8:59 Commander Breivik enters the courtroom.
A couple of experts will testify today.
Anders Behring Breivik Court Transcript 2012-06-01 Live Report
10:06 Brynjar Lia from the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment is preparing to testify. Lia is a terrorism expert.
Lia argues that 7/22 came out of the blue, somehow the media, which according to Aarebrot doesn’t engage in propaganda, failed to inform society that civil unrest has been growing rapidly for the past decade.
Lia states that targeted killing is rare, this in relation to Breivik killing only one civilian in the Oslo bombing, which he apologized for.
Lia states Breivik isn’t embraced as a hero by the scene he desires to appeal to. Obviously this guy is clueless.
Breivik has the full support of 16% of the Dutch anti-immigration block. 50% of American Atheist White Nationalists believes Breivik to be a hero. Stormfront (American Christian White Nationalists) has banned all polls, meaning the leadership disagrees but the forum members do not, likely support is around 50% as well. Most important, the system itself has banned all polls, which means they are afraid to show the 3-5% support for Breivik, and the vast majority of that group will be combat capable white males.
Lia argues that Breivik lacks clear motive and compares him to the Unabomber who also had a psychiatric diagnosis. This guy is here today to act like a politically correct tool, Breivik’s motive is crystal clear as it has been outlined in 2083.
11:34 Breivik will address the court.
To start with Tore Bjørgo: He seems to use the term right-wing racist violence, which automatically puts racism on the right side. The reason I became involved in this struggle was to fight racism against Norwegians and Europeans. I respond that he put racism on the right side.
Two of the last cite the book, “Turner Diaries”. I was very curious about it and the scariest in 2010, and bomb recipe that is completely worthless.
When it comes to examples of encouragement strategies this has worked in many countries, from the Soviet to Franco in Spain and Pince regime, and it is used today in Syria to provoke overreaction by the authorities. It has been used by Hezbollah and Libya.
And regarding exposing family and friends, and the point is that under this action was planned that I would execute 1,000 people and not 77, so the plan was that the emotional instability of the nation would be ten times so great, and when I took the view that my family and friends would be lynched. It just was why I used these characteristics, in order to increase the likelihood they would be lynched, it was to protect them. But I understand that in retrospect may seem distant and I regret very much that I wrote it.
When it comes to self-absorption in the compendium, and adjectives and use in this context, it was probably the idea behind it to make it more difficult for media companies to commit character assassination on me and use negative personal characteristics.
But I see now that the Strategy has been used against me. The idea was really a plan versus a media strategy, but in retrospect, then, or in retrospect I see that there may have been a bit pompous. One can easily get the impression that I am more narcissistic than I am, then.
There were many attacks against Fjordman. I have said previously that it was a coincidence that I have collected his material in the compendium. The person is the opponent of violence and supporter of democracy. The fact that he has supported ethnic cleansing, not true.
Then there are the allegations of conspiracy theories that are very typical for the left side. I will not comment on the specific.
So there was a comparison between Beslan and Utøya. Beslan was a primary school where most of those who died were between five and seven years. There was no political indoktrineringsleir, it was a normal school. It is completely wrong to compare it with a political party.
So we’ll Frank Aarebrot. Muhammed caricatures is a pretty bad example, because the political Norway has a very ambivalent view of Islam, for Islam is right and venstreekstremt at once. The cartoon controversy was all about freedom of speech.
A much better example would be the view of the sexual revolution and feminism. You have mentioned the second sympathizers in Europe, it was very toned down and it was indicated that all who sympathized, expressed it online in order to provide anonymous statements.
Although one can detect an anonymous profile, organizations Racist Center, which calls itself the Antiracist Center, pursuing your debaters.
Based upon the 300-500 letters I have received, if there are a thousand people for each person who sends out letters represent between 300,000 and 500,000 people, and if it represents 100,000 represents between 30 and 50 million people. The only way we can find out if people have sympathy for the attacks is to do a survey. The media has not done yet. It was largely about 911, and it is a survey from the UK, the source is “Who, what,” published by Aftenposten in 2005, where 40 percent of British Muslims supported the 911-reaction. Then it is impossible to know before you do a survey on it, and you can justify that.
