Introduction
On July 22, 2011, Norway experienced its darkest day since World War II. Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old Norwegian man, carried out two devastating terrorist attacks that shocked the world. In a single day, he killed 77 people and injured hundreds more. The first attack was a car bomb in Oslo's government quarter, followed by a shooting spree on the island of Utøya, where young members of the Norwegian Labour Party were attending a summer camp.
Åsne Seierstad's book "One of Us" delves deep into the life of Anders Breivik, exploring his troubled childhood, his descent into far-right extremism, and the events that led to his horrific acts of terrorism. This comprehensive account not only examines Breivik's personal history but also sheds light on the societal factors that may have contributed to his radicalization.
Breivik's Unstable Childhood
Anders Behring Breivik's early years were marked by instability and dysfunction, setting the stage for his troubled future. Born in 1979, Breivik's parents, Jens and Wenche Breivik, had only been together for a year when he came into the world. When Breivik was just six months old, his father was appointed as a counselor to the Norwegian Embassy in London, prompting the young family to relocate from Oslo.
The move to London proved challenging for Wenche, who felt isolated and unappreciated in her role as a stay-at-home mother. After only six months, she decided to divorce Jens and return to Oslo with her one-year-old son. This early disruption in Breivik's life would be the first of many unstable experiences during his formative years.
As Breivik grew older, his mother struggled to cope with the demands of raising him and his younger sister. When Breivik was four years old, Wenche reached out for help, requesting respite care for her children. This led to a psychological evaluation of the family, which revealed concerning findings. Experts concluded that the entire family was "affected by the mother's poor psychological functioning" and recommended that Anders be removed from the family environment.
The psychologists noted that "the mother is continually provoked by the boy and is locked in ambivalent positions, making it impossible [for him] to develop on his own terms." Despite these alarming observations, no immediate action was taken. A home visitor appointed to assess the situation determined that the conditions were not severe enough to warrant removing Anders from his mother's care. As a result, Wenche maintained custody of her son, setting the stage for years of continued instability and emotional turmoil.
A Social Outsider in School
As Breivik entered his school years, his difficulties in social situations became increasingly apparent. From an early age, he was described as a shy yet short-tempered boy who struggled to form friendships. In preschool, he found it challenging to connect with his peers, a pattern that would continue throughout his education.
However, during his later school years, Breivik managed to find a niche that temporarily alleviated his social isolation. He became involved in the graffiti scene, which provided him with a sense of belonging and a small group of friends. In 1992, when Breivik entered secondary education and switched to a new school, he formed a group of four friends who shared his interest in tagging.
This newfound hobby gave Breivik a taste of notoriety and respect among his peers. He and his friends would often go on excursions to buy spray paint, and they gained a certain level of recognition within the graffiti community. Despite being caught twice by the police, Breivik and his crew never revealed the identities of others in the scene, which earned them respect from their fellow taggers.
Unfortunately, Breivik's lack of empathy and his desire for recognition soon led to his exclusion from the very community that had accepted him. In the tagger scene, there was a hierarchy where novices were known as "toys" and top taggers were called "kings." Breivik, eager to climb the ranks, broke an unwritten rule by writing over the tag of a "king." This act of disrespect quickly spread through the community, causing Breivik to lose the respect he had gained both in the tagging scene and at school.
The consequences of his actions were severe, as Breivik once again found himself an outsider. His classmates even noted this shift in their school yearbook, writing, "Anders used to be part of the 'gang' but then he made enemies of everybody." This incident highlighted Breivik's inability to maintain social connections and his tendency to alienate those around him.
Breivik's relationship with his father, which had been tenuous at best, completely deteriorated after a third arrest for attempting to replenish his stock of spray cans. His father, who had maintained occasional contact with his son, made it clear that he wanted nothing more to do with him. This rejection from his father further isolated Breivik and marked the end of their relationship.
Political Aspirations and Disappointments
In 1999, at the age of 20, Breivik took his first steps into the world of politics by becoming a member of the right-wing Norwegian Progress Party. However, it wasn't until 2002 that he saw an opportunity to advance within the party ranks. That year, Breivik was invited to join one of three new local youth branches being established in Oslo. At the inauguration meeting, he was appointed the deputy chairman of the Progress Party Youth, Oslo West Branch.
