[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Personally, I would leave these judgments to experts - they know a lot more than we do from the (oft-sensationalized) news media. We haven't interviewed and observed this guy, they have.

Considering the things he's done, and some of the justifications he made for them - I definitely wouldn't consider the diagnosis implausible.

I were no psychiatrist (result of studying medicine) but clinical psychologist (result of studying psychology), but the difference is not that immense. Stereotypically, psychiatrists do drugs and psychoanalysis, psychologists to behaviorism and humanistic therapies. Both use the same classifications of diseases, the DSM and the ICD. In clinical reality, both cooperate closely.

From a psychologist's point of view, I must tell you of some simple facts that speak against the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

Formally, there are three primary criterions for a diagnosis of schizophrenia:
- accustic hallucinations
- delusions of lunacy (=Wahnvorstellungen)
- cognitive thought disorders (=Denkstörungen).

Formally, at least two of these must be fulfilled , else you usually do not give the diagnosis of a schizophrenia.

I do not even take into account secondary symptoms. Decisive for the diagnosis is that two of the three primary symptoms must be fulfilled.

Breivik has planned his deed over years, logically, rationally, and with great cleverness. It is very unusual to see this kind of long-termed planning and execution from a schizophrenic person. Not impossible, but very very unusual. This speaks against delusions of lunacy.

His world view may be seen as dangerous or unacceptable compared to the society'S canon of views and values and political consensus, but in itself it is logical and compelling and rational a model, and it has striking links to facts from reality. This speaks against delusions of lunacy, and cognitive thought disorders.

He hid his plan and preparation, and thus was necessarily aware of the need to do so. Which means he knew he was violating above mentioned canon of society'S views and rules and values - he was aware of his own worldview, but also of the different worldview of the environment he was living in. Which also speaks against delusions of lunacy.

His planning and preparation was precise, as was the perfection of his hiding. Maybe cold-blooded and aiming at massmurder, but precise, rational and right up to the needs of his objective. This speaks against thought disorders, biut speaks for a high sense of realism.

He is not reported to have had accustic hallucinations at all.

And paranoia: his enemy he wanted to take aim on, was a general movement in the world towards what he considered as bad and evil: a shifting towards socialism, alienation of cultural identity, and Islam. But note that I often get called an "islamophobe" when I make a rational criticism of Islamic ideology and history. A phobia also is a clinical category, and calling me islamophobic means that the person doing so considers me as ill, as mentally deranged, as insane: obviously I am nuts, I have a tic which is a tic and thus must not be answered to on rational grounds, because it is right this: a tic, a phobia, a clinical symptom that cvannot be countered by argument and so must not be answered by argument. Very comfortable for the one making the claim I am "phobic"!

It is the same when you wipe off the table the criticism of somebody by calling it just the statements of a paranoid. Calling him a paranoid or a phobic - in this context serves the same purpose.

But especially Sweden has big problems with Islamic migrants. I just point the finger to Malmö where the sh!t really has hit the fan, but there are so many other hotspots of massive problems as well, in Scandinavia, in Holland, Germany, England, France. Refering to these problems and calling them by their name, is anything but phobic or paranoid. It is not irrational but rational to mention them and take them as what they are instead of deceiving the public debate about their existence.

Breivik'S unforgivable sin is not so much his world view. It is the consequences he drew from then: undiscriminated massmurder of the socialists' youth just because they gathered and held anti-Israeli debate meetings with known anti-Israeli speakers there (a small detail the international media "forgot" to report about). The deed is what he has to be hold responsible for, the deed of cold-blooded mass murder.

Indeed I think that my opening comments in this thread on how the unwanted thoughts of somebody violating the politically wanted and politically correct consensus opinions on certain things get declared invalid by claiming them to be insane and a sick mind'S thoughts, are correct. The debate on the issues should be prevented by declaring those not agreeing to the wanted answers as "mentally ill". They did the same in Mao's China. In the Third Reich. Today, you are mentally ill if you do question islamic ideology and migration, socialism and ecologic practices (that at closer look often are anything but oh so ecologically helpful). The anonymous pressure of politically corrected opinions decide whether you are healthy, or insane.

Says something about the state of things in our home countries. I witness the same in the totally black-and-white painting and excessive demonising of the political opponent when it comes to environment-saving issues. Green politics. Leftist politics. EUism. Reps and Dems in America. Do not agree with the wanted opinions, and you are the scum of the earth. The villain. The xy-phobic. The destroyer of the good and valuable. The racist. The Nazi. The terrorist-sympathiser.

The diagnosis for Breivik imo is very very questionable from all what we know about the man, and formally is unsupportable. But it acchieves one thing: the issue he wanted to direct attention to, get completely ignored and forgotten. And while it was wrong and evil that he committed undiscriminatory mass murder, many items of his criticisms are correct and totally matching reality. But becoming aware of the latter unwanted detail - is to be prevented. And so he gets declared a lunatic who must not be taken as serious and can be simply ignored.

Stamp "Discussion prevented" on top of it. File closed. Next.