Tuesday April 17, 2012 – Day 2
08.11 The car with Anders Behring Breivik is headed from Ila prison to Oslo District Court.
08.29 Court Psychiatrist Synne Sørheim is the only court attendant in place in the courtroom, half an hour before day two of the trial starts.
08.32 Court psychiatrist Torgeir Husby is also in place in Courtroom 250.
08.36 Agnar Aspaas just came into the room. Also today, the experts observe Breivik’s behavior during the trial.
08.55 The prosecutors Svein Holden and Inga Bejer Engh are in place in the room.
08.56 The court psychiatrist is also in place in the hall and talking to Engh.
08.57 Together with colleague Svein Holden Engh will ask Breivik questions during the open statement today. Holden is also in place.
08.58 The victims’ laywers Mette Yvonne Larsen and Frode Elgesem in place.
08.58 Anders Behring Breivik’s defense, Geir Lippestad and Vibeke Hein Bæra, have come into the courtroom.
08.59 Siv Hallgren, the third coordinating aid lawyer, is also in place.
08.59 Anders Behring Breivik brought into the courtroom 250, wearing handcuffs.
08.59 Breivik has a document in hand. It is likely that he will hold a speech today. Breivik smiles gently.
09.00 The handcuffs are unlocked, and Breivik performs his salute again.
09.04 Breivik gives his papers to Lippestad, who looks through them.
09.05 Lippestad talks with Breivik.
09.05 The judges come into the courtroom. All rise.
09.05 Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – The court is set.
09.06 Judge Arntzen: – Today there is a limited number of photographers who will take pictures for five minutes.
09.06 Judge Arntzen: – I will use the day to raise a question about impartiality of lay judge Thomas Indrebø.
09.07 Arntzen will clarify the associate judge Indrebø’s impartiality. On 23. July he came with a statement that the death penalty is the only fair one in this case.
09.07 The judge acknowledges having made such statements on 23 July 2011, the day after the terrorist attack.
09.08 Prosecutor Holden: – The prosecution believes that it is appropriate that the judge resigns.
09.08 Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – We are of the opinion that he is incompetent and that he should resign.
09.09 Judge Arntzen: – The court will take a half-hour break to take a decision.
09.09 Defender Lippestad also said: – This is likely to undermine the court’s confidence.
09.09 All rise up in the courtroom, Breivik is not wearing handcuffs.
09.11 Breivik smiles gently and looks around him while the press takes pictures. Then he is led out of the courtroom wearing handcuffs.
09.46 All now waiting for the judges to come in after the break.
09.51 Prosecutor Svein Holden hands out papers to the experts.
09.53 If Indrebø must resign as associate judge, the backup may be one of the deputy judges Anne Elisabeth Wisløff or Ole Westerås.
10.01 Breivik is brought back into the courtroom.
10.02 The judges come into the courtroom after the break. All rise.
10.02 Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – The court is set.
10.02 Arntzen will first clear up a possible misconception about the court’s broadcasting license.
10.02 Arntzen: – The scope of the court’s broadcast asting permission.
10.03 – This ambiguity may be due to the court itself.
10.03 Arntzen stresses that it clearly indicated which parts of the trial are allowed to be broadcast. It is only allowed to take snapshots in the first five minutes after the court has been set. 15 photographers had this permission the first day, while there are 12 in the future.
10.05 Arntzen: – Indrebø’s reactions are likely to undermine confidence in him as a lay judge. The Court has unanimously decided that the lay judge disqualified.
10.06 Indrebø stands down. Deputy Wisløff will be promoted, says Arntzen.
10.07 The prosecutor’s claim that Indrebø resigns is emphasized in court. Indrebø has not mentioned the remark earlier, which weakened his credibility further.
10.07 Indrebø is not present when the judge announces that he is incompetent. Indrebø did not participate in the discussion of his impartiality.
10.08 Judge Arntzen: – We have now arrived at Breivik’s explanation, and I would ask that the defendant takes place in the witness box.
10.09 Two police officers are standing on either side of the witness box.
10.09 Breivik brings his documents, and walks slowly to the witness stand.
10.09 Judge Arntzen: – You can sit down. As a defendant in a public criminal case you do not have to give a statement. But you have a right to explain yourself, if you wish. If you use this right, I will ask you to explain yourself truthfully. You will first have the opportunity to talk coherently about matters that you believe are important for your case. I understand that you have prepared a written statement that you want to read out.
10.10 – I understand that you will begin your statement with a prepared message. I ask you to still keep within the time frame your defense lawyer indicated yesterday. And you also need to be prepared that I may come to ask you questions during your reading. You must also be prepared that I may interrupt you, if you move away from that which has bearing on the case.
10.10 Breivik is looking straight at the judge and nods when she mentions the post he has prepared.
10.10 Judge: – What will happen after you have performed your prepared messages, is that the prosecutor will take over and ask you questions related to various topics. Your defense lawyers have already been told which topics those are. You will get some opening questions, and you also need to be prepared for some specific questions. Your defense will then have the opportunity to ask questions and also the coordinating aid lawyers, the experts and the court. If you wish, you may begin now.
10.10 Breivik nods when the judge says she may interrupt him.
10.11 – Dear Judge Arntzen, Breivik starts.
10.12 Breivik speaks in a low voice. He speaks in a slow and controlled manner.
10.12 Breivik: – Lippestad indicated yesterday that it will take approximately 30 minutes and possibly longer. The prosecution laid the framework for their work yesterday, and I also ask that I may lay the framework for my defense, and I can’t get that done if I can’t use the list of points.
10.12 – I hope I will be allowed to explain the causes and motives related to July 22 and I hope you do not interrupt me.
10.12 Arntzen: – You are allowed to do so. What I meant was plain reading. If you have a bulleted list of points that you want to stick to, you’ll get more leeway than with a mere recitation.
10.12 Breivik: – It’s true. I have a bulleted list, but I will start over after I’ve finished to set the parameters for my defense. So the question is whether I get your permission to lay the framework for my own defense. I will remind you that I have undergone 1,100 pages of questioning, and it is so massive an amount of information that I can not set the parameters for my own defense without aids.
10.13 Arntzen: – No, I understand. You can begin to lay the framework.
10.13 Breivik: – Yes.
10.13 Mette Yvonne Larsen: – Administrator, I’m told by the courts we are broadcasting to that they can’t hear him too well. Please push the microphone a little further down, Breivik, like that.
10.13 Breivik: – Yes, okay.
10.13 Arntzen: – Can you talk a little louder?
10.13 Breivik: – Yeah, that’s fine. I would also point out that I have toned down the rhetoric for the sake of the victims and their relatives, and I think it should be within both acceptable limits and my rights.
10.14 He now looks down to his papers, and starts reading.
10.14 Breivik: – I stand here today as a representative of the Norwegian and European anti-Communist and anti-Islamist opposition movement, shortened the Norwegian and European resistance movement, and as a representative of the Knights Templar Network. When I speak, I speak on behalf of the many Norwegians, Scandinavians and Europeans who do not want to be deprived of their ethnic, indigenous, cultural, and territorial rights.
10.14 – Norwegian media and prosecutors have argued and will continue to argue that the reasons that I executed the 22/7 attack were inconsequential, and because I was a pathetic and spiteful loser who lacks integrity, does not have dignity or trust, that I am a notorious liar, that I lack morals, that I’m crazy and that I therefore should be immediately ignored and forgotten by others Cultural conservatives and nationalists in Norway and Europe.
10.15 – They will say that I lost my job and social standing, that I am a cruel and insane person who is only looking for attention to my own person. All of this, they claimed. They also claimed that I am narcissistic, antisocial, psychopathic, that I have a phobia for germs and put on a face mask daily for many years, that I only like red sweaters and that I’ve had an incestuous relationship with my own mother.
10.15 – They also claimed that I am a miserable, pathetic child and baby killer despite the fact that I have not killed anyone under the age of 14. That I’m a coward, inbred, homosexual, pedophile, necrophile, racist, sociopath, fascist, Nazi, Zionist and anarchist. All this has been claimed. They also claimed that I am physically and mentally retarded with an IQ around 80.
10.16 – I am of course not surprised by these characterizations. Before I undertook my mission I described in detail what I expected them to say and write, and it turned out to be true. Most people out there understand that this is just false propaganda, and it borders on comedy. But it is important that everyone understands why these cultural elites, journalists, editors, and even prosecutors in this case, will continue to ridicule, mock and lie about me.
10.16 – The answer is simple: I have implemented the most sophisticated, spectacular, and the most brutal political assassination committed by a militant nationalist in Europe since World War II. They do this because they fear militant nationalism. They fear that we will be able to damage the cultural Marxist ideology and their multicultural experiment. They will do everything in their power to prevent this. Me and my revolutionary nationalist brothers and sisters manifest their worst nightmare. They want to try to scare others from doing the same. This is the reason the massive sickening demonization of my character is going to continue. I hope all nationalists and cultural conservatives out there do not let themselves be deceived by this propaganda.
10.17 – I will explain how it all started and what happened after World War II.
10.17 – Norway and Western Europe have not had a real democracy since the interwar period. Freedom of expression in Norway and Europe is a concept without substance. Norway and Europe are almost completely stifled by conformity and are therefore dictatorships. Norway and other countries in Western Europe are not democratic countries, and they have not been democratic countries since the interwar period between the First and Second World War.
10.18 – What happened last time there was real democracy in Europe? Yes, Hitler came to power. And this is part of the reason that liberals and cultural Marxists after World War II never wanted to introduce true democracy and freedom of expression. Liberals and cultural Marxists have cooperated after World War II to keep the nationalists and the cultural conservatives from power, as their ultimate fear is that a new Hitler pops up and supposedly starts World War III. So what today is called a democracy, is in fact a liberal and cultural Marxist dictatorship.
10.19 – Cultural Marxism, which came out on top in Norway and Western Europe after the defeat of the Axis powers in the war, elevated itself to the divine and only truth. Cultural Marxism became sacred, and its followers lifted their voices in support of international solidarity and human progress. Multiculturalism was soon included in this sublime and sacred truth, and it wasn’t allowed to criticize the sacred truth. Cultural conservatism and nationalism became prohibited, characterized as barbaric, hateful, and inhumane.
10.19 – These truths, created and adopted in 1945, were further reinforced during the revolution of ’68, which I shall tell you about next.
10.20 – Nationalists and cultural conservatives lay in shambles after World War II when the Axis powers had fallen. Europe never had McCarthy, so the Marxists had free reign. They used this period to infiltrate the media sector and educational organizations. The first generation of Marxist infiltrators, however, focused mainly on the education sector, especially after the Marxists had been told by the social-democratic parties in Europe that they were too extreme to obtain political positions. This happened not only in Norway, but throughout Western Europe. There were many Marxists who were university teachers, as they believed that this was the most effective way to exercise power.
10.21 – The Marxist revolution of ’68 in Norway and Western Europe occurred as a direct result of our lack of anti-Communist leaders like McCarthy, who prevented the Marxists from infiltrating the media and the education sector. But the problem was that McCarthy himself was too moderate. He considered at one point to deport all American Marxists to the Soviet Union, but unfortunately did not do this.
10.21 – Cultural institutions in Western Europe were an easy target for Marxists to infiltrate, while the bourgeois economic-liberals were primarily focused on controlling and managing the economy. Hence there was a new distribution of power in Europe. Marxists, who were in control of the culture and the bourgeois economic-liberals, who were in control of the economy.
10.22 – Deconstruction is the key word here. The Marxist cultural reforms introduced feminism and affirmative action, the sexual revolution, transformation of the church, schools of education, morals and behavior, to name a few. 1968 was the year the Marxist cultural revolution began. The result was the collapse of authority and a systematic deconstruction of social fundamental principles and norms.
10.22 – They created a socialist, egalitarian society in Norway and Western Europe, where all the groups that were regarded as victims were given power. The greater your sacrificial self-hatred, the higher in the new hierarchy of power you could get. Nationalists and cultural conservatives remained powerless.
10.23 – A conservative critic said in 1968: “In a few years, the Marxists will take care of the culture, while the liberals and bourgeois manage the economy”.
10.23 – And he was right. Today the culture is controlled by the Marxists. Liberals manage the economy, while nationalists and cultural conservatives have been kept out of power since World War II. Today, as a result, Norway and many other European countries suffer of cultural self-contempt, which is due to Marxist doctrines and the multicultural ideology.
10.23 – A couple of questions, perhaps the most important in our time, which all journalists, parliamentary politicians and academics should ask themselves are the following:
- Do you think it is undemocratic that the Norwegian people have never been asked through a referendum whether they accepted that Norway was transformed into a multi-ethnic and multicultural state? Is it democratic to do this without having to ask people for advice?
- The second question is: Do you think it is undemocratic that the Norwegian people have never been asked through a referendum whether they accept that Norway welcomes so many African and Asian immigrants that they risk being turned into a minority in their own capital?
10.23 – And then someone will answer: No, it is not a problem because there are free elections.
10.24 – But then the next question is the following: Do you believe that free choice is enough, and that the political parties and the Norwegian media have an obligation to inform the public about the consequences? Norwegians and Europeans have been deceived and manipulated by the left-wing politicians and journalists. And they have never explained the consequence, namely that they are going to lose their ethnic group, their culture, their traditions, Christianity, and their country. Nationalist and cultural conservative political parties in Europe are banned.
10.25 – On several occasions in Norway and Europe it became clear that nationalists and cultural conservatives in Norway and Europe are excluded from the democratic process. Our opinions are seen as inferior. And we as humans are seen as second-class citizens. It has been like this since World War II. There is no real democracy in Norway and Europe while the liberal and Marxist elites are in charge. They boycott democracy whenever they feel like it. And they feel like it every time the nationalist parties are close to taking power.
10.26 – I’ll take an example from Austria a few years ago. When Jörg Haider’s nationalist party, the ÖVP, took place in the coalition government, the country was boycotted by 14 countries in the EU. They said: We can not allow a nationalist and cultural conservative party to have influence, because their policies are intolerant, cruel and inhumane. National and international news agencies created their own initiative, putting strong pressure on Austria and calling them racists and Nazis. And then they tried to force them to change their opinion.
10.26 Breivik speaks in a light tone. He rarely reads wrong, and does not look up from his notes.
10.27 Breivik: – The same happened when the Swiss people voted against allowing minarets a few years ago. International news agencies did the same thing here when they started their great propaganda campaigns and called the Swiss racists and Nazis. Guess what they called them: intolerant, cruel and inhumane.
10.27 – The same is happening now in Hungary, where the nationalist alliance is a victim of the same demonization. Once again the Marxists and liberals boycott democracy and try to force the Hungarians to change their mind by calling them fascists, Nazis, bigots. Swedish news agencies continue to do the same thing against the political party Sweden Democrats. Norwegian news agencies have done this for 20 years in Norway towards the Progress Party. Here, too, they boycott the democracy and try to force the Norwegians and Swedes to change their mind by calling them racists, intolerant, cruel and inhumane.
10.28 Breivik: – Norwegian and European politicians and journalists should ask themselves the following questions, as this is very important:
10.28 – Has the Norwegian press ever directed campaigns against the Progress Party before the election, with the intention of influencing election results negatively? The answer is yes. They have been running a systematic smear campaign against the Progress Party for 20 years, and that they will continue to do so, and the exact same thing is taking place all around Europe.
10.28 – Can Norway be called a democracy if 100 percent of the Norwegian news agencies promote the multicultural ideology and systematically censor the individuals that support ethnic and cultural protectionism?
10.28 – The answer is no. Norway can not be called a democracy as long as this systematic censorship is taking place.
10.28 – A survey by Frank Aarebrot in Norway shows that only 1 percent of journalists votes for the Progress Party, and that more than 60-70 percent votes for left-wing political parties. What do you think the reason for this? The answer is that the journalism faculty at the college in Volda and the University of Oslo is completely dominated by Marxist teachers. Bruce Bawer, among others, has written about this. And these Marxist teachers helps to indoctrinate students.
10.28 – In all cases it is necessary to introduce a quota scheme for journalists and editors in the European news agencies. This is one of the few opportunities to regain a free and objective press.
10.29 – A British survey showed that 69 percent of Britons see immigration as either a problem or as a very big problem. Source references are in the compendium.
10.29 – Another survey by Statistics Norway from February 2010, from the UK, showed that three out of five Britons, that is, 70 percent of Britons, believe that Britain has become a dysfunctional country as a result of multiculturalism. The source is The Times, February 2010.
10.29 – Another British study showed that 70 percent are dissatisfied with multiculturalism.
10.29 Arntzen: – Breivik.
10.29 Breivik: – Yes.
10.29 Arntzen: – What you read up now, is this reading from your manifesto?
10.29 Breivik: – No, absolutely not.
10.29 Arntzen: – Or are you reading what you prepared?
10.29 Breivik: – Yes. These are only quotations that emphasize my points.
10.29 Arntzen: – Alright.
10.30 Breivik: – And that was the preliminary examples. Norwegian and European journalists are anti-nationalist and political activists. They allow Muslims and Marxists to fill the newspapers, but they call everyone else bigoted Islamophobes, racists, and Nazis.
10.30 – If 70 percent of Britons believe that their country has become dysfunctional as a result of multiculturalism, how many do you think share the same opinion in Norway, Sweden, Germany and France?
10.30 – Norwegian, Swedish, German and French journalists should be objective, but they are not. It is a mandatory requirement in order to call yourself a journalist. A journalist who is not objective and who chooses to support multiculturalism is not a journalist, but a political activist.
10.31 – About 30 percent of Norwegians and Europeans are opposed to multiculturalism, but there’s not a single news organization that represents our views. In a real democracy 30 percent of the news agencies would in fact speak on our behalf and present our views. Instead, 100 percent of all news agencies are supporters of multiculturalism.
10.31 – There is no foundation for democracy, and all our state institutions like schools and universities have a cultural Marxist and multicultural curriculum. More and more nationalists and conservatives realize, as I have realized, that the democratic struggle is pointless. It is not possible to win when there is no real freedom of speech, and many more will realize this in the coming decades and pick up arms. When peaceful revolution is made impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable. It’s no secret that the opponents of cultural Marxism and multiculturalism have been silenced since World War II. This oppression of opinion is the real terror.
10.32 – This grave injustice has caused me and others to lose faith in democracy and decide to become militant nationalists. It are these grave injustices that created me, Laserman in Sweden, and the NSU in Germany. People who call me evil, have misunderstood the difference between brutality and evil. Brutality is not necessarily evil. To call anyone evil assumes you know something about a person’s intentions and motives. It is just as ignorant to call me cruel as to call the U.S. military leaders during World War II evil, who decided to kill 300,000 Japanese civilians with nuclear bombs.
