Norway Massacre: The Killer’s Mind

[Freeyourmindnow Profile]

It’s the world’s worst spree killing. Discovery Channel Norway Massacre: The Killer’s Mind examines the terrible events of that day. In 90 minutes of madness, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik killed 69 young people. The film pieces together Breivik’s day of terror hour by hour, from the time of the bomb he set off in Oslo, to the cold blooded shooting of defenseless youngsters on the remote island beauty spot of Utøya.

Who is this man, and what made him act? This film examines the criminal mind and motives of one of the world’s worst killers, offering psychological analysis, as the day of the massacre unfolds. It examines his motives, analyzes his likely psychological journey through the planning stages and over the course of the day itself and asks what drove him to plan and carry out this massacre. Was he a terrorist as he claimed, a madman, or was he indeed both?

The film will have first-hand accounts from eyewitnesses and survivors who have not spoken on camera before. Including: taxi driver Arild Tangen who was the last man to speak to Breivik before his attack; survivor Adrian Pracon who was shot in the shoulder and tried to swim away from the island. He pleaded with Breivik to spare him; Bjørn Kasper Ilaug who rescued some of the kids whilst the shooting was happening by pulling bodies on to his boat; and Brede Joherraaten – Camp owner, was there and recovered bodies and saved swimmers.

The killer’s action are analyzed by a host of experts, including: renowned criminologist Professor David Wilson; Katherine Newman from Princeton university who is one of world’s the top experts on spree shootings; Matthew Goodman, the leading authority on British and European right wing terror groups; and terror and weapons expert Charles Shoebridge. And foremost, above all, is the memory of those who died. What were the warning signs? What could have been done?



This documentary stinks a little, The narrator tells us nothing, does nothing, except promote the official story.

[Boondox681 Profile]

wattup up my friend?
i beat you to it...i posted it earlier this week.
keep this where it is,it's a great vid.

peace,bruh

[Freeyourmindnow Profile]

wattup up my friend?
i beat you to it...i posted it earlier this week.
keep this where it is,it's a great vid.

peace,bruh

whatsup old friend, man you are fast with the good stuff
peace bro

[1ofakind Profile]

Questioned by police, Anders Breivik Behring literally surprised his interlocutors. The killer of Oslo, in fact, far from worrying about its human victims, but his mind seems tortured by his “78th victim”, a mouse, he inadvertently spilled while driving on the road, in the phase preparation of its attacks. For the Swedish psychiatrist Ulf Asgard, a specialist in case of aggressors and joined by the Verdens Gang , this is a first, “ I had never seen such reactions empathetic. Clearly, Breivik does not think like his fellows. It seems unable to have empathy for the human race, but he feels in contrast with ease to small animals . ”
When the police asked him if he regretted anything or if an episode had marked Breivik immediately put forward that this mouse was crushed, explaining feel pain and distress of the animal in contact with the tire of his car. Ulf Asgard, this could be explained by the fact that Breivik “had little be an animal as a child who has something happened “or that Breivik” may have remained fixed on the fate of the mouse that has reversed, thinking it was an unpleasant taste of the attacks he was preparing “.
According to the Norwegian psychiatrist Husebø Borre, the emotional reaction to the mouse is not really a scoop: “ Many men show emotion disproportionate to animals, it s ‘act of elephants or mice. Moreover Breivik had confessed in his manifesto that he was afraid of spiders . ” As the Norwegian press has reported, the mother of Anders Breivik Behring was in the center of Oslo when the bomb exploded, but the killer, as he explained to the police, did not care “ It could very well be sacrificed in the attacks, for a good cause .”
Consider this man is a sacred ball game, and as recalled by the lawyer attached to the Oslo police force Pål-Fredrik Hjort Kraby “ Breivik asked to be interviewed only by foreign experts, including Japanese, because he thought they would understand better, but we rejected that request because we are on Norwegian soil “. For the psychiatrist Norwegian Gunnar Johannessen, who spoke in the newspaper Bergens Tidens , “ the legislation and the medical literature will not suffice to define the case Breivik, called by many “absolute evil”, but it may be possible to diagnose covering this term in the form of severe antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy “.


http://economicsnewspaper.com/economics ... 58907.html

[Freeyourmindnow Profile]

Questioned by police, Anders Breivik Behring literally surprised his interlocutors. The killer of Oslo, in fact, far from worrying about its human victims, but his mind seems tortured by his “78th victim”, a mouse, he inadvertently spilled while driving on the road, in the phase preparation of its attacks. For the Swedish psychiatrist Ulf Asgard, a specialist in case of aggressors and joined by the Verdens Gang , this is a first, “ I had never seen such reactions empathetic. Clearly, Breivik does not think like his fellows. It seems unable to have empathy for the human race, but he feels in contrast with ease to small animals . ”
When the police asked him if he regretted anything or if an episode had marked Breivik immediately put forward that this mouse was crushed, explaining feel pain and distress of the animal in contact with the tire of his car. Ulf Asgard, this could be explained by the fact that Breivik “had little be an animal as a child who has something happened “or that Breivik” may have remained fixed on the fate of the mouse that has reversed, thinking it was an unpleasant taste of the attacks he was preparing “.
According to the Norwegian psychiatrist Husebø Borre, the emotional reaction to the mouse is not really a scoop: “ Many men show emotion disproportionate to animals, it s ‘act of elephants or mice. Moreover Breivik had confessed in his manifesto that he was afraid of spiders . ” As the Norwegian press has reported, the mother of Anders Breivik Behring was in the center of Oslo when the bomb exploded, but the killer, as he explained to the police, did not care “ It could very well be sacrificed in the attacks, for a good cause .”
Consider this man is a sacred ball game, and as recalled by the lawyer attached to the Oslo police force Pål-Fredrik Hjort Kraby “ Breivik asked to be interviewed only by foreign experts, including Japanese, because he thought they would understand better, but we rejected that request because we are on Norwegian soil “. For the psychiatrist Norwegian Gunnar Johannessen, who spoke in the newspaper Bergens Tidens , “ the legislation and the medical literature will not suffice to define the case Breivik, called by many “absolute evil”, but it may be possible to diagnose covering this term in the form of severe antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy “.


http://economicsnewspaper.com/economics ... 58907.html

nice update

[1ofakind Profile]

No probs Free. Also found this. A long article but well worth a couple of minutes of your life to read.





TheOligarch.Com

News

Highlights

Miscellaneous

About


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Inside the Mind of Anders Behring Breivik

Monday 25 Jul 2011

The Wall Street Journal has published an article today called Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer which was written by one of the anti-multiculturalism authors Breivik quotes in his manifesto. The article essentially describes Breivik as a "highly intelligent and very well read" young man who correctly despises the liberal elite. The article also says that intelligent commentators have long been warning of precisely this kind of extremist reaction if the elite don't wake up, yet Breivik's political methods are not only diabolical and insane, but also unhelpful in the battle against the status quo.

In search of my own insight I spent a few hours this morning skip reading Breivik's manifesto. It ranges from bananas, eg attacks on Nuclear Plants; to mindless, eg anti Islamic diatribes; to arresting, eg ideology & ethics. It seemed to me that even though his manifesto spends almost all of its time violently and mindlessly kicking around political footballs, sometimes he goes deeper, he starts going behind the surface in search the philosophical holy grail. So although Breivik's writing is insane, he occasionally touches on something that ordinary people never experience, he touches on what the Ancient Greek called philosophy.

To understand what I mean by philosophy first think about the contrast between [Saint Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther] and [Japanese Samurai, Chinese Sages]. Do you think people in the East think differently that people in the West, and if so in what way? If you are a die hard politically correct zombie you will say there is no difference at all, but if you look at the great wise men of world history you will notice that they often talk about a duality in human intelligence reflected in the East West dichotomy. For example, Henry Kissinger, the famous American diplomat, recently wrote a book about China and one of the central themes is the difference between the way Western and Chinese people think. Kissinger said the Chinese are more long term strategic thinkers, whereas people in the West are more shoot from the hip types. Carl Jung describes Western thinking as focused on particulars, and Chinese thinking as focused on universals. Leibniz was so impressed by the Chinese he thought they should send emissaries to the West to advise on government. As a Plato expert I can tell you that this intellectual duality is at the heart of Ancient Greek Philosophy, Plato talks about the "what is" / "being people" and the "what is not" / "evolutionary becoming" people, or water-earth people and the fire-air people. If we re-wrote the Symposium for modern man we could changed the characters so the water, earth, fire and air psychologies are represented by Saint Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, a Japanese Samurai, and a Chinese Sage respectively. I have studied this duality for many years and it's a huge conversation, but it's a topic that is begging to fascinate even ordinary Western people. Today, for example, even Journalists at the Guardian Newspaper talk about Western "emotional ideology", and Eastern "detached pragmatism".

