(This is a transcript of Anders Behring Breivik’s statement in the Oslo District Court after the reading of the verdict, based on an audio recording.
The first thing I informed the court on April 16th was the following: I do not recognize [the authority of] this court because you have received your mandate from political parties that support multiculturalism.
By setting aside the claim of ethnic and cultural emergency self-defence in this case, by sentencing a representative of the Norwegian Resistance Movement, you have sided with the multicultural parliament majority in Norway, and, thereby, the Oslo District Court has flagged support for the multicultural ideology.
As I do not recognize the court, I can not legitimize Oslo District Court by accepting the verdict. The verdict is, in my eyes, illegitimate. At the same time, I can not appeal the verdict, because I, by appealing, [will] legitimize the court.
I wish to end with an apology. I wish to apologize to all militant nationalists in Norway and Europe that I did not manage [court microphone disabled] to kill more traitors.
Related post: Breivik’s statement in court June 22, 2012
Related post: Breivik’s statement in court April 17, 2012
Related post: Breivik’s statement in court February 6, 2012
The Oslo District Court has ruled that Anders Behring Breivik was legally accountable for his actions on 7/22/11, and has sentenced him to twenty-one years detention in prison, reports Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang (VG).
Detention is a particular type of sentencing according to Norwegian law, applicable when the court believes there is great danger that the crime in question may be repeated, or believes that the convicted person poses a danger to society.
The maximum timeframe for a detention verdict is twenty-one years, but it may be extended with additional five year periods if prosecutors can convice the court that the legal requirements for detention still remains.
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
OSLO DISTRICT COURT (VG Nett) The court believes terror accused Anders Behring Breivik (33) is accountable and sentences him to 21 years detention with a minimum term of 10 years.
The judgement is read for Breivik by the court administrator Wenche Elizabeth Arnzten 10 o’clock Friday afternoon. The entire court room nr 250 stood upright during the reading.
- Anders Behring Breivik is sentenced to detention. The verdict is unanimous, says Arntzen.
In the press room a loud murmur spread among those watching the large screens, while it in the court room around Breivik is quiet and calm.
The whole verdict is 90 pages, and Judge Arntzen and professional judge Arne Lyng will share in reading between them. Breivik killed 77 people and injured 42 seriously with the bomb in the government quarter and the massacre at Utøya.
Original article: Breivik tilregnelig – dømt til forvaring
Related Wikipedia article [in Norwegian]: Forvaring [detention]
Several Norwegian newspapers, as well as many parliamentary members, received a letter via email on August 13, 2012, addressed from someone claiming to represent the Knights Templar Norway, the resistance organization of which Anders Behring Breivik says he is a part.
Newspapers and politicians received the letter on the same day as the government-appointed 7/22 commmission published its findings regarding how the 7/22 attacks were handled by the police and emergency services.
According to TV2, the letter is more than two pages long and opens with the following statement: “I hereby present myself as cell two and second-in-command of the Norwegian resistance movement. I, with my soldiers, will, with all respect for our people, our culture, and our ethnicity, warn all proponents of multiculturalism of this war we now so sincerely find ourselves in.”
According to TV2, the letter further states: “The organization will continue its gruesome actions until all the Norwegian and Europoean peoples are awakened from the psychosis and the brainwashing they have afflicted on our brothers and sisters. Now it is time that we, and our commander Breivik, receive recognition in the political arena in Norway and Europe.”
NRK has published a photo of the letter head that reads “Knights Templar Norway, Second-in-Command, Cell Two.”
NRK has also published an excerpt from the letter: “That he now possibly will be ignored again and be declared unaccountable by the false and corrupt power apparatus is for us unbearable and unjust. In that case, all those who died by his sword have died in vain. We, therefore, demand our commander’s aquittal and a recognition of his claim of emergency self defence in this war.”
In an interview with NRK, Breivik’s lawyer, Geir Lippestad, says: “Breivik has, from day one, claimed that there are several cells in Norway and this was also an important part of the discussion in the trial against him. If it now turns out that there are several [cells], then that is interesting.”
Police Security Service has launched an investigation after several people received a highly suspicious e-mail Monday morning.
“I can confirm that we have initiated an investigation after we learned that a person claims to be second in command of the organization Knights Templar Norway,” says Head of PST Martin Berntsen to the website of TV2.
After that TV 2 understand the security have recently been informed of an email sent to several people – including several prominent politicians – in which the sender claims he is the cell number two in Anders Behring Breivik’s alleged terrorist network….
Original article: Hevder å være Breiviks nestkommanderende
PST investigator incitement to terror after several politicians today received a letter from someone claiming to be a part of Breivik’s Knights Templar network.
Same day as the July 22 Commission submitted its report on the biggest terrorist attack on Norwegian soil, several Norwegian politicians received new threats….
The letter is partly sent to more liberal-conservative politicians, including Christian Tybring-Gjedde, Peter N Myhre and Per-Willy Amundsen….