10.33 – They did so not because of evil, but because they calculated that an early end to the war would save millions of lives. They killed 300,000 civilians to, perhaps, save millions of people. This was out of good intentions and motives, that is goodness and not evil even though the methods they used were brutal.
10.33 – I and other militant nationalists are using exactly the exact same logic. If we can force Labor to change immigration policy, stop the deconstruction and colonization. If we can force them to change direction by executing 70 people, or destroy the multicultural ideology by other means, it would obviously contribute to us not losing our ethnic group, our Christianity, and our culture. This will help to prevent a future civil war in Norway which could result in the death of hundreds of thousands of Norwegians.
10.34 – I and other militant nationalists in Europe are one hundred percent convinced that if we manage to stop the multicultural experiment in Europe in time, we will help save hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of lives when a great civil war is averted.
10.34 – And unfortunately we don’t have the luxury to wait much longer with the confrontation. If we were to wait twenty, thirty, forty years, then ethnic Norwegians and Europeans will have become a minority. We are therefore unable to wait any longer, and as previously mentioned, the intentions and motives are based on goodness and not evil. If there is someone who is evil, it’s the Social Democrats and other multiculturalists who are engaged in systematic ethnic and cultural deconstruction.
10.34 – Since the Social Democrats and other parties in Norway and Western Europe chose to completely transform our countries into a multiethnic and multicultural society, without bothering to ask their people through a referendum. There have been thousands, tens of thousands of warnings that the consequences will be very bloody.
10.35 – The only thing that should surprise Norway and Europe is why such a large action has not been carried out before. They have prepared for conflict. Norway and Western Europe, like the Balkans, will end in bloodshed. And yes, I would have done it again. Because the crimes against my people and my culture are a thousand times more barbaric. The implementation of a small barbarity is sometimes necessary to stop a much greater barbarity.
10.35 – As stated in the compendium, 2083, it is important to trigger and provoke a witch hunt for moderate cultural conservatives and increase the level of censorship. This will increase the polarization which in turn will contribute to increasing radicalization. Short-term it will seem self-destructive because the moderates will attract so much negative attention, but when the moderates are being persecuted many of them will radicalize. To provoke a witch hunt was therefore critically important to our cause in the long run.
10.36 – Cultural Marxists and multiculturalists have had hundreds, even thousands of opportunities to change the political course since World War II. But they have refused to change course again and again. The question is: do the AUF and the Labour Party do so because they are evil, or because they are naive? And if they are naive, will we forgive them or punish them?
10.36 – The answer is that most of AUF-ers are naive and indoctrinated, that is, brainwashed. Many people have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by adults Labor people, or by the left-wing media. All others have been indoctrinated by the Norwegian school curriculum, or even their parents.
10.36 – These were not innocent civilians or children, but political activists who actively promoted multiculturalism and cultural Marxism. As many as 44 of 65 AUF-ers had leading positions in the AUF, and many took part in other political boards, and are nominated for county boards for the Labour Party. AUF is very similar to the Hitler Jugend. Utøya is an indoctrination camp for political activists, and on July 20th they had been indoctrinated for several hours by one of the most extreme Communists in Norway: Marte Michelet, daughter of the arch-communist Jon Michelet. She had been invited by the AUF’s leadership as a speaker.
10.37 – Marte Michelet felt such a huge hatred for our cultural heritage, despite our ethnic group being so vulnerable and oppressed, that she chose to convert to Islam and have Berber Arabic offspring with a Muslim. And it’s communist speakers and leaders of this caliber who are indoctrinating AUF.
10.37 Arntzen: – Breivik …
10.37 Breivik: – Yes.
10.37 Arntzen: – You said initially that you had moderated your rhetoric.
10.37 Breivik: – Yes.
10.38 Arntzen: – For the families and survivors.
10.38 Breivik: – Yes. It does not get worse than this.
10.38 Arntzen: – Can you be mindful of that?
10.38 Breivik: – I will do so.
10.38 Breivik: – Before I continue, I want to read a quote from John Stuart Mill, a former member of parliament and an English philosopher. “A person may cause evil to others not only by his action but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury”.
10.39 Breivik: – All political activists who advocate cultural Marxism and multiculturalism should expect to be liable for their actions in the future. Now you know what the price for treason is, and this will not be the last time in Norway and Europe that this happens. We militant nationalists know what to expect when we choose to fight. We perform the ultimate sacrifice, with or without recognition.
10.39 – You try to save your people, a nation where the majority is so indoctrinated that they believe that they need not be saved. You try to save your people, but the majority blindly accepts the propaganda that you are a murderer and terrorist, and not a national hero. All this we know beforehand, so we do not complain. Before the operation I wrote in the compendium that I would be demonized as an insane evil monster and terrorist. It is to be expected as long as Europe is controlled by multiculturalists. It is a price we are willing to pay.
10.40 – And to be imprisoned for life, or to die as a martyr who was crucial to our people’s and culture’s survival, is the greatest honor a man or woman may experience in their lives. This is not only our right but also our duty. Knowing that I will be imprisoned does not frighten me. And the reason for this is simple: I was born in a prison, and have lived my entire life in a prison. In a prison where it is not possible to express yourself politically. A prison where there is no freedom of speech and where I have been forced to watch as my own ethnic group and culture are slowly deconstructed by Marxists and liberals. In this prison, resistance is not allowed, and it is even expected that I applaud my people’s and culture’s downfall.
10.41 – In this prison the system has decided that if you criticize, you will be branded, publicly demonized, ridiculed, dehumanized. This prison is called Norway. It does not matter if I’m locked in a solitary confinement cell in Ila, or if I live in Skøyen or Frogner. The injustice is just as urgent, regardless of where in Norway you live. Because you live with the knowledge that all towns and cities will ultimately end up like the multicultural hellhole that we call Oslo.
10.41 – And you sit there with the knowledge that democratic struggle is useless, because those in control use undemocratic methods. The latest report from Statistics Norway showing that immigrants will become a majority in 2040, is very misleading and deceitful. It tells very little about the relationship between ethnic Norwegians and non-Norwegian. The reason the report is worthless, is that they have deliberately excluded all Asians, Africans and non-Nordic Europeans who are adopted. They have also omitted the third generation immigrants, illegal immigrants and children from one parent from Africa, Asia or other non-Nordic area. The report is commissioned by multiculturalists, where they try to hide the fact that ethnic Norwegians will be a minority in Oslo within five years. This is going to happen.
10.42 – In addition, statistics from 2010 show that as much as 47 percent of those who are born in hospitals in Oslo are non-ethnic Norwegians. Another study shows that ethnic Norwegians are already a minority among first graders in elementary school in Oslo. This is today’s Oslo, not Oslo in 28 years. Statistics should be renamed to the Labour Party Central Agency.
10.42 – Many have claimed that ultra-nationalists like me want to introduce and create a terrorist regime. This is incorrect. I support the Japanese and South Korean cultural model, nothing more, nothing less. Are Japan and South Korea truly terrible regimes? No, they are not. They are high-tech, successful and monoculture mentalist nations. They said no to multiculturalism and mass immigration in the 70s.
10.43 – They are the living proof that nations can be successful, if not more successful, if they say no to mass immigration. Discipline, honor, and pride in your heritage and culture is essential in Japan and South Korea. Women have a secondary role in the workplace. This is the most perfect society in the world today. It is therefore absolutely incorrect that people like me would like to introduce a vicious terrorist regime.
10.44 – Today’s most successful nations are Japan and South Korea which have prioritized both economic protectionism, but also ethnic and cultural protectionism. This model is currently the most perfect of all political models. In Europe, however, the alliance between Marxists and liberals after World War II, in principle, destroyed Europe. We have transferred our entire industry, exporting tens of millions of jobs to Asia, due to lack of protectionism.
10.44 – In addition, the European Marxists made sure we focused all our resources on social security, sick pay and time off for Europeans. On the opposite direction, Japan and South Korea focused much more on research, advanced technology, export and commercialization of high-tech products.
10.44 Arntzen: – Breivik …
10.44 Breivik: – Yes.
10.45 Arntzen: – Are you approaching a conclusion in your written statement?
10.45 Breivik: – I’m on page six of 13, so I’m halfway there.
10.45 Arntzen: – Yes, it’s very much. And now it’s been thirty minutes, so I suggest you prepare to end your written statement. And then you can come back to the points.
10.45 Breivik: – It is not possible. This forms the framework for my defense. If I can not be allowed to create the framework for my own defense, then there is no point in me explaining myself at all. However, there are still six pages, and everything is relevant. And…
10.45 Arntzen: – It has limited relevance what you say about Japan and other countries. Can you at least stick to your opinion on Norwegian conditions?
10.46 Breivik: – Yes. Right. (Pause).
10.46 Breivik was apparently annoyed when the judge asked him to quit reading.
10.46 Breivik: – Always end the argument. Both Japan and South Korea, and to some extent Taiwan and China, are living proof that countries that clearly say no to multiculturalism and mass immigration, are better off in the long run and are more success.
10.46 – Jo Benkow, leader of the Conservatives during the seventies and eighties issued the following statement: “An ethnically homogeneous society is a harmonious society”.
10.46 – The more culturally and ethnically fragmented a society becomes, the more impaired its national unity.
10.46 – A culturally and ethnically fragmented society is therefore of low social confidence, where trust between citizens is reduced every day until you end up like Greece, where primarily public employees pay taxes. This will not only affect the interaction between the different groups, but will in time lead to confrontation. This is sure to happen, you also see that Islam is already very dominant in Norway and Europe.
10.47 – It has been claimed by the European left-wing politicians, academics and journalists that the vast majority of European Muslims are peaceful and renounce violence. These people claim that as many as 99.9 percent of Muslims are well integrated and strongly oppose violence. Of course these are lies and propaganda. The Koran and Hadith require that all Muslim men are obliged to support or engage in Jihad. A British survey showed that nearly 25 percent of British Muslims said that the London bombing of 7/7, where 52 people died, can be justified because of NATO’s presence in Afghanistan. Another study from Britain shows that 40 percent of British Muslims – 40 percent – believes that 9/11 can be justified. Source: Aftenposten 2006.
10.48 – The official lie is that 99.9 percent of Muslims do not support violence. But the truth is that as many as 25 to 40 percent of Muslims openly support Jihadist violence. Marxist organizations like the Labour Party and other left wing and liberal politicians, academics, journalists and political commentators are intelligent people who know this truth. The reason that they lie about this, ignore, cover up or tamper with the relevant information is that there is a consensus, that is, an indirect cooperation between European elites who systematically go behind the Norwegian and European people’s backs with the intention to protect the multicultural experiment.
10.49 – The few examples I mention here, and a hundred other examples which I documented through the compendium, are only the tip of the iceberg, proving that the Marxists and liberal politicians, academics and journalists indirectly work together to deconstruct the Norwegian and European culture and allow further Islamization. But now everything is turned upside down. The Norwegian press has the power of definition, and they have decided that evil is good, and good is evil. According to them multiculturalism is good, and I and others who oppose it are evil. Nationalists and cultural conservatives are treated just as badly as Islamists were treated in the Middle East before the Arab spring. Ole Wilhelm Kluwer, a spokesman for the Association of Norwegian NS Children has said the following: “How can politicians talk of multiculturalism when they can not even accept the cultural differences within their own population?”
10.50 – There are hundreds of thousands of descendants from members of the National Front in Norway. The question he posed was: How much longer will European nationalists and cultural conservatives be punished for World War II? Norway has not progressed further than 1945, war settlements against nationalists and cultural conservatives were never completed and are still continuing today. It is time that Europe’s liberals and Marxists stop punishing today’s nationalists and cultural conservatives for what happened during World War II.
10.51 – We do not accept it anymore. A weak and fragmented ethnic group will result in a weak culture, resulting in a weak nation. An ethnic group is the heart of a culture, and you will see that as the ethnic group becomes more and more fragmented, the culture itself becomes weaker. Of this we already see clear signs in Oslo and other European cities. In such a setting, the aggressive cultures and political ideologies like Islam increasingly dominate. 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?
10.51 – Of all that our people have acquired over time, the freedom of our people has always been directly related to the integrity and strength of our ethnic group. This is the most precious and also the most fragile. Our ethnic group is the heart of our culture. Our culture can not survive without a strong heart. The survival of this ethnic group, our culture, in addition to our freedom and our independence, is what our ancestors dedicated their lives to, and hundreds of thousands of our people throughout history have sacrificed their lives for.
10.52 – Our ethnic group, our culture, our identity, our Christianity, our nation and our freedom and independence are the fruits of centuries, even millennia of collective effort and hard work. And in 60 short years Labor has managed to deconstruct everything. The only thing we’ll be left with is sushi and flat panel displays, we are about to lose everything that is precious to us.
10.52 Arntzen: – We must ask you to come to a close, Breivik.
10.52 Breivik: – There are five pages left, I’ll be brief.
10.52 Arntzen: – Attorney Lippestad, this goes far beyond what was announced yesterday.
10.52 Breivik: – It is the framework for the defense. And I can not defend myself if I am not allowed to explain why 22/7 was carried out. But I’ve toned down the language really, I take into account the families and the victims. All I want is to explain why I carried out 22/7 and explain the reasons and motives. And I have, originally this was 20 pages, and I have cut it down to 13 pages. It is not possible to shorten it.
10.53 Arntzen: – Attorney Lippestad, do you have some comments regarding the duration being far beyond what was requested earlier?
10.53 Lippestad: – That was your decision, Honorable Judge, that we now have five days for the defendant’s explanation. We still have five pages worth of what he should read. I understand the Court’s opinions, but I hope that we will continue with the current explanation. He also indicated at the start that he sees no reason to further explain himself if he’s not allowed to read this. It is imperative that we get his explanation, firstly this written statement, and oral statements afterwards. So I would strongly urge that we finish the five sides that are left, but also, Breivik, make it as short as possible and cut out anything that you deem unnecessary.
10.54 Breivik: – Yes.
10.54 Lippestad: – Thank you.
10.54 Arntzen: – Try to cut it down a little as we’ve gone far beyond schedule. When finished I will give the word to the Attorney Engh, to continue your examination.
10.54 Breivik: – Just for the record, that is, there is much talk about these five days that I’ve received. I have never asked for five days. The only thing I have asked for is one hour, and it is the hour I’m currently in. It is critically important to me that I get to explain my reasons and motives.
10.54 Arntzen: – Then you can continue.
10.55 Breivik: – Thank you.
10.55 – Islam is currently engaged in demographic warfare through mass Muslim immigration, combined with explosive Muslim birth rates over 3. This is more than twice as much as the ethnic Norwegian birth rate, set at 1.5. If we let this continue, we know what will happen. We will end up being a minority in our own country, as we see with the Christians in Lebanon. Lebanon was once a Christian country and 80 percent Christian in 1911. When the Muslims became the majority around 1960, they felt strong enough to take control of the country. So they accused the Christians of cooperating with Israel to justify a civil war. It’s well known that the Christians lost in the 1980s, and today they are a persecuted minority constituting less than 25 percent.
10.56 – And so we come to another important European problem. Namely, Islamization, which manifests itself in the endless list of demands. This includes demands for sharia-compliant foods, burial rituals, public swimming pool, banks, credit cards, loan agreements, insurance agencies, courts, schools and kindergartens. This gradual Islamization of Europe is funded in part by Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, while Norway uses oil money for developmental aid to Muslim countries and the benefits and tuition for Muslims in Norway. So one should ask oneself, what is Saudi Arabia using its oil money on? According to official information from Saudi Arabia from 2007, the country has spent more than 600 billion to finance the construction of Islamic centers in European countries. They have financed the construction of 1,500 mosques, 202 Islamic colleges, 210 Islamic cultural centers and nearly 2,000 Islamic schools, mainly in Europe, America, Canada and Australia. And it is worth noting that in most of these institutions Wahhabi Islam is propagated, which is a very conservative form of Islam.
10.57 – Journalists and political commentators have claimed that I called Mullah Krekar to confirm my worldview that there is a war of civilizations between the Islamic world and Christian Europe. According to many of them, including Husby and Sørheim, these are psychotic delusions, which are only shared by myself and perhaps Mullah Krekar. What these reporters have forgotten to inform the Norwegian and European people about, is that not only do I and Mullah Krekar share these visions, but up to 60 percent of Muslims in Europe actually believe the same, and in addition, a large proportion of Norwegians and Europeans, perhaps as many as 30 percent. A study in Germany found out that 56 percent of German Muslims believe there will be a war of civilizations between the Islamic world and Europe. So to say that this is extremism or a psychotic delusion is particularly stupid.
10.58 – One of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, Subhi Saleh, a member of the committee to design a new Egyptian constitution, said: “Anyone who separates religion and politics has abolished 600 Koranic verses”.
10.58 – It also means that anyone who does not accept a religious state based on sharia is an apostate or non-Muslim. The same leader said that the Muslim Brotherhood does not recognize diversity, because there are no secular and liberal Muslims, there is only Islam. According to orthodox Muslims, the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to use Abid Raja and other secular Muslims in Norway and Europe to hijack Islam and use it for their own purposes.
10.59 – There are no secular and liberal Muslims, there is only Islam. Orthodox Muslims like the Muslim Brotherhood wonder who has given Raja Abid and faithless Muslims in Europe the right to abolish the 600 Koranic verses. One can not trust these so-called secular Muslims in Norway and Europe. The reason is simple, there are no secular Muslims. There are only Muslims and apostates. Apostates have absolutely no influence on Islam and the orthodox Muslims.
10.59 – The other option is that Muslims practice al-Taqiyya, religious and ideological deception, which even the Prophet Muhammad on many occasions recommended to Muslims to use to protect Islam or their faith. One can not rely on so-called secular Muslims because it is a possibility that they are practicing al-Taqiyya, Islamic deception.
– Ethnic Norwegians and Europeans have been subjected to cruel actions since our doors opened to mass immigration in the sixties and seventies. Since Norwegian and European multiculturalists opened up the doors to immigration about 30 million Muslims poured into Western Europe, of which 300 000 in Norway.
10.59 – More than 90 000 of my Norwegian sisters have been raped by Muslims in Norway between 1960 and the present day. Several of these have been gang raped, or committed suicide as a result of rape. More than 300 000 Norwegian boys and girls, men and women, have been physically and mentally harassed and terrorized, beaten and robbed by Muslims in Norway between 1960 and the present day.