As a result of their emotional and ideological viewpoint, people in the West love kicking political footballs such as benefits, punishment, censorship and immigration around the pitch. For example, in the West people think of immigration in a pure left-right way, and that political energy allows them to decide issues intuitively and emotionally. But for the less spirited and more philosophical Chinese, footballs are multifaceted, things aren't right and wrong in of themselves, truth is found by identifying what is what is missing in man, and how he can be brought into harmony with his environment. Sometimes a football is helpful, sometimes it is harmful, you have to go behind the surface and think about the future to find truth. Think, for example, about religion vs philosophy. I guess you can see that religious people think in terms of timeless good vs evil moral laws, whereas philosophers call this blindness to human evolution simple minded. As a general rule the Eastern thinker is more co-operative and gentle, and the Western thinker is more individualist and vicious - but it's not a simple rule, the high minded Japanese Samurai were pretty tough guys, as are the now famous "Tiger Mothers".

Now, as Plato explains there is a third type of thinking. Think of it as a third game of football which transcends both the quick emotional game and the strategic harmony game, and this is the god like game everyone aspires to play. To understand this third game think about the debate over the regulation of Financial Services. Government regulators found that whatever rules they came up with banks always found a way to behave badly. So regulators have gradually been trying to moves away from simple rules based regulation toward what they call principles based regulation. Now imagine this principles based system taken to it's ultimate limit, if we can define the nature of "virtue" in abstract philosophy, then we can build the perfect system of regulation which creates virtuous banks. Today, at the cutting edge of this search for ethical virtue, is the Stiglitz idea that banks should "prevent information asymmetries". It's not like applied mathematics, or even pure mathematics, it's a sort of philosophical pure mathematics, and it's even more advanced than the way people like Lee Kuan Yew make decisions. Now can you see that finding these philosophical principles is like finding the holy grail? These principles allow one to transcend the feelings of pain and pleasure that ordinary emotional people rely on, and transcend the sense of measured evolving harmony that Chinese Sages rely on, and reach a sort of perfectly objective non dualistic level of understanding. This is the paradigm shift Socrates was always talking about, it's a sort of "end of history" moment. Can you see that this philosophy is like the lost arc, it has the power to totally transform mankind and make the world perfect?

Essentially this philosophy, which I described as the third game of football, is unknown to the modern world. Outside the works of Plato all I have ever seen of it are tiny traces. Why did the mad Breivik achieve something so unusual? Because Breivik cut himself off from the world and completely devoted himself to philosophy in a way that other people don't. It's hard for me to explain, but philosophy interfaces with human nature in a profound way, philosophy tears your ego apart and transforms your life. If you take philosophy very seriously, it either turns you into a person like Socrates who lives a holy life, or it turns you insane. Academics are neither holy nor insane, they have no idea what philosophy is, they haven't even started their journey. So this is why Plato's work has never been decoded, and why the modern world's greatest philosohper, Nietzsche, was a crank and a crackpot.

So the most obvious point about Breivik's manifesto is that it is written as a passionate evolving personal journey, and that passion is what allowed him to see things other people never see. All his writing about political footballs such as Islam is absolutely worthless, but I was frankly shocked to see some pretty important ideas buried inside his mad Ouija board like writing. For example, he talks about the battle between ideology and pragmatism, the battle between cultural conservatism and cultural marxism, the battle between objective truth and subjective instinct, and the battle between idealism and post modern atheistic relativism. Although you can come across these words in academia, academics devote their lives to brushing these things under the carpet, to protecting the status quo with a lot of verbal diarrhoea. So ideology vs pragmatism and subjective vs objective is the sort of stuff that you find when you start your journey in philosophy. Over at The Guardian newspaper they demonise anyone who starts taking about objective truth, they call it "The Übermensch Philosophy", they hate it because it's the opposite of post-modernism and political correctness etc. When you start reading about this, at first it makes you think you are a superhero because no one else understands, but then it drives you nuts because no one listens and no one cares and you end up ostracised. If you love attention more than learning, philosophy absolutely destroys you - imagine coming across the most important knowledge in the world, the holy grail, the lost arc, but no one listens and no one cares, so you can't even talk about what you know let alone make use of it. This is one of the many things that makes people like Breivik estranged, insane and vicious.

Breivik even quotes Nietzsche's prediction that Christianity would die in the 20th Century as a result of Darwinism, but the underlying "slave mentality" of feminine humanitarian rather than masculine evolutionary philosophy would be retained, eventually precipitating social and economic collapse. This is the idea that God has been killed dead in a slave revolt, and this mindless act of patricide will eventually have devastating consequences on society. Recall the biblical story of Salomé the daughter of Herodias, when a female looses her spiritual guidance she becomes utterly corrupt because she is a feeler not a philosopher. Very few people understand this idea, it's quite amazing to see Breivik discussing it, even if he doesn't properly understand it. Frankly I hardly dare talk about this subject on my web site, it's just too shocking. All those lady journalists over at the Guardian Newspaper would have neurotic hysterical breakdowns if I wrote about things like this openly. Even the Confucians banned this subject, so the modern Chinese concept of yin/yang is completely purged of all evil/good undertones.

Of course Breivik's philosophical journey ended in failure and madness. He failed because he never managed to grasp the beautiful concept of utopia, yet you can see his search for it in his childlike vision of divine Templar Knights. But of course his vision was as twisted as his ego, and his manifesto mostly describes no more than the instinctive populist viewpoint I described in my article on multiculturalism. In that article I said:

The Tea Party and far right rail against "political correctness", they claim the elite are infected with "Cultural Marxism". The populists cry: "Stuff your so called progressive values, they don't work, let us be the judge of right and wrong!" Sarah Palin says "Shoot moose and crack Simon Cowell jokes. The wishy washy politically correct liberal consensus isn't just naive, it's evil Marxist poison." Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Nationalists, says "We don't want stone throwing privative immigrants in Holland, our precious homeland is being destroyed by the naive decrees handed down to hapless tax payers from the ivory tower at the European Court Of Human Rights."...

"Political correctness" and "progressive values" are really just nebulous descriptions of the fundamental ideology underlying "liberal democracy". In other words, the consciousness change which is driving Europeans toward the far right, and Americans toward the Tea Party is linked. The very psychology / ideology / values system of modern liberal democracy is in the process of being rejected as a result of real world failure...

However, it is important to notice that neither the Tea Party nor the European Far Right articulate a coherent alternative philosophy, their rejection remains instinctive and pragmatic. Sarah Palin exemplifies this pragmatism, a female who champions down to earth maternal common sense, an outsider, an action hero not a philosopher. Although these movements are currently vilified by the elite, revolutionary consciousness change often works it way upwards through society...

Although the Tea Party and the European Right call themselves 'freedom' movements, that is because they are fighting against the constitutional moral constraints placed upon them by the elite, not because individual freedom is the true essence of their movements. To properly understand these political movements, we have to think in terms of changing human consciousness, and realize that these changes are in their infancy. The far right movement actually has nothing to do with individual freedoms, rather the opposite - the far right is about the rejection of liberal freedom and liberal equality...

Because the Western psychological disease is individualism, the cure is collectivism, and the two conventional political philosophies which embody that are socialism (scientific idealism) and cultural conservatism (moral idealism). With the failure of socialism, it is natural that populists in Europe and the US head toward nationalistic social-conservatism. From the big picture long term viewpoint, what we are really talking about is a move from the subjective to objective, from individualism to collectivism, from nihilism to utopian idealism. The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and 1930s Fascism all toyed with this massive transition, but it looks as if the big moment is finally close at hand. Drink does not take over a man's life at a constant pace, it begins slowly, and accelerates. In the same way individualism has accelerated, we have been twitching for hundreds of years, now full blown neurosis is finally breaking out.

Breivik perfectly demonstrates the important point being made here: the Far Right and the Tea Party have their roots in anti-liberalism not more freedom. Breivik describes American democracy as a failed ideology and advocates Vladimir Putin's more authoritarian philosophy. Breivik says that in his youth he was a passionate believer in laissez-faire, but he had gradually come to realise that capitalism is part and parcel of Godless relativism (American Republicans haven't figure this out yet). He seems to describe his realization that laissez-faire has failed as relatively recent and psychologically transforming. He says the expression "national socialism" is too overloaded with Nazi overtones, but an idealistic society is not a libertarian society, it's a paternalistic society.

Breivik's ideas about revolutionary war are more important, so I am going to describe them in a moment. Taking about these things will come as a terrible shock to many readers, especially journalists and politicians, but Breivik committed this act to wake up the world, and suppose that in amongst all that madness he really had something say, then we certainly don't want these 100 lives to go in vain, so let's really talk about what he said properly. I know the ladies at the Guardian think that the idea of getting anything good out of an evil act and an evil man is appalling, but whilst hiding from your demons can bake nice cakes in the short term, in the long term it creates a vacuum that will eventually implode.