Original article: Stortingsrepresentanter mottok påstått Knights Templar-brev
(This is a transcript of Anders Behring Breivik’s statement in the Oslo District Court on the last day of the trial, based on an audio recording.)
I think we all can agree that on 7/22 a barbaric operation took place.
What occurred on 7/22 in the government quarter and on Utoya were barbaric actions, and I remember that on 7/21 that I thought, after several years of planning, I was thinking: “Tomorrow, then I will die.” And then, as I was two hundred meters before reaching the government quarters, I remember that I thought: “In two minutes I will die.”
And what is it I will be dying for? This is what I will be saying a few words about now.
I will not be giving a speech now, because I presented an explanation on 4/17 that really included all the arguments, at least most of them, that I have wished to present. So the explanation that I made on 4/17 is really, explains most. But there are some things that I did not get a chance to explain myself about, that I will attempt to bring up now.
I will start with a couple of points related to the evaluation of my legal accountability.
As a starting point, according to the law, all people shall be considered accountable [for their actions]. And of those that have evaluated me, 37 persons in total, that are fully qualified in psychiatry and in the evaluation of psychiatric cases, of those 37 persons, it is then 35 that have not found any symptoms whatsoever. And of those 37 persons, it was then two persons that have found a multitude of symptoms. So it is quite evident what one ought to put weight on. The 35 persons, or the two persons.
I will not be touching much upon the existence of the Knights Templar, we have covered that previously. But there are quite a few indications that point to the existence [of the Knights Templar] that I have conveyed in police questioning, but that the prosecutors naturally do not wish to communicate here in court, but I will not be repeating these things [here in court].
There is one thing I should wish to comment on, in regards to the [prosecutors'] claim of unaccountability. It was communicated by the prosecutor that I wished to go for unaccountability in the beginning. This is not correct. I remember in the beginning of December when the first [psychiatric] report came, at the end of November, then everyone was shocked and I thought “Well, what shall one do now?” One waits until the debate matures, I thought strategically, before I punctured the debate by saying that I demand two new court appointed psychiatrists.
So, after a while, I thought, now I have been betrayed by two psychiatrists that have not taped the conversations, it is just my word against theirs. And how can I ever trust a psychiatrist again. And then I thought, perhaps I should never let myself be evaluated again, because if I get two reports against me then the outcome [of the court case] is a given. And this is, therefore, why I considered not letting myself be evaluated again, because I knew that the first [report] had received so much criticism. But it is not correct that I have been in favor of [legal] unaccountability at any point in time.
I have brought up a few different topics. The conclusion of what I have explained, especially on 4/17, is that the European democratic model, so called mass democracy, does not function. The arguments that I have presented, and that I will continue to put forward, stress that a fundamental change of leadership in Norway and Europe is needed.
This started after WWII. In the 60s, the Labor Party decided that a large group of Pakistanis that had been refused entry to Finland, that then came to Norway on a tourist visa, should be granted [permanent] residence. And it was so that the multicultural experiment in Norway began.
The Labor Party decided that Norway should follow the examples of Great Britain and France with Asian and African mass immigration in the 60s and 70s.
In regards to the censorship, the ridicule and the persecution of nationalists and cultural conservatives after WWII, I have spoken a bit about it already. So I will not repeat what I have already said. I will bring up a couple of minor points.
What has been the main characteristic is that there has been political discrimination. Cultural conservative NGOs and youth organizations do not receive any support at all – they are worked against. The perhaps only cultural conservative newspaper, “Norge i Dag” [“Norway Today”], lost the state press funding a couple of years ago.
After 7/22, the HRS (Human Rights Service), I think one could call it [the organization] culturally conservative, was the victim of a revenge attack, by having their state funding cut in half. And this is an organization that has nothing at all to do with me, at all.
The last 20 years, 30 years, the [Norwegian] state has supported left wing extremist organizations in Norway such as “Blitz”, “Tjen Folket” and “Rasistisk Senter.”
Then I would like to get to another point. There are probably some of us that remember that the leader of [the environmental organization], “Fremtiden i våre hender” [“The Future in Our Hands”], Steinar Lem, who died of cancer some years ago, before he died, he conveyed a last message [about an issue] that he had held for himself for many years.
It was something which he felt he did not dare to say before he knew he was going to die, and just before that, and that was [as follows]: “We fight for the right of Tibet and the indigenous people of Tibet, we fight for other indigenous people, but in modern Norway today, it is not permitted to say that Norwegians are just as entitled to a homeland as Tibetans and that our rights actually are just as important.”
He [Steinar Lem] did not dare to say this his entire life and [first when] he received notice from his doctor that he would die not before long, and then, first then did he dare to say the truth. What he really thought.
I have written quite a bit in the compendium [2083 – A European Declaration of Independence] about the deconstruction of, or the absence of morality, in Norway, after the autumn of 1968. These are major problems so I will not be getting into the details of it now.
The problem is that in Norway today, ideals are being lifted up that are very destructive for Norway and that will cause great damage to our future.
When it regards STDs and the sexual revolution, this is actually [a topic] that has been analyzed insufficiently, and it has caused great problems in Norway and Europe.