11.00 – Several have committed suicide as a result of these atrocities. Hundreds of Norwegians have been killed by Muslims since 1960 to the present day, including Martine Hermansen who was raped and killed by a Muslim in England, and the brother of Minister Thorkildsen, who was killed in a nightclub by a Muslim in Copenhagen. All these atrocities are crimes against the Norwegian people, and it is the Norwegian Labour Party, including the AUF, which is directly responsible for this because they are the ones that invited the Muslims here, and continue to invite them against the people’s will. And it is primarily the Labour Party who will be held accountable for these atrocities committed against my Norwegian brothers and sisters.
11.01 Larsen – Administrator, sorry to interrupt here, but there have been quite a few inquiries from victims who are reacting to Breivik having the opportunity to talk in this way, and it is a case which we are obliged to report on because we are coordinating this matter and can not censor. So I will just ask that Breivik will take the victims into account and quit so that we get the opportunity to conduct the case in the usual way, namely by examination.
11.01 Breivik: – I will pay heed to it.
11.01 Arntzen: – Yes. You now have a clear call. I also asked you to come to a close.
11.01 Breivik: – Yes.
11.01 Arntzen: – …I want to ask you to round it off now, Breivik.
11.01 Breivik: – There are three pages left.
11.01 Arntzen: – You must be concise now.
11.02 Breivik: – Yes. I have been a victim and witness to much of this myself, and I will address this later on. As a result, we see that ethnic Norwegians flee…
11.02 Arntzen: – Breivik, I suggest you go over to your conclusion or your ending.
11.02 Breivik: – There are still three pages, out of thirteen.
11.02 Arntzen: – You, I ask you to go to the ending.
11.02 Breivik: – Eh, I have reduced it from 20 pages, the reason why I try to do it now is to explain the reasons and motives, I can not…
11.02 Arntzen: – You will also have the opportunity to discuss the cause and motive in the further examination.
11.02 Breivik: – I must, I must be allowed to set the parameters for my defense, I must be allowed to explain myself.
11.02 Arntzen: – You will be allowed to set the parameters for your defense even when you answer the questions that come next.
11.02 Breivik: – There are still three pages and it is integrated information, it is crucial information to clarify the matter, to explain why, and I think there are quite a few people who deserve to know why 22/7 was carried out.
11.02 Arntzen: – Now you’ve heard the suggestion from…
11.02 Breivik: – I will pay heed to it.
11.03 Arntzen: – You’ve heard the suggestion from the coordinating counsel on how those affected react to how you are allowed to read your statement. Will you take that into account?
11.03 Breivik: – I’ll consider it.
11.03 Arntzen: – Is it relevant to you?
11.03 Breivik: – It is relevant to consider.
11.03 Arntzen: – Yes, and so I ask you to do it, and quit as soon as you can.
11.03 Breivik: – Yes.
11.03 Holden: – Honorable Judge.
11.03 Arntzen: – Yes.
11.03 Holden: – As the defense’s voice has been heard and the aid lawyer’s reaction has also been voiced, I would like to highlight the prosecution’s view on this, and we think it is important and just that Breivik has the opportunity to complete his three pages. Thank you.
11.04 Arntzen: – It is then noted. I’ve asked you to quit, but make it as short as you can.
11.03 Breivik persists. He was polite but firm when the judge asked him to finish his speech earlier than he had planned.
11.04 Breivik: – I will do so.
11.04 – As a result, we see that ethnic Norwegians flee in droves from today’s Muslim enclaves, like Groruddalen. These have become Muslim ghettos, no-go zones, which are not safe unless you are Muslim. The actions described are nothing more than a low-intensity Jihad. People who have lived sheltered lives far removed from these problems, that is, people who haven’t grown up with Muslims, do not know what they are talking about. I was born and raised in a conflict zone. Oslo is a conflict zone and is now a ruined city. Although I grew up on the west side I wasn’t unaffected.
11.05 – The reason is that the Labour Party opens up Oslo West to Muslims because they are buying up apartments, public apartments and handing them out to them. As a consequence many Norwegians have been exposed to great danger. Delusions of Norwegian and European politicians are that they believe that the Norwegian and European Muslims want inclusion, integration and assimilation. Many Muslims do not want to be included. They despise the Norwegian and European culture, they despise feminism, they despise the sexual revolution, they despise the decadence and moral decay that characterizes not only Norway but all of Europe. They do not want this.
11.05 – What a large number of Muslims in Norway and Europe want is autonomy, that is, self-rule with Sharia. This is true for Forskjellen, Furuset, Holmlia, in parts of Malmö, Copenhagen, Luton, London, Utrecht, Berlin, Paris, Marseille, to name a few. The former president of Algeria, Houari Boumedienne, issues a prophetic warning to Europe in a speech at the UN in 1974, “One day, millions of men will leave the southern latitudes to settle in the northern latitudes, and they will not come as friends, for they will go there to conquer and defeat it, and they will overcome it through their sons, the uterine of our women will give us victory”.
11.06 – Many Muslims do not want the cultural and moral decay that Marxists and liberals represent; they want autonomy, self-government with sharia. If one looks at the developments elsewhere in the world you will see the act same thing. Muslims want autonomy and demands independence for the regions in their host countries they eventually dominate. This has already happened in India, Lebanon, Israel, Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand and Western China, and we are going to see this the next decades in Europe as well. As the Muslim population increases it will start to require special arrangements which will progress into claims and demands. Historical examples document that this always results with demands for autonomy and self-government.
11.07 – There is no country in the world where Muslims have assimilated and lived in harmony with the host country. There is not a single example. But unfortunately there are more than 40 examples to the contrary, that Islam has become increasingly dominant until they took control of the nation.
11.07 – Sitting Bull is and was a hero who is celebrated by America’s indigenous peoples, Native Americans. He was an Indian chief who fought on behalf of his people against General Armstrong Custer and the U.S. forces. Crazy Horse and Chief Gall were other militant leaders of the American indigenous peoples. Were Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Chief Gall terrorists because they were fighting for their ethnic group, for their indigenous rights and culture? Or were they heroes? Were they evil terrorists, or were they heroes? American and European history books describe them as heroes and not as terrorists. Meanwhile, militant nationalists in Europe are described as terrorists and murderers because they are fighting for exactly the same ideals. Isn’t that hypocritical and extremely racist?
11.08 – An individual or group that fights against foreign colonization to protect their indigenous rights are not terrorists, as history clearly illustrates. We are no more terrorists than the native Britons who fought against their own treacherous elites, who facilitated the Roman invasion, colonization and occupation.
11.08 – And then comes the question that many have thought about.
11.08 – Norway has an indigenous population? Aren’t ethnic Norwegians Norway’s indigenous people? Haven’t these indigenous people lived here the past 12,000 years?
11.09 – The answer is yes. Norway has an indigenous people, and ethnic Norwegians are Norway’s indigenous people. There is no difference from the battle that is fought by indigenous peoples in Tibet against the colonization of the Han Chinese, to Bolivia’s indigenous people who are fighting for autonomy, and to us, the European, Nordic and Scandinavian indigenous people who are fighting for autonomy and cultural protectionism.
11.09 – In 2009, the Bolivian parliament decided that the indigenous people in Bolivia should be allowed self-governance if they wanted it. There is no difference between the Norwegian people and the Bolivian indigenous people. Why treat the Nordic and European indigenous worse than other indigenous populations? Why is it that indigenous European fighters are branded as racists or Nazis, while indigenous rights activists like those in Tibet, Bolivia and America will be respected and receive assistance from the international community?
11.10 – It is extremely unfair and it is unacceptable. Our ancestors have lived in this country for 12,000 years. And we as indigenous people of Norway will not accept our country being colonized against our will, we, like all other indigenous peoples, have special rights in this country. And this is something we are going to fight for.
11.10 – I know that the information I present is difficult to comprehend and understand when one has been indoctrinated to believe something else. It is difficult to fight against the current, when one hundred percent of the media companies pump out multi-cultural propaganda every minute of every hour of every day. But in the future the majority of Norwegians and Europeans will understand that what I say here today is the truth. Soon it will dawn on everyone that multiculturalism has failed.
11.11 – Mark Twain once wrote, “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot”.
11.11 – This trial is about finding the truth. The documentation and examples I have provided are true. If they are true, how can what I did be illegal? I have documented that the multicultural policy makers and academics and journalists are working together, using undemocratic methods to deconstruct the Norwegian ethnic group, the Norwegian culture and traditions, Norwegian Christianity, and the Norwegian identity. How can it be illegal to engage in armed resistance against these people?
11.12 – Thomas Hylland Eriksen, professor at the University of Oslo and one of the ideologues behind multiculturalism in Norway has previously expressed: “the large white spot is to deconstruct them, we will deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves a majority again”.
11.12 – What he meant when he said this was the following. Our biggest challenge is to deconstruct the Norwegian ethnic group. We will deconstruct the Norwegian ethnic group so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves a majority again. This is what they are planning, they hope that they will manage to implement this ethnic deconstruction without resistance, and this is where they are mistaken.
11.13 – They will face opposition to this insane and evil multicultural experiment, as shown on July 22, as Peter Mangs showed many people in Malmö in 2010. Something that the NSU showed Germany in 2011. These three preventive attacks testify that a European civil war is coming, and it shows that Enoch Powell was right. Enoch Powell was a member of parliament in England, and he warned as early as the seventies what would be the consequences if the liberals and cultural Marxists got together and allowed the mass immigration from Asia and Africa. He said: “Rivers of blood will run through our streets”. Unfortunately, no one listened to him or any of the others like Enoch Powell in Europe.
11.14 – The reason is that everyone has been silenced and ignored. And what we see today? Rivers of blood caused by militant Muslims have run through Madrid, London, Toulouse, Belgium and many other places, and rivers of blood caused by European patriots who are trying to save their country, have run through the streets of Oslo, Malmö, Germany and many other locations.
11.14 – What is most frustrating of all is that the European multiculturalists are so arrogant that they do not even want to enter into dialogue with militant nationalists, although this could have prevented future attacks. Let it be known that we wanted peace talks with Marxists and liberals since the Second World War, but they do not want dialogue, they prefer their choice of censorship, ridicule and persecution. They’re not going to succeed, as more censorship, more ridicule, more persecution of nationalists and cultural conservatives, only result in increased radicalization and more attacks.
11.15 Arntzen: – Are you done now, Breivik?
11.15 Breivik: – There is one page left… (Pause).
11.15 – Mass immigration is a disaster and has caused huge social problems. At last the three most important leaders in Europe have admitted that multiculturalism does not work. In Norway the opposite happens; instead we go for more mass immigration from Asia and Africa. They refuse to change the ideological direction.
11.15 – From this point I’ll engage in self-censorship, just letting you know.
11.16 – They refuse to introduce ethnic and cultural protectionism. They have apparently decided that they should deconstruct the Norwegian ethnic group, Norwegian culture, whatever the cost. Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president and author of the American Declaration of Independence, said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”. He also wrote: “Whenever the national government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute a new national government. It is their right and their duty to overthrow such a government and establish new safeguards for their future security”.
11.17 – What is 100 percent certain is that there will be a civil war between nationalists and internationalists in Europe. We, the first militant nationalists, are the first raindrops of the purifying storm that is to come. This civil war will not come suddenly and unexpectedly. There will be a gradual escalation and polarization in society, and we will see more frequent attacks from right-wing patriots and from Islamists. The multicultural regimes in Europe will be forced to fight on two fronts, against militant nationalists on one side, and against Islamic militants on the other side. When that time comes, unfortunately, rivers of blood will flow through the major European cities.
11.18 – My European nationalist brothers and sisters will prevail in the end, which will mark the end of the extreme left rule that has lasted since the Axis powers fell.
11.18 – How can I be so sure that this happens? The reason is that multiculturalism is a self-destructive ideology. As soon as native Europeans have become a minority in their own cities and their own countries, the national sense of unity becomes so fragile that the economy can not sustain the welfare state. This will result in such a huge economic crisis, so big and paralyzing, that it’ll make the current European financial crisis look like a picnic. The economy will crash, resulting in mass layoffs of public employees.
11.18 – People who previously lived with blinders for the evils of multiculturalism due to their economic prosperity will lose everything. Once they have lost everything they are forced into a state of suffering, and then, only then, will they dare to say what they really think.
11.19 – And at this time in the future, having lost their religion, their culture, their identity and their nation, Norwegian, Scandinavian, European men will no longer fear the demonization of the cultural elites. This because they will make a stand once they’ve looked death in the eye and realize there’s nothing left to lose. And this will happen within a few decades in Europe, and within fifteen years in France. In the meantime it is important that more patriots in the Nordic countries and Europe will take responsibility as I have done, as Peter Mangs of Malmö has done, and as Beate Zschäpe, Uwe Böhnhardt and Uwe Mundlos from Germany have done. It is important that the Nordic and European militant nationalists and national heroes like these are celebrated and get the respect they deserve. These heroic young people have sacrificed their lives to try to prevent the deconstruction of all that we love.
11.20 – They are all perfect knights, perfect foot soldiers for the conservative revolution. The anticommunist and anti-Islamist revolution. For national rebirth. Europe needs more heroes like them.
11.20 – I’m nearing the end now.
11.20 – Multiculturalism is a key part of cultural Marxism. Multiculturalism is an anti-Norwegian and anti-European hate ideology, which is designed to deconstruct our ethnic group, our religion, our culture and our traditions. Multiculturalism is an evil ideology forced upon us by either ignorant or malicious people.
11.21 – We do not want the Norwegian and European liberal and Marxist elite’s family reunification schemes, stays on humanitarian grounds, the Schengen directives related to the immigration of non-Nordics, adoption schemes and refugee quotas as a tool for Asian and African and Islamic mass immigration. We do not want our liberal and cultural Marxist leaders to use our country as a dumping ground for the excess births of the Third World. We want an ethnic nation, and we want a Christian nation. We, Norway’s indigenous people, ethnic Norwegians, who belongs to the Nordic family, Northern European family, are now in a situation where we are losing our capital and our largest cities, for the first time in our history of 12,000 years.
11.22 – We are within 5 to 10 years of becoming a minority in our own capital, and in many of our largest cities. The political elites in our country are so arrogant and rude that they expect us to applaud our own ethnic, cultural, and Christian destruction. And those who do not applaud their deconstruction are branded as evil right-wing extremists and Nazis. This is the real madness, not I, but the Labour Party’s parliamentary group should be subjected to psychiatric evaluation and be branded as evil. And the same for all the other social democrats in Europe and elites who support multiculturalism and mass immigration.
11.22 – This is the real madness because it is not rational to work towards the deconstruction of your own ethnic group, culture, and religion. It is not rational to flood your country with hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and hundreds of other Asians and Africans, so that our own culture is destroyed. This is the real madness. This is the real evil.
11.23 – Universal human rights and international law allow for the Norwegians as an indigenous people, which we in fact are, threatened by systematic ethnic and cultural deconstruction, the right to defend itself militarily. Responsible Norwegians and Europeans who feel a sense of moral obligation will not sit idly by while the ethnic Norwegians become a minority in their own capital. They’re not going to sit idly by while we become a minority in our own country. We do not accept it. We are going to fight.
11.23 – We will fight against the multiculturalists in the Labour Party, and against all vicious political activists working for the same goal.
11.23 – The attack of 7/22 was a preventive attack in defense of Norway’s indigenous people, ethnic Norwegians, and our culture. I cannot admit guilt.
11.23 – I acted out of the principle of necessity on behalf of my people, my culture, my religion, my city and my country. I therefore demand that I be acquitted of the charges in question.
11.24 – These were the thirteen pages I had prepared.
11.24 – I also have some other supporting points of related to other information, but …
11.24 Judge Arntzen: – Today was a little different, but it has to do with this rather unexpected opening.
11.24 Judge Arntzen calls for lunch break and adjourns the court.
11.26 Breivik is wearing handcuffs and is led out of the courtroom.
12.28 Prosecutors Holden and Engh are back in the courtroom after the break.
12.29 Holden speaks with the third forensic psychiatric experts, Torgeir Husby.
12.33 Anders Behring Breivik’s defenders, Geir Lippestad and Vibeke Hein bear is in place in the courtroom after the break.
12.34 Anders Behring Breivik is led back into the courtroom 250, wearing handcuffs.
12.34 A police officer unlocks his handcuffs.
12.35 Breivik exchanges a few words with his defenders before he sits down in the witness box.
12.35 The judges come into the courtroom. All rise.
12.35 Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Then the court is set. I will give the word to the prosecution, for further questioning of the defendant.
12.36 Engh: – Yes Breivik, now you have explained a little. And when you are accused in a criminal case, you are supposed to explain yourself freely first, and then we follow up with the questions that we have acquired. And then you also know that we have reserved quite a few days for your statement. I thought I was going to say just how we’re going to set it up, so that you are familiar with it. What we are concerned with, it’s a little bit about how you have become who you are today? How has the road been up to today? We are a bit concerned.
12.36 Breivik: – (inaudible)
12.36 Engh: – Yes, it may well do.
12.37 – What we are concerned with is in a way how you got to where you are today. Not entirely, a little bit … maybe from when you dropped out in high school, up to 22 July. And we will focus on that first, and then also a little about why you did it, as you have told a bit about now at the beginning. But it may well be that we get a little bit into it again. And then we are going to hear a little about your planning, that is how you planned 22 July, on how you have planned it, how long you planned it. And then after that we have to talk about 22 July, and a little about what happened that day, both in the government quarter and on Utøya. But before we get to it, before we go through the sessions which I then intend to go through, I thought we would pick up from what you’ve said now, and maybe a little bit about what happened yesterday, as we now have that fresh in memory.
12.38 Breivik: – Yes.
12.38 Engh: – Yes. I’ve been listening to what you have now said to the judge. And I have tried to in a way get an idea of what is the essence of the message that you’ve come to. And then you can correct me if that is wrong. But, like I understand you now, the last few hours, that you describe it as a grave injustice.
12.38 Breivik: – And more.
12.38 Engh: – That’s why you’re here today?
12.38 Breivik: – Yes, that’s right.
12.38 Engh: – Yes. OK. And then I am, I wonder if you could say a little more about where your duty to defend the Norwegian people comes from?
12.38 Breivik: – No, I mean, that’s the result of coincidence, which may have started when I was 15 years old.
12.39 Engh: – What?
12.39 Breivik: – So it is a result of many coincidences that I’ve become what I am today. And it started possibly when I was 15, maybe even earlier too.