This appointment sparked Breivik's interest in politics and motivated him to immerse himself in the party's activities. He began to build a network within the Progress Party Youth's social scene, cultivating relationships with influential members and working to establish a reputation for himself. Breivik saw this as his chance to make a name for himself in Norwegian politics and potentially launch a successful political career.
However, Breivik's political ambitions were soon met with disappointment. When the time came for nominations for the city council elections, Breivik failed to secure a spot on the list. This setback dealt a significant blow to his enthusiasm for party politics. Despite his efforts to impress the nomination committee and his hope that he might still be called upon later, Breivik's name was not included on the final list of candidates.
The rejection from the party he had invested so much time and energy in left Breivik disillusioned. He began to withdraw from the Progress Party's social events, and by 2004, he had paid his last membership dues. This experience of political disappointment would later play a role in Breivik's radicalization, as he began to seek alternative outlets for his ideological beliefs and desire for recognition.
Retreat into the Online World
Following his disappointment in traditional politics, Breivik retreated into the digital realm. For a time, he made a living by selling fake diplomas online. However, in February 2006, fearing detection for his fraudulent activities, Breivik was forced to abandon this venture. Running low on funds, he moved back in with his mother, marking the beginning of a period of intense isolation and immersion in the online world.
Breivik's primary occupation during this time became playing online games, particularly World of Warcraft. Using the nickname "Andersnordic," he devoted countless hours to the massive multiplayer online role-playing game. In the virtual world, Breivik finally found the approval and recognition he had been craving in real life. He excelled at the game and enjoyed the sense of accomplishment it provided.
However, Breivik's hubris once again led to disappointment. Believing himself to be among the elite players, he switched to a server reserved for the best gamers, aiming to become the top-ranked player in World of Warcraft. Despite years of dedicated play, he never managed to break into even the top 500 players on the server, a blow to his inflated sense of self-importance.
When not engrossed in gaming, Breivik spent his time surfing the web. In 2008, he stumbled upon a new online world that would have a profound impact on his ideology and future actions. Breivik began to take a serious interest in far-right websites and the ideas they promoted. He immersed himself in platforms such as document.no, Gates of Vienna (gatesofvienna.net), and Stormfront (stormfront.org), where users shared racist and Islamophobic ideas.
One user who particularly impressed Breivik was "Fjordman," a fellow Norwegian known for spreading Islamophobic ideas on the Gates of Vienna website. Breivik became increasingly obsessed with these far-right ideologies and conspiracy theories, spending most of his time in his room at his mother's house, delving deeper into this online echo chamber of extremist thought.
The extent of Breivik's newfound obsession became evident in 2009 when, during a rare face-to-face social interaction, he told his cousin that he was writing a book about conservatism and the Crusaders. This revelation was a clear indication that Breivik had become fixated on the idea that Europe required a new crusade against Islam. He had found a new purpose in life: the writing of his manifesto, which would later serve as a justification for his terrorist acts.
The Manifesto: A Declaration of War
Influenced by the online right-wing platforms he had immersed himself in, Breivik published a massive compendium on document.no in September 2009. This 1,518-page document, titled "2083: A European Declaration of Independence," was a manifesto outlining Breivik's extremist views and his call to action against what he perceived as threats to European civilization.
The title of the manifesto referenced the 1683 Battle of Vienna, in which a Christian coalition won a decisive victory over an Ottoman army invading Europe. This historical allusion set the tone for Breivik's work, framing his ideology as a continuation of a centuries-old struggle between Christianity and Islam.
In the first part of his manifesto, Breivik blamed various social currents for what he saw as a decline of values in Europe. He advocated for a return to the values of the 1950s, including patriarchy, the condemnation of homosexuality, and the sanctity of marriage. Breivik identified three main culprits for modern society's moral deterioration: "cultural Marxism," feminism, and the Islamization of European countries.
To support his views, Breivik extensively cited conservative and right-wing writers such as Robert Spencer, Henryk M. Broder, and his online inspiration, Fjordman. Often, these citations were made without proper attribution, blending the ideas of others with his own extremist ideology.
