Sunday, July 24, 2011

More news on Breivik

I've now had a chance to skim through Breivik's manifesto. It's long and detailed and mentions many people on the right, even Cardinal Pell and Keith Windschuttle. Some important points:

1. Breivik states re religion: "I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie."

2. Breivik was a user of anabolic steroids and ephedrine. He used them for weight loss/muscle gain/mental alertness/mood elevation reasons. Some users of these drugs do experience side effects:

A 2005 review in CNS Drugs determined that "significant psychiatric symptoms including aggression and violence, mania, and less frequently psychosis and suicide have been associated with steroid abuse."

A 2006 study of two pairs of identical twins, in which one twin used anabolic steroids and the other did not, found that in both cases the steroid-using twin exhibited high levels of aggressiveness, hostility, anxiety and paranoid ideation not found in the "control" twin

Possible Side Effects of Ephedra: nausea, headache; anxiety; psychosis

3. Breivik writes in extraordinary detail about the technical aspects of committing murder. For instance, he had a great interest in biological weaponry, and he notes for his readers the pros and cons of adding different toxins to his bullets, such as the venom of the Australian taipan snake. Again, there is something not quite right mentally about spending pages of a manifesto on such matters.

42 comments:

  1. ""Again, there is something not quite right mentally about spending pages of a manifesto on such matters.""

    Yeah remembering the Unabomber. He liked to write tracts that went off on a tangent as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mark,

    Everyone keeps wondering why he would attack Norwegian Children.

    This is an American question, but in Scandinavia the "Anti-Fascist Action" and "Red Youths" are a dangerous group of people.

    I think a blog post about those groups would help a lot of people to understand that these teenagers run around cities throwing molotov cocktail, threatening people with broken bottles, running around taking photos of people, running around in black masks attacking people...

    Americans and Ozzies have no clue how crazy some of these "Red Youths" are in these Nordic Countries.

    Now I don't know if those were the children at the island of course, and it doesn't justify the actions definitely.

    But people need to know what's going on with the socialists in those countries.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, there are left-wing thugs who attack parties like the Sweden Democrats. But Breivik did not go into battle with these people - he shot unarmed teenagers at a Labour Party summer camp.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why is the Labour Party even allowed to indoctrinate teenagers?

    Like why am I the only person wondering why a political party is allowed to do that in the first place?

    Basically, the way I look at it is, the summer camp was a way to train/brainwash teenagers into performing treason against their country.

    Why is this Allowed??

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2,

    you're being tasteless in the extreme when you suggest the organizers did anything wrong in arranging the camp. All political parties have similiar events for their youth organizations in Scandinavia, and I would imagine it's normal in almost all democracies today.

    The only wrongdoing worth talking aobut in this context is Breivik's. Anything else is unworthy behavior.

    Personally I am deeply troubled that I have quite a lot ideologically in common with Breivik. Discussing what went wrong this friday is a serious challenge for the new radical right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Yes, there are left-wing thugs who attack parties like the Sweden Democrats. But Breivik did not go into battle with these people - he shot unarmed teenagers at a Labour Party summer camp."

    What he really wanted to do was declare war between right and left in Norway.

    Having read up on the so-called anarchist "anti-fascist" groups in Europe and met some of their fan club here in Melbourne I can tell you these people are the self declared enemy of western civilisation and the peoples and cultures that created it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have run out of sympathy for middle class leftist activists.

    My fear is what Mark mentioned in his post, that this mass murder out of the blue will do nothing to advance the causes the gunman purported to hold dear.

    ReplyDelete
  8. James,

    Sorry I've clipped your comment. I'm being extra cautious right now.

    John,

    If you have any further thoughts on the point you raise let us know.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You push a man into a corner long enough, he'll someday find the gumption to bite back.

    This guy doesn't sound like your run-of-the-mill radical. It just goes to show that if people that are not prone to radicalism (Norwegian police claim that even if they had watched far-right groups, Breivik would have slipped under their radar because his usual rants were relatively harmless. No equivalent of raining burning fire down on the infidels and such.) are pushed that far, the dam bursts powerfully.

    If the West continues to follow the self-destructive path it is on, Breivik will not be the last. Suicide goes against human nature, even if it is cultural suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do not have any coherent thoughts right now, so forgive the rambling.

    Sharing ideological points with Breivik feels like making a political speech and getting applause from a bunch of thugs with swastikas tattooed on their foreheads.

    We might share enemies, but if the options are a society degenerated into the islamic republic of Europe or being ruled by a bunch of mass murdering crypto-nazis I'm going with the slow descent into European irrelevancy.

