Understandably, many people cannot understand that someone is slaughtering seventy to eighty people in cold blood. Psychiatrists, too, are in the dark about the man's motives. What if what he says is true and he actually committed these murders out of political conviction?
Who is Anders Breivik?
About the life of Otherwise Behring Breivik some details have emerged. He is known to be an intelligent student at school who regularly stood up for classmates who were molested. Later he ended up in counterculture and spent his evenings spraying graffiti in Oslo. Later he started for himself and achieved sufficient success to amass a reasonable capital.
He lived with his mother until he was thirty. He was apparently not very happy about this, as evidenced by the many derogatory comments in his manifesto on feminism.
With various relations and his own companies, he managed to collect several hundred thousand euros that he used in its entirety to prepare and carry out his attacks.
Is Breivik insane?
Breivik is one by many commentators psychopath mentioned. This is understandable; this makes these shocking events the easiest to process. This argues that he apparently had no inhibitions to arbitrarily massacre a large amount of people and his ability to be alone for months at a time. He also has a very highly developed sense of self-esteem, to the point of being narcissistic.
The decisive argument against this, however, is the years of, almost compulsively well-planned preparations that the man made to carry out his deed. Psychopaths are too disorderly for this. For many years he managed to fool the Norwegian police, neighbors and secret service, to get the ingredients for the ammonium nitrate bombs and heavy weapons unnoticed and to prepare explosives here without any chemical training.
In preparing for his atrocities, he displayed personal qualities that are usually seen as admirable. And rarely seen in psychopaths.
Killers are not necessarily insane
The ability to kill people does not necessarily make a person insane. It is true that humans (fortunately) have a strong inborn inhibition to kill other people, but this inhibition can be broken through conditioning.
All kinds of ribbons are regularly pinned by Queen Beatrix and other hotmates from people who have been trained to kill and have achieved success with this. Human history is riddled with instances where organized massacres, also known as wars, take place and the greatest killers are revered as the greatest heroes. That is, if they win. Breivik sees himself as a soldier, as a one-man army fighting against the 'multicultural, Marxist elite'.
Classical psychological explanatory models, in which the Templar order as a substitute father and misogyny by a domineering mother play an important role, are, in short, more promising than the assumption that Breivik is a psychopath. Presumably (we can only speculate) he viewed the disastrous situation of his family (mother and sister handicapped by venereal disease) as symptomatic of the decline of Norwegian and Western society. His father was by no means an inspiring role model, so he turned to an ideal image: the modern incarnation of the knight. The main reason Breivik got to his atrocities, however, is not emotional or psychological. He was (and presumably is) intellectually convinced that the problems are so serious that only by instigating this beastly massacre there is a chance that they can be solved.
On which points is Breivik right?
If you read through Anders Breivik's extensive writing, you will come to the conclusion that the man does indeed hit the nail on the head on some matters, but goes completely wrong on other points.
Europe has lost its roots
Breivik is absolutely right in the conclusion that in recent decades a cultural war has raged by a 'progressive' elite against their own history and culture. This war can only be compared to the one that took place in modern China during the Cultural Revolution. As a result, the European population is culturally orphaned. Cultural relativism in particular has led to society losing its direction. By denying and forgetting its history, Europe has lost its future.
He also sees Islamization and the rapidly increasing number of Muslims as a major threat to Europe. Indeed, the prospect of the ghastly political and religious ideas of the controversial inventor of Islam, Muhammad, taking over in Europe is particularly unpleasant.
However, we must conclude that from an intellectual point of view Islam is of little value and especially the description of paradise makes fun of it. The inspirer of Christianity, the visionary Jesus of Nazareth, and the founder of Buddhism, Prince Siddharta Gautama, or for that matter the noble protagonists in the majestic Hindu epic Mahabharata, were infinitely more exalted and radiant personalities than the cruel, manipulative, jealous and power-hungry merchant Mohammed and his henchmen.
Islam has been able to maintain and expand only through the iron discipline that this belief imposes on its adherents. It can only thrive in a climate of fear and intimidation, in a society where people have lost their sense of justice and spiritual self-worth. It is not without reason that Mohammed commissioned his followers to ridicule the dreaded Arab poet Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf who ridiculed him and murdered other mockers.
In a free society, religious insanity is not automatically protected by politicians and media. Religiously inspired terror and intimidation by Muslims, the reason many ex-Muslims should fear for their lives, are answered by firm police action. With this the protective shield for Islam disappears; will the narrow Islamic mindset generate so much external and internal ridicule that Muslims will give up or elevate their faith (eg Ahmadiyya, Ibadism or Sufism).
Monoculturalism vs Multiculturalism.
Where so-called multiculturalism is praised by the cultural elite, Breivik rightly notes that this is a intellectual monster is. Multiculturalism means namely: the use of several conflicting ethical systems at the same time. An example of a multicultural state was the South African apartheid regime (in which black cultures played a subordinate role). Monocultural countries such as Japan, South Korea and China are doing very well economically. Obviously, a multicultural society is not necessary to create a prosperous and successful society, as long as this society is open to external ideas and adopts and further develops the useful elements in them.
Where Breivik was wrong
Despite making a correct analysis of the European disease on several points, his logic led him to instigate a brutal massacre that violated everything that European norms and values stand for. The reason: he went completely wrong on some essential points, causing untold human suffering and shaming European culture. With this Breivik, just like Adolf Hitler before him, did not make himself part of the European problem, of the solution.
Breivik has no morality.
Like the Marxists and Muslims to whom Breivik so devotes, he sees people as cattle, as clay that can be manipulated to bring about historical processes. Every act is lawful to achieve an end: the end justifies the means. He completely escapes the fact that the war between the Christian idea and the Islamic one revolves in large part on this morality.
Breivik did not target criminals, such as rapists or pimps like Saban Baran, but a group of children and young adults. With this he puts himself on the same moral level as many Muslims and Marxists, think of Stalin, Khomeini and Pol Pot.
Breivik does not propose an alternative.
Breivik knows no morals, no spiritual inspiration, so he could do nothing but cause destruction. As Leiden professor Afshin Ellian, who as an Iranian refugee knows Islam from bitter experience, already rightly stated: Breivik thought when preparing and carrying out his attacks as an Islamist, not as a defender of what Europe stands for.
He indicated by his actions that, like the controversial inventor of Islam, Mohammed, he believes that the end justifies the means. With this he submitted to evil. Even a third-rate religion like Islam will win the cultural war if there is no alternative, a modern metaphysical and ethical system.
Breivik vaguely refers in his manifesto to a 'European Church' that must lead this cultural war. With this, the distinction between church and state, another unique Christian and European core value, disappears.
In short, if Breivik's plans are carried out, his glorious Europe will look a lot like an Islamic caliphate under a different name.
What is a solution then?
What Europe needs is a resurrection of spirituality, of morality, not massacres of misguided children who violate everything that European norms and values in general and Christianity in particular stand for. Breivik called himself a knight. Knights swear to protect the weak and the innocent and adhere to the commandments of the Christian faith to keep.
The best candidate is a version of Christianity that is in harmony with modern science (and science in general). A faith praxis that emphasizes ethics fits in with this. Other spiritual traditions, such as Hinduism or other spiritual religions (Buddhism, Baha'i, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism) also contain many valuable elements that can serve as a source of inspiration.
If we succeed in achieving a spiritual renaissance of Europe, not only will Europe be saved, but Europe will once again become a light that inspires the rest of the world.
The road to the salvation of Europe, and even the world, does not lie in gun violence and murders, as Breivik thinks, but within us, in our hearts. If we fail, we refuse to choose the Light, then an unprecedented period of darkness will begin.