Breivik’s statement in court April 17, 2012

Oslo District Court 04/17/2012

[04/17 This post will be updated with more information from other sources]

Google translation:

Breivik’s free statement – word for word
4/17/2012

Read what the terrorist said on the first day of the explanations – word for word:

Dear Judge Arntzen. Lippestad indicated yesterday that it will take approximately 30 minutes plus possibly longer. The prosecution did yesterday was to lay the framework for their work, and I also pray that I may lay the framework for my defense and I can not do if I can not use the point list.

I hope I am allowed to explain to me related to causes and motives to 22 July and I hope you do not interrupt me.

I have a bulleted list, but I will start over after I’ve finished to set the parameters for the defense mine. So the question is whether I get your permission to set the parameters first? I must remind you that I have passed 1100 pages questioning, and I have no opportunity to explain to me without laying the framework for my first defense.

I should also mention that I have toned down the rhetoric for the sake of the victims and their relatives, and I think it should be within acceptable limits the right to stand within.

I stand here today as representative of the Norwegian and European resistance movement. When I speak, I speak on behalf of the many Norwegians who do not want our indigenous rights will be taken from us.

Norwegian media and prosecutors have argued and will continue to argue that the reasons that I executed the attack was an accident and because I was a pathetic and spiteful loser, that I do not have integrity, that I am a notorious liar, lacks morality, is insane and that I thus missed by other cultural conservatives in Europe.

They will say that I fell out of the workplace and socially.

All of this, they claimed. They also claimed that I am narssisitisk, antisocial, the germ phobia, and gone with a face mask for many years and I’ve had a incetstforhold to my own mother.

They also claimed that I am a child and baby killer, even though I have not killed anyone under 14. It has been argued that I am a coward, homosexual, pedophile, psychopath and the Nazis. All this has been claimed. They also claimed that I am mentally and physically retarded with an IQ of about 80

I am of course not surprised by these characteristics. I expected this and wrote down in advance what would be written and it turned out to be true.

But it is important that everyone understands why the journalists, lawyers and even the prosecutor in this case is going to continue to lie about me.

The answer is simple. I have conducted the most spektaklulære assassination committed in Europe since World War 2. And they will do everything in their power to prevent this.

Me and my brothers and sisters nationalist represents what they fear. They want to try to intimidate others to do the same. It is the cause of the massive demonization of me is going to continue.

I’ll actually start to tell a little about how it all started, and I start with 2 World War II. Norway and Western Europe has not had a real democracy since the interwar period. Norway and Europe are choked by almost total conformity.

Norway and other countries in Western Europe are democratic countries and have not been democratic since the interwar period.

Liberals and kulturmarxistene has 2 World War II, worked together to keep (…) from power, as their ultimate fear is that new Hitlers should pop up. What today is called a democracy, is in fact a kulturmarxistisk dictatorship.

Cultural Marxism that won out in Europe were raised shortly after the war to the only truth. Hitler came to power and this is one of the reason and kultumarxsistene not opened for proper speech.

Kulturkonservatismen was reduced to the prohibited contribution, which was marked by barbarism and inhumanity.

These truths were created and adopted in 45, was later reinforced under 68-holders to tell you about now. Nationalists and kulturkonservate lay with a broken back after the Axis powers fall.

Europe had never McCarthy, as the Marxists had ample opportunity. They spent much time in the beginning to infiltrate the school system.

In particular, that the same Marxists had been told by the other parties in Europe that they were too extreme to have political positions. This happened not only in Norway but throughout Europe.
There were many Marxists who were university teachers and it was the most effective way to exercise power.

In 68 occurred as a direct result of that we had no anti-communist leader who McCarthy. The problem was that McCarthy was too moderate. He tried to deport all kulturmarxister the Soviet Union, but did unfortunately not.

Cultural institutions in Western Europe was an easy target for Marxists to demonstrate and manage. Marxists who soon controlled the culture and the bourgeois liberals who controlled the economy.

The reforms introduced marxisistiske transformation of the church, education, morals and behavior to name a few. 1968 was the marxisitiske Cultural Revolution years. Reformation of social norms bearing. It was created a socialist egalitarian society.

The higher up in the new hierarchy of power you could get.
Today the culture is controlled by the Marxists and the liberal govern the economy, while the nationalists and the kulturkonservate have been kept out of power since World War 2. Today Norway is suffering and many countries of cultural selvforrakt due to the multicultural ideology.

A couple of questions that might be most important in our time and that all journalists, academics and politicians should ask about is the following:

Do you think it is undemocratic that the Norwegian people have never been asked through a referendum that was made into a multicultural state?

Is it democratic to do it without asking people about the law?

The second question is the following:

Do you think it is undemocratic that Norway welcomes as many African and Asian immigrants that they risk being made a minority in their own capital?

And then someone will say: No, there is no problem because there are free elections.

But then the next question: Do you believe that free choice is enough, and that the press has an obligation to communicate this to people? When the Norwegians, and Europeans have been displaced steering wheel, among other journalists.

That they will lose their culture, their land and traditions and Christianity. Many have seen on several occasions in Europe that (…) Our opinions are seen as inferior and we are seen as second-class citizens.

As it is now, there is no real democracy in Norway and Europe in the Marxist elite decide. The boycott democracy when they feel like it.

I’ll take an example from Austria a few years ago.
We can not allow a nationalist and cultural radical party takes power because their party is intolerant and inhumane.
National and international news agencies put much pressure on Austria, and called them racists and Nazis.

And the same happened when the Swiss voted against the conditions (…) Again, they spoke of them as intolerant and inhumane.

The same is happening now in Hungary, where the nationalist alliance is a victim of the same. (…) By calling them fascists and intolerant.

Swedish news agencies continue to do the same against Sweden Democrats and the Norwegian media has done the same for 20 years against the Progress Party. Here, too, boycotting the democracy and tries to push the Norwegians and Swedes by calling them racists, cruel and intolerant.

Norwegian and European politicians and journalists should ask themselves this question:

Have the Norwegian press ever driven campaign journalism against the Progress Party before the election? The answer is yes, they have been running a smear campaign against the Progress Party for 20 years and will continue to do so, and the same is in progress throughout Europe.

Norway can be called a democracy for 100 percent of the news agencies supporting multiculturalism and systematic censoring of individuals that support ethnic and cultural protectionism?

The answer is no. Norway can not be called a democracy as long as this systematic censorship is taking place.

Spørreundersøklsen to Frank Aarebrot in Nore shows that more than 60-70 percent vote for parties on the left. The answer is that journalism colleges in Volda University College in Oslo is totally dominated by socialist leaders.

This has, among others, Bruce Bawer wrote about. And these Marxist teachers helps to indoctrinate students. It is necessary to introduce a quota.

This is one of the few opportunities to get a free and objective press.

A British survey shows that 69 percent of Britons see immigration as a problem or a very big problem. Source references are in the compendium.

The latest survey from Statistics Norway show that 70 percent of Britons have become a dysfunctional country as a result of immigration. The source is The Times February 2010.

Another British study showed that 70 percent are dissatisfied with multikulturalsmen.

(The judge interrupts.)

- No it is only quotations that emphasize the point, Norway and European journalists are anti-nationalist and political activists. They allow the Muslims and Marxists filling newspaper inserts, but they call all the other bigoted Islamophobes and racists.

The 70 percent of Britons believe that the multiculturalism put their country at stake, how many do you think the same thing in Norway?

Journalists provide information and should be objective, but they are not objective. It is a mandatory requirement for on may call himself a journalist.

About 30 percent of Norwegians and Europeans are against multi-cultural activism. But it’s not a single news organization that represents our views. The reality was 30 percent of the news agencies made our case and present our views.

More and more kulturkonsevartive realize that the democratic struggle is no point. It is not possible to win when there is no real freedom of speech. When more realize this in the coming decades is a short trip to the weapon.

When a peaceful revolution impossible done, a violent revolution, the only possibility.

It’s no secret that the opponents of multiculturalism and immigration have not received a statement freely after the 2nd World War II. This is the real terror.

It is these injustices journey gene that created me, laser man in sweden. People who call me evil, have misunderstood the difference between brutal and vicious.

Brutality is not necessarily evil. To call anyone evil must know the person’s motives.

It is equally ignorant to call me cruel, as to call the U.S. military leaders during World War II vicious. Those who decided that 3.2 million Japanese civilians were killed. They did so not because they were evil, but because they calculated that a violent reaction would save millions of lives.

These were good intentions and motives, even if the methods they used were brutal. I and other nationalists are using exactly the same logic. If we could force Labor to change immigration policy and prevent colonization.

If we can force them to change direction by executing 70 people, then the obvious contribute to that we will not lose our ethnic group, our Christianity and our culture.

This will help prevent a future civil war in Norway, which can result in death for hundreds of thousands of Norwegians. I and other militant nationalists is a hundred percent convinced that if we manage to stop the multicultural project in Europe, we will save hundreds of lives.

When a great civil war will be averted. We do not have the luxury that we can expect more of confrontation.
Because if we wait 20, 30, 40 years, the ethnic Norwegians and Europeans to be in the minority. We have therefore not able to wait long. The designs are based on our goodness and not evil.
If there is someone who is evil, it’s Social Democrats, who not only engaged in systematic ethnic deconstruction, it is also made tens of thousands of threats that the consequences will be very bloody.

The only thing that should surprise Norway and Europe, why such a bloody conflict did not happen earlier.

We have arranged for Norway and Western Europe balkaniseres. As the Balkans will it all end in bloodshed. And yes, I would have done it again, because crimes against people and my culture is 1000 times as barbaric.

Implementation of a small barbarism is better than a great barbarity.

There in the compendium to trigger and provoke a witch hunt by moderate, is important. Which in turn will increase the polarization and contribute to the growing radicalization. Short term it will be counterproductive.

But when the moderates are persecuted many of those being radicalized and provoke a witch hunt, it was therefore critically important to our cause in the long term. Kulturmarxistene and (…) has received thousands of opportunities to change course since 2 World War II.

But they have refused to change course again and again. The question is then:

Do AUF and Labor because they are evil, or just because they are naive?

And if they are ignorant – we forgive them or punish them?
The answer is that most AUFere are indoctrinated and brainwashed.

But they have refused to change course again and again. The question is then:

Do AUF and AP because they are evil, or just because they are naive?

Many people have been indoctrinated by adults Labor-indoctrinated people or the media. All others have been indoctrinated by the Norwegian school curriculum or their parents. This was not innocent civilian children, but political activists.

As many as 44 of 65 AUF-ers had leading positions in the AUF and many had offices in the county, etc. AUF is very similar to the Hitler Jugend.

Utøya is a indoktrineringsleir of political activists, and the 20, July, they had been conditioned for several hours by Marthe Michelet. The daughter of the arch-communist Jon Michelet.

She had been invited by aufs management as a speaker. Caliber like this, feel such a huge hatred of our cultural heritage that she chose to convert to Islam.

And it’s communist speakers and leaders like this who are indoctrinating.

All those who advocate multiculturalism and kulturmarxisme should expect to be liable in the future.
It is not difficult to foresee when Europe is controlled by multiculturalists. It is the price we pay.

You try to save your people, when the majority chooses propaganda and say that you are a murderer and terrorist. All this we know in advance, so we do not complain. I wrote in the compendium before the surgery that I would be demonized.

To die as a martyr for his people’s survival is the greatest honor in a man’s life.

This is not only our right but our duty. Knowing that I will not scare imprisoned. I was born in a prison and has lived all his life in a prison, where there has been freedom of speech.

A prison where there is no freedom of speech and where I have been forced to look at, but my ethnicity is being deconstructed by kulturmarxister.

In this prison are not allowed to resist, and it is even expected that I should applaud my people.

In this prison management has decided that if you criticize it is not that good.

Demonized ridiculed. This prison is called Norway. It does not matter if I’m locked in Skøyen or Ila.

This is as urgent matter where you live in Norway, because you’re sitting there with a certainty that the country will eventually be deconstructed to the multicultural hell we call Oslo.

And you sit there with the knowledge that democratic struggle is useless because it is controlled with the use of undemocratic methods. The latest report from Statistics Norway show that immigrants will be in the majority in 2040 is very misleading.

