Florida State University Libraries Honors Theses

The Division of Undergraduate Studies

2013

Breivik's Sanity: Historical and Contemporary Right-Wing Political Violence in Norway Colin Jacobsen

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

BREIVIK’S SANITY: HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY RIGHT-WING POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN NORWAY

By COLIN JACOBSEN

A Thesis submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major

Degree Awarded: Spring, 2013

The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Colin Jacobsen defended on April 18, 2013.

______________________________ Daniel Maier-Katkin Thesis Director

______________________________ Sumner B. Twiss Outside Committee Member

______________________________ Terry Coonan Committee Member ______________________________ Nathan Stoltzfus Committee Member

ii

Acknowledgements I am sincerely grateful and humble for the help, insight, guidance and support I have been fortunate to receive through a challenging, memorable, and rewarding research journey, for without this I could not have established a final piece which has been greatly invigorated and transcended by the many I worked with. I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my mentor and Thesis Director Professor Daniel Maier-Katkin, who has through exceptional guidance and pedagogy revealed to me new avenues of learning, fascinating advice on the life of the mind, and inspired me to aspire towards excellent writing and articulation; his expertise and guidance has undeniably steered me on to path of academic success that already carries an impact on to my future career prospects. My appreciation also goes out to the Honors in the Major Program and to my thesis committee members Professor Terry Coonan and Professor Sumner B. Twiss—who, respectively, as Executive Director and Distinguished Professor of The Center for the Advancement of Human Rights offered kindly to cooperate and contribute with knowledge and guidance with my thesis—and Professor Nathan Stoltzfus for their critic and discussion of my Honors thesis at its final stage. I wish to acknowledge and thank Professor Pamela Mertens for her always high-spirited support and guidance through my undergraduate years and, especially in the circumstances of my theses, for her part, along with Professor Maier-Katkin, in recommending me for the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activity Award (URCAA) which has undoubtedly proliferated the contribution and knowledge of my research. Consequently, I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the Office of National Fellowship at the Florida State University who awarded me the URCAA. With this I was able to travel to iii

Norway in the summer of 2012 to undertake research in museums and archives containing materials related to continuities and discontinuities in the history of right-wing extremism and violence in Norway, and conduct extensive interviews with political leaders at the highest levels of government, psychiatrists, prominent academics, and officials of the justice system involved in the Breivik trial. To those interviewees: Terje Emberland (Religious Historian and Researcher), Øystein Sørensen (Professor of History), Robert Ferguson (Author), Erik Skuggevik (Lecturer in Translation and Culture), Lars Gule (Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the HiOA), Terje Øiesvold (Psychiatrist), Hans Fredrik Dahl (Professor of History), Tore Bjørgo (Professor of Police Science), Kjell Lars Berge (Professor of Norwegian Language and Literature), Einar Kringlen (Psychiatrist), Vigdis Hjorth (Author), Thomas Hylland Eriksen (Professor of Social Anthropology), Lars Frode Larsen (Author), Leif Hamsun (Knut Hamsun's Grandson), Anders Ravik Jupskås (Research Fellow at the Department of Political Science at UiO) and others who chose respectfully to remain anonymous, I am immensely thankful for their willingness to participate in an interview and to share their knowledge, insight and thought provoking questions related to my theses. Without their help, my project would not have been as successful. Lastly, I am grateful for the help, support and perseverance encouragement I have received from my family and my girlfriend, for this love has been uplifting through hard work, with a challenging but invaluable rewarding Honors theses.

iv

Table of Contents Introduction...…………………………………………………….…………………….………....1 The Massacre in Norway: July, 22, 2011………………………………………………………....2 A History of Right-Wing Political Violence in Norway: The Nazi Years……………………......6 A History of Right-Wing Political Violence in Norway: The De-Nazification Era…………......10 A History of Right-Wing Political Violence in Norway: The Era between Hamsun and Breivik…………………………………………………………………………………………....15 A History of Right-Wing Political Violence in Norway: Contemporary Right-Wing Violent Extremism……………………………………………………………………………….……....18 Breivik’s Ideology: Prelude to Mass Murder……………………………...………………….....22 Breivik’s Sanity: The Psychiatric Reports……………………………………………….…....…25 Breivik’s Sanity: The Judgment of the Court……………………………………………………29 Breivik’s Sanity in the Context of Rightwing Terrorism……………………………...…….…..38

v

Abstract On July 22, 2011 Anders Behring Breivik bombed a government building in Oslo, resulting in the deaths of eight people. A few hours later he attacked a youth camp associated with the dominant liberal Labor Party of Norway killing 69 people, mostly teenagers. His act of mass murder captured world attention, as did his electronic distribution of an infamous document entitled 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, which proclaims a rightwing world view with unyielding hostility towards multiculturalism and the alleged "Islamization of Europe. While right-wing extremist groups in Norway has been weak and insignificant over the past decades, the large populist right wing party, the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet), has sustained a central role in the liberal democracy with a critical position on immigrant issues. My research focuses on the underlying ideology of historical and contemporary right wing extremism in Norway. This includes, among others, the Norwegian Nobel Laureate and Nazi sympathizer Knut Hamsun, the Norwegian fascist party (Nasjonal Samling) and the contemporary presence of xenophobic, anti-immigration and anti-Islamic right wing in Norway, including the larger context of the ideology and behavior of the mass-murderer Breivik. My research, drawing on archival research on the extreme right in Scandinavia and Europe and interviews with several prominent psychiatrists, politicians, authors on Knut Hamsun and experts on radical-right in Norway, suggest that close parallels can be noted between the rhetoric of Nazi anti-Semitism and modern Islamophobia, with incidental differences of group identities and the basis for perceiving a threat. Within the various forms of right wing extremism there are strikingly similar ideological structures used to justify political violence, and Breivik is

vi

a textbook example of how the growing presence of the right-wing extremist activity online can only be ignored at our peril.

vii

Introduction After World War Two, the high-water mark of rightwing political violence in the twentieth century, right-wing extremism was mostly thought of as unreconstructed fascists or neo-Nazis. But since the 1970s scholarly literature has reflected concern about a new threat of extremism and violence arising in conjunction with growing electoral support for xenophobic radical right parties rooted in a modern generation with new concerns and passions.1 Experts disagree on the conceptualization of right-wing extremism, and there is a blurry relationship between the xenophobic violence of right-wing extremists and the broader range of radical right parties.2 The distinction between right-wing extremism and rightwing attitudes within the mainstream hinges on willingness to work toward political goals within the framework of democracy. Extreme right parties endorse resentment of left and centrist political regimes, advocate aggressive nationalism, endorse anti-immigration sentiments and emphasize particularistic conceptualizations of citizenship.3 Hans-Georg Betz argues that they are “radical in their rejection of the established sociocultural and sociopolitical system and in their advocacy of individual achievement, a free marketplace, and a drastic reduction of the role of the state,” and that they are “right-wing in their rejection of individual and social equality, in their opposition to the social integration of marginalized groups, and in their appeal to xenophobia and overt racism.4

1 Cas Mudde. "Right-Wing Extremism Analyzed. A Comparative Analysis of the Ideologies of Three Alleged Right-Wing Extremist Parties (NPD, NDP, CP'86)." SelectedWorks, 1995: 205. 2 Dr. Matthew Goodwin and Vidhya Ramalingam. "The New Radical Right: Violent and Non-Violent Movements in Europe." Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2012:4 3 Pia Knigge. "The ecological correlates of right-wing extremism in Western Europe." European Journal of Political Research, 1998: 250-251. 4 Hanz-George Betz. "The New Politics of Resentment: Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe." Comparative Politics, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1993: 413.

1

In political science the definition of right-wing extremism may permit study of individuals, parties or organizations that operate with extreme anti-pluralist, anti-parliamentarian, and anti-egalitarian political agendas;5 in criminological studies the phenomenon of right-wing political extremism begins with willingness to contemplate the use of violence on behalf of national and cultural identity, which is perceived as threatened by third world immigrants, foreign workers, refugees, and other minorities in society.6 The opinions and beliefs of extreme right-wing parties have a legitimate place in contemporary democracy, but they generate a substantial danger of nationalist and racial fervor transcending politics into the realm of violence. This thesis explores the relationship between the ideology and attitudes of the extreme right and right-wing violence. While attending to the European and global experience of right-wing political violence, the thesis is principally a case study of the Norwegian experience. Norway was selected in part because I am a dual citizen of Norway and the United States and familiar with both cultures. In addition, Norwegian is my first language, which made primary sources accessible. Norway also had a claim for two pressing reasons: first, the terroristic mass murder perpetrated by Anders Breivik on July 21, 2011; and second, the fascist tradition of political extremism and violence in Norwegian culture from which the world has crafted the epithet “Quisling.”

The Massacre in Norway: July, 22, 2011 On July 22, 2011, Anders Behring Breivik bombed government headquarters in Oslo, 5 6

Knigge, 250. Mudde, 206.

2

Norway, killing eight people. Later that day he attacked a youth camp associated with the dominant liberal Labor Party killing 69 people, mostly teenagers. The act of mass murder captured world attention, as did Breivik's infamous electronic document entitled, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, proclaiming a right-wing worldview based on cultural conservatism, ultra-nationalism, and unyielding hostility towards multiculturalism and the “Islamization of Europe.” After triggering the nearly 1000-kilo car bomb, shattering downtown Oslo, Breivik drove towards Utoya Island in Tyrinfjord. He was heavily armed and dressed in a facsimile police uniform, including a bulletproof vest.7 Deceiving Utoya’s light security by posing as a police officer, he was greeted by Monica Bosei, the camp’s matriarch and escorted across the Island. His unorthodox behavior and failure to answer questions clearly seemed suspicious to Trond Berntsen—the step-brother of Norway’s Crown Princess and the only policeman on the Island; but it was too late. Within a few minutes, Breivik had killed his first victims: Berntsen when he turned his back, and Bosei while running away in fear for her life. They were both shot in the head, twice, the second time while motionless on the ground. In court, Breivik later described the initial shooting as a “now or never” decision, whether to carry out his malicious plan or to face apprehension. He struggled with his resolve, describing how his whole body tried to resist, how he had to overcome contradictory thoughts in his head saying: “Don’t do it. Don’t do it.”8 After those first shootings, he entered a “state of shock,”9 claiming to remember the massacre only faintly, yet providing detailed descriptions of his heinous acts. Calmly 7

Byermoen, Tom . VG Nett. 2012. http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/slik-skjedde-angrepene.php (accessed December 2012). Christian, Gysin, and Simon Tomlinson. Mailonline. April 20, 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132656/Anders-BehringBreivik-trial-Norway-killer-recounts-Utoya-island-massacre-horrifying-detail.html (accessed November 2012). 9 Orr, James , and David Blair. The Telegraph. April 20, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9215773/Norwaykiller-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-five-live.html (accessed December 2012).