12.39 Engh: – But how did you get the right to defend the Norwegian people? Where did you get that right from?
12.39 Breivik: – I talked all about that universal human rights allow for the defense of your legitimate group and its culture. So, many militant nationalists in Europe, when they legitimize their defense, they’ll take it from human rights …
12.39 Engh: – (Interrupts) But you?
12.39 Breivik: – International law. And I have the same (inaudible word).
12.39 Engh: – And where did you get your mandate from?
12.39 Breivik: – Yes, that’s what I just said.
12.40 Engh: – Human rights?
12.40 Breivik: – I think that all unique people and cultures have the right to fight for survival, and fight against their own extinction. And basically what I just said.
12.40 Engh: – OK, so it is that.
12.40 Breivik: – There are universal human rights.
12.41 Engh: – Yes, it is human rights that has given you the right to stand up for the Norwegian people. Is it (inaudible word) or correctly understood?
12.41 Breivik: – If you put it bluntly, it might sound a bit absurd. But basically it is, yes.
12.41 Engh: – Yes. Is there a mandate you’ve given yourself then, or does it come from others?
12.41 Breivik: – No, that is, people who choose to fight, and have fought after the Second World War, they have had very little opportunity to organize. That is long passed; earlier, before the intelligence services in Europe organized and got as much resources as today, there were probably larger organizations and hierarchical organizations. But in recent years it’s become impossible to organize ourselves in a better way than the one-man cells. We also see that Al-Qaeda in Europe has, after 22 July, seemed to embrace one-cell systems. They understand that it is not possible to build hierarchical organizations, to provide, what to say, conventional resistance. And it has been known among militant nationalists too for long.
12.42 Engh: – But now you talk about others. I would like to return to you.
12.42 Breivik: – But people learn from each other, right?
12.42 Engh: – OK.
12.42 Breivik: – And maybe I can start by telling a little about politically motivated violence in Norway.
12.42 Engh: – Yes, but we will come back to it. Just a little bit like that, right, because now I have got hold of what you said stubbornly. And then I’ve got some questions. For there were some things that were a little unclear to me. It is a bit unclear to me, that (interrupted)
12.43 Breivik: – For example, for example. In the United States there is something called The Order, a right-wing network, … yes for quite a few years ago. They were infiltrated and 90 cells were arrested. And the manager there said later on that we made a big mistake, and it was that we should have been a one-cell system. So it has been a constant development. So we adapt. Intelligence in Europe, they are developing. We develop ourselves as well. So it’s … I learn from others. I learned it from Norwegian, European militant nationalists, and even some from the Marxist side too.
12.43 Engh: – But have you given yourself this right too? Or is there someone else who has given it to you. It’s that simple question. Is it you who said this, that I do have this right? I see injustice, I have this right. Is that how it is, or is there someone who has given you this right?
12.44 Breivik: – I see a grave injustice. I see that my people are victims of systematic deconstruction, which is the same as ethnic cleansing. And I do. It is everyone’s duty to fight this. Unfortunately, there are not many who are willing to give up their freedoms. They have it too good in today’s society.
12.44 Engh: – No, but just that I can see. I’ve realized that with the injustice. But I wonder where you are (being interrupted by Breivik).
12.44 Breivik: – There is no organization. It is not in a state, there is no sovereign state that has given me permission to do what I’ve done.
12.44 Engh: – When I ask you questions, you talk about others, I want you to talk about yourself. Have you done this completely yourself?
12.45 Breivik: – Well, the problem is that militant nationalists after World War II have had no sovereign states. That’s the problem. Therefore, we did not get our mandate from a sovereign state, because the last nationalist government in Europe, which was defeated, occurred during the WWII. Therefore militant nationalists after World War organized without …
12.45 Engh: – Have you decided to defend the Norwegian people?
12.45 Breivik: – I came in contact with militant nationalists in 2001, and it helped that I made the choice that I have made. But …
12.46 Engh: – Did you decide it yourself, or did they decide it on your behalf?
12.46 Breivik: – I did it myself. It was my own choice.
12.46 Engh: – It was your own choice, ok.
12.46 Breivik: – I decided no, that is. There are two dates that are important to note. It is 2001 and 2006. But it was my own choice.
12.46 Engh: – Ok, so you have not provided the right itself, to defend ourselves, the Norwegian people. Is that correctly understood?
12.46 Breivik: – It is wrong to say that.
12.46 Engh: – All right.
12.47 Breivik: – Our starting point is universal human rights and international law. But it is true that I have not received a mandate from a sovereign state, it’s true.
12.47 Engh: – Have you received a mandate from anyone?
12.47 Breivik: – Well, you could say that, yes. If one assumes universal human rights, international law, one can give themselves a mandate.
12.47 Engh: – But you’ve got such a mandate?
12.47 Breivik: – You can give yourself a mandate.
12.47 Engh: – Yes, but have you …
12.47 Breivik: – It does not mean that you have one.
12.47 Engh: – No, I understand, but I asked you a simple question. Did you get such a mandate?
12.47 Breivik: – I and others that I have been associated, have given ourselves the mandate.
12.47 Engh: – Okay, so you’ve given yourself a mandate?
12.47 Breivik: – In a sense, you could say that.
12.48 Engh: – And what is the mandate of?
12.48 Breivik: – Well, what I have already explained, is that when you are sitting and watching your culture and people being deconstructed, and that those who govern in the West Europe facilitate a deconstruction through mass immigration for example.
12.48 – There are many who feel it is so unfair, and a grave injustice. Especially that they have never been asked if they want a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural state. And therefore, we can now say that there are some who choose to fight, and then they have two choices. Then they organize themselves, or they fight alone. In both cases, then yes, to a large degree, get inspiration from remote locations, for example.
12.48 Engh: – But your mandate, then. If we are going to talk about it. I understand you want to defend the Norwegian indigenous people.
12.48 Breivik: – Among other things.
12.48 Engh: – Yes. This mandate of yours lies with any right to kill in defensive battle?
12.48 Breivik: – Well, the 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.
12.48 Engh: – But in your mandate, is it allowed to be able to kill to defend the Norwegian people?
12.48 Breivik: – In the mandate we have given ourselves …
12.49 Engh: – Who are we?
12.49 Breivik: – I and other militant nationalists in Europe, that’s it. It’s not because we want to kill other people.
12.49 Engh: – No …
12.49 Breivik: – But politically motivated violence, it’s to draw attention to an important issue, or a grave injustice. And if you want to remove politically motivated violence, or so-called terror in Norway and Europe, then you have to remove the grave injustice. Instead of increasing further scrutiny.
12.49 Engh: – But the right to use violence in the struggle, it is a right you have given yourself, or is there someone else who has given you permission to use violence in the process?
12.49 Breivik: – Well, you choose to fight, and become a militant nationalist. So, if you are a group, it is the collective group that gives itself the mandate. If one person, then it’s the one person who gives himself the mandate.
12.49 Engh: – Yes, and what is true for you?
12.49 Breivik: – The case for me is that I have been part of a group. I came in contact with other militant nationalists in 2001, the group that I am part of, who want to create a system based on self-driven and independent cells. So there is very limited contact, and I have had very little contact with this group since 2001-2002. But there has been contact.
12.50 Engh: – But it is the group that has given you the right to use violence in this game, or is it something that you have decided that there is a right I have?
12.50 Breivik: – I would say that. In essence it is I myself who has given myself the mandate. Basically the group, when I was in contact with them in 2001, did not decide that I would now blow up a government building. The decision came much later.
12.50 Engh: – However, the group that you’re talking about, that we will come back to, they have had no impact on the mandate you had for 22 July?
12.50 Breivik: – To the extent that they legitimize it. So they legitimize the conditions for resistance.
12.50 Engh: – How?
12.51 Breivik: – No, that is. If you look at the 40 different politically motivated violence attacks in Norway, carried out by militant nationalists after World War II, then you see that there is a common thread through all resistance. And when I talk about the Norwegian resistance movement, as I refer to all the Norwegian nationalists who fought, from Erik Blücher to Johnny Olsen to Arne Myrdal.
12.51 Engh: – But now, that’s too specific. Let’s talk a bit in general. The group that you are referring to, as you say that you came in contact with militant nationalists, as you call them. Have they had any impact on your exercise of violence? So were you entitled to use violence in their mandate, or is this something you totally made up yourself?
12.51 Breivik: – I have been influenced by it.
12.51 Engh: – Yes, sir, and how have you been influenced by this?
12.51 Breivik: – No, that … They were …
12.52 Engh: – Have they inspired you?
12.52 Breivik: – They were militant nationalists before I was. So you can say that they have been involved in my radicalization.
12.52 Engh: – Have they steered you in any way?
12.52 Breivik: – No, I wouldn’t say that. But maybe in an indirect way.
12.52 Engh: – How?
12.52 Breivik: – No, through dialogue one might help shape a person. But very little.
12.52 Engh: – Did they shape you?
12.52 Breivik: – Yes, to a limited extent perhaps. But mainly, I have drawn inspiration from elsewhere.
12.52 Engh: – If you could say something about these militant nationalists you met in 2001. Can you describe something that has affected you in who you are today?
12.52 Breivik: – Well, it was my first encounter with militant nationalists, and they influenced me to some extent. But it was because I searched a solution and that they represented.
12.53 Engh: – What are they?
12.53 Breivik: – No, we are talking about several individuals and … One can not put them in a homogeneous group, but some were very eager, wanted confrontation.
12.53 Engh: – Were they concerned with injustice, and they…?
12.53 Breivik: – While others may want to build a grassroots organisation, who fought in the streets. So that officially was not violent and democratic.
12.53 Engh: – But when you came in contact, there was some talk about using violence in the resistance campaign, then?
12.53 Breivik: – Well, there was talk about it, yes.
12.53 Engh: – Why would you use violence?
12.54 Breivik: – Because we could not express ourselves. People are banned from democracy. As it has been for all cultural conservatives and nationalists after World War II. And when you are locked out of democracy, and you will be banned by liberalism and cultural Marxism, there is only one solution left. And …
12.54 Engh: – But these people that you then met in 2001, they had experienced the same injustice as you?
12.54 Breivik: – They had experienced a grave injustice, but not necessarily tied to exactly what I had experienced. It is a large range. Well …
12.54 Engh: – But did you have the same goals?
12.54 Breivik: – Not quite.
12.54 Engh: – No … Can you elaborate on that?
12.55 Breivik: – I do not want to tell much about the people.
12.55 Engh: – No …
12.55 Breivik: – But what I can say, is basically that all I have written compendium is correct but it’s a flattering portrait of what was. And as …
12.55 Engh: – But when you say flattering portrait, what do you mean by flattering portrait?
12.55 Breivik: – I know that Holden…
12.55 Engh: – Holden, my colleague?
12.55 Breivik: – Yes.
12.55 Engh: – Yes …
12.56 Breivik: – underlined the uniforms to a very great extent, as if it was going to be very important. However, the uniform’s not important at all. It’s is only one of hundreds of factors. Obviously, if one is to ridicule a person, then it’s important to keep up the very important, but it is by no means essential in all.
12.56 – It’s just a suggestion from my side, along with the titles and a few other things. To help create a foundation. For looking at this fight as a battle that will last for many decades, and it is important to have a thorough foundation. But there was no extant system. Although it is an existing one, it is the network (inaudible) yes, some of what I have described.
12.56 Engh: – Yeah, ok, so the network that you talked about, when you came in contact with other militant nationalists, it is real?
12.56 Breivik: – It’s the KT network.
12.56 Engh: – It’s the KT network, yes. Ok. And KT stands for Knights Templar.
12.56 Breivik: – That is correct.
12.57 Engh: – Yes. But then you say that the manifesto is a flattering portrait, you say. But you have described the KT network, it is real.
12.57 Breivik: – That is correct.
12.57 Engh: – But when you say flattering portrait, what do you mean by flattering portrait?
12.57 Breivik: – No, it’s a pompous representation of the actual realities.
12.57 Engh: – Yes, sir, I think you need to explain a little further, it is a lie?
12.57 Breivik: – It is not a lie, but it is a pompous representation of the actual realities.
12.57 Engh: – Would you say that you’ve exaggerated this thing, or what?
12.57 Breivik: – It is a flattering portrait of reality.
12.57 Engh: – Aha.
12.57 Breivik: – I have said so in interviews many times.
12.57 Engh: – Yes, yes, I’ve seen it.
12.57 Breivik: – And if I have to define it further, so. It is a pompous preparation. But, yes.
12.57 Engh: – But you said that this uniform was not so important …
12.57 Breivik: – I think the uniform is important, but …
12.58 Engh: – I have understood that you really want …
12.58 Breivik: – But compared to everything else, it’s not important.
12.58 Engh: – No, because what I was wondering, when you say that it is not important, then I think why did you photograph yourself in the uniforms and why describe the uniforms at all?
12.58 Breivik: – I already answered that. Before you asked.
12.58 Engh: – Yes, it is important but is not the most important, is that correct understood?
12.58 Breivik: – It is important, but it is far from the most important. So, I think that … That I and some others have tried to introduce new, what to say, new traditions of militant nationalists in Europe, and then we have taken a number of Al-Qaeda and militant Islamists, including the glorification of martydom and I even wrote about martyrdom gift in the compendium.
12.58 – And there is a direct inspiration from Al Qaeda for example. It is very much… One can look at Al Qaeda as the most successful revolutionary organization in the world. And I think that militant nationalists in Europe have much to learn from them. Unfortunately, until now, I think personally that the resistance after World War II in Europe has been absolutely pathetic. Therefore, I represent a line that wants to change that and introduce new traditions, including the so-called right wing militants in Europe.
12.59 Engh: – But now I noted that you said “I and some others want”, i.e. to make a suggestion, I understand. Who are the others, is it the Knights Templar?
12.59 Breivik: – Yes.
12.59 Engh: – Yeah, okay …
12.59 Breivik: – But there is of course nothing other than that, but specifically it is the network that I’m talking about, yes.
12.59 Engh: – Yes, because I have just realized that you really wished you could wear the uniforms in court
12.59 Breivik: – That was the plan, yes.
12.59 Engh: – Yes, why are you smiling?
12.59 Breivik: – No, that is true. Basically, when I spoke with the two primary experts, I had no access to the media, had no idea what people were discussing and talking about. So I had to just pick a line for how I would present myself.
13.00 Engh: – When was it you had to choose a line?
13.00 Breivik: – No, that was after I was arrested by the police, and questioning started and going through my first review, so […].
13.01 – This meant that I chose a pompous presentation. It turned out to be a great error. I have been portrayed as absolutely insane. There I’ll take some criticism. I have received a statement against me because of it. But I actually located 200 lies in the report of Husby and Sørheim.
13.01 Some survivors laugh when Breivik says he takes the criticism for the way he presented himself.
13.01 Breivik: – I have made it easy for them, because I gave them the ammunition to create the report.
13.02 – I have submitted an article to the three newspapers in Norway, unfortunately they have not published it. But 100 of the lies documented thoroughly are in there.
13.02 Prosecutor Engh: – We have seen it.
13.02 Breivik smiles when he talks about the answers he gave to Sørheim and Husby.
13.02 Breivik: – I chose an explanatory line that in retrospect was a big mistake.
13.02 – I thought that it would remove all doubt that I was irresponsible. Instead, the opposite happened.
13.02 Breivik would explain the situation in such a pompous manner as possible, but said everything was rational.
13.03 Breivik: – I stand for everything I said, but I made it easy for them to abuse what I said.
13.04 – After the media ban was lifted, I toned it down quite a bit.
13.05 – But that does not mean that everything is not true. All I have said is true. The compendium had the network described as a pan-European group. In reality, there is a group of very few individuals.
13.05 Breivik does not seem nervous in the witness box. He smiles often and give long answers to questions from the prosecutor Engh.
13.05 Breivik maintains that the Knights Templar is a real network, but says he communicated it in a pompous manner, using many adjectives.
13.05 Breivik: – Like the top judge in Norway, the Chief Justice. There are laws, but [a Chief Justice is a] pompous presentation of it.
13.07 Breivik attempts to draw parallels between the far right in Norway and the Knights Templar, because both have a Counsellor.
13.07 Prosecutor Engh says she does not understand the context. When she tries to sum up what he thinks, Breivik responds that she is wrong.
13.07 Breivik: – Forget I said that.
13.07 Engh: – Are you a Counsellor?
13.08 Breivik laughing.
13.08 Breivik: – I am a militant nationalist, neither more nor less. There are some tricky questions, I know.
13.08 The audience laughs low when Breivik attempts to correct the Attorney Engh.
13.08 Breivik refers to the first expert report again, and believes he is misrepresented.
13.08 Engh suggests starting with a clean slate. The court has not read the interrogation, she reminds them of it.
13.09 Engh want him to answer the question again if he feels he has a responsibility.
13.09 Breivik: – It’s wrong to formulate the question in that way. I have answered it before, and then it was twisted.
13.10 Breivik would rather talk about what he calls “the facts”.
13.10 Breivik: – I am militant nationalist, and am trained to act.
13.10 Breivik has said that his actions were not evil, but goodness. He believes this is misrepresented.
13.10 To illustrate this point Breivik shows the role of the U.S. in World War II.
13.11 Breivik: – 3000 Japanese killed would prevent a further escalation, but save millions of lives. It was a barbaric, but not an evil act.
13.11 – We act not to be evil, but to save our nations, our ethnic groups and cultures.
13.11 – It is important to distinguish between evil and barbarity. A barbaric act is not necessarily evil.
13.11 Engh: – But you’re talking about a war. Are you in the war?
13.12 Breivik: – Europe is not at war yet, no. We work for indigenous rights and against Islamization.
13.12 Breivik refers to European cities he calls Muslim “no-go zones”.
13.12 Breivik: – One can compare it with the war-like conditions. We are trying to prevent war, you might say.
13.12 Breivik says that even among militant nationalists I have acted very controversially.
13.12 Breivik: – Half are against the Utøya campaign, but all support the bombing of the government building. Half thought Utøya was too much.
13.13 Breivik says that he really wanted to attack the Norwegian journalists Skup conference.
13.14 Breivik knew Utøya would be a controversial target, and said that he worked for a long time to find a “legitimate target”.
13.14 Breivik: – I think the Skup conference was a more legitimate target, and worked hard for it. Unfortunately, I could not carry out a Skup campaign. I think what I have done is so much on the fringes of militant nationalism that it will never be duplicated.