Breivik points out that journalists and politicians are completely out of sync with the general public. In a sense the elite have built a sort of ivory tower in cloud cuckoo land, and it's almost impossible for the people to regain power because every incumbent journalist, politician, judge etc is part of the cult. Politicians are widely hated, and power is increasingly becoming a revolving door, but because they are all part of the cult nothing ever changes, you just move from one zombie to the next. Look at the UK today, do you really think there is a difference between David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband? They are like three puppets controlled by the same ideological demon, in reality it makes no difference which one you vote for, democracy is an illusion. According to myth only the mad who have been touched by light can see the sameness of politicians, that's why mad individualists believe in the Illuminate, and mad utopians believe in zombies. So revolutionaries claim that because government today has neither democratic legitimacy nor functional legitimacy (performance legitimacy), under any semblance of democracy one is both constitutionally entitled and even morally obliged to revolt. Thus Breivik describes a battle for Western salvation, which he believes will last approximately 60 years.

The only way to break the elite's lock on power, Breivik claims, is to wipe them out giving new blood a chance. Politicians and journalists are not ordinary people, those who rule others do not have human rights, they are legitimate targets of revolutionaries in revolutionary times. Anyone who rules others must stand aside immediately if they loose legitimacy, they must never seek to maintain power through persuasion or force, and if they violate that rule they forfeit all rights. Think about David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. They are not running the country for the people, deep down they know they are totally clueless and unfit to govern, they just say or do whatever it takes to maintain power. Europe has been destroyed by cultural and economic incompetence, America has been so ravaged by wars and political incompetence it is essentially already dead, but nothing has changed, the same old ideas are rammed down the people throats everyday. You can read the worlds, but the scale of what these people are saying is hard to comprehend. The elite imagine politics and journalism as like an advertising agency, for them its just a game to acquire money and power, but combining capitalism with the most important and sacred human profession, call it Kingship or human navigation if you like, is blasphemy. So the elite are like corrupted Kings, they have become the ultimate personification of evil on earth, gradually they are completely destroying the world and yet still refusing to walk away. So the evil argument works on both a moral level, analysing the personality of politicians, and a scientific level, analyzing the stupidity of their policies. Therefore it is the duty of every courageous God fearing man to do what he can to bring down this regime, and if all one is qualified to do is fight as a foot soldier then that is what one must do. One can not be prosecuted for killing the elite, because they are tyrants.

The fact that so few revolt, Breivik claims, testifies to the weakness and selfishness of society. Today we are not lions prepared to give our lives in the cause, we are frogs who live croaking in the swamp. Once revolutionaries fought to wake up the proletarians, this time revolutionaries should use economic sabotage to wake up the bourgeois slaves hypnotised by the elite. Or, more idealistically, simply murder the elite, making them tremble every time they leave the house, terrorising them until they hand the keys to the ivory tower back to the people. Nick Clegg gets thousands of hate mail letters every week, not to mention dog turd posted through his letter box, but he battles on saying he was called to politics by a 'higher power'. Clueless nerdy Ed Miliband is a laughing stock, but he battles on saying he feels sure he is a greater statesman than his big brother. Anyone who believes politicians is insane, they are just power hungry monsters killing the world at the people's expense. If people started firing bullets at Nick Clegg instead of sending him hate mate, he would run a mile and the ivory tower could be freed from the clutches of this evil elite. So Breivik imagines himself as the first of the French Revolutionaries. A lot of journalists accuse Breivik of power hungry vanity, but the truth is he didn't even expect to survive the attack, nor did he think he would be treated like a hero in the aftermath. So Breivik's actions are not the normal self-serving type of evil we associate with the incumbent elite.

Do you think politicians and journalist are manipulative liars? Do you think that modern democracy is built on foundations of pure self serving lies? Do you think politicians in the West are useless dangerous emotional ideologists or talented helpful detached pragmatic Chinese sages? Modern democracy is about 100 years old, do you think it could last thousands of years as Chinese Confucian Government did before violent self-centered 19th Century European Powers tore Asia apart? Do you think modern democracy is getting worse or better as time goes by? Can it last another 100 years? Do you think the West is failing in both an economic and a moral sense? Do you think the West has any chance of life as long as these people control society? Do you think politicans are any more moral than the bankers they criticise? Are politicians so self serving and un-idealistic they should actually be labelled evil? Do you think they are tyrants and legitimate targets of revolutionaries? Are you a lion who will give your life in the fight to save to world, or a bourgeois hypnotised frog who turns his eye to good and evil and just sits around croaking in the swamp? If you saw the light, and you had the heart of a Knight, would you dedicate your entire life to overthrowing this evil regime and returning this world to the truth, justice and goodness? Was Breivik really immoral to give his life in the fight against politicians, or is it hypnotised selfish godless idiots like you who are the real evil of the world?

The truth is Breivik's arguments are extremely compelling, his writing testifies to the danger of philosophy, it demonstrates why Plato hid what he knew in allegory, and why I don't publish some of the more radical ideas on this web site, nor do I try to reach out to the masses but only to the elite. The fact is, as Plato says over and over again in no uncertain way, philosophy is extremely dangerous. Unless there is a Socrates to teach people they shouldn't try to learn it, and especially not people in their 20s and 30s. But since it's already out there and people are going mad, let's analyse what is actually wrong with Breivik's revolutionary philosophy, lets identify his mistakes.

Breivik calls Islam dangerous to Norway, but he doesn't move from this one perceived evil to the nature of good. He says he is often confused about Christianity, is it really a slave religion as Nietzsche claimed? He says he can't make his mind up whether or not he really believes in Christianity, instead he opts to call himself a cultural conservative rather a Christian fundamentalist. He never questions Western cultural traditions, instead of cosmopolitanism he imagines a world of culturally homogenous nations living out their traditions, but where is the objective truth in that? He is very anti-European, but I think anyone who is honest with themselves, and has seen a few episodes of Star Trek etc, can instantly see that the European vision of turning little tin pot failing states like Greece into gold stars on the blue flag has real idealism. Sure European politicians destroyed the dream, but that doesn't mean dreams can't happen. He even turns a blind eye to Chinese superiority.

So do you see that Breivik is stuck in subjective individualism - his inability to detach from his own sacred cows mirrors the failing of precisely those he criticises. Likewise he is no more capable of living a pure life than those he criticises. You can see this constant inconsistency, this neurosis, over and over again. For example, he lectures about moral purity, then talks about his inconsistent desire to celebrate with prostitutes. He talks about the evils of libertarianism, then his desire for personal economic freedom. He talks about the evils of democracy, but then imagines himself leading a populist revolution against incumbent politicians. Ordinary people ignore these inconsistencies, unless Socrates happens upon them and deems them stable enough to tear their minds to shreds. Idealists, however, can go mad trying to solve their inconsistencies, especially if they try to force solutions instead of looking for peaceful harmony. Finally true gurus find enlightenment by resolving their inconsistencies in deeper ethical analysis. Breivik is, of course, the mad idealist not the guru. If Breivik had any kind of guidance he would have known his inconsistencies and life style faults testify to his unworthiness.

The other day I asked the five year old daughter of a friend what her favourite fish are, and she said the dolphin and the starfish. I asked her which is more intelligent, and she said the starfish. I asked her why, and she said because starfish are good at hiding in the sand. When we are young we get hooked on little details instead of seeing the big picture. Most of Breivik's 1,500 page long manifesto is as stuck in the non-philosophical opinion layer as the rambling mindless liberal arts elite he hates. Real philosophers like Plato and Nietzsche don't use footnotes, they don't try to convince you of something by listing endless examples or building on someone else's sand castle, they try to teach you by drilling down into understanding, in other words by taking you to the philosophical equivalent of pure mathematics, not applied statistics. If Breivik had any kind of guidance he would have know that his constant factual tirades were junk, it's about Forms not facts. Facts are completely useless, the philosopher has two methods of validation: teaching and prophesy. If you can't persuade smart people that you are right in short answer verbal debate, or tear their ideas to sheds and make them look like fools, you fail teaching. If you can't predict things that actually happen, you fail prophesy.

