Voices

Views from elsewhere

Anders Breivik is not a madman

Dismissing the killer simply as "nuts" ignores future threats.

By Guy Walters Published 27 July 2011 11:55

Insanity is not necessarily a prerequisite for mass murder. Although killers such as the Russian cannibal Alexander Spesivtev and the serial killer Dennis Nilsen would reasonably be described as insane, there are some who kill their fellow human beings simply because they passionately believe themselves to be right. Sometimes these people - in the form of some suicide bombers - are brainwashed; but many times they are not, and they act out of a sense of religious or political fundamentalism, or indeed, out of obedience.

More ink than blood has been spilled about the motivations of the killers in the Nazi camp deaths and the Einsatzgruppen, but one observation that consistently emerges is that many of the perpetrators were not mad, and were in fact, in the words of Christopher Browning, 'ordinary men'. I have yet to read a serious thesis that advances the notion that all nineteen of the September 11 hijackers were insane. Although some members of the Provisional IRA were mad, the vast majority were not, and were able to commit mass murder nevertheless.

If you passionately believe you are right, and you feel you have no other method of obtaining your goal, then killing is a very logical thing to do. This is undoubtedly a normative form of human behaviour, as human beings have been killing each other for the "right reasons" for millennia. Many of us are repelled by the act of murder and, thankfully, we do not resort to it even if we believe the other side is wrong. But some do kill others to advance their interests, or to stymie those of others, especially if they believe that a greater threat is posed to society by not carrying out the killings.

Such an attitude was espoused by Heinrich Himmler in his speech made at Posen on October 4, 1943, in which he said:

Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when 500 lie there or when 1,000 are lined up. To have endured this and at the same time to have remained a decent person [my italics] - with exceptions due to human weaknesses - had made us tough. This is an honour roll in our history which has never been and never will be put in writing, because we know how difficult it would be for us if we will had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and rabble rousers in every city, what with the bombings, with the burden and with the hardships of the war. If the Jews were still part of the German nation, we would most likely arrive now at the state we were at in 1916/17 [.] We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who would kill us [my italics].

For the purposes of the present argument, the key phrases in this passage are Himmler's assertions that it is possible to commit mass murder and to still be "decent" (in German, anständig, which also denotes respectability) and that there was a 'moral right' to carry out mass murder. Although Himmler was plainly wrong - the Jews did not present an eliminationist threat to German society - it is clear that the justification Himmler used to urge others to commit massacres was not born out of madness, but from a position of political fundamentalism and perceived preemptive self-defence.

Many members of the Nazi leadership were not insane and yet they appeared to be anständig. At the risk of sounding flippant, their attitude was one of "What happens in Auschwitz, stays in Auschwitz". Such a process, by which ordinary men are able to commit extraordinarily vile acts, has been labelled as 'doubling' by the American psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton in his book The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. Lifton's argument is that human beings, when placed in certain situations, need to be neither mad nor bad to commit acts that normally require a combinaton of just such attributes. Undoubtedly, it is the nature of those 'certain situations' that is crucial. It is easier to commit mass murder when there is a corporate intent to do so, and much harder to do so when acting alone.

What makes the case of Anders Breivik so troubling is that he committed mass murder on his own. For some commentators, such as Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, Sam Leith in the Evening Standard, and Boris Johnson in the Daily Telegraph, Breivik's actions are explained by insanity, and there is not much need to study Breivik's 'manifesto'. This, the argument runs, was the work of a lunatic who had built a puerile ideology to accommodate his psychopathy. In essence - the madness comes first, then the political justification, then the slaughter.

However, it is quite clear, at least to me, and Professor Andrew Silke on yeterday's Today programme, that Anders Breivik is not a madman. If you study Breivik's 2083 A European Declaration of Independence, it becomes apparent that Breivik is not insane. His thought processes are clear and rational. He appears to reasonably well socialised, and in control of his faculties. He even displays a sense of morality. His political arguments, although deeply wrong, are no more wrong-headed than many you might find in the comments boxes on the websites of many a newspaper, and, if anything, are far more sophisticated. Breivik comes across as an intelligent, thoughtful person, albeit obsessional with what he perceives to be the eliminationist threat of multiculturalism to Norwegian - and European - society. None of these attributes make him insane, and certainly not mad enough to be the psycho figure posited by Sam Leith and Boris Johnson.

The roots of Breivik's actions clearly lie in his politics, and when you read his 'manifesto', it is clear why he decided to act as he did. His argument runs thus: Multiculturalism, 'cultural Marxism' and immigration of Muslims is destroying our way of life. The people responsible for this are the ruling Labour Party. These people are traitors. I have tried to act politically, but that has yielded no reward, and little hope of doing so. Violence is the only solution. Therefore, kill the next generation of political Labour Party leaders. This is a necessary evil, but will save us from the greater murderousness of Islam in the long run.