13.16 Breivik: – Yes, that is it, one might question the (unclear). To take an example to illustrate just that point: after 9/11 in the U.S., even some militant Islamists, they were shocked, they thought it was too much, they thought it was barbaric. 3000 innocent people, they were not political activists, they were not military personnel, they were innocent people, and in the beginning there were very many who opposed it. But gradually there came a mentality change, it was (unclear) in the development, seven mile steps, to use such a word. And eventually other militant Islamist groups began to actually be much more radicalized themselves, as a result of it. One may say that 9/11 created Al-Qaeda, and it became a method of acting which was actually a little more recognized for some years. In the beginning, people were shocked. If you look at 22 July, everyone was shocked at first, even militant nationalists, they knew not what to think.
13.17 Engh: – No.
13.17 Breivik: – But you see eventually that there has been a mentality change.
13.17 Engh: – Yes. What then?
13.17 Breivik: – Among militant nationalists in Europe. I think that the threshold for serious violence has sunk, been lowered afterwards. So I actually think …
13.17 Engh: – But, but it’s like you say, the influence of those who may have the same opinions as you. But I wonder a little bit. What do you think is unfair about this society? Do you think your actions of 22 July are in time to rectify the injustice?
13.17 Breivik: – Absolutely not. If you look at me as a nationalist then you take the wrong.
13.17 Engh: – All right.
13.18 Breivik: – I am not a nationalist. I’m an ultra-nationalist and nationalist motives are completely different motives than those of an ultra-nationalist. And I and those like me, we want to hasten a conflict because we are afraid of ending up as a minority in the meantime, that we will manage it, so I felt at least I know I had to provoke a witch hunt on moderate cultural conservatives and nationalists.
13.18 Engh: – But you will be able to change …
13.18 Breivik: – I think that 22 July managed to provoke a witch hunt on moderate cultural conservatives and nationalists. They can also be seen. Just look at Stoltenberg’s New Year speech in which he called, in principle, all of which were critical of immigration extremists. So, it is indeed exactly as I hoped. So I, I, so there are many nationalists who have written letters to me and who say ‘what are you doing, we can not gain any more support from this here, our cause only gets weaker’, but then they have wholly misunderstood the motives; the goal is that we will get an immediate boost, there will be a crisis right afterwards, but in the very, very long term, it will of course be an advantage because that helps to increase the ranking in Europe, which again in the very long term contributes to the radicalization of cultural conservatives and nationalists, and contributes to increased polarization, so the nationalists who believe that I did this in order to get a short term boost, they have completely misunderstood.
13.19 Engh: – But what is it really?
13.19 Breivik: – I think on the very long term.
13.19 Engh: – Yes, I know. But now we are talking about two things. Because you say that in the long run it’s going to increase radicalization, thus increasing your ideological attraction, right?
13.19 Breivik: – I think results will be like that.
13.19 Engh: – But then I wonder, I’ve seen you want to change something about the Norwegian society that you describe as an injustice. Then I wonder, are your actions 22 July in time to change the injustice?
13.20 Breivik: – Absolutely.
13.20 Engh: – All right.
13.20 Breivik: – Because it will help a witch hunt, it will lead to more censorship, which in turn will result in polarization.
13.20 Engh: – With more, and so?
13.20 Breivik: – Which will result in radicalization.
13.20 Engh: – Yes, and then?
13.20 Breivik: – Yes, well.
13.20 Engh: – But how to…
13.20 Breivik: – With more radicalization, many will choose [us]. Thus, the more people lose hope of peaceful struggle, i.e. democracy, the more will choose to be revolutionaries.
13.20 Engh: – So your goal then is that many people will be revolutionaries?
13.21 Breivik: – My goal is stop the conflict in which ethnic Europeans become the minority.
13.21 Engh: – Because of this. Ok.
13.21 Breivik: – For once we are in the minority, then it will be too late.
13.21 Engh: – To summarize then some. Will it do to say that you regard your actions 22 July as legal actions? Within the framework that you now have outlined?
13.21 Breivik: – Yes, I do actually.
13.21 Engh: – Yeah, okay.
13.21 Breivik: – But I do not expect anyone understands it. And I fully understand that very few understand it. So the only ones who understand it, there are the ones who are ultra nationalists.
13.21 Engh: – But we’ll come to understand it in the long term, the rest of us?
13.21 Breivik: – I do not know, that is, maybe, maybe not. So we’ll have to see. If you take an example, then, if you take an example of, for example, the release [of indigenous peoples] in America, which I talked about earlier, in Turkey and other [countries], they tried to fight, but they failed, they ended up as… they got a small piece of land as reserves, but they were actually recognized afterwards. They celebrated to this day.
13.21 Engh: – Do you hope that?
13.22 Breivik: – No, what people think of me it is not so important.
13.22 Engh: – What is important to you then?
13.22 Breivik: – It is important for me to make a contribution, that you can imagine that a person who wants to sacrifice his life for the cause, who knows… I knew of course that I would be seen as a monster and vicious, so of course it’s not for my sake or my own image that I’m doing this. It is suicide for your reputation if you do something like that, so it is a sacrifice and I expect that most people will never understand it that it is part of the possible outcome. So if there is a right radical rule in Europe again, then maybe more will understand it? I do not know. It is difficult to predict the future. But I have not done these things to put myself in a good light, it is not credible to say something like that; I have also ended up in… it is not possible to end up in a worse light than what I’ve ended up in. I do not expect that people, it is certain that people won’t understand what I’ve done, but I’ve tried to explain as best I can.
13.22 Engh: – Several times when you called, went through your statement, you used the term we and our. Is that correct there?
13.22 Breivik: – No, when I talk about other militant nationalists.
13.22 Engh: – Can you specify a little more?
13.23 Breivik: – Other militant nationalists in Europe, who, like the Laser Man, Peter Mangs, eh – (pause), the NSU in Germany, or as Erik Blücher, or Johnny Olsen or Arne Myrdahl.
13.23 Engh: – So then we say, there is reference to these groups?
13.23 Breivik: – I speak on behalf of all those whom I represent and that includes many militant nationalists in Europe.
13.23 Engh: – But you… we heard yesterday that you called in from Utøya, the second call.
13.23 Breivik: – Mm.
13.23 Engh: – Do you remember? Where you said something that you presented yourself as a commander, so the lady whom you talked to asked what you were the commander of. So you responded Knights Templar Norway and Europe and that you acted on behalf of them.
13.23 Breivik: – Mm.
13.23 Engh: – Do you have any comments on that? (Short pause). We say, then, is it just you in the Knights Templar, or is it others too?
13.24 Breivik: – What was the basis for the statement was the fact that I am affiliated with two others in Norway associated with KT. And how I have described a cell commander in the manifest is in line with what I said.
13.24 Engh: – But when you called in and said that you acted on behalf of the Knights Templar in Norway and Europe, it was real?
13.24 Breivik: – Yes, that’s right.
13.24 Engh: – So are you saying that you are affiliated with two others in Norway?
13.24 Breivik: – Yes.
13.24 Engh: – But it’s true that you are commander, as you said in that conversation?
13.24 Breivik: – I have described a person who has overall responsibility for the words that are associated with two others, who may be in a superior position, as a cell commander, it is correct, so I referred to it as I have described a cell commander in the compendium, that’s right.
13.25 Engh: – So the commander can be the same as a cell …
13.25 Breivik: – Yes.
13.25 Engh: – Okay, and that’s you?
13.25 Breivik: – Yes.
13.25 Arntzen: – I’d like to fire a question there. The cell, is it a single cell or does the cell consists of several people?
13.25 Breivik: – Well, I’m a self-driven and independent cell, and I am associated with two others who are self-driven and independent cells. So there are basically three cells.
13.26 Engh: – Three cells?
13.26 Breivik: – Mm.
13.26 Engh: – So when you said in the call that you are acting on behalf of the Knights Templar in Europe/Norway, I understood correctly?
13.26 Breivik: – Yeah, right.
13.26 Engh: – In court yesterday, we had to see this movie you have created and posted. What did you think when you saw the movie?
13.26 Breivik: – Uh, I thought of Norway and Europe being controlled by politicians and journalists who are killing our country. So I mean, it was a very touching film.
13.26 Engh: – Why was it moving?
13.26 Breivik: – Because I think that my country is dying and that my ethnic group is dying.
13.27 Engh: – Was that why you were moved?
13.27 Breivik: – Yes, that was it.
13.27 Engh: – Is it an important thing to you?
13.27 Breivik: – It is made as a, how to say it, an ideological film, but, well, it, the music and the film itself are totally simple, what should I say, it is an amateur film, it’s my first Youtube video, but I’m happy with it.
13.27 Engh: – Why are you happy with it?
13.27 Breivik: – Because it is my first Youtube video. Had it been my tenth I had certainly not been happy with it, but to be the first Youtube video, I’m happy with it. I’ve never made a film before in my whole life, so it is, the important thing is, it’s just a trailer to the compendium that will outline what the compendium is about.
13.27 Engh: – But were you touched about that it’s your first film, or the contents of it?
13.27 Breivik: – I think probably that it is especially the songs, combined with the message.
13.27 Engh: – Yes.
13.28 Breivik: – And the knowledge that there is very much international press viewing the film and getting the message out.
13.28 Engh: – What did you think about it, there were so many who were there seeing it?
13.28 Breivik: – No, well, I think it is tragic that no international press agency has taken responsibility for what happens in Norway and Europe, in other words, I see them as political activists, they are in favour of multiculturalism, and I think it is very sad to see my culture and my people being deconstructed.
13.28 Engh: – Was that why you were moved?
13.28 Breivik: – The sorrow I felt yesterday, that’s why I cried.
13.28 Engh: – Was it grief over Norway?
13.28 Breivik: – But it is the sorrow of seeing one’s people and their culture being deconstructed, the film reminded me very much of that.
13.28 Engh: – Yes, ok.
13.29 Breivik: – For these are the three songs that I use when I meditate daily.
13.29 Engh: – Mm. You said questions from the administrator today that you had chosen to tone down a bit, and then I wonder a little bit, what have you toned down?
13.29 Breivik: – It’s just a representation of what I have described in the compendium.
13.29 Engh: – Mm, but can you give some examples of what you have toned down?
13.29 Breivik: – I chose not to give a pompous presentation, in principle it means to tone down.
13.29 Engh: – Ok, but what is the reason you have chosen to tone down?
13.29 Breivik: – No, it’s because I was about to be sent to a madhouse, so I had no choice, it was so so wrongly received that I had no choice, I had to tone it down… Absolutely.
13.30 Breivik smiles when he explains why he chose to “tone down” his statement.
13.31 Engh: – Yes.
13.31 Breivik: – I think so. But the introductory lecture today, it was not so…, I think it gives some answers to questions that have risen previously. Because I am fully aware that the small talk that I have made during incarceration meetings, that that has been so compressed that they provide almost no meaning. Except for very few people, then. I have been aware of it all the time, and it is only a tactical choice. I knew I would be able to explain myself in court and I knew then I would have the opportunity to explain myself. There were so many questions about what I actually stood for. So it was a tactical choice.
13.32 Engh: – But I understood initially today at the question of the judge, that as you said you had toned down because of the victims. Now you say that you’ve toned down on the basis that you are perceived as mentally ill. Which is it?
13.32 Breivik: – Well, I’ve never had any grudge, never had any intention of behaving in an unacceptable manner towards the victims and those who have suffered as a result of what I’ve done. I actually try to take pretty much consideration, and that is why I have not referred directly to the victim and used other terms such as AUF and the Labour Party. I have no intention of adding load to the burden they already have.
13.33 Breivik: – I know it’s horrible what I’ve done, and I know I have caused an unimaginable amount of suffering for thousands of people. I just can not begin to fathom the suffering I have caused, but I do not want to contribute to it. That’s why I refer to Labor and AUF and not to the victims. But it is … if I should fail to use Labor and AUF, it becomes very difficult. Especially when they have so … has been so central to the governance of Norway since World War II. So it’s not possible.
13.33 Engh: – But do you now, in the situation you are in now, take into account the victims and the bereaved?
13.33 Breivik: – In the sense that I have no intention of referring directly to them.
13.33 Engh: – And by not referring to them, you take them into account? Is that correctly understood?
13.33 Breivik: – Well, I could have used completely different rhetoric if I wanted to. If I did I would add 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. And it is not appropriate to expose them for anything more. That’s why I’m going to refer to the political party, the Labour Party and the AUF.
13.34 Engh: – Yes, what was the alternative?
13.34 Breivik: – No, that is, if I had been vicious, I could have begun to talk about what happened on the MS Thorbjorn and some other things, but I’m not going to do it. I could also have tried using a different rhetoric, aimed at those who have already suffered a lot. But I have no desire for it. I think what happened on 22 July was incredibly awful, but necessary.
13.34 Engh: – Administrator, I thought (… inaudible) Breivik, to you, now I thought that, now we have summarized some of yesterday and some of what you told me today. And we are now going to go through the sessions that I’ve talked to you about, so just listen as my colleague has some questions for you before we go any further on that.
13.34 Breivik: – Yes.
13.34 Holden: – Breivik, we should pick up on a few things that you talked about. You said you were in a group called the Knights Templar network, and you told us that within this network, there were divided opinions. Some wanted confrontation, someone wanted to build grassroots movement. Have I understood correctly?
13.35 Breivik: – What I said just now, that’s correct, yes.
13.35 Holden: – Can you elaborate a bit for me?
13.35 Breivik: – No, I do not want to say anything more than what I’ve already said in the questioning. I’ve completely lost track of what I have said in interviews.
13.35 Holden: – Ok, yes, but… In any case, those who sit behind the table up there, they are certainly not aware of what you have said in interviews.
13.35 Breivik: – No, I can easily tell the general thing about what it says and what can I do now.
13.35 Holden: – Yeah, no, we’ll come back to it a little later, so that way in the first place I thought just to point out this controversy, that it was someone who wanted confrontation and other that …
13.36 Breivik: – I’m not going to shed light on …
13.36 Holden: – … desired grassroots movement. There I hear my own voice even better. Tell me about it.
13.36 Breivik: – I don’t want to tell about the others at all.
13.36 Holden: – No, yes, but you do not need to tell so much about others, just tell me about how you experienced the controversy there.
13.36 Breivik: – I do not want to tell you about the others. I have already told you what I wanted to say about the network and the individuals.
13.36 Holden: – But what is the reason that you can not say a word about it to me?
13.36 Breivik: – Well I can tell what I have said so far.
13.36 Holden – And what are you thinking of?
13.36 Breivik: – Well, you can just imagine that … In 2001 I came in contact with some militant nationalists. There was a meeting in London in 2002. I went to Liberia in advance and met a person there. I went to London on the way back. I met three others in London. And there was one, to use a pompous presentation, there was a meeting for establishing the KT network. And what is discussed there, it’s in the manifest, it …, I got …, I was probably the youngest there and I was handed quite a lot of information on the meeting, including the basis for the compendium.
13.37 Holden: – Is that where this controversy was expressed that someone wanted confrontation and someone else wanted a grassroots movement?
13.37 Breivik: – I do not want to tell anything about it.
13.37 Holden: – Okay. Now here I noticed that you used the word pompous again. Think there are 15-20 times you have used it so far today.
13.37 Breivik: – I will probably use it a hundred times.
13.37 Holden: – I get that feeling, you know, because I’ve read your interviews.
13.38 Breivik: – Yes.
13.38 Holden: – So I wonder, why add the word pompous?
13.38 Breivik: – Well …
13.38 Holden: – What is it?
13.38 Breivik: – If you represent, let’s say a group, and you want to convey it in a way that optimizes the propaganda effect, you convey in a pompous manner. So instead of telling about four sweaty guys in a basement or in another location, use the other way of saying it.
13.38 Holden: – Exaggerate the situation?
13.38 Breivik: – Yes, well, one can use that word too.
13.38 Holden: – Yes. Dress up the four sweaty boys in a suit and white gloves, for example?
13.39 Breivik: – No, I told you that I don’t want to talk about that. But this was to emphasize a point, and you asked what I meant by pompous. But there is talk of a few militant nationalists, and all that I have written in the compendium is true. But I gave it a pompous way of saying it.
13.39 Holden – And then at the end. You held a speech of 73 minutes, there was a journalist in place who told me.
13.39 Breivik: – Ok.
13.40 Holden: – What kind of feedback do you expect on the speech?
13.40 Breivik: – I do not expect to get any feedback whatsoever, because I think that absolutely all media companies in Europe are going to censor it in its entirety. That’s what I think.
13.40 Holden: – Yes. Do you think no one is going to mention it?
13.40 Breivik: – I … They’re sure to pick out flaws in it, and communicate it in a way that ridicules me or my case. I think so. But I do not think there will be anything meaningful on the introductory statement.
13.40 Holden: – No. What kind of feedback do you want?
13.40 Breivik: – Well, it was not meant to work for me. 22 July is not about me at all. It …, 22 July was a suicide attack. I did not expect to survive the day. And people are talking about that I’m a narcissist. A narcissist would never sacrifice his life for someone or something. So it does not make sense, that, nor all the allegations to come.
13.41 Holden: – But given that you now have sat there and talked an hour, and prepared it, we though, I guess you did it for a goal, a desire. What …, what was the desired effect and the goal of the speech you held?
13.41 Breivik: – The goal is to try to convey the truth to Europe … about what is going on. About the deconstruction of European ethnic groups and European culture in different countries. Specifically in Norway, for my part.
13.41 Holden: – Okay. Then the ball comes back to Engh.
13.41 Engh: – Can we take a break then?
13.41 Arntzen: – Yes, I think we’ll take one, if we should take a break now, we take a twenty-minute break until two o’clock, and then we continue after that. The court is adjourned.
13.41 Court is adjourned.
14.01 Prosecutors and the experts are in place in the courtroom after the break.
14.02 Defender Lippestad and his colleagues are also in place.
14.02 Anders Behring Breivik enters courtroom 250 again.
14.03 He goes straight to the witness stand to continue his testimony.
14.03 A police officer unlocks Breivik’s handcuffs.
14.04 Judges come into the courtroom. All rise.
14.04 Arntzen: – Interrogation continues. Bejer Engh, I wonder if you could just briefly explain the agenda for today and tomorrow. And then I think in relation to these various topics that you have announced, we also set aside enough time for the others to ask their questions in relation to the individual topics.