It tells very little about the relationship between ethnic Norwegians and non-Norwegian. The reason the report is worthless is that they have deliberately omitted a number of other immigrant groups.

They have also dropped 3 generation immigrants, illegal immigrants and children where one parent is from another non-Nordic area.

The report was commissioned from the multiculturalists, where they try to hide the fact that ethnic Norwegians will be a minority in Oslo in a few years.

This is going to happen. In addition, statistics from the (…) that 47 percent are born to Norwegian sykeshus non-ethnic Norwegian.

It is today’s Oslo and Oslo in 28 years. SSB should be renamed the Labour Party sentralbyrå.

Many have claimed that ultra-nationalists like me want to build a terrorist regime. It is a mistake. I support the Japanese and South Korean model.

Nothing more, nothing less. Is really Japan and South Korea as terrible regimes?

No, they are not. They are high-tech nations. And saying no to multiculturalism and mass immigration in the 70s. They are living besviser that no to mass immigration is successful.

Discipline, æreskodekser and the pride of their own heritage is essential in Japan and South Korea. Women have a secondary role in the workplace. It is therefore absolutely wrong that people like me would like to introduce a vicious terrorist regime.

Today’s most successful nations are Japan and South Korea, which has used ethnic protectionism.

This model is currently the most perfect of all political models. In Europe, the alliance between Marxists and liberals after World War II, in principle, destroyed Europe.

In addition, Europe’s Marxists made that we focus all our resources on social security and sickness benefits including the residents. In the opposite direction, Japan and South Korea focused on research, export and high tech products.

It is not possible to shorten the framework for my defense.

(It is broken into the legend)

Brevik: Yes, it’s okay. Always end the argument.
Read more about the judge interrupted Breivik five times in

Both Japan, South Korea and China are partly living proof that countries that say no tilmultikulturalisme and masseinvandring is successful.

The Benkow, former leader of the Conservative Party issued the following statement. “An ethnically homogeneous society is a harmonious society.”

The more culturally and ethnically fragmented society becomes, the more it becomes weakened.

Where the lack of trust between citizens is reduced every day until it ends, such as Greece, where only government employees pay tax. This will not only affect the interaction, but in the long run lead to confrontation. This will also happen when Islam is so dominant in Norway and Europe.

It has been claimed that the European left-wing academics and journalists condemn violence.

Another study from Britain shows that 40 percent of Muslims believe that the 11 september can be justified.

The official lie is that while 99.9 percent of Muslims do not support violence, are truths that 25-40 per cent of Muslims support jiahdistisk violence. AP parties, academics, journalists, and are intelligent people who know this truth and conceals

The reason that they are lying about this is that there is a consensus, that is an indirect cooperation between European elites, who go on to lead the kulrurmarxistiske agenda behind the light. With the purpose of protecting the multicultural ekeperiment.

The few examples I mention here is the tip of the iceberg.

But now everything is turned upside down. Norwegian press has the power definition. They have decided that the evil is the good and the good is evil.

As goes that those behind the good, and I and others who are fighting against the evil. Nationalists and cultural conservatives are treated just as bad as Islamists were treated in the Middle East before the Arab spring.

Breivik refers to a spokesman in a Norwegian organization.
The question he posed was: How much longer will European nationalists and kulturmarsister punished for 2 World War II. Norway has not been extended, krigsoppgjøret was never completed, but is still going on today.

It is time that Europe’s liberals and maxi particles stop punishing nationalists for what happened during the 2 World War II.

We do not accept it anymore. A weak and fragmented ethnic group would result in a weak culture, resulting in a weak nation.

An ethnic group is the hjertte in a culture. Eventually, we see that the ethnic group becomes fragmented. This we see clear signs of Oslo and other European cities. In these cities the aggressive cultures that Islam dominate more and more.

The Muslim enclaves in Europe will grow as aggressively as cancer, until one day they constitute a dominant force.

Is this really so difficult to understand? Of all our people have gained, the people’s freedom was directly related to the integrity and strength of our ethnic group.

This is the most precious and most reliable. Our ethnic group is the heart of our own culture. Our culture can not survive without a strong heart. To maintain this ethnic group, our culture, is what our ancestors dedicated their lives to it hundreds of thousands have fought for.

Our ethnic group, our culture, our Christianity, our identity … It is the framework for the defense, and I take the interests of families and the victims.

(The judge interrupts again)

Originally, this 20-page. I have pushed it down to 13 pages. But just as it is said, there are a lot of talk about the five days I have received. I have never asked for five days.

I have not asked for five days, only about an hour. It is the hour I have now. It is critically important to me that I have explained to me this hour.

Breivik now starting to talk about Islamic culture and immigration after the judge has interrupted him.

This is less than twice as much as the Norwegian birth rate of 1.5. If this continues, we will change up as a minority in their own country. Lebanon was a Christian, country, but when the Muslims came in 1960, felt themselves strong enough to take over the country.

Defender Geir Lippestad request Breivik will continue:

What is your comment, Honorable right, is that we have set aside five days to the defendant’s explanation and he has five pages again. I understand the Court’s opinions, but I also pray that we will continue. It is imperative that we get his explanation, both the written part, and the muntligea later.

As we know, lost the Christians in the 1980s. Today they are a persecuted minority constitutes less than 25 percent.

Then we come to another Central European problem. Islamifisiering that manifests itself as a large number of Muslim Requirements: Shari’a law etc.

This gradual Islamization funded by arbiske countries, while Norway uses oil money on social security to immigrants. According to official information from the country they have spent 600 billion and financed Islamic centers in European countries.

They have financed the construction of mosques in 1500, nearly 2,000 Islamic schools in mainly Europe, Canada and America. It is worth noting that in most of these institutions as pursued Wahhabi-Islamism, which is a very conservative form of Islam.

Journalisterer and political commentators have claimed that I called Mullah Krekar as a witness to show my world view and that there is a rivalry. According to many of them inklundert Husby and Sørheim this psychotic delusions and that is only shared by me and Mullah Krekar.

What these reporters have forgotten to inform the Norwegian people is that it’s not just me and Mullah Krekar who believe this, but in fact up to 60 percent of Muslims in Europe.
And in addition, a large proportion of Norwegians and Europeans, perhaps as many as 30 percent.

To say that this is the psychotic delusion, is too stupid. Subi Sali says the following: each distinguishes religon and politics, has abolished 600 Koranic verses.

It also means that anyone who does not accept a religious state and not Sharia {…] The same leader said that the Muslim Brotherhood does not recognize the diversity because it ifnnes such sekuylære Muslims, only Islam.

According to orthodox Muslims as the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks secular mulismer Adbid Raja Islam to kidnap and use it for their own purposes. There is secular and moderate Muslims, there is only the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim community wondering who has given Abid Raja right to abolish the 600 Koranic verses. One can not rely on so-called secular Muslims in Europe. There is no secular Muslims and apostasy end.

The second is that all Muslims are practicing deception as the Prophet Muhammad recommended to use. One can not rely on such secular Muslims, because it may be that they implement a so-called deception. Ethnic Norwegians, and Europeans have been subjected to cruel acts, since our doors opened for immigration in the 60 – and 70-century.

Since Norwegian and European multiculturalists opened to immigration has poured in about 30 million Muslims into Europe. More than 90,000 of my Norwegian sisters have been raped since 1960 until today.

Against the people’s will. It is primarily Labor held responsible for my brothers and sisters.

More that these have been gang raped. More than 300,000 have been physically and mentally harassed, been beaten and robbed by Muslims since 1950 and 60

Several have committed suicide as a result of these atrocities. Hundreds of Norwegians have been killed by Muslims in recent years, including Martine was killed and raped by a Muslim in England.

All these atrocities are crimes against the Norwegian people and it is the Norwegian Labour Party including the AUF that are responsible for this because they’ve invited them here and continue to invite them here.

As a result, we see that ethnic Norwegians.

(If interrupted by the judge asking him to come to a conclusion)

I have reduced it from 20 pages, I try to explain the framework and the reason for my actions.

Breivik goes on and talks about the ethnic Norwegians fleeing Muslim neighborhoods. As Groruddalen.

- Even though I grew up on the west side, I see this. Oslo buy public flats for Muslims. This has been Muslim ghettos.

Many Muslims do not want to be integrated. They disdain the sexual revolution and the moral decay that characterizes not only Norway, but Europe. They want sharia.

The Norwegian delusions of politicians is that Muslims want integration and inclusion. This is true of Differences on Furuset, Holmlia, in Malmo, in Luton, London, Berlin and Utrecht, to name a few.

Ex-in Algeria, came with a political warning to Europe in 1974:

“One day, a million men leaving the southern latitudes to settle in northern latitudes.”

They will not come here as friends. They will go there and overcome it and fight it with their sons (…)

They want autonomy and self-government with sharia. Utvilkingen in the world shows the same. Muslims demand independence. This has already happened in India, Israel and Western China. We will see this in the next decades in Europe, even as the Muslim population increases, so it always starts with small claims.

Historical examples of documents that it always ends with demands for autonomy and selsvtyre. There is not one single example in the world that Muslim groups live in harmony with the country they settle in. Not a single example, ot.

There is not a single example. Unfortunately there are 40 examples of the opposite, that Islam has become more and more dominant.

Sitting Bull is and was a hero who was feireret of America’s indigenous peoples. He fought on behalf of his people against General Custer.

Crazy Horse and Chief Galen were other military leaders of the American indigenous people. Were they terrorists, or were they heroes?

Were they evil or were they heroes?

American history books describe them as heroes, not terrorists. Meanwhile, nationalists in Europe are described as terrorists.

Is not that hypocritical and very racist? An individual or group that fights against foreign colonization is not terrorists as history illustrates.

We are no more terrorists against the native Britons who fought against those who fasciliterte the Roman invasion. Norway has an indigenous population. Are Norway’s indigenous ethnic Norwegians?

Did the indigenous people lived here over the past 12,000 years?

The answer is yes, Norway has an indigenous and ethnic Norwegians are Norway’s indigenous people.

There is no difference between the battle being fought in the Soviet and autonomy in Bolivia, and between struggle for us who are fighting for nationalism in Europe.

In 2009, Parliament decided that the indigenous people in Bolivia should have autonomy if they wanted this. There is no difference between the Norwegian people and the Bolivian indigenous people.

Why be treated Nordic and European indigenous worse than other indigenous peoples. Why is the Norwegian Indigenous activists branded as rasisier and Nazis, while indigenous activists in other parts of the world will support and acceptance?

It is extremely unfair and it is unacceptable. Our ancestors have lived in this country for 12,000 years and we, as Norway’s indigenous people, do not accept that our country is colonized against our will.

We like all other indigenous peoples have special rights in this country, and this is something we will continue to fight for. I know that the information that I represent are difficult to understand. When one is taught to believe otherwise.

It is difficult to fight against the multi-cultural flow when the media pumps out to multicultural propaganda all the time.

Most of the Norwegians, and Europeans will soon realize that multiculturalism has failed. Mark Twain said:

“The change time is shipped patriot a failed person. When he’s right, large parts of oposisjonen support him (…) because it costs no longer something to be a patriot. “

4 This case is about finding the truth. The documentation and examples I have provided is true. If they are true, how could I have done is illegal?

I have documented that academics, journalists working for the same methods to combat the Norwegian identity and Norwegian Christianity.

How can it be illegal to engage in armed resistance against these people. Thomas Hylland Eriksen said: “The great white spot is to deconstruct them …..”

What he meant when he said this was the following: “We will deconstruct the Norwegian ethnic group, so they can never call himself a majority again.”

This is what is their plan. They will face massive opposition. Something like 22 July showed. Which laser man showed. These preventive attacks testify that a European civil war is coming.

Enoch Powell was a member of parliament in England, and he warned as early as the 70′s what would be the consequences of mass immigration.

He said: “Rivers of blood will run through our streets.” Unfortunately, no one listened to him or the others warned.

The reason is that everyone has been censored and ignored. And what we see today?

Rivers of blood has run through many cities in Europe. And rivers of blood caused by European patriots has run through the streets of Oslo, Malmö and Germany.