And then I’m going Brynjar Lia. Again, the Toulouse and Utøya compared, there was a Jewish school for children, so it is wrong to compare.
He believed therefore that the result was disastrous, but if you actually ask a few people in Europe will probably many conclude that there has been a great awareness of Islamization and the key issues around this for 22 July. It is too early to conclude that 22 July does not have future relevance.
And then there’s assertion that I ramble in the message of the compendium, but it’s not possible to be more concise than I have been in the compendium, in terms of different areas. So when it comes to the notion of civil war, so it is clearly specified, ranging from Phase 1,2 and 3, so there is probably no one in the world who have described it in more detail than me.
Also when it comes to attacks on Europeans by Muslims, I have also specified it very thoroughly, with many examples. There is also much statistics from Sweden, on crimes against Europeans by Muslims. This applies to violent attacks and robberies, including the Europeans and the Norwegians.I have been a victim of it, and it is part of why I’m sitting here today.
Also, it is taken out two of 20 cases as a prosecutor testified before pulling into question. But there are over 20 events. The conclusion is that since the witnesses believe that two of the cases do not match, so do not apply to any of the 20 But I’ll come back to it later, tell about each one.
11:46 Breivik finishes his address.
Based on my own polling data 5% of the North Western European men supports Breivik’s actions, the equivalent of about six million people.
Breivik also points out only two out of twenty incidents couldn’t be remembered by friends, particularly the fight where his nose was broken. In my own life I had seven distinctly negative incidents with Muslims, most at a young age. I have little doubt that these experiences are crucial in the radicalization process and that Breivik had above average exposure to them.
Breivik also remarks on the almost universal labeling of his manifesto as ‘rambling’. There’s nothing incoherent about 2083 and this is one of the occasions where the mainstream media repeats the same lie over and over.
He says he debated Breivik and Fjordman on document.no, a conservative Norwegian political discussion forum.
Gule estimates the number of Counter-Jihadists in Norway to be around 12 to 15 thousand. He doesn’t cite any reliable polls, though 11% of the Norwegian population would prefer not to have a Muslim as a neighbor. Gule also expresses confusion about Breivik’s use of the term militant nationalist as Breivik applies it to all radicals that don’t exclude violence as a final option.
14:04 Gule is finished and Breivik will comment on Gule’s testimony:
First, I hope the police have double checked the suitcase to Gule.
It is important to emphasize that Document.no and Sian, it is not right-wing extremist organizations in all, it is moderate and non-violent. They are for integration and against deportereing Muslims. Putting them in the same boat as me is completely wrong.
To call someone an Islamophobe, that is an irrational fear, is completely wrong. There was the multiculturalists from Lebanon until the 1920s. Today there are fewer than 25% Christians in Lebanon. Those who criticized the policy in 1920, for example, was the Islamophobic? This applies not only Lebanon, but 40 other nations and peoples who have perished because of Islam, and it started with the Islamic takeover.
And Kosovo and Bosnia are two other examples. There are more than 40 historical examples of legitimate concern for Islam and it is not irrational. It is wrong to call someone for an Islamophobe.
And as for the context in which the prosecutor called for, it was thoroughly discussed in the introductory explanation when it comes to causes and motives. Thank you.
Judge Arntzen: Regarding your introduction I must make you aware that it is your defense has called Gule as a witness
Yes, certainly there was no criticism of Gules role here. I’m a useful idiot for Gule, and he is equally useful for the defense. We have two different agendas. He belongs to the left and ironically enough it is the moderate right wing that supports Sørheim and Husby, and ironically enough left to support report number two. Everything is really turned upside down now.
14:08 Breivik finishes his address.
Breivik later apologizes for making a joke about Gule’s briefcase. Gule is a Cultural Marxist and was arrested in Lebanon in 1977 trying to carry explosives into Israel. I guess this makes Gule a militant internationalist.
14:25 The final witness is police superintendent Unn Hege Sørensen from Oslo police who’ll discuss Breivik’s finