Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Anders Behring Breivik Declared Criminally Insane

Our Norwegian correspondent NA sends a brief translation of the latest on Anders Behring Breivik, as reported by Aftenposten:

Behring Breivik has been declared criminally insane. The psychologists conclude that he has developed paranoid schizophrenia over a long period of time thus making him the person he is today. This mental illness has symptoms such as delusions of greatness and persecution resulting in a drastic change of personality.

This conclusion will be followed up by a further nine specialists to ensure the quality of the report. This news will however yield minor consequence for the main negotiations. Behring Breivik must be declared guilty of his actions at the Ministry of Government and the murders at Utøya in order for the courts to transfer him to forced mental health care [also known as “lifetime” in Norway, seeing as though you have to be declared “not a threat to society” in order to be released].

A slightly longer report in English from The Local:

Norway Mass Killer May Avoid Jail: Prosecutor

Anders Behring Breivik, who carried out the July 22nd attacks that killed 77 people in Norway, may never go to jail after psychiatrists ruled him criminally insane, a prosecutor said on Tuesday. Instead, the 32-year-old gunman could spend the rest of his life in a mental institution, prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh told reporters in Oslo.

The prosecutor was speaking after forensic experts submitted a psychiatric evaluation on Tuesday in which they found the gunman “insane”. “In such instances that the person suffers from such a serious disorder that it would not be warranted to sentence him to prison… he can be ordered to stay in mental health care institutions,” said Bejer Engh.

The 243-page psychiatric report found that Behring Breivik had over time developed “paranoid schizophrenia,” with two experts describing a person in his own “delusional universe,” another prosecutor, Svein Holden, said. Holden said the report also concluded that the right-wing extremist had “grandiose illusions whereby he believes he is to determine who is to live and who is to die.” He “committed these executions out of love for his people as he describes it,” Holden said.

Several points are worth noting.

First of all, if Mr. Breivik is insane, then none of us “Islamophobes” can be blamed for his actions. However, since he remains a “right-wing extremist”, the obvious implication is that others who oppose mass immigration and Islamization are also insane — we just haven’t committed any crimes yet.

In other words, Norwegian “Islamophobes” should beware: the men in white coats may soon be paying them a visit.

In my own untutored opinion, however, Mr. Breivik is not insane, but rather a psychopath. Insanity manifests itself as an inability to reason and/or an inability to perceive reality. Based on his writings, Mr. Breivik doesn’t match either of those criteria. He can reason just fine, and has never been unaware of reality. He just has different motivations than the rest of us.

Rather than insane, he is evil. If the rest of us weren’t insane ourselves, we’d identify evil when we saw it, and act accordingly.

Unfortunately, as far as Western jurisprudence is concerned, the category “evil” no longer has any meaning. God has been entirely removed from public life, and scientific investigation cannot identify an entity or condition known as “evil”. Therefore evil does not exist.

So Anders Behring Breivik gets to spend a long, long time in an institution for the criminally insane. Are Norwegian loony bins as luxurious as its prisons?

Hat tip for the Local story: Fjordman.


MRiggs said...

This is a very important event, and it is equally important to highlight at every opportunity.

Breivik was a loony, and if his actions hadn't been influenced by the ideology he actually adopted, it could just as well have been something else.

Robert Pinkerton said...

I respectfully submit that one need not be theist to identify evil. That is evil which is simultaneousiy subjectively hostile (as shown by prior behavior, including verbal) and objectively threatening (i.e.: Possessed of the capacity to harm oneself or one's vital interests.

Hwan Lewi said...

Robert: indeed one need not be a theist, but your definition is wrong and this is actually symptomatic of what the Baron is talking about in the last two paragraphs. Evil, like Good, is not amenable to a utilitarian definition like the one you put forward. Such definitions (where they are not merely circular) implicitly rely on value judgements other than mere utility or 'interests'. Besides, by your definition bears, sharks and viruses are evil and that's just silly.