The most frustrating of all is that European multiculturalists wanted peace talks since World War II. They do not want dialogue, but has instead chosen (…) They will not succeed. More censorship, more ridicule, and more repression of nationalists and cultural conservatives.

Judge asks: “Are you as soon as finished, Breivik?”

Breivik answer: – There is a page again.

Sarkozy, Merkel and Cameron has admitted that multiculturalism has failed in Europe. It does not work. Mass immigration has been a bad fire and it has encountered many serious problems. Finally admitting the three mektiske in Europe that multiculturalism does not work.

And in Norway, then the opposite happens. Instead we go for more mass immigration from Asia and Africa. They refuse to change the ideological direction.

Now I run self-censorship, just for the record.

They refuse to introduce ethnic and cultural protectionism. They have apparently decided to construct the Norwegian ethnic group, whatever the cost.

Thomas Jefferson said: “Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants.” When national governments are destructive, the people have the right to abolish them.

It is their duty to overthrow such a government. And then to establish new guards for their future security.

It is 100 percent certain is that there is a war between nationalists and internationalists in Europe. We, the first militant nationalists, the first drops of water that realizes that there will be a big storm.

There will be a gradual escalation and polarization in society and we will see further attacks. The multukuluraismenn government is forced to fight an imagined against us on one side and militant islamsisker on the other side.

My European nationalist brothers and sisters will prevail, which will declare the end of a venstreekstremt board that has lasted since the Axis powers fall.

How can I be so sure that this happens?

The reason is that multiculturalism is a self-destructive ideology.
The national unity power is so weakened that the economy can not sustain the welfare state. The economic crisis will be the financial crisis today will look like a picnic.

The economy will crash land and result in mass layoffs of public employees. People who then lived with blinders end up in a situation where they will lose everything.

When they have lost everything, they are forced into a state of suffering, and then, only then, will they dare to say what they really mean.

And they have lost their religion and culture and their identity at this time will not Norwegian European men longer fear nationalism

Only when we know the body that you have to stand up for their opinions and it will happen a few decades in Europe, and in fifteen years in France.

In the meantime it is important that more patriots in Scandinavia and Europe to take responsibility as I have done, as Peter Many of Malmö has done.

It is important that the Nordic and European nationalist heroes get the attention they deserve. These heroic young men have sacrificed their lives to ensure that everything we love will not disappear.

They are all perfect knights, perfect foot soldiers for the conservative revolution. For national rebirth. Europe needs more heroes like them.

I approach the end.

Multiculturalism is an anti-Norwegian and European anti hatideologi. Multiculturalism is an evil ideology that pushed forward.

We, the indigenous people of Norway, is now in a situation where we are losing our capital and cities. We are about 5-10 years a minority in their own capital.

The political elites in countries stretcher is so brazen that they expect us to applaud deconstruction. And those who did not applaud, are branded as evil racists and Nazis.

This is what is the real madness – they should be subject carried a psychiatric evaluation and labeled as sick, not me.

But the Labour Party’s parliamentary group and all other social democrats in Europe. And why is this the real madness?

This is the real madness because it is not rational to work to deconstruct his own group, their culture, their own religion.

It is not rational to flood his country with the Africans and Asians, so that our culture is lost. This is the real madness. This is the real evil. The universal menneskerettightene allows for the ethnic Norwegians have the right to defense.

Responsible Norwegians and Europeans who feel morally obliged to not see that Norwegians are made to a minority in their own country.
They’re not going to see that we are made to the minority in their own country, we will fight against multiculturalism in the Labour Party and others working towards the same goal.

The attacks were preventatives attacks in defense of the Norwegian culture and my people. I acted with the principle of necessity on behalf of my people, my religion, my ethnicity, my city and my country.

I therefore demand that I be acquitted of these charges.

This was the thirteen pages I had prepared….

Original article: Breiviks frie forklaring – ord for ord
_____

Related post: Breivik’s statement in court June 22, 2012

Related post: Breivik’s statement in court February 6, 2012

Breivik testimony April 17, 2012

Oslo District Court 04/17/2012

[04/17 This post will be updated]

See also: Breivik’s statement in court April 17, 2012

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

Breivik: – Yes, I would have done it again
4/17/2012

Breivik: – Yes, I would do it again

Behring Anders Breivik read a prepared document when he began his testimony in the Oslo District Court.

The declaration should according to Breivik form a frame around his own defense and explain his actions.

- I stand here as a representative of the Norwegian and European anticommunist and anti-Islamic resistance movement, said Breivik when he began to lay the framework for his defense, as he explained it.

No confidence in democracy

Breivik said that in Norway and Western Europe there has not existed any democraty since the interwar period. It was at this time those he calls the liberalists and culture-marxists took over power. These groups have since carried out what Breivik calls a deconstruction of society.

This is how he has lost confidence in democracy, and then it is according to Breivik a short step to take up arms.

Breivik also said that brutality is not necessarily evil, and referred to U.S. military leaders during World War II when they decided to bomb Japan with nuclear weapons.

- 300,000 Japanese were killed, but they saved perhaps several millions. I and other militant nationalists are using exactly the same logic, Breivik said.

Should prevent civil war

The purported logic is in that the attack on 22 July should get the Labour Party to change its policy and thereby prevent a future civil war as a result of multiculturalism in society.

The only thing that should surprise, is that such a major attack has not happened before, said Breivik.

- Yes, I would have done it again, because the crimes against my country and my culture is a thousand times as barbaric, the defendant said.

Interrupted several times

Breivik spent a long time and was several times interrupted by the court administrator, who asked him to word himself briefly.

The first interruption came after half an hour. He had come to page 6 of 13 and strongly stated theat he should be allowed to complete [reading] what he had written.

- This is the framework for the defense, and I can not defend myself without explaining why 22/7 was carried out, Breivik said a bit later, explaining that the document had already been compressed down to 13 pages from the original of 20 pages.

Strong statements

24 minutes into the reading of his “document” Anders Behringg Breivik was interrupted by the court administrator Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen who told him to moderate himself.

- You said initially that you had moderated your rhetoric. Out of consideration for the bereaved …, Arntzen began.

- It will not become worse than this, said Breivik, who had just compared AUF [Labor youth organization] with the Hitler [Jugend] Youth, and made strong statements about the journalist Marte Michelet [left wing Norwegian journalist].

The press got flack

Also the press is totally penetrated by Marxists and liberals, according to Breivik, and stamped Norwegian journalists as anti nationalist political activists.

- News agencies shall be objective, but that they are not. A journalist who is not objective, but who supports the multi-cultural, is not a [real] journalist, but a political activist.

Breivik believes that 30 percent of news agencies “should have spoken our cause,” but instead 100 percent are for multiculturalism.

Thus, according to Breivik it is not possible to succeed through free speech and democracy, and then it is a short step to arms.
..

Original article: Breivik: – Ja, jeg ville gjort det igjen
_____

Google translation:

Questioning of Breivik – word for word
4/17/2012

Read the prosecutor Inga Bejer-Engh and Svein Holden questioning by Anders Breivik Behring below:

Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – When is the right set. When I give the word to the prosecutor for further questioning by the defendant.

VG: – Breivik looking out at the prosecutor as she talks to him.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now you have explained yourself a little, Breivik, and you’ve realized that we should follow up with the questions we might have. We have set aside quite a few days to your statement.

What we are concerned, it’s a bit about how you become who you have become. What has been your way up to today.

What we are concerned, is how you get there you are, from when you left high school up to 22 July. What we will discuss first a bit about why you did this, but it also may be that we get some BRAZZY this again later.

So we are going to hear about your planning and how you planned it and for how long. After that we will talk about 22 July and what happened that day.

But before we go through the sessions I have planned, I will take up the thread of what you just said and what happened yesterday. I have listened to what you have read to the judge and made me some ideas of your essence.

Then you can correct me if it is wrong. The way I understand you, then what you describe as a ULEV injustice, that’s why you sit here today.

That’s why you sit here today. I want to learn more about where does your duty to defend the Norwegian people from?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is the result of chance, which started when I was fifteen. Maybe even earlier.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But how did you get the right to defend the Norwegian people from?

Anders Breivik Behring – I talked all about the universal human rights allows the defense of their ethnic group and its culture. Many militant extremists in Europe and elsewhere, it takes as a starting point.

All unique people and cultures have the right to fight for survival, and against its own extinction.

The starting point is what I just mentioned. There are universal human rights. If you put it on the tip it may sound absurdly out. Basically it is that, yes.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But there is a right you have given yourself then, or has it come from others?

Behring Anders Breivik: – People who choose to fight, and who have fought for 2 World War II, they have very little had the opportunity to organize. Before the intelligence services got so many resources that today, it was possible, but today it has become impossible to organize.

You can also see what al-Qaeda after 22 July has embraced a encellesystem. They understand that it is not possible to build hierarchical organizations and operate conventional resistance.

VG: – People learn from each other, I might say that politically motivated violence, says Breivik questions about where he
take this from, and before he is interrupted by Bejer-Engh.

Behring Anders Breivik: – For quite a few years ago, was 90 cells rolled up. We should have been a encellesystem. There has been a constant development. We adapt and evolve, as intelligence health services do too. I learn from others, I have learned from Norwegian militants.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Have you given up that right themselves, or are there others who have left it? It’s that simple question.

[Breivik laughs]

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But you have given yourself this right, or is it someone who has given you this right?

Breivik: – I see a ULEV injustice. I see that my people are victims of ethnic cleansing. It is everyone’s duty to fight this. They have it for good, there is no state that has given me permission to what I have done, says Breivik before Bejer-Engh asks if he has decided this or the other.

The problem is that the nationalists after World War II, has had no sovereign states, because the last nationalist government in Europe was defeated in World War II. So I have not received any mandate from the sovereign state.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When I ask you these questions, then answer the others, I am more interested in you. Have you decided that you should save the Norwegian people?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I came in contact with militant nationalists in 2001, and it helped that I took the choice I have made. I made it myself. There are two dates that are important to note, that in 2001 and 2006. But I decided it ourselves.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – You have given you the right even to defend the Norwegian people?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have not been asked by a sovereign state, that’s right.

Behring Anders Breivik: – If you take based on universal human rights, one can give themselves such a mandate.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Do you get such a mandate, or have you given yourself such a mandate?

[Here are questions and answers quickly back and forth between the prosecutor and Breivik. Bejer-Engh repeats these questions several times, without getting a clear answer.]

Anders Breivik Behring – I and those associated with me have given me this mandate. When one sits and sees that their culture destroyed furniture and it will be suitable for a deconstruction, there are many who feel this somurettferdig because they never have the choice about this. When they choose to fight, someone chooses to ..

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But your mandate? I understand that you want to defend the Norwegian Indigenous Peoples. Does it have any right to kill in defense game you fight?

Behring Anders Breivik: – So. People who choose to become militant nationalists, they support the armed struggle and as long as guns are involved in a fight, there will always be people who die.

I came in contact with other militant nationalists in 2001. We want to build a system based on autonomy and independent cells. I have had very little contract with this group since 2001, but there has been contact.

With the mandate we have given ourselves. I and other militant nationalists in Europe. It is not because we want to kill other people. We would focus on a very important issue. You have to remove the ULEV injustice rather than continue operating censorship.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But the right to use violence in that game, it is an admission that you have given yourself, or did others given you the right?

But it is the group that has permission to use violence in this game or have you decided that?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I would say that generally I have even given me the mandate. When I was in contact with those in 2001, I decided not then I will blow up government building. The decision came much later.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But if the group you’re talking about, which we shall return, they have had no impact on the mandate you had 22 July?

Behring Anders Breivik: – With the mandate that we have given ourselves. Politically motivated violence, to get attention to your choice, you have to remove this ULEV violence.

To the extent that it legitimizes it. They legitimize predict projections for the opposition. If you look at the 40 different political violence carried out by national militants since World War II, there is a red thread in them. In everything from Erik Blücher Johnny Olsen Arne Myrdal.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But little concrete, with the group that you refer to as you say you were in contact with, they have had any impact on your exercise of violence so that you in your mandate to use violence?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have been influenced by them. They were militant nationalists before I was. They have influenced the radicalization of me.