Breivik seems to me to be a new more evolved version of the September 11th conspiracy theory type. The Sep 11th people get caught up in emotional ideas which they support by plucking facts out of the ethers. Their psychological theme is control, so they think democracy is an illusion and society is run by the Illuminate, and they twist all the data to reflect their paranoia. If ever you want a demonstration of the pointlessness of facts try arguing with these nut cases, to get them to see sense you have restructure their entire personality. Breivik brings more communal objective idealism, he realises that society is corrupt at both the elite and his own ordinary level, and we need both a new elite and more not less control. But then he channels this idealism into his environment, instead of fighting against his own weaknesses, he concentrates on politics instead of self devlopment. Whereas the Sep 11th person lives in a state of passivity and doesn't question his own worth, he searches for scapegoats to hide his own inadequacy. Breivik is extremely well read, but all he has read is mindless modern philosophers who could give him no answers. If he had found Plato he might have gone beyond this surface layer in search of the Form of utopia itself. By studying this he would have confronted his own inadequacy directly, and purified himself.

What's the next step up from Breivik? Breivik sets out to wipe out corruption in the elite, but then he gets hooked on nationalism. The elite have girl hooks, called liberalism, and boy hooks called nationalism. Breivik writes about all the marvellous politicians in Serbia, but of course that's completely and utterly absurd. Nationalists are as poisonous as liberals, they are all part of the same corrupt subjective emotional shark tank. I was talking to a Bosnian ex-soldier friend of mine about Breivik and I said "if God gave you a magic golden box with a ruby red button on top that could wipe out all the politicians, would you press it?" He said, look here, Yugoslavia since Tito has been a cess pit of nationalism and genocide, democracy has turned into something out of that film Apocalypse Now. He said Yugoslavia has two chances, either someone invents a magic box to get rid of them, or it goes back to the old Austro-Hungarian Empire colonialism days. I said what do you think about Breivik? He said people in Norway are spoilt rotten, they have no idea what hardship means, and he guesses that Breivik is probably just another American nut obsessed with anarchist survivalism. He said if someone wants to start killing politicians they should go to Yugoslavia and wipe them all out and put Tito back in charge. I think my friend is absolutely right, the genuinely evolved revolutionary is post-partisan, unlike Breivik he shoots them all regardless of party, unlike Breivik he despises the nationalists as much as the liberals.

Breivik is a mad as hatter, but he right about his war. As long as these idiot politicians, journalists and academics remain in charge revolution or war is the inevitable outcome. The frightening truth is that the glue that holds the modern world together is not evolved understanding, it's the complete mindlessness brought about by our hypnotic brain rotting culture. For anyone who opens their eyes and thinks philosophically the inconsistencies of modern politics are so absurd that they are likely to provoke madness. The world is at it's spiritual-philosophical low point, and now the tide must turn, and with the turning tide comes chaos. Breivik is just a taste of what to come. Evolving without feeling revolutionary is extremely difficult, and I think the vital trick is to stay away from everything except Plato.

Plato defines madness as the person who thinks that he is so brilliant he even controls the Gods. The mad person starts sucking the external world into his reality, and then it becomes his world. He starts looking behind the surface, and then like a child he can't see the surface. A psychiatric doctor once told me that some mad people have stories so good you almost start to believe them, they read meaning into everything and sometimes almost seem to predict the future. He joked that although medication kills the development of the patients, it saves the doctors from going mad themselves. I think of philosophy as the true psychiatric medication which allows one to separate madness and genius. When we get puffed up with knowledge about something others don't see we can come to think of ourselves as a world savoir who can do as he pleases. If you keep studying philosophy this feeling goes away, because your self disciplined cross examination keeps tearing your ego apart. Besides, if the world is mad it's mad because the Gods made it that way to teach people, and one should just be grateful for the lessons. That was one my eureka moments, my study of geopolitics was just a personal journey, if the world wasn't mad I wouldn't have discovered myself. It's like geopolitics is my experiential life and Plato is my guide. This life of personal growth by reflection on external challenges is infinitely fulfilling, I don't need anything else. The insane person who looses the boundary between the external and internal world lives a sort of shadow version of this spiritual life. The big difference is that for the insane person it's not fulfilling, he is desperate to find something or do something to the world not himself. So real philosophy is not "a cause" to be violently inflicted on others, it's a personal journey and a planting and watering of seeds in the collective.

If you find the holy grail that can fix the world, you will go mad unless you can learn to see the world from such a lofty perspective that the evils of the world are no longer evils that you need to fix. This is the famous Cassandra syndrome, Apollo gave her the gift of prophesy, but because she loved the world more than him he punished her with the curse that no one would listen. She foretold the fall of Troy and tried to save their lives but they all died anyway. To avoid the Cassandra syndrome you have to stop seeing life in the present tense, your vision must widen up to encompass all of history. Then the evils of today matter no more to you than the evils of Rome two thousand years ago, it's all just a great big symphony of human evolution. Recently I started getting angry with politicians and journalists in Europe, I could see so clearly what they are doing wrong, and how I could so easily fix Europe, and I started trying to reach these people and was horrified by their stupidity and corruption; but Breivik reminded me how extremely dangerous it is to allow one's vision to narrow so that external problems can effect one. Once I looked passed the developing suffering and saw the meaningfulness I lost my anger. Suppose modern Greek implodes and millions die, you have to feel the same way about that event as you feel about the fall of Athens in 400BC. The Greeks killed Socrates, they spurned the cosmopolitanism of Alexander, I hardly dare say this because you won't know what I am talking about, but the Greeks are like slaves and their suffering in history and today is both what they deserve and what they need. So time disappears and you live in history, and life is beautiful and blissful. Look at Plato's work, it has sat there for two and a half thousand years as generations have come and gone, if the Gods wanted it rammed down our throats they would have burnt the words in the side of a cliff, instead they make us figure it out for ourselves.

Back on angry impatient Planet Earth people are going to say my high minded ideas don't have enough fire in them. They think it's their duty to fight to save society, not sit back watering plants and smelling roses. They say Ghandi's non-violence works well in tyrannies where everyone is on the same side and can go on strike bringing down the system, but manipulative hypnotic systems in theory require either infiltrating or killing the elite, or deprogramming or frightening the mob. Breivik was of course an elite killer, whereas if revolution was my job I would go for elite infiltration. Breivik's second choice was frightening the mob, whereas my second choice would be deprogramming the mob by trying to create some kind of simple religion. The Knights Templar Breivik imagined is a figment of his imagination, his friend in the EDL aren't religious, they're skinheads. Breivik talks about waking up the middle class with economic sabotage, but the Gods are already inflicting that on us. We are already on the brink of revolution and economic collapse, but it's likely to be another French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Cultural Revolution etc. The philosopher knows he can't control the mob, imagining that one can is pure vanity, that madness created these monstrous politicians in the first place. Unless you are part of a new model army of idealists there are only two avenues open to the revolutionary idealist: look for a living guru or try to become a guru yourself. Gurus aren't 32 years old, they have solved their complexes, and live the sort of pure life Plato describes Socrates as living. Then and only then can they try to seek followers. Breivik lived in a complete fantasy world, he imagined a spiritual guru called Richard The Lionheart in his dreams, and imagined himself as some kind of inspired relay for this divine voice. That's why religion without an enlightened living master is disastrous, because people end up getting inspired by madness and blowing up the world. Poor Breivik lives in a spiritually bankrupt mentally disabled world where none of this is explained, so his lonely spiritual quest ended up in insanity. Alas he won't be the last.

I think that's a quick fuzzy attempt at an intellectual perspective, and the simple moral perspective is what Plato called "non-interference". That means a tiny group can't use extreme violence to wake up the masses, violence only becomes acceptable if your friends and relatives asks you to become a soldier and fight for your community. Non-interference also means that ordinary people have no right to revolt, they should leave politics to those whose specialise in it, just as plumbers leave carpentry to carpenters. So the revolution must come from within the leadership itself. That's not the way the second amendment is written, but it's the way we non-democratic philosophers think about life. China is an example of an elite system which is evolving without popular interference, the next generation of Chinese leaders are expected to be much more radical that the current leaders. In China you have to start a revolution by converting the specialists, you can't run grass roots campaigns. I agree with this absolutely, and that's why my web site is primarily aimed at Chinese intellectuals, because the key to a sustainable transformation is a new elite inspired by China.

If someone feels revolutionary what should they do? My advice to them is to drop out and live on the edge of society. Back in 600BC the Orphic Philosophers started walking away from society, they lived in communes and cut themselves off from the mindless mob and mindless elite. Don't try to change the world, just turn your back on it. It's a humble life, but it's a good life. Many people get absolutely obsessed by politics, it's a sort of mental illness that focuses on the externalities not the soul, and it's far better to refuse to vote, cancel all your newspapers, throw out your TV and go on a voyage of self discovery. Retreat has always been an important avenue for a certain percentage of the population, unfortunately today monasteries have gone out of fashion. Perhaps what Europe needs is something like the Amish Community without the crazy religion. No TV, no facebook, no mobile phone, no consumer goods, and lots of communal work. A place for people who have seen the light to go, so they don't start revolting against the zombies.