And, in a brutally logical way, that is just what Breivik did. Those who he slaughtered, such as Hanne Kristine Fridtun and Tore Eikeland, were indeed future political luminaries, people who Breivik felt were traitors and would lead his country into the supposed darkness of Islamic domination. In his 'manifesto' Breivik suggests that his '"Justiciar Knights" would need to kill some 200,000 "category A and B traitors" in order to "break the historical 'Marxist vs. Conservative' cycle or we risk that the cultural Marxists will emerge as a dominating force again after 20-100 years". Breivik's thinking is, of course, twisted and evil. But it is not mad, and he is not unique.

Thanks to social media, Breivik was able to connect quickly - by his own reckoning - with thousands of likeminded souls on Facebook. Much of his 'manifesto' deals with building and maintaining such networks, and, of course, there is the suggestion that he met specific inviduals in London with similar intentions to his own. In this way, Breivik was able to feel that he was participating in a corporate enterprise, and, when combined with his political will, to have created a 'Lifton situation' in which murder became morally justifiable.

History shows us too often that the actions of certain individuals can - at the right or wrong moment - create vast consequences for society. The Norwegians are completely correct to insist that their ship of state should not deviate from its course. But we must learn how to stop future politically motivated massacres, and to do so, we cannot just dismiss Breivik as a madman and sail on blithely. Breivik's actions are not rooted in mental imbalance but in political belief, and we must study and negate his beliefs - and those who adhere to them - to stop future slaughters.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Anders Breivik Norway attacks

More from Guy Walters

View the discussion thread.

173 comments

Sun, 2012-10-21 14:07 — awkwji (not verified)

twsjptz

Sat, 2012-08-25 09:45 — Chirag Suvarna (not verified)

Anders Behring Breivik is the product of extreme nationalism and religious fundamentalism.This what these ideologies does to ordinary people.It turns sane people into blood thirsty monsters.European Fascist movement (unlike in past) is still very small as compared to Indian once.Thanks to liberal left wing political groups in Western Europe who are actively resisting fascist and conservative menace (they have also rejuvenated the culture of mass protest during recession). Anders Behring Breivik and other splinter neo Nazi groups have to rely on acts of terrorism in order to make their voices heard.

However India fascism is a very well organized movement .Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP),Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS),Shiv Sena ,Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP)..all Hindu fascist political parties have well established themselves in Indian political system. These Hindu fascists have formed the central government in the past and will form in future. These political parties are now a part of main stream Indian society and they do not require acts of terrorism to propagate their agenda. Instead of that they use mass violence and mobilize a large section of fundamentalist Hindu against India Muslim. The whole world knows what happened in Indian state Gujarat in 2002.Almost 2000 Muslims were slaughtered, many Muslim women were raped and there was widespread destruction of Muslim property by Hindu mob--supported and organized by Hindu fascist chief minister N Modi of BJP. It is really shameful that BJP is still ruling the state of Gujarat with a popular support. Before this incident these parties were responsible for demolition of Muslim mosque known as Babri mosque in Ayodhya in 1992.This demolition has caused communal violence between Hindus and Muslims across India,especially in Indian city of Mumbai.

Unlike the general European public which has condemn crimes of Anders Behring Breivik ,most of Indian Hindus(not all) justify the murders of Muslims in India.There is a general acceptance of this form of violence against Muslims in India. There is also Muslim extremism in India .However it is a very weak movement and like Breivik they have to engage in terrorist activities like bombings in order to take revenge against Indian state. Indian society is getting drowned into the filthiest gutter of Hindu fascism. It was not surprising Anders Behring Breivik in his manifesto ( which he released in Internet earlier) has supported these far right Hindu political parties of India and endorsed their political stand.

Fri, 2012-08-24 12:10 — Robert Taggart

He is not - official - as of 24/08/12 !

Fri, 2012-06-01 17:17 — Breivikfan (not verified)

There will be more Breiviks because censorship is rampant everywhere in europe.

Tue, 2012-05-22 17:35 — Rational Rock 'n' Roll (not verified)

This article makes the correct point that Breivik was not insane, but fighting a cause that makes sense to an idiotic mind. There is a legitimate argument to be had about how dangerous Islam is to the world, but an intelligent person will debate it. A simplistic person succeptable to propaganda will launch into war-mode very quickly. Being a sadist murderer is not specific to the insane. It is possible that he displays psychopathic impulses, but he was and is lucid.