No, I will not claim it, but maybe in an indirect manner, by influencing anyone. Through dialogue, then one could help shape a person, so … But in a very small extent.

To a small extent they have shaped me, but mainly I have taken inspiration from other places.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – If you are going to say something about the militant nationalists you met in 2001, you can say something about how they have influenced you to how you are today?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was my first encounter with militant nationalists, but it was because I searched the solution that they represented.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What do they represent?

Anders Breivik Behring – No, we are talking about several individuals, and one can not put them in a uniform group, but some were very … Thus, the confrontation.

Behring Anders Breivik: – While others may want to build a gressrotorganisajon who fought on the streets, but that was non-violent and democratic.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But when you come in contact with they were talking about using violence in this resistance then?

Behring Anders Breivik: – There was talk about it, yes.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Why would you use violence?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Because you did not express themselves, they were excluded from the democracy, as it was for all nationalists and cultural conservatives after the 2nd World War II.

And when one is excluded from democracy and is banned from the liberalization of food and kulturmarxister there is only one solution left.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Had these people you met in 2001. they had experienced the same injustice as you?

Behring Anders Breivik: – They had experienced an injustice, but not necessarily related to what I have experienced.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – If you had the same goal?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I would not tell much about the people, but what I can say is everything I have written in the compendium right, but it is a glossy picture of what was.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Holden stressed the uniforms as important, it’s just a moment. It is not important at all. It is only a suggestion from my side with tittelssystemt to help create a Dunamar. The battle will last for decades and it is important to have a foundation.

Behring Anders Breivik: – But what is an existing system is the network.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – So the network that you are talking about that you had a conversation with other nationalists, it is real?

[Breivik confirmed.]

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Grassland: The KT-network?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is KT, yes.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But you say that the manifesto is a glossy picture, but that KT is real. When you say “glossy picture”, what do you do?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is not a lie. but it is a magnificent representation of the actual realities.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Does that mean that you have embellished on things, right?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But when you say that it is not important, why have you pictured yourself in uniform?

[Breivik believes he has already answered this.]

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: It is important, but not so important?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is important, but it is far from the most important. I believe that I and some others have tried to introduce new traditions of militant nationalists in Europe. We have taken some from al Qaeda and Muslim extremists, including glorfisieringen of martyrdom. I wrote a martyrdomgave in the compendium. It comes from Muslim extremists.

One can look at the al-Qaeda as the most successful military organization in the world.

Unfortunately, until now, the resistance in Europe since World War 2 was completely pathetic, so I introduce new traditions among the so-called right wing militants in Europe.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now, I noted that you said I and some others want to be someone else, is it Knights Templar you talking about?

[Breivik confirmed.]

Behring Anders Breivik: – But it is also of course other than those I’m talking about, yes.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – I understand that you would wear my uniform in court? Why are you smiling?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Basically, when I spoke with the first two expert witnesses, so I did not have access to the media, so I had to choose only one line of how I would present it.

After I was arrested by the police and started questioning and was going through an initial evaluation, I decided to go for a line where I chose a magnificent presentation.

It has been shown that there was a big mistake by me.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Why was it wrong?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Because I have been portrayed as insane. I should not have chosen such a pompous production, so where do I just take the criticism on it. And now I’ve got an expert report against me because of it.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I should not selected this presentation, but I have already located lies in the report. From Huseby and Sørheim. Lies from the Husby and Sørheim.

I submitted an article to three newspapers in Norway. Unfortunately, not pressed it but where it emerges omtrt 100 of the 200 lies. I may well take the feature article and go through each point.

[Bejer-Engh Breivik told that she has read his op-ed]

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – As I understand that you believe that the first experts perceived the error because you appeared pompous?

Behring Anders Breivik: – So, I chose a line of explanation, and in retrospect I see that it was a big mistake for me to do.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Why did you choose such a line?

Behring Anders Breivik: – If I put myself it would remove all doubt that I was insane, instead the opposite happened.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh – How have you geared up for it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was really explain it in such a pompous manner possible and likely stay within. All I said was rational and that I stand for.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I stand for everything I said, but I made ​​it very easy for them to misunderstand what I said. I have to take self-criticism.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – How have you geared up for it?

Anders Breivik Behring – I toned it down quite a bit.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What did you toned down?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Pompøsiteten.

I chose to portray in the beginning it as a glossy picture, and it was a mistake – it was a big mistake. But that does not mean that everything is not true of starting. All I said is true.

To take an example. I have the compendium conveyed a network as a pan-European organization. Basically there are only a very few individuals. That’s what I’m talking about when I talk about a pompous presentation. That is correct.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – The truth about the Knights Templar is that there is a large organization?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I walked away from the presentation I started with.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – The truth is that the Knights Templar is the organization, but to a lesser extent than what you described it as?

Breivik: – So many individuals that I have claimed, but I have used adjectives that convey it in a pompous manner.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – As the scale of it is correct, but the adjectives you used does not?

Behring Anders Breivik: – No, not right, but I have used adjectives to describe it in a pompous manner.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But the network you have described in the compendium is correct?

Høyesterettsjustituarius is a lawyer.

How does it with the Supreme Court in Norway?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I’m talking about the principle of using a pompous production system.

What I am saying is that sovereign states, it is tradition for the use of this. The parallel is incorrect.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Forget I said it. I am a militant nationalist.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But a Supreme Court, it’s a real feature of the Norwegian legal system?

What is it like for you to have such a responsibility?

VG – There are some trick questions, I understand, says Breivik questions about how it is to have such responsibility from Bejer-Engh.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have decided to act. I am a militant nationalist. There’s no point in talking about responsibility, so you try to do. I have chosen to act.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have answered this question before, then I know how it was abused.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Can not you come up with the answer that you believe is right now?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I suggest rather that talk about the facts, and that is that I’m militant nationalist and I chose to act.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – If you think you now that we start a clean slate, as Breivik. You know that the court is not aware of the questioning, so when I ask you how you feel this responsibility, you have the opportunity to clarify it for us.

Behring Anders Breivik: – You could say it in exactly the same way I said it without taking it out of context.

To illustrate the point I can use what I used initially in the day. It is under 2
World War II when the U.S. chose to bomb Japan. The military command in the United States decided to do it. They did it not to be onsdskapsfulle. 300,000 dead Japanese would prevent escalation of the war, said the Americans.

But it is action which is very barbarous, most killed 300,000 Japanese were innocent, but it was not a vicious act. That did it for something good, they tried to prevent a wider war.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – 3 But when it comes to actions 22 July, so I understand that you believe these actions are not evil, but necessary?

Behring Anders Breivik: – 3 In the same way you can compare the actions that I and other militant nationalists in Europe have done. We act not to be evil.

And we look at what we call a systematic deconstruction that is ethnic cleansing. It is absurd to say that what I have done is goodness, but a barbaric act is not necessarily evil.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What you did 22 July is not evil?

Behring Anders Breivik: – No.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Your example from World War II, the bombing of Japan. It was a war. Is there a world you are in?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was not what I said.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But are you at war?

Behring Anders Breivik: – We try to work for the Norwegian for the Norwegian Indigenous Peoples and European rights of indigenous peoples. We can look at more than one thousand no-go zones in Europe, war-like zones, where the police did not even dare to run ghjennom.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – 1 Do you think that at some point I will and many other beautiful and understand what you did?

Behring Anders Breivik: – 2: Even among militant nationalists is what I have done very controversial. Perhaps half are against Utøya campaign, but all support the government quarter.

They think it is a legitimate goal, but about half of the militant nationalists in Europe, it seems that Utøya was over.

I knew it would be a highly controversial goal, that’s why I did everything I could to get that goal. I copper in advance to meet another goal. I worked basically the investigative conference, which had been a much more legitimate targets.

I worked really hard to realize it. I could unfortunately not to implement the action.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – We will get back to what plans you had something later, but I was not completely clear to you, is this: I understand you so that you have done this to protect or defend the Norwegian people?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I want to stop the deconstruction of the Norwegian ethnic group and Norwegian culture.

VG – Breivik laughs sarcastically while Bejer-Engh question.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – I understand that you do this to protect us. Will we come at a time when I and others see this?

Anders Breivik Behring – I do not think so. What I have done so on the fringes of militant nationalism that I will not be recognized as such.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But if we do not understand this, what was the point of doing it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – One can already see, to take an example to illustrate the point: After 9/11 in the United States, was even Islamic militants shocked. They think it was all over, they thought it was barbaric. 3000 innocent people, they were not active, they were not anything.

Behring Anders Breivik: – And in the beginning it was a lot that opposed, but eventually it became a mentality change, a development. After a while, the second militant nationalist groups to become much more radicalized themselves.

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was a method of jump that was actually much more recognized for some years. In the beginning, people were shocked. After 22 July, were militant nationalists that, eventually, there has been a mentality change.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What kind of mentality change?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But it’s that you say the influence of those you believe have the same opinions as you, but what do you think of this society which is unjust, do you think your actions 22 July is going to fix it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Absolutely not. If you look at me as a nationalist, you take all wrong. I am an ultra-nationalist, and subject to a nationalist is completely different motives of an ultra-nationalist.

Anders Breivik Behring – I and those like me want to speed up a conflict because we are afraid of the port as a minority. To do that, I felt that I had to provoke a witch hunt by moderate conservative cultural nationalists.

I think 22 July managed to provoke a witch hunt of moderate cultural radical nationalists.

So it is indeed exactly what I hoped for. So there are many nationalists who have written letters to me and said ‘what are you doing, our fight is weakened “

But then, they have the very misunderstood. The goal is not that we should get an immediate boost. We will first see an increase in Europe. As the long term will increase radicalization.

VG – Breivik use your hands to a greater extent in order to explain to the prosecutor in the courtroom now.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now we are talking about two things. In the long run it will increase your brethren? But I have seen you, so you want to change an injustice of the Norwegian society. Will your actions 22 July in the long run to change this injustice?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Absolutely. Because it will contribute to a witch hunt, it will lead to more censorship, which in turn will result in polarization, which in turn will contribute to radicalization.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Your goal is that as many as possible to become revolutionary?

Behring Anders Breivik: – My goal is a conflict before the ethnic Europeans are in the minority. Because when we are in the minority, it will be too late.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – You look at your actions 22 July as legal actions? Within the framework you’re talking about?

Behring Anders Breivik: – With radicalization, more choice. The more people who lose hope in a peaceful struggle for democracy, the more will be revolutionary. The only ones who understand it are those who are ultra-nationalists.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What do you hope then?

Behring Anders Breivik: – The important thing for me is to make a contribution. You can imagine that a person who wants to sacrifice his life for that matter, who knows … I knew of course that I would be seen as a monster and malicious. Of course it is not for my own image that I am doing this because it’s the nature of the murder itself. So clearly there is a victim. I expect that most will never understand. Maybe if it gets a board from the right wing in Europe, many may understand it, but it is difficult to predict the future.

I do not know, maybe, maybe not, but it looks as those in America, they tried to fight, says Breivik questions whether he believe others can understand it.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But you, several times in the place you used the term “we” and “our”, what is it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I am talking about other militant nationalists.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have not put me in a good light with these actions. I do not expect that people understand what I have done but I have tried to explain as best I can.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh – Can you specify some, who it is?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Other militant nationalists in Europe that Laser Male 2, or NSU in Tysklland, Or as Erik Blücher or Johnny Olsen or Arne Myrdal.

VG – Prosecutors Bejer-Engh asks if there are these people talking about when Breivik says “we”.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I speak on behalf of everyone I represent, and include many militant nationalists in Europe.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But we heard yesterday that the calling in from Utøya, the second call, do you remember that? Where did you say that you presented yourself as a commander, and so she asks what you are commander, and let you respond Knights Templar, that you are acting on behalf of them. If you have any comments on that?

When you said you acted on behalf of the Knights Templar in Europe, it is real?

Also you say that you are connected with two other people in Norway? Is it true that you are the commander?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have described a person who has overall responsibility associated with the other two, it is correct. So I referred to what I wrote in the manifesto, a cell commander.

What is the starting point of the statement is tr I tilnknyttet two in Norway that is affiliated with KT and as I have bekrevet a cell commander, this is real.

Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Just to inject it, it’s one-man cell, or?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – So is commander the same as a cell commander, and it is the same as you?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I am a self-sustaining and independent cell. I am affiliated with two others, who are also single cells. Total three-man cells.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Three one-man cells?

Behring Anders Breivik: – That is correct.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you say you acted on behalf of KT, is this the answer?

[Get brekreftelse ABB]

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – In court yesterday, we saw the film you had made ​​and posted. What were you thinking when you saw that movie?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I thought of Norway and Europe, which is controlled by politicians and journalists who kill our country. It was a very touching film.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Why was it moving?

Anders Breivik Behring – I thought that my country is dying and my ethnic group is about to die.

[Confirm that this was why he was moved by the film]

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Is it an important film for you?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is an ideological film, the music and the film itself is quite simple. It is an amateur film. I’m happy with it.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Why are you satisfied with it?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Were you touched that it’s your first film or the content of it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is especially the songs combined with the message and the knowledge that there is much international press who see the movie.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What did you think about it that so many got it back?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Because it was my first YouTube movie and I was happy with it. Being the first is not so bad. But it’s just a trailer.

Anders Breivik Behring – I think it’s sad to see the culture and my people deconstructed.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – the grief of the see a people and a culture to be dekosntruert. This film reminded me of it. Among other things, the three songs I use everyday when I meditate

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – You said questions from the administrator that you had chosen to tone down a bit. Then I wonder what you’ve toned down?

Behring Anders Breivik: – That’s just the presentation of what I have described in the compendium.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Can you give some examples of what you have toned down?

What is the reason you chose to tone down?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is because I sent the madhouse so I had no choice. It was so wrong felt that I had no choice. It is appropriate to choose a communications platform, people understand.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Do you think people understand you more now that you have toned down?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Absolutely, I think so. But the introductory lecture today, it … I think it puts some answers to questions that have been in the past, for I am well aware that the small-speeches I have made, that they have been very compressed, and incomprehensible, except for a small group.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have been aware of it all the time, it was a tactical choice because I knew I could explain to me during the trial and then would I also have the opportunity to explain myself. It was a tactical choice.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – I understood you initially today that questions from the judge you had toned down because of the aggrieved party. Now it’s because you’ve been perceived as sick?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have never had any intention to conduct me to conduct myself in a way uaksptabel against the victims and those who have suffered as a consequence of what I have done. I have tried to take a lot of reasons.

I have no intention of adding load to the burden they have. I know it’s horrible what I’ve done and that I have caused incredible amount of suffering. I can not understand the suffering, and I do not want to reinforce it.

That’s why I refer to the Labour Party and Labour Youth. The failure to mention them is difficult, since they have been so central in the management of Norway after World War II.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But do you now that you are in the situation you are in now, that you take into account the victims and survivors?

Behring Anders Breivik: – In the sense that I do not intend to refer directly to them. I could have used different rhetoric if I wanted to add cargo to the suffering they already have. It is not appropriate, because my goal is to shed light on what is happening in Norway and Europe. It is not appropriate.

That’s why I’m going to refer to the political party, the Labour Party and Labour Youth.

If I had been cruel, I could begin to talk about what happened on “MS Torbjørn” but I’m not going to do it. I could have tried to use a different rhetoric aimed at those who have suffered. I think what happened 22 July was terrible but necessary.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now I thought that we should go through the sessions I’ve talked about earlier. I just want to hear about my colleague has some questions for you.

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Breivik, you said that you were in a group, the Knights Templar. So you told us that within the network were divided opinions. Some wanted a confrontation and did not want it. Can you elaborate on that?

Behring Anders Breivik: – What I said earlier. I do not want to tell you more, I have completely lost track.

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Those who are behind the cage up there, does not know what you have said in the interview.

Anders Breivik Behring – I do not want to talk about other people in all.

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – But you can just say a little about how it was for you?

Behring Anders Breivik: – [Holden and Breivik goes back and forth, but Breivik will not elaborate on who he is talking about] I do not want to tell you about others, I have told what I want to say about it.

Svein Holden: – What is the reason why you can not tell anyone about it for me?

Behring Anders Breivik: – In 2001 I came in touch with some militant nationalists and there was a meeting in London 2002. I went to Liberia in advance and met a person there and went to London on the way back. I met three other people in London and it was to use a pompous presentation: the establishment meeting.

Behring Anders Breivik: – What is discussed here is in the compendium. I was probably the youngest there and I got passed a lot of information on the meeting, including the basis for the compendium.

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Was it there this controversy that someone wanted confrontation and someone wanted grassroots movement, it was where it appeared?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I do not say anything about it.
Prosecutors Svein Holden – I particularly noted that you used the word pompous again. There you have used 15-20 times a day. What do you mean the word pompous?

Behring Anders Breivik: – If you represent let’s say a group and you want to convey it in a way that optimizes proagandaeffekten conveys you to a pompous manner. Instead of telling about four sweaty guys in a basement, use the second description of ways.

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – You dress a little on that?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, well … One can use that word.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have told what I want to say about that, but it is to emphasize a point. There is talk of a few militant nationalists, all I have written compendium votes, but I chose a pompous manufacturing technology.

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Finally, you gave a lecture at 73 minutes, what kind of feedback do you expect in the post?

Anders Breivik Behring – I expect no feedback whatsoever, because I think all media companies in Europe are going to censor it in its entirety.

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Do you think no one is going to refer to what in particular?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is safe to pick up weaknesses and convey it in a way that ridicules me and my case.

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – What kind of feedback do you want?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is not for me. 22. July is not about me. It was called a suicide attack. I did not expect to survive the day. There is talk that I’m narsist. A narsist would never sacrificed their lives for someone or something.

VG – very Breivik smiles during an exchange with the District Attorney Holden talk about “sweaty guys in a basement.”

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – But, since you now have sat and talked for about an hour, and prepared it, I though, so I expect that you did it with a wish. What was wanted and your goal with it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – The goal is to try to convey the truth to Europe about what is going on around deconstruction of European countries and ethnic cultures, and especially for Norway for me.

Prosecutors Svein Holden: – When the ball goes back to Bejer-Engh.

Anders Breivik Behring attached either handcuffed and led out of the courtroom. He talks with Geir Lippestad as he goes out….

Original article: Utspørringen av Breivik – ord for ord
_____

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

Questioning of Breivik – word for word – part 2
4/17/2012

VG: – Anders Breivik Behring attached either handcuffed and led out of the courtroom. He talks with Geir Lippestad as he goes out.

VG: – The court now has a 20-minute break.

VG: – Participants in the trial starts to come back after the break. Anders Breivik Behring has not come yet.

VG: – Breivik’s defenders are in place in the courtroom.

VG: – Anders Breivik Behring come into court and put in the witness box.

VG: – Breivik rises for judges.

VG: – The court is set.

Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – As negotiations continue. Bejer-Engh can you briefly explain the agenda of the day today and tomorrow in relation to what you have announced.

Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – So that we have set aside enough time so that it might be relevant to the individual themes.

Judge Wenche Arntzen Elizabeth: – Is it possible for you to say how long you are going to use for this block?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now, I just followed the Breivik said today, and now I’ll start, as I outlined earlier, to ask some questions to Breivik on the road has been since he was in college and beyond.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Yes it will go the rest of the day today and well into tomorrow. We’ve talked about with the defender is going to take the most time. It depends on how much the defendant will answer and how much he answers.

Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – You know it’s been five days to explain? Do you have in mind.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Yes, we will remember and we will adapt so that we stay within the limits laid down.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When I first word I thought that I announce that I have presented a timeline of [the members], and it’s just a timeline that outlines a number of dates.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh – I thought I’d give it to you also, Breivik. [Bejer-Engh give the document to Breivik]. It is meant as a help document, if we see we need it.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – As I said to you in place, Breivik, we shall return later to the Knights Templar, the network and how it was in 2001 and how it is today. But before that, I will go back a little in time. I want to hear from when you went to high school. You stopped in the third gym, is that right?

Behring Anders Breivik: Yes, that’s right.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: Yes. And when you live with your mother?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is not quite relevant to this case, when we go so far back. The only thing that is relevant is to cover the period when I first got in touch with militant nationalists.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I see it is very much that you wish to speak as I do not understand the relevance of. I have noticed that the media has made a point of my childhood but it is not relevant. I had a good upbringing, that’s not why I chose to become a militant nationalist.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But I’m not going to go into your childhood I. I want to go into what you did when you left the gymanset, and then I will hear why you dropped out of high school.

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was because I started a company together with another person, and there was a telephone company, which I obtained via a franchise agreement with a U.S. company.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Quit the high school because you wanted to do something else to go to school?

Behring Anders Breivik: – And when I stopped at Handel’s in December, I ran the company and because – of what should be said – cooperation problems between me and NN, I chose to end this partnership a half years later.

Behring Anders Breivik: – It has no relevance. At that time I had gone through the curriculum for third grade, so I felt that it would give me so very much. As an entrepreneur, I have 100 percent ownership of the company I was going to start. So it was not as critically important to formalize my education.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But does that mean that you had read your way through 3 class syllabus in advance, but that you did not see the relevance of taking exams?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I did not see the relevance in it, no.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – In case there is some evidence that you had a lot of absences in the past year. What is the reason?

Behring Anders Breivik: – When I started the company, so I worked part time in another company, and it went over a lot of evenings, so I stopped at the school.

VG: – It will then say that you currently do not have high school, ask Bejer-Engh about. The answer Breivik yes.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Was it a conscious choice? [Get confirmation from Breivik] Have you then obtained some education beyond this?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Not a formal education, I have not. But I think the studies are important. Therefore, I studied a lot, a lot of themes. I know that for a person who does not have formal education is important to be able to describe their expertise so that it reflects their level of knowledge. That is why I have this system that I have told the police. I have 15,000 hours of study in multiple fields.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Why have you calculated it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It may seem very strange for a person who has a formal degree. But among entrepreneurs is not so abnormal. Some do it this way to convey the level of knowledge you are on.

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is a very general and a round number. I made a survey in 2001 I think, or 2009, with a view to impart the knowledge I have. I knew that in some contexts would be used against me.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But if you do not use it when to seek a job, what to use it then?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Who would you use those numbers above?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you’re talking about 15,000 hours, what do you in there then, what kind of reading or information gathering is what you mean?

Behring Anders Breivik: – You can use it in connection with the engagement, where it is important to highlight the level of knowledge. If you have 15,000 student hours in a field and it conveys the impression that one has only two years in high school, it gives a wrong impression of the person you are communicating with.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Why was it important to include in the compendium?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is difficult for the press, after completing a so-called suicide attacks.

Behring Anders Breivik: – No, in this specific case, I have gone through the 10 different books in that field.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Are there other fields that you have been concerned?

Behring Anders Breivik: – The fields that I have been most interested in the history of religion.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – 2: How do you get your knowledge from, primarily?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – remember some of the titles?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I do not remember now.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have probably spent most Wikipedia. The English articles are incredibly rich.

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is difficult to say. I’ve probably taken from many different sources.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – How much of these study lessons are things that you have read on the Internet? Do you have some percentage of that?

Behring Anders Breivik: – In the case of Hiroshima and such, so the more you learn at school. But in a political context, so you might find information about it from other quarters, where it is used for propaganda purposes.

Behring Anders Breivik: – So it’s important to look at me as a seller. I am selling a message, an ideology, it is important to look at me in that context. The fact that my intention is not necessarily to come up with concrete events, but use specific events.

Behring Anders Breivik: – But there are writers and cultural conservative writers.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Bejer-Engh: Is there anything you do not expect these classes? It included quite a few of the hours I put in the compendium yes. I had to read the incredibly much, and it was something that was written, I had to write it yourself.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have quite a few books on economics, I bought some in English, so it’s a combination of regular books for internet books, e-books, to the technical reports that are found on the internet to wikipedia articles.

Behring Anders Breivik: – It can not anticipate is reading newspapers, reading of professional journals and such. If you are looking up a field to examine the field, it is estimated that a study hour.

Behring Anders Breivik: – But anyway I have a great understanding that the way to present knowledge of the sounds absurd.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Is it important for you to get signaled?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is important to have signaled that they are not ignorant, it is important to signal that one is not, it’s true.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – In these 15,000 hours, including you with some information gathering to the compendium?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Do you remember when you started reading so much?