I like to think that if Breivik had read my web site he would have been less likely to do this thing. Although I talk about the evil zombie elite and the world burning and dying, I hope what I say is positive enough to inspire people with utopian idealism and spiritual journeys, not instil violent radicalism. Breivik mentions utopian idealism but said he hadn't managed to embrace it, they suddenly he imagines himself as a holy crusader on a mission to destroy the world. Perhaps he was getting more and more mad, growing up toward an epiphany, yet he had devoted his whole life to this thing for so many years that he had nothing else, so he went ahead anyway even in a state of complete psychotic turmoil. I think my writing could have helped him, although I also worry that the wrong person will get hold of some small pieces and become more unbalanced. The single goal of this web site is to get the attention of the elite, then it can be deleted. As the Wall Street Journal article points out, until the elite abandon this terrible failing ignorance we are in extreme danger. As it happens I don't think this web site has made any difference to anyone, it's just a comic demonstration of how useless and mindless our world is, but only the Gods know whether they want it to stay that way, or whether both you and I are worthy of more.

In conclusion then Breivik is a rotten apple, but in my opinion Dominique Strauss Kahn is worse. Breivik gave his entire crazy life to this crazy political cause, he is not just another mad serial killer who picked up a machine gun and started killing his friends, he deserves more careful consideration. DSK is the precise opposite, he has zero idealism, he is just a poisonous politician who rapes the people. Plato said there are two types of madness, little people who have lived in the dark and gone mad as they turned to look into the light, and big people who have turned from the light into the dark. We should feel sorry for former but we know one day they will get better. The later however are more terrible cases. I think Plato's idea of two types of madness is important, and perhaps Breivik is someone who went mad turning to look at the light, whereas DSK is someone who went mad turning to look at the dark. Perhaps Breivik sums up the madness developing in the masses, and DSK the madness developing in the elite. The elite have turned a blind eye to DSK's crimes, but they are obsessed with Breivik's, yet Breivik is undeniably at least to some extent a product of elite evil, whereas DSK is elite evil incarnate.

So I am not looking at either the psychological details or physical details of Breivik's or DSK's crimes, I am trying to come at problem as a very big picture philosopher who thinks in terms of human evolution. The knives are already out for Breivik, pouring over his life and his unprofessional writings looking for headlines, as if good people have perfect pasts and evil people don't. That's the way the zombies write articles, because they don't have the brain power to analyse philosophy, they just draw childlike conclusions based on prior events. For DSK it's the other way around, his past is hushed up to protect the club. The Wall Street Journal article quoted is the only intelligent article I have read so far. One idiotic article had some Norwegian liberal politician claiming this incident was "worse than Sep 11th" because 100 of "our future leaders" have been killed rather than just 2,500 businessmen! So I have put all that mad emotion to one side and written an article about what Breivik said in his best most lucid moments, and how even that was flawed. If it was my job to hand out punishment, which thank goodness its not, I would execute both of them, but Breivik would hang as a deterrent, whereas DSK would be skinned alive as punishment. At least this is my take, in a few hours of skip reading his manifesto. I am not Socrates or Diotima, it's just a guess.

[Freeyourmindnow Profile]

No probs Free. Also found this. A long article but well worth a couple of minutes of your life to read.





TheOligarch.Com

News

Highlights

Miscellaneous

About


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Inside the Mind of Anders Behring Breivik

Monday 25 Jul 2011

The Wall Street Journal has published an article today called Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer which was written by one of the anti-multiculturalism authors Breivik quotes in his manifesto. The article essentially describes Breivik as a "highly intelligent and very well read" young man who correctly despises the liberal elite. The article also says that intelligent commentators have long been warning of precisely this kind of extremist reaction if the elite don't wake up, yet Breivik's political methods are not only diabolical and insane, but also unhelpful in the battle against the status quo.

In search of my own insight I spent a few hours this morning skip reading Breivik's manifesto. It ranges from bananas, eg attacks on Nuclear Plants; to mindless, eg anti Islamic diatribes; to arresting, eg ideology & ethics. It seemed to me that even though his manifesto spends almost all of its time violently and mindlessly kicking around political footballs, sometimes he goes deeper, he starts going behind the surface in search the philosophical holy grail. So although Breivik's writing is insane, he occasionally touches on something that ordinary people never experience, he touches on what the Ancient Greek called philosophy.

To understand what I mean by philosophy first think about the contrast between [Saint Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther] and [Japanese Samurai, Chinese Sages]. Do you think people in the East think differently that people in the West, and if so in what way? If you are a die hard politically correct zombie you will say there is no difference at all, but if you look at the great wise men of world history you will notice that they often talk about a duality in human intelligence reflected in the East West dichotomy. For example, Henry Kissinger, the famous American diplomat, recently wrote a book about China and one of the central themes is the difference between the way Western and Chinese people think. Kissinger said the Chinese are more long term strategic thinkers, whereas people in the West are more shoot from the hip types. Carl Jung describes Western thinking as focused on particulars, and Chinese thinking as focused on universals. Leibniz was so impressed by the Chinese he thought they should send emissaries to the West to advise on government. As a Plato expert I can tell you that this intellectual duality is at the heart of Ancient Greek Philosophy, Plato talks about the "what is" / "being people" and the "what is not" / "evolutionary becoming" people, or water-earth people and the fire-air people. If we re-wrote the Symposium for modern man we could changed the characters so the water, earth, fire and air psychologies are represented by Saint Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, a Japanese Samurai, and a Chinese Sage respectively. I have studied this duality for many years and it's a huge conversation, but it's a topic that is begging to fascinate even ordinary Western people. Today, for example, even Journalists at the Guardian Newspaper talk about Western "emotional ideology", and Eastern "detached pragmatism".

As a result of their emotional and ideological viewpoint, people in the West love kicking political footballs such as benefits, punishment, censorship and immigration around the pitch. For example, in the West people think of immigration in a pure left-right way, and that political energy allows them to decide issues intuitively and emotionally. But for the less spirited and more philosophical Chinese, footballs are multifaceted, things aren't right and wrong in of themselves, truth is found by identifying what is what is missing in man, and how he can be brought into harmony with his environment. Sometimes a football is helpful, sometimes it is harmful, you have to go behind the surface and think about the future to find truth. Think, for example, about religion vs philosophy. I guess you can see that religious people think in terms of timeless good vs evil moral laws, whereas philosophers call this blindness to human evolution simple minded. As a general rule the Eastern thinker is more co-operative and gentle, and the Western thinker is more individualist and vicious - but it's not a simple rule, the high minded Japanese Samurai were pretty tough guys, as are the now famous "Tiger Mothers".

Now, as Plato explains there is a third type of thinking. Think of it as a third game of football which transcends both the quick emotional game and the strategic harmony game, and this is the god like game everyone aspires to play. To understand this third game think about the debate over the regulation of Financial Services. Government regulators found that whatever rules they came up with banks always found a way to behave badly. So regulators have gradually been trying to moves away from simple rules based regulation toward what they call principles based regulation. Now imagine this principles based system taken to it's ultimate limit, if we can define the nature of "virtue" in abstract philosophy, then we can build the perfect system of regulation which creates virtuous banks. Today, at the cutting edge of this search for ethical virtue, is the Stiglitz idea that banks should "prevent information asymmetries". It's not like applied mathematics, or even pure mathematics, it's a sort of philosophical pure mathematics, and it's even more advanced than the way people like Lee Kuan Yew make decisions. Now can you see that finding these philosophical principles is like finding the holy grail? These principles allow one to transcend the feelings of pain and pleasure that ordinary emotional people rely on, and transcend the sense of measured evolving harmony that Chinese Sages rely on, and reach a sort of perfectly objective non dualistic level of understanding. This is the paradigm shift Socrates was always talking about, it's a sort of "end of history" moment. Can you see that this philosophy is like the lost arc, it has the power to totally transform mankind and make the world perfect?

Essentially this philosophy, which I described as the third game of football, is unknown to the modern world. Outside the works of Plato all I have ever seen of it are tiny traces. Why did the mad Breivik achieve something so unusual? Because Breivik cut himself off from the world and completely devoted himself to philosophy in a way that other people don't. It's hard for me to explain, but philosophy interfaces with human nature in a profound way, philosophy tears your ego apart and transforms your life. If you take philosophy very seriously, it either turns you into a person like Socrates who lives a holy life, or it turns you insane. Academics are neither holy nor insane, they have no idea what philosophy is, they haven't even started their journey. So this is why Plato's work has never been decoded, and why the modern world's greatest philosohper, Nietzsche, was a crank and a crackpot.

