Well, that sure was wierd. I suggest you read the first very extensive evaluation of Mr. Brievik conducted by a few psychologists over an extensive period of time. They determined him to be Paranoid schizophrenic and related his biography, which conforms to similar biographies of other paranoid schizophrenics (including two I have known personally).

http://www.document.no/2012/03/forensic-psychiatric-statement-anders-behring-breivik-x/

One of the reasons they determined him to be schizophrenic was that his communication was associational. That is when one sentance relates to the last but not to any over all point.

People got angry at this objective observation so the government assigned someone else to evaluate him and they pumped out an evaluation that was more politically acceptable.

Paranoid Schizophrenics become obsessed with order and theories because they are uncomfortable that they can no longer order their thoughts and perceptions. But because they can’t order their minds they can’t see that the source of the anxiety is coming from them so they externalize the source of their discomfort.

R.D. Laing or Anna Freud would say that his obsession with the “purity” of his country is really his externalizing of his own anxiety over his own deteriorating mental state. A deterioration he himself wrote of in his “manifesto”, along with the fascinating and very relevant information that his mother and sister were sluts and had venerial diseases.

To assist them in the task of making order out of their minds and the world they write extensively in journals. It’s a spontanious phenomena that schizophrenics start doing without being told to by anyone.

My ex girlfreinds schizophrenic brother has a room filled with such journals. He says it is his lifes work and will explain everything. After 25 years I’d bet it’s pretty long, but he doesn’t have the internet to cut and paste from like Brievik did.

When I heard there was a 1500 page “manifesto” I knew it could only be one of these journals and not really a manifesto. That’s when I knew he was cookoo for cocoa puffs. Only an honest and objective psychiatrist could tell us where on the Schizophrenic spectrum he is though.

But if you still don’t believe me just look at his photographs.

Some people seem to believe that because Anders Behring Breivik quoted them in his mad manifesto, journalists like Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips and Jeremy Clarkson bear some responsibility for the massacre he carried out on the island of Utoya last year.

So convinced are some liberal observers that these right-wing journalists stirred Breivik’s seething cesspit of a mind, making him go out and kill, that they’re now demanding that such hacks “tone down” their rhetoric.

In this week’s New Statesman, Peter Wilby says the similarities between Breivik’s mindset and that of mainstream right-wing writers are “striking”.

Breivik was a fan of writers who opposed mass immigration and who are critical of certain aspects of Muslim culture, Wilby points out. So surely it is now incumbent upon such writers to “mind both their language and their facts”.

In short, journalism can be dangerous, especially strongly worded, right-leaning journalism, the kind that brings decent-minded folk out in hives. And if such journalistic excess is not reined in, says the New Stateman’s editorial, we may well see more of Breivik’s kind.

But hang on – if Steyn, Phillips et al bear some moral responsibility for Breivik’s crimes, is Noam Chomsky to blame for 9/11?

Osama bin Laden loved Chomsky. In 2006, he described him as “among the most capable of those from your side” and praised his theories on the “manufacturing of public opinion” and his “sober words of advice prior to the war [in Iraq]“.

What about Robert Fisk, the left-wing Middle East correspondent for the Independent who is loved by radicals? His words also moved and inspired bin Laden.

In 2004, bin Laden advised people in the White House to read “Robert Fisk, who is a fellow [Westerner] and co-religionist of yours, but one whom I consider unbiased”.

In fact, he “dared” the White House to “interview [Fisk], so that he could explain to the American people everything he has learned from us about the reasons for our struggle”.

Wow, OBL was clearly a close follower of Fisk’s writings. Maybe Fisk should tone down his rhetoric lest it inspire further Islamist terrorism?

Or maybe American author William Blum should be held accountable for Al Qaeda violence.

“It is useful for you to read [Blum's] book The Rogue State,” said bin Laden in 2006. Bin Laden made it clear that he had imbibed Blum’s theories about America being the real rogue state, talking about the “war merchants” who “supported Bush’s election campaign with billions of dollars”.

