Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon nazi.svg

This Nazism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

A bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic at hand[edit]

Whats's the difference between a "killing spree" and a "murderous rampage?" White people go on killing sprees. Non-whites go on murderous rampages. Thorvelden (talk)

[citation needed] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Calm down, and spend a little time with a good English dictionary. And stop trying to score politcal points on this story. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 03:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I am calm. The problem is that you appear unaware of connotation. Here is the definition of "spree": A spell or sustained period of unrestrained activity of a particular kind: "a shopping spree". Thorvelden (talk)
Consistency with P-Foster's insistence on using the term "killing spree" fairly requires us then to make the following changes:
the March 27, 2006 Haditha Massacre is now the Haditha killing spree
the July 6-16, 1995 Srebernica Massacre is now the Srebernica killing spree
the September 16-18, 1982 Sabra and Shatila Massacre is now the Sabra and Shatila killing spree
the December 1981 El Mozote Massacre is now the El Mozote killing spree
the March 16, 1968 My Lai Massacre is now the My Lai killing spree
the March 21, 1960 Sharpesville Massacre is now the Sharpesville killing spree
the April 13, 1919 Amristar Massacre is now the Amritsar killing spree
I think the difference is that the above events were all part of larger, protracted wars/political struggles and featured varying degrees of state/quasi-state involvement. This event is a crime committed (as far as we now know) by a single person (who may be claiming to have some accomplices, but we only have his word for that right now.) But I'm starting to suspect that you're too enraged by this event to see the subtlety there. Go ahead and move all those articles to the new titles. I look forward to seeing what sort of reactions that will get. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 22:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
That you want to reduce the moral gravity of this event is obvious. You appear to be exhibiting denial. Thorvelden (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This is quite possibly the dumbest axe I've ever seen anyone grind. ADK...I'll edify your home theater system! 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thorvelden, the event will likely be known in history books as a massacre. For now, though, Breivik's actions are by definition a killing spree. The event was a massacre. The action was a killing spree. Nobody is downplaying the severity and horror of the event (at least, nobody here. Some characters like Glenn Beck seem more interested in taking this as an opportunity to bash liberals). I hope that wasn't too immature for you, P-Foster.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
wat. I usually jump at the opportunity to point out subtle racism, but I don't see it here. If you'd like, I can talk about the stereotypical portrayals of African-Americans in science fiction television, though...--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Brx is correct. Talking about the event, it is a "massacre." Talking about what he did, he "went on a shooting spree." The ways you tried to write that ("perpetrating an atrocity," "perpetrating a mass killing") are poorly-phrased, and vague in that they don't say anything about what he did or HOW he did it. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 16:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Shut up. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 04:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Gee, sorry, P. Wow you're a real douche these days, you know.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Brx. This is one of those "the grownups are talking" moments. Here's a few bucks. Go see a movie or something. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've always found it funny how children always try and act like grown-ups, adopting pretenses of sophistication and looking down on others.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It's called growing up. -- (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No. Maturity does not come from judging others. An uppity child is still a child. If P-Foster could just lighten up... --User:Brxbrx/sig 04:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


I'm updating with some new stuff as information is released. We want to be careful with throwing around implications about his motivations. He does not appear to have been motivated by his faith, but rather by his hatred, having been inspired by various Pamela Gellar types.--ADtalkModerator 04:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 04:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Can someone explain to me what this has to do with our mission. Or are we all just gung ho because he was a fundie? Jack Hughes (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Conservapedia is covering it on its front page. They deny he was a Christian or Conservative, and exaggerate that he had a "video game addiction" that gave him the tactics and inspiration for the massacre. Now, in the face of such ignorance and lies, it is our duty at RW to set the record straight. Of course, we can have fun with SPOV at the same time.Several ingredients (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
He was a mass-murderer inspired by irrational anti-Muslim hatred. Seems pretty on-topic to me.--ADtalkModerator 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The fact that CP has an interest in him is not really relevant. But
  • Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Nope.
  • Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Muslims are taking over Europe? Sounds crank to me.
  • Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Think it would be in there somewhere
  • Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. So how are Fox and WND treating this?
But I'd say it's on-mission.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There are also the innumerable conspiracy theories that are developing around this. Was the guy really a Freemason?--ZooGuard (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Whst's with the pro-conservative Chrisitian apologetics in this article? Should an atrocity be descibed as less abhorent because you identify with the killer? Thorvelden (talk)

Could you give some examples of what you mean?--BobSpring is sprung! 14:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Reducing the moral gravity of the violence by describing it as a "spree" or concluding that insanity rather than ideological conviction explains motivation. Thorvelden (talk)
The term "spree" has no moral weight one way or the other. Also, have you actually read the article? "No professional evaluation of his mental state has been made public" is pretty far from "concluding that insanity rather than ideological conviction explains motivation" P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 14:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Spree killing"[edit]

For some reason Thor has a problem with the political connotations that he imagines the word "spree" has. The FBI and the US Department of Judicial Statistics would disagree with that. --P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 14:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

His objective was to kill as many of the next generation of Norwegian social democrats as possible.[edit]

Has he specifically said that?P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, the only backup I can find for that claim is on comment pages/chat boards/some guy's blog. If someone finds it in a legit news source, feel free to reinsert with a reference. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 14:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the actual reason for attacking the summer camp:
Infiltration of enemy organisations might prove an easy way to get close to otherwise impossible

targets (prime minister or ministers) or to learn their programme. Getting a job at the youth camp connected to the largest political party is one way of doing this. The prime

minister usually visits during summer season

(From his manifesto, pages aren't numbered so just ctrl F it). --Danfly (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

From the BBC: "The gunman had said his operation was not aimed at killing as many people as possible but that he wanted to create the greatest loss possible to Norway's Labour Party, which he accused of failing the country on immigration." Röstigraben (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 14:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Why thanks? That is just another way to say he wanted to exterminate as amny of the next generation of Norwegian social democrats as possible. Thorvelden (talk)
Thanks because he went out, found a reliable source for the information, and corrected my misconception. Thanking people is what grown-ups do when somebody fixes a mistake for them in a useful and reliable way. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The religion thing[edit]

I think this is a bit difficult and it's not clear what connection - if any - there might be between his attacks and his religion.