The ideal that is being lifted up is to have sex with as many strangers as possible. Strangers. And instead of idealizing the nuclear family, that there was focus on in Europe until 1960, one is now focusing on dissolving the nuclear family and all the problems this results in.
There are, for example, the ideals of the [TV-series] “Sex in the City” where Samantha and Carrie during the course of 100, 200 episodes of this series, have had sex with over 100 men. It is these ideals that are being presented for our sisters and daughters today.
This is an illness. These sick ideals must be censored and be kept away from society.
Then one gets to the neglect of one’s duty towards the family and the nation. People take education, they travel, they become 35 before they consider having children. It is not a sustainable development.
Women ought to begin having children in their 20s. Our birth rate is below the existence minimum. I will not go further into the details of this now.
Protection of the established.
One of the most influential people in Norway, Arne Strand, who is editor in chief of Dagsavisen, has made very many statements regarding the state press support. He is a promoter for keeping everyone on the right-wing, to the right of Carl I. Hagen [retired Progress Party politician], on the outside of the democracy. He says plainly that the state press funding is necessary to preserve today’s political hegemony. We must protect the hegemony, we must not let the sub-humans on the right-wing express themselves.
The state press funding safeguards that Norway never becomes a democracy by denying everyone on the far right-wing to take part in the [public] debate.
And then I will explain a bit about some examples that I did not mention on the 17th.
Cause and effect of the politically motivated violence on 7/22.
Just to name a few, but important and typical actions, committed by the powers that be in Norway that, at least as a whole, are suitable for triggering violent counter reactions. It is correct that the Labor Party, to avoid having to sentence, this is back to WWII, and Holden [the prosecutor] meant that it was not that many that for political reasons were sent to psychiatric wards in Norway. He [Holden] meant that it only was Hamsun [the famous writer] and justice minister Riisnæs. But there were more [people]. There were more.
I will talk about a couple of examples of this.
So, it is not a secret that very many cultural conservatives and nationalists were neutralized following WWII by the assistance of the psychiatric profession. In any case, these from the “Nasjonal Samling” [National Socialists] side of politics were sent to madhouses by the power apparatus of the Labor Party after the war.
Halldis Neegaard Østbye, pioneer of woman ski-sport, Quisling’s secretary and chauffeur, NS-ideologist, who published several books including “The war of the Jews” 1943. In the end, she died in Dikemark madhouse.
She was first kept imprisoned for two years from 1945, eight months of which were in solitary confinement. She was later sentenced to seven years in prison and received a cash fine that ruined her and had assets taken from her. The ski factory “Splitkein” in Oslo that also produced the top selling ski wax was, by the Labor Party, taken from her and her husband, Petter Østbye, during the post-war proceedings.
And Knut Hamsun is known to us.
The unconstitutional, unjust, post-war proceedings are still a festering wound in today’s Norway and will remain so until the truth about it becomes official history, the illegal verdicts overturned, and compensation given to the affected [persons] or their descendants.
Also, non-NS individuals that were against the Labor Party were attempted to be declared insane. The example is editor Toralv Fanebust. When the attempt failed, they gave him a longer prison sentence for having written the truth about central Labor Party people and their actions before, during, and after the war.
His grandson, Frode Fanebust, has recently published the book “Krigshistorien – oppgjør med mytene” [The War History – Addressing the Myths] where he, among other things, brings up the Fanebust-case and how the Labor Party apparatus tried to declare his grandfather unaccountable.
What else has the political power milieu done, encouraged, permitted, celebrated, that is suited to provoke violent resistance instead of non-violent political resistance?
Fedrelandspartiet [The Fatherland Party] received about 0.5% of the votes in 1993. In 1993, which was the first time the party submitted lists for a parliamentary election.
Bjarne Dahl, first candidate on the Oslo list for the Fatherland Party in 1993, attempted lawful political resistance against [mass] immigration. At a meeting in a square in Oslo 9/4/1993, he had his faced smashed with an iron pipe, broken the jawbone, and teeth knocked out as a result of an attack by some members of “Blitz.”
The party leader, professor Professor Harald Trefall, was also hit in the face by something that was thrown or hit towards him in the same attack. This resulted in that also the party leader was bleeding from a wound in the face. Others were also hit and kicked.
When a shocked bystander sent a notice to the editorial staff of [the newspaper] Dagbladet about this violent attack on the Fatherland Party’s top candidates for the parliamentary elections, the person in question received the following reply from the editorial staff of Dagbladet: “Ok, but isn’t this just something good?” This said Dagbladet. And this was their position on the coverage of this case.
The same attitude, it seems, applies to the entire Norwegian press. The mass media did not at all mention this dangerous violent attack against the Fatherland Party.
On 6/28/2002, the politicians in parliament committed, unanimously, a party massacre. They decided on a new election law which automatically liquidated all small political parties.
All parties that didn’t receive at least 5000 votes in the last election were deleted as a registered party. In order to submit [candidate] lists for new elections, these [political parties] have to start from scratch like everyone else who wishes to submit lists and who do not have any registered party to work through.