8

3

crisscrossing the Island, Breivik deceived the frightened young people into thinking he was a policeman, then shot them, mostly one-on-one, sometimes luring small groups to their execution with assurances of help and safety. They were shot in cold blood as they came to him or ran away in desperation, and then shot again in the head. The wooded island resounded with rapid gunfire punctured by periods of silence. This was due not only to the distance Breivik covered, but because he felt unhurried, knowing the challenges his victims faced. Those he could not kill would drown attempting escape in icy cold water.1011 After more than three hours of terror and the death of 77 people, the 32-year old Norwegian surrendered in the woods of Utoya Island. The apprehension played out in an effortless manner, as the gun-man called out to arriving units of Special Forces “I am not after you, I view the police as my brothers. I am going to save Norway from Islamization.”12 His principle target had been the ruling labor party, and by unleashing a one-man war, Breivik turned downtown Oslo into a war-zone and the summer camp at Utoya into a nightmare. The scenery was indescribable. The government building was reduced to broken glass, steel fragments, and injured and dead people. On Utoya, young teens lay scattered; those found alive hiding behind structures and stones, in the water or under the corpses of Labor Party youth members and friends. One of the policemen who took Breivik into custody described the unforgettable sight of a ghostly-looking young girl he found sitting in the bushes—her arm hanging almost disconnected and her legs pierced by bullets.13 This was one of many horrible sights that met the police and rescue crews who witnessed the aftermath of the barbaric massacre.

10

Ravndal, Jacob Aasland. Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. October 29, 2012. http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/a-post-trial-profile-ofanders-behring-breivik (accessed December 2012). 11 Pidd, Helen . The Guardian. April 20, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/20/anders-behring-breivik-massacre-court (accessed October 2012). 12 Auestad, et al. 2012. 13 Auestad, Gunn E, Anders Brekke, Kristine Hirsti, Ingunn Andersen, and Olav Døvik. NRK. May 25, 2012. http://www.nrk.no/227/dag-fordag/han-sette-handjerna-pa-breivik-1.8157457 (accessed November 2012).

4

Breivik’s first interrogation took place on Utoya, while victims were still being carried off the Island. On the second floor of a building in which Breivik minutes earlier had shot and killed children, the police began questioning him, trying to understand his reasoning and motives, which are bizarre and seemed at the time almost incomprehensible. He proclaimed that his attack was the preliminary stage of the beginning of a civil war between communists and nationalists, a war that would be fought for another 60 years.14 His 1500-page on-line manifesto provided descriptive details of this supposed civil war and his unyielding hostility towards the Islamization of Europe and the Norwegian Labor party, which he said conspired to bring about an “evil” multicultural agenda. Breivik also claimed to be the Commander of the Knights Templar of Norway, a radical right organization with alleged connections in several countries, representing the “native” Europeans, and dedicated to the cause of eradicating Islamic politics and culture in Europe. Breivik claimed that the organization constituted a war crimes tribunal with authority to execute category A, B and C criminals —Marxists and other alleged traitors. “We evaluate what targets are reasonable, then act,”15 Breivik stated in court. When questioned about the absurdity of this self-claimed authority, Breivik explained that such practices are commonplace among “militant nationalist” and “revolutionary” groups.16 Though no evidence of the existence of Knights Templar has been found,17 Breivik was able to portray himself as the ultra-nationalist soldier fighting to protect the “purity” of Norway by identifying with a revolutionary group. In court, Breivik emphasized that he was only one of

14

Husby, Torgeir, and Synne Sorheim. "Rettpsykiatrisk Erklæring." Psychiatric evaluation of Anders Behring Breivik, Oslo, 2011. Eriksen, Thor Gjermund. NRK. April 24, 2012. http://www.nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-3 1.8084378 (accessed February 2013). 16 Ibid. 17 Smith-Spark, Laura . CNN. August 14, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/world/europe/norway-breivik-trial/index.html (accessed December 2012).

15

5

many citizens who wished to prevent the Labor Party’s destruction of ethnic Norwegians.18 Since Breivik did not deny the commission of all these homicidal acts, the only issue at trial was his sanity. This was a consequential matter because the maximum penalty for the crime of murder in Norway’s progressive penal system is 21 years in prison, but an insane murderer can be detained indefinitely. A defendant’s sanity cannot be determined solely by what he has done; in law the question is always whether the acts were committed by a person whose mental state can be characterized as culpable, blameworthy and responsible. The challenge for the court was to determine whether the system of ideas and beliefs that drove Breivik to kill so many innocent young people could be characterized as elements of a delusional system. The matter is complicated by the fact that many other Norwegian rightists share Breivik’s attitudes and philosophy, and that right-wing political violence is well established in Norwegian history.

A History of Right-Wing Political Violence in Norway: The Nazi Years On June 7, 1945, King Haakon sailed into the port of Oslo, greeted by a cheering crowd of Norwegians and Allies who had fought for the independence of Norway and the defeat of Nazi Germany.19 The celebration was all of what you would expect at the culmination of a Norwegian folktale in which “good” conquers “evil.” The return of King Haakon came at the end of five years of Nazi domination. The celebration of joyous song with echoing fanfare and waving flags appeared on the surface to be a triumph for all Norwegians, but this was misleading. Behind the image of national triumph was a greatly troubling truth of Nazi collaboration with which Norway would have to come grips. More than 200,000 Norwegians had worked for 18 19

Eriksen 2012. Kongen kommer 1945 - Del I . Directed by Filmavisen. 1945.

6

German industry in Norway during World War Two, and many others had collaborated with the Third Reich. When the Germans occupied Norway in April 1940, the King and Parliament established a government in exile in London, and the fascist leader Vidkun Quisling announced from a radio station in Oslo that with the government having “fled recklessly,” the National Gathering had taken “possession of the power of government in order to vindicate the vital interests of the Norwegian people and the safety and independence of Norway. By the virtues of circumstance and of the national aims of our movement, we are the only people who can do this and thereby save the country.” 20 He called upon all Norwegians to keep the peace. “Resistance,” Quisling concluded, “is not merely useless, but also synonymous with criminal destruction of life and property. He commanded every official and municipal functionary, especially officers in the army, navy, coastal artillery and air force to obey the new government.”21 Quisling’s fascist party, the National Gathering (NS), was founded on May 13, 1933, just months after Hitler rose to power in Germany. Early on there were about 33,000 members, many fewer than the mainstream parties during that time in Norway. The Party attempted to gain favor by playing to popular dissatisfaction with the inefficiency of parliamentary democracy,22 but mostly the National Gathering was fascist, and grew gradually closer to German National Socialism with its emphasis on racial politics. Protection of the “Nordic race,” “Nordic values”23 and anti-Semitism were pillars of the National Gathering’s program.24 The Party never received more than 2.5 percent of the vote in a general election, and was generally

20

Quisling, Vidkun. Lydklipp: Quislings statskupp i radio. 1940. Ibid. Simonsen, Kjetil. Store norske leksikon. March 7, 2013. http://snl.no/Nasjonal_Samling. 23 In Hitlers Norske Hjelpere: Nordmenns samarbeid med Tyskland 1940-45, by Nina Drolsum Kroglund, 131. Oslo: Forlaget Historie & Kultur AS, 2012. 24 Simonsen.

21 22

7

viewed by mainstream Norwegians as a failed Norwegian Nazi party. In 1939, the year before Germany occupation of Norway, the party had dwindled to only about 700 members. Throughout the years of occupation, the King categorically refused to acknowledge Quisling’s authority as legitimate, and advocated continuing resistance against an occupying force and enemies of the state. Quisling was so unpopular among Norwegians that the Germans tried for more than a year to establish a Norwegian government without him, but were unable to establish a peaceful occupation with the imprimatur of legitimate constitutional authority.25 Finally German authorities transferred power to a government headed by Quisling who presided at ”ministerial meetings” at the Royal Palace, from the King’s chair in the Council of State Hall.26 Here decisions were made, among others, which sealed the fate of Norway’s 700 Jews even as the neighboring Danes and elements of the clandestine “Norwegian Resistance”, and even some committed fascists, attempted to save Jews by helping them escape to Sweden.27 Party membership grew to more than 50,000 despite internal conflicts.28 No doubt many new members were opportunists, but others were drawn to the Party out of distaste or fear of Bolshevism. Some may have joined to protect Norway from the worst excesses Nazi-German occupation, but there were also those who embraced the most extreme racist forms of antiSemitism and who believed in the existence of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Norwegian culture. The rhetoric and propaganda they used against the Jews is very similar in structure to contemporary right-wing extremist propaganda against Muslims.

