Did Breivik Miss Brundtland?

I didn’t really wake up to the Norway massacre until I read today that Gro Harlem Brundtland had been Anders Behring Breivik’s main target:

Norway shooting: killer ‘confirms Gro Harlem Brundtland was main target’

The man who bombed Norway’s capital and gunned down Labour Party youths on an island, killing at least 93, told police he intended to target former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, Oslo newspaper Aftenposten said.

I wrote about Brundtland a while back. She’s pretty much everything I’ve come to loathe and detest over the past few years. She’s a) a doctor, b) a left-wing European politician, c) the one-time head of the WHO who helped shift that organisation’s emphasis towards “lifestyle medicine” and smoking bans, d)  a UN global warming/climate change emissary, and e) a mobile phone health alarmist (she banned their use in her office). She ticks all the boxes. She’s a complete and utter bastard. So I could well understand somebody wanting to shoot her. Because I couldn’t understand why anyone should want to kill 70 helpless young people trapped on an island. Or even let off a bomb in the middle of Oslo.

“Anders Behring Breivik had plans to come to Utoeya (island) while Gro Harlem Brundtland was visiting on Friday, but claims under interrogation that he was delayed,” Aftenposten reported on Monday, citing unnamed sources.

But then, I’m a smoker, and Brundtland is right at the top of the list of the vicious antismoking thugs who’ve been making life hell for smokers throughout Europe over the past few years. There are probably about 200 million smokers in Europe who would have cheerfully pulled the trigger to blow her away. If Breivik had shot her, personally I would have felt she’d got her just desserts.

But he didn’t. Instead he killed about 100 other blameless people. And he probably wasn’t a smoker anyway. None of the photos of him show him smoking. What got up Breivik’s nose instead was the Islamicisation of Norway, and of Europe.

To be frank, the whole thing simply doesn’t add up. I find it a bit hard to believe that one single person could manage to carry out just one, never mind two, large scale atrocities in a single day. If he could manage two, then why not three, or even four? Yet it seems that he didn’t get his principal target. That’s a bit like Lee Harvey Oswald missing JFK in Dallas’ Dealey Plaza, but gunning down 70 bystanders instead, and then going off to some other town and killing another 10 people there. It’s crazy.

But if this atrocity does nothing else, it indicates the kind of depth of feeling that’s been building. I write principally as an angry smoker who has been watching an ancient and civil and benign culture being crushed, and who has been losing most of his friends in the process. I hate the people who have done this to me and to so many other people. And that hatred is feral.

For other people, however, smoking bans are trivial. They instead object with equal (or greater) intensity to the European Union, and to its Islamicisation, and to ten thousand other insults to everything that they believe in or identify with. And none of them has any more say in any of it than I do. The EU, and Islam, and smoking bans, and climate change legislation, and ten thousand other things are all things that are being done to them against their will, and without their consent, and indeed without any consultation at all, by a political establishment which offers them no choice about any of it. Whatever we may believe in, we are all disenfranchised now.

It’s still possible that there will be some sort of democratic resolution to this deepening crisis, and that our corrupt and deranged political establishment will yet be voted out of office. But if there isn’t, then the only possible outcome is violence, and violence on an enormous and pan-European scale, as ordinary people across Europe set out to rid themselves of a new political aristocracy which is about as representative of their hopes and aspirations as Louis XVI was to most French people in 1791. And it’ll make Anders Behring Breivik’s outing on Saturday look like a picnic.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Did Breivik Miss Brundtland?

  1. Mark says:

    What is wrong with lifestyle medicine, at least as (thinly) defined in wiki?

    I’m not on either side.


  2. Brigitte says:

    But then, I’m a smoker, and Brundtland is right at the top of the list of the vicious antismoking thugs who’ve been making life hell for smokers throughout Europe over the past few years. There are probably about 200 million smokers in Europe who would have cheerfully pulled the trigger to blow her away.

    I doubt any, however angry, smoker would have happily pulled the trigger to blow her away. Nevertheless, I would not put it past any, e.g. angry smoker to give her a good smack in the face in a desperate attempt to bring her out of her (rather un-wiking like) fear attacks. Ironically Breivik (by his photographs) gives the impression of being a physical health/appearance concerned young man, not a downtrodden smoker.
    Whatever phobia has been the driving force for Breivik, regardless whether he is a “lone wolf” or part of any sort of group, there are now 76 families left to deal with a huge personal loss, most of them youngsters.

    What is wrong with lifestyle medicine, at least as (thinly) defined in wiki?
    There is EVERYTHING wrong. Just too general and misleading.
    To begin with Wiki does not differentiate type I and type II diabetes mellitus, neither does it mention gestational diabetes. Type I diabetes has nothing to do with life style (it is usually caused by an autoantibody destroying the insulin producing cells), type II diabetes used to be prevalent in older people where the production of insulin has become erratic/insufficient. It is also associated with weight problems. Gestational diabetes is generally temporary and occurs in pregnant women. There are also cases of diabetes associated with insufficient utilisation of the by the body produced insulin. And so on.
    as with tobacco use where medications such as buproprion may be prescribed to assist the patient to quit smoking and adopt a healthy lifestyle change.
    My personal reply to this: What are the side effects of buproprion? Why would I wish to take stuff like that when I can change my personal habits at will? Who dictates what “healthy life style” is in the first place? What is wrong with my life style, anyway? It got me, rather healthily, to my ripe age, still not requiring medical intervention just by common sense alone.

