• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Breivik was 'already damaged by the age of two'

Gandzooka

Purple Belt
@purple
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
2,173
Reaction score
2,307
Article here:
http://www.tv2.no/a/8241631

In 1983 and 1984, some of Norway's top specialist child psychologists wanted to forcibly remove Anders Behring Breivik from his mother's care.
Whilst pregnant, she claimed the unborn Anders was being 'a difficult child' in her womb.
According to reports obtained by TV 2, she described the unborn baby as "a nasty child that wreaked havoc and tormented her".

She wanted an abortion; however upon returning to Norway, she was pregnant beyond the three-month limit, and so it was too late. Anders, then, was defined by his mother as nasty even before he was born. As quoted in the reports from the 1980s, the mother described the fetus as a "a difficult, fidgety child that kicked her, almost consciously".

A psychological evaluation from 1983 states:
"In her experience, Anders is fundamentally nasty and evil and determined to destroy her," and "she sees herself as a victim of a paranoid system".

No wonder the guy was fucked up. I can't really understand how the court didn't find him to be crazy.
 
Another case where abortion would have been a good thing
 
I read most of Brevik's Manifesto, and the parts that I didn't read I still took a good long look at, I concluded that he was not insane.
 
Mother a nutcase and had a father who abandoned him. Nice.
 
I read most of Brevik's Manifesto, and the parts that I didn't read I still took a good long look at, I concluded that he was not insane.

It's funny how the self grandiose revenge fantasies of the socially impotent all seem so similar (we see a lot of the same material here in the War Room).
Although in Breivik's case I think he did in fact copy large chunks from Kaczynski's Industrial Society and It's Future...
 
Ya, he explicitly states at the beginning of the book that much of it is a collaboration of authors besides himself.
 
She was absolutely correct. Some people are born evil.

Mostly this is just fabricated bullshit to justify the Norwegian state gaining increased power in order to get involved with the way people raise their own children. They can just use Breivik as an excuse to separate sons and daughters from their mothers.

The utopia is to create a system where parents have very little interaction with their children who are mostly raised by the "welfare state". This is slowly being realized in Scandinavia, and cases like Breivik accelerate that progress.
 
Last edited:
No wonder the guy was fucked up. I can't really understand how the court didn't find him to be crazy.
Insanity for legal reasons is defined as inability to tell right from wrong. Breivik is obviously sane, and a terrible upbringing doesn't change that.
 
It's funny how the self grandiose revenge fantasies of the socially impotent all seem so similar (we see a lot of the same material here in the War Room).
Although in Breivik's case I think he did in fact copy large chunks from Kaczynski's Industrial Society and It's Future...

I wouldn't call it funny, but it's reasonable that people with similar experiences create similar personal constructs.
 
Lots of kids have bad upbringings. Very few will end up murdering close to 70 people.
 
"Whilst pregnant, she claimed the unborn Anders was being 'a difficult child' in her womb.
According to reports obtained by TV 2, she described the unborn baby as "a nasty child that wreaked havoc and tormented her".


So in other words, a normal pregnancy.

Still doesn't excuse him, though.
 
I read most of Brevik's Manifesto, and the parts that I didn't read I still took a good long look at, I concluded that he was not insane.

giphy.gif
 
I read most of Brevik's Manifesto, and the parts that I didn't read I still took a good long look at, I concluded that he was not insane.

The manifesto was like 2000 pages. I read the intro which was still like 100 pages.

I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said. It's just difficult to admit that because people can't separate his ideology with what he did.
 
Baby stop kicking

Baby you gonna get aborted if you don't stop kicking
 
It's funny how the self grandiose revenge fantasies of the socially impotent all seem so similar (we see a lot of the same material here in the War Room).
Although in Breivik's case I think he did in fact copy large chunks from Kaczynski's Industrial Society and It's Future...

Underlined: tremendous description

Pretty much the rants of the daily circle jerks here whenever a black or Muslim person does something bad. Hey, here's a black guy breaking into a car.

"Cars should come with devices that electrocute robbers and that spray maze into their eyeballs and tie them down until the owners arrive and get to work on him with brass knuckles!"

40 likes
 
It's funny how the self grandiose revenge fantasies of the socially impotent all seem so similar (we see a lot of the same material here in the War Room).
Although in Breivik's case I think he did in fact copy large chunks from Kaczynski's Industrial Society and It's Future...

Yeah it reads like somebody stitched together a bunch of IDL and Atheist posts.
 
Underlined: tremendous description

Pretty much the rants of the daily circle jerks here whenever a black or Muslim person does something bad. Hey, here's a black guy breaking into a car.

"Cars should come with devices that electrocute robbers and that spray maze into their eyeballs and tie them down until the owners arrive and get to work on him with brass knuckles!"

40 likes

You think too highly of them. There's absolutely no requirement for the black person to break into a car, to advocate that scenario. These days it's "here is a black guy walking suspiciously towards a car". Also replace "brass knuckels" with "lethal force"

Let me take your faith in humanity down a notch:
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/migrants-enriching-a-high-school-in-france.3233061/
 
The manifesto was like 2000 pages. I read the intro which was still like 100 pages.

I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said. It's just difficult to admit that because people can't separate his ideology with what he did.

It was like 1500 pages I think.

If you read the first 100 pages, which was mostly ideology, than you read the best part.

It's difficult to rectify the ideology aspect of the book, which is quite coherent, smart, well though out and extremely well researched, with the latter part of the book, particularly the sections about tactics/organization/funding etc.., which are bizarre.
 
It was like 1500 pages I think.

If you read the first 100 pages, which was mostly ideology, than you read the best part.

I thought as much, which is why I stopped. I got his point, and agreed with some of it, or at least understood where he's coming from. Didn't see a point in wading through that tome.
 
Back
Top