He is simply speaking as if the extreme right wing manifesto is correct. Lots believe the same, but only he took action.

On the other hand, there are a lot of you on here taking your religious tolerance too far. It really is true that Islamic extremism is caused by the Koran and the Hadith. It's all in there I promise you. It's not the white racists fault, because Islam is not concerned with race. It is not our foreign policy. There is clear holy text that can justify every IED, suicide bombing, invasion, infanticide you wish to name. But, that doesn't mean every Muslim is doing it. There is a majority of Atheist Muslims, they just don't realise that's what they are yet.

The position to take the is the same one as always: the inquisitive one. Don't believe propaganda from any media. Michael Moore is as bad as Fox News. Want to find out about terrorism? Watch a Bin Laden video with an Arab speaking friend. Want to find out about Islam? Read the Koran. Don't be fooled.

Tue, 2012-05-22 17:35 — Rational Rock 'n' Roll (not verified)

He is simply speaking as if the extreme right wing manifesto is correct. Lots believe the same, but only he took action.

Tue, 2012-05-22 17:34 — Rational Rock 'n' Roll (not verified)

He is simply speaking as if the extreme right wing manifesto is correct. Lots believe the same, but only he took action.

Tue, 2012-05-01 06:53 — bahuvirupaksha (not verified)

orway has always regarded it self as the conscience of the civilized world. The self appointed custodian of "western values" was always quick to defend every terrorist group in the world the latest being the LTTE, the terrorist group which was responsible for killing more than 50,000 civilians. Norway was one of the prominent EU countries which followed a split policy on terrorism: condemn the state if it tries to defend the territorial integrity of the country, but always defend sundry terrorist and anarchist groups in the name of human rights. Norway had no qualms about signing up for the War on Terror crafted by the US under the leadership of Bush and Blair. Always following an aggressive policy of promoting Western geo -strategic interests, Norway maintained the "high moral" ground by adopting a hectoring tone when it came to countries like Sri Lanka which faced one of the worst terrorist groups in the world with cynide capsules and human bombs.

The Western media always labels political acts of violence anywhere in the world with a religious tag. Thus we have the well known category of Islamic terrorism. Given this fact can we call the massacre of 94 young people on the island of Uteoya by Anders Behring Breivik as an act of Christian terrorism just as the world seems to recognize the existence of Islamic terrorism. There is an eerie similarity in the planning and execution of the plot with Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma Federal Building bombing nearly a decade back. McVeigh too was inspired by fundamentalist Christian values and he too used ammonium nitrate as the explosive charge for the bomb.

The suggestion that there is a Christian terrorism is just as wrong as the assertion that there is Islamic terrorism. The Moslem countries have certain grievances which must be addressed and they are all of a political nature, By giving a religious complexion to protest and its attendent violence the Western world is basically evading its own responsibility is generating the grievances that lead to violence. Norway with its ruling labour Party has followed a policy of giving shelter to groups that will be labeled terrorist by any definition.

The man who killed 94 young people and blew up the Prime Minister's office in downtown Oslo was a home grown terrorist and I am sure that Norway will be more circumspect while condemning other state for protecting the territorial integrity of the state.

Thu, 2012-04-19 15:42 — Julia Harris

"Mass killer Anders Behring Breivik has said he planned to kill everyone and behead the former prime minister"

Another reference to Islamic Jihad in that he wanted to behead the former prime minster - Beheading is a popular method of execution carried out by Islamic Jihadis and "hundred percent consistent with the sacred teachings of the holy book of Quran".

We also see it from the UK Muslims population who carry signs saying " Behead those who insult Islam"

Further reading..
http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/beheading-in-Islam.htm

Tue, 2012-05-01 23:17 — Armin ius (not verified)

In WW2 Croatian Ustase used to execute captured Serb Partizans by beheading them. Catholics beheading Orthodox Christians and atheist Communists but wait.....there were a few Croatian and Bosnian Muslims in the Ustase so it must be.....JIHAD!!!

Thu, 2012-04-19 19:10 — jankaas (not verified)

thanks Julia for another epic trawl through the most tortuous display of illogic. and that's saying something.

p.s. ever heard of Samurai? no doubt you'll explain how their ritual beheadings were inspired by the Koran.
or is the penny dropping? no...?

Thu, 2012-04-19 12:06 — Julia Harris

WHEN WILL THE NS AND LEFT TAKE ISLAM TO TASK OVER THE NORWEGIAN KILLINGS? THEY KEPT TRYING TO LINK IT TO THE EDL ETC??? BUT IT IS ISLAM THAT HAS INSPIRED HIM.....