14.05 Engh: – Yes, yes.
14.05 Arntzen: – How much do you have left your first theme?
14.05 Engh: – Quite much.
14.05 Arntzen: – Yes.
14.05 Engh: – Yes. Now you’ve followed what Breivik has come to today. And now I will, as I outlined earlier, now I’ll start by asking a few questions to Breivik on what his path has been since he dropped out of high school and he move back home to his mother in 2006. That there is the block that we are going through now.
14.06 Arntzen: – Yes. Is it possible to say how long you think you’re going to need for this block?
14.06 Engh: – Yes, it will take the rest of today, and perhaps well into tomorrow, maybe the next day too. We have talked about the defenders. This is perhaps what will take the most time. It’s a little hard for me to predict exactly how long it takes. It all depends on how much the defendant wants to answer, how much he answers.
14.06 Arntzen: – I understand that it is difficult to predict. But it’s been set to five days to explain, so we must make sure that we stay within that timeframe.
14.07 Engh: – Yes, yes, yes, I have that in mind.
14.07 Arntzen: – Yes, that’s fine. So we selected and are careful about what we believe are the most relevant issues. And then we get (inaudible word) if we believe that it is (inaudible words, judge and prosecutor speak at same time).
14.08 Engh: – While I have the word, I thought that I could say that I have presented a timeline to the bench and the defenders. And it’s just a timeline that outlines some key events in the defendant’s life, as we now may come back to. There are a few dates. I thought I could also give it to you, Breivik, then you can see it. It is intended as a helpful document. We’ll see if we will need it. When it comes to the block we are going through now, there are two binders in actual excerpts that may be relevant to the court. And it’s binder one and binder five, just so it’s clear. Binder one includes a block named defendant, and in five there is a part called the investigation, particularly since it includes the manifesto. However, this will come up when it becomes appropriate to optionally refer back to it. As I said to you in the witness box, Breivik, we will return later to the Knights Templar network, how it was in 2001 and if so, how it is today. But before that, I’ll go back in time a little. I want to hear a little bit about how it was when you went to high school. We know that you left high school at Oslo Handelsgym in the third class. Is that right?
14.09 Breivik: – Yeah, correct.
14.09 Engh: – Yes. And then you lived with your mother?
14.09 Breivik: – Yeah, correct.
14.10 Engh: – Can you explain to me why you decided to quit high school and where you went for your last year?
14.10 Breivik: – It is not quite relevant to this case, is it, to go so far back?
14.10 Engh: – I just wonder (interrupted, speaking partly simultaneously)
14.10 Breivik: – The only thing that is relevant is to cover the period of the first time I came in contact with militant nationalists, and perhaps political activity before it. I understand very much that obviously you want to talk about a lot, but I do not understand the relevance.
14.10 Engh: – No.
14.10 Breivik: – And of course, I’ve noticed that the media has made a big point out of my childhood, but it is not relevant at all. I had a good upbringing. I decided to become a militant nationalist.
14.10 Engh: – No, but I’m not going to go into your childhood now. I just want to hear what you chose to do when you left high school. And I wonder why you left high school?
14.11 Breivik: – It was because I started a company, Behring and Kerner Marketing, along with another person, Kerner. And it was a phone company, from which I obtained a franchise agreement with a U.S. telecommunications company. I would sell foreign telephone to minorities in Norway. And I stopped at Handelsgym in December, ran the company, and because of, what to say, cooperation problems between me and Kerner, I decided to end the engagement six to nine months later.
14.11 Engh: – OK. But did you quit high school because you wanted to start with something other than going to school. Or was it a, a?
14.11 Breivik: – Yes, well, I stopped at Handelsgym because I wanted to run the company. And at that time I had gone through the curriculum for third grade. I had read through all the books for at least the next six months. Then I concluded that it would not matter to me so very much. And at that time, I concluded that as an entrepreneur I would have 100 percent ownership of the company I was going to start. Therefore, it is not as critical to formalize my education, because you have to be the CEO of a private company. Therefore, I concluded that it was not as critically important to complete.
14.12 Engh: – Would you say that you had read through third grade syllabus in advance, but you saw no necessity of matriculation?
14.12 Breivik: – I did not … I saw no relevance to … formalize it, no.
14.12 Engh: – No, OK. This means that you do not currently have your diploma? Is that correct?
14.12 Breivik: – Yes, it is.
14.12 Engh: – In case, so there is some evidence that you had a lot of lost time at school in the year before that. What was the reason?
14.12 Breivik: – It is in the context of, when I worked up the initial capital for the company, I worked part-time in a sales company, primarily telemarketing. Then I worked many nights, as it was after school.
14.12 Engh: – OK.
14.12 Breivik: – So that’s the reason.
14.12 Engh: – But it was a conscious choice on your part, then?
14.12 Breivik: – It was a conscious choice, yes.
14.12 Engh: – When … have you obtained any education beyond this?
14.13 Breivik: – Not a formal education, I do not have one. But I’ve gone through … I think the studies are important in order to acquire knowledge. Therefore, I have learned very much, many themes. And I know that for a person who has no formal education, it is important to at least be able to describe their expertise in a way that reflects my level of knowledge. And that’s why I started with this, trying to make a record just how many hours I had studied each topic. And that is why I have this system that I have described to the police, with a total of 15,000 hours of study. It shows that I have formal education in a number of fields.
14.14 Engh: – 15,000?
14.14 Breivik: – A total of 15,000 hours of study in a number of fields.
14.14 Engh: – Yeah, OK. From when? What period are we talking about?
14.14 Breivik: – It’s from really early on to the present day.
14.14 Engh: – OK. So when we say …
14.14 Breivik: – Maybe not today, but up until 2010.
14.14 Engh: – When we say ’97, then, when you left Handelsgymnasium.
14.14 Breivik: – From approximately ’98 to 2010.
14.14 Engh: – Yes. And you say 15,000 hours?
14.14 Breivik: – Study hours.
14.14 Engh: – Yes. OK. Why have you calculated it?
14.15 Breivik: – Yes, that is exactly the reason that I stated earlier. That for people who do not have formal education, as many entrepreneurs in Norway do not have one, it’s important to try to convey their knowledge level by using, what to say, specific markers. And then the hours of study are most natural to use. The (inaudible word) might be very strange for a person who has an organized degree. But among entrepreneurs it is not so unusual. There are some that do it that way, or at least try to provide … to disseminate the knowledge gained.
14.16 Engh: – How did you … (Interrupted)
14.16 Breivik: – But however that is … one of course cannot use it when applying for a job. That’s the big drawback. So that’s the major drawbacks of course.
14.16 Engh: – But if you do not use it when applying for a job. What to use it for then?
14.16 Breivik: – No, you can use it in connection with the engagement where it is important to point out that there is a level of knowledge that reflects the hours you have studied. So for example, if, say, you studied 15,000 hours in a number of fields, and you convey it in a sense in which you have only two years of high school, then it will give a wrong impression to the person you are trying to communicate with. So that’s the context.
14.17 Engh: – But how did you arrive at that figure?
14.17 Breivik: – It is, it is very general, and figures, I mention in a list for 2010, I think, or 2009, precisely with a view to try to convey the level of knowledge I have, because I knew that (pause) in some contexts it would be used against me that I had not formalized my education. So that’s why.
14.17 Engh: – Who should use these 12? (Unclear) for?
14.17 Breivik: – It must be included in the manifesto.
14.17 Engh: – You wrote about this in the manifest, how many study hours you had?
14.17 Breivik: – I think so. Mm, yes.
14.17 Engh: – But why is it important to include in the manifesto?
14.17 Breivik: – Because it makes it difficult for the press to character assassinate you after you have completed a so-called suicide attack. I would do the utmost possible to make it hard for the press to unnecessarily character assassinate me in many ways anyway.
14.17 Engh: – But you, when you’re talking about 15,000 hours. What do you count there then? What type of reading and information gathering did you include?
14.17 Breivik: – For example, to take very isolated fields that go on technical analysis in equity as it is for example candlestick [stock analysis] and specific technical analysis related to the specific field; it is like you’ve studied ten different books and I have a lot of knowledge in that field, and so I feel that all the study hours I have put into the field should be, should be brought to at least give an indication that I know the field at any rate, even if it is not formalized, but I do understand that there is no legal way to do it. For people who have not formalized their education it is the only option really.
14.18 Engh: – But how do you pick your knowledge from primary data?
14.18 Breivik: – No, in this specific case, I have gone through the ten books in the field.
14.19 Engh: – Can you mention the names of any of those books?
14.19 Breivik: – I do not remember. There are many, covering at least a wide field in technical analysis.
14.19 Engh: – Are there other fields you have been concerned with?
14.19 Breivik: – Yes, that is, the fields that I have been most interested in the history of religion, religion, history.
14.19 Engh: – Where did you get that knowledge from, where did you get it from?
14.19 Breivik: – It is from history books, from history books to Wikipedia.
14.19 Engh: – What have you used most?
14.19 Breivik: – I guess I’ve spent most on Wikipedia. The English articles are incredibly rich and…
14.19 Engh: – So now that you have, you’ve told a lot about history today, you’ve told a number of historical events, it is taken from Wikipedia?
14.19 Breivik: – It’s hard to say, that I have probably fetched from many different sources.
14.20 Engh: – Can you mention some of these sources?
14.20 Breivik: – No, I mean, in school we do not learn about the United States bombing Japan, for example, but in a political context, one might find information about it from other sources, where it is used for propaganda purposes, therefore it is important to regard me, what should I say, as a salesman, that I am selling a message, I am selling an ideology and a vision, and it is important to regard me in that context, that my intention is not necessarily to come up with concrete events, but to use specific events. But that’s all from other writers and other cultural conservative writers or, in other words the internet.
14.21 Engh: – But how much of these study hours are stuff you read on the internet? Can you, do you have any percentages on it?
14.21 Breivik: – Eh, I’ve read, I have quite a few books on economics, I bought quite a few in English, so it’s a combination of regular books, online books (indistinct), the technical reports that are found on the Internet, the Wikipedia articles. Maybe 70/30. Thus, 70 digital, 30 physical.
14.21 Engh: – But in those 15,000 hours, have you calculated some research in connection with the work you put into Compendium?
14.21 Breivik: – It included quite a few of the hours that I put into Compendium, yes. For example, if I were to do research in a field I wanted to cover, I had to read a lot about the field before I either chose the most appropriate article or essay or, if it was not covered before, I had to write it myself. But…
14.22 Engh: – Is there anything you do not count in these figures?
14.22 Breivik: – What one does not count is reading the newspaper and reading professional journals and stuff. If you are looking for a field, to study that field, then I count it as a study hour. But I fully understand that the way to present knowledge sounds absurd, but it gives at least the impression that one has some knowledge of certain fields.
14.22 Engh: – Is it important for you to get noticed?
14.22 Breivik: – No, that it is important to have signaled that one is not ignorant, it is important to signal that it is not.
14.22 Engh: – Yeah, okay. But have you logged a log in these hours for a few weeks/days, or is this…
14.22 Breivik: – It is only a rough overview only. It is not an accurate record.
14.23 Engh: – But how have you managed to get a rough idea like that?
14.23 Breivik: – I have reasoned myself working out how many hours it could be from 1998 to 2010.
14.23 Engh: – Do you remember when you started to reason about these hours?
14.23 Breivik: – I think I’ve thought about it all the time because I’ve probably been in the situation where I wanted to defend my way of acquiring knowledge. In the old days there were two ways of acquiring knowledge, it was the library and the other was at college, but when the Internet came it became my way of knowing, because studies could be done, self-study, but even today it is not particularly well-known and you just have to account for it, but…
14.23 Engh: – Did you at any time consider getting any evidence of it all, of all the studies you had left?
14.24 Breivik: – No, but I could of course have made a diploma for myself…
14.24 Both Breivik and some in the audience laugh.
14.24 Breivik: – No, but eh, I did not try to lie about it. I said I have 15,000 hours of study, and it is not formalized, so I had no plans to formalize it, I considered it before 2002, but when I came in contact with the militant nationalists in 2001, I did not, I generally did not consider it after that.
14.24 Engh: – No, for I see that we found the CV on your PC when you were arrested, and it has also been included in the manifesto, and there is a separate item called education and where you write that from 1998 to 2002 you entered bachelor business administration, majoring small business management, evening study/part-time, the mix of certification from the American InterContinental University, Internet-based courses, subjects and self-study, specialization in administration, management and business, not accredited. What was the reason you put this in your resume?
14.25 Breivik: – The reason was that I based information gathering on the reading list of AIU, and as well as that I had had quite a few courses, marketing courses, sales courses through companies that I had worked in, as well as that I had studied the fields that I am referring to there on their own, either through physical books or through the load or information that I had found on the internet. So I think that it is equivalent to the curriculum.
14.25 Engh: – So when you write that you have a BA, you think that on the basis that you have spent many hours on … (Breivik interrupts.)
14.25 Breivik: – I wrote there, I wrote there that it was not accredited, that in principle means that you have not graduated from the degree, so it was not an improper way of saying it. It was based on the list from which I had acquired my knowledge.
14.25 Engh: – Ok, so you would have obtained the list?
14.25 Breivik: – Yes.
14.25 Engh: – But I wonder a little, what, do you see yourself as a Protestant or where you stand like that in relation to the church?
14.26 Breivik: – I have not been a very religious person, but there is proverb that says there are no atheists in foxholes, and it is a saying that is very accurate. If you know you should do a suicide operation you are probably more religious, but I have technically been religious since I was 15, but nothing special.
14.26 Engh: – How do you see yourself today?
14.26 Breivik: – I am registered in the state church, but I probably have greater attraction to the Catholic church really.
14.26 Engh: – Yes, right.
14.26 Breivik: – But I am still a member of the state church.
14.27 Engh: – Yes, you write a little bit about this in the manifest so we can come back to it later. Have you had any military service?
14.27 Breivik: – No, I have not.
14.27 Engh: – What was the reason for it?
14.27 Breivik: – Eh, I got the notice by Behring and Kerner marketing, and when I wrote an application to the military if I could drop so I did not have to close down my company, and then I got the response that it was not possible, for the sake of my company, to drop down and add it, so I had to find another plan to escape. And then I used the rationale of taking care of my ill mother as a reason, and then I got the extension until I was 25, and then the requirement was waived.
14.28 Engh: – Ok.
14.28 Breivik: – But in retrospect, I regret that I did not enlist.
14.28 Engh: – Why?
14.28 Breivik: – No, it’s useful knowledge in the military. Especially to one who later chooses to become militant.
14.28 Engh: – Mm. Yes. Then we’ve been through your schooling, your education and so we have said little about religion, and I wondered a bit of when you talked about these companies, and then I understand you so that when you quit Handelsgym it was then a wish that you were going to start your own businesses and work?
14.28 Breivik: – Mm.
14.28 Engh: – As you look at the form we have there, or at least what we have been told, then, is that you worked for something called Direct Response Service, correct? Is that the correct name or?
14.28 Breivik: – Eh, Direct Response Center, yes.
14.29 Engh: – And yes, center yes, it is I who have made a mistake. And then I understand you worked there from right before you left high school?
14.29 Breivik: – Yes, it’s true.
14.29 Engh: – And what we have been informed is that you worked there from 1997, which is the year you stopped, until 2003.
14.29 Breivik: – Yes, before that I worked also for Acta Dialogue Marketing.
14.29 Engh: – Yes, it was next to the school then.
14.29 Breivik: … yes it was next to the school.
14.29 Engh: – But you, the job you had when the, shall we call it the DRS, the name was changed at some point or another I’ve heard, but if we use the term now, it was a full-time position you had from 1997 to 2003?
14.29 Breivik: – I worked part-time, I think, until DRC marketing were shut down. So I think that I started full time there.
14.29 Engh: – Ok. Can you elaborate on what kind of position you had there and what you did in the company in the period?
14.29 Breivik: – I believe that when I worked at Acta Dialog Marketing my job was to book meetings for the salesmen, so economists, but it was a sales job, I worked with various sales projects while I was in high school.
14.30 Engh: – And after you quit high school then, did you then, did you perform any other tasks in your company then?
14.30 Breivik: – I think I started on the customer service department.
14.30 Engh: – Did you have management responsibilities?
14.30 Breivik: – Eh, I became the team leader, but I’m not quite sure when I was promoted.
14.30 Engh: – But there was a time before you joined in 2003?
14.30 Breivik: – There were at least after, yes it was before then.
14.30 Engh: – Yes, you were not when you quit.
14.30 Breivik: – They were also given a new name, they called themselves SNT afterward. So during that period, in the company at least, I worked in the technical support department and customer service department for business and private customers, and in perhaps the majority of my involvement there, I was a team leader.
14.31 Engh: – When you think back, did you have the feeling that you did a good job in this company?
14.31 Breivik: – Yes, I had that feeling. Otherwise, I would not have gotten the promotion.
14.31 Engh: – No. And you said the place that you started a company named Behring and Herning, is that correct?
14.31 Breivik: – Yeah, right.
14.31 Engh: – Yes, and we have notes here from the police, that it was started in 1998. So there was a corresponding while you worked at DRS, then. What was the company you were talking about charging, what was in a way the contents of this company?
14.31 Breivik: – It is a franchise agreement you did with an American company, it was a call-back system as it originally started with, but then there was something called direct dial in that one simply uses an alternative platform to Telenor. And the purpose is reasonable charges, and it was then foreigners in Oslo who would call to other countries, they were the main group. At that time they were one very expensive unit at Telenor.
14.31 Engh: – And when did you start it (not responsive) Herning …
14.31 Breivik: – Yeah, right.
14.32 Engh: – Where did you set up shop?
14.32 Breivik: – It was in my basement, in Konventveien.
14.32 Engh: – Was it with your mother?
14.32 Breivik: – Yes.
14.32 Engh: – And do you remember how long you have been in this firm?
14.32 Breivik: – I do not know. Less than half a year, maybe.
14.32 Engh: – And how do you think it went?
14.32 Breivik: – It was pretty good to begin with, but it went wrong because the assumption that I was going into collaboration with Kerner was that he would bring in half a million kroner, and he failed to raise that amount. Then he did very little in the company. I felt, at least.
14.32 Engh: – But when you quit, you had no profit, then, or did you break?
14.32 Breivik: – I had no profit. I think we lost maybe 5000, so … It was very informative anyway.
14.32 Engh: – And so started a new company, it was one the Holden built on yesterday when we went through the introductory lecture. And there was something called Media Group AS. It was created in September 1999.