    Personally I am not so sure I believe the image that Breivik so clearly wants everybody to believe. That is, that he is some sort of warrior for a more traditional Europe or at least a diabolical genius.

    I suspect he would have done anything that makes the world see him as great as he sees himself.

    That's not really the story the diary extracts I have seen tells. But you have to consider that he himself describes the whole thing as a marketing operation and is *very* image conscious. A man willing to murder scores of people to ostensibly make a political point can't exactly be trusted about his motives.

    For one thing the actual effects of Breiviks terrorism is going to be the complete opposite of what he claims to want. That is, anyone to the right of Labour is going to have to step very carefully if voicing any kind of criticism against mass immigration for a few years.

    That so many commenters, conservatives or not, seem to buy into his narrative is quite worrying. Both because there are guys on our side of the fence who are not really that worried about politically motivated murder when one of the home team does it, and that association with Breivik is the last thing we need.

    Finally I think any claim about a man being pushed to far is just bullshit. This isn't a man who have been driven to rage by constant attacks and circumstances. He was well-off and insulated from the harsher parts of society and for whatever reason thought murder was just a great idea.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A facebook page about this Norwegian bomber was created out of thin air and the terms "Christian" and "conservative" were added days or hours before and after the massacre ---> http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/who-added-christian-and-conservative-to-norway-shooters-facebook-page-yesterday.html

    This doesn't make sense. Is this Orwelian or what?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Having read up on the so-called anarchist "anti-fascist" groups in Europe and met some of their fan club here in Melbourne I can tell you these people are the self declared enemy of western civilisation and the peoples and cultures that created it.

    Liberals are stuck in WWII and the 1940's. They are obsessed with the Nazis ---> http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/07/nazi-undead.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. "John from Sweden" a man being pushed too far is entirely plausible. And just like leftists you seem to be obsessed with the "Nazi Undead". Hitler has been dead 70 years. Time to move on. What Breivik did was horrible but to say that this in fact nulls the conservative view is false. If you believe this than you are following the path of your liberal enemies and falling right into their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I really have nothing polite to say to someone who thinks that it is at all possible to "pushed too far" into murdering almost one hundred people after planning it for years.

    And of course I am not claiming that Breivik's views and deeds nulls the conservative worldview.

    I am claiming that it a) is terrible PR and sets back the movement away from liberalism run amuck by decades and b) is flushing out some pretty dubious characters on the right.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mark, do you have a link to the manifesto?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Breivik's political views were moderate, of the Geert Wilders school. By the logic of the MSM, which is promoting "intolerance" and "extremism" as sufficient motive for his crime, BNP supporters should be engaged in a large scale terror campaign.

    Regardless of the distorted logic of his own thoughts, objectively speaking the cause he espoused had nothing to do with the killing spree Breivik perpetrated.

    I understand Swedish John's feelings, but his response is pusilanimous. I wonder, is he familiar with the expression "in for a penny, in for a pound?" Just because conservatives throw up their hands, doesn't mean the problem goes away. If he's not careful, someone less cultivated might be prepared to take his place at the podium.

    And I agree, the whole thing is fishy...

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is not a man 'pushed too far". The length of time he spent planning this act makes it an impossibility.

    John of Sweden,
    It is not normal in every other democracy to have summer camps run by political parties. It is possible that it is normal in Western Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Personally I am deeply troubled that I have quite a lot ideologically in common with Breivik. Discussing what went wrong this friday is a serious challenge for the new radical right.

    A lot of environmentalists had a lot in common ideologically with the Unabomber. Heck, it's hard to tell the difference between Al Gore and the Unabomber. But the vast majority of environmentalists were not "troubled" by this because they knew they weren't terrorists.

    No matter what common thoughts you may have with this guy, that fact alone does not make you a terrorist. And what this guy did does not discredit "traditionalism" -- though needless to say that's exactly the position all the Leftists (especially in the media) are going to take.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sharing ideological points with Breivik feels like making a political speech and getting applause from a bunch of thugs with swastikas tattooed on their foreheads.

    We might share enemies, but if the options are a society degenerated into the islamic republic of Europe or being ruled by a bunch of mass murdering crypto-nazis I'm going with the slow descent into European irrelevancy.

    It's a mystery to me why people keep trying to claim that Breivik is a Nazi or type of Nazi. Perhaps it's emotionally soothing. Perhaps they are using "Nazi" in the sense of "I don't like this person". But in fact most of his views seem to be "right-liberal" or even "neocon". He even has bad things to say about the British National Party and Vlaams Belang! They're too extreme for his tastes, it seems ...