Anders Behring Breivik: Was inspired by al-Qaida, would do killing spree again -

OSLO — The gunman behind the Norway massacres said he was inspired by al-Qaida as he took the stand Tuesday at his trial, after a judge who called for him to face the death penalty was dismissed.

Rightwing extremist Anders Behring Breivik said his attacks last year were aimed at defending "ethnic Norwegians" from rising multiculturalism, and that he "would have done it again."

Insisting "universal human rights" gave him the mandate to carry out his acts, he described himself as a "militant nationalist" and, using the pronoun 'we' to suggest he was part of a larger group, added: "We have drawn from al-Qaida and militant Islamists."

"You can see al-Qaida as the most successful militant group in the world," Breivik told the court during questioning on the second day of the trial.

http://www.canada.com/news/Anders+Behring+Breivik+inspired+Qaida+would+k...

Thu, 2012-04-19 12:55 — Mr Clemence (not verified)

Oh I see. Another EDL nut. This takes stretching a connection to new levels. Having trouble conceiving that the idiocy Breivik promotes is from the same well spring of drivel you belive in? I'll be blunt this time. You're wrong.

Thu, 2012-04-19 13:56 — Julia Harris

Bullsh*t, you'll happily equate the people from the right who Breviks mentions, but when it names Islam and its related groups you dismiss it as idiocy. Can you not see how hypocritical you are being??

Thu, 2012-04-19 14:27 — Mr Clemence (not verified)

No. What I said is that extremism is the problem that includes radical Islamisits. Brevik is on the far right and his opposition to them is what drives his philosophy so to say he is influenced by them is an absurdity.

Thu, 2012-04-19 10:09 — Mr Clemence (not verified)

@Julia Harris

Thanks for all the shrill shrieking about something that has little to do with the article at hand. If you are interested in balance why don't you go and find out the level of attrocity commited by those on the right wing over the years? Could you also make the effort to contextualise your examples. Is it perhaps possible that some of these attrocities are frustrated responses to the degredation put upon these people by occupying forces with far superior military might? Forces who employ horrific and indiscriminate strategies which result in the deaths of millions including children. Narrow minded acceptance of extremely biased information leads to extremism- extremism is the problem-left, right, religious, whatever- your ramblings seem to indicate you are on that path. You really need to learn to stop, take stock and listen to points of view other than your own-it's the most important thing you will ever do.

Wed, 2012-04-18 21:04 — Julia Harris

There are a massive number of Muslim equivalents of Brevik who kill for an ideology but they kill in the name of Islam but we kind of just except it as the norm. Everyday people are blown to bits, murdered or killed in a deliberate way but nothing is really said about it, its like talking about the weather.

With over 18.5k deadly Terror attacks since 9-11 committed by Muslims in yet we have this Media circus surrounding a guy who did a terrible thing, but it pales in comparison to the terror from Muslim extremists. Since my last post here are some more Terror attacks but they just get washed over and forgetton about, what about these victims? What about the true motives? Where is the media circus and expose? Yes there is some things reported but as I say it just get accepted as the norm, like the people dont matter and the events because so frequent we become desensitised to them.

18,737 Deadly terror attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam since 9-11 WHERE is the outrage from Muslims at that?

Where is the expose by the NS into what drive's Muslims to commit terror - i.e Link - ISLAM.

Last few days forgotten Victims and Terror events

2012.04.15 (Hadramawt, Yemen) - Three young children, all siblings, are disassembled by al-Qaeda explosives while on their way to school.
2012.04.15 (Lawder, Yemen) - A Shahid suicide bomber takes out three civilians at a checkpoint.
2012.04.15 (Taji, Iraq) - A Shiite family home is blown up by Sunni radicals, leaving three members dead.
2012.04.15 (el-Arish, Egypt) - Islamists machine-gun two policemen to death at an airport.
2012.04.14 (Quetta, Pakistan) - Eight members of a Shia minority community are shot to death by Sunni radicals in two attacks.
2012.04.13 (Khanabad, Afghanistan) - Women and children are among five victims of a Fedayeen suicide bomber.

2012.04.17 (al-Bayda, Yemen) - An al-Qaeda suicide bomber take out five local soldiers and a civilian.
2012.04.16 (Korangi, Pakistan) - Two cousins are shot to death in targeted sectarian attack by Religion of Peace rivals.
2012.04.16 (Rashidiya, Iraq) - Four Shiite farmers are picked off by Sunni snipers.

