On the surface, Anders Behring Breivik’s academic career appears to be remarkably ordinary. He spent his early years attending Oslo’s public schools, including Oslo Commerce School, Ris Junior High, and Smestad Grammar. Although these institutions provided stable surroundings, they were unable to compensate for the severely damaged emotional environment he was in at home. Teachers praised his intelligence and physical prowess, but he also appeared emotionally distant, unusually control-obsessed, and sometimes protective of bullied peers. At the time, educators and child psychologists largely ignored or failed to recognize those characteristics, which were remarkably similar to early warning indicators of personality disorders.
By the time he was a teenager, he started acting rebelliously. Notably, he immersed himself in Oslo’s hip-hop subculture and graffiti scene, approaching his activism with a focus that went well beyond hobbyism. He received two fines and an arrest for vandalism when he was sixteen. Rather than inspiring introspection or reformation, that experience signaled the start of his developing discontent with authority figures and social conventions. He began a perilous path by assimilating into fringe groups and avoiding formal education, one in which education ceased to be a means of personal development and instead served as a stage for radicalization.
Anders Behring Breivik: Education & Professional Background
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Anders Behring Breivik (now Far Skaldigrimmr Rauskjoldr av Northriki) |
| Date of Birth | 13 February 1979 |
| Place of Birth | Oslo, Norway |
| Early Education | Smestad Grammar School, Ris Junior High, Hartvig Nissens, Oslo Commerce School |
| Military Service | Deemed unfit for service in Norwegian Armed Forces |
| Early Career | Customer service, IT business, Breivik Geofarm (agriculture front) |
| University | Enrolled in Political Science, University of Oslo (Prison program) |
| Criminal Convictions | Terrorism, 77 murders, fatal bombing |
| Sentence | 21 years preventive detention (extendable) |
| Current Prison | Ringerike Prison, high-security solitary confinement |
| Political Affiliation | Progress Party (1999–2006), later neo-Nazi ideology |
Breivik’s years of indecision started to mount after he was denied military service due to mental incapacity. After a brief stint in customer service, he claimed to have started a programming company that paid seven figures and reportedly employed six people. However, these assertions were mainly unsupported; by 2009, tax records showed virtually no declared income. He registered Breivik Geofarm, a purported agricultural endeavor that later functioned as a front for the purchase of substantial amounts of chemical fertilizer, during this time. He was able to blend in while secretly planning the biggest act of terrorism in Norway’s recent history thanks to this business, which was remarkably effective as camouflage.
Breivik was particularly preoccupied with status and beauty in his early adulthood. In his twenties, he apparently had cosmetic surgery on his forehead, nose, and chin—an exceptionally drastic move for someone who didn’t work in public. His obsession with physical strength also led him to regularly use anabolic steroids and lift weights. He was later diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, which is frequently associated with traits like dominance and perceived invincibility, as well as vanity.
Breivik accumulated bomb-making materials and lawfully bought firearms by taking advantage of regulatory oversight gaps without arousing enough suspicion. The warnings were not escalated, even though they were on the radar of law enforcement because of online purchases from a Polish chemical supplier. His financial ploys, which included funding preparations with about €130,000 and nine credit cards, also demonstrated the concerning degree of patience and detail that went into his scheme. Such long-term planning is especially characteristic of someone whose personal grievances and ideological convictions have combined to create a deadly identity.
Breivik took a political science course at the University of Oslo while he was incarcerated. This may appear to be a redemptive step at first. However, based on his statements and correspondence, he continued to adhere to the same philosophy that supported his murder. His attempt at education was motivated more by a desire to legitimize and disseminate his views than by curiosity or reform. After passing two classes, he claimed that the “inhumane” conditions in prison forced him to drop out; this claim seemed to be more about manipulating narratives than it was about academic hardship.
Breivik has filed numerous lawsuits against the Norwegian government over prison conditions since his incarceration, alleging human rights abuses. A lower court acknowledged that his isolation violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, among other decisions that temporarily favored him; however, those decisions were reversed on appeal. The fact that Breivik uses legal channels strategically as part of a continuous attempt to maintain his influence is more concerning than whether he has access to better video games or more social interaction.
The Breivik case continues to be a particularly instructive cautionary tale regarding the effectiveness of early-stage interventions in comparable cases. Several child psychologists advised him to leave an abusive household when he was younger. These suggestions were either disregarded or watered down. When he reached adulthood, a troubling confluence of narcissistic tendencies, radical online content, social disengagement, and institutional neglect allowed a violent ideology to grow unchecked.
Governments and institutions have begun to acknowledge in the last ten years that early childhood trauma can take on particularly harmful forms when exacerbated by social alienation and digital radicalization. Schools and mental health services are now being encouraged to work together more closely through strategic policy reforms. Discussions about how to treat inmates like Breivik, who exhibit no remorse and try to use media exposure as a weapon, have become more heated in Norway and throughout Europe. These are social reflections of the need for justice, ethics, and security to develop in tandem rather than merely being legal quandaries.
Norway has attempted to strike a balance by incorporating technology into prisoner management systems, giving Breivik restricted access to educational resources while reducing his power. By 2024, he will be permitted to write monitored letters mainly on a sealed personal computer without internet access. He has only authorized two people to call him each week. Court psychologists and national security services still view him as a persistent threat despite his repeated claims of reform, particularly in light of his “saint-like” reputation among some international extremist organizations.
The fact that Breivik’s education extended beyond his official schooling is especially instructive. Instead, it became self-directed indoctrination, a violent manifesto echo chamber with confirmation bias. Although it is still prohibited in many jurisdictions, his 1,500-page document, “2083: A European Declaration of Independence,” is still shared in extreme online forums. Breivik demonstrated the terrifying degree to which hate-tainted information can be repackaged as ideology by advocating it even during his trial.