They will then have to collect 5000 signatures under strict restrictions. This has led to a great reduction in the number of registered parties and it is almost close to impossible to start and operate a new political party here in this country.
One can mention that in Sweden, with about twice as many citizens, the requirement is only 1500 votes, and there is no automatic deletion of political parties that receive few election votes.
2003 to 2012.
The PST [Police Security Service] brags without constraint about itself and about how they have managed to crush the political-religious organization “Vigrid” This they have managed, they explain proudly, by calling in all young supporters together with their parents, to meetings at the local police station. The PST has, in other words, accomplished their goal of crushing the organization by harassment of the young supporters.
In addition, the PST carried out extensive harassment of the leader of Vigrid, Tore Tvedt.
Among other things via extensive surveillance, repeated unfounded searches of his home, arrests, and that they made sure that he time and time again was thrown out of his rented apartments. This is also something he has confirmed here [in court].
And at the [high-]school debate [that took place] in Tønsberg on 8/28 in relation to the parliament elections in 2009, Oyvind Heian, party leader of the political party “Norgespatriotene” [The Norway Patriots] is shot [with a slingshot] in the forehead so that he gets a strongly bleeding wound and immediately has to leave the meeting.
The meeting continued as if nothing had happened. Neither the school administration nor the police did seemingly anything at all to apprehend the person responsible for this violent and dangerous attack on party leader Heian.
Before the local elections last year, the “Kristent Samlingsparti” [Christian Unity Party] was exposed to an attack by a person who was a member of “SOS Rasisme” [SOS Racism]. These are then, communists [inaudible]. Such anti-democratic incidents, violent and non-violent, as mentioned above, naturally provoke everyone with national attitudes in this country.
That counter-reactions have not occurred before 7/22 surprises all nationalists that have followed the development. The anti-democratic forces that rule our country have obviously also anticipated something [happening]. This one can see from the increasing new surveillance measures they have introduced, and how they have been carrying out practices and exercises for scenarios similar to what happened [on 7/22].
The political milieu that rules the country, however, avoids a debate about the motives for such counter-reactions. They apparently attempt to give the impression that here is nothing in their [own] behavior that motivates such [counter] actions.
It is actually quite possible that many members of this power milieu actually also themselves actually believe in this, or do not see the connection. Unfortunately. This gives a dark outlook for our country.
The Labor Party and the Soviet Union.
It is known and documented that the Labor Party before WWII received financial support from the communist regime of the Soviet Union. It is, however, incorrect to claim that the Labor Party is a completely communistic party. They do not support a planned economy. But they do support a communistic cultural policy. Therefore the expression: “Cultural Marxists” or “half-communists.”
It is known that many leading Labor Party politicians had close relations to the Soviet Union all the way up to 1993, behind the backs of the Americans. Many, among them Thorvald Stoltenberg, the prime minister’s father, had a code name in KGB registries. Even Jens Stoltenberg had a codename, “Steklov,” in the KGB archives prior to 1993, something two authors wished to shed light on some years ago.
The Labor Party, however, managed to stop the book publication, and therefore prevented the truth about the communist ties of the Labor Party and their cynical behavior to be known to the Norwegian people.
And these two books, one is titled “Ørnen har landed” [The Eagle Has Landed], by Reiulf Steen from 2003. I do not believe it was stopped. But there was a new book, “Mitrokhin Archive” by Christopher Andrew, that reportedly was attempted stopped [from being published].
The problem with the Labor Party is not their communist past, but the fact that they do not wish to deal with it, and that they do not stand behind their own policies.
As party secretary Raymond Johansen said, they blame international agreements when they give reasons for their immigration policy. Rather than to stand up for the fact that they wish to transform Norway ethnically and culturally. [This is] because Raymond Johansen is intelligent enough to know that Japan and South Korea have experienced the same bothering by the United Nations regarding reception of refugees and asylum seekers.
Japan and South Korea have learned to say no. They do wish that their countries are attempted used as a dumping ground for the birth rate surplus of the Second and Third Worlds.
The political model of Japan and South Korea is the proof that a country that says “no” to mass immigration in the long term will be more successful than Norway and other European countries, which in the future will experience great ethnic, cultural and religious conflicts. And it is these conflicts that led to 7/22.
This Raymond Johansen and the Labor Party know. If they had possessed any integrity whatsoever, they would have admitted why they really want mass immigration of Asians and Africans.
As International Marxists, they wish to deconstruct the Norwegian ethnic group and Norwegian culture. In other words, they have exactly the same agenda as social democrats in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Great Britain.
I will use an example that I have not yet mentioned. Individuals who have made it known that they support cultural conservative, nationalist, anti-Islamization and anti-communist organizations have been systematically ridiculed, harassed, and persecuted in Norway and Western Europe after WWII.
In Norway, several hundreds of people have in the last decade lost their job and been publicly branded as racists, fascists and Nazis, for the sole reason that they are opponents of Islamization, multiculturalism, and Marxism.