However all the above ties in with the hypocrisy from the Muslims world in that they only seem to be outrage when non muslims or Jews/Israeli's are involved - to quote

"Since 1948, almost 10 million Muslims have died at the hands of fellow Muslims
Where is the outrage over that? Double standards abound. As the Israeli envoy Dan Gillerman said in 2008: "When Christians kill Muslims, it's the Crusades. When Jews kill Muslims it's murder, and when Muslims kill Muslims, it's like talking about the weather. Nobody really cares about it."

And as the late Samuel P. Huntington observed: "Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors. The question naturally rises as to whether this pattern of the late 20th century conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim groups is equally true of relations between groups from other civilizations. In fact, it is not. Muslims make up 1/5 of the world's population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization....Islam's borders are bloody, and so are its innards."

Wed, 2012-04-18 22:13 — jankaas (not verified)

month after month after month you post the same turgid flawed fantasy;

"Where is the expose by the NS into what drive's Muslims to commit terror - i.e Link - ISLAM."

you continue to insist that correlation IS causation. you still imagine that 'Islam causes terrorism' has the same level of evidence as saying 'smoking causes cancer'. you are beyond help and beyond hope.

Thu, 2012-04-19 04:29 — jknnot (not verified)

The causation is Muhamed and his history. It is Kuran. The causation is the claim of the people who are carrying out the attacks telling us again and again they are doing it in name of Islam. The causation is established by failure of the muslims to condemn it. Also such strong correlation established causation. Thats how medicine works. Actually it is doubtful that left does not know it or is stupid enough not to understand it. Thats what makes it an intellectual fraud.

But you cant fool all the people all the time....it is bound to boomerang on left.

Thu, 2012-04-19 10:54 — jankaas (not verified)

yes indeed there are some people fooled by this spurious claim that Islam causes terrorism. people who are immune to data and logic will always resort to this simplistic reasoning and fiddle while Rome burns.

just answer this simple question; overwhelmingly the regions under discussion are almost exclusively Muslim. so what do you expect people who live in these regions of perpetual conflict and deprivation to shout when they engage in violence?

open your eyes and engage brain ffs already.

btw condemnation of Muslim terrorism is extensive it's just that you and your ilk refuse to read about it, or are too bigoted to let inconvenient facts get in the way of your hatred.

Thu, 2012-04-19 04:29 — jknnot (not verified)

But you cant fool all the people all the time....it is bound to boomerang on left.

Wed, 2012-04-18 14:15 — Fraziel1

jimmy45, if i am a simple minded fool then you are an elitist liberal moron who does not listen to public opinion. A significant majority of people in this country do not want multi culturalism and a huge majority among people that would be considered working class, do not want it. It is idiots on the left like you that stifle proper debate and stop proper discussion on subjects like immigration by branding everyone that opposes it as a racist. Now that truly is being a simple minded fool.Perhaps if left wing politicians, who think they are all right and everyone else wrong, had not decided to open Norways doors to a flood of immigrants that nutter Breivik would not have done what he did.

Wed, 2012-04-18 15:21 — Jimmy 45 (not verified)

At no point did I brand you a racist. Though your response suggests that you are and don't understand that you are. I also find the idea elitisim abhorent-it is at the core of many of our current set of problems. However, I do think that if we are going to progress we need to have a political system that is predicated on an understanding and acceptance of valid evidence. On that matter, can you please inform where you got the information from that says a 'majority' of people are opposed to the nebulous notion of multiculturlaism? It is suspect at best or, more likely, you trying to support your prejudice with unsubstantiated nonsesne. The left, in general, tends to attract people who are educated or intelligent and have an understanding of the concept of evidence and act according to the evidence presented and not biased and simplistic notions of what should be done just becasue it seems to be the simplest answer- this is referring to left leaning people in the general populous and not the self serving politicians who lack the credibility to say they hold truly left wing views. As for the guff about the working class, you're talking to a lifelong member who has the misfotune to expereince the kind of cretins you are talking about-I speak confidently for the majority of us when I say- we don't like you and think you are scum. Either spend some time to learn things properly or don't bother to pollute the air with your ill informed, garbled right wing stench.

Wed, 2012-04-18 14:38 — jankaas (not verified)

as you've missed/skipped my post at you earlier, i'll try again here;

ok so in you opinion multiculturalism has failed, but where is your evidence, and analysis of this evidence? anecdotes don't count as evidence btw, as essentially for every negative one there is a positive one.

and i am glad you now accept that Breivik the "nutter" is insane. what you appear to suggest now though is extremely odd; "Perhaps if left wing politicians.... had not decided to open Norways doors to a flood of immigrants that nutter Breivik would not have done what he did."

this suggests that you find it logical that if an individual doesn't like the governement's policy then they can be expected to murder at will to register their dissatisfaction. what sort of a democracy is that?