  3. Rose says:

    What are the side effects of buproprion?

    Zyban death link inquiry is ‘flawed’

    “A Government inquiry into the controversial anti-smoking pill Zyban has been seriously undermined after it emerged that campaigners against the drug have not been asked to give evidence.

    The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), the Government body which rules on whether to prescribe drugs on the NHS, is expected to make a decision later this month on whether Zyban is a clinical and cost-effective way of treating nicotine addiction.

    But a Mail on Sunday investigation has revealed that only supporters of the drug – including its makers, Glaxo-SmithKline, and the Department of Health – have been asked to submit evidence.

    Campaigners concerned about the 57 British deaths linked to the drug and the 7,297 users who had suffered suspected side-effects, including chest pains, fits, seizures and depression, have not been contacted.”

    But the reason such things are recommended is the new definition of smoking tobacco is as a disease.
    A disease requires treatment.
    Our problem seems mostly that the new definitions haven’t been explained to the public who continue to make judgements based on the old definitions.

    “But, in fact, it will mean that anything with a physiological action can be reclassified as a medicine”


    So should they choose to do so, your favourite brand of ginger biscuit becomes a drug delivery device and by the new definition, the public will naturally come to the wrong conclusion if you are defined without further explanation as a regular drug user.

    Which was why it was so important to define nicotine as an addictive drug.

    Is Nicotine Addictive? A Re-evaluation of the Data – 1994

    ” I am here today to express my views on drug addiction, its underlying biological basis, and the widely popularized notion that nicotine is an addictive substance. Although I have not previously expressed my position formally, I welcome this opportunity to “speak out” on a topic of serious concern for the scientific community–that topic concerns the hasty conclusions draw from an inadequate empirical database. I strongly believe the scientific community is responsible for presenting unadulterated ‘facts’ so the public and the government can make informed decisions. The lay public trusts scientists to adequately interpret their data and to remain unbiased by political or other pressures.

    In this brief statement I will develop the argument that research has failed to substantiate the claim that nicotine is addictive. To the contrary, it is difficult to document even mildly rewarding effects from nicotine. ”

    “DAVOS. – Calling tobacco a “main risk factor” to health in the next century, World Health Organization Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland announced a major project to help smokers in Europe, Russia and the Central Asian Republics stop smoking in a speech at the World economic Forum.

    “By 2020, the burden of disease attributable to tobacco is expected to outweigh that caused by any single other disease,” Dr Brundtland said.

    In her speech Dr Brundtland stressed that improved health has been a critical factor in explaining economic and social development throughout this century.

    “Investing in health is sound economics. From being perceived as an unproductive consumer of public budgets, health is now gradually being understood to be a central element of productivity itself”

    Placing health at the core of the global development agenda, Dr Brundtland said that it is “a fundamental role for us to assist countries in reforming their health sectors so that they can really cope with (new) trends and challenges.

    Dr Brundtland stressed the need for broad partnerships for health.

    The European Project on Tobacco Dependence was introduced as an example of such partnerships.”

  4. Jonathan Bagley says:

    According to an article in Friday’s Times, since the war, Norway has been ruled by a Labour elite and a sympathetic Bureaucracy. The media doesn’t air the concerns of the 20% of the population who don’t agree. Think of Gordon Brown’s “bigoted woman”, Kinnock’s children getting jobs in the EU and the BBC’s Liberal Establishment bias; only a lot worse. I’m not excusing this man’s behaviour – just suggesting what might be contributory factors. Only the Times appears to have touched on these. He saw these young people as another generation of Labour rulers.

  5. J.Best says:

    Not wanting to sound callous about the Norway killings, but I found that the Norwegian people that have been on the ‘vigils’ etc. do appear rather strange.
    They look and act like robots and they all sound the same when they speak in the same tone.
    They seem like drones that are conditioned to obey the State.
    Very scary.

  6. Magnetic says:

    Was on a General Practitioner website and noticed a very recent comment (24 July) posted by Herr Paul Bartlett seeking advice. The Herr is unrepentant and hasn’t given up the “cause”; he still wants “to make history” with an outdoor smoking ban. He doesn’t seem to have a clue concerning what he refers to as “so-called” civil liberties.


    • Brigitte says:

      Herr Bartlett is probably still trying to understand the reply. I don’t think it was quite what he was expecting to read.

      • nisakiman says:

        Ha! I just now followed that link – the reply to Herr Bartlett is a classic! A masterpiece of understatement. I laughed like a drain!

        Yes, most definitely not what he wanted to read in response to his question.