And I will bring forth one example.
Remi Huseby was the first leader of the democratic, anti-violent and anti-Islamist “Norwegian Defence League.” When this became known to the Norwegian press, he was presented as, and publicly branded as, an intolerant and evil right-wing extremist, for the sole reason that he opposed Islamism and because he criticized the Norwegian state ideology: multiculturalism.
As a result of this media coverage his employer felt pressured to fire him and he lost his job.
And this is only one of several hundreds of cases in Norway, and only one of many tens of thousands of examples in Europe that document journalists’ and editors’ systematic ridicule, harassment and persecution of cultural conservatives and nationalists after WWII and up to this day.
The worst of all is that this demonizing actually is better than to be ignored. To be ignored is the worst of all. In many hundreds of cases in Europe and Norway, cultural conservatives, anti-communists and nationalists have been pressured into suicide as a result of public branding and subsequent demonizing.
It is quite similar to how it was in the Soviet Union.
And now I will move on to another point, that I considered to omit, but will bring up nevertheless.
Cultural self-contempt and Eurovision.
I have previously claimed that the Norwegian society suffers from a serious cultural, psychological condition, that manifests itself through contempt for our own culture and self-contempt of Norwegian and Nordic ideals. This collective cultural psychosis is caused by many decades of Cultural Marxism and the multicultural ideology that in turn results in cultural self-contempt.
A good example of this is Norway’s contributions to Eurovision’s Song Contest the last four years. Well assisted by the Norwegian media, we let a Belorussian asylum seeker, probably with Tartar background, named Alexander Igaravitsj Rybak, represent Norway in the international finale.
It is in itself ok that we let an asylum seeker represent us, to show that we are tolerant. But what happens then? A couple of years later it is an asylum seeker, Nyambura Mwangi from Kenya, who wins with a bongo-tune. Russian Eurovision commentators wondered: what is Norway doing, which sends an asylum seeker as their ambassador, not just one time, but twice, within such a short time period? Is there a lack of Norwegians in Norway, or are they suffering from cultural self-contempt?
And what happens next? As if that is not enough, of course an asylum seeker from Iran, Touraj Keshtkar, had to win.
This is scorn and a great provocation towards all Norwegians that are opponents of multiculturalism.
What is wrong with Marxists and liberalists? The answer is simple: very many Norwegians – and here I refer to the Marxists and liberalists – suffer from cultural delusions, cultural self-contempt, and have needs for immediate medication. The medicine for this illness is “more nationalism” and with immediate introduction of cultural and ethnic protection of the Nordic ideal.
And now I’ve come to the definition of indigenous people.
Regarding the definition of the term “indigenous people,” it refers to the old or original inhabitants or citizens. Those who claim that ethnic Norwegians are not Norway’s indigenous people are mistaken.
We of course know that the United Nations does not recognize ethnic Europeans as indigenous people. But one must view the creation of the United Nations and its agenda in view of the fact that the Axis Powers were defeated during WW II.
The United Nations supports the deconstruction of European states because the United Nations is dominated by Marxists and liberalists. And the same holds true for the European Union.
For example, Barroso, who has been the European Union’s top leader for several years. Barroso was a member of the Portuguese communist party for a number of years. Which indicates what kind of people have influence in the Euopean Union.
So to get back to the definition of the term “indigenous people.” Because there does not exist any universal, internationally accepted definition of the term indigenous people that is recognized by both communists and nationalists. This means that Europe’s nationalists and indigenous peoples – defenders, like myself – use another definition of the term “indigenous people” than the European Union and the United Nation uses. The correct definition is therefore “old or original inhabitants.”
Why is the fight for indigenous people of Bolivia, Tibet, the Uyghurs and other non-European ethnic groups so important? Why do defenders of indigenous people’s rights in countries and areas like these get international support and various awards while defenders of European indigenous peoples, like European nationalists, are being branded as narrow-minded racists, Nazis, and right-wing extremists that shall be fought?
The fight is identical for all defenders of indigenous people, namely to fight against the ethnic and cultural eradication of one’s people, against the immigration of ethnic groups that are superior in numbers.
The fact that these [other ethnic groups] are being supported, while we are fought, as if we were a disease, is an unbearable injustice.
When it regards the continuous ethnic deconstruction, also called indirect ethnic cleansing or genocide I will recommend for everyone to read the essay with the title “Is resisting genocide a human right?” by David Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen.
Regarding Mullah Krekar, who was called as witness earlier. The reason why I wished to call Mullah Krekar as a witness was to demonstrate the views of a Muslim fundamentalist on Europe. He calls himself now a Kurdish Jihadist, but up until recently he has defended international Jihadism and is one of a few Muslim leaders who have been quite honest regarding Islam’s demographic takeover of Europe. And he has said the following: “In Denmark they printed drawings, but the result is that the support for Islam only increases. I and all Muslims are a proof: you have not managed to change us. It is we who will be changing you.”
Look at the development of the population in Europe where the number of Muslims reproduce like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the European Union produces on average 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries produces 3.5 children. “In 2050, 30% of the population in Europe will be Muslims,” said Krekar.