Wed, 2012-04-18 09:13 — Jimmy 45 (not verified)

Apologies. I think I overstated 'most' there. Fraizel and Jimmytrue seem to be the ones that would fall into the bracket I mentioned.

Wed, 2012-04-18 09:07 — Jimmy 45 (not verified)

See most of the comments immediately below for examples of the simple minded fools I mentioned in the previous comment. I genuinely hope you take some time to learn things properly and the scales will, hopefully, fall from your eyes.

Wed, 2012-04-18 02:40 — thomasvesely (not verified)

if one person had killed Hitler in 1937, he/she would have been charged with murder.
it could not be proved that he (hitler) would go on to do as he did !!
thus no defence.

Wed, 2012-04-18 02:39 — thomasvesely (not verified)

if one person had killed Hitler in 1937, he/she would have been charged with murder.
it could not be proved that he (hitler) would go on to do as he did !!
thus no defence.

Tue, 2012-04-17 23:25 — Jimmytrue (not verified)

If at all the world sees emergence of another Hitler, in my view, the left would solely be responsible for provoking its emergence. There's is either an absolute freedom or no freedom. The middle ground, the one that left wants to pick and chose is not sustainable ground. You yield on Salman Rushdie, on Cartoons on everything that Islamist demand, then you yield to a future Hitler. It is a truth. And it is emerging.

Tue, 2012-04-17 22:40 — Declan (not verified)

More ink spilt than blood about the motivations of the Nazi killers of Jewish people? I don't know how you thought that was a good image to write. They are the things that pop into the brain but aren't meant to make it to the page. When they do, the reader thinks the writer is short on things to say.

Tue, 2012-04-17 20:48 — Fraziel1

What he did was beyond appalling but he is right about multiculturalism. It is not working here in the Uk and it will no doubt be as much of a disaster in Norway. But , wait, we need multiculturalism and anyone that opposes it is a racist. How do we know this? Because the labour party and elitist out of touch liberals tell us so, so it must be true. I don't think he is insane either although there is an argument that if you gun down dozens of young people then you are clearly not normal.

Wed, 2012-04-18 12:33 — jankaas (not verified)

ok so in you opinion multiculturalism has failed, but where is your evidence, and analysis of this evidence?

you then go on to contradict yourself same way the author of this article does. you say;
"I don't think he is insane either although there is an argument that if you gun down dozens of young people then you are clearly not normal."

yep, in other words Breivik is insane.
by not merely thinking, but actually murdering all those humans, would somehow be constructive is evidence of insanity. there's no other way of viewing this.

Tue, 2012-04-17 21:12 — fraise (not verified)

What is the evidence that multiculturalism is not working in the UK? I see multiculturalism and cultural mosaics just about ever day.

Tue, 2012-04-17 16:16 — willoyen

Sometimes ordinary untutored judgements mean something. Breivik mad? He certainly looks it. Rational, definitely, but fanatic to the point of madness. Yet, seeing Blair interviewed on tv last night by Paxman, I couldn't help thinking how much madder this other mass-murderer looks. The eyes, the voice, shaky and uncertain as if he knows he's faking. There's nothing about mass-murderer Blair that isn't faked.
Mad call I it; for to define true madness,
What is’t but to be nothing else but mad?

Tue, 2012-04-17 15:03 — Disgruntled Reader (not verified)

I am shocked and horrified that you equate the IRA involvement in the Troubles in NI with the Nazi campaign from 1933 to 1945. It illustrates a complete and utter lack of appreciation for the causes and nature of said conflict and also elucidates a sectarianism within the Statesman that I had hitherto been unaware of. Shame on you- Guy Walters. The IRA were not similar in any way, shape or form to the Nazis or to the far-right lunatics of the Breivik ilk. Please, before making spurious assessments of historical events, think twice.

Wed, 2012-04-18 12:35 — D.Grant (not verified)

Perhaps if you could ask the people whom the IRA killed,you might receive a measured answer to your question.

Wed, 2012-04-18 12:34 — D.Grant (not verified)

Perhaps if you could ask the people whom the IRA killed,you might receive a measured answer to your question.

Wed, 2012-04-18 12:34 — D.Grant (not verified)

Perhaps if you could ask the people whom the IRA killed,you might receive a measured answer to your question.