14.33 Breivik: – Yes.
14.33 Engh: – Can you elaborate on what kind of company it was? And what about you two, or just you, were doing there?
14.33 Breivik: – Media Group. I was the CEO and chairman. That was a corporation. I had worked with development, I and (name omitted), developed a prospectus for the company with a view to bring in, I think it was three million. And it was based on the acquisition of billboards placed around the Oslo and distributing billboard advertising in these places. So the goal was either to single-handedly sell the advertising campaign directly to advertisers, or strategy number two and try to sell it to Morr Group or Media Max. That were the two outdoor advertising players at that time. So I hired a person who worked for me, and we worked together, we two.
14.34 Engh: – Where did you have property?
14.34 Breivik: – I leased premises in Nedre Slottsgate, I think.
14.34 Engh: – Is this where you met Lippestad for the first time?
14.34 Breivik: – Yeah, right. It was in the same offices.
14.34 Engh: – Do you remember how long you stayed with the company, when you sold it?
14.34 Breivik: – It was less than a year.
14.34 Engh: – Less than one year, so …
14.35 Breivik: – But in that period, I was assigned by (name omitted) to people who would help in this capitalization period.
14.35 – The goal was initially to raise three million, but it turned out to be harder than they thought, anyway. They tried, and I tried too.
14.35 Engh: – When did you sell it in the end, and why?
14.35 Breivik: – Yes, the result was that I ended up in a liquidity squeeze, because I carried this whole project on my own shoulders. So I really had no choice, except that I had to sell the contents of the company to a competitor. And then I think went to brake-even. So I think I got a total of 100,000 for it.
14.35 Engh: – Yes, something happened here. I do not know, it’s …
14.35 Arntzen: – (inaudible) I think that’s air conditioning
14.36 Engh: – Yes, just that we see it depends. Because it is terribly cold down here.
14.36 Arntzen: – Will it be cold?
14.36 Engh: – Yes, but we can see how it goes.
14.36 Arntzen: – I think we have it on a bit, so we should be aware of (inaudible).
14.36 Engh: – But now we have some notes on the case that says you sold it like around 2001. Is that what you remember?
14.36 Breivik: – It makes sense.
14.36 Engh: – Yeah, okay. And you then went brake-even, you were not left with nothing when it was over?
14.36 Breivik: – Correct.
14.36 Engh: – And once you’ve sold it, then you’re still in the DRS and work there, I understand?
14.37 Breivik: – I think I went back there afterwards, yes.
14.37 Engh: – And then we heard that you started a new company again, which was a one-man company called City Group.
14.37 Breivik: – Yeah, right.
14.37 Engh: – And it was established in 2001, it was while you sold the Media Group.
14.37 Breivik: – Yes.
14.37 Engh: – City Group, what was the purpose of that?
14.37 Breivik: – I think the reason why I went back to the DRS-center was really just to fall back on a platform where I could save up the new start-up capital. It was the only intention of working there. As soon as I had a new start-up capital, so I started a new project.
14.37 Engh: – And the new project, it was City Group then?
14.38 Breivik: – I think that I, therefore, established a, how to say it, a legal identity. As a company is. Without any clear business plan in the beginning. I think I experimented a bit with a few projects.
14.38 Engh: – Also, I understand that this is where you end up with this… with diplomas …
14.38 Breivik: – Yeah, right. Eventually, that was when the fall of 2002, so I’m experimenting with three different business models. And it turns out that earnings are clearly the best in one, and it is this project that is of course morally reprehensible project, but …
14.38 Engh: – Why is that?
14.38 Breivik: – No, I mean, basically, legally speaking, it is not actually illegal. It is in a gray area, because there are pretty clear clauses for those who order, that one is not allowed to use it illegally and so on. Then it was sold as decorative diplomas.
14.38 Engh: – What were the people who bought it, what would they use the fake diplomas for?
14.39 Breivik: – It could, for example, let’s say, be film companies that wanted diplomas in the background, decoration, or if you have actually lost diplomas in a fire, so there were many legal ways to use it. But then of course then many who had the opportunity to abuse it, if they felt like it. So morally it was a very bad project. But legally it was not illegal.
14.39 Engh: – What did you think about the legality of it when you were doing it?
14.39 Breivik: – At the time I had already come into contact with militant nationalists, and then my focus changed on that one, I then ended up in a situation where you actually wanted to contribute tax revenues to a regime that supported multiculturalism and therefore we actually felt almost an obligation to pay as little tax as possible.
14.40 Engh: – Ok, I understand …
14.40 Breivik: – It was as a result of it.
14.40 Engh: – Yeah, no way for that …
14.40 Breivik: – If I however had never ended up in that environment or come in contact with these people, then I probably would not have chosen the project. Because if it had become known, I was terrified that the media would know about it, so the possible career opportunities would all be over, because it is so, what can we say, morally dubious.
14.40 Engh: – The media wrote about this?
14.40 Breivik: – I think it was a competitor of mine, in fact, that tipped Aftenposten about it in 2004 or 2005. And …
14.41 Engh: – What did Aftenposten do, then?
14.41 Breivik: – No, they got the name of one of my employees (name omitted). And they wrote that it was someone who was doing this in Norway, and that it was an American who had asked Norwegian authorities to stop the company, and apparently the case was to be referred Tor-Aksel Busch for an assessment of the legality. And at that point I shut down the company.
14.41 Engh: – Why did you disband the company?
14.41 Breivik: – It was to prevent me being exposed in the media, it was that that was the nightmare. For it was not legally prohibited, but it would have been incredibly embarrassing. If all …
14.42 Engh: – So you quit the company because you were afraid that it would be focusing on that this was illegal and that you would be presented in the media, is that what you think, or?
14.42 Breivik: – It had very large exposures related to it, yes. Negative exposure.
14.42 Engh: – But Holden said yesterday that the sale of these diplomas generated some revenue. What did you do with the money?
14.42 Breivik: – No, the intention was to ensure that as much as possible of the money was exempt from taxation, and to do that, you had to perform a what should say, implement a strategy for laundering. And that’s why I started to create accounts in tax havens in the Bahamas and in Latvia, I think it was just before Latvia joined the EU, yes, it was perhaps seven countries.
14.43 Engh: – Were there Baltic countries other than Latvia?
14.43 Breivik: – There were two countries in the Baltic region, and maybe a three four countries in the Bahamas, and the intention of it was to ensure that as little as possible of it was taxed. Ok, most of these banks in these countries offer packages where they give you an anonymous debit card. So you can withdraw money from ATMs in Europe without being registered. So they’ve made packages for people who want to whitewash, simply. So I made the first million dollars when I was 24, and yes, I do not know, four million maybe when I was 26.
14.44 Engh: – But when did you set this sale of diploma up here?
14.44 Breivik: – It was in 2005, I think, or 2006.
14.44 Engh: – So when you moved to your mom, you had completed this activity, is that correct?
14.44 Breivik: – Yeah, right.
14.44 Engh: – But then, when you then finished this one in 2005 or 2006, do you have any thoughts on how much you then collected? How much money did you have then?
14.45 Breivik: – I’m not quite sure, but there’s a few million.
14.45 Engh: – You’ve talked about six million, is that correct?
14.45 Breivik: – Yes, I also said that I was very unsure about it. I’ve tried to make a record of the past. But I’ve always said that I’ve been very unsure of the amount.
14.45 Engh: – But is it correctly understood that money, no matter how much it was, was mostly on foreign accounts then?
14.45 Breivik: – Yeah, right.
14.45 Engh: – If today you should tell us something about how, what kind of success you had with these firms of yours, what would you say?
14.45 Breivik: – No, I will mention that there was a learning curve. BK Marketing, that went very badly. But I learned incredibly much, so I am very grateful to have gone through the learning curve. I think it’s a necessary curve for all businessmen. It is useful to have some companies fail, because you learn an unbelievable amount from it. So I think that to succeed, one must experience a couple of failures.
14.46 Engh: – Did you finally succeed, do you think?
14.46 Breivik: – Absolutely.
14.46 Engh: – Can you describe …
14.46 Breivik: – I think that, if you envision what the reality is in Norway, there are not many Norwegians who manage to make their first million when they are 24 years of age. If you look at Rokke, he earned it when he was 26, and Stordalen also when he was 26. I compare myself with the course, but to illustrate that it is extremely difficult to make financial success when you are so young, and I did it. In a company that was lawful, in fact, even if it was morally questionable.
14.46 Engh: – Okay, but is it rightly summarized as trying out a variety, whatever it’s called, various constellations, different firms or different projects that do not end up with any significant gains, and so it is when you then start with diplomas in 2001 when you receive the large revenues.
14.46 Breivik: – That is the way it is portrayed in the media, as…
14.46 Engh: – But I’m not so concerned about media I am, now, I’m concerned about what I think.
14.47 Breivik: – It was you who said it now, did you not just now?
14.47 – Well, only if one assumes what is described in the media, that I regarded the first two companies as a failure, but if you come out of a project break-even, with lots of knowledge and contacts, it is not a failure in the end, as I see it, although economically it only reached break-even. So I see it as a useful phase which was absolutely critical to earn money in future companies. So, it was a learning curve that was going to succeed later.
14.47 Engh: – As summarized in the day so you think you made success in business (unclear).
14.47 Breivik: – No, I have always said that either one has financial success or not, but success relies not only on the financial, it also depends on the skills and preparation of contacts, friends, and so on, as financial success, certainly not. But the first two companies was a useful school.
14.48 Engh: – Eh, yes, now we talked about school, then talked about your companies and now I want to ask you a little bit about your political involvement. You have been active, or at least a member of a political party. Eh, you can now look at the timeline you have in front here. This one right?
14.48 Larsen – Excuse me, administrator, before we proceed with the timeline, it’s said that the aid lawyers who sit in the Courts we transmit to do not have that, so please, is it possible to add it up on the screen so we can see it, otherwise it’s a bit hard to follow.
14.48 Engh: – Yes, now I do not plan to use it, I think enough that we can see.
14.48 (some talk between the parties)
14.48 Engh: – But it is not certain that anything of it will be addressed, there is the question if Breivik agrees with these dates, so we’ll see then.
14.48 Larsen – But in that they can not follow the dates, so …
14.49 Berntzen: – Then will you be clear on the dates verbally?
14.49 Engh: – Yes, do you remember when you engaged in politics?
14.49 Breivik: – Uh, yeah, I talked to the police a part of it, said to remember that I was 15, maybe 16 years, but it has been shown, according to them, that it has been a little later, was 17.
14.49 Engh: – That is the information we have, was that you joined in FpU in 1997, and then you were 18. So you would have signed up in the FRP in January 1999, when you were 20 years old. That’s what we got from the party.
14.50 Breivik: – Yes.
14.50 Engh: – But do you remember (unclear) why you chose to join a political party?
14.50 Breivik: – Yes, that was basically for the background that I had, and the experiences that I had that shape you as a person and your political opinions, and it was probably that the result of my childhood and my experiences from Ris school were essential in that I wanted to join the party.
14.51 Engh: – Do you remember what you were like at 15-16 years old? How, what kind of thoughts did you have then on society and how things should be?
14.51 Engh refers to an interview with an anonymous Templar in the compendium. She asks Breivik if this is an interview the defendant has held with himself, and Breivik admits it is. The interview in the compendium includes documents on his thoughts when he was younger.
14.51 Breivik: – I was not very politically active when I was 15, I was not. But I remember that I had some political views that were clearly on the right side.
14.51 Engh: – You have in your manifesto, in book three that Holden spoke on recently, an interview with someone, now please correct me if wrong, but that is an interview with an anonymous Templar, and in the interview as it emerges reasonably clearly that it is you. Is that correct?
14.52 Breivik: – Yes, I’m being interviewed.
14.52 Engh: – You being interviewed yes, right. Mm. Then you have a question you then ask to yourself, about how you were and what you thought when you were younger. So I would just prefer to stay on that. Let’s see.
14.52 Another lawyer: Is this something we should look up too?
14.52 Engh: – I think, really, I think that it’s managed to hear the defendant’s comment. Then it’s on page 1644 in your manifesto, it is a question that you then ask to yourself. “How do you view your own current political stand point 15 years ago?” And then you respond, “I would most likely think I was a complete nutjob due to the fact that I was ignorant about most issues then”. And I wonder, when you talk about 15 years back in time, when are you referring to? Remember what I have described?
14.53 Breivik: – I think what I’m saying there is that if I had seen myself 15 years ago I had thought that the guy there must be absolutely crazy. Because it is difficult to assess what is radical, radicalism is often in such a divider that you can begin to suspect it of irrationality. It was in this setting that I wrote that.
14.53 Engh: – But when you refer to something that was 15 years ago, how old were you then, then, firstly when you wrote this?
14.53 Breivik: – I was probably 14-15 years from the sample.
14.53 Engh: – So you refer to yourself as a 14-15-year-old?
14.53 Breivik: – I think that was what was meant, yes.
14.53 Engh: – Yeah, okay. But when you were 14 to 15 years, or before enrollment in political parties then, so the whole picture the way you do today?
14.54 Breivik: – No, not at all.
14.54 Engh: – No.
14.54 Breivik: – But that which I have described in the section, it’s the fact that I had a Muslim best friend for so many years, and he knew many of the B-gang and A-gang. Yes, it has perhaps emerged that they were only A-gang, however. At the time I was in a hip-hop subculture, or a gang, a hip-hop group, they were also with Blitz on some occasions because there were, well what can we say, clear contacts with hip-hoppers and Blitz culture, and I saw very much, and as a result of the experiences that I was clearly very right-wing. And that is what I have just described in that section.
14.54 Engh: – So when you choose to joinFpU as youth party to the FRP, as we have seen, that was when you were 18 years. Is that correct?
14.54 Breivik: – Yeah, right. What happened, lots of things happened before that, I’ve been through, what to say, I have been physically, I have been the victim of violent attacks by Muslims, and friends of mine in Oslo also.
14.55 Engh: – We will get, we will get back to them, the topic comes back again, it’s part of the things I’m going to ask you. But when you then joined the party, we can see also that you had some duties, including FpU as youth party, it says here that in January 2002 you were the second president of the Oslo West FpU. And then you were on the council in Frogner FpU and you were in office until November 04 in FpU. And in the FrP it says that you were director of FRP local chapter Majorstuen, it is unclear perhaps where it was, but I think that was Majorstua, which started in October 2001, and then you resigned from the board of Frogner november 2003.
14.55 Breivik: – Mm.
14.55 Engh: – So that means you have offices in both the party and the youth division of the mother party.
14.55 Breivik: – Yes.
14.55 Engh: – Yes. What was the reason you chose to engage in that way?
14.56 Breivik: – No, the reason I was still a member of the youth party was rather that it cost only 50 pounds a year, and that there was a charge that was not significant, and that therefore could not pay dues. That was the reason.
14.56 Engh: – But these positions you took? Why?
14.56 Breivik: – One could say that my involvement in FpU and FRP is not anything worthwhile, eh I had the positions and also, I was a member of the supervisory board for Majorstuen nursing homes for one or two years, and then I was deputy of the Uranienborg school on behalf of the Progress Party, other than that I have not had any involvement, but I will not mention it as something special commitment overall. It is suitable very well as CV filler then.
14.57 Engh: – Yes. For it is here that you have gone to something called Politician school under the auspices of FRP in March and April 1999?
14.57 Breivik: – Yes.
14.57 Engh: – What did you learn at this politician school?
14.57 Breivik: – There are only generic courses that are related to the party program to FRP.
14.57 Engh: – Generic classes? What are they?
14.57 Breivik: – Yes, one can perhaps say that it is all from rhetorical technique to processes related to the city council, everything that could possibly be relevant to policymakers who work on city council level.
14.57 Engh: – When you were in this period of your enrollment until where you left these positions in 2004, what were you concerned with when participating in politics? Do you remember anything about that?
14.58 Breivik: – No, I think that until 2001, I was keen on making money, it was the only thing that interested me. But in addition to that, I was rather, I was very concerned about immigration and culture, and I have been since I was 15 years old. But, then, career-wise, I was probably most interested in making money until 2001.
14.58 Engh: – Before 2001?
14.58 Breivik: – Mm.
14.58 Engh: – So from ’99 until 2001 you were concerned about making money and that’s when you…
14.58 Breivik: – Yes, you can say until 2002, maybe then.
14.58 Engh: – Til 2002. Yes. You, police have seen a little on how active you have been online in the period in which you were politically active. And then they have gone through and looked at something called FpU forum.
14.58 Breivik: – Mm.
14.59 Engh: – As for the period 2002 til 2003. And from 2002 til 2003 you have had a total of about 231 posts on this site. Do you remember anything about the content of the activity? What were you concerned with then?
14.59 Breivik: – I think that at least at one point, I was keen to advance in the party.
14.59 Engh: – What did you do now?
14.59 Breivik: – At one time or another I was keen to try to advance in the party, so then I conducted myself within the limits of political correctness of the party. And it was some time after I had probably written these points, about how I think Islam was good or anything like that, that I think I did myself in and thought that it is not possible to be so hypocritical because I think quite the opposite, but my point is that I was very careful to say what I really thought. At the (unclear). And I really, I’ve kept a fairly moderate line for that too.
15.00 Engh: – When was that? What was it you were careful to say what you thought?
15.00 Breivik: – No, the posts that you referred to there, then from 2002 until 2003, maybe.
15.00 Engh: – Then you tried to keep a moderate line, are you saying, or…
15.00 Breivik: – Yes, well, I at least did not say what I thought.
15.00 Engh: – No.
15.00 Breivik: – But I conveyed what was perhaps beneficial for a person who wanted to advance in a game.
15.00 Engh: – So at that point, you want to advance in the Progress Party.
15.00 Breivik: – No, I have spoken to the police about part of the dates here because basically I ran two races, I had invested a lot in politics so I wanted to see what it led to…
15.00 Breivik: – I did not communicate what I thought, but that was beneficial for a person who wanted to advance in a game.
15.00 Breivik attempted to be nominated to the council, saying that he wanted to see how far he could get.
15.01 The election that the prosecutor and Breivik are talking about is the municipal election in 2003.
15.02 Breivik: – I did not get very high in the final council list, I ended in 37th place or something.
15.02 Breivik has his hands down to the side while talking. He looks straight at the prosecutor Engh and speaks clearly.
15.04 Breivik refers often to what he has written in the manifesto. He explains that it contains some careless mistakes about his own involvement in the FRP.