Anders Breivik Behring – I think I’ve thought about it all the time, I’ve probably been in a situation where I have wanted to defend my way of acquiring knowledge. In the old days there were only two ways to acquire knowledge in the library and schools, but when the Internet came, there was a new method, but today it is not very widely known.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – The reason was that I based it on information retrieval. In addition, I have quite a few courses through the companies I’ve worked. I have also studied the fields I’ve worked with on their own. I believe that it is equivalent to the curriculum.

Anders Breivik Behring – I could of course print out a certificate for myself, nah .. [Breivik laughs when he says this].

Behring Anders Breivik: – No, I will not try to lie about it. I had no plans to formalize it. I was planning on it until 2002, but after I came in contact with the nationalists, I have not considered it.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you say you have a bachelor’s degree so do you think?

Anders Breivik Behring – I wrote there that it was not accredited, and it will basically say that you have not graduated from the program.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – 3 I see that we found your resume on your PC, and you have written Bachelor of Busines Administration from American InterContinental University not accredited. What is the reason you set it in your resume?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have not been a very religious person, but there is a saying that states are no atheists in the trenches. This is very correct., If you know you will carry out a so-called suicide attack, one is probably a bit more religious.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – How do you see yourself today?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Have you had military service? [Breivik: - No.] What is the reason?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – So I wonder … Do you see yourself as a Protestant, or how you stand in relation to the church?

Anders Breivik Behring – I registered in the state church, but I have a greater attraction to the Catholic Church. But I am a member of the Church.

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was postponed until I was 25 years, when the requirement was waived.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I regret that I did not. Because it is useful knowledge for one who was militant.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When we have been through school and your education and spoke little about religion. Regarding your companies. When you left the Handel it was because you started a separate company and was working. So I see that you started something called Direct Response Services, is that right?

Behring Anders Breivik: – 4 I wrote an application for release of not having to lehgge the company. Was told that it was possible ikek. In the interests of my company, I had to find a reason for not releasing. When I chose to justify the fact that I had self-care for sick mother.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When did you just before you left high school, where you worked from 1997 until 2003?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Before I worked for Acta dialogue marketing, next to the school.

Anders Breivik Behring – I was working part time Well there I think, so I took full time eventually.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Can you tell us about what type of position you had in the company and what you did there?

Behring Anders Breivik: – When I was working the job was to book meetings for sales or economists, but it was a sales job where I worked on different projects.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did you have any management responsibilities?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh – also told you in the place that you started a company (name of company). It was started in 1998, so while you were in high school. What were you doing?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes I had the feeling of it, otherwise I would not get promotion. But they had several different … I worked with several different positions there, they were also given a new name, they called themselves after each SNT, for the period I worked in technical support. In perhaps the biggest part of my involvement there, I was team leader.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did you feel that you did a good job in this company?

Anders Behring Breivik: – It is a franchise agreement you did with an American company, it was a call-back system that started with, but then it [technical term], the use of an alternative platform to Telenor, and the purpose is cheaper units. For foreigners who want to call overseas.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I was chairman. There were a corporation. I had been working on development. I and NN had developed the concept for this company, which was to collect 300 million.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – There was a new company called Media Group. Can you tell what it was, what you were doing there?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did you have any profits then?

Anders Breivik Behring – I had no merit. We lost perhaps 5,000 kroner.

Behring Anders Breivik: – The reason was that we failed to cooperate, companion was unable to raise enough money.

Behring Anders Breivik: – We rented premises in Lower Castle Street [The prosecutor asked if it was here that he met Lippestad]. It was the same offices as Lippestad.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What was the purpose of the City Group?

Breivik: – It was really just to fall back on a platform where I could save up a new start-up capital. Once I had a new start-up capital.

Anders Breivik Behring – I think I established a legal identity, as a company is, without a clear business plan in the beginning. I think I experimented a bit.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Also, I understand that it is you end up with the diplomatic community? [Get confirmation from Breivik]

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you then sold it, you’re still in the DRS and work there?

Anders Breivik Behring – I think I went back there, yes.

Breivik: – As the fall 2002 experiment I with different business models. It turns out that earnings are managed best with the ene.Det is the project that is morally reprehensible.

Behring Anders Breivik: – But legally it was not illegal.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Legally, it is not actually illegal, it is in the gray area, because they have pretty clear clauses for those who buy it, that they are not allowed to use them in official contexts.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What did you think about the illegality of it when you started it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – That you have lost diploma on fire. There were of course many who had the opportunity to abuse it. It was morally very bad project

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Wrote the media about you and this?

Anders Breivik Behring – I think it was a competitor of mine, actually, who tipped Aftenposten about it in 2004 or 2005.

Behring Anders Breivik: – At the time I had already come into contact with militant nationalists, the focus ended up on that one ended up in a situation where one did not want to contribute tax money in a society that supports multiculturalism. It meant that one felt an obligation to pay as little tax as possible.

Behring Anders Breivik: – If I do, however, not ended up in the environment that I came in contact with, I would probably not chosen the project. I was terrified of the media to know about it. Then all career opportunities across. Because it is morally questionable.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – They had been named one of the employees. They wrote that it was someone who was doing this in Norway, and U.S. authorities warned about this. There was also handed over a document to Tor Axel Busch.

Behring Anders Breivik: – To prevent that I was exposed. For it was not legally prohibited but it would be incredibly embarrassing.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – So you downloaded the company because you were afraid that this was illegal and you were mentioned in the media?

Anders Breivik Behring – I had gotten very big very big exposure because of it, yes. Negative exposure.

Behring Anders Breivik: – The intention was to ensure that as much of the money was withheld from taxation. For this I had to implement a strategy for money laundering. Therefore, I created accounts in tax havens in the Bahamas and in Latvia. It was perhaps seven countries in total.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Was the other Baltic countries?

Behring Anders Breivik: – And the intention was to ensure that as little as possible of this was beskattet.De most banks in these countries gives you the debut cards and packages for people wishing to launder.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Most of these banks in these countries offer packages so you get a debit card in Europe without being registered.

Anders Breivik Behring – I made ​​the first million when I was 24, and four million maybe when I was 26

Behring Anders Breivik: – There were at least two countries in the Baltics and maybe three or four countries in the Bahamas.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But how old were you when did you set this sale of diplomas, then?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was in 2005, I think.

Behring Anders Breivik: – 2: Yes, that’s right.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I am not quite sure, but there are a couple million.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – It was previously talked about six million.

Anders Breivik Behring – I’ve said that I was very unsure about it. I have said that the amount I am not sure.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you finished this once in 2005 or 2006, you have some thoughts about how much money you then was left with?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But is it true that most of this money was foreign accounts?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, that’s right.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – If you now tell us something about how the success you had with these companies, what would you say then?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Is it right summarized that you try out a variety of companies and different projects that you do not achieve any particular revenue. But when you start to sell these diplomaene, you start to get success?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I want to mention that it was a learning curve. The company did very poorly. I learned incredibly much. I am grateful to go through the learning curve. It is useful to go to a slam, I think that to get success.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Absolutely. I think if you look for yourself what is the reality in Norway, there are not many Norwegians who manages to earn his first million when they are 24 If you look at Røkke, so he earned his first million when he was 24, and the same with Big Valley, so it’s not easy when you’re so young. But I did. In a company that was legal, in fact, even if it was morally reprehensible.

Behring Anders Breivik: – The way it is portrayed in the media, then comes the one as a result of the other. That I saw on the first two as a failure. you come out the “break-even” and with lots of contacts. I looked at it as a useful phase that was important to make money in a future company. It was a learning curve.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – 2: Summary of the day thought that you made ​​the success of these companies?

Behring Anders Breivik: – No, that I have never said that either does one financial success or not, but success is not only the financial but also that they have gained friends and contacts, etc.

Behring Anders Breivik: – As financial success – absolutely not, but the two companies – certainly a useful learning.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When we talked about school and your companies. Then I will talk about your political involvement. You have been a member of a political party. Remember when you engage in politics?

Behring Anders Breivik: – We have talked to police a part of it. I think you remember that I was 15 or 16 years, but police said it was a bit later. I was maybe 17 years?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – The information we have is that enrollment in FpU in 1997 and when you were 18, and you shall be registered in the Progress Party in ’99, when were you 20 years.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But do you remember anything about why you wanted to join a political party?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Basically, it was the background that I had that shape you as a person and political opinions. It was probably a result of my childhood and the experiences of Rice school was crucial that I told myself.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Do you remember today how you were like 15-16-year-old, what kind of thoughts you had on society and how things should be, then?

Anders Breivik Behring – I was not very politically active when I was 15, I was not. But I remember that I had any political views, which was clearly on the right side.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – You have in your manifesto, in book three, an interview with an anonymous Templar. In the interview, it appears clear that it is yourself. Is that right? Yes I’m being interviewed, responding Breivik.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – There you have a question because you set for yourself, how you then were thinking when you were younger. I want to be holding you.

VG: – Breivik begins to smile when Bejer-Engh references from his manifesto of his political opinions.

VG: – The prosecutor read a quote from Breivik’s manifesto for radical, as she confronts him.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But when you refer to something that happened fifteen years ago, how old were you then?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I was 14-15 years.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you were 14-15 years or prior enrollment in political parties, so when the whole political landscape as you do today?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I think what I’m trying to say there is that if I had seen myself 15 years ago, I had thought that “the guy where he must be crazy.” For it is hard to know what it means to be radical, the radical may be similar to irrationality.

Anders Behring Breivik: – What I have described in that section, it is the fact that I had a Muslim best friend for many years and he knew many in the Beagle Boys and A-gang, but at the time I was in a hip hop -subculture or a gang, and was on some occasions the Blitz as well, because there were clear links between hip-hop community and the Blitz-culture.

Behring Anders Breivik: – And I saw a lot, I experienced a lot. As a result of these experiences, I was very right side. And there are a lot of what I have described in this section.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you choose to sign up when you were eighteen years in FpU that the Progress Party’s youth section?

Behring Anders Breivik: – There had been plenty before that. I have been physically … how shall I say it … I have been exposed to violent attacks from Muslims, and also friends of mine in Oslo.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But when you then join the party, we see that you had a number of positions, including in FpU.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – In Progress says that you were chairman of FpU Major trail. You were a member in October 2001 to November 2003.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – You had thus several positions. What was the reason why you chose get involved in that way?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I was with because it cost only 50 million a year, and there was a cost that was not so high.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But these positions you took, it was …?

Behring Anders Breivik: – You could say that my involvement Progress and FPU was not significant. I had the positions and was a member of the control of Majorstuen and Uranienborg school.

Behring Anders Breivik: – But it is good as CV-fill then.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – It says here that you did something called political school in March and April 1999. What did you learn at this school?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Only generic courses that are linked to the party program. One can say that there is everything from debating technique, the processes related to the district committee, all that may have relevance for all who work with policy at district level.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – In this period when you were a member, what were you concerned when you were a member of the policy, do you remember that?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I believe that until 2001, I was keen to make money. It was the only thing that interested me. In addition, I was concerned about immigration – and cultural politics. I have been since I was fifteen. Career-wise, I was most interested in making money.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – So from 1999 to 2001, were you concerned about making money. The police have looked at how active you were online in the period you were politically active. Then they looked at FpU Forum from 2002-2003, in the period you had a total of 231 posts on this site. Do you remember anything about the contents of your activity. What was that you were concerned then?

Anders Breivik Behring – I think that at least at one point, I was busy trying to advance in the party, so I never went back within the limits of political correctness in the party. And it was one of the points where I said that Islam was good or something like that. And I found myself in it, thinking “how is it possible to be so hypocritical?”

Behring Anders Breivik: – When I actually hold a fairly moderate line after it, too.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have talked a lot with the police about the dates. I ran two races, I had invested a lot in politics and would see where it led. I would nominate myself in the council, and see how it was going.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When was it you were careful to say what you meant?

Anders Breivik Behring – I communicated not what I meant, but it might be beneficial for a person who wanted to advance in a party.