So the most obvious point about Breivik's manifesto is that it is written as a passionate evolving personal journey, and that passion is what allowed him to see things other people never see. All his writing about political footballs such as Islam is absolutely worthless, but I was frankly shocked to see some pretty important ideas buried inside his mad Ouija board like writing. For example, he talks about the battle between ideology and pragmatism, the battle between cultural conservatism and cultural marxism, the battle between objective truth and subjective instinct, and the battle between idealism and post modern atheistic relativism. Although you can come across these words in academia, academics devote their lives to brushing these things under the carpet, to protecting the status quo with a lot of verbal diarrhoea. So ideology vs pragmatism and subjective vs objective is the sort of stuff that you find when you start your journey in philosophy. Over at The Guardian newspaper they demonise anyone who starts taking about objective truth, they call it "The Übermensch Philosophy", they hate it because it's the opposite of post-modernism and political correctness etc. When you start reading about this, at first it makes you think you are a superhero because no one else understands, but then it drives you nuts because no one listens and no one cares and you end up ostracised. If you love attention more than learning, philosophy absolutely destroys you - imagine coming across the most important knowledge in the world, the holy grail, the lost arc, but no one listens and no one cares, so you can't even talk about what you know let alone make use of it. This is one of the many things that makes people like Breivik estranged, insane and vicious.

Breivik even quotes Nietzsche's prediction that Christianity would die in the 20th Century as a result of Darwinism, but the underlying "slave mentality" of feminine humanitarian rather than masculine evolutionary philosophy would be retained, eventually precipitating social and economic collapse. This is the idea that God has been killed dead in a slave revolt, and this mindless act of patricide will eventually have devastating consequences on society. Recall the biblical story of Salomé the daughter of Herodias, when a female looses her spiritual guidance she becomes utterly corrupt because she is a feeler not a philosopher. Very few people understand this idea, it's quite amazing to see Breivik discussing it, even if he doesn't properly understand it. Frankly I hardly dare talk about this subject on my web site, it's just too shocking. All those lady journalists over at the Guardian Newspaper would have neurotic hysterical breakdowns if I wrote about things like this openly. Even the Confucians banned this subject, so the modern Chinese concept of yin/yang is completely purged of all evil/good undertones.

Of course Breivik's philosophical journey ended in failure and madness. He failed because he never managed to grasp the beautiful concept of utopia, yet you can see his search for it in his childlike vision of divine Templar Knights. But of course his vision was as twisted as his ego, and his manifesto mostly describes no more than the instinctive populist viewpoint I described in my article on multiculturalism. In that article I said:

The Tea Party and far right rail against "political correctness", they claim the elite are infected with "Cultural Marxism". The populists cry: "Stuff your so called progressive values, they don't work, let us be the judge of right and wrong!" Sarah Palin says "Shoot moose and crack Simon Cowell jokes. The wishy washy politically correct liberal consensus isn't just naive, it's evil Marxist poison." Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Nationalists, says "We don't want stone throwing privative immigrants in Holland, our precious homeland is being destroyed by the naive decrees handed down to hapless tax payers from the ivory tower at the European Court Of Human Rights."...

"Political correctness" and "progressive values" are really just nebulous descriptions of the fundamental ideology underlying "liberal democracy". In other words, the consciousness change which is driving Europeans toward the far right, and Americans toward the Tea Party is linked. The very psychology / ideology / values system of modern liberal democracy is in the process of being rejected as a result of real world failure...

However, it is important to notice that neither the Tea Party nor the European Far Right articulate a coherent alternative philosophy, their rejection remains instinctive and pragmatic. Sarah Palin exemplifies this pragmatism, a female who champions down to earth maternal common sense, an outsider, an action hero not a philosopher. Although these movements are currently vilified by the elite, revolutionary consciousness change often works it way upwards through society...

Although the Tea Party and the European Right call themselves 'freedom' movements, that is because they are fighting against the constitutional moral constraints placed upon them by the elite, not because individual freedom is the true essence of their movements. To properly understand these political movements, we have to think in terms of changing human consciousness, and realize that these changes are in their infancy. The far right movement actually has nothing to do with individual freedoms, rather the opposite - the far right is about the rejection of liberal freedom and liberal equality...

Because the Western psychological disease is individualism, the cure is collectivism, and the two conventional political philosophies which embody that are socialism (scientific idealism) and cultural conservatism (moral idealism). With the failure of socialism, it is natural that populists in Europe and the US head toward nationalistic social-conservatism. From the big picture long term viewpoint, what we are really talking about is a move from the subjective to objective, from individualism to collectivism, from nihilism to utopian idealism. The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and 1930s Fascism all toyed with this massive transition, but it looks as if the big moment is finally close at hand. Drink does not take over a man's life at a constant pace, it begins slowly, and accelerates. In the same way individualism has accelerated, we have been twitching for hundreds of years, now full blown neurosis is finally breaking out.

Breivik perfectly demonstrates the important point being made here: the Far Right and the Tea Party have their roots in anti-liberalism not more freedom. Breivik describes American democracy as a failed ideology and advocates Vladimir Putin's more authoritarian philosophy. Breivik says that in his youth he was a passionate believer in laissez-faire, but he had gradually come to realise that capitalism is part and parcel of Godless relativism (American Republicans haven't figure this out yet). He seems to describe his realization that laissez-faire has failed as relatively recent and psychologically transforming. He says the expression "national socialism" is too overloaded with Nazi overtones, but an idealistic society is not a libertarian society, it's a paternalistic society.

Breivik's ideas about revolutionary war are more important, so I am going to describe them in a moment. Taking about these things will come as a terrible shock to many readers, especially journalists and politicians, but Breivik committed this act to wake up the world, and suppose that in amongst all that madness he really had something say, then we certainly don't want these 100 lives to go in vain, so let's really talk about what he said properly. I know the ladies at the Guardian think that the idea of getting anything good out of an evil act and an evil man is appalling, but whilst hiding from your demons can bake nice cakes in the short term, in the long term it creates a vacuum that will eventually implode.

Breivik points out that journalists and politicians are completely out of sync with the general public. In a sense the elite have built a sort of ivory tower in cloud cuckoo land, and it's almost impossible for the people to regain power because every incumbent journalist, politician, judge etc is part of the cult. Politicians are widely hated, and power is increasingly becoming a revolving door, but because they are all part of the cult nothing ever changes, you just move from one zombie to the next. Look at the UK today, do you really think there is a difference between David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband? They are like three puppets controlled by the same ideological demon, in reality it makes no difference which one you vote for, democracy is an illusion. According to myth only the mad who have been touched by light can see the sameness of politicians, that's why mad individualists believe in the Illuminate, and mad utopians believe in zombies. So revolutionaries claim that because government today has neither democratic legitimacy nor functional legitimacy (performance legitimacy), under any semblance of democracy one is both constitutionally entitled and even morally obliged to revolt. Thus Breivik describes a battle for Western salvation, which he believes will last approximately 60 years.

The only way to break the elite's lock on power, Breivik claims, is to wipe them out giving new blood a chance. Politicians and journalists are not ordinary people, those who rule others do not have human rights, they are legitimate targets of revolutionaries in revolutionary times. Anyone who rules others must stand aside immediately if they loose legitimacy, they must never seek to maintain power through persuasion or force, and if they violate that rule they forfeit all rights. Think about David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. They are not running the country for the people, deep down they know they are totally clueless and unfit to govern, they just say or do whatever it takes to maintain power. Europe has been destroyed by cultural and economic incompetence, America has been so ravaged by wars and political incompetence it is essentially already dead, but nothing has changed, the same old ideas are rammed down the people throats everyday. You can read the worlds, but the scale of what these people are saying is hard to comprehend. The elite imagine politics and journalism as like an advertising agency, for them its just a game to acquire money and power, but combining capitalism with the most important and sacred human profession, call it Kingship or human navigation if you like, is blasphemy. So the elite are like corrupted Kings, they have become the ultimate personification of evil on earth, gradually they are completely destroying the world and yet still refusing to walk away. So the evil argument works on both a moral level, analysing the personality of politicians, and a scientific level, analyzing the stupidity of their policies. Therefore it is the duty of every courageous God fearing man to do what he can to bring down this regime, and if all one is qualified to do is fight as a foot soldier then that is what one must do. One can not be prosecuted for killing the elite, because they are tyrants.