15.05 In his CV Breivik writes that he was nominated for the City Council in 2003, but he was not.
15.05 The prosecutor makes him aware that he said this in interview on Utøya.
15.05 Not long ago, Breivik said that it was a careless mistake. Now he says that it was “technically correct”.
15.06 The prosecutor asks repeatedly why he wrote that he was on the list to the FRP before municipal elections in 2003.
15.06 Breivik says he wrote about himself to make it harder to “make him appear mentally ill” in retrospect.
15.06 Breivik had several hundred posts on the FPU forum on the internet.
15.07 Breivik: – I wrote about housing policy and the economy, and very little about immigration.
15.09 Engh asks him about a post he wrote in the time he was an FpU member, about a “common platform” for socialist youth parties. Breivik says he remembers the post. At this time he still believed in democracy in Norway, he said.
15.10 On 15 June 2002, Breivik wrote a post in which he asked FpU members to take on as many posts as possible, says prosecutor Engh.
15.11 Breivik: – At the time I ran two lines. I wanted to see how the political track led. Part of my commitment was to perform a “bird dance” in connection with the nomination process.
15.11 Breivik smiles when he explains that he wanted to see how far he could reach in the nomination process.
15.11 Breivik: – My engagement was marginal.
15.12 Breivik: – Basically, it’s meaningless posts, using to fill one’s CV. I learned a lot, but the organization is worthless.
15.12 Breivik said that his proposals were cut down, and believes FRP was a rigid party.
15.13 Some survivors have left the courtroom during Breivik’s explanation.
15.13 Engh will now ask why Breivik lost faith in democracy.
15.14 Breivik says that he has talked about this issue in his introduction, and ask if Engh has more questions.
15.15 Prosecutor Engh want to know if there were any special events that led to him no longer believing in democracy.
15.15 Breivik: – It is a combination of personal experiences. The approximately 20 confrontations with the Muslim people that I’ve had, and the confrontations my friends and other youths have had, Norwegian youths had with Muslims. It has meant a great deal, I would say. In addition there is the censorship of the press, well, I can say that’s what affected me the most, it was probably when I was 16-17 years old and there were very many people in Oslo West who noted this too, that Muslim groups of friends came to West, and robbed and beat and raped people. And they did not have to face any consequences. And those who tried to organize against them, they were branded as racists and neo-Nazis immediately. It was a very great injustice, then, as I think many feel today. Thus, it was accepted that Muslims and minorities created a threat because we had to protect them and because they were a minority, whereas if Norwegians did the same, trying to group themselves based on ethnicity or religion, then they became branded as Nazis at once. And the grave injustice is related to press coverage of this, that they depicted Norwegians who tried to resist as racists and Nazis.
15.16 Engh: – In your manifesto, and for that matter in a police interview, you’ve gone through a number of violent incidents that you believe has been crucial for your, if we then call it, radicalization, then, right? But have you experienced these episodes? Or is it something you’ve heard from others?
15.16 Breivik: – In some cases I have heard it from others. Other cases I have experienced myself.
15.16 Engh: – Once you heard from others, did you think about whether or not it was correct what you heard?
15.17 Breivik: – Before we go on, now, at a quarter past three, do you want to go on until four without a break, or?
15.17 Arntzen: – Do you need a break?
15.17 Breivik: – I’m getting pretty tired.
15.17 Arntzen: – Yes. So there is the question if we stop at half four, and then end the day half past three? Or if we should take a 20-minute break now and go on until just past four? Are there views on it?
15.17 Breivik: – Is it possible to take a break for ten minutes maybe?
15.17 Arntzen: – Yes, you want a break now? Then we take a break now. We can take a fifteen-minute break now, until half past.
15.18 The defendant is now being led out of room 250.
15.35 Breivik brought back into the courtroom.
15.36 Judge Arntzen: – So the court is set.
15.37 The courtroom is not as crowded as earlier in the day. Several listeners have chosen not to come back after the break.
15.38 Engh continues questioning of Breivik.
15.38 Prosecutor Engh asks if it’s true that Breivik has done some research to find out about the stories he tells in his manifesto.
15.39 Breivik: – These points I have included, I have every confidence that they are correct.
15.39 – I have not done much research related to the witness descriptions I have deemed credible.
15.39 – If good friends have told me something, I have not had any reason to doubt it.
15.39 – In some cases I have been alone, in other cases I have been with others.
15.40 Breivik thinks friends have said in interviews that he has presented excessively violent episodes.
15.41 Breivik: – I’ve probably passed it a bit pompously. However, all cases have happened, and I felt that it has relevance.
15.41 The audience laughs when Breivik again explains that he may have been a bit “pompous” when he has retold his friends’ stories.
15.42 Breivik: – Among the 20 episodes was the one that took place at the “Bohemen”, when a Muslim attempted to rob me. When I told the others, they say that they do not remember it.
15.42 Breivik used the word “pompous” several times today to explain the language and rhetoric of the manifesto.
15.42 Breivik says that on one occasion he received a blow to the face which resulted in a broken nose.
15.43 Engh points out that the medical certificate did not state anything about a fracture.
15.43 Breivik tells about an operation he took when he was 20 years old.
15.48 Dr. Jarl Bunæs, plastic surgeon at the Clinic Bunæs, confirmed Breivik’s nose surgery. But the document from the clinic did not mention nasal damage.
15.48 For the first time professional judge Arne Lyng breaks into the conversation.
15.48 Arne Lyng: – But my question to the prosecutor is whether the prosecutor believes that an old fracture will appear when he does this nose surgery. Is this how you perceive it?
15.48 Engh: – Yes, as I perceive it.
15.49 Engh: – With the episodes that you had experienced yourself, you were sure that they were Muslims?
15.49 Breivik: – In the cases I have mentioned, I’m sure of it.
15.49 Engh: – Yeah, okay. Did you talk to them?
15.49 Breivik: – I have not, I may well not, there are perhaps two of the cases where I’m not 100 percent, but I was pretty sure. It has been shown in one of the cases that I’ve said that, it’s the episode near the parliament/Burger King, I thought there was a Christian African with us from Congo, I think I said, but it turned out that there was a Muslim from Uganda, that’s still pretty close, but that was simply an assumption I made, and it has proven be false that he was from Congo, but from Uganda.
15.49 Engh: – But there may have been other reasons for violence, other than that they were Muslims?
15.49 Breivik: – Yes, well. An argument from the police is that these are criminal people who have attacked on the basis of criminal intent, while I believe that the majority of crimes committed by Muslims in Europe and in Norway have direct connections to the Muslims and the cultures which they represent as a result of Islam. One can, one can perfectly well distinguish Islamic culture and Islam, as there is the fact of some Christians in Pakistan as well, but they, the cultures that have grown up in Muslim countries, they are so integrated, they are an integral part of Islam or they are the result of Islam. So I think that the majority of crimes committed by Muslims in Europe can be linked directly to Islam and not because to people being criminals.
15.50 Engh: – Ok. Now we have gone through what you have personally experienced and has been an important factor for you in relation to radicalization, but I will ask you a question about …
15.50 Breivik: – Am I only allowed to only emphasize (unclear, sounds like political exercise), it is the basis for my claim is that in Islam, Islam is a very, what to say, they look down on other cultures, and there is a fundamental contempt for other cultures within Islam because the Islamic world’s principle is that there is Dar-al-Islam [part submitted to Islam] and Dar-al-Harb, which is not yet part of Islam [and needs to be subdued].
15.50 Engh: – But we are not at – not your thoughts on Islam and all that, we will come back to it, let us sort of stick to the theme we have now, if it is okay.
15.50 Breivik: – Sorry I interrupted.
15.50 Engh: – Indeed, that’s great. Eh. But now we have talked about your experiences or things you have heard from others. But I will ask you the same question I asked you earlier, are there any other events in politics, either in Norway or abroad, that have been critical to you?
15.50 Breivik: – If I get the chance I’ll go through the 20 encounters I have had with Muslims before.
15.50 Engh: – Yes, but now I think we have.
15.50 Breivik: – Maybe not today, but (Engh talking at him) or maybe tomorrow.
15.51 Engh: – Yes, you should be allowed to do so. But now I’m a little concerned. Now you’ve talked about your personal experiences, but are there some other political events either in Norway or in Europe that have been critical in you becoming radical?
15.51 Breivik: – I remember that I was very opposed to Palestine when I was 15 years old. I can not remember why I was then. But I remember that I was.
15.51 Engh: – Are there conflicts in some other countries, you think?
15.51 Breivik: – I think probably I have mentioned the Serbia conflict as an issue, but I do not think I was so personally involved in the conflict that I maybe should have been.
15.51 Engh: – What was the conflict in Serbia?
15.51 Breivik: – As it appeared in the media at the time it could be interpreted that the Christians exercised very large crimes against Muslims, but what has emerged in retrospect is that the coverage of the Serbian war was extremely biased, therefore subjective. That’s something you’ve learned in retrospect about that, but I think I found it quite unfair that Serbia was invaded by NATO because they were trying to deport their Muslims.
15.51 Engh: – Was it important for you and the process you were in?
15.52 Breivik: – Not very, it was not. I have perhaps emphasized it more in retrospect.
15.52 Engh: – What do you mean by that?
15.52 Breivik: – At the time I think it was unknown to many Europeans what really happened.
15.52 Engh: – But the reason I ask you, Breivik, is that in this manifest of yours, on page 1641, in that same interview that we talked about earlier, there is a question that you then ask: “What tipped the scale for you? What single event made you decide you want to continue planning and moving on with the assault?”
15.52 Breivik: – mm, I know what I have written, and I wrote that Serbia war was crucial to the establishment of the KT network. But it is very important to distinguish critical in the sense that it was an essential historical event or the straw that broke the camel’s back, it’s two completely different things and it is very important to distinguish it. But the conflict meant much more to others in the network than for me. And the compendium is not only on my behalf, it is also for others.
15.52 Engh: – But it counted.
15.53 Breivik: – That’s part of why I wrote it.
15.53 Engh: – Yes, but did it mean something to you? Was it the straw for you?
15.53 Breivik: – Eh. Maybe. I do not remember very well. This was very many years ago.
15.53 Engh: – Yes, but you, in one of the last interviews your now in March, you have been asked this. And it is in doc. 03, no 0831, Defense, on page 22, there is an interrogation that took place in March, in which you are asked what the reason is that you decided to become radical. And then you wrote it down, some comments are included that you had after you read the interview. And there it says: “During the proceedings the accused wants to repeat that it is wrong to say that the bombing of Serbia was the reason for his revolutionary direction/choices, he reiterated that this was only the final straw that did it. The accused believes that one can thus say that the bombing was the crucial issue without it necessarily being the most important for his personal commitment”. Is this correct?
15.54 Breivik: – It’s one way of saying it, to make an inane answer like that, but it was the straw for many. To be honest, I do not remember very well as that was many years ago. I remember that it was a factor for me then. It was just after 9.11 and 9.11 was probably also a factor that was perhaps more important to me than many others. If you are a nationalist from Serbia you yourself maybe care a little less about 9.11 and a little more about the NATO invasion and occupation.
15.54 Engh: – But did this conflict in Kosovo have any importance for the creation of Knights Templar 2001?
15.54 Breivik: – Yes, it did, it can be said that it was the last straw that for quite many nationalists in Europe.
15.55 Engh: – And it was as a result of NATO bombing. Is that correctly understood?
15.55 Breivik: – Among other things. It was especially so with the bombing and subsequent occupation or invasion and occupation of Kosovo which happened in April 1999. It was a very important historical event.
15.55 Engh: – How do you see this bombing?
15.55 Breivik: – I considered that, eh, Kjell Magne Bondevik and, eh, Mr Vollebaek was responsible, it was they who signed the document that gave NATO the opportunity to bomb Serbia. These two are responsible for it. And I thought it was grossly unfair that NATO went with the Muslims against Christian Europeans, who only wanted to deport the Muslims from the area which as a reaction to the invasion of the Ottoman Empire, a few years earlier.
15.56 Engh: – When did you realize this?
15.56 Breivik: – What?
15.56 Engh: – Yes, well, when you became aware…
15.56 Breivik: – I was not aware at the time.
15.56 Engh: – No. The bombing was in ’99. What did you do?
15.56 Breivik: – I was not very engaged at the time. Thus in -99 as I was with the party, but it was not until two years later that I came in contact with militant nationalists, so…
15.56 Engh: – Were you then?
15.56 Breivik: – I think it meant more eventually, I do not think it meant so much in -99.
15.56 Engh: – No, but when you came in contact with the militant nationalists in 2001, did it mean something to you then?
15.56 Breivik: – It meant probably more for me then.
15.56 Engh: – Mm. What was the Progress Party’s stance in this conflict?
15.57 Breivik: – According to what I’ve heard they were supporters of the bombing and invasion.
15.57 Engh: – But what did you think of it when you were …
15.57 Breivik: – I had a conversation with the police about it and they think that I should have known it and I should certainly have.
15.57 Engh: – What was it you did not know?
15.57 Breivik: – No, I was not actually aware of, I may have forgotten.
15.57 Engh: – What was that you were not aware of?
15.57 Breivik: – What we talked about was why I was in a party that supported the bombing of Serbia? (Engh interrupting) My answer was that have no other right-wingers in Norway than that party anyway, so there is no alternative.
15.57 Engh: – But the police asked you questions if you knew what kind of stance FRP had in this conflict?
15.57 Breivik: – Yes, they asked it.
15.57 Engh: – Well, what did you do?
15.57 Breivik: – I was not sure, I thought they were against it, but…
15.58 Engh: – But have you ever experienced that FRP has been against NATO?
15.58 Breivik: – Ehm, I do, but I rather have not seen that they have worked against a Christian country with a Muslim country.
15.58 Engh: – No.
15.58 Breivik: – So, but it’s true what you say.
15.58 Engh: – Mm. Now I wonder a little, we’ve outlined that you were politically active, or you think you were not politically active then but in any case in the Progress Party until 2004, and this bombing occurs in – 99, and then you become connected with these militant nationalists in 2001, and then the bombing became the straw that broke the camel’s back, and I wonder.
15.58 Breivik: – Yes?
15.58 Engh: – Why were you not aware of it?
15.58 Breivik: – I do not know if I was in the party until 2004, it can be in 2003
15.58 Engh: – Yes, but you were certainly with and held office in the Progress Party from -99 and at least through 2003, and we have seen in 2004 and this is the 2001.
15.58 Breivik: – Have we said 2004?
15.58 Engh: – Yes, we went through it earlier. But we can look at that afterwards. But in 2001, then, that is when you meet these militant nationalists, and you say that [the NATO bombing] is the straw?
15.58 Breivik: – I have said that it was straw for many.
15.59 Engh: – And I wonder.
15.59 Breivik: – In Europe.
15.59 Engh: – And I wonder, why did you not know then what stance the party you were, after all, a member of, had in the conflict?
15.59 Breivik: – I think that for me the conflict has been used mostly in retrospect.
15.59 Engh: – Ehm.
15.59 Breivik: – While for others, it has been very important, for example if you are a nationalist from Serbia then the conflict counts an unbelievable amount, while Western European nationalists do not really care so very much of the injustice of Serbia when there is so much injustice going on here. So I think we should be honest and say that even if you like to use Serbia war as propaganda context, one must be honest and admit that there’s a few other things that Western European militant nationalists are more concerned with.
15.59 Engh: – But is it, if I summarize it as correctly understood, that in 2001 you had contact with militant nationalists, and for some of those the Kosovo conflict, i.e. the bombing that NATO undertook, was that straw and you then too counted it, if not the most important thing, as the straw?
15.59 Breivik: – It is probably a bit important for me when you get to know what really happened, so it is most important in retrospect.
15.59 Engh: – But were you at any time trying to find out what kind of attitude that FRP had to NATO and their invasion of the Balkans in the period?
16.00 Breivik: – I think well that at that particular time I did not care very much about Serbia, I saw that there was more, there were other things that happened in Europe, that was important to me, 9.11 had just happened, and there was a, what should one say, an awakening on the far right in Europe because of 9.11.
16.00 Engh: – But for the ones you met, though, this was of great importance?
16.00 Breivik: – For some Serbia was important. For others it was not so important.
16.00 Engh: – Were your interested in how your country saw this bombing in -99?
16.00 Breivik: – Yes, very.
16.00 Engh: – Did they ask you?
16.00 Breivik: – People know that Norway is a NATO country. I have spoken to the police about it earlier. I do not want to talk about what I’ve talked about with them.
16.00 Engh: – But they were wary of you because you were a member of the Progress Party?
16.00 Breivik: – I do not want to comment on …
16.00 Breivik: – I have spoken to the police about it earlier. I do not want to talk about what I’ve already talked about.
16.00 Engh: – Were they skeptical about you because you were a member of the Progress Party?
16.00 Breivik: – I do not want to comment on it at all.
16.01 Engh: – No, no. Now we have been back several times that you had contact with militant nationalists, and that it was then in 2001. Do you remember how and why, no… Now I start a little wrong, but you try to make contact with someone in Norway first, before you were abroad?
16.01 Breivik: – I did not hear the police have asked me about it once I.
16.01 Engh: – We are not so concerned with what the police have asked you. Now we start from scratch and so…
16.01 Breivik: – I think I thought at that time that it was a coincidence that I came in contact with a person through the internet.
16.01 Engh: – Did you think in that period in which you …
16.01 Breivik: – The reason I came in contact with them as I was referring to is, yes, just a coincidence. Had I perhaps met a person in Norway, maybe it would have been a completely different path.
16.01 Engh: – But at the time in 2001, I then realize that you say, that you say that now you began to seek out extremist forces, it is properly understood?
16.01 Breivik: – There were a lot of coincidences.
16.01 Engh: – But it is in 2001 that you started to say that I will try to find something else?
16.01 Breivik: – Well, I think that I was on a quest at the time, but I probably did not know what I was looking for in a way. But in another way it was a coincidence. It was probably because I wanted, searched up right there, that I found it.
16.01 Engh: – But were you looking for some allies in Norway when the first.
16.02 Breivik: – I do not wish to comment.
16.02 Engh: – No. Why not? Why will not you comment on that?
16.02 Breivik: – No, I have not commented on it to the police and I did not want to comment on it here.
16.02 Engh: – I do not know if we can finish it, then we ..
16.02 Arntzen: – It is four o’clock. And so let us stop for today. And we need to talk about time in the morning. And how long the others need to spend on their examination and we discuss here.
16.02 Engh: – In open court?
16.02 Arntzen: – Yes, I think in open court, yes. Then the court is adjourned.
16.03 Breivik now speaks with his defense Lippestad. He’s wearing handcuffs.
16.05 Breivik’s explanation in court continues tomorrow.