25

In Quisling, by Hans Fredrik Dahl, 176. Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1999. Government.no HL-Senteret: Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities. May 16, 2011. http://www.hlsenteret.no/kunnskapsbasen/folkemord/folkemord-under-nazismen/holocaust/norge/flukten-til-sverige.html (accessed October 2012). 28 Statistics on Treason and Collaboration 1940-1945. Oslo: Central Bureau of Statistics of Norway, 1954. 26 27

8

To combat “foreign cultural influences,” the National Gathering forced children between the ages of 10 and 18 to serve in the National Gathering Youth,29 and further required that Norwegian men above the age of 18 and Norwegian women above the age of 21 register for labor service in order to assist the German war machine.30 Oslo University was closed and 650 students were arrested and deported.31 In addition, state employees were censured and fired if they did not conform to fascist ideology.32 Those who resisted or who sympathized with the allies were dealt with severely. Several concentration camps established by the Germans in Norway housed Soviet prisoners of war and Jews, but also Norwegian military resistors and civilian activists. 3334 More than 10 000 Norwegians were imprisoned in these camps and 6000 were deported to Germany, of whom 800 died. 35 Many victims were trapped by the notorious Rinnan band, a collaborationist gang that secretively infiltrated resistance groups and arrested more than 1000 “communists,” often subjecting them to unspeakable acts of torture before turning them over to concentration camps.36 Henry Rinnan, the leader of the gang, became one of Norway’s most despised collaborationist villains; the judge who sentenced him to death described Rinnan as “the seed of evil, nourished by [Nazi] Germans.”37 Other Norwegians, perhaps less sadistic and more ideologically pure than Rinnan, organized equally malicious and destructive crimes against humanity. Police Minister Jonas Lie,

29

Kroglund, 200. Skodvin, Magne. Store norske leksikon. February 27, 2013. http://snl.no/Norge_under_den_andre_verdenskrig_%281939-1945%29 (accessed February 2013). 31 Ibid. 32 Dahl, Hans Fredrik. Store norske leksikon. February 28, 2013. http://snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Gulbrand_Lunde/utdypning (accessed February 2013). 33 HL-Senteret: Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities. May 16, 2011. http://www.hlsenteret.no/kunnskapsbasen/folkemord/folkemord-under-nazismen/andre-grupper/norske-politiske-fanger.html (accessed March 2013). 34 Mitric, Joan McQueeney. Knight Foundation. May 8, 2011. http://www.knightfoundation.org/press-room/other/nazi-pow-camp-norway-fewlived-tell-horror/ (accessed March 2013). 35 Ibid. 36 Skjærseth , Lars Erik, and Erik Tom Sørensen. NRK. November 21, 2011. http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_trondelag/1.7884381 (accessed March 2013). 37 En ond historie. Directed by NRK. 2011. 30

9

leader of the Norwegian Germanic SS, for example, implemented the deportation of 772 Jews, of whom only 34 survived. 38 Lie is believed to have been present in Germany during the planning stages of the death camps and to have intended to implement a similar fate for all of Norway’s 2100 Jews.39 Deep divisions persisted among Norwegians, many of whom remained loyal to the King and sympathetic to the British. Those Norwegians were often identified as “Jossinger,” while “Quislings,” either sympathized with Nazi-Germany or, after the invasions of Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and France, doubted the allies could win the war and accepted “the reality” of a new Germanic empire under the rule of Hitler.40 Needless to say, for Quisling and the National Gathering the Nazi occupation was a time of glory and supreme authority, where the party could implement a national socialist political agenda in Norway, serving as a puppet government under the ruling of “Reichkommisar” Josef Terboven. This came to an abrupt halt on May 8th, 1945, when German forces surrendered unconditionally to the Allies, and Norway’s legal purge began.

A History of Right-Wing Political Violence in Norway: The De-Nazification Era Postwar Norway had the most far-reaching denazification process of any European country involving 92,805 charges of treason.41 Almost half of the charges were dropped because of insufficient evidence, but in the end 633 out of every 100,000 Norwegians were sentenced to 38

HL-Senteret: Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities. May 16, 2011. http://www.hlsenteret.no/kunnskapsbasen/folkemord/folkemord-under-nazismen/holocaust/norge/deportasjonen-av-de-norske-jodene.html (accessed January 2013). 39 Kroglund, 235; HL-Senteret 2011, (norske-jodene). 40 Kroglund, 21. 41 Kroglund, 18.

10

prison, 42 and a total of 25 Norwegian collaborators were executed.43 Even so, not all Norwegians who had cooperated with German authority were considered traitors; a line was drawn between what constituted necessary cooperation with the Nazi-regime and what was considered treason. Those who had willfully used the German occupation for economic gains were considered traitors, and all members of the Norwegian National Socialist Party, the National Gathering, were to be punished. 44 This way, Nina Drolsum Kroglund has written, Norway “could draw a line between “good” and “evil,” and Norwegians could create a story about the war in black and white.”45 The post-war executions were important symbols, but highly controversial and, some argued, counterintuitive to Norway’s 1902 abolition of capital punishment in peacetime.46 Most of the Norwegian collaborators executed were members of National Gathering; several appealed their death sentences arguing that they had joined Quisling for the sole purpose of protecting Norwegian independence from a German civilian administration and the possibility of destruction by an occupying force.47 There was substantial disagreement about whether mere membership in the National Gathering constituted a crime, as it was not illegal at the time. When this question arose as a judicial issue in 1945, 4 out of 11 Norwegian Supreme Court judges voted against it.48 Members of the National Gathering were not ashamed of what they had done, and they enjoyed a degree of support among the population –their neighbors and relatives. Most members

42

Ibid., 18. Andenes, Johs., and Frode Sulland. Store norske leksikon. February 28, 2013. http://snl.no/landssvikoppgj%C3%B8ret (accessed February 2013). 44 Andenes, Johs., and Keiserud Erik. Store norske leksikon. February 28, 2013. http://snl.no/landssviklovgivningen (accessed March 2013). Auestad, Gunn E, Anders Brekke, Kristine Hirsti, Ingunn Andersen, and Olav Døvik. NRK. May 25, 2012. http://www.nrk.no/227/dag-fordag/han-sette-handjerna-pa-breivik-1.8157457 (accessed November 2012). 45 Kroglund, 12. 46 Ginés, Patricia A. Amnesty International . April 3, 2012. http://www.amnesty.no/aktuelt/flere-nyheter/d%C3%B8dsstraffen-i-norge (accessed January 2013). 47 Kroglund, 140. 48 Kroglund, 409

43

11

were convinced, with a criminal verdict looming, that they had acted in the best interest of the country, maintaining their innocence to the very end. When Quisling’s execution took place in front of Akershus Festning, his last words were “I am convicted unfairly, and I die innocent.”49 Earlier he had expressed a premonition that he would suffer martyrdom like St. Olav or Jesus Christ.50 Joan Sharffenber, a leading psychiatrist who visited Quisling on death row, concluded that Quisling “had undoubtedly acted through his whole “work” with a subjective belief of goodwill,” but that he lacked a sense of reality and commons sense.51 By the time the last of the appeals were being litigated, clergymen were writing open letters calling for a halt of the execution in Norway. Eivind Josef Berggrav, the primate of the Church of Norway, who had written an article entitled The People’s Judgement on the NS, which supported the harsh punishment of NS members, was nonetheless opposed to capital punishment in Norway, and wrote to Prime Minister Gerhardsen asking him to commute Quisling’s verdict of death.52 Gabriel Moseid, a Norwegian politician, called the executions “a shameful blemish on [Norwegian] culture and a cancer of [Norwegian] society.”53 Throughout the Nazi occupation and in the years after, two camps emerged: the “silk front,” which opposed excessive punishment and the “ice front,” which dominated the media with demands for retributive justice. The latter, seems mostly to have prevailed in public opinion, which for decades haunted Nazis and their relatives, not only with the specter of civil punishment, but also through ridicule and shaming epithets such as “German whores” and

49

Aas, Anne-Lill. TA. October 24, 2005. http://www.ta.no/nyheter/article1795814.ece (accessed March 2013). Kaplan, Robert M. "Norwegian psychiatry and the trial of Vidkun Quisling." Informa health care, June 2012: 1-4. 51 Kroglund, 139. See also, In A Stand Against Tyranny: Norway's Physicians and the Nazis, by Maynard M. Cohen, 279. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2000. 52 In Quisling, Dahl, 413. 53 In Om landssvikoppgjøret. Innstilling fra et utvalg nedsatt for å skaffe tilveie materiale til en innberetning fra Justisdepartementet til Stortinget, by Justis- og politidepartementet, 475. Gjøvik: Mariendals Boktrykker , 1962. 50

12

“German kids”—children who allegedly were subjected to sexual abuse, rape and chemical experiments after the war.54 The image of collaborators that prevailed among educated professionals was equally pejorative; among Norwegian psychiatrists, National Socialists were often viewed as mentally aberrant. The most prominent psychiatrist in Norway at that time, Gabriel Langfeld, wrote that the collaborators were psychopaths with “. . .abnormal drives and emotional lives” and that they reminded him of Lombroso’s born criminals, with their “deformed faces and dysplastic body types.”55 The question whether xenophobic, right-wing intolerance of foreigners might be evidence of mental unbalance was raised in the 1946 case of Norway’s leading literary figure, the Nobel Laureate novelist and Nazi sympathizer Knut Hamsun, who was among those facing trial for treason. He had been a supporter of the Norwegian Nazi party National Gathering and had written provocative newspaper articles begging Norwegians not to resist the Nazi invasion or the new fascist regime. Hamsun made a gift of his Nobel Medallion to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, and was an ardent supporter of Hitler, even writing an obituary praising him as “a warrior for mankind, and a prophet of the gospel of justice for all nations.”56 At trial Hamsun was unyielding and unrepentant. The trial court ordered a psychiatric examination of Hamsun, which concluded that he was sane but suffered from “permanently impaired mental faculties.”57 On the basis of this conclusion Hamsun was fined an amount equal to his life savings, a devastating blow but still a modest penalty in comparison to other leading fascist collaborators who were shot or imprisoned. 54 Isherwood, Julian. The Telegraph. November 30, 2002. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/1414838/Norway-to-payfor-lost-years-of-war-children.html (accessed January February, 2013). 55 Kroglund, 287-288. 56 Gibbs, Walter. The New York Times. February 27, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/books/28hams.html?_r=0 (accessed November 2011). 57 Dahl, Hans Fredrik. Store norske leksikon. February 28, 2013. http://snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Johan_Lippestad/utdypning_%E2%80%93_1 (accessed February 2013).

