Desturbing

I haven’t paid much attention to the whole thing but by chance I happened to turn on the televishion just as a discussion whent on betwean a couple of psychiatrists- that originally concluded that the accused was psychotic at the time of the murders- and his lawyer. Now, it wasn’t texted so I can’t say I understood every word but I got the gist of it, well, I believe I got more than that.


The lawyer asked the psychiatrists if it mattered to their verdict if the killers’ statement of having met people and planned the events with them was a reality or fiction, ergo if he, the accused, could tell the difference between an actual experience or what his own mind made up. At least that’s how I understood the question.

They said no. The police couldn’t prove that such a meeting ever had occured. As far as they were concerned he acted alone; he defined his own desturbing world view (a widely spread one) and nurtured his anger and resentment in the solitairiness of his own boyhood room that eventually lead to a (psychotic) state of mind in which he concocted his horrific plan (and as far as they believe made up all his sympathisors and co-terrorists that work independently) and carried it out. No single man has the mandate to decide who’ll live or die. He believed (and still believes) he had. So he must’ve been sick.

According to them. Both the lawyer and one of the judges(!) questioned it. The lawyer seemed to try to make them consider the possibility that his statement was true and there are other terrorists like him out there which he has actually met; people that by all means has given him the mandate to kill anyone he thought stood in the way of their cause. It doesn’t make it right, but maybe slightly less insane since it wouldn’t be events taken from his own imaginary world.

The psychiatrists didn't even seem to be able to grasp such a concept and so the discussion whent on without getting anywhere until one of the judges (I believe the head one) intervened.The judge though, as I gathered it, asked if they deemed him ill solely because the deed is so immoral that no sane person would do it and also argued that since it was politicly prompted and the targets not randomly chosen then maybe there’s more to it than a sick man’s imaginary friends and conspiracy theories? (she didn’t fraze it like that, none of what I’ve written are word by word exactly as it was said, of course, just the summary of sorts, very much of sorts; just saying)

The judges’ words brought up a condradicting memory of my own of the killing of a swedish politician by MM not so long ago. He was found to be mentaly ill because of previous incidents and records of him asking for help for his problems a number of times without recieving it. But it’s only seemingly contradicting to my point of view (which isn’t very solid, I’ll admitt). Sure; it seems to be politically prompted since he attacked and killed a very skilled and dangerous politician, almost as if it was premeditated to serve a cause. It’s not likely though. The man was sick and desperate; no one would listen as he cried for help so he had to do something extreme. At least then somebody would care.

But maybe it was just made to look that way; maybe ”they” used a sick man to do a seemingly irrational and desperate thing so that it could seem to be just a lucky strike.

It don’t matter though. This guy don’t strike me as the desperate kind, that would do things on impuls rather than intent. No matter how wrong or ”insane” it is to kill almost a hundred people in one day he did it because he believes in something, something that is bigger than himself and more important than any single life can ever be. Just like any soldier that kills for the best interest of the nation. The difference is that he calls the shots himself. There’s no superior officer to tell him what to do or when. He’s not just obeying orders. He’s the freedom fighter that does what needs to be done but no one else dare to.

And that might be having too grandiose thoughts about himself and his importance to be ordinary but does it truly make him sicker than some people who chooses to be soldiers to ”make a difference” the ordinary way? The way in which you don’t take responsability yourself? You have all the ”fun” but your superior officer gives the go? I wonder…

He’s different, that’s for sure, but different don’t mean sick. His fear, or conviction, of muslims taking over the world and imposing their religion on the rest of us with a singelmindedness that no religion has ever had before is no more a product of one single psychotic mind than religion itself. Maybe it’s true that he met others with the same intentions as he, and maybe its not, maybe he’s just saying that to make it seem less self-imposed and not because he believes in his own fantasies. But it seems unlikely to me that a sick man could take so many years and patience into planning, organizing, exercise both mind and body for it and actually manage to go through with such a complex project without collapsing on the way. It certainly takes a special kind of mind to do it- if I had but a tenth of his determination I can imagine getting a lot of things done that now stays half finnished or just started- but not a sick mind of the words’ true meaning. I don’t believe he’s mentally ill. He’s mentally corrupted. Like the bad guys in comics. You could be both, of course, just as well as one or the other. He is the kind of man that don’t just wants to make a difference, neither the kind that follows others that make differences but the kind that steps up and does it. Just like Mahatma Gahndi or Martin Luther King. He just chose the ”dark side”.

Now, being immoral doesn’t mean one can’t take responsability for his own actions. He’s certaintly sane enough to plan and organize long-term projects without managing to involuntairely relieve his ”illness” to anyone and he keeps doing it in the courtroom. Maybe he would qualify for one neuro psychiatric diagnose or the other but that is totally irrelevant if you ask me. It’s not like he has Downs or something. He’s not mentally impared. And if this is a result of some kind of psychosis it seems extraordinarily rational and well structured. Unbelievably so.

It just annoyed me to the extent of commenting aloud to the tv-screen that they (the psychiatrists) seemed to imply that you were ill simply by being able to murder human beings on your own mandate. As if no sane person would be that selfrightious. Maybe it irritates me because I believe I can be just that selfrightious if ever the right situation introduced itself. Just because I wouldn't be able to create the situation or go looking for it at the heels of somebody else it doesn't mean I'm incapable of comitting murder. I think very few people are. They might deny it fiercely but if their child or lover were hurt or threatened in an unforgivable way (that is not too hard to imagine) and they could do something about it in the instant many would. Not really on impuls or instinct, I mean a situation where you have time to consider the events and reason with yourself before you act. Few would even the score later (which is what I mean with "creating" the situation) but does that equal insanity? Not to me. If so every hunter and butcher is insane too. It's only a question of where you put the weight of what is more important. The single life, or even life itself, or the notion of the "greater good". Think about it.