I also remind you that Muammar Gaddafi, who was recently killed by NATO, in March 2007 said the following: “There are signs that suggest that Allah will hand us a victory in Europe, without even using sword, without rifles, without conquering. We do not need any terrorists, we do not need any suicide bombers. The more than 50 million Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
I will now mention a couple of points about demographics.
These are demographic examples that document how Islamic demographic warfare works in practice through mass immigration and high birth rates. Kosovo is a very good example which I haven’t spoken about.
In the year 1900, there were 60% Christians in Kosovo. In other words 40% Muslims. In 1913, the number was 50%. 1925: 60%. 1948: 72%. In 1971, there were 79% Muslims. In 2008, after NATO bombed our Serbian Christian brothers, there were 93% Muslims.
From a Christian country, Kosovo has become a Muslim country in only 100 years. All source references are in the compendium.
Lebanon, which was commented on by the Norwegian press previously, that noted completely correctly that Lebanon was not an independent country in 1911, it was an occupied state, occupied by the Ottoman empire. In 1911, there were 21% Muslims. Today there are about 80% Muslims.
This is demographic warfare. And this is a warfare that is carried out in Europe at this very moment and against Norway.
When it regards Pakistan, it is not only warfare against Christians or Europeans. In 1941, there were 25% Hindus in Pakistan. In 1948 there were 17%. Today there are less than 1% Hindus. This is the Pakistani “tolerance” towards people who thinks differently, and towards Muslims and against everyone else.
The same is the case in Bangladesh. In 1941: 30% Hindus. Today: less than 8%.
And then one can look at the explosive demographic development of Muslim countries. In 1951 there were 33 million people in Pakistan. Today the number approaches 200 million. From 33 millions to almost 200 million in 60 years. Officially they operate with a birthrate of 3.58%, but this is obviously, false.
To give an insight into Muslims generally all over the world, which is not too far away from us. The news media like to convey to us that most Muslims support democracy. But this is not correct.
A study carried out by the University of Maryland – the source reference is in the compendium – it was a thorough investigation of 4000 Muslims from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia – relatively moderate countries – shows that 65% of Muslims wish to unite all Muslim countries to one Caliphate, and 65% want to implement a strict interpretation Sharia law.
Then it is not… I will be moving on to my final points.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys have previously called me a “child murderer.” But we know that the average age of the AUF [Labor Youth Organization] members on the island was over 18 years, even if one does not count the [older] adults.
Half of the world’s standing armies are 18 years old. Many of our own Afghanistan soldiers are 18 years. Does that mean that we send child soldiers into conflict zones?
And since we are touching on “child murdering.” The Labor Party has since 1978 murdered more than 500,000 Norwegian children around hospitals in Norway. And they continue to murder 16,000 Norwegian children every single year through the abortion law.
And this is primarily ethnic Norwegian children. Muslims don’t do abortions because Sharia does not permit it.
The Labor Party and AUF are, therefore, responsible for a mass murder of 500,000 Norwegian children since the abortion law was introduced in 1978. And at the same time they use the low Norwegian birth rates to justify even more mass immigration.
The judges that are seated here today can sentence me as they themselves wish. If you choose to recognize my claim of ethnic, cultural and religious emergency self defense, you will in a very efficient manner send shock waves through all the illegitimate regimes in Europe that today make themselves guilty of ethnic cleansing and other crimes towards the European people.
The court must remember that the partial judges that worked for Hitler’s Germany were condemned by history after the war. And in the same manner, history will pass verdict on the judges in this case.
History will decide if they condemned a man who tried to stop the evil of our time. History shows that one sometimes has to carry out a small barbarity in order to stop a much bigger barbarity.
My brothers in the Norwegian and European resistance movement are now sitting out there and are following this case while they are planning new operations.
The next attack could, in the worst case, result in as many as 40,000 [people] dying.
Yesterday explosives were found outside a Swedish nuclear power plant, which indicates that my brothers in the Swedish resistance movement have something to do with this. In the compendium “2083,” I describe in detail how one can attack Swedish, German and British nuclear power plants.
The goal is to break the back of the economy, to create a climate [favorable] for revolutionary change.
The PST knows that militant nationalists in Norway and Europe have access to weaponry capable of causing massive damage. I feel obligated to warn about this, because this can be avoided if the will for it is there.
In the compendium, I have described a solution that can prevent all future attacks and that can avoid the conflict between Europe’s leftist regimes and the ultra-nationalists and others on the right-wing.
The smart thing that could be done would be to give us self-rule, autonomy over a separate area in Norway. We would be interested in having our own sovereign state within the state, which is reserved for the Norwegian indigenous people, anti-communists, anti-liberalists. In other words, National Conservatives, traditional Christians and National Socialists.
Such a solution would be beneficial to both sides, the Marxists and the liberals who would not have to fear our wrath and our endless bitterness and complaining about today’s development. While we would not have to be forced to live in a multicultural hell where our ethnic group, our culture, and our religion, are being robbed from us.