I wonder whether that report is publicly available. It might be instructive to see how the experts argue about the "delusional universe".

Nick said...

If anyone wants to know what evil is, then I suggest a visit to the Holocaust Exhibition at the Imperial War Museum in London.

I believe Caroline Glick has written an article a while back talking about how if one cannot speak of evil, then one cannot say who one's enemies are. With predictable consequences.

Dymphna said...

Way back when he was first put in jail, post-massacre, his lawyer reported that ABB was claiming he was the leader of "many others" who would rise up in his defense.

Was this the result of his prolonged steroid abuse, his withdrawal from steroids, or was he told during his "training" that he was indeed just one of many others...and he believed it?

Given the level of corruption and abuse of power by our leaders, slowly being brought to light, it could be any of the above.

But no one will bother to check out what members of the American embassy were suddenly transferred elsewhere after the Wikileaks (or Wikileads). Or why, looking at a timeline of his online behavior, it suddenly changed after that disclosure.

So we're all supposed to accept this diagnosis from state employees who happen to be doctors? Another case of "shut up and move along. Nothing to see here..."

I wonder what other superdrugs they'll put him on once he's been safely transferred inside.

And I'll ask again: if they can spend all this money on forensic psychiatric experts, how come they haven't had a forensic investigation of the portions of his manifesto that claim to be his own writing?

Yeah, I'm paranoid. It's a communicable disease now, caused by looking at too many "shopped" instances of massacre.

IOW, I caught it from Breivik.

Dymphna said...

As far as evil goes, classical conservative philosophy is built around the foundations of inquiry into Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. It therefore holds that if such categories exist, then so do their opposites, even if those opposites are actually null cases.

Thomistic philosophy argued that evil was the absence of good.

A thorny debate, going all the way back to Platonic ideals...but in the final analysis, never straying far from them over all these millenia. The best that moderns can do is to add the idea of progression which explains how those categories operate in a temporal dimension.

Ian Hills said...

If Breivik IS insane, it could have been state multiculturalist policy that drove him over the edge.

Pierre_Picaud said...

"However, since he remains a “right-wing extremist”, the obvious implication is that others who oppose mass immigration and Islamization are also insane — we just haven’t committed any crimes yet."

This is absolutely correct and as Melanie Phillips has so brilliantly observed, it is where we have been heading for some considerable time: such views are classified as mental pathologies.

Take for example the case of the arrested "Tram Woman", which has been electrifying the UK.

Here is a lass, surrounded by her cultural enrichers giving them a piece of her mind (after no doubt having the view that "diversity is wonderful" forced down her throat a million times), with nothing but her inarticulacy, her drunkenness and her child preventing her from having her teeth punched down her throat.

There have literally been a hundred stories written about this, tens of thousands of comments, and the video count is now in the multiple millions in less than 48 hours.

But does even one author ask whether what she is actually saying is right? NO! That would be to share in here lunacy.

"...she was remanded in custody while psychiatric reports are prepared."

Nemesis said...

I don't believe Breivik is 'evil' as is meant in the true sense of the word. Nor do I believe he can be classed as 'insane' or be pigeon holed as a Psychopath. His actions of drugging himself up before commencing his murderous rampage, and while doing so, listening to heavy metal music to drown out the screams, do not indicate to me that he displays any of the above definitions.

They say that looking into a persons eyes is like looking into their soul. As an ex-cop I have looked into the eyes of violent criminals and have felt, rather than seen, the malevolence that dwells there. These were people who had no respect or empathy for others. The murderers, the rapists the violent robber who were more given to opportunism than in planning their crimes, and who always sought out the most vulnerable whenever the urge to overpower took them.

Breivik is not like them. Breivik meticulously planned his crime. He also knew that what he was about to do would upset him emotionally, so he drugged himself up to best fortify himself against feelings of compassion or empathy for his victims. And not wanting to hear the screams of sheer terror, the pleading for life, and the pain he would inflict on his victims, so covered his ears as well.

