To explain a mass murderer

Terrorism is always unpredictable. It is equally as repulsive as it is shocking on each occasion. The powerful bomb attack in the heart of Norwegian government’s office district, combined with the massacre of defenceless people in Utöya, was particularly monstrous: a cowardly act of violence by an Islamophobic terrorist – a mass murderer with a warped worldview and obvious personality disorders. Although the vast majority of terrorists are classified as psychologically normal, Anders Behring Breivik is surely one of history’s most unusual terrorists. His defence lawyer described him days after his detention as a person with a ”very, very” different reality than the rest of us. But Breivik is also an illusionist who weaves together fantasy and reality.

For example, Breivik was driven to Oslo University Hospital the day before his detention hearing in Oslo City Court to be x-rayed, because during questioning he had claimed that he had swallowed a trigger mechanism for a remote-controlled bomb. Nothing was found. Nor have we found any evidence of Breivik’s alleged conspiracy with the ‘crusading knights’ spread across Europe, and with two terror cells in Norway. No other sworn conspirators have been discovered – not even his virtual motivator and mentor Fjordman is being held. No reports have come out of questioning of representatives of the extreme right – hate-spewing scum who hide behind the anonymity of the internet.

No one knows what is fantasy or reality in this puppet show, where Breivik has written the script and is pulling the strings. Illusion is there, as well as uncertainty: are there more Breiviks lurking in the shadows, ready to don Knights Templar dress and embark on a mass-murder spree in which thousands of unwitting victims stand in line? When not even Breivik’s secret codes that are embedded in the manifesto – deliberately designed to be detected by both media and police – culminate in the identification of co-conspirators to terrorist attacks, we should ask: how far do you draw parallels to the new, populist, right-wing extremism, if Breivik turns out be an isolated case?

Fragments from Breivik’s manifesto 2083: A European Declaration of Independence were portioned out by journalists over the subsequent weeks; the script containing an almost inexhaustible source of media angles. The more one reads the manifesto – which is very sad and anti-intellectual – the greater the feeling that a psychological dimension can be just as important to explain why the attacks occurred, as the extreme right-wing, Islamophobic and xenophobic ideological lines.

From the internet, Breivik bought into a ready-made ideological world of ideas across the board – without reflection, perspective or introspection. Central is the absurd idea of ‘Eurabia’, where a surreptitious Islamisation destroys Western society through a mathematically illogical mass-immigration, which is conspiratorially promoted by an elite of ‘cultural Marxists’ and ‘traitors’ in politics, media and universities. This ideology has long thrived in many well-known right-wing extremist forums on the net. Here intersect various conspiratorial ideas with statistics and black-and-white arguments.

The world of ideas that Breivik plagiarised is thus well known in some right-wing circles. What separates Breivik from other extremists is this manual in terror, and the diary entries as follows: a nasty trip into his world of thought where meticulous preparation culminated in a mass murder. A dialogue ensues between Breivik and the reader, who gets to see a narcissistic fantasy world, probably manically written and cut-and-pasted over many days and nights; obviously these were punctuated with role-playing on the computer. Just as Breivik constructs his World of Warcraft avatar designs, he also has its own character in real life: a powerful individual who can face and defeat all dangers.

Breivik plagiarises ideas, ideologies and facts that he comes across on the internet and adds them together purposefully. We understand that he has totally disappeared into his own world, where it is his dream to appear in court wearing his medal-decorated uniform: a U.S. marine’s uniform with a mixture of armbands and medals. There is also a points system for executions; tombstones depicting the historical legitimacy of the Knights Templar; ideas of martyrdom, the proportionality of violence and the other things inspired by al-Qaeda’s ideas and modus operandi.

But it gets stranger than that. The autobiographical descriptions include aggressive outbursts against Breivik’s own family, where promiscuous sexual behaviour by named family members and friends are used as a pretext for social conservatism. The 1950s, is described as a golden age of nuclear families, where the father worked and mother stayed at home with the children. Breivik states himself in the manifesto how long children ideally should attend kindergarten. The temptation is great to analyse his own family situation.

It is to the Norwegians’ credit that they have not been lured into Breivik’s imaginary world. Evil, hatred and revenge have been replaced by national unity of which openness, democracy and civic warmth will smother Breivik’s intentions. A 22-July-Commission should identify the sequence of events; Europol has established a 50-man-strong group that will investigate non-Islamist terrorism in Scandinavia, and its potential ramifications to the rest of Europe. Right-wing extremism is being taken seriously. At the same time, after the attacks in Norway, Europol’s website emphasises that ”threats from Islamic extremists are still relevant today”.

What is the explanation for Europol’s annual TE-SAT report, which Swedish social commentators take to mean that Islamist terrorism is a chimera that has led to anti-democratic laws and a ‘witch hunt’ against Muslims? The argument is repeated often: Islamist terrorism represents only 0.3 percent of all terrorist acts within the EU.

The statistics do not, however, reflect Europol’s overall assessment. All EU states argue that Islamist terrorism is still one of the most serious threats. Security services have focused on foiling terror plots – the terrorist plots that all have been al-Qaeda-inspired. Within the United Kingdom alone – which does not report to Europol the type of terrorism that it has prevented – 235 individuals linked to al-Qaeda have been convicted and imprisoned since 2001. Over 200 German citizens have joined the Taliban forces and al-Qaeda-related training camps in Pakistan’s Waziristan.

Failed terrorist plots, such as the suicide bombing in central Stockholm, or the arrest of the four Swedes in Copenhagen for the terrorist plot against the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, illustrate a growing threat here at home. In our neighbouring country Denmark, al-Qaeda-related terrorist plots are foiled every year – most recently last Christmas with the four Swedes who are still awaiting trial. Over the course of the last four years, the Danes have had four large trials of Islamic terrorists and, within the last two years, four major plots against the Jyllands-Posten with links to Pakistan or Somalia have been averted.

Europol’s TE-SAT report also includes right-wing extremism. Even here, however, the picture is distorted. According to the report, there were no right-wing extremist acts of terrorism, and no person was arrested for extreme right-wing terrorism offences in 2010. Of course, we nevertheless know that right-wing extremism is a very serious threat to our common values and democracy.

Wolfgang Petersen’s film The Perfect Storm, which is about a fishing boat in the middle of the North Atlantic’s storm of the century, illustrates the dilemma of predicting whether the terrorist Breivik was created by a rare conjunction of extreme conditions, or whether he represents a future wave of extreme right-wing terrorism.

However, what is certain is that Breivik’s terrorist attacks triggered a fierce public debate about causality. The same polarising rhetoric – the stigmatisation of Muslims and of collective guilt – is now paradoxically being used about right-wing political parties. Regardless of where the debate ends, it is gratifying to see a Swedish government’s forward-looking and wide-ranging approach against all forms of violent extremism. We will certainly need both to better respond to polarisation in society, and if we suffer from terrorism in the future.