The Foreigner: Uncertainty & Criticism
Further reading: Ideology wrapped up in a straightjacket
There is much contention over the diagnosis of Anders Breivik being ‘insane’ by many leading psychiatrists, although they state that they cannot fully determine a proper prognosis without reading the full psychiatric report.
There are also calls from within Norway for a second evaluation because many in the field of psychiatry in the Country say the label does not fit the person or the crime.
I have my own experience of a flawed psychiatric report that I will come to in a minute which proves that not all evaluations are right, with even leading psychiatrists stating that their field is not an absolute when it comes to determining someone’s state of mind.
Sometimes it is a clear cut case though and others it is open to speculation that gets some sort of label because it has to have one from the "specialists".
If a psychiatrist is evaluating the person with a lack of knowledge and experience base with which to understand the mind-set of the person in front of them then their evaluation will be flawed and biased towards their way of thinking.
Lack of knowledge and experience means lack of understanding which means a flawed evaluation, unless a clear cut case.
I am sure not one of those Dr’s evaluating Breivik thinks like Breivik thinks, so his mindset is totally alien to theirs so he must be mad (mine proves this point), they just have to give him a label that best suits the way he thinks, and in this case ‘paranoid schizophrenia’.
Paranoid schizophrenia to think like all of those mainstream commentators who he quotes in the manifesto.
There must be many millions of paranoid schizophrenics out there now who think like Breivik, but would not dream of committing a horrific terrorist act like his to get their point across. That’s the difference between extreme right-wing/left-wing politics and extreme right-wing/left-wing political terrorism.
One has the ideological justification and the other pursues violent means to further those ideas.
Breivik & Fraudman
Out of that team of psychiatrists evaluating Breivik was there one or more who understands the thinking and logic behind extreme right-wing political terrorism or right-wing political thinking when it comes to immigration, Islamisation, Jihad, Marxism?
If not then how can they understand the way Breivik thinks and judge accordingly?
Out of that team of psychiatrists evaluating Breivik was there one or more who understands the thinking and logic behind neo-nazi philosophy?
If not then how can they understand where some of Breivik’s ideas come from that are in-line with the world wide neo-nazi movement.
After all, Breivik does believe he is the leader of a new extreme right-wing movement that many neo-nazis agree with, has written a 1500 page manifesto detailing his reasons and justification and there are many on a more wider basis than just the neo-nazis who are now ideologically aligned to him, his ideas and his ways.
He is a new Hitler archetype and from what I can tell, much of his thinking is based around this type of philosophy and ideas, helped along most probably by his English ‘mentor’ through the brain-washing process he has undergone to believe in himself and their mutual agenda.
This is not a run of the mill situation, it is unique in scale and scope so hard for any psychiatrist to give a proper evaluation unless it is a clear cut case of delusional madness, especially ones with no knowledge or experience base of the facts that Breivik has in his mind. This does not seem to be clear cut case of delusional madness though because there is much contention in this particular medical field over the psychological evaluation of Breivik although no one knows the full facts yet.
We obviously don’t know the full details of the report and how delusional he is perceived from those who were evaluating him, but from the outside Breivik seems sane, with reason and logic behind his actions, just with different ideas and beliefs from the mainstream majority, just like moslem extremists who we say are a minority compared to the majority, and officialdom does not label them as ‘insane’, they are labeled as criminals and terrorists.
He has declared a right-wing terrorist war against Marxists governments based around his actions and the “2083” manifesto, and how many people have done that recently other than Osama Bin Laden who declared a terrorist war against the West, with many millions heeding the call, based upon 9/11 etc and his extensive fatwa’s justifying the war?
Time will tell with Breivik.
The only good thing about labeling him ‘insane’ is that he will undergo compulsory treatment which will allow the Dr’s to get to the bottom of everything with regards to “Anders Breivik” and anyone else who is associated with him.
The most ‘insane’ act Breivik did was murdering 69 innocent kids on their summer camp because to most people that cannot be justified under any circumstances, but there are many acts that happen in the world that the mainstream majority could never justify, even committed by some of our elected World leaders.
What determines madness if it is not clear cut?
A Dr’s report because they have the initials after their name so they must be right?
How horrific what Breivik did on Utoya island is to most people, and although we do not want to admit it, there was logic and reasoning behind his actions that he has explained. It in no way justifies it, but its his logical explanation.
Are not the actions of someone who is insane illogical?
That act was a criminally culpable act and not the act of someone who is ‘insane’ and didn’t know what he was doing. It was well thought out and planned in his mind so shows criminal culpability.