These were not the actions of a Psychopath, serial killer or thrill murderer,or someone that is insane, these were the actions of someone who was committed to a political agenda that he realized would cause him a great deal of emotional discomfort.

The Norwegian authorities had to class Breivik as 'criminally insane' because to do otherwise would be to listen to his 'message' at court which the authorities wish to stifle, just as they wish to stifle others who read Breiviks manifesto and agree with his 'message.'

Anonymous said...

I read all of Breivik's manifesto. It is so long I only recently finished it, however most of it is not written by him.

I thought that in certain places he accurately and lucidly explained the problems facing Europe. He wrote about the elephant in the room, often candidly describing his own personal background and experiences. His reasoning seemed to me sound and he showed a good knowledge of world affairs.

But towards the end, when writing about what he was going to do about this, he did indeed come across as delusional. There was a lot about the Knights Templar, about his uniform, and great of obsessive detail over his bomb making procedure etc. He did seem somewhat detached from reality. Also despite talking about the importance of being a great warrior and fighting to the death, Breivik then proceeded to attack unarmed teenagers and surrender.

Whether the suicidal situation in Europe drove Breivik insane we may never know. I expect he was predisposed to this kind of behaviour from the beginning. But we should hardly be surprised that an unstable person should choose, when searching around for purpose, to attach themselves to the elephant in the room, the most obvious issue which nobody in power will even admit exists.


Sol Ta Triane said...

Nemesis and AF,

Very astute you guys. I hope you talk more often.

Anonymous said...

Court Psychiatrist Henning Værøy, says

"It is difficult to draw the line between extreme political opinions and psychosis in psychiatry"


He is interviewed in this video, by VG

Anonymous said...

Who is more intelligent, Breivik or the psychiatricists who have been examining him?

"- You are interesting, intelligent and it is a challenge to talk with you", he allegedly said at one point


Blogger said...

I am a mental health worker with many years experience working with psychotic people and also psychopaths. I would say that Breivik has both a psychotic disorder as well as psychopathic tendencies. On top of that, the use of drugs can set off a pscyhotic episode in those already predisposed to psychosis. The delusions of grandeur are obvious, ie his delusion that there are many more like him who are going to rise up, his delusion that killing teenagers will save europe and his request to wear uniform to court. Rationality is also missing in the belief that mass murder - especially of indiginous europeans - will somehow help indiginous europeans save europe from immigrants. (head scratch)

However, if a muslim mass murderers for Islam, one could say this was "rational" (but evil), because there is well established doctrines and teachings in Islam that back up murder of "sinners", and the reasoning is that every muslim has a duty to perform jihad in order to get to heaven. This is actually valid reasoning!

Anonymous said...

Just goes to show what a pseudo science psychiatry is. Breivik planned an outrageous act in order to get his manifesto read and discussed. He also realised that he would be condemned initially but thought that eventually his views would gain support. He appears to have acted logically and the fact is he was successful in his aims. If his actions were delusional and caused by a mental illness then the same can be said for all other politically motivated terrorist atrocities. This way true madness lies....

Lawrence said...

Maybe him locked away for life like this is better than locked away until parole or release at some point.

Any rational person can see that his arguments in justification of his actions are completely illogical.

This is different from Islamists mass murdering in context of their religion. It is totally logical to understand why they do it if they're motivations are based on theological teachings it is okay to do it. It sounds odd for me to say this, but this is the difference between being insane and being evil.

Brevik's actions are insane.

Islamist actions are evil.

And while insanity isn't in and of itself illegal, choosing to be evil isn't illegal either.

We can only judge their actions in context of the law, and in context of logical motivation.

What is also insane/crazy is our penchant to look the other way and our efforts to excuse away the evil of Islam. Wanting to release murderous Islamists from prison with the expectation they have been or can be reformed to our non-Islamist thinking.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but I have to draw the line at saying that idiosyncratic beliefs are legitimate evidence of insanity while holding irrational beliefs is sane as long as enough people agree. From that perspective, every person in history who saw a new way of doing things would have been counted as insane until after their ideas spread.

