mentioned in his manifesto will become even more taboo to discuss politically or openly and related extremism will just fester underground even more

    (fyi, this is coming from someone pro-multiculturalism, pro-liberty, e.g. for voluntary religious restrictions, for Mohamedean cartoons, for WTC mosques.. next to strip clubs, gay bars, etc)

    1. That said, people with a firm belief won’t change. He won’t ever be “corrected”. Since they aren’t going to instate capital punishment, then they may need to extend his stay in prison indefinitely given they probably won’t be able to predict his danger to others from his demeanor when released

    2. A psychopath? No, certainly not someone who is doing this for enjoyment or even impulsively.

      That’s not what a psychopath is. Its not about enjoyment or impulse. Its about empathy (or, more specifically, the lack of).

      He’s almost definitely a psychopath.

      1. But he IS empathetic if you actually read his writings, just not to those who he perceives as enemies and traitors

        I know the test for psychopathy and I actually disagree with it (especially how it’s evaluated in terms of trying to figure out “empathy” and other psychologist have pointed out its flaws as well empirically) since if someone were truly emotionless as they define they would not bother to be driven to kill especially in as directed or motivated a manner as this in he first place

      2. Based on the EQ/SQ Inventory that many of us recently took, this comment board is crawling with psychopaths.

        I’ll wear it as a badge of honor.

        1. I scored well above average for women in the EQ portion, and well above average in the SQ, so that must mean I’m all that is man, and also all that is woman.

      3. Actually, psychopaths are often impulsive and irresponsible. To the extent that they reach higher positions in life, it’s usually a combination of shallow charisma and a social network willing to run interference for them, protecting them from their own failures.

    3. actually… his thoughts are quite logical (which is more than I can say about all the people jumping to conclusions early on, ironically enough).

      Why do people keep saying his thoughts are “logical”? They are not in any way logical. Did any of his actions successfully turn the “tide of multiculturalsim”, or further his own personally stated goals?

      1. His action was illogical due to the implications it will have for people who share his beliefs, but I believe what MP is trying to say is that his broader thesis has a logic to it based on his initial premises. His initial premises happen to be wrong, but the logic that follows from the faulty premises is actually fairly sound. Sound logic is meaningless with the wrong premises, but it is at least the indication of a reasonable mind.

        1. Sound logic is meaningless with the wrong premises, but it is at least the indication of a reasonable mind.

          I still disagree.

          The catholic church is placing listening devices in my eyeglasses, therefore I wear a tinfoil hat to keep the pope from reading my thoughts with his mental vibrations and because of this, I must assasinate him.

          One could argue there’s a logic in my thoughts, but the logic is twisted and based upon unreasonable premeses. So ultimately, the logic is neither sound nor did it come from a “reasonable mind”.

          We may be arguing matters of degree here, but still.

          While I’m sure that Breivik (probably) knew the difference between right and wrong and was oriented to time and place (a major factor in the clinical determination if someone is of generally sound mind), that doesn’t make him any less “crazy”.

          No, he’s not going to fall into the same area of psychosis that a muttering schizophrenic occupies, but I still don’t see his actions as logical or reasonable, primarily because the premesis are so utterly unbound to reason.

      2. Did any of his actions successfully turn the “tide of multiculturalsim”, or further his own personally stated goals?

        The consequences of his actions have not played out yet. Nobody knows what they will ultimately be.

      3. I don’t think he expected to happen within a few days, regardless, so we would have to see how things play out. Maybe if he writes about his struggle in prison, he’ll have a new following by the time he is released.

        1. You know who else wrote a book in prison?

          1. Nelson Mandela.

          2. Martha Stewart

          3. No idea, who?

  21. Uh… is being anti-jihad a bad thing?

    CB

    1. No. Is being anti-AB a bad thing?

  22. Is the entire reason staff on vacation? Need new posts!!

  23. A point that seams to be ignored is that this persons actual target was the Workers’ Youth League camp (Workers’ Youth League was formed following the merger of LEFT COMMUNIST Youth League and SOCIALIST Youth League of Norway)

    1. Quotes from his manifesto would indicate that he favored state ownership of industry.

      Looks to me like he was a paleo socialist who didn’t like the cosmo version of socialism.

