Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Breivik: Embodiment of insanity and irrationality

He massacred 77 innocent lives to fight off immigrants and multiculturalism
and he is proud of it. 

12.2 percent of the population of Norway is foreign and these people have mainly come from; Poland, Sweden, Pakistan, Iraq and Somalia. No doubt some of these immigrants have sought a better land than their own which might be crawling with political corruption, warfare and religious strife.

The second most popular religion in Norway is of the Muslim faith which may have somehow influenced Breivik's reaction to the ever changing establishment in Norway.

Was this man's actions justified? Of course not. He committed not just murder but genocide.  This man tactically planned his attack and has given several reasons (no doubt corrupted reasons) why he has done so. This video shows him in court where he pleads that his actions were a sort of preemptive strike which probably means he was trying to seemingly defend himself against the foreign world. Which makes no sense. It is all very delusional. He also played World of Warcraft for a long time which the court took note of. He also cries to his own propaganda video which shows signs that he was brainwashed or just a very sadistic individual.

He obviously has psychological  issues which may have stemmed from early childhood, neglect, obsessive behavior or religiousness and even depression.

His views are not grounded in reason and he may be far from rational thought. Multiculturalism is a key to a progressive society as it stimulates debate, new ideas and a diverse range of people in a community. Breivik is consumed by fundamentalism, he believes in the pure absolute of one race or people similar to that of Hitler, Nick Griffin and Stalin.

This is an example of what fundamentalism can do. It can force a person to kill 77 people. To believe in anything fundamentally takes either a lot of indoctrination (brainwashing), insanity and psychological disorders. This principle also commutes i.e. fundamentalism itself can lead to insanity and extreme acts.

This man should serve life in a very isolated prison. He shouldn't be allowed freedom to commit such crimes again which he said he could do again.

He represents fundamentalism, insanity and irrationality. He is fueled by a similar substance which fuels the insane acts of terroism which is caused from fundamentalism either through religion or through brainwashing to hate the western world.

Those who have died in his attacks will not be forgotten but they are unfortunate evidence of why we must get rid of fundamentalism in our belief systems and continue to promote reason, skepticism, science, evidence and open-mindedness.


  1. i think to compare nick griffin to hitler and stalin is abit ignorant

  2. Not really as their belief systems are based on fundamentalism. Nick griffin believes that the British are superior and that this nation should not tolerate foreigners, Griffin believes this without evidence but with fundamentally. Hitler believed that the aerian race were superior in a similar fashion. So it now seems less ignorant, don't you think ?

  3. Believing in fundamentalism and acting upon it are two very different things.

  4. why does your profile pic suck?

  5. the only thing that would of made this bearable was if there was porn on it

  6. i still don't believe your 2k time, just letting you know

  7. ok i just found these comments, obvs i havent written them. just some imaturity in the rowing club. i do think its a good article and keep up the good work !- sam

  8. i think this article is truelly amazing. keep up the good work, you young scientist

  9. ben christophersen19 April 2012 at 12:26

    like anyone actually believes that

  10. Luke Kristopher Davis19 April 2012 at 12:28

    shut up cunningham, you're making me really mad, and i could definitely take back 5 seat any day if i wanted too

  11. your truely an inspiration for the youth of today


  12. Luke rowing banter aside this article is poorly thought out, badly written and completely 2 dimensional, it offers no alternative point of view and just repeats the same points as all the other mass media. Not to mention your point about insanity which has no basis in fact as a panel of government specialists recently classified him as sane!

    Also that seat belongs to sam now

  13. ben christophersen19 April 2012 at 12:36

    so i've got this great invention and i'd really like to know what you think, pm me asap x

  14. Agree a fair bit with Toby, also comparing Nick Griffin to Hitler isnt correct as Griffin isnt an extremist himself, merely his beliefs, if he was on the same level then he would have resorted to terroism or similar whilst his party is failing. Also in order to live in a balanced society with freedom and progression surely some degree of fundamentalism must be allowed. Social sollidarity cannot be achieved if there is nothing for society to sollidify against!

  15. i diagree with everything that fraud impersonating me has just said

  16. Really? Is fundamentalism always a bad thing? Just dismissing his ideas is a problem in itself - yes, he killed 77 people (not genocide by the way) and yes, his values aren't correct. Being a 'fundamentalist' is believing in the their fundamentals of their worldview or religion. You could be a fundamentalist of your views really?

    You say he hates the Western World, no he doesn't. If you understood the political situation in Norway, and didn't get all your information from BBC News, this would be a credible piece of writing. Fundamentalists aren't necessarily bad - they just have strong believes. Like everyone else in the world. There are a few examples where this has gone to extremes, but you're being short-sighted when you talk about Breivik - he is much more complex than this article makes out.

    You keep saying he is 'brainwashed'. He isn't. That's like saying religious leaders are brain washed. He has strong beliefs. Just because they don't conform to the same as yours does not make him 'brainwashed'.

  17. I'm sorry I was being a dick Luke. I'm just a bit of a bellend it would seem. Please row next year <3 xxxxxx

  18. To the comment above believing in something fundamentally means you hold that you are infallible. No one can be infallible. Infallible means 100% true, science and mathematics have proven this false. So fundamentalism itself is false. I am not a fundamentalist. If there was evidence for a certain hypothesis about the world I would believe it. I believe in science and reason. If there was evidence for God I would believe in him. It's all about scientific evidence.

    How do you know he isn't brainwashed, he was part of a cult who conspired against Islam and western democratic values. Get off your false pedastool.

    1. Nothing is 100% true. Fact is only 99% - how do you know that the existence of God isn't true?

      'It's all about scientific evidence' - is such a one dimensional argument. Easily dismissing religion makes you as dangerous as religious fundamentalists. Infallible means 100% true yes, but nothing is 100% true, if you read philosophy - which your blog claims to do - you would know this.

      Get off my false pedestal? Why don't you write something that is actually a worthwhile read instead of being riddled with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. This is such a predictable answer against the man. I suggest doing more research.

    2. How is respecting scientific narrowminded or one dimensional? Surely that is integral to being open-minded and scientific. Almost all scientific researchers of merit hold respect for scientific evidence.

      Again you misunderstand. I do not believe in the non-existence of God fundamentally. If there was scientific evidence for God I would believe in him. There isn't therefore the scientific principle dictates that I should not believe in him strongly. There is zero evidence for God.. like unicorns and zeus.

      There are not that many grammatical or spelling errors, what a weak argument. It is legible. Do you have any other arguments against this man? Sometimes the most predictable answer is correct.

      It seems you have misunderstood the concept of fallibility.

  19. Calling him insane may be viewed as ignorant. It completely disregards the fact that some people are just "wrong", so to speak. I'm not getting into anything about good and evil etc, but is not possible that some people just do bad things, they're not neccessarily insane. Don't get me wrong, I am very pro-insanity plea for those who actually have a mental illness. However, I do not think this man deserves it. He did something terrible. He should be help accountable. I think society as a whole need to reach a stage where they can just accept tht some people do horrifically wrong things purely due to who they are. It does not make them mentally ill.
    You say you believe he should be imprisoned, but if you think he is "insane" then he should not be. If you truely believe him to be insane then the rightful place for him is in a psychiatric unit.