13

The psychiatric diagnosis was a humiliation for the Nobel Laureate, but Hamsun’s last novel, On Overgrown Paths, published after his trial, proved to be an astonishing work of literature, which mostly delegitimized the conclusion that he suffered from dementia. The author seemed as capable and gifted as ever, even though the book re-confirmed his radical right wing politics. Many critics and great writers have praised the literary quality of his novels, especially Hunger, Growth of the Soil, Pan, and Victoria: Isaac Bashevis Singer argued that the “whole modern school of fiction in the twentieth century stems from Hamsun…”58; and Ernest Hemmingway stated that he had learned how to write by reading Hamsun’s books59 But, Hamsun, who after the war wrote “another day dawns tomorrow, and I can wait. I have time on my side,” was mostly ridiculed for at least fifty years after his death, even though his books were widely read. He has become a traumatic enigma in Norwegian culture and society: ought he to be recalled as a Nazi hack and true believer in National Socialism or as one of Norway’s great creative artists who pioneered psychological literature? Indeed, time has been on Knut Hamsun’s side. The author of a recent biography refers to Hamsun as “a ghost that won’t stay in the grave”60. In 2003, King Harald set off debate by quoting a snippet of Hamsun’s prose in a speech.61 A few years later Queen Sonja opened a yearlong, publicly financed commemoration of Hamsun’s 150th birthday called Hamsun 2009, by unveiling a statue of him near the spot where a new $20million Hamsun museum was being built. Referring to Hamsun’s talent and to his “dark side,” the Queen said: “I think we’ll have to keep two thought in our head at the same time.”62

58

Frank, Jeffrey. The New Yorker. December 26, 2005. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/26/051226crat_atlarge#ixzz2GmdKYX7S (accessed March 2013). 59 Alieva, Elmira. "The St. Petersburg Times." November 6, 2009. http://www.sptimes.ru/?action_id=2&story_id=30228 (accessed March 2013). 60 Gibbs. 61 Dagbladet.no . October 23, 2003. http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2003/10/23/381709.html (accessed February 2013). 62 Gibbs.

14

It was not imaginable at the time that within two years Norwegians would again be facing the question raised in Knut Hamsun’s case: whether a sane man (whether ordinary or brilliantly talented) can be impelled to action (whether treason or murder) by extremist right-wing ideology? But there were signs that trouble was brewing.

A History of Right-Wing Political Violence in Norway: The Era between Hamsun and Breivik At the end of World War Two a great deal of theoretical and empirical research was directed at understanding the nature and causes of right-wing extremism, though the phenomenon was generally referred to as fascism, Nazism or right-wing radicalism.63 But at the war’s end right-wing criminality seemed to have been decisively overcome. In Europe the Italian fascists had been overthrown, members of National Gathering were punished as “Quislings,” and Germany lay in ruins. New democratic and international organizations were created in Western Europe, and in the period of prosperity that followed, right-wing violence seemed to have disappeared as a cause of concern. Since then, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been a gradual worldwide resurgence of the radical right, and this is especially evident in Europe, reflected in the increasing support for non-violent radical right political parties, and the emergence of violent right-wing extremist movements, groups and individuals.64 While contemporary radical right parties have been volatile and varied in their agendas and levels of success, they have in general

63 64

Knigge, 250. Goodwin and Ramalingam, 4.

15

been characterized by aggressive nationalistic chauvinism, xenophobic hostility to multicultural societies, and racist attitudes about foreign minorities and asylum seekers.65 In Europe, in comparison to the United States, signs of racial and ethnic segregation hardly existed following the post-war period. Because of this, radical right-wing parties were not only rare at the end of World War Two, but lacked any electoral support to have a significant role in the political mainstream, they were simply too disreputable. To openly advocate against minorities, let alone to flirt with ideologies that had so recently caused the death of millions, Ian Buruma has observed, was far beyond vulgar. Even to suggest that large-scale immigration could be a problem, Buruma says, was considered “racist until not so long ago".66 That began to change in the 1980s. Increasing rates of immigration combined with an economic downturn caused by a Middle East oil embargo, fueled the growth of radical right parties all across Western Europe with electoral success, political representation, and newfound respectability: the French National Front, Belgian Vlaams Blok, German Republikaner, the Austrian Freedom Party, and the Northern League in Italy.67 The trend developed a little more slowly in Scandinavia. In 1988 the Danish progress party received 9.8 percent of the votes in a national election. In Sweden Ny Demokrati (New Democracy) gained 6.8 percent of the votes and 25 seats parliament in 1991. The Norwegian progress party (Fremskrittspartiet) became the third largest party in Norway.68 The electoral success of contemporary right-extremist parties continued to grow through the 1990s. In 1999, the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) won a quarter of the vote in Austria, the Flemish Vlaams Blok received 15 percent of the vote in Belgium, and the French 65

Bernt Hagtvet. "Right-Wing Extremism in Europe." Journal of Peace Research, vol.31, no.3, 1994: 241. Ian Buruma. "Europe's Turn to the right." The Nation, August 29, 2011 67 Betz, 414. 68 Modig, Ingrid (this version includes contributions from more than a hundred people). Statistical Yearbook of Norway 2012. Oslo: Statistics Norway, 2012: 32. 66

16

Front National gathered more than 10 percent.69 Roughly a decade later, in 2010, Geert Wilder's anti-Islam party for freedom won 15.5 percent of the vote in The Netherlands, True Fins received 19 percent in Finland. In Hungary, the extreme nationalist party Jobbik received 16.7 percent of vote.70 The rise of extreme and far right-wing parties in electoral politics is also evident across Scandinavia. In 2005 the Danish People’s Party received 13.3% of the vote in Denmark, and by 2009 the FRP became the second largest party in the Norwegian Parliament with 614,717 votes, 22.1% of the total, exceeded only by the Labor Party, which received 949 049 votes.71 In 2010 the Sweden Democrats, building on modest successes in the 1990s achieved representation in the Swedish parliament as an openly anti-immigrant party.72 No doubt the attack on twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York on September 10, 2001 and the war against Islamic terrorism that ensued hardened attitudes throughout the West. Even assuming there are no connections between the political and military wings of rightwing movements in Europe, violent extremists must be encouraged by the successes of extreme right political parties as evidence that racist and xenophobic hostility to immigrants and minorities is widespread in the culture of these countries. And we may wonder, if such attitudes are sufficiently widespread to be represented in Parliament, can they be considered evidence of insanity?

69

Marcel Lubbers, Mérove Gijsberts, and Peer Scheepers. "Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe." European Journal of Political Research, 2002: 345. 70 Goodwin and Ramalingam, 17. 71 Modig, 32. 72 Jørgen Goul Andersen & Tor Bjørklund,. "Scandinavia and the Far-Right." The Far Right in Europe , 2008: 17.

17

A History of Right-Wing Political Violence in Norway: Contemporary RightWing Violent Extremism In the general mess of terrorist activity in Europe in the 1980s and 90s, left-wing terrorism, religious terrorism, nationalist terrorism, right wing terrorism was far from conspicuous. Only a very few events stand out: The August 1980 Bologna attributed to a neofascist group killing 85 and injuring more than 200 people.73 That same year at Oktoberfest, a right-wing terrorist attack in Munich led to the death of the attacker and 13 others, and 215 additional injuries.74 More recently there seems to be an increase in the level of right-wing violence. In 2007 a British National Party sympathizer was imprisoned after being found with large amounts of explosive chemicals that he had stockpiled in anticipation of a forthcoming race war caused by the “evil of immigration.”75 In 2010 an activist linked to the neo-Nazi group Kameradschaft Achener Land (KAL) was taken into custody, and several improvised explosives and incendiary devices were confiscated.76 Then, only a few months after the shocking terrorist attack in Norway, right-violence again made the headlines titles when an Italian gunman, Gianluca Casseri, with links to the extreme right group Casa Pound, murdered two Senegal street vendors and wounded three others. What appeared to be a racially motivated attack, caused outrage in the Italian Senegal community, and while more than 200 Senegal marched in solidarity throughout Florence and the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano condemned all forms of "racist violence and xenophobia,"

73

“1980: Bologna blast leaves dozens dead,” BBC, August 2, 1980, accessed January 29, 2012, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_4532000/4532091.stm. 74 Jan Friedmann, Conny Neumann, Sven Röbel and Steffen Winter, “1980 Oktoberfest Bombing: Did Neo-Nazi Murderer Really Act Alone?” Spiegel Online International, September 14, 2010, accessed February 29, 2012, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,717229,00.html. 75 Goodwin and Ramalingam, 37. 76 Goodwin and Ramalingam, 37.

18

Casseri was praised as a true Italian and a "white hero" in the right-extreme scene in Italy, with a support group on Facebook entitled "Gianluca died for us" with more than 6000 user "likes."77 At about the same time a neo-Nazi cell, the National Socialist Underground (NSU), was discovered by German authorities. This neo-Nazi group with three core members claimed responsibility for a bombing in Cologne in 2004 that injured 22 people, mostly Turkish, and had apparently murdered 10 people, mostly Turkish, between 2000 to 2007.78 During the investigation the authorities also found a “hit list” of 88 political targets, including two prominent Bundenstag members and representatives of Islamic and Turkish groups.79 In light of the close cultural, political, economic and military connections between Western Europe and the United States, it is important to observe that the growth of right wing political violence in Europe is part of a larger transatlantic phenomenon. In the United States the events that stand out most prominently are the 1995 truck bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh which caused 168 deaths and 754 injuries, and the 1996 pipe bomb attacks during the Olympic Games in Atlanta carried out by the radical extremist Eric Robert Rudolph—fueled by his extreme anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality beliefs—killing two people and injuring more than 200.80 Despite the fact that these events are almost twenty years old, as recently as 2009 a report of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis concluded that white supremacist militias and other radical rightist groups have been on a steady resurgence. The report raises the spectra that economic and political factors are driving rightwing extremist 77 “African street vendors shot dead in Florence,” Aljazeera, December 14 2012, accessed January 26, 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/12/20111213224914215112.html. 78 “Germany seeks public help in neo-Nazi murder hunt,” BBC, December 1, 2011, accessed February 26, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15982826. 79 Helen Pidd and Luke Harding, “German neo-Nazi terrorists had 'hitlist' of 88 political targets: Names of two prominent Bundestag members on list found by police investigating activities of National Socialist Underground,” The Guardian, November 16, 2011, accessed February 26, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/german-neo-nazi-terror-hitlist. 80 “1996: Bomb rocks Atlanta Olympics”, BBC, July 27, 1996, accessed January 29, 2012, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/27/newsid_3920000/3920865.stm.