The manifesto took a dark turn in its conclusion, where Breivik argued that armed resistance was necessary to stop the Islamization of Europe. This final section served as a guideline for planning and conducting a successful terrorist attack. Breivik included advice on how to build bombs, where to purchase weapons, and even devoted a chapter to an interview with himself, in which he boastfully described fictional deeds and explained in detail how he had prepared for his terrorist attack.
This manifesto not only revealed the extent of Breivik's radicalization but also served as a blueprint for his future actions. It demonstrated how he had transformed from a socially awkward young man into a dangerous extremist, convinced of the righteousness of his cause and willing to commit unspeakable acts of violence to further his ideological goals.
Preparations for Terror
With his manifesto complete, Breivik moved on to the next phase of his plan: preparing for the actual attack. His first step was to acquire a firearms license and weapons. During the winter of 2010-2011, Breivik attended shooting classes at Oslo Pistol Club without raising any suspicions. This allowed him to legally obtain firearms, which he would later use in his attack on Utøya island.
However, building a bomb without detection proved to be a more challenging task. To accomplish this, Breivik rented a farm in the Norwegian countryside, providing him with the space and privacy he needed to construct his explosive device. He scoured the internet for bomb-making instructions, finding information shared by laboratories, amateur chemists, and even militant organizations like al-Qaeda.
Breivik meticulously gathered the necessary ingredients for his bomb, ordering some components online and purchasing others from local pharmacies. To avoid suspicion, he concocted plausible cover stories for his purchases. For instance, he claimed that he needed powdered sulfur to clean out an aquarium.
The farm Breivik rented was crucial to his plan. He told the landlord that he intended to start sugar-beet production, which provided a convenient explanation for the large amounts of fertilizer he purchased – a key component in his homemade bomb. In the spring of 2011, Breivik moved to the farm and began the painstaking process of constructing his explosive device.
The bomb-making process was not without its challenges. Many of the online instructions Breivik followed were inaccurate or incomplete, requiring him to make several attempts before successfully creating a functional bomb. By July 2011, after months of trial and error, Breivik had finally produced the weapon he would use in his first attack.
Throughout this period, Breivik managed to avoid arousing suspicion from his neighbors. Although some locals occasionally visited the farm, Breivik was able to conceal his true activities and maintain the facade of a ordinary farmer engaged in agricultural work.
This meticulous preparation phase demonstrated Breivik's determination and the lengths he was willing to go to carry out his planned attack. It also highlighted the challenges faced by authorities in detecting and preventing such lone-wolf terrorist activities, especially when the perpetrator goes to great lengths to appear normal and avoid drawing attention to themselves.
The Day of the Attack
On July 22, 2011, Breivik put his carefully laid plans into action. The day began with Breivik placing the bomb he had constructed at his rented farm. He drove a rented delivery van to Oslo and parked it outside the building that housed the Ministry of Justice and the Prime Minister's office. Dressed in a police uniform to avoid suspicion, Breivik primed the bomb and then quickly moved to another van he had parked nearby.
Despite Breivik's precautions, his actions did not go entirely unnoticed. A bystander observed Breivik's suspicious behavior and took note of the van's registration number, intending to report it to the police. This vigilant citizen could have potentially thwarted Breivik's plans, but a series of communication failures within the Norwegian police force allowed the terrorist to continue unimpeded.
At 3:25 PM, nine minutes after Breivik had lit the fuse, the bomb detonated. The explosion instantly killed eight people and caused extensive damage to the government buildings. In the chaos that followed, the witness who had spotted Breivik earlier contacted the police and provided them with the van's registration number.
The police operator who received this crucial information recognized its importance and jotted it down on a Post-it note. However, in a fatal error, the note was simply placed on a busy supervisor's desk, where it went unnoticed for 20 minutes. This delay in processing the information gave Breivik a significant head start in carrying out the second part of his attack.
When the alert was finally sent out to patrol cars in the relevant areas, many officers chose to ignore the order and continue with their regular duties. It wasn't until 78 minutes after the explosion that a nationwide alert was finally issued. However, in another critical mistake, the police station in the district where Breivik was headed never received the alert because their computer was in energy-save mode and failed to display any notifications.