Tue, 2012-04-24 01:54 — Disgruntled Reader (not verified)

Are you aware at all of the nuances of the Troubles or do you regularly spout your falsehoods without properly examining the context and history? Northern Irish Nationalists attempted in 1968-9 to assert their civil rights in a Unionist statelet that exploited the apparatus of state (NI and British) to quell any legitimate and peaceful protest against the discrimination of Catholics within the statelet; discrimination that enveloped all areas of public life which included housing, employment and voting rights; during peaceful, non-violent protests against said discrimination the British forces stood by or actively collaborated with Loyalist paramilitaries in destroying Catholic property and life. The Provo campaign arose from State intransigence to the suffering of Catholics throughout the history of the statelet and particularly during the latter years of the sixties. The thirty year campaign will followed was met with equal violence by the loyalist paramilitaries and the British state. This amounted to sectarian warfare, in which both sides were culpable. Was it murder? Only if one is willing to accept that the British State forces and the Loyalist paramilitaries murdered Irish Nationalists in NI too.
Why don't you ask those murdered by the UVF, UDA, B Specials, RUC and the British Army if the Provos were murderers?

Tue, 2012-04-17 14:29 — JG (not verified)

Dismissing him as "mad" or "insane' or "evil" only deflects the discussion away from the fact that he is a racist and a right-wing extremist. He acted for political and racial reasons, which are shared by many in this country and on the Continent. Dismissing Hitler as "mad" or 'evil" in the 1930s would have done nothing to stop the rise of the Nazis. And neo-Nazism, however you want to call it, is on the rise throughout Europe.

Tue, 2012-04-17 14:46 — jankaas (not verified)

why do you conclude that correctly calling Breivik mad and insane is equivalent to a dismissal? that is entirely illogical. yes, Breivik's actions are rooted in his personal ideological reasons, BUT, he took his views to the ultimate level and murdered in cold blood because he is insane/mad/crazy.

what you appear to suggest, as does the author of the article, is that as long as a person can cobble together some or others vaguely plausible ideaological/political reason they could never be labeled insane/mad/crazy. can't you see that as deeply flawed?

Tue, 2012-04-17 12:49 — jankaas (not verified)

@Guy

what a mess of an argument, especially when you manage to confuse yourself so strikingly;

"Breivik's thinking is, of course, twisted and evil. But it is not mad, and he is not unique."

surely a person is 'mad' when their thinking is 'twisted and evil' to the extent they murder their fellow humans? and there is no claim that he is unique either, just thankfully his type of madness (i.e. ideologically deluded sufficiently to go out and murder) is quite rare.

you also make the leap of logic that there is nothing to learn if we call Breivik mad/insane/crazy. yet we as a society are known to put processes in place to cope with humans who are deemed mad/insane/crazy.

i think the worst thing to do is for us to pretend that there is a deeper wisdom within this drama, and so allow the wrong elements way too much attention.

Tue, 2012-04-17 11:39 — Jimmy 45 (not verified)

Whatever his mental state, Breivik is a walking personification of the old maxim 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. His cod philosphy is a regurgitated mish mash of half baked right wing propaganda. The article alludes to the idea that we should not discount the threat posed to us by those who share similar ill informed opinion. Many can be found on the comment threads of this very website. How may of those simpled minded fools would be capable of resisting the sway of someone who, to them, seems to be providing a jusitifiable logic for attrocity? We must be careful not to overstae the threat as in real terms, it is negligible. However, the threat must be treated as real and the approach outlined by the author is likely to be fruitful.

Tue, 2012-04-17 23:15 — Jimmytrue (not verified)

Absolutely Jimmy. The only problem with your argument is that left wing does this apologist thing regularly, whenever it is directed against America/ West/ Israel. Which has now come to signify assorted group of Islamist/ Maoist in India / Various sheds of leftists in Latin America.

I feel repulsed and vaguely satisfied that people comment as they do in DT columns. Full of racism, full of repulsive remarks, but par for the course for the British and British Influenced left. In particular how I hate Arundhati Roy (Just read what Mamata Banerjee-Google, her hero, is doing in Bengal recently).

One Man's mad is other man's hero. Mamata Banaerjee is mad and Andrew is mad. Or neither of them are mad.

You see, left has lot to answer. This hypocrisy of left has leaves many genuine liberals feeling desperate.

I and am sure many like me feel repulsed by the racist comments, but we know, they are picnic compared to what left want to get away with it.

Left just cannot get away with intellectual fraud, you see.

Tue, 2012-04-17 11:17 — E Hart (not verified)

Brievik is neither rational nor logical. You can attempt to rationalise anything, indeed, you cite Himmler self-serving justification in your piece. If there is any logic in Brievik's manifesto it is the logic of the high body count.