19

recruitment and radicalization activity, and that “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced” than in past years. In addition, it raises the concern that “the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization."81 What is more, there is evidence that American white Supremacist and militia groups’ propaganda campaigns have reached a wide international audience of potential sympathizers;82 the growth of the Internet with its almost costless publication and global distribution has been a major factor in this development. Recent events in Oslo, Cologne and Florence demonstrate right-wing extremism can no longer be seen as a minor security threat in Europe.83 Growing resentment of foreigners, minorities and liberal democratic political regimes combined with global communication and access to weaponry makes right-wing violence a significant challenge to the established order. Right-wing terrorists represent a challenge to the existence of constitutional democracy within nations, and to the conception of human rights generally.84 Their enemies are not only Muslims and other dark skin foreigners, but also "...“liberal elites,” “multiculturalists” and “appeasers” who are fatally undermining the West and selling Europe out to the Islamofascists.85 The Norwegian far right ideologue Peder Jensen, who is mentioned more than 60 times in Breviks manifesto, believes Europe is experiencing a "multicultural war," that Muslims are invading the borders of Europe with the collaboration of Multicultural government elites.86

81

Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Treath Analysis Division. Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. Unclassified//For Official Use Only, United States: Office of Intelligence and Analysis Assessment, 2009: 3. 82 Extremism and Radicalization Branch, 4. 83 Goodwin and Ramalingam, 4. 84 Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Six Months On From Norway Attacks, Policy Meeting and Report Higlighted New Treaths From Europe's Radical Right. Press Release-Embargoed , Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2012: 1. 85 Buruma. 86 Bayoumi, Moustafa . The Nation. May 2, 2012. http://www.thenation.com/article/167682/breiviks-monstrous-dream-and-why-it-failed# (accessed October 2012).

20

Similar war rhetoric can be found in Bruce Bawer’s best-seller While Europe Slept and many blogs such as Gates of Vienna (where Suleiman the Magnificent and the Muslim invasion of Europe was turned back in 1529). A representative anonymous post on Gates of Vienna states that Muslims and their Leftist allies won't be expelled without a fight...They are nothing but traitorous communists in disguise and have worked tirelessly for 50+ years at wrecking the U.S. and Europe. They are even more of a threat than Muslims, since they were the ones who brought them over to be explicitly used as thugs to terrorize the locals into submission.87

Muslims only make up roughly 3 percent of the population in Norway,88 but widespread anti-immigration sentiment and xenophobia, directed especially against Muslims, centers on the way Oslo, the national capital has become a multicultural city with immigrants constituting roughly a quarter of the population. There are neighborhoods where Norwegian language, cuisine and folkways seem almost to disappear, which may make some cultural conservatives anxious or uncomfortable. There is much more widespread concern throughout the nation about high crime rates and violence committed by minorities in Oslo. A 2009 police report covering a three year span, listed 41 charges of sexual abuse allegedly committed by non-western immigrants. 89 A 2012 study by the Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities, found that Norwegian attitudes were more negative towards Somalis, Roma and Muslims, than

87 Jensen, Peder "Fjordmann" Are Nøstvold. Gates of Vienna. September 20, 2012. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-islam-doesnot-belong-in-western.html (accessed October 2012): Comment 7:34 PM. 88 Younge, Gary. The Nation. July 25, 2011. http://www.thenation.com/article/162270/europes-homegrown-terrorists (accessed December 2012). 89 Veum, Eirik , and Gaute Zakariassen. NRK. April 15, 2009. http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/1.6567955 (accessed October 2012).

21

any other minority groups.90 In particular, the negative attitudes towards Muslims were based on the perception that Muslims cause societal problems in Norway.91 These attitudes are reflected in frequent negative portrayals of Muslims in Norwegian media. A 2009 study of the use of language during the election in Norway found that the word "Muslim" was used as often as "Prime Minister," and virtually all references to Muslims were negative.92 Breivik, who grew up in Oslo, expressed anger about the number of Norwegian women raped by Muslims, and claimed that he had also been violently attacked by Muslim and other immigrants.93 Equally hostile messages can be found all over the Norwegian far right blogosphere. Increasing resentment of Muslims in all sectors of society provide an increasingly broader and more receptive audience for right wing extremists messages filled with hostility and intolerance. Whatever the mood of even large segments of the public about multiculturalism and minorities constitutional democracies can only exist if they protect the political arena by deterring and punishing violence, including violence by racist xenophobic ultra-nationalists. But are the individuals who commit such acts of violence in a political environment, in which there is so much support for their way of thinking, best understood as political criminals or as mentally ill? That became the central legal issue in the trial of Anders Breivik after the massacre on Utoya Island.

Breivik’s Ideology: Prelude to Mass Murder

90

Hoffmann, Christhard , Øivind Kopperud , and Vibeke Moe. "Antisemittisme i Norge?: Den norske befolkningens holdninger til jøder og andre minoriteter." HL-Senteret: The Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities, May 2012: 6. 91 Ibid., 8. 92 Strabac, Zan, and Marko Valenta. "Attitudes toward Muslim immigrants in Norway." n.d.: 8. Transnational Terrorism, Security & the Rule of Law. "20th Century Right Wing Groups in Europe." Transnational Terrorism, 2008. 93 Friedrichsen, Gisela. Spiegel Online. April 24, 2012. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/was-anders-breivik-s-killing-spree-spurred-byintent-or-insanity-a-829145.html (accessed January 2013).

22

Breivik seems to have spent more than six years planning the attack, while living a withdrawn life with occasional social connections, mostly playing video games, writing a secret manifesto, much of it copied and pasted from right-wing web-based sources, and blogging against Marxism and Muslims online. Withdrawing from society and living with his mom, Breivik became increasingly involved in his fanatical dream world. At the time of his capture (and apparently still) Breivik believed that he had completed a righteous act on behalf of the Norwegian people. Grand rhetoric and narcissistic violent attitudes were central to Breivik’s mental state. He posted a twitter message shortly before his attack saying, “the belief of one individual is stronger than the interest of 100,000 individuals.”94—he thought of himself as a clandestine national hero. In his manifesto, Breivik poses in different military costumes and wargear, some with fictional medals of Honors for accomplishments he had yet to perform. In one, he is seen wearing a homemade “Muliculti Traitor Hunting Permit” patch, representing the privilege to kill he had bestowed upon himself. Breivik saw violence as a legitimate tool to evoke a nationalistic uprising against the ruling Labor party, the "Marxists," whom he saw as responsible for the failure of Norwegian society to fend off a Muslim demographic "invasion" of the country. To Breivik, fighting for a “pure” Norwegian culture seemed to be worth any cost in lives, even his own, in what he saw as a “martyrdom operation.”95 In court, Breivik claimed not to always have been a believer in violence. As a former member of a non-radical far right party, the Progress Party, he claimed to have altered course towards violent right extremism after learning about the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999.96According to Breivik, this was clear evidence of how Marxist elites had

94

Christian, et al. 2012. Schwirtz , Michael , and Matthew Saltmarsh . The New York Times. July 24, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/world/europe/25breivik.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed December 2012). 96 Schwirtz, et al. 2011.

95

23

murdered European brothers for the sake of Muslims. His view of Muslims and leftist elites gradually emerged as a deep-rooted hatred, seeing Marxist conspiracies in every corner of Norwegian society, biased leftist media with Marxist agendas, and a government elite cooperating with Muslims to corrupt the ethnicity and culture of the Norwegian people. Breivik’s manifesto asserts that for decades the government has intended to promote a multicultural experiment and a covert genocide of “native” Norwegians. In court, Breivik struggled to portray himself as a decent human being with concern for others, yet with strong political beliefs. He emphasized on several occasions how he had prepared mentally for something he knew would be barbaric and horrifying. In his manifesto he writes, “I have grown to be extremely mentally disciplined and…undergone numerous hours of training and simulations.”97 He claimed to have used training methods similar to those used by soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and ancient Japanese meditation techniques to prepare for the heinousness of his attack.98 When contemplating the possibility of actually shooting people, Breivik planned to listen to music such as Lux Aeterna by Clint Maswell to help drive his passionate hatred.”99 He justified killing innocent young people by linking them to Marxism and multiculturalism, which Breivik saw as the root of all evil. During the massacre on Utoya, Breivik screamed “…all you Marxist will die,”100 alternating between shouts of joy and anger. Adrian Pracon heard these shouts, stared fearfully into the barrel of Breivik’s rifle, but was not shot. The reason for this, Breivik later argued was because he “appeared right wing. When I saw him, I saw myself. I know that I look like a right-

97

Gardham, Duncan . The Telegraph. July 26, 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8663762/Norway-killingsBreiviks-plan-for-the-day.html (accessed September 2012). 98 Ravndal. 2012 99 Meldalen, Sindre Granly . Dagbladet Nyheter. November 13, 2011. http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/11/13/nyheter/innenriks/terror/anders_behring_breivik/utoya/18992765/ (accessed September 2012). 100 CBS News. April 20, 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57417649/breivik-describes-hunting-down-panicked-teens/ (accessed October 2012).

24

wing person.”101 But Breivik had no concerns or regrets about the so-called Marxist youngsters he had killed; this was evident shortly after his arrest, when he requested immediate medical treatment for a cut on his finger.102 The absurdity of his complaint produced a moment of laughter during the trial, but also revealed the mass murderer’s lack of empathy for his victims. This lack of empathy eventually became an element of the underlying legal question before the court since the defendant did not deny commission of the murderous acts: the mens rea question, whether Breivik was a sane man. Did the fundamental conspiratorial premise of his thinking set Breivik apart from sane men even if his thinking from that first premise was rational? Is Breivik to be judged insane because of the fervor of his belief in a cause? These questions do not seek to reduce condemnation of what was done, but only to ask if the criminal acts were done by a sane or insane person.