Behring Anders Breivik: – While I was familiar with some militant nationalists in 2001, but I did not everything I had in my hands for it. I wanted to see what would happen the other way.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did you make a bet did you?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Very little, actually. It could be seen as a bet, and it was the more noticed of course. But I was not so very high on the list, I did well at 37 space or something.

Behring Anders Breivik: – 4 But it was interesting to see.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What about the local elections in 2003?

Behring Anders Breivik: – To be nominated for a party in a local election, you must be nominated by your local chapter, which for me was the Frogner. So you need to get support from several neighborhood battles, and you need the support of perhaps 3 quarter strokes to get high enough up. It is normal is that you are summoned to a nomination meeting, where they check your CV, how much support you have and so on.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But you were nominated to the council in 2003?

Anders Breivik Behring – I was summoned to a nomination meeting. The list, I thought there were 20 names on the local list.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What were you wrote in the compendium?

Anders Breivik Behring – I assumed that I was at 23 space, but as it turned out that I came in 37 space. It was a careless mistake on my part.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What I wonder is that in the CV, which we talked a little about the place, so you write that you were nominated to the Oslo City Council in 2003. And then you repeat it in the manifesto, and you have … At least, I have noticed it, that are five times has told the police that you were nominated to the city council and came in 23rd space.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have really fokrlart that at the time I took the assumption that there were 20 names, but I was wrong. There were 33 seats. From there I made an argument that I was nominated.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you write in your CV that you were nominated to the City Council in 2003, it was wrong?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was a careless mistake by me, yes.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Thinking out whether you actually were nominated before you wrote in your resume?

Anders Breivik Behring – I wrote about myself in the compendium to make it more difficult for journalists to make me sickly and ridicule me.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – In the hearing of your Utøya it is one of the first things you are saying that you were nominated to the City Council on behalf of the Progress Party. What was the reason?

Behring Anders Breivik: – All on the list, the nomination list for a party consisting of the list you will find in the school premises, it is an abbreviated list. Also there are the rest of the list. For FrP part was a total of 70 names I think. Thus, three places above the list you actually find in schools. It is not wrong to say that you are on the list. It is an extended list.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But you have repeatedly said that you came in 23rd place, and that is why I wonder why you said it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have explained this twice now.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now we have obtained the list of local elections in 2003. Number 23 is a NN Do you know her?

Anders Breivik Behring – I know her. I’ve known her for many years.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Is that why you said you were on 23 space?

Anders Breivik Behring – I remembered that I had three places of the list. And then I was at 37 space instead of 33 space. That was the difference.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – We have obtained some of these posts of the 231 posts to the forum on FpU, I shall only briefly refer to any of it. [Breivik begins to speak even now].

Anders Breivik Behring – I may well tell you what I wrote, from housing policy and housing policy in particular and very little about immigration. The reason is that the Progress Party is a moderate party, you want a career where you can not have immigration as core policy. They do not want any attention about immigration.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, I remember. It was an idea.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Why were you interested in creating a common platform?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But you are also 23 May 2002, perhaps you remember, you have a post where you say you are trying to establish a platform based by members of youth parties on the right side?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Why would you encourage others to join the Progress Party?

Behring Anders Breivik: – The starting point for what we are talking about now is that I believed in the democratic struggle. When I lived in the exile that our system could be changed through the use of democratic means. A proposal to facilitate cooperation between youth parties.

Behring Anders Breivik: – What date was it you said?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – June 2003

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Also, there is a post later, in June of that year, where you say that it is important that more members of FpU become members of the Progress Party. Why did you do that?

Behring Anders Breivik: – You have a message on this website in May 2002 for writing that it is extremely important that you get better at getting involved. [Bejer-Engh describes what ssår written verbatim]

Behring Anders Breivik: – A part of my involvement in the forum. I would be performing a bird dancing in connection with the nomination process.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – And then there is also a post 22 June later that year, where you say that “we are forgetting one thing, what is the benefit of the United States is also very often in favor of Europe ‘. Do you have any thoughts on why you felt it?

Anders Breivik Behring – I think the setting I’ve written it, I thought about the exploitation of oil resources from the Middle East and Europe have not fought for their interests in many years.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Here you write that rich countries like Norway should approach U.S. policy, both foreign and domestic. It can be seen as kmynisk. [This refers Bejer-Engh]

Behring Anders Breivik: – 2: Everything that is written by me at that point is within what is called FpUs political framework. I wanted to see how far I got in the nomination process. When I go of course not beyond the political correct drug frames.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But did you know that you made ​​a contribution to the party in the period?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Not really.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – How do you describe the activity I have explained now? [ABB replies that it is not significant]

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did you know that you did success in politics when you were there?

Anders Breivik Behring – I did not feel I had any involvement in politics. My engagement was marginal.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – 3 But do you think that what I have described about your positions and your posts in this period, you think that it is marginal, it’s what you mean?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Basically, it’s meaningless duties. You use it almost as CV-filling. I feel I have learned a lot of commitment but for the organization, it is meaningless.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did you got something back for the suggestions you made?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have conveyed some suggestions, I felt and learned very quickly the limits of political correctness.

Behring Anders Breivik: – No, the proposals were harvested as usual.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did you come to where you wanted to come?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What did you think about it, then?

Anders Breivik Behring – I thought that there is a rigid party in many ways. It has sold so many principles to come to power that they have thrown out the baby with the baby carriage. There, I feel.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now I’ll go over it you were on before today. The reason you were radical and chose the way you have done. Then we go over on a topic where I wonder what is it that you gave up on democracy?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I made ​​a good summary of introduction today. Do you have any further questions to it?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Yes, I have. You talked about personal experiences, and assaults you talked about, but then I wonder, there are some political events that you think have been important to you?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Well, I summed it up very well in the introductory lecture. It is a combination of personal events.

Behring Anders Breivik: – It is probably a combination of personal events and experiences. The fact that I have been, what should be said, has had confrontations with Muslims, combined with confrontations my friends have had and other Norwegian children have had with Muslims has meant a great deal. When I was 16-17 years, there were very many in Oslo West understood that the Muslim groups of friends robbed, beaten and raped. There were no consequences of it. Those who tried to organize against them were branded as racists and neo-Nazis who was a great injustice.

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was accepting the terms of the Muslims established gangs because they were immigrants, but if the Norwegians did the same, we were branded as racists away. The injustice of this is communicated to the press coverage of this.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – In your manifesto, and so far in questioning, you have gone through a number of violent incidents that you believe have been crucial to your radicalization. But this episode you have experienced yourself or someone you have heard from others?

Behring Anders Breivik: – In some cases I have heard from others, in other cases I have experienced myself.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you have heard from others, you have done some thinking about it was right what you heard?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Do you plan and continue until four o’clock without a break or what? I’m getting pretty tired now.

Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Are you tired now? [Breivik confirms that he is tired and asks for a ten minute break.] When we take a ten minute break.

VG: – Breivik talks with Geir Lippestad before he moved out of the courtroom.

VG: – Breivik moved out of the witness box. He talks briefly with his lawyer, before he moved out of the courtroom.

VG: – It is almost time for the judges again, but there are very few of the players sitting in their seats.

VG: – The four experts are now at their seats while Breivik two defenders standing.

VG: – Breivik is now being brought into the courtroom and speak some of his defenders.

Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – When is the right set. Bejer-Engh, we aim to finish at 16 o’clock today. You have a natural point at that time so we finish.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Breivik, what we are talking about now was the episode that you’ve experienced that has been crucial to your radicalization. [Breivik confirmed]. So you say you have experienced violence themselves, and stated that others have had similar episodes. Have you done anything to investigate whether it is true what you’ve been told by others?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have heard pretty much as I have not included, then the points that I have included those, I have great confidence that has happened.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But you have done some research about it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have considered the allegations of the witness credible or not. If they are then this is included in the compendium.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – These are people you have spoken directly with that told you about these cases?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, in some cases. In one case there was a rumor, but in most cases it is perceived.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But now I think first on the other, before going to even experienced. How thoroughly have you done to find out if this is true?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have not done much research related to the witness descriptions that are considered credible.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Enough to take it with descriptions of the Manifesto?

Behring Anders Breivik: – For example, if there have been good friends who have come to the story, so I have not had reason to doubt it.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – You have explained they experienced the events of the Manifesto. Are there friends of yours who has been present in the episodes you’ve been in?

Behring Anders Breivik: – In some cases I have been alone. In other cases, I have been with others.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Are you familiar with what your friends have beliefs of this?

Anders Breivik Behring – I think probably most people, I have the hyped up slightly, to support them as a radikaliseringspunkt, it has probably been consistent.

Behring Anders Breivik: – No, I saw those who saw the key points that are worth mentioning.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now you have “hyped” the up?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have probably passed it a bit pompous.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Everything has probably happened.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you say pompous, you’ve overdone the episodes?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I can not remember that I have overestimated some of the episodes.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now some of your friends in to testify, but I thought you could tell a little about it now.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Of the 20 episodes, it was one that happened at Bohemians, where I attempted robbery of a Muslim. And then I went with two others, and they have in the police interrogation … they believe that they do not remember. Also, there are two episodes of NN, which he claims he does not remember. Otherwise I think everything is verifiable.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But in one of these descriptions in your manifest, which describes that one of the results was that you broke your nose?

Behring Anders Breivik: – In a confrontation, I was attacked by a gang of Muslims. Because I tried to pull a buddy of mine away. So, I was also attacked then I got a slap in the face. When I broke the nose.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What did you do with it?

Behring Anders Breivik: – No it was a failure, but it seems not very good. Or it does not seem at all ..

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – the police have obtained a medical certificate where you got your nose surgery, but there was nothing about the violations.

Behring Anders Breivik: – What they have brought in is a surgery when I was twenty years. Where the intention of the intervention was to chisel away some of the nose and it was not made any investigation of the violation at that time. There is a difference between an intervention and surgery. I have noticed that he has not registered that it was not a violation.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – So your perception is that you broke his nose during this confrontation?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What we can do is that we can forward these documents, and then we can submit it to the judges tomorrow.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – It is asked a question to the NN which has operated the nose, but it has not turned up any violations.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What we can do so find these documents and display it in the morning.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did you speak with?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Perhaps two of the cases are not 100% but I was pretty sure. It has been shown in one case, the episode of Young Market, where I thought he was a Christian from the African Congo, but it turned out he was a Muslim from Ghana. There was an error assumption of mine.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – With the episodes you had seen yourself, you are sure that they were Muslims?

Behring Anders Breivik: – In the cases mentioned, I’m sure.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Could it have been other reasons for violence than they were Muslims?

Behring Anders Breivik: – That is an argument from the police is that this is criminal people on the basis of criminal intent. And a majority of the attacks committed by Muslims in Europe and Norway directly related to that they are Muslims. Cultures they represent is the result of Islam. The cultures that have grown up in Muslim countries are so integrated and the result of Islam. The majority of crimes in Europe can be linked to Islam.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now we have gone through what you have personally experienced, that led to your radicalization.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Can I just emphasize the point? The basis of my claim is that Islam is a very, what to say … They look down on other cultures and it is a grunnlaggende contempt for other cultures in Islam, because in the Islamic world, is basically that it is the Islamic world, also it’s the world that are not yet Islamized.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But some thoughts about Islam, we must come back to. But now we have talked about your personal experience formulas or things you have heard from others. Are there other politicians either in Norway or Europe that has been decisive for you?

Behring Anders Breivik: – If I get chance I’ll go through the twenty confrontation I had with the Muslims.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now I’m concerned about your personal experiences, but some other political events in either Norway or Europe that has made ​​you radical?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I remember that I was very opposed to Palestine when I was 15, I can not remember why I was there.

Anders Breivik Behring – I think probably I have mentioned Serbia conflict as a conflict, but I do not think I’ve been so involved in it as I should have been.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What was the Serbian conflict?

Behring Anders Breivik: – As it appeared in the media at the time, it could be interpreted as the Christians very largely exercised matkmiskbruk against Muslims, but in retrospect, it emerged that coverage of the war, Serbia was extremely subjective. But I found it extremely unfair that Serbia was invaded because they attempt to deport their Muslim.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Was it important for you in the situation you were in?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have perhaps emphasized more in retrospect.