The fact that so few revolt, Breivik claims, testifies to the weakness and selfishness of society. Today we are not lions prepared to give our lives in the cause, we are frogs who live croaking in the swamp. Once revolutionaries fought to wake up the proletarians, this time revolutionaries should use economic sabotage to wake up the bourgeois slaves hypnotised by the elite. Or, more idealistically, simply murder the elite, making them tremble every time they leave the house, terrorising them until they hand the keys to the ivory tower back to the people. Nick Clegg gets thousands of hate mail letters every week, not to mention dog turd posted through his letter box, but he battles on saying he was called to politics by a 'higher power'. Clueless nerdy Ed Miliband is a laughing stock, but he battles on saying he feels sure he is a greater statesman than his big brother. Anyone who believes politicians is insane, they are just power hungry monsters killing the world at the people's expense. If people started firing bullets at Nick Clegg instead of sending him hate mate, he would run a mile and the ivory tower could be freed from the clutches of this evil elite. So Breivik imagines himself as the first of the French Revolutionaries. A lot of journalists accuse Breivik of power hungry vanity, but the truth is he didn't even expect to survive the attack, nor did he think he would be treated like a hero in the aftermath. So Breivik's actions are not the normal self-serving type of evil we associate with the incumbent elite.

Do you think politicians and journalist are manipulative liars? Do you think that modern democracy is built on foundations of pure self serving lies? Do you think politicians in the West are useless dangerous emotional ideologists or talented helpful detached pragmatic Chinese sages? Modern democracy is about 100 years old, do you think it could last thousands of years as Chinese Confucian Government did before violent self-centered 19th Century European Powers tore Asia apart? Do you think modern democracy is getting worse or better as time goes by? Can it last another 100 years? Do you think the West is failing in both an economic and a moral sense? Do you think the West has any chance of life as long as these people control society? Do you think politicans are any more moral than the bankers they criticise? Are politicians so self serving and un-idealistic they should actually be labelled evil? Do you think they are tyrants and legitimate targets of revolutionaries? Are you a lion who will give your life in the fight to save to world, or a bourgeois hypnotised frog who turns his eye to good and evil and just sits around croaking in the swamp? If you saw the light, and you had the heart of a Knight, would you dedicate your entire life to overthrowing this evil regime and returning this world to the truth, justice and goodness? Was Breivik really immoral to give his life in the fight against politicians, or is it hypnotised selfish godless idiots like you who are the real evil of the world?

The truth is Breivik's arguments are extremely compelling, his writing testifies to the danger of philosophy, it demonstrates why Plato hid what he knew in allegory, and why I don't publish some of the more radical ideas on this web site, nor do I try to reach out to the masses but only to the elite. The fact is, as Plato says over and over again in no uncertain way, philosophy is extremely dangerous. Unless there is a Socrates to teach people they shouldn't try to learn it, and especially not people in their 20s and 30s. But since it's already out there and people are going mad, let's analyse what is actually wrong with Breivik's revolutionary philosophy, lets identify his mistakes.

Breivik calls Islam dangerous to Norway, but he doesn't move from this one perceived evil to the nature of good. He says he is often confused about Christianity, is it really a slave religion as Nietzsche claimed? He says he can't make his mind up whether or not he really believes in Christianity, instead he opts to call himself a cultural conservative rather a Christian fundamentalist. He never questions Western cultural traditions, instead of cosmopolitanism he imagines a world of culturally homogenous nations living out their traditions, but where is the objective truth in that? He is very anti-European, but I think anyone who is honest with themselves, and has seen a few episodes of Star Trek etc, can instantly see that the European vision of turning little tin pot failing states like Greece into gold stars on the blue flag has real idealism. Sure European politicians destroyed the dream, but that doesn't mean dreams can't happen. He even turns a blind eye to Chinese superiority.

So do you see that Breivik is stuck in subjective individualism - his inability to detach from his own sacred cows mirrors the failing of precisely those he criticises. Likewise he is no more capable of living a pure life than those he criticises. You can see this constant inconsistency, this neurosis, over and over again. For example, he lectures about moral purity, then talks about his inconsistent desire to celebrate with prostitutes. He talks about the evils of libertarianism, then his desire for personal economic freedom. He talks about the evils of democracy, but then imagines himself leading a populist revolution against incumbent politicians. Ordinary people ignore these inconsistencies, unless Socrates happens upon them and deems them stable enough to tear their minds to shreds. Idealists, however, can go mad trying to solve their inconsistencies, especially if they try to force solutions instead of looking for peaceful harmony. Finally true gurus find enlightenment by resolving their inconsistencies in deeper ethical analysis. Breivik is, of course, the mad idealist not the guru. If Breivik had any kind of guidance he would have known his inconsistencies and life style faults testify to his unworthiness.

The other day I asked the five year old daughter of a friend what her favourite fish are, and she said the dolphin and the starfish. I asked her which is more intelligent, and she said the starfish. I asked her why, and she said because starfish are good at hiding in the sand. When we are young we get hooked on little details instead of seeing the big picture. Most of Breivik's 1,500 page long manifesto is as stuck in the non-philosophical opinion layer as the rambling mindless liberal arts elite he hates. Real philosophers like Plato and Nietzsche don't use footnotes, they don't try to convince you of something by listing endless examples or building on someone else's sand castle, they try to teach you by drilling down into understanding, in other words by taking you to the philosophical equivalent of pure mathematics, not applied statistics. If Breivik had any kind of guidance he would have know that his constant factual tirades were junk, it's about Forms not facts. Facts are completely useless, the philosopher has two methods of validation: teaching and prophesy. If you can't persuade smart people that you are right in short answer verbal debate, or tear their ideas to sheds and make them look like fools, you fail teaching. If you can't predict things that actually happen, you fail prophesy.

Breivik seems to me to be a new more evolved version of the September 11th conspiracy theory type. The Sep 11th people get caught up in emotional ideas which they support by plucking facts out of the ethers. Their psychological theme is control, so they think democracy is an illusion and society is run by the Illuminate, and they twist all the data to reflect their paranoia. If ever you want a demonstration of the pointlessness of facts try arguing with these nut cases, to get them to see sense you have restructure their entire personality. Breivik brings more communal objective idealism, he realises that society is corrupt at both the elite and his own ordinary level, and we need both a new elite and more not less control. But then he channels this idealism into his environment, instead of fighting against his own weaknesses, he concentrates on politics instead of self devlopment. Whereas the Sep 11th person lives in a state of passivity and doesn't question his own worth, he searches for scapegoats to hide his own inadequacy. Breivik is extremely well read, but all he has read is mindless modern philosophers who could give him no answers. If he had found Plato he might have gone beyond this surface layer in search of the Form of utopia itself. By studying this he would have confronted his own inadequacy directly, and purified himself.

What's the next step up from Breivik? Breivik sets out to wipe out corruption in the elite, but then he gets hooked on nationalism. The elite have girl hooks, called liberalism, and boy hooks called nationalism. Breivik writes about all the marvellous politicians in Serbia, but of course that's completely and utterly absurd. Nationalists are as poisonous as liberals, they are all part of the same corrupt subjective emotional shark tank. I was talking to a Bosnian ex-soldier friend of mine about Breivik and I said "if God gave you a magic golden box with a ruby red button on top that could wipe out all the politicians, would you press it?" He said, look here, Yugoslavia since Tito has been a cess pit of nationalism and genocide, democracy has turned into something out of that film Apocalypse Now. He said Yugoslavia has two chances, either someone invents a magic box to get rid of them, or it goes back to the old Austro-Hungarian Empire colonialism days. I said what do you think about Breivik? He said people in Norway are spoilt rotten, they have no idea what hardship means, and he guesses that Breivik is probably just another American nut obsessed with anarchist survivalism. He said if someone wants to start killing politicians they should go to Yugoslavia and wipe them all out and put Tito back in charge. I think my friend is absolutely right, the genuinely evolved revolutionary is post-partisan, unlike Breivik he shoots them all regardless of party, unlike Breivik he despises the nationalists as much as the liberals.

Breivik is a mad as hatter, but he right about his war. As long as these idiot politicians, journalists and academics remain in charge revolution or war is the inevitable outcome. The frightening truth is that the glue that holds the modern world together is not evolved understanding, it's the complete mindlessness brought about by our hypnotic brain rotting culture. For anyone who opens their eyes and thinks philosophically the inconsistencies of modern politics are so absurd that they are likely to provoke madness. The world is at it's spiritual-philosophical low point, and now the tide must turn, and with the turning tide comes chaos. Breivik is just a taste of what to come. Evolving without feeling revolutionary is extremely difficult, and I think the vital trick is to stay away from everything except Plato.