      He went after the camp because in his mind they favored multiculturalism, not because they were socialists.

      Note: I would have said Nationalist vs Internationalist but then someone would have claimed a goodwin on me.

      1. And that, in a nutshell, is what the European Right is: National-Socialist (and I’m actually not intending to say NAZI!!!1!!! because I’m not Godwinning here). They’re not Nazis in the sense of conquest, militarization, or even ethnic cleansing. Although they do want a largely homogenous population within their borders (admittedly, they’d rather deport than kill).

        But the European Right has nothing near the economic agenda of the American Right (even recognizing that the American Right tends to fall far short of its economic rhetoric).

        1. Actually, it’s National Bocialist.

      2. According to NPR, this was the gist of his beliefs. Also, the European Left have been vote-switching to these ‘ultra-right’ parties as of late.

        Oh, and it’s not because the European Left suddenly discovered laissez faire capitalism, dregulation and individual freedom. Quite the opposite.

  24. @Joshua Corning
    what it looks to you is rather irrelevant given the fact that he went in a camp and KILLED DOZENS OF YOUNG LEFTIES.

    1. The larger point is that the American version of Left vs. Right does not equal the European version of Left vs. Right.

      Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies in spite of featuring almost wholly congruent economic policies. The European Far Right is as in favor of state ownership of production as the European Far Left. The primary disagreements between the Euro Far Left and Far Right is cultural/ethnic. ABB acted not because he opposed the Left’s economic vision, but because he opposed the Left’s cultural vision. That fact is almost entirely indisputable.

      1. I understand that there are not equal. But please tell me the blood of these young politically active SOCIAL DEMOCRATS equals to what?

        1. But please tell me the blood of these young politically active SOCIAL DEMOCRATS equals to what?

          In terms of justice (ie blood) i think their political affiliation should be ignored. Their blood is equal anyone’s blood.

          Are you proposing extra or less justice should be afforded to them because of their politics?

          If you are then you are imbecile who deserves to be ignored.

          1. And if I don’t? Which would be true since I don’t. What would I be then?
            And I really i don’t want your answer. You can keep on justifying your belief system on the death of young people.

            1. You can keep on justifying your belief system on the death of young people.

              I do not see why not.

              If my belief system produces less dead children then other belief systems then it is perfectly reasonable to point out that other competing belief systems kill children.

              Of course in no way did I ever do this.

              So to recap You got in a fight with a strawman of your own creation and lost.

    2. @Joshua Corning
      what it looks to you is rather irrelevant given the fact that he went in a camp and KILLED DOZENS OF YOUNG LEFTIES.

      NO

      He killed dozens of young multiculturalists because they were multiculturalists.

      The fact that they were also lefties had nothing to do with his motives…in fact he was an economic lefty himself.

      1. I would also like to point out that he was perfectly capable of separating multiculturalism from the left wing right wing paradigm as he called American Republicans libertarian multiculturalists.

  25. Can we say that economic left wing anti-multiculturalists are more violent then economic right wing anti-multiculturalists yet?

    1. I hope you understand that you are rationalizing the murder of tens of young people who will never have the change fulfill their dreams and the pain of their parents who will NEVER see their children again.

      1. Hmm…perhaps i was wrong about why you are an imbecile..

        And in fact you are an imbecile for a completely different reason then i thought you were.

        I am making no rationalization for their deaths.

        1. Tomorrow he will be calling them martyrs. By definition a martyr can’t die from irrational means, else they are just victims.

          I would also agree with his sentiment if he did call them martyrs for they died in the service of their beliefs. But what SimOn is saying now is pure nonsense. But tomorrow, he’ll be a better man, I have little doubt.

          1. It’s like the “obesity epidemic”.

            You can’t catch obesity. Therefore, it can’t be an epidemic.