It’s the propaganda and ideology that has deemed him ‘insane’ and not his actions.
Maybe another report should be undertaken on the basis that the English ‘mentor’ is real and that Breivik’s mind was filled with this persons vision and Breivik was central to that vision (the pawn), then the delusion he is said to be suffering has a source separate to Breivik himself, it is a part of a much bigger extreme right-wing agenda involving other people so fits into place logically in the bigger scheme of things.
The official line is ‘lone wolf’ so that psychological evaluation will also be flawed on this point too because it’s all a creation in Breivik’s own head, so delusional. But what if it is not all a creation in his own head and there are other people involved just as he says? That shines a completely different light on everything and explains alot.
He does say his English ‘mentor’ wrote about the perfect Knight, and now Breivik claims to be that perfect Knight, so that thinking has a different source than from inside his own mind, and now Breivik believes he has attained that position because his ‘mentor’ explained it to him, he did what he did, and now he is the poster boy of the extreme far-right for all others to follow and emulate, thus the perfect Knight in their eyes, who is waging a war against Marxists with Islam and moslems for decoration purposes and justification.
For Breivik it all started in Liberia in 2002 during the Civil war in the Country and then London that same year which are both factual points. To believe ‘lone wolf’ is like believing in the tooth fairy.
It depends on whether or not after nearly 5 months of the official ‘lone wolf’ line, the Norwegians can publicly do a u-turn and admit that Breivik is a part of a bigger network. There are calls for the head of their PST to stand down because of failings in this case and I am sure this point must come into that equation and reasoning because nobody likes to admit they have made mistakes but with overwhelming evidence to the contrary it’s a case of reputation on the PST and not an individual’s job position even if they are the boss.
Further reading: PST Director must go
I wonder who will be the first to agree publicly that this is not a ‘lone wolf’ scenario?
Or is that taboo in Norway?
Breivik might have been alone on the day and that’s about it, beyond that all evidence clearly shows a much bigger agenda involving more people that dates back to 2002.
With regards to my psychiatrist report which enables me to give an opinion on this based upon it, the last time I was in prison in 1998, the prison psychiatrist did an evaluation on me and stated that I had had a psychotic breakdown.
With out going into the full details of what happened to me, I had what is described as a ‘religious experience’ where God revealed Himself to me before I ended up in prison. I could not deny my experience which formed the basis of my new knowledge of the world around me, and I embraced Christianity as the truth because of my experience.
I was born again.
If you are reading this and do not believe in God then this is alien to you, so in your mind I must be mad, but it doesn’t mean I am mad it just means I have a knowledge and experience base that you do not have which determines my belief which is different from yours.
Who is right and who is wrong?
They once believed the world was flat until someone gained the knowledge and experience to show a different belief.
Because someone does not believe something doesn’t mean they are right and you are wrong, it just means you have a different point of view based upon your own knowledge and experience base. It’s only the narrow minded people who refuse to listen to other points of view with an open mind because they believe their truth is the only truth and everyone else is wrong whose views differ from their own.
The psychiatrist who evaluated me was an atheist so what was his report going to say when sitting with someone who had just had a Christian religious experience?
Not rocket science…
He reported that I had had a psychotic breakdown.
How could an atheist psychiatrist who refused to believe that my knowledge and experience base even existed, write in his report that I had a Christian conversion experience say ‘hallelujah’ and wish me well in my new found faith as a Christian? Of course he couldn’t, and he had to put a label on the report so his atheist mind labeled it what he did ‘psychotic breakdown’.
He did not believe in Christianity or the reality of an Almighty God because he had no knowledge or experience base – He was/is an atheist.
Was his report right or wrong?
I was incensed by it so wrote a letter to the judge to counter his labeling of me pointing out my facts that differed from his facts, and as the court asks people to swear on the Bible every time they give evidence I hope the judge listened with an open mind otherwise all courts are sham.
Since my conversion my whole life has changed and I have never been in trouble with the police again, except for a thought crime for sharing my truth with others, whereas before that time I was a young thug criminal in and out of prison every year from the age of 16.
My life proves that that Dr’s report was wrong and I could give at least 50 people who would agree that that Dr’s report was wrong because they share the same truth as me and know me personally.
The moral of the story, can Breivik’s psychiatric report be wrong or are the psychiatrists always right because they have the initials after their name?
Time will now tell…but there is already disagreement in Norway so Breivik cannot be that ‘insane’ that some psychiatrists refuse to accept the prognosis based upon the evidence.