Plato defines madness as the person who thinks that he is so brilliant he even controls the Gods. The mad person starts sucking the external world into his reality, and then it becomes his world. He starts looking behind the surface, and then like a child he can't see the surface. A psychiatric doctor once told me that some mad people have stories so good you almost start to believe them, they read meaning into everything and sometimes almost seem to predict the future. He joked that although medication kills the development of the patients, it saves the doctors from going mad themselves. I think of philosophy as the true psychiatric medication which allows one to separate madness and genius. When we get puffed up with knowledge about something others don't see we can come to think of ourselves as a world savoir who can do as he pleases. If you keep studying philosophy this feeling goes away, because your self disciplined cross examination keeps tearing your ego apart. Besides, if the world is mad it's mad because the Gods made it that way to teach people, and one should just be grateful for the lessons. That was one my eureka moments, my study of geopolitics was just a personal journey, if the world wasn't mad I wouldn't have discovered myself. It's like geopolitics is my experiential life and Plato is my guide. This life of personal growth by reflection on external challenges is infinitely fulfilling, I don't need anything else. The insane person who looses the boundary between the external and internal world lives a sort of shadow version of this spiritual life. The big difference is that for the insane person it's not fulfilling, he is desperate to find something or do something to the world not himself. So real philosophy is not "a cause" to be violently inflicted on others, it's a personal journey and a planting and watering of seeds in the collective.

If you find the holy grail that can fix the world, you will go mad unless you can learn to see the world from such a lofty perspective that the evils of the world are no longer evils that you need to fix. This is the famous Cassandra syndrome, Apollo gave her the gift of prophesy, but because she loved the world more than him he punished her with the curse that no one would listen. She foretold the fall of Troy and tried to save their lives but they all died anyway. To avoid the Cassandra syndrome you have to stop seeing life in the present tense, your vision must widen up to encompass all of history. Then the evils of today matter no more to you than the evils of Rome two thousand years ago, it's all just a great big symphony of human evolution. Recently I started getting angry with politicians and journalists in Europe, I could see so clearly what they are doing wrong, and how I could so easily fix Europe, and I started trying to reach these people and was horrified by their stupidity and corruption; but Breivik reminded me how extremely dangerous it is to allow one's vision to narrow so that external problems can effect one. Once I looked passed the developing suffering and saw the meaningfulness I lost my anger. Suppose modern Greek implodes and millions die, you have to feel the same way about that event as you feel about the fall of Athens in 400BC. The Greeks killed Socrates, they spurned the cosmopolitanism of Alexander, I hardly dare say this because you won't know what I am talking about, but the Greeks are like slaves and their suffering in history and today is both what they deserve and what they need. So time disappears and you live in history, and life is beautiful and blissful. Look at Plato's work, it has sat there for two and a half thousand years as generations have come and gone, if the Gods wanted it rammed down our throats they would have burnt the words in the side of a cliff, instead they make us figure it out for ourselves.

Back on angry impatient Planet Earth people are going to say my high minded ideas don't have enough fire in them. They think it's their duty to fight to save society, not sit back watering plants and smelling roses. They say Ghandi's non-violence works well in tyrannies where everyone is on the same side and can go on strike bringing down the system, but manipulative hypnotic systems in theory require either infiltrating or killing the elite, or deprogramming or frightening the mob. Breivik was of course an elite killer, whereas if revolution was my job I would go for elite infiltration. Breivik's second choice was frightening the mob, whereas my second choice would be deprogramming the mob by trying to create some kind of simple religion. The Knights Templar Breivik imagined is a figment of his imagination, his friend in the EDL aren't religious, they're skinheads. Breivik talks about waking up the middle class with economic sabotage, but the Gods are already inflicting that on us. We are already on the brink of revolution and economic collapse, but it's likely to be another French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Cultural Revolution etc. The philosopher knows he can't control the mob, imagining that one can is pure vanity, that madness created these monstrous politicians in the first place. Unless you are part of a new model army of idealists there are only two avenues open to the revolutionary idealist: look for a living guru or try to become a guru yourself. Gurus aren't 32 years old, they have solved their complexes, and live the sort of pure life Plato describes Socrates as living. Then and only then can they try to seek followers. Breivik lived in a complete fantasy world, he imagined a spiritual guru called Richard The Lionheart in his dreams, and imagined himself as some kind of inspired relay for this divine voice. That's why religion without an enlightened living master is disastrous, because people end up getting inspired by madness and blowing up the world. Poor Breivik lives in a spiritually bankrupt mentally disabled world where none of this is explained, so his lonely spiritual quest ended up in insanity. Alas he won't be the last.

I think that's a quick fuzzy attempt at an intellectual perspective, and the simple moral perspective is what Plato called "non-interference". That means a tiny group can't use extreme violence to wake up the masses, violence only becomes acceptable if your friends and relatives asks you to become a soldier and fight for your community. Non-interference also means that ordinary people have no right to revolt, they should leave politics to those whose specialise in it, just as plumbers leave carpentry to carpenters. So the revolution must come from within the leadership itself. That's not the way the second amendment is written, but it's the way we non-democratic philosophers think about life. China is an example of an elite system which is evolving without popular interference, the next generation of Chinese leaders are expected to be much more radical that the current leaders. In China you have to start a revolution by converting the specialists, you can't run grass roots campaigns. I agree with this absolutely, and that's why my web site is primarily aimed at Chinese intellectuals, because the key to a sustainable transformation is a new elite inspired by China.

If someone feels revolutionary what should they do? My advice to them is to drop out and live on the edge of society. Back in 600BC the Orphic Philosophers started walking away from society, they lived in communes and cut themselves off from the mindless mob and mindless elite. Don't try to change the world, just turn your back on it. It's a humble life, but it's a good life. Many people get absolutely obsessed by politics, it's a sort of mental illness that focuses on the externalities not the soul, and it's far better to refuse to vote, cancel all your newspapers, throw out your TV and go on a voyage of self discovery. Retreat has always been an important avenue for a certain percentage of the population, unfortunately today monasteries have gone out of fashion. Perhaps what Europe needs is something like the Amish Community without the crazy religion. No TV, no facebook, no mobile phone, no consumer goods, and lots of communal work. A place for people who have seen the light to go, so they don't start revolting against the zombies.

I like to think that if Breivik had read my web site he would have been less likely to do this thing. Although I talk about the evil zombie elite and the world burning and dying, I hope what I say is positive enough to inspire people with utopian idealism and spiritual journeys, not instil violent radicalism. Breivik mentions utopian idealism but said he hadn't managed to embrace it, they suddenly he imagines himself as a holy crusader on a mission to destroy the world. Perhaps he was getting more and more mad, growing up toward an epiphany, yet he had devoted his whole life to this thing for so many years that he had nothing else, so he went ahead anyway even in a state of complete psychotic turmoil. I think my writing could have helped him, although I also worry that the wrong person will get hold of some small pieces and become more unbalanced. The single goal of this web site is to get the attention of the elite, then it can be deleted. As the Wall Street Journal article points out, until the elite abandon this terrible failing ignorance we are in extreme danger. As it happens I don't think this web site has made any difference to anyone, it's just a comic demonstration of how useless and mindless our world is, but only the Gods know whether they want it to stay that way, or whether both you and I are worthy of more.

In conclusion then Breivik is a rotten apple, but in my opinion Dominique Strauss Kahn is worse. Breivik gave his entire crazy life to this crazy political cause, he is not just another mad serial killer who picked up a machine gun and started killing his friends, he deserves more careful consideration. DSK is the precise opposite, he has zero idealism, he is just a poisonous politician who rapes the people. Plato said there are two types of madness, little people who have lived in the dark and gone mad as they turned to look into the light, and big people who have turned from the light into the dark. We should feel sorry for former but we know one day they will get better. The later however are more terrible cases. I think Plato's idea of two types of madness is important, and perhaps Breivik is someone who went mad turning to look at the light, whereas DSK is someone who went mad turning to look at the dark. Perhaps Breivik sums up the madness developing in the masses, and DSK the madness developing in the elite. The elite have turned a blind eye to DSK's crimes, but they are obsessed with Breivik's, yet Breivik is undeniably at least to some extent a product of elite evil, whereas DSK is elite evil incarnate.

So I am not looking at either the psychological details or physical details of Breivik's or DSK's crimes, I am trying to come at problem as a very big picture philosopher who thinks in terms of human evolution. The knives are already out for Breivik, pouring over his life and his unprofessional writings looking for headlines, as if good people have perfect pasts and evil people don't. That's the way the zombies write articles, because they don't have the brain power to analyse philosophy, they just draw childlike conclusions based on prior events. For DSK it's the other way around, his past is hushed up to protect the club. The Wall Street Journal article quoted is the only intelligent article I have read so far. One idiotic article had some Norwegian liberal politician claiming this incident was "worse than Sep 11th" because 100 of "our future leaders" have been killed rather than just 2,500 businessmen! So I have put all that mad emotion to one side and written an article about what Breivik said in his best most lucid moments, and how even that was flawed. If it was my job to hand out punishment, which thank goodness its not, I would execute both of them, but Breivik would hang as a deterrent, whereas DSK would be skinned alive as punishment. At least this is my take, in a few hours of skip reading his manifesto. I am not Socrates or Diotima, it's just a guess.

psychological theme is control,

so true. interesting stuff to read