These series of errors and oversights allowed Breivik to reach his next target: the island of Utøya. When he arrived at the ferry that connected the island to the mainland, ferry officials had already been informed of the Oslo explosion and had cancelled all scheduled transports. However, Breivik, still wearing his police uniform, convinced them that he was conducting a routine security check in response to the bombing. His disguise and plausible story persuaded the officials to transport him to the island.
Utøya was hosting the annual meeting of the Norwegian Labour Party's youth league. For Breivik, these young people represented the "cultural Marxism" he despised and blamed for Norway's perceived decline. Upon reaching the island, Breivik gathered a group of unsuspecting youngsters around him. Without warning, he opened fire, beginning a horrific shooting spree that would last for over an hour.
The Police Response and Breivik's Capture
The police response to Breivik's attack on Utøya was plagued by a series of critical errors that allowed him to continue his rampage for an agonizing 75 minutes. When the first two policemen arrived at the mainland jetty opposite Utøya, they were ordered to wait for reinforcements instead of immediately crossing over to the island. This decision went against official regulations, which require immediate intervention in cases of active shootings.
The delay was compounded when the reinforcements were given incorrect information about where to meet. Instead of going to the jetty nearest to Utøya, they went to another jetty three kilometers away. This miscommunication cost precious time as Breivik continued his killing spree on the island.
When the police finally attempted to cross over to Utøya, they faced yet another setback. The boat they used was overloaded with heavy equipment, causing the engine to fail. This further delayed their arrival on the island, giving Breivik more time to carry out his attack.
During these 75 minutes of unchallenged violence, Breivik killed 69 people, most of them teenagers attending the youth camp. The victims had nowhere to hide on the small island, and many were shot as they tried to swim to safety or hide among the rocks on the shore.
Finally, after what must have seemed an eternity to the survivors, police forces arrived on Utøya. Confronted with the overwhelming police presence, Breivik surrendered without resistance. His attack had achieved its terrible goal, and he was now eager to use his capture as an opportunity to publicize his extremist views.
The capture of Anders Behring Breivik marked the end of Norway's deadliest day since World War II. In total, his twin attacks in Oslo and on Utøya claimed 77 lives and left hundreds more injured, both physically and psychologically. The nation was left in shock, struggling to comprehend how such a horrific act could have occurred in peaceful Norway.
The Trial: A Platform for Extremism
Breivik's trial, which began in April 2012 and lasted until June, became a media spectacle, with hundreds of news outlets from around the world covering the proceedings. For Breivik, the courtroom was not just a place of judgment, but a stage from which he could promote his radical worldview.
From the moment he entered the courtroom, Breivik made his intentions clear. He began by raising his arm in a right-wing extremist salute, setting the tone for what would be a trial filled with provocative gestures and statements. When given the opportunity to speak, Breivik admitted to committing the attacks but denied his guilt, instead pleading the principle of necessity. In his warped view, his actions were a necessary step to save Europe from what he perceived as the threats of Marxism and Islam.
During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence of Breivik's life and his preparations for the attack. This included screening a video that Breivik had uploaded to YouTube, in which he promoted his extremist ideology. As he watched the video in court, Breivik's eyes welled with tears. However, a psychologist present interpreted these tears not as a sign of remorse, but as an indication of Breivik's narcissistic love for himself and his cause.
Breivik used his time in court to deliver what he called the "framework of his defense," which was essentially a summary of his manifesto. He spoke at length about the necessity of a resistance movement to rescue Europe from what he saw as the destructive forces of Marxism and Islam. In a chilling display of his inflated sense of self-importance, Breivik even declared his attack as the "most sophisticated and spectacular in Europe since the Second World War."
Throughout the trial, Breivik showed a disturbing lack of empathy for his victims. As prosecutors detailed the lives of those he had killed or injured, Breivik remained silent, looking down at his papers. While he claimed to acknowledge the pain and grief he had caused, he offered no apology during the proceedings.
The trial also grappled with the question of Breivik's sanity, a crucial factor in determining whether he would be sent to prison or to a psychiatric institution. Two conflicting psychiatric reports were presented, leading to intense debate about Breivik's mental state and his legal responsibility for his actions.
The Question of Sanity
The issue of Breivik's mental state became a central point of contention during his trial. Two separate psychiatric evaluations were conducted, each reaching different conclusions about Breivik's sanity and his legal responsibility for his actions.