    ReplyDelete
  20. In his manifesto the Norwegian bomber:

    - Doesn't like racism and advocates the proposition nation
    - Only has a problem with Muslim immigration and has exalted Africans as good immigrants
    - Has no problem with homosexuality and transgenderism
    - Was raised by a single mother (his father divorced his mother when he was young)
    - Likes paganism and doesn't consider himself religious (Christian)
    - Despises how the left smears the right as fascist and advocates that he is against fascism
    - And so many other things

    What on earth makes him "far-right"? Is this some weird (possibly mentally ill) anti-government bomber being remodeled to leftist orgasmic fantasy?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "It's a mystery to me why people keep trying to claim that Breivik is a Nazi or type of Nazi."

    He is white, not left wing and standing up for something politically incorrect.

    Of course he is a nazi, that is all you need these days.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's a mystery to me why people keep trying to claim that Breivik is a Nazi or type of Nazi... most of his views seem to be "right-liberal" or even "neocon".

    Don't you remember that the Left rabidly asserted, from 2001-2008, that the right-liberal / neocon Bush administration was "Nazi"? Remember the whole asinine "Bushitler" thing? Remember the Left insisting that 9/11 was equivalent to the Reichstag fire?

    These types of smear are nothing new. As James said, they think that if you're not Left, you're a Nazi.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sharing ideological points with Breivik feels like making a political speech and getting applause from a bunch of thugs with swastikas tattooed on their foreheads.

    Ugh. I know what you mean. I've been listening to the German radio today and they keep talking about his "hate speech" and using quotes that sound perfectly reasonable to me. Similar to the way that all pro-life groups were recategorized as possible "threats" after Oklahoma City.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The unfortunate thing is that this screws our side, a lot. The media have their new Timothy McVeigh and they'll flog this thing for the next three or four decades.

    I think you're wrong. The top headline on the reliably leftist Yahoo newspage at the moment is "Norway Suspect Borrowed from Unabomber Manifesto".

    Look, this will provide ammo for the shrieking anti-white contingent on the left. But they don't actually need ammo. They say the stuff they say regardless. Yan Shan was giving off waves of hatred for whites before this event in Norway, and he'll do so still. The media will be biased, as they always are. Nothing will change.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I really have nothing polite to say to someone who thinks that it is at all possible to "pushed too far" into murdering almost one hundred people after planning it for years."

    Never underestimate the power of alienation. Especially if it is felt in one's own home.

    There is nothing about this guy that says he'd become a monster. And yet he did.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ""But those youth aren't completely innocent either. A sizeable proportion of them are disturbing and dangerous.""

    I would agree but "kill the Snakes before they grow" makes a really sucky PR line.

    As I said above, any political violence that is not supported by the community it claims to be defending will ultimately be counter-productive.

    The PIRA had such a strong base because by the time it came out shooting during the riots of the 60's half the Catholic community already thought they had waited too long in the face of Protestant provocation [the Loyalists tell it differently of course].

    Lone wolves with no broader support never achieve anything. The anarchist assasinations around the turn of the 20th century should have taught everyone that.

    The gunman's dreams of starting a war or a "crusade" are fantasies. Single actions can start wars but not single people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Never underestimate the power of alienation. Especially if it is felt in one's own home.

    There is nothing about this guy that says he'd become a monster. And yet he did.


    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Fear is the only motivation for change.

    I don't think that's right. In fact, I think the idea that you can "wake people up" by some sort of radical act is one of the big political mistakes (made both on the left and right).

    Liberalism will fall because it has entered its own final, radical phase. It has pushed the logic of its inner principles to the point that it has cast off other sources of value.

    Remember that even in the 1970s, white Australian men still had a positive self image as settlers, sportsmen and soldiers. Family life was still relatively stable. Relationships were not as difficult to negotiate. The average male wage was steadily growing; work hours were falling. Culture was still tinged with Christianity. The majority population was sufficiently dominant for there to be a strong sense of "we".

    All of that helped to hold things together. It helped, too, to make people feel connected to their society. And so liberalism went on unchallenged.

    But those features of society are no longer so evident. What have they been replaced with? There are new technologies for entertainment. Food courts. Cheaper flights. All trivial in comparison.

    There are a lot of people caught between wanting to hold to what is politically correct and feeling that things are wrong. You get a different politics from them depending on what mood you catch them in.

    We have to set out to persuade these people that liberalism is wrong in principle and that we can make a positive change through political work.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anon's comments @ Monday, 25 July 2011 8:06:00 AM AEST are hate speech. Freedom of speech is one thing but hate speech in which the deaths of a mass of young people are justified on the basis that they were in danger of being brainwashed is so far beyond any sort of acceptable dialogue that I wonder why you allow it to be published. Freedom of responsible speech would be one way to respect the dead here.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Why can't someone launch a lawsuit against Gro Harlem Brundtland, against Gordon Brown etc etc against all of these leaders who are trying to replace us?