His main "complaint" seems to be about immigration in general and Muslims in particular. He may especially dislike Muslims only because they are "foreigners", but it seems more likely to me that he dislikes them because he doesn't like the Muslim religion. If that is the case then there was clearly a religious motivation for the attacks.

On the other hand, he picked a Norwegian (presumably white Christian) political target when he actually carried out the attacks. So is religion particularly relevant? Should it be mentioned?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If he expressly mentions religion as a motivation in his manifesto or if the police report that he talks about it in an interview, then yes. If it makes it look like we're trying to do a tit-for-tat against what people have done re: Islam, then no. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 15:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
From reading bits of the manifesto, it seems he doesn't have a problem with Islam simply because it's a different religion, but because he believes it's violent/bad/evil/cruel/not-nice and taking over Europe. Though it's impossible to say what's the "real" motivation and what's rationalization. -- (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
From what I've seen, he's not actually a believing Christian, but he recognized that it might give him courage during his attack. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 23:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
One guy on NPR used the term "cultural Christian" today, which I think hits it right on the head. But I'm apparently in total denial about the moral gravity of this thing, so take that for what it's worth. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 23:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree about it remaining irrelevant until proven otherwise. However, if you're reporting events as they happened, there's not sense in denying that people have brought up Christian fundamentalism as a potential reason. Of course, that's probably because people demand sensible reasons for this sort of thing when I think the answer is going to be a disappointing "he's just a nutter, there is no explanation". ADK...I'll crinkle your wizard! 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

" people have brought up Christian fundamentalism as a potential reason." People also brought up Islamic fundamentalism as a potential reason, and some are still clinging to that idea. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 23:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is remarkably saddening. But it's also within the mission of RW to look into that and make a bigger deal out of it that, say, WP would. Why would people jump to that conclusion first and why would some stick by it. Or perhaps check out the FSTDT Facebook group where there's been recent discussion of a guy claiming that Breivik is a made-up scapegoat by the NWO to cover up the fact that it was a Muslim attack. ADK...I'll liberate your lens! 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Fer sure. A section in conspiracy theory would be awesome. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if anything makes its way to CTSTDT over the next few days, there'll be something out there worth reporting on. ADK...I'll refill your lens! 00:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there are enough conspiracy theories to be worth covering them (the Mason connection seems to be blamed for a lot of them), but I'm wondering if it'd be best to give them their own article, as with 9/11 theories, instead of letting this article about a terrorist atrocity descend into "LAWL LOOK AT THE INTERNET KOOK" Baljit (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, if there's enough material. Alex Jones has been pushing the Mason thing -- here's an interview with him on Putin Russia Today I clogo'ed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion pieces[edit]

I'm not sure we should be adding commentary on the debates surrounding his attacks until the article has the bare facts in place, so here's a place to keep any op-eds that might be worth covering in the article later on. To start with, a good piece on using the attacks as an excuse for political point-scoring.— Unsigned, by: Baljit / talk / contribs

A piece in The Atlantic. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Time has a list of European anti-immigrant political parties/movements. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As a Norwegian 3rd generation atheist, who have spent 2 years onn this + related topics.

He's a cultural Christian, he use all the terms Norwegian who are not christian use, but . one rea<son he used this... . "Sam Harris - Islam is not a race" .. I wonde Non-white Norwegians I would assume are more likely to be a theist, so this is a smart way to say White . The Crusader-cross . "The 2nd Jihad" . at the gates of vienna, the 3rd one ( include Serbian war-criminals accoring to some) , and when I found. And, Norwegians who are extreme theists, we have Christian zionists, B>reivik isn't that insane, unlike 2 people here who are seen as.. Very Pro-Israel ( Think John Hagee)

That's the only one SPLC got wrong .. But, I can be wrong. .Fjordmannen know a lot about this, and he wrote on frontpagemag about this.. Stormfront also disagree with Breiviks views. ( Utøya - Palestine... ) . And, of course a Norqwegian who in Hjernevask was made fun of, that Breivik was an MRA. But, that's just silly, . But, Fjordmann seem to be a resected MRA .. AVFM - Feminism. . and 4th .. Climategate, SF lists some of those as "cultural marxists" ( But what do I know, white people tend to always be insane, or something else..People seem to blame Islam — Unsigned, by: Belz / talk / contribs 08:05, 28 January 2015‎


We should put some photos of Breivik. Boris Grigor (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Biographical details?[edit]

I have read and own Åsne Seierstad's book on the subject, and think it might be interesting to add brief info from her book on ABB's life (failed grafitti artist, diploma-mill company owner, obsessive gamer, all-round proto-incel). Any thoughts? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't need a detailed biography ("his grandfather was a potato farmer, his mother was born in Uppsala, he attended Karl Malden primary school for 17 years...") but relevant details could be added; I think a short (e.g. one-paragraph) bio to set the scene is ok, but RationalWiki isn't an encyclopedia or Who's Who. This isn't official policy or anything, though. --Annanoon (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Have added a few sentences that may give context without, I hope, falling into the trap of trying to explain away the horror of his actions. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Knights Templar[edit]

Didn't the Christchurch shooter claim to have the blessing of this group, as well as Breivik's? Though he could have made it up too. Chillpilled (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)