Brievik is a narcissist convinced of his own "exceptionalism" - the end will always justifies the means as far as he is concerned not because of any reason or logic but because he deems that it is so and he alone is its arbiter. That's where he is wrong, irrational and illogical. He isn't being judged by his own standards. He can garland his works with whatever justification he chooses but he can't hide their inhumanity. Brievik killed 69 people mainly teenagers. How many people has multiculturalism killed? It isn't just Brievik that's on trial here, it is extreme nationalism - that long-standing Angel of Death.

Tue, 2012-04-17 10:59 — Tim Wikiriwhi (not verified)

My Blogpost on the Brevick trial.
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2012/04/civil-society-merely-skin-deep/#...

Tue, 2012-04-17 03:19 — Gideon Polya

For crucial details relating to Breivik's sanity censored in the Mainstream media of the Western Lobbyocracies and Murdochracies about the mass murder of 69 anti-Zionist Young Labor Norwegians by the anti-Arab anti-Semitic, pro-Zionist mass murderer Breivik read "Palestine's Norwegians" (Counterpunch, 25 July 2011: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/07/25/palestine-s-norwegians/ ) by Professor Vijay Prashad (George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, CT; author of "The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World"" ) in which he concludes that Breivik was not "a madman" and states: "Breivik was certainly a right-wing militant, and without a doubt inspired by the Euro-fascism of Merkel-Sarkozy-Cameron. The press might be obsessed by their "lone gun-man" theory. They see things in the police’s terms, which is to say, in terms of who actually acted, and who provided material support for the action. The action in Utoya was not the act of a madman, and it was not a human tragedy. It was an act of political murder against people who had committed themselves to a convivial world not only for their beloved Norway, but also for those who live under Occupation elsewhere."

If genocidal, racist, anti-Arab anti-Semitic and pro-Zionist Anders Breivik (killer of 75 people) was mad he was no more so than the genocidal, anti-Arab anti-Semitic, racist Zionists responsible for for the ongoing Palestinian Genocide involving 0.1 million Palestinians killed since 1936; 1.9 million Palestinian avoidable deaths since 1936 from invasion-, war-, expulsion- and occupation-imposed deprivation, 7 million Palestinian refugees, 6 million Palestinians forbidden to live in Palestine, 4.3 million Occupied Palestinians highly abusively confined without human rights to what the Catholic Church has called the Gaza Concentration Camp or to ever-dwindling West Bank mini-Bantustans, 90% of Palestine ethnically cleansed, 100% of the Syrian Golan Heights ethnically cleansed, (see "Palestinian Genocide": http://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/ and read the multi-author book "The Plight of the Palestinians": http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html ).

If anti-Arab anti-Semitic, pro-Zionist Breivik (killer of 75 people) is mad then he is no more mad than the anti-Arab anti-Semitic, pro-Zionist leaders of the Zionist-backed US War on Muslims (since the US-complicit 9-11 - see "Experts: US did 9-11': http://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ - the War on Terror; Bush, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Sarkozy, Harper, Merkel, Howard, Rudd, Gillard and their subordinates ) that has so far been associated since 1990 with 12 million Muslim war-related deaths, the breakdown of violent deaths plus avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation being 4.6 million (Iraqi Genocide), 5.6 million (Afghan Genocide), 2.2 million (Somali Genocide" and 0.1 million (Libyan Genocide") (see "Muslim Holocaust, Muslim Genocide": http://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ ).

Tue, 2012-04-17 04:06 — Silican (not verified)

Both you and the author make the same mistake of attributing the perpetrator's motivation and actions to selfless devotion to a cause. You assume he was driven by a perverse form of altruism when the exact opposite is the case. The problem is that you are failing to distinguish between , on the one hand, form and content and, on the other, "madness" (psychosis) and personality disorder.

Tue, 2012-04-17 01:02 — Silican (not verified)

What will almost certainly eventually emerge is that Breivik is an extremely dangerous and severely personality disordered individual. The combination of his grotesquely narcissistic traits and deadly psychopathic traits do, to some extent explain the form of his behaviour. The content, I'm afraid is somewhat irrelevant. Looking for meaning in the twisted thoughts of this partial human gives them far more importance than they deserve. His thoughts can provide no insight into society because he has no insight. He could just have well latched onto prostitutes, bankers or clerics and provided equally vacuous theses justifying their extermination. His preoccupations simply reflect society's current preoccupations or, possibly of more relevance, the media's preoccupations.

The argument that will dominate his disposal will be to what extent, if any, his personality disorder diminishes his responsibility. But the dispute is sterile because, firstly, he can never be allowed to join society again, if one can ever really say he was meaningfully part of society, and, secondly, he will prove unamenable to treatment.

Thu, 2012-05-03 06:38 — thomasvesely (not verified)

he only had to look to his neighbours to see a tide.