The first psychiatric report, completed before the trial, deemed Breivik not responsible for his actions. The psychiatrists who examined him observed several behaviors that they associated with psychosis. They noted that Breivik believed he could read other people's thoughts, a phenomenon often linked to psychotic disorders. He also displayed an extreme form of self-centeredness, viewing himself as the focal point of all events and assuming that even the psychiatrists examining him envied his perceived expertise.
Furthermore, the first set of psychiatrists found that Breivik lacked a clear perception of his own identity. Instead, he used invented words and concepts to describe himself, such as "suicidal Marxist," which they saw as another indicator of psychosis. Based on these observations, they concluded that Breivik suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and therefore could not be held legally accountable for his terrorist attack.
However, a second psychiatric evaluation reached a different conclusion. Interestingly, it was this second report that Breivik himself supported, despite the fact that the first report would have helped him avoid prison time. Breivik's motivation for preferring the second report stemmed from his fear that being declared insane would undermine the credibility of his manifesto and ideological message.
The second pair of psychiatrists posited that Breivik suffered from antisocial personality disorder with narcissistic traits. Unlike paranoid schizophrenia, this disorder is not associated with psychosis, meaning that Breivik could be held legally accountable for his actions. This diagnosis aligned more closely with Breivik's own view of himself as a rational actor carrying out what he believed to be a necessary political action.
The conflicting psychiatric reports led to intense debate during the trial about Breivik's mental state and his culpability for the attacks. Ultimately, the court had to weigh the evidence and decide whether Breivik was legally responsible for his actions or if he should be considered insane and therefore not criminally liable.
The Verdict and Sentence
On August 24, 2012, after months of testimony and deliberation, the court reached its verdict. Anders Behring Breivik was found legally sane and criminally responsible for his actions. The court rejected the notion that Breivik was suffering from psychosis during the attacks and instead accepted the second psychiatric evaluation's diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder with narcissistic traits.
Breivik was convicted on charges of terrorism and premeditated murder. He was sentenced to 21 years of "preventive detention," which is the maximum sentence allowed under Norwegian law. However, this sentence comes with a crucial caveat: it can be extended indefinitely as long as Breivik is deemed to pose a threat to society.
This sentencing structure means that while Breivik received the harshest punishment available in the Norwegian justice system, there is a possibility that he may never be released if he continues to be considered dangerous. The court's decision aimed to balance the principles of justice and public safety with Norway's commitment to humane treatment of all prisoners, even those who have committed the most heinous crimes.
Conclusion: Lessons from a Tragedy
The story of Anders Behring Breivik and the July 22 attacks is a chilling reminder of the destructive power of extremist ideologies and the devastating consequences of unchecked hatred. From his unstable childhood to his descent into far-right extremism, Breivik's journey illustrates how personal disappointments and social isolation can contribute to radicalization.
The attacks also exposed significant weaknesses in Norway's emergency response systems and highlighted the challenges faced by law enforcement in preventing and responding to lone-wolf terrorist attacks. The series of communication failures and logistical errors that allowed Breivik to continue his rampage for so long led to a comprehensive review and overhaul of Norway's security protocols.
Moreover, Breivik's trial raised important questions about the balance between freedom of expression and the potential for extremist ideologies to incite violence. It also sparked debates about mental health, criminal responsibility, and the role of the justice system in dealing with acts of terrorism.
In the years since the attacks, Norway has grappled with how to memorialize the victims while also moving forward as a nation. The country has strived to respond to this tragedy not with fear and hatred, but with a renewed commitment to openness, democracy, and social inclusion.
The case of Anders Behring Breivik serves as a stark warning about the dangers of extremism and the importance of addressing the root causes of radicalization. It underscores the need for vigilance in identifying and countering extremist ideologies, while also highlighting the importance of fostering social cohesion and providing support for vulnerable individuals who might be at risk of radicalization.
As we reflect on this dark chapter in Norway's history, we are reminded of the resilience of the human spirit and the power of communities to come together in the face of tragedy. The lessons learned from this horrific event continue to shape discussions about security, mental health, and the fight against extremism not just in Norway, but around the world.