          2. No Alan i would not call them martyrs because they are not. They are innocent victims that died because a paranoid killer decided to kill them. Like most of the victims of terrorist acts. And isn’t the word martyr almost exclusively a religious term?

            1. http://www.google.com/search?q…..=firefox-a

              mar?tyr/?m?rt?r/
              Noun: A person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs.
              Verb: Kill (someone) because of their beliefs: “she was martyred for her faith”.

              They were martyrs, plain and simple. Innocent martyrs. Even ‘heroes’ is appropriate. ‘Victim’ robs them of their dignity. To wish this away as an irrational act robs them of their humanity. Hence, the need to understand the motives of the villain as something beyond poor impulse control.

              1. I my self prefer Webster’s for the definition of English words
                1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
                2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
                3: victim; especially : a great or constant sufferer

                Alan in order to become a martyr it must happen willingly. I don’t understand what robs the victims of an atrocious act of their dignity. Like the tens of thousands of people that have died from the Jihadist bombings, innocent bystanders in most cases, have lost their dignity? The perpetrator of acts like this loses his dignity.

                1. Alan in order to become a martyr it must happen willingly.

                  Even in your definition it is not a necessary condition but at best implied. The definition I gave is there, exist separate from either of our influence, and doesn’t lack validity only because you don’t accept it.

                  Purposeful death has more validity and weight than meaningless death. What is the meaning of the phrase ‘died in vain’ for you if that is not true? Victims are robbed of their dignity and humanity by the randomness of the acts for which they succumb. That is why we avoid being victims above all else.

                  1. Even in your definition it is not a necessary condition but at best implied.

                    Not in def. 1 (“voluntarily”).

                    Not really in def 2 (“sacrifices . . . for the sake of principle), but if so, it is very strongly implied.

                    1. Not really in def 2 (“sacrifices . . . for the sake of principle), but if so, it is very strongly implied.

                      Not really that strongly applied. Think of a Christian thrown to the lions. His actions of being a Christian got him in that arena, just as joining in a Pro-Palestinian rally was a precondition for the teenagers to be targeted. But that doesn’t make the Christian less a martyr because he picked up the shield and sword to fight back. He didn’t go down voluntarily.

                      The 2nd definition was necessary because the 1st one was not sufficient.

                    2. Not really that strongly applied.

                      implied! Better than what I originally put — Katie leid

                    3. What you say here is unchristian. Martyr means witness. And in Christianity it is a witness who gives his testimony for the glory of God and willingly surrenders his life following the example of Jesus Christ the Savior.

                2. 4: a type of passive/aggressive girlfriend

                3. I noticed in the first writings of ABBs he used the word martyr several times and pondered if he himself would fill that role to bring to light the problems he felt the multkulti labour party was causing. ABB sees himself as a martyr for the cause by definition #2 in SimOn’s post.

  26. One of the cable channels last night flashed a pic of this yoyo decked out in a rather impressive looking military uniform (definitely NOT the Masonic outfit used at H&R). I’m no expert on modern Norwegian uniforms, but (assuming it isn’t entirely fake) he must have been an NCO or above. The newsgoobs of course said nothing about any military service on his part.

    Is this an angle that is surfacing?

    1. Norway has compulsory military service. But don’t take the photos seriously. Apparently he was poser dressing up in costumes and taking pictures of himself.

      1. I think a random poser wouldn’t be able to successfully pull of the attack he did.

        Compare (in the U.S.) random Muslim dipshit lured into a plot by the FBI with McVeigh. Military is good both at breaking down the resistance to taking a life and at giving the skills necessary to do so (and with those skills come an improved chance of success that might tempt someone who would otherwise avoid what they saw as justifiable violence due to futility). Combine that with an extremist viewpoint, and you’ve got a domestic terrorist.

    2. He made his own uniforms and took pictures of himself wearing them. He also invented a number of medals and awards which he generously awarded himself. He was never in the Norwegian army, according to himself because he didn’t want to defend the multiculturalist agenda. Most likely he was rejected.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.