Being considered insane may be the burden that most of those ahead of their time had to bear, but if that is the definition of insanity then I see no point in making efforts to deal with it as a problem...we should only be destroying any hope of future civilizational advance.

That Breivik was delusional is probable. That this would not be considered a defect if there really were thousands of others like him utterly disparages any possible utility of the theory of mental defects that suggests it. If that is really the basis of the mental health profession (and I don't dispute that it may be), then the sooner it is entirely abolished the better for civilization.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

One of the psychiatrists stated that Breiviks belief that Europe was in War against Islam prooved his insanity.


Andrew Berwick may (or may not) be disconnected from (a personal)reality, but there is no disconnect between the political reality - the very real "dillutiional universe" of Berwick's real world multicultural environment and experiences.

For what its worth I would err on the side that Berwick was no lone wolf exclusively motivated by dillutiional madness.



"But no one will bother to check out what members of the American embassy were suddenly transferred elsewhere after the Wikileaks (or Wikileads). Or why, looking at a timeline of his online behavior, it suddenly changed after that disclosure."

Can you please elaborate on the American embassy Wikileaks connection and his online behavior!

painlord2k@gmail.com said...

Baron, you write that Breivik is evil, not insane. This on account of what he did. I would argue that he is misguided and acted wrongly but I would not say he is evil.

In the Deuteronomy 2-32:34 God deliver Sihon in the hands of the Jews and they slaughter them all without regard of men, women or children.

32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors.

Surely a direct line with God help. Unfortunately, as they say, "if you talk to God you have faith, if He talk to you, you have schizophrenia".

Maybe he was wrong about the means used, maybe he was wrong about the after effects of his attacks, maybe (probably) he is not completely attached to the reality. Maybe he lives in a detached universe. But he is not the only living in the same way.

Someone wrote that people one step ahead of the crowd are geniuses, people two step ahead are crocks. Or they are perceived so.

Maybe being right when the government is wrong is dangerous; when the government is insane being sane or not sharing the same insanity is a sure ticket for the asylum.

Maybe the insanity of Breivik is to care of what will happen in the future to his country and try to prevent it. Maybe, to be sane, one must disregard the future and live day-by-day or act in a way to screw others.

Breivik is a Black Swan, but there are many Black Swans showing up lately (in the financial, political and economic landscape). I don't think he will be the last Black Swan we see. But, if they cover the sky with their number, are they really Black Swans?

Lawrence said...

chiu_chunling said... From that perspective, every person in history who saw a new way of doing things would have been counted as insane until after their ideas spread.

Yet, this is exactly how many "new-idea" people were treated in past history.

Anonymous said...

There are many people more evil than Breivik who we now regard as heroes. Vlad Tepes for instance - he impaled nobles, women accused of adultery, BUT his cruelty proved a good deterrent against Ottoman aggression, i.e. jihad.

Was he good or bad? As a Romanian, I can tell you that he is more or less a national hero over here.

Breivik thought that killing leftists would prove a deterrent for anyone wanting to become a leftist multiculturalist. That's pretty logical and most definitely not the conclusion of an insane man.

History is written by the victors, it just so happens that the leftists are the victors for the time being. That's why Breivik is worse than Osama for the time being. Should their fortunes turn, Breivik may well be seen in the future as a flawed hero like Vlad Tepes.

This is my own 2 cents, I also recommend Mencius Moldbug's excellent article: The indisputable humanity of Anders Breivik

It is good because it also hints at a better and peaceful strategy of fighting leftism than cold-blooded murder.

Anonymous said...

I think that we've progressed beyond mere hints at a better strategy for resisting Jihad than cold blooded murder.

Particularly since Breivik's massacre of innocent civilians appears to have done more to advance Jihad than to curb it.