Alongside Blum, Chomsky and Fisk, bin Laden was also influenced by Western think tanks (he favourably cited the Royal Institute for International Affairs) and Western environmentalists.

In 2002, he said one of the reasons he hated America is because “you have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto Agreement.”

You could read the same words in any respectable newspaper on just about any day of the week. So maybe greens should “mind their language and their facts”, since it seems pretty clear that they are giving ideas to anti-Western, anti-modern terrorists.

Of course, it would be barmy to blame Islamist terror on Fisk or Chomsky. Just as it is crazy to blame Utoya on Steyn or Phillips.

Individual terrorists, the men who press the buttons on their bombs and pull the triggers on their guns, are solely responsible for what they do, not the writers whose articles they happened to have lapped up.

There is something deeply censorious in the demand that right-wing writers curb their rhetoric in order to prevent “another Utoya”. It is a kind of emotional blackmail, where writers whose views are unfashionable in chattering-class circles are effectively told that if they carry on criticising Islam or ridiculing multiculturalism then more neo-fascists will rise up and gun down innocents.

The New Statesman’s editorial says that so long as the “mainstream press” keeps “fuelling Islamophobia through misinformation and distortion”, there will be “more of [Breivik's] kind”. Given bin Laden’s reliance on the writings of Western leftists, you could just as easily, and just as crazily, have said in 2005: “So long as the respectable press keeps arguing against the war in Iraq, al-Qaeda will keep blowing things up.”

But that is the striking thing: no-one held Chomsky and Co. responsible for Al Qaeda outrages, whereas there is now a palpable rush to hold Steyn and Co. responsible for Utoya.

There is an extraordinary double standard here. When terrorists cite leftist writers, it’s downplayed. Yet when terrorists cite right-wing writers, it is held up as hard proof that certain political ideas lead directly to violence and therefore those ideas must be urgently rethought and watered down.

In fact, the double standard is so enormous that where respectable commentators now rush to condemn Breivik’s rantings and all those who are allegedly responsible for making him think that way, in the recent past they embraced bin Laden’s rantings. The media, especially the liberal media, frequently pored over and even empathised with Al Qaeda’s rants.

The Guardian once published a bin Laden statement on its actual op-ed pages, raising it from the level of terrorist rant to respectable commentary. The leftist publishing house Verso published a collection of bin Laden’s statements, beautifully bound, under the title “Messages to the World”. In the introduction, bin Laden was described as a “rational man”, while enthusiastic broadsheet reviewers of the book described him as an “eloquent preacher” and a “wonderfully briefed” politician.

I invite you to imagine the stellar fury that would be unleashed if the Daily Mail published Breivik’s words on its comment pages. Or if a publishing house released his rantings in book form. Or if a commentator described him as “eloquent” and “wonderfully briefed”. The intellectual elite would go beserk.

This double standard makes it pretty clear that the real reason illiberal liberals are now linking Breivik’s violence to writers such as Steyn and Phillips is simply because they hate those writers’ ideas, and they long to squish them through a process of post-Utoya fearmongering about “bad journalism” giving rise to fascist killers.

But the ideas propagated by Chomsky and Fisk? They like those ideas, and so they don’t mind if they occasionally inspire the odd bit of terror.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of Spiked in London. View his full profile here.

What questions could there possibly be about the mental state of someone who believes he’s the rightfull heir to the throne of Norway?

The psychiatrists who wrote the original assessment of this person after weeks of interviews and observations found him to be just that.

It is clear he is guilty and clear he is a paranoid schizophrenic. He belongs in an institution for the criminally insane.

I know for a fact how pervasive socialist indoctrination in Norway and Sweden is.

Their international socialism is wrapped in Jew-hatred and anti-Israel agit prop.

Glenn Beck: Young Norway victims like ‘Hitler Youth’

“There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth, or whatever,”

“I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing,” Beck said about the Labour Party youth camp on the island of Utoya where 68 people, mostly teens, were killed.

Was Norway Massacre a reaction to BDS Israeli Boycott?
(BDS i.e. Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions)

http://newstime.co.nz/glenn-beck-likens-norway-victims-to-hitler-youth.html