Breivik’s Sanity: The Psychiatric Reports Within a week of the attack, the trial court decided to assemble a psychiatric team to observe Breivik and come to a conclusion about his mental health.103 The decision was based on section 165 of the Norwegian Criminal Procedural Act, which provides that district court may appoint psychiatric experts when necessary for reaching a decision. On July 28, Torgeir Husby and Synne Sorheim were appointed to conduct the first psychiatric evaluation of Breivik. Their assessment of Breivik’s sanity was pieced together from a variety of sources. It consisted of more than a dozen interviews with Breivik (totaling 36

101

Wernersen, Camilla , Kristin Rivrud Møller, Anne Cathrine Syversen, and Thomas Nikolai Blekeli. NRK. April 23, 2012. http://www.nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/breivik-husket-adrian-pracon-1.8092843 (accessed September 2012). 102 Aspaas Auestad, et al. 2012. 103 (2012, September 5). Retrieved March 2013, from Lovdata: http://www.lovdata.no/nyhet/dok/toslo-2011-120995-1.html

25

hours)104 and his mother, as well as records of police interrogations105, psychometric tests, documents related to Breivik’s childhood, and his stay at the National Centre of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (SSBU) center at the age of four,106 which concluded that Brevik’s “care situation [was] so deficient that he [was] at risk of developing more serious psychopathology.”107 Nevertheless the case was closed with no further social service assistance.108 Husby and Sorheim concluded that Breivik began a path of continual deterioration into early adult onset schizophrenia in 2006109 when he moved back in with his mother, gave up work and began to withdraw from social interaction, except with his mother. He spent most of his time in his room while she took care of washing his clothes, buying groceries and preparing his food.110 This apparent dependency evaporated in 2011when he moved out, rented a farm in Osterdalen, and began making the sophisticated bomb that killed eight people at the government center in Oslo. But, Breivik’s drastic withdrawal from society after 2006 was an important piece of evidence on which the first psychiatric diagnosis was based. Using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD10) diagnostic manual, Husby and Sorheim found that Breivik satisfied several criteria of paranoid schizophrenia: being delusional, claiming to know what others are thinking; having prolonged, bizarre delusions, believing he is engaged in a civil war leading to coup d’états in Europe; and, having the power to decide who can live and die.111 He was found to have

104

Friedrichsen, G. (2012, April 24). Retrieved January 2013, from Spiegel Online: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/was-andersbreivik-s-killing-spree-spurred-by-intent-or-insanity-a-829145.html 105 Husby, et al. 220. 106 McPherson , Ben, Michael Sandelson , and Lyndsey Smith. The Foreigner. June 15, 2012. http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/breivik-trial-day37 -experts-describe-difficult-conditions-and-defend-report/ (accessed January 2013). 107 Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) - Judgment, TOSLO-2011-188627-24E (11-188627MED-OTIR/05) (Oslo District Court August 24, 2012): 19. 108 Ibid., 19. 109 Husby, et al., 227. 110 Ibid., 218. 111 Ibid., 228.

26

neologism, reduced empathy and collapse of social, practical and economic self-sufficiency.112 Breivik’s mother was a source for much of the information about her son’s apparent social, economic, and self-sufficiency decay. She described her son as “uncomfortably intense” and fanatical when talking about his radical right viewpoints.113 Being around him was like being in prison, she had said, and Breivik called her both a Marxist and a feminist.114 Sometimes, he would sit uncomfortably close to his mother in the living room,115 once attempting to kiss her. She also reported that beginning in 2010 Breivik became obsessed about the danger of becoming sick, using a face mask while inside and passing food plates under his door to protect himself from becoming infected with germs. The paradox, of Breivik’s skewed depiction of himself as a Knights Templar savior and the reality of a loner, who spent most of his time in his room, was a sign of sickness according to the psychiatrists. Psychiatric interviews with Breivik often became bizarre with Breivik chanting narcissistically about his success as a pioneer in a low-level European civil war. He compared himself to historical figures such as Tsar Nicholas and Queen Isabella, and described his ambition to enhance Norwegian ethnicity and culture, eliminate sickness and reduce divorces by building genetic pools as a reserve for “native Norwegians,” using DNA testing to identify ethnic “pure” Norwegians, and establishing factories for childbirths. 116 Breivik believed that his act of terror had set the stage for a coup d’état that would establish him as a regent. He planned to rename himself Sigurd Cross Wanderer the Second (Sigurd Korsfarerer den 2)117 and be in charge of deporting thousands of Muslims to the shores of North Africa. Husby and Sorheim concluded that Breivik was a narcissist, anti-empathic, homicidal person with firm grandiose, 112

Ibid., 228. Ibid., 223. 114 Lewis, Mark . Mail Online. June 14, 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159341/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Mother-revealstried-kissing-moved-home-aged-27.html (accessed December 2012). 115 Husby, et al., 223. 116 Ibid., 225. 117 Ibid., 225. 113

27

paranoid delusions.118 This conclusion was widely ridiculed report on the grounds that it did not place Breivik’s radical right beliefs in context of right wing extremism in Europe. Some critics argued that it was naïve psychologism to explain Breivik’s actions without considering the widespread bigotry of right wing belief in Europe.119 The mass murderer appeared to be a loner, but his radical right wing beliefs are widely shared and closely akin to the ideology and anti-Muslim sentiment of the extreme right of the political mainstream in Europe. Thus, it is possible to imagine Breivik’s crimes as motivated by a set of extreme political beliefs and implemented with substantial recourse to reason from those first principles, not just as the product of paranoid delusions. With this in mind, a second psychiatric report was commissioned by the court. This one, written by Agnar Aspaas and Terje Torrissen, explicitly considered how nationalistic, xenophobic, racist extreme right wing ideology had contributed to Breivik’s radicalization. The team of psychiatrists observed Breivik for three weeks in prison, studied his health records and conducted interviews. They also had access to transcripts of police interrogations of Breivik after the completion of the first psychiatric evaluation showing his dissatisfaction with the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, which threatened the image he wished to project as a modern knight and crusader. He concluded that he had to “tone down” his rhetoric, and began to reassess his past statements, recognizing that they had contributed to the diagnosis of insanity. He redefined the Knights Templar, admitting that his earlier descriptions were a glorified image of the prominent role he hoped the organization would play in the coming new Europe. He also acknowledged that his manifesto was provocative and sometimes even fictional, but maintained that it was 118

Ibid., 220-232. Hopperstad , Morten , Dennis Ravndal , Jarle Grivi Brenna , and Eva-Therese Grøttum. VG Nett. May 31, 2012. http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10053976 (accessed March 2013). 119

28

useful as a sort of encyclopedia to help breach “burnmarksystem,” –the fundamentals of the existing social order— and bring about a better future.120 Aspaas and Torrissen were keenly aware that Breivik was controlling his behavior to give the impression of sanity, but concluded that Breivik was not “psychotic, unaware or severely mentally handicapped at the time of the acts,”121 and also that he was “not marginally mentally handicapped or psychotic at the time of the examinations.” 122 Their report specifically disagreed with the earlier report’s conclusion of psychotic delusion, and asserted that Breivik’s behavior had to be understood as “an expression of rightwing extremist points of view in combination with a grandiose and narcissistic personality.” 123

Breivik’s Sanity: The Judgment of the Court The presiding judge at Breivik’s trial was Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, the granddaughter of Sven Arntzen, a prominent jurist who had served as chief prosecutor during Norway’s post war denazification trials.124 In addition, the court consisted of a second Professional District Court Judge, Arne Lyng, and three lay judges; Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisløff. Since the facts of the case were not in controversy, the principal question before the court was whether Breivik could, as the prosecution argued, be found not guilty by virtue of insanity, a result that would permit his indefinite detention. Breivik vigorously asserted his sanity. He

120

Aspaas , Agnar , and Terje Tørrissen. "Rettspsykiatrisk erklæring til Oslo tingrett." Psychiatric evaluation of Anders Behring Breivik, Oslo, 2012:71 121 22. Juli-Saken: Norges domstoler. April 10, 2012. http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/22-7/Nyheter-om-227-saken/Psychiatric-report-Not-considered-psychotic/ (accessed December 2012). 122 Ibid. 123 Oslo District Court, 1. 124 Lyngtveit, E. (2013, February 27). Retrieved March 2013, from Store norske leksikon: http://snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Sven_Arntzen/utdypning

29

pointed out that many highly respected experts had evaluated him while in jail, and only Husby and Sorheim concluded that he was insane. In law, Breivik emphasized, all men are presumed to be sane, and the burden of proof is high to prove otherwise.125 He claimed his violent actions were rational, constituting self-defense—“nodrett,” that history would view him as a hero for having attempted to stop multiculturalism, “the evil of our time,” and that the government and the judges, if they condemned him, would be regarded by history as traitors. 126 Norway’s rules of criminal procedure grant judges authority to initiate inquiries into the mental state of criminal defendants, even those who do not raise the issue themselves. § 44 of the Norwegian Penal Code requires that a judgment of insanity be based on a finding that the defendant was “psychotic at the time of committing the act.”127 The judges noted that the common judicial practice was to adopt psychiatric opinion when it is unanimous, but that when psychiatrists disagree it is the responsibility of the court to determine whether the defendant’s mental state satisfies the legal understanding of “psychosis.”128 The first issue that the judges addressed was the burden of proof. The law presumes, as Breivik pointed out correctly, that all citizens are sane and competent to handle their affairs. Sanity is the default position. A judicial finding of insanity requires at least clear and convincing proof; the judges agreed that “a preponderance of probability would not be sufficient.”129 With that evidentiary standard in mind, the judges set out to determine how decisions of the Norwegian Supreme Court, and the report of the committee that had drafted the Penal Code characterized the legal conception of “psychotic,” as a person who can not make realistic assessments of his or her relationship to the surrounding world. The Penal Committee noted, 125

VG Nett. June 22, 2012. http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10051118 (accessed March 2013). Aas, Anne-Lill. TA. October 24, 2005. http://www.ta.no/nyheter/article1795814.ece (accessed March 2013). 126 Ibid. 127 Police, Ministry of Justice, translated by Harald Schjoldager, Finn Backer, Ronald Walford, Sandra Hammilton, and Maidie Kloster. The General Civil Penal Code. The Unofficial Tranlation of Norwegian General Civil Penal Code, Det Kongelige Justis- og Politidepartement, 2005 128 Oslo District Court, 54. 129 Ibid., 51.