I very much doubt that any serious advocate of the Counter-Jihad has ever suggested that the murder of innocent children of their own nations was even a possible action of those attempting to resist Jihad (let alone promoted or condoned it). I personally (as somewhat of an outsider to the Counter-Jihad proper) have envisioned that the leftist leadership and their feckless supporters will inevitably find themselves against the wall should they persist in advancing the Jihad against the wishes of the great majority of their countrymen, but even I was astonished to learn that Breivik had gone and killed a bunch of kids on a holiday offered by a leftist political party.

I now feel more certain that my prediction of the fate of the leftist leadership and their lackeys will be sooner and worse than even I had previously contemplated. But exactly because Breivik's violence was worse than I had predicted I must deny the possibility of having advocated it. If someone had killed a gang of child-rapists and drug-dealers, then I should be inclined to think that some members of the Counter-Jihad could have inspired it by their writings on the subject.

But if you're going to say that they ever espoused the murder of schoolchildren on holiday, I'm going to have to ask for particular citations up front, where anyone in the Counter-Jihad suggested such a thing or even predicted that it could possibly be the opening move of violent resistance to Jihad.

Chiu Chun-Ling.


The indisputable humanity of Anders Breivik

"The trouble with Oslo isn't that the Norwegian Workers' Party has imported a Muslim underclass - it's that the Norwegian Workers' Party has imported an underclass."

Outrageous nonsense, this is the type of political spin that is particularly peddled by conservatives in the U.K.

Their motive is economic to protect muslim immigration as GDP units regardless of the cultural cost. David Cameron's "Good immigration not mass immigration" - if only the NWP and British labour party had imported a better class of muslim.

British conservatives so far gone that for a price they can equate the British underclass with the muslim underclass, imagine all those EDL members from the underclass perpetrating honour killings on those wretched council estates.

Anonymous said...

"But if you're going to say that they ever espoused the murder of schoolchildren on holiday"

Chiu Chung Ling misses one important point which so happens to be the most important of em all.

You see, the children he killed were all supporters and future fundraisers for Hamas and other terrorist factions.

There is no difference between Hamas and the children in Norway who love them

They are one and the same.

Anonymous said...

It's really unfortunate that you didn't post my comment.

Therefore I will never visit your site again.

All the best.

Thomas Monticello

1389 said...

Anonymous is right in #26.

I also agree that, whether Breivik is crazy, evil, or both (I contend that the two are not mutually exclusive and that he is both), the declaration of Breivik as mentally incompetent to stand trial is politically motivated.

Declaring him insane keeps him out of circulation, discredits his message, and deflects public attention from him. Much as I am tempted to say "good riddance to Breivik", it also has the effect of keeping him from expressing himself in a public forum, namely the court system.

Despite the fact that Breivik was wrong in what he did, he had many of his facts right, and those facts are what nobody wants exposed to any further public scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

That's a fix. Deliberation is obvious in Breivik's conduct. He made a not guilty plea based on an explicit argument that multiculturalism posed a fatal threat to Norway. The Nor-Socs don't want that defense tabled, so they engineered the insanity fiction.

Of course, murdering a nation's youth is hardly the path to national restoration.

Will they permit Breivik to make a statement on the insanity finding? Of course, he could collaborate to avoid spending time in a real prison. Mental health lockups are treatment centers.

Anonymous said...

I'm not missing the point that the schoolchildren Breivik murdered might have grown up to vote Labor and support Hamas, I'm simply cognizant of the difference between something someone might do and something that they have already done.

That is, after all, the only difference between Breivik and anyone else still living. Breivik might win a Nobel prize for medicine by curing some terrible disease, any former winner of the Nobel prize for medicine might go on a rampage and kill a bunch of schoolchildren. But only the truly insane would treat Breivik and those Nobel prize winners the same because each still might do what the other has done.

Of course, this kind of thinking is exactly typical of the political Left, they want to punish people who did not, in fact, kill anyone. Because they might go out and do what Breivik did.

Chiu Chun-Ling.