    Like seriously...serious question.

    Why can't charges of treason be leveled against these people?

    Instead of violence, I think this is our next step.

    ReplyDelete
  31. In the American Revolution the Sons of Liberty roughed people up and did a bit of intimidation on the side to the british government officials.

    In point of fact, the rebel treatment of the loyalists and pro-British officials amounted to large-scale mob violence, terrorism, murder, and ethnic cleansing. This was no trivial "roughing a few people up" or intimidating them, it was a reign of terror, and plenty of people supported it. Of course, all this got swept under the rug because the "patriots" (i.e. rebels and traitors) ultimately won.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I've deleted a few comments. It's not that I was uninterested in the opinions - they've given me pause for thought - but they would give a false view to new readers of what this site stands for in terms of political strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Underlying the buzz about Breivik is the widespread assumption that white people - non-Jewish white people at least - are inherently evil.

    If he had turned out to be a Jihadi as first suspected, it would not have been a very big deal. Muslisms have commited too many terrorist crimes to easily count just in the last ten years, but the liberal establishment treats each one as an isolated and inexplicable incident by a few crazies.

    If Baruch Goldman did not do fatal damage to the idea of Jewish nationalsm, I have trouble seeing why Breivik should do fatal damage to the idea of Norwegian nationalism. That's thinking logically though. In the illgical minds of the liberal elite, non-Jewish whites are assumed to be Evil Incarnate unless thay can prove otherwise by submitting to a culturally anti-white aganda.

    How such a mentality came to dominate the leadeship class in historically white countries is perplexing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Lone wolves with no broader support never achieve anything. The anarchist assasinations around the turn of the 20th century should have taught everyone that.


    Actually the anarchist assasinations around the turn of the 20th century played an important role in leading to legislation which reduced immigration into America.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ""Actually the anarchist assasinations around the turn of the 20th century played an important role in leading to legislation which reduced immigration into America.""


    Yeeeesssss....

    But that was hardly the stated intention of the killers was it?

    They were also operating all over Europe. They killed people but didn't change much overall.

    ReplyDelete
  36. It seems fewer people were killed than were thought. The last figure I read was 76. (8 Oslo, 68 Utoya.)

    Good. Or if not good, less bad.

    I hope this will take some steam out of people who think that Anders Behring Breivik did something that was (even if evil) impressive. The Virginia Tech creep wasn't a military genius, and neither was the Utoya nutter.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mark Richardson: "Liberalism will fall because it has entered its own final, radical phase."

    Liberalism will fall because it eliminates the population base that is willing to listen to its moral arguments.

    In Zimbabwe the White population is less than 1% of the population: in the low tens of thousands, or maybe even just thousands now. But while they exist, liberalism will linger in some hearts. When the last one is eliminated, that will be the end for liberalism in Zimbabwe.

    Whatever the cure for liberalism is among Whites, it is not "things getting worse". Things get worse and worse all the way to extermination, and Whites soldier on with good intentions and nervous smiles.

    ReplyDelete
  38. By the way, as far as I can see from the "thinking" of Anders Behring Breivik so far, Zimbabwe should be fine. Anti-racist: check! The Muslim Menace kept at bay: check! (Only 1% of the population Muslim, 85% Christian and 62% regular church attenders - woo hoo!) Maybe the country needs more official support for homosexuality or it needs to support Israel more for perfection, but still by Anders Behring Breivik's standards it should be in unusually good shape.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "I hope this will take some steam out of people who think that Anders Behring Breivik did something that was (even if evil) impressive."

    The diversionary bomb was a bit smarter than your average lone wolf loony.

    His high kill total on the island was due to:

    -it being an island,

    -the police being delayed by mechanical malfunction on the ferry

    -the previously noted diversion.

    He planned the last, but the first two were probably accidental.

    It WILL point the way for Islamists looking to get around the fact that their bombmakers keep vanishing into detention or puffs of smoke.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The selection of the island carried an obvious tactical benefit, and a potential ferry problem was "earned luck" - an inherently not-too-unlikely event built into the island attack and the arduously prepared distraction.

    Please don't do that. You're making me think of him as having done a good job in a military sense.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yes, you are right. If a uses drugs, he will definitely suffer with side effects. So, its better to be far from those things and the act of police on ferry (ferry to) was really not good.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Use of steroids or drugs is very dangerous to health.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.