30

however, that a psychosis did not have to constitute a complete failure to comprehend one’s surrounding: “a flawed perception of reality in a limited sector may, for the patient, assume such dimensions and have such consequences for his relationship to the surrounding world” to justify an assessment of a person as psychotic.130 District Court Judge Arntzen and Lyng also referred to the Ministry of Justice’s statement on criminal insanity, Odelsting No. 87 (1993-1994):

the principal characteristic of a psychosis is that the relationship to reality is significantly disturbed. The ability to react adequately to ordinary impressions and influences is lacking. The psychotic person often loses control over his thoughts, emotions and actions. Intellectual functions, on the contrary, may be intact. The dividing line between psychosis and other mental disorders is not sharp.

The court also referred approvingly to the first team of psychiatrists’ summary of the psychiatric understanding of psychosis as “an impaired, erroneous or failing perception or interpretation of reality” associated with delusional ideas “contrary to what is perceived as real by others. Was there clear and convincing evidence that Breivik was psychotic in the sense that he could not make realistic assessments of his relationship to the surrounding world? The first team of psychiatrist offered the evidence of Breivik’s retreat from the world in 2006, five years before the crime, his economic collapse, moving in with his mother who provided a degree of care, obsessions with violent video games, extended isolation locked in his bedroom as evidence of

130

Ibid., 50.

31

adult onset schizophrenia, a psychotic condition.131 Other experts including the second psychiatric assessment team were not convinced that Breivik’s social withdrawal should be interpreted as mental decay; other explanations than “social collapse” seem equally or even more plausible. The second team, noting that Breivik had been able to support himself financially through on-line activities, concluded that his retreat to his mother’s home was a deliberate decision based on his political beliefs to prepare for a coming race war, and his exploration of right wing Internet sites, communication with right wing extremists, and study of weapons and military tactics including the pedagogy of video games were a form of political engagement rather than a break from reality.132 Friends of Breivik described him as social, polite and a good friend, but also that he was very goal-oriented and stubborn when it came to his personal beliefs, which made him an “outsider” even among friends.133 He was known for making nontraditional choices, as when in 1998 he dropped out in the final year of upper secondary school to start a business to earn money. He was described as “110%” committed to his own interests.134 This suggests that his drastic decision in 2006 to quit work and move in with his mother might have represented a “110%” commitment to pursue his interests in the radical right. It was economical and convenient to live with his mother. He could concentrate on what interested him the most, and there is a sense in which his withdrawal from the world was far from complete, given the new universe of on line communication. Breivik’s social interactions on the Internet were extensive. He began playing World of War Craft in 2006 under the names A Nordic and Conservatism. In the game he functioned as a

131

Husby, et al., 232-233. Oslo District Court, 73. 133 Nett, V. (2012, May 29). Retrieved December 2012, from VG Nett: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10053748:09:47. 134 Oslo District Court, 64. 132

32

guild master, team leader, for various teams, including one named Virtue, whose members often played 12 to 16 hours a day, six or seven days a week. Breivik continued playing World of War Craft on-and-off until March 2011, averaging of 6.5 hours, and some days playing as much as 17 hours, according to a chart.135 The testimony of an online player who had interacted with him was that Breivik was one of the “best officers” with whom they had ever played. This level of success in a game that requires extensive social interaction through language, demonstrates that Breivik continued to have good communication skills and at least a normal level of cognitive abilities. Evidence of Breivik’s online integration, the judges concluded, undermined the credibility of the claim that he had been in a state of withdrawal arising from a psychosis.136 In addition, the court noted that during the period when Brevik stayed with his mother, he was reportedly well-dressed and groomed, and regularly paid her 3,500 Kroner a month from his savings.137 He also continued to trade stocks; between 2007 and 2009 he sold stocks amounting to approximately 1.1 million NOK from 60 transactions.138 He also joined a Masonic Lodge, attended a few meetings and was promoted in third degree in 2009. He had occasional contact with friends, and no one reported conspicuously strange behavior. He was active on Facebook and had a number of email addresses, all of which points to engagement rather than social collapse. After a period of isolation in 2006 Breivik gradually resumed contact with his friends. One told the court that he had met Breivik about 10-12 times; 139 another recalled Breivik in the early stages of moving in with his mom to be “…disheartened in mood and voice. He was not as exuberant as before, and he wished to limit his contact with us to only a few hours when we

135

Ibid., 21. Ibid., 63 137 Ibid., 64. 138 Ibid., 20. 139 Nett, V., 10:00. 136

33

met.”140 But by 2010 Breivik was spending more time with his friends, visiting them at cafeterias and hanging out with them at parties, 141 once even traveling with some of them to Budapest.142 He eventually regained his “normal-self,” according to his friends. He became more outgoing, conscious of his appearance and physical condition. His friends were relieved by his “return,” especially since his isolation had been taken as a sign of depression, and left them feeling rejected by someone they liked.143 Nevertheless, in the final days before the attack Breivik’s social interactions had not seemed conspicuous or odd at all. 144 His friends did notice an increased concern for politics beginning in 2006, especially the politics of immigration, anti-Muslim attitudes, and hostility to the idea of multiculturalism. Breivik had been politically active with the rightwing FRP (Progress Party) before 2006 and had been passionate about ending immigration;145 he had even studied the Koran. 146 His friends recalled that these interests had been moderate and only become extreme after 2006. People who knew him were aware that he was writing a book as a sort of anti-Islamic anthology, and they noticed his eagerness to talk about his political beliefs, especially his criticism of Islam and how Muslims threatened European societies.147 He began to use phrases such as “suicidal human” and “social Darwinism.” He once told a friend that he felt everyone was soft on multiculturalism even the rightwing political parties.148 When a friend confronted his political beliefs, Breivik had become extremely angry, as if he “had no understanding that there existed other beliefs. His perception of reality was the correct one. He would not listen to anyone

140

Ibid., 11:44. Ibid., 10:10. Oslo District Court, 65. 143 Nett, V., 11:27. 144 Ibid., 10:30. 145 Oslo District Court, 58. 146 Nett, V., 10:27. 147 Ibid., 11:50. 148 Ibid., 11:53. 141 142

34

else’s opinions.”149 His friends seemed to have brushed away this “peculiarity,” and preferred other topics of conversation; they were happy that Breivik had become social again, and it seemed positive that he was getting ready to move out of his mother’s house to a farm in Rena.150 On the basis of all this evidence, the court concluded that Breivik had “stamina, impulse control and good cognitive functions related to the tasks he assigned himself.” 151 Taken alone the way Breivik had lived in the years preceding his terrorist attack did not seem sufficient to satisfy the evidentiary standard required to find that he was insane; but there were additional considerations. A particularly important piece of evidence was the time and care Breivik invested in his 1500-page manifesto, locating, collecting and working with sources. Though largely a work of cut-and-paste, the compendium is a highly detailed terrorism manual, containing not only tracts on the so called Islamisation of Western Europe, “Eurabia,” but also descriptive details of weapons, armor, medicines, chemical reactions, and a how-to manual for violent radical-right extremists. The concluding section includes an interview with himself under the title “Interview with a Justiciar Knight Commander of the PCCCTS, Knights Templar” 152 and a diary he wrote during the weeks before July 22, describing his preparations. The court concluded that Breivik’s treatise, though bizarre, did not support the conclusion of the first psychiatric team that Breivik was “pathological and totally functionally impaired in all areas.” By creating this document and preparing for terror, Breivik demonstrated that he had acquired substantial expertise on building highly sophisticated bombs, covertly acquired chemicals, weapons, equipment and costumes from a variety of online stores and private 149

Ibid., 11:53. Ibid., 10:13. 151 Oslo District Court, 64. 152 Berwick, A. (. (2011). 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence. London: 1349. 150

35

merchants.153 The court also noted that Breivik was able to successfully produce “the bomb [used on July 22] and made a test explosion in advance. The defendant succeeded in keeping his extensive terrorism preparations hidden from the surrounding world. He carried out the terrorist attacks on 22 July 2011 in line with his plans.” In the judgment of the court, the burden of proof that Breivik was psychotic in the general sense that he had a complete break with ordinary reality had not been met. Both teams of psychiatrists agreed, however, that Breivik had a narcissistic personality disorder exacerbated by delusions of grandeur: that he was the leader of the apparently nonexistent right wing extremist organization, Knights Templar, that he had a mandate to act as a military judge, jury and executioner of traitors engaged in the destruction of ethnically pure Norwegians, that he will one day be a leader of the political elite in a resurrected Norway without Muslims, in which there will be mass childbirth factories to advance the propagation of pure Norwegian DNA, that hundreds of thousands supported his violent acts, and that he has an overdeveloped love for the Norwegian people.154 But the experts disagreed about whether these delusions, amounted to schizophrenia which is a psychosis, or “an expression of rightwing points of view in combination with a grandiose and narcissistic personality.”155 Might it be that Breivik was psychotic in the sense of being delusional? This is not the type of psychosis (discussed above) that was contemplated by the committee that drafted the penal code nor had it been considered in earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, but the district court took judicial notice of the question so as to be exhaustive in addressing the question of Breivik’s sanity.

153 Gilbert, J. (2011, July 30). Retrieved March 2013, from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8673118/Norway-massacre-British-traders-helped-supply-Breiviks-arsenal-ofweapons.html 154 Oslo District Court, 55. 155 Ibid., 56.