I have described this political model and will be conveying this complete proposal in the future, for a solution such as this can can be used in all European countries, and can thus prevent further escalation of the conflict between today’s liberal and secular regimes and the farthermost right-wing.
The starting point could have been that we would get the control over an area equivalent of one to two percent of the country, and areas increasing proportionally with this self governed states’ growth and number of citizens. If we do not succeed and flourish, then the self governed state will not be able to expand its area.
Very many, if not all ultra-nationalists and ultra-conservatives would be interested in developing such a state. This political model resembles to some extent historical solutions related to the rights of indigenous people in other parts of the world.
For the alternative is that we focus on power takeover of the whole country, something Marxists and liberals would be extremely unpleased about. But as long as today’s regimes are not even interested in entering into a dialog with us we do not have anything to lose, and this conflict will therefore escalate the next years.
It is maybe not very tactical to put forth such a radical proposal now, in light of the state’s attorneys’ claims of legal unaccountability. But I feel obligated to convey a potential peace solution that most likely can save many lives in the future.
This trial ought to be about finding the truth. The documentation of the claims that I have made, are they truthful? Because if they are true then how can what I did be unlawful?
I have documented that multiculturalist politicians, academics and journalists collaborate, making use of undemocratic methods, in order to deconstruct the Norwegian ethnic group, Norwegian culture and traditions, Norwegian Christendom, the Norwegian identity and the Norwegian nation-state. How can it then be unlawful to conduct armed resistance to against these treacherous people?
The state’s attorneys wanted to know who had given me mandate to carry out 7/22. Was it the Knights Templar network who had given me this mandate? I have answered this before, but I will do so again.
It is the Universal [Declaration of] Human Rights, international law, and the right to self defense that gave me the mandate to carry out this preventive attack. The whole, it was triggered by the actions of those who deliberately and those who undeliberately are destroying our country.
Responsible Norwegians and Europeans who feel a touch of moral obligation will not be sitting still and watch while ethnic Norwegians become a minority in their own country and in their own capital.
We will be fighting against the multiculturalists in the Labor Party and other political activists that are working towards the same goal.
The attacks on 7/22 were preventive attacks in defense of the Norwegian indigenous people, ethnic Norwegians, our culture, and I can, therefore, not acknowledge legal guilt.
I acted in emergency self defense on behalf of my people, my culture, my religion, my city, and my country. I therefore demand to be acquitted of the relevant charges.
Related post: Breivik’s statement in court April 17, 2012
Related post: Breivik’s statement in court February 6, 2012
Confusion has arisen as to whether or not the Court Medical Commission, an organ that oversees reports submitted by court-appointed psychiatrists, has aproved the second psychiatric report in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik.
While the Court Medical Commission approved the controversial first psychiatric report without any comments, it requested additional information from the second pair of psychiatrists who concluded that Breivik is legally accountable for his actions. Specifically, the commission requested further discussion regarding Breivik’s youth and how contradictory evidence has been weighted.
After the psychiatrists Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen submitted the additional information, the commission issued a statement that it acknowledged the response, and requested that the two psychiatrists provide further information in court.
Now, according to Verdens Gang (VG), co-judge Arne Lyng has taken the unusual step of sending a letter to the commission asking it to clarify whether the report has been approved or not. The question of legal accountability is the main question for the court to decide.
On Friday, June 1, the court received a response from the commission. According to VG, Judge Wenche Arntzen stated that the court interprets the letter as meaning the commission still has two objections to the report. One of Breivik’s lawyers, Tord Jordet, says to NRK: “There is no clear conclusion. The commission has sent a long letter, there are many words, but it is a bit difficult to understand. The commission has neither approved or disapproved the report,” he says to NRK.
Before the trial began, Health Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen (Labor) attempted to rush through legislation that would make it legal in Norway to establish one-man psychiatric hospitals which could be used to house prisoners, including political dissenters, who are considered a security threat.
Most psychiatrists and political commentators following the trial, however, seem to be of the opinion that Breivik does not appear in court as described by the first psychiatric report, which was as a low-functioning, psychotic, paranoid schizophrenic. To the contrary, most court observers report that Breivik appears composed, well spoken and reflective.
* Geir Lippestad: violation of the law
* Terje Tørrissen: “Unclear for many”
* Yvonne Mette Larsen questions the Commission’s impartiality
In a remarkable letter asking judges in terror case The forensic Commission clarify whether the recent psychiatric report is approved or not.
The Commission’s statement of 21 May, and rumblings in the media from Commission members, has created uncertainty about what is the outcome of their review of the additional declaration to Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen, the two recently appointed of four experts in the terror case.
Defender Geir Lippestad think it would be a violation of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is not clear whether the Commission has approved the report or not.
The Commission shall enter and witness first on the trial fourth last day.
Lippestad think it must be clarified as soon as possible, the second report is good fishing or not.
“We must know in good time before these witnesses shall be the court, so we can prepare ourselves and possibly consider new evidence means,” said Lippestad….
