Defense lawyers are appealing the new psychiatric report.
The defense and Breivik also discussed the next detention meeting, which is scheduled for 6 February.
- He would like to face you himself. He is very clear that he wants to attend and talk about his case, said Lippestad.
- In the previous incarceration meeting, he was interrupted by the judge. Does he have a desire now to say what he was then?
- He has not said what he wants to talk about.
He’s a male chauvinist? I think that was pretty clear already. The food dispenser metaphor didn’t leave a lot to the imagination. Then again,
he does seem to flip back and forth through Book 1.
I would suspect he wasn’t looking for a girlfriend but a Mother for his children. It isn’t always the same thing.
Anders never talked about politics with me.
You should always try to find out some of their key important issues. That you didn’t is part of the reason he didn’t respect you. But respect
isn’t necessary for wanting a good breeder. Not looking for a conversation of depth with someone he didn’t think was capable of it, and proved it
by never even having the thought to ask a relevant question.
You’ll notice in 2083 that he had some respect for women he wrote about who challenged him. He didn’t agree with them. He liked provoking them.
He’d throw them into a fire. But he does have more respect for them and enjoyed their presence.
Political dissection of 2083, first part of Book 1.
This is all very Pro Frankfurt and becomes more so as it goes along. Pulling you along further and further into the ideology. Much like 2083 does.
I particularly like the part at then end where he talks about how the people of the Frankfurt school were all individualists who didn’t want to
dominate cultures, when in reality all of them eventually started to use their framework to do so. Seeing themselves, and their defenders all as
white knights of individualism done their way.
Irony, it never fails to entertain.
The other noteworthy thing about Breivik’s section on intellectual history is its provenance. All of his ideas came from the United States.
Even that may be understating it. Nearly every syllable of Breivik’s diatribe against critical theory, “cultural Marxists,” and militant
feminism was taken from a think tank in the Washington, D.C., area. His rampage was, in effect, the American culture wars continued by other
I find this very interesting. Much of what he’s got in Book 1 and 2 is taken from sources, even when unattributed.
Kaczynski, traces of McVeigh, and I'd be interested to know if he picked out his weapon based on Lepine/Gharbi. Traces of Lepine's suicide note seems
to be in there as well.
I'll note that some of his information on Canada and fertility I suspect come from the magazine Macleans. May 2007. Macleans does a piece about
Lepine on a semi-regular basis. I'd link you, but apparently this particular issue looks to be pulled out of their archives. A piece on Lepine was
in the April and June editions. Lepine changed his name, it was originally Gamil Gharabi. Muslim.
A good summary of Breivik’s opening pages appears in “The Time of the Spectacle,” a book now being written by Douglas Kellner, who is a
professor of philosophy at UCLA. He has published a number of volumes on critical theory -- including a study of the Frankfurt School figure Herbert
Marcuse, who features so prominently in Breivik’s text as to be one of the main villains. Kellner provided me with some paragraphs from a recent
draft of his work in progress, and I would prefer to quote his remarks on the compendium rather than having to spend any more time reading the damned
Ah, so you too like to rely on secondary sources for your information so that you don’t need to process it yourself.
(Of course, that would assume some knowledge of the existence of the Russian Orthodox Church.)
That’s just silly.
Breivik uses the term “cultural Marxism,” writes Kellner, to label “everything that he opposes, including all forms of left, liberal, and
progressive thought…. In his genealogies of cultural Marxism, he privileges the Frankfurt School whose work he interprets as the origins of the
‘political correctness’ movement (i.e. anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, and other forms of tolerance)….” There is no evidence that
the author read a single work by a Frankfurt School thinker or anyone else that he denounces. “The presentation is generally trite,” notes
Kellner, “and based on secondary sources.”
I’d be interested to know if this is true. At some point did he go from looking at sources himself to looking at only secondary sources? Why is
that? Or did he read them, and then find and use someone else’s work to summarize it?
The only part of 2083 that is truly his in entirety is Book 3. Which begs the question – is the ideology to support the Proof of Concept, or is the
Proof of Concept to support the ideology?
I'd like to further note that he hints that you'll find these holes if you look. Layers in layers. Its a game of can-you-see-me.
Where is the real Anders Behring? He is Sigurd, and he is Loki. Only one God touched both Mjølner and Gungnir, want to bet he knows which one? Is
he a crusader or is he a composite of anarchic political mass murders? Is he a religious conservative, or is he looking for the end of all religion
by coopting the mythology of Armageddon and Ragnarok? (1000 years of peace, and the death of the Gods.)
edit on 2012/1/18 by Aeons because:
(no reason given)