36

The Court took as a point of departure the World Health Organization diagnostic system for mental and behavioral disorders, sometimes referred to as the “green book.”156 The principal requirement of the Green Book criteria for a diagnosis of delusional psychoses relevant to Breivik’s case is whether he suffered from persistent bizarre delusions, such as delusions of persecution or special mission. The two teams of psychiatrists disagreed on this question. The green book defines persistent schizophrenic (psychotic) delusions as “culturally inappropriate and completely impossible.” On the first of these points the court concluded that Breivik’s rightwing extreme ideas might be considered wrong or even despicable, but that the high evidentiary standard required to conclude that a fellow human being’s political attitudes constitute culturally inappropriate delusions could not be satisfied, especially in light of the fact that anti-immigrant sentiment is so well established in Norwegian history, and that anti-Islamic rhetoric and extremist ideas are common in radical right circles, which have had substantial success in national elections.157 On the second point, the court concluded that Breivik’s delusions were not of such nature as could be called “completely impossible.” According to the Green Book, delusions that you control the weather, that dogs speak, or that aliens from outer space are taking over our minds represent impossibilities in the shared, known world. 158 The idea that one nation might target and invade another may be mistaken, but is not outside the realm of human possibility. The court concluded that Breivik’s behavior did not satisfy the criteria for schizophrenia set forth in the Green Book, as these criteria are normally applied in clinical and scientific practice.159 The overall judgment of the court, announced on August 24th 2012, was that the evidentiary standard, more than a preponderance, had not been achieved in relation to any of the 156

Ibid., 56. Ibid., 58. 158 Ibid., 57. 159 Ibid., 59. 157

37

three major legal grounds on which a finding of psychosis might be based: 1) that Breivik had made a complete break from reality, or 2) that he had persistent grandiose narcissistic delusions that were culturally inappropriate or 3) completely impossible. This is not to say that the court determined that Breivik was sane (and we may have our doubts) but only that the law’s requirements for a finding of insanity had not been satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. In practical terms the holding of the court reduces to this principle: that citizens are permitted to hold extreme racist xenophobic attitudes, but that a person motivated by these hateful attitudes to become a terrorist, a sort of political criminal, is less a madman deserving a degree of compassion than a bad man for whom condemnation and punishment are appropriate. Perhaps this is as much as could have been hoped for.

Breivik’s Sanity in the Context of Rightwing Terrorism If we accept the judgment that Breivik is not a deranged murderer, but a rational terrorist, a political criminal, then it is important to ask what can be learned from his trial about the ideology, organization, tactics and strategies of rightwing terrorism. While Breivik’s justification for murder, so many murders, with children as targets, is bizarre and hard to grasp, it nevertheless contains ideological elements that are broadly shared among violent rightwing terrorists. Within that group Breivik’s underlying motives are unexceptional. He perceived the people in the Government District of Oslo, or the campers at Utoya Island as legitimate targets not only because the destruction of their building and the murder of their children would pierce the heart of what he perceived as an elite class of leftist multiculturalist traitors, but also because the terror would provoke the ruling class into a witch

38

hunt against moderate cultural conservative nationalists; repressions and censorship would destabilize the status quo and lead to polarization driving traditionalists toward further radicalization. As strategy Breivik was embracing asymmetrical warfare; murder and terrorism were tactics. This is not uncommon among terrorists, and the stream of thought has roots that extend to Leon Trotsky, Frantz Fanon, and Carlos Marighella who has inspired a number of twentieth century left-wing terrorists to believe that brutal violence forces governments to adopt repressive measures, which in turn drives the masses of people to support a revolution.160 Ironically, Breivik also adopted practices from Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, his most hated enemies: small cells employing the Internet to spread their message and recruit new members, avoiding mass demonstrations, working outside established political structures and processes.161 Terrorism is about political objectives.162 Breivik’s extraordinary acts of violence captured world attention and left Norwegians horrified. Targets are chosen for their impact on the enemy and their psychologic shock within the larger community. Terror aims to create a chronic state of fear by engaging in violence outside of normative behavior.163 Breivik dreamt of blowing up the Royal Palace and videotaping the decapitation of a former Prime Minister.164 He was looking for “powerful psychological weapons.”165 Asymmetrical warfare and terror have

160

White, J. R. (2012). Terrorism & Homeland Security: Seventh Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning: 67-70. Morris, P. (2011). A Clear and Present Danger or Internet Hyperbole?: 101. 162 White, 11. 163 White, 12. 164 Oslo District Court, 76-77. 165 Fisher, D. (2012, April 19). Retrieved March 2013, from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9214581/Anders-Behring-Breivik-planned-to-decapitate-former-prime-minister-ofNorway.html 161

39

been terrorist strategies across ideological divisions;166 Breivk was inspired in part by Al Qaeda and Timothy Mcveigh. 167 Within the various forms of right wing extremism there are strikingly similar ideological structures used to justify political violence. There are external and internal enemies in a battle of good versus evil. The outsiders might be Muslims, Marxists, Capitalists or Jews, but they are often thought to operate with the aid of traitors who conspire to destroy their own culture. Islamophobia, in Norway, is based on a perception that there is an invasion underway by Islamic culture undermining Norwegian values and racial purity with the assistance of local traitors. One of the more popular conspiracies is called “Eurabia,” and rests on the belief that Muslims and European leaders have an agenda for Muslims to colonize Europe through planned mass immigration. Most people are supposedly unaware of this, as multiculturalism is believed to poison people’s minds making multiculturalists surrender naively to the oppressive regime of Muslim supremacy.168 With the help of the Norwegian Labor Party, Muslims are able to enter Norway freely and systematically deconstruct the culture and “native” Norwegian ethnicity. Muslims are thought to be invoking a new caliphate with Sharia law in all of Western Europe;169 a low intensity war is already underway: Muslims raping western women and establishing “nogo-zones” in Norwegian cities. 170 Breivik believed that hostility would inevitably escalate, leading to a battle between Christians and Islamic multicultural Europe. The last tenet of

166

Nett, V. (2012, June 1). Retrieved March 2013, from VG Nett: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10050770: 10:28. 167 Press, T. A. (2012, April 20). Retrieved March 2013, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/world/europe/norwayanders-breivik-studied-al-qaeda.html?_r=0s. 168 Ash, T. G. (2011, July 28). Retrieved February 2013, from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/29/internetnorway-killer-censorship-folly. 169 Nett, V. (June 1), 13:00. 170 Ibid.

40

Islamophobia is that Muslims will never confess to their secret agenda, as they are fundamentally dishonest, using a developed method of lying called “taqiyya” to hide their plans and motives.171 Close parallels can be noted between the rhetoric of Nazi anti-Semitism and modern Islamophobia, with incidental differences of group identities and the basis for perceiving a threat.172 In Norway during the occupation there were several newspapers published by the National Gathering which contained overt hostility toward Jews as early as 1934.173 The small communities of Jews in Norway were called parasites, and were said to be conspiring to bring about a global empire. The leading national newspaper Dagbladet was called a “Jew-paper,” and Quisling called the Jewish race a destructive force by saturating “Nordo-Germanic blood” since the emancipation of Jews in Norway in 1851.174 The Labor Party was denounced as Jewish and Marxist, a fifth column waiting for an imminent Russian-Marxist invasion. Thugs attacked the tiny Jewish community with banners proclaiming “Norway for Norwegians.” Fascism is inevitably a movement against a perceived enemy of great cunning and strength. Us against them! This makes it easier to justify violence. Rightwing extremists then and now identify an enemy, create an us-against them mentality, then, establish a story of mythological proportions, that inspires and guides demonization of the enemy through language and symbols. 175 They attack their enemies and then blame them for having created social unrest and injustice.176 Rightwing terrorists often target “domestic traitors” first because they stand between them and the masses of people.177 Finally, it must be noted that emerging technologies have begun to transform terrorism.

171

Ibid. Bjørgo, T. (1995). Extreme Nationalism and Violent Discourses in Scandinavia: 'The Resistance', 'Traitors', and 'Foreign Invaders'. In T. Bjørgo, Terror From The Extreme Right (p. 204). London: Frank Cass & Co. LTD: 204. 173 Gustavsen, T. A. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2013, from quislingutstillinga.no: http://www.quislingutstillinga.no/dokumenter/exhibition.pdf: 31. 174 Ibid., 33. 175 White, 48. 176 Ibid. 177 Bjørgo, T. (1995), 204. 172

41

Radical rightwing loners find support through the Internet; and the speed and availability of information has made the spread of radical right hatred and violence transnational. The Internet is a great multiplier of force. Extremists can find one another and form vicious group-think, “echo-chambers,” where hatred is amplified in discussion forums which offer little argument or opposition. Distrust forms the foundation of extremism,178 and the repetitive close-minded reconfirmation of prejudices, conspiracy theories, and an internally consistent world-view, is perfect soil for radicalization. Breivik’s manifesto “with its endless copy-and-pasted pieces from online sources, is a textbook example of that process.”179 The Internet provides a cloak of anonymity, which adds to the security and boldness of extremists. Compare the potential of talented conspirators communicating across the vastness of the world with a few hundred skinheads marching on a street chanting slogans, perhaps overwhelmed by counter protests. Furthermore, while the numbers of demonstrators at a march can be counted and their pictures taken, the members of online visitors to websites and forums cannot be measured in any exact way. To degree to which far right terrorists have established connections through the Internet is hard to gauge. But it seems clear that rightwing terrorism uses emerging technologies to organize and spew hatred to increasing numbers of sympathizers. Their willingness to use all mean necessary to wage a racial or cultural war endangers western civilization, Enlightenment values, and the principles of democracy. The magnitude of the right wing threat is not altogether clear, but it is folly to dismiss it, and the growing presence of the rightwing extremist activity online can only be ignored at our peril.180

178

(2012, June 5). Retrieved February 2013, from VG NETT: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10050767: 10:30. 179 Ash. 180 Morris, 102

42