Original article: Retten ber kommisjonen om forklaring
Letter from the Court Medical commission [in Norwegian - opens pdf]
In what appears to be a political decision, the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) has announced that it will only permit the public broadcast of a selection of the expert witnesses in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik. While the most well known expert witnessses with a left-wing ideology will be allowed to be broadcast on national television, equivalent expert witnesses representing the political right, such as the well known blogger Fjordman, will not be permitted to be broadcast.
The decision does not come as a suprise. So far during the trial, the court has not appeared concerned about being perceived as biased. For example, the court denied Breivik’s testimony to be broadcast while at the same time allowing the broadcast of the prosecutors’ accusations against him. The court has also placed little emphasis on the tradition common in democracies in which regular citizens can follow trials in order to check the integrity of the court.
Both the Justice Department and the Supreme Court were victims of the bomb attack in Oslo. The 900kg bomb was placed right outside the Justice Department and the offices were completely destroyed by the explosion. Four members of staff were killed on 7/22, three in Oslo and one while attending the Labor Youth camp at Utøya.
Breivik has stated in court that he does not recognize the Oslo District Court as legitimate because he believes the court receives its authority from the Labor Party.
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
The right-wing journalist Ole Jørgen Anfindsen considering refusing to testify after the judges in terror trial has determined that his testimony should not be broadcast. “They create an A-and B-layers based on ideology,” he said.
“I have come into a situation where I seriously doubt I’m willing to stand as a witness,” said he NRK.no after it became known that the judges will not allow his testimony in the trial of Anders Breivik Behring broadcast.
Also Arne Tumyr, head of the organization Stop the Islamization of Norway, reacts strongly to news that his testimony does not seem to be on TV anyway.
“As it now stands, there is a severe censorship, there is a legal assault, it is to withhold information from the public,” he said.
Viewers will see fewer testimony
Friday came Oslo District Court with a new decision about which witnesses can be broadcast and not. Since the court has previously determined that Breivik’s comments on the testimony can not be broadcast, the judges decided that neither the testimony of the officers or observers from Dikemark could be sent on TV.
The rationale was that it would create a distorted impression in the media if the statements were sent to the witnesses on television, while Breivik’s statements were not shown….
But when they lists the witnesses who can be broadcast (see fact box to the right in case), several defense witnesses voter omitted.
Tumyr and Anfindsen is far from the only one.
According to the information now is available on the website of the Oslo District Court , should not the testimony of Peder Jensen Nøstvold [Fjordman] broadcast. The same applies to Islamist Mullah Krekar and Mohyeldeen Muhammad, the Islam critical writer Bruce Bawer, a former Norwegian Defense League leader Ronny Alte, filmmaker Walid al-Kubaisi, neo-Nazis Tore Tvedt and peace researcher Johan Galtung.
NRK has been in contact with the Oslo City Court, which currently can not provide a clear answer as to why some of the witnesses can be broadcast, while the witnesses in the same category can not….
According to Ole Jørgen Anfindsen bears the character of the court’s decision that the judges have separated the witnesses for ideology.
“They divide the witnesses into the A-team and B team,” said he NRK.no.
Informaticians HonestThinking runs the website and in the book “Suicide paradigm”, he writes that immigration and racial mixing will take the life of the western civilization. After 22 in July he told NRK.no that he wants to downplay the rhetoric of fear to inspire potential rightwing terrorists.
Anfindsen saw it as a personal burden to be called as a witness by the defense to Breivik. Nevertheless, he told the defenders that he wants his testimony to be broadcast on television. For him, it is important that the public can view the entire testimony – without being edited by others.
“Broadcast of witness statements ensure transparency, and also help to prevent misunderstandings that might otherwise arise,” says Anfindsen.
Original article: Frykter dommerne sensurerer kontroversielle vitner
Court decision [in Norwegian - opens pdf]
Related post: Leadership of the Norwegian Justice Department resigns
A 49 year man with an immigrant background set himself on fire and ran towards the police barrier in front of the Oslo District Court on Tuesday, May 15th, according to Verdens Gang (VG). Authorities have not disclosed which country the man is originally from.
According to VG, witnesses report that the man shouted “it hurts” and “shoot me, shoot me.” Dagbladet reported that according to a surveillance video of the incident, the man ran around engulfed in flames for about a minute before police officers arrived and put out the fire by throwing water on him.
Before the man set himself on fire, he reportedly stepped into a lawyer’s office and left behind letters of refusal from the Social Security Services together with a handwritten note stating that he felt the victim of a plot and that nobody understood him.
Four days before the incident, a man from Iraq man was dragged out of the courtroom after having shouted and thrown a shoe at Breivik.
It was at 13:42 that a man set himself on fire and tried to get through the fences and in the security check in front of the courthouse in the capital.
He moved first around the tram stop outside the courthouse, before he suddenly took out two bottles of liquid.
“He had two bottles of flammable liquid which he poured over himself,” says an eyewitness to VGTV….
Original article: Brennende mann lagt i bakken ved tinghuset