Behring Anders Breivik: – That at the time was unknown to many Europeans.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – The declaration set the question: “What tipped the scale (…)” (…)

Behring Anders Breivik: – Maybe. I do not remember very well, there are very many years ago.

Anders Breivik Behring – I know what I wrote and I wrote that Serbia war was crucial for the establishment of the KT network, but it is important to distinguish between essential and that it was the straw that made ​​the cup to overflow, it are two different things that it is important to distinguish between

Behring Anders Breivik: – But this conflict meant more for others in the network than for me. The compendium is not just for me, it’s also on behalf of others.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – “Persons charged with the opinion that one can thus say that the bombing was the crucial issue unchanged that it is necessarily appropriate for engagement. »

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did it mean anything to you?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – It is a way of saying to come up with inane answer but it was the straw for many. To be honest, I do not remember very well but it was a factor for me. It was just after 9 september was important factor for me than anything else. As a nationalist in Serbia cares Mon perhaps as much about it.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But the reason I ask is that in a recent questioning your requirements and you say … It says: “The requested ring accused wants to emphasize that it was Serbia-war that were decisive for his radicalism, but that it was the drop that made the cup to overflowing …”

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But if the conflict in Kosovo importance for the establishment of the Knights Templar in 2001?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, it was probably the straw that made ​​the cup to overflow for very many nationalists in Europe.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – And it was as a result of NATO bombing, is it to understand?

Behring Anders Breivik: – Among other things, the bombing of Kosovo in April 1999 was a very important hitsorisk.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – How do you see this bombing?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It was Kjell Magne Bondevik and … Foreign Vollebekk who was responsible, it was they who signed the documents that gave NATO the ability to bomb Serbia. And I think it was grossly unfair that NATO bombed Serbia who only wanted to deport the Muslims from the area.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When did you become aware of this? When were you aware of that?

Anders Breivik Behring – I was not aware at the time. I was not involved at that time. In 1999 I was, until two years later I came in contact with militant nationalists. It meant more gradually.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – When you came in contact with the militant nationalists, it meant more to you then?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It meant probably more to me then.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – What was the Progress Party’s stance in this conflict?

Behring Anders Breivik: – According to what I’ve heard, they were supporters of the bombing and invasion. I’ve had a conversation with the police about it. I did not realize why I was in a party that supported the bombing of Serbia. But I thought that they come in further to the right of a party anyway.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But the police asked you the question of what kind of position you had in this conflict. What did you do?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I have not experienced that they have been to a Christian country.

Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, they asked about it. I do not remember what I said. I thought they were against it.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But have you ever experienced that Progress has been against NATO?

Behring Anders Breivik: – You were politically active but you get after each contact with the militant nationalists in 2001. Thus, it was the straw that got it to run over this bombing.

Anders Breivik Behring – I do not know if I was in the party until 2004, believes it was only until 2003.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – You were certainly in the Progress Party from 1999 to 2001. This was in 2001. When you met them, you said that there was straw. Why did you not know then that your party had the position in this conflict?

Behring Anders Breivik: – For me, the conflict has been used mostly in retrospect. But if you are from Serbia, means the destitute lot. But vesdt Europe’s nationalists do not care so much. Even if one likes to use serbiakrige the propaganda context, it is Adré things Western European nationalists are more concerned about.

Behring Anders Breivik: – But is it correct to understand that when you are in 2001 made ​​contact with militant nationalists, some of them were the bombing Serbia-drop, and for you, too, was the drop?

Behring Anders Breivik: – It has probably been there for me. It is most important in retrospect.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Did you try to figure out what kind of attitude was the Progress Party of NATO and the Balkans at that time?

Behring Anders Breivik: – At the time I did not really about Serbia, but there were other things that are important to me. 911 had just happened. It was an awakening on the far right in Europe.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Were you concerned about how your own country as this bombing in 1990? Did they ask?

Behring Anders Breivik: – People know that Norway is a NATO country and I have talked to police about the former. [Breivik wanted to not go further into this question and what he talked to the police]

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – Now we have been visited several times that you made ​​contact with militant nationalists and that it was in 2001. Did you try to make contact with someone in Norway first, before you were abroad?

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh – I do not know if the police have asked me about it sometime, i. [The prosecutor asks him to still answer.] I think I thought at the time .. It was chance that made me come in contact with the Internet.

Behring Anders Breivik: – If I might meet a person in Norway, it might have gone the other way.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But at the time in 2001, where I then realize that you began to search against extremist forces, is that correct?

Anders Breivik Behring – I think I was searching at that point, but I did not know what I was looking for, in a way, but in another way, it was a coincidence.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh: – But were you looking for some like-minded users in Norway when the first?

Behring Anders Breivik: – I do not wish to comment.

Behring Anders Breivik: – I do not comment on it, and would not comment on it here [Breivik do not answer the question to the prosecutor]

VG: – The judge speaks briefly about how long they will need tomorrow.

Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – When the court adjourned.

VG: – Breivik now stands and speaks with his defense Geir Lippestad and has not left the court yet.

VG: – Breivik has left the courtroom….

Original article: Utspørringen av Breivik – ord for ord – del 2
_____

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

Pressed Breivik about the «Knights Templar network»
4/17/2012

Breivik was pressed with ever tougher questions by the prosecution after the lunch break. The terror accused 33-year-old seemed somewhat irritated at the prosecutor who makes repeated questions about his world view – among other things the uniform he made for Knights Templar, and about who he refers to when he talks of “we”.

Breivik moved his head back and forth as he explained himself. When Breivik saw how he was portrayed after the media ban was lifted he realized the mistake.

- Basically, I had no access to the media. I had no idea what people were talking about. After the arrest, I had to chose a line on how I should present myself. I chose to go for a pompous presentation. It turned out to be a big mistake by me, the mass murderer told during his testimony in court.

- Why was it a mistake, asks prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh.

The prosecutor sits leaning forward. She makes short and concise questions, and tries to get Breivik to give evidence in his own words. She has hardly taken her eyes off Breivik during the questioning.

- I was portrayed as completely insane. I must take strong self-criticism. I should not have chosen such a presentation. Unfortunately, I have now received a statement against me because of it. I should have not selected the pompous presentation, but when that is said, I have identified 200 lies in the first forensic psychiatric report says Breivik.

- Who gave you the right to kill?

Bejer Engh early asked questions about how Breivik had the right to defend the Norwegian people, something which was a central theme in the speech he gave in court for over an hour earlier today.

- Is it a right that you have given yourself or does it come from others, the state attorney asked.

- People who choose to fight after the Second World War has to a small degree been able to organize themselves. Intelligence organizations have so many resources that in recent years, it has not been possible other than in single cells, Breivik responded.

While Breivik explained himself, he rocking back and forth on the chair. He looked at the state attorney, but did not maintain eye contact for long

- I came in contact with militant nationalists in 2001. It came to that I decided to do this, Breivik continued.

- You decided yourself, asked Bejer Engh.

- Yes. It was my own choice.

- You have given yourself that right?

- No, it becomes incorrect to say that. The starting point is human rights and international law, but it is correct that I have not been connected to others who have given me the mandate.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh ask questions in a quiet friendly tone. All the four court psychiatrists followed very closely.

Pressing him about “Knights Templar”

The claimed organization “Knights Templar” will be a central theme in the questioning by the prosecution.

Breivik has the last weeks admitted that the titles, medals and the organizing that he describes in the manifesto and in the first interrogations are only a proposal – and does not exist in reality.

He still maintains however, that he has been to meetings of “Knights Templar”, among other places in London and that there exists other cells, including in Norway.

Prosecutors will during the questioning press Breivik regarding aspects surrounding “Knights Templar”. Police believe there is no such organization.

Is it something Breivik believes in because he is mentally ill, does he lie to create fearor has the police not yet identified the other cells?..

Original article: Presset Breivik på «Knights Templar-nettverket»
_____

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

Three reasons why Breivik wept in court
4/17/2012

Breivik’s reaction to the film showing in court yesterday, was an early topic when prosecutors today had the opportunity to ask questions.

- Why were you moved by the film, asked prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh.

- Because I was thinking about that my country is about to die. My ethnic group is about to die.

Breivik holds [his] hands quietly on his thighs while he answers. At the same time, he looks directly at the prosecutor. The defenders Geir Lippestad and Vibeke Hein Bæra put their heads together and whisper.

- Is it an important film for you, ask Bejer Engh.

- It is made as an idelogisk film. The music and the movie is quite simple. But what shall one say? It is an amateur video. It is my first Youtube video. Had it been my tenth then I had probably not benn satisfied with it, Breivik responds calmly.

The songs

- Were you touched by it being your first film or was it the content that did?

- I think it was the songs. And knowing that there are many who watch the film and got the message, says Breivik.

- I use to meditate to the music.

While Bejer Engh questions Breivik, her colleague Svein Holden follows closely. He takes a few small notes in between, but mostly looks at Breivik.

- I am thinking that there are many who got [the message] yesterday. It is tragic that the international press does not take responsibility for what is happening in Norway and Europe. I look at them as activists for multiculturalism, Breivik explains further.

- Was that why you were moved, ask Bejer Engh.

- Yes, it was the sorrow over it….

Original article: Tre grunner til at Breivik gråt i retten
_____

Related post: Breivik’s statement in court April 17, 2012

[updated 04/17/2012 9pm]

Another co-judge in Breivik trial forced to step down

The Oslo District Court (Tingrett) decided today that co-judge, Thomas Indrebø, should step down, after it became known yesterday that Indrebø had made strong statements regarding Breivik before being appointed co-judge.

It appears that Indrebø may have an Italian middle (sur)name (Ciccone) that he has not been using when serving as a co-judge in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik.

Using the alias “Thomas Ciccone”, Thomas [Ciccone] Indrebø commented on the Facebook group of VG Nett on July 23 of last year: “Death penalty is the only fair thing in this case!!!!!!!!!!”

Before the trial commenced, another co-judge had to step down after VG revealed that the son of that co-judge was a prominent Labor Youth Organization (AUF) politician.

A reserve co-judge will now take the place of Indrebø.

Yesterday, Breivik objected to the court’s neutrality. He said that the Oslo District Court gets its powers from political parties that support multiculturalism, and that the primary judge, Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, is a friend of former Justice Minister Hanne Harlem.

The Justice Department was completely destroyed by the 7/22 explosion, and Hanne Harlem is the sister of former Prime Minister and Labor Party leader, Gro Harlem Brundtland.

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

Removed as co-judge after death penalty message
04/17/12

Oslo District Court (VG Nett) Thomas Indrebø (33) is finished as lay judge, because he wrote that the defendant Anders Behring Breivik should be punished with death.

Late last night it became known, via vepsen.no, that one of the lay judges in the 22 July case has taken position on both the question of guilt and punishement reaction in social media. This was new to the court, despite the fact that all the judges in advance were asked specifically about online activity.

It meant that the District Court Judge Wenche Arntzen started rettsdag second with one hour break, so they could make a decision in the unfortunate case.

“His statements are likely to weaken confidence in whether he will consider the question of guilt and punishment sanctions in an unbiased manner,” Arntzen said afterwards.

She pointed out that the fact that such statements was a topic in relation with him being appointed, further weakened the confidence in Indrebø.

“All co-judges have in several meetings been asked whether they have made statements regarding punishment and guilt. That he has not stated this before causes confidence to be weakened further,” Arntzen read from the decision.

The court was unanimous when they decided that Indrebø is disqualified. He did not participate himself in the evaluation.

Both the prosecutors, the defence and plaintiffs’ lawyers agreed that Indrebø had to resign as co-judge when the information about the online activity became known.

The first replacement judge, pensioner Anne Elisabeth Wisløff (71), will take Indrebø’s place. Ole Westerås (46) from Lier will step in as new reserve.

When District Court Judge Wenche Arntzen took up the question of impartiality of the lay judge in court, Breivik smiled. The accused 33-year-old discussed with his defender just after court was adjourned – still with a smile around his mouth….

Original article: Fjernet som medommer etter dødsstraffmelding
_____

Related post: Co-judge in Breivik trial found to have conflict of interest, steps down

Related post: Court decides that regular co-judges be appointed in Breivik trial