        (I have to admit to having my suspicions as to the “anonymous” author of that reply, although I could be wrong…:)

      • Brigitte says:

        nisakiman, Herr Kommandant Bartlett asked for an intelligent debate since he felt that opposition has been abusive and dismissive, based on so-called civil liberties etc .

        This was definitely the shortest debate ever.

  7. Rose says:

    The WHO European Partnership Project on Tobacco Dependence, using stigma, powerful drugs and the force of law is surely aiming to prevent another generation of people who choose to smoke.
    Like Anti alcohol is most likely trying to prevent another generation of people who choose to drink.
    Or anti-obesity is trying to prevent another generation of overweight people.

    Social engineering has been very fashionable for a while and Socialists don’t seem to be able to wait and let things happen naturally.
    For good or ill, and they don’t seem to consider which, they have to force the changes.

    They seem to regard such things as being as simple and inconsequential as putting up a new pattern of wallpaper.

    Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
    “Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

    The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

    He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

    With such a huge industry devoted to “Behaviour Change” for the sake of it, and social engineering so popularly accepted by governments as a harmless hobby, you can’t be too surprised if the occasional deranged amateur decides to change the voting demographic with the only means available to him.

  8. Jax says:

    I think that we are all likely to see more of these types of “lone wolf” attacks of one sort or another in the present political climate. What we won’t see, though, is politicians undertaking an honest and unflinching look at the part that they have played in causing them.

    Whilst Breivik’s actions are unquestionably awful, I can’t help but think that a lot of the things which ignited his rage are felt by many sane people, too. That’s not to say that we are all right-wing extremists, because clearly we are not, but we do all have issues which are important to us and which we want to see addressed by those whose job it is to address them, yet it seems that all over the western world these issues – when they don’t agree precisely with those of the politicians – are simply brushed aside like the meaningless grizzling of silly children. And that kind of reaction – particularly from people whose job it is to represent us all and whose fat salaries (and expenses) we are all obliged to pay for – is guaranteed to irritate even the most mild-mannered and amiable of people. So it’s no wonder, then, that the same treatment, doled out to an already unstable person is highly likely to make them explode in uncontrolled fury.

    Of course, what we will see, is politicians using tragedies such as these as an excuse to clamp down on those groups whom they deem most threatening – threatening, that is, not to the public, but to themselves and their power. Look at how keen our papers were to make a connection, predictably, between Breivik and the EDL. So, increasing numbers of political movements will be brought under the cosh or destroyed – which will, in turn, make unpredictable individual attacks such as these even likelier than they are now.

  9. smokervoter says:

    Governments are on guard against Islamophobia and that’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned. Yet they all seem to be okay with ongoing smokerphobia, in fact they’re in the process of turning up the heat by encouraging more animosity towards us all the time.

    As a recipient of smokerphobia, I feel I’ve gained some firsthand insight into what it’s like to be singled out as a major cause of all a nation’s ills. If I didn’t smoke I might even have found myself joining the chorus of ‘they’re ruining us by their very presence’.

    That Siegel-esque, good cop anti-smoker who wrote the 5 Health Benefits of Smoking article that’s making the rounds should have included ‘enhanced social tolerance’ to the list. Oh, and they really should stay away from cutesy-fartsy articles of this sort. The Righteous haven’t a drop of humor in their soul chemistry.

  10. smokervoter says:

    If you click on an article link this Christopher Wanjek guy includes, you’re taken away to “Smoking’s Many Myths Examined” another of his humorous gems.

    Wherein he throws us this bone: “fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer”.

    Then he argues that heart disease harms us Much more than cancer

    “Part of the problem of the misconception of real risks is the emphasis on smoking and lung cancer. The greater danger is from vascular diseases leading to heart attacks and stroke, which kill more smokers than all cancers combined.”

    The CDC data I’m using for my comparative risk hypothesis breaks down the 393,000 annual smoking-related deaths as follows:

    160,848 Cancer 41.0%
    128,497 Heart 32.7%
    103,338 Respiratory 26.3%

    And finally he says:

    “The life expectancy for a smoker in the United States is about 64, which is 14 years shorter than the national average.”

    I found a lifespan calculator online which said it is three to four years.

    Miss Brundtland is a very brutal looking woman. She looks like an American football right tackle. Her neck is gargantuan.

  11. smokervoter says:

    Whoops. Left a bold anchor tag open after Much more than cancer. Can you fix it Frank?
    Wish there was a preview option.

  12. Nigel Winterbottom says:

    Frank, I agree with everything you say about Brundtland who personifies the state control ethos that most visitors to your blog despise.

    If I had to shoot either your spider or Gro Harlem Brundtland, it would be an easy choice and the spider would be allowed to leave.

  13. Jax says:


    Sorry to keep batting on about this, but what on earth is happening to the comments section? I’m just having a last-minute look at your blog to read any late-night comments and blow me down, but my comment (made and shown at 6.57 above) is still also there in the comments box (I’ve deleted it to put this bit in), even though several other commenters have posted since. And, apart from preview, which I’ve mentioned before, where have all the HTML tags gone??

    Moan, moan, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter ….

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.