[Mrs. Don-o]

This auhor says the bloodlust came first, followed by the incredibly elaborate intellectual/political rationalization. If I understand his thesis correctly, then Breivik could have actually chosen any rationale at all --- say, Animal Rights, or Technoracy, or Spanish Carlism, or Steampunk, or Trotskyism, or Lutheranism, or Space Colonization, or Tibetian Buddhism or Wicca --- as a mask for what was a far more visceral drive.

But I wonder if that's true?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mine at 3.

[Merciful_Friend]

It’s not really possible to know for sure, now, or perhaps ever. But if you accept that bloodlust was the main thing required for his acts, then it follows that the rationale could have been different, had something else seemed more attractive to him..

[humblegunner]

Animal Rights, or Technoracy, or Spanish Carlism, or Steampunk, or Trotskyism, or Lutheranism, or Space Colonization, or Tibetian Buddhism or Wicca

Or worse, he could be pimping blogs on any of those topics.

Blogpimping can lead to serious crimes if left unaddressed.

[papertyger]

This auhor says the bloodlust came first, followed by the incredibly elaborate intellectual/ political rationalization.

Nonsense. The author is trying to rationalize his own intellectual dishonesty.

The unfortunate truth is the killer writes better in english as a second language than 95% of native english speakers.

The guy is a "Bond villian." Deal with it. Trying to pretend he's something he's not only degrades the authors credibility.

Anyone who presumes to evaluate the murderer without reading his self confessed raison d'etre is worse than a fool.