Court finds Norwegian mass killer Breivik sane

A Norwegian court found Anders Behring Breivik sane on Friday and gave him a maximum jail term for murdering 77 people in a shooting and bombing last year, offering closure to a Nordic nation devastated by its worst attack since World War Two.

Breivik, who has admitted blowing up the Oslo government headquarters with a fertilizer bomb, killing eight, before gunning down 69 at the ruling party's summer youth camp, was sentenced to 21 years in prison, the maximum penalty in Norway.

But officials can prevent his release indefinitely and are expected to do so if the anti-Muslim right-winger still poses a threat. Breivik had rejected prosecutors' arguments that he was mad, and had said he would appeal if he were ruled insane.

"In a unanimous decision ... the court sentences the defendant to 21 years of preventive detention," said judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, dismissing the prosecutor's call for a verdict that would have labeled Breivik insane and have confined him indefinitely to psychiatric care.

Breivik, 33, will be kept in isolation inside Ila Prison on the outskirts of Oslo inside relatively spacious quarters that include a separate exercise room, a computer and a television.

Criminal guilt was never an issue as Breivik acknowledged and described in horrific detail his murders.

Breivik has described an insane verdict as "a fate worse than death". Were he to have been found insane and decided to appeal, the entire trial would have had to be repeated.

Breivik justified his killing spree arguing that the center-left Labour party is deliberately destroying the nation by encouraging Muslim immigration.

Although his victims were mostly teenagers, with some as young as 14, he rejected being called a child murderer, arguing that his victims were brainwashed "cultural Marxists" whose political activism would adulterate pure Norwegian blood.

I read an interesting (fictional) analogy to this:

During the administration of president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the leaders of the Democrat party decided that their party needed a “youth league”, for the same reason that the Nazi party in Germany created its Hitler Jugend, and five years later, the socialist/communist leagues of other countries in Europe created their own youth leagues, such as the Workers’ Youth League in Norway.

This purpose being to raise an ideologically pure next generation of leaders, to continue to push their nation in the direction of the party, be it the philosophy of fascism, or the the philosophy of socialist/communism.

In the case of FDR’s Democrat party, they wanted to push America in the direction of a blend of socialism and national socialism, so their youth league became expert in indoctrinating its members to become the ideologically pure next generation of American leaders.

The Democrat party, in its semi-alliance with the Socialist International, a group of liberal and left wing political parties around the world, shared many of their ideological axioms and goals, such as:

1) Nations have no real reason to exist, and should eventually become just districts of multinational economic blocs, under a unified world government.

2) Heterogeneous cultures, ethnic groups, languages and national history stand in the way of this, so should be undermined until they cease to exist.

3) Political parties and philosophies in opposition to these ideas must either be changed to agree with the ideas of the Socialist International, or must be marginalized.

4) There is tremendous resistance to these ideas by the masses, so gradualism must be used to overcome this resistance, starting with control of education and the indoctrination of children.

In any event, continuing with this *fictional* account, the Democrat party of the United States decided that multiculturalism should replace national pride, ethnic and cultural and religious heterogeneity, to the point where America was no longer substantially different from other nations.

A way to do this was to permit open immigration, legal and illegal, to anyone who wanted it, the more alien to America, its people, culture and religion, the better. And such immigrants would be told that their immigration was only allowed if they were to support the Democrat party.

And so it was done. Countless millions of immigrants from central and South America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere were encouraged to flood into America. And it was coldly calculated that at a particular point, European descended Americans would become a minority, and with the support of the immigrants, America would in effect become a one-party state.

This being the Democrat party, whose youth league would insure that it retained its ideological purity in the face of any setbacks or appeals to reason.

But one man, let us call him “John Brown”, after the great anti-slavery fighter, decided he would no longer allow his country to be destroyed. So he decided to hit the Democrat party in its weak spot, its youth league, its next generation of ideologically pure fanatics that sought to destroy his country, his people, and his religious faith.

He could not stop the Democrats, but he could inhibit them, giving his nation to heal and recover from the continual destructive onslaughts of people who wished to destroy it.

(A fictional account.)

Don’t think so.

Here’s a rundown of his views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Breivik#Religious_and_political_views

Anti-EU and UN
Anti- US attacks on Serbia
Strongly pro-Zionist
Anti-Muslim, wants them all deported
Strongly “cultural Christian,” though not particularly religious

None of his reported political opinions, as opposed to actions, are a bit out of place here on FR, adjusting as needed for US/Norway. Which is not an attempt to smear FR, just a reporting of the fact.

Old John Brown was an abolitionist. He took his abolitionism to its logical conclusion of a violent (though ineffectual) attack on the slave power.

Scott Philip Roeder was anti-abortion. He took his opposition to its logical conclusion of shooting an abortion doctor. If you really believe that abortion is murder, is not the killing of an abortionist not justifiable homicide?

Most people who hold strong anti-slavery, anti-abortion or anti-Muslim views do not carry them to this extreme. But I used the “logical conclusion” structure above to make a point.

If you run around loudly denouncing slavery, or abortion or Islam as being ultimate evils (which IMO at least two of the three are), then you are, IMO, morally obligated to also point out why violence against these practices or institutions is not justified, if you indeed believe it is not.

IOW, you need to logically point out why a violent response is NOT the “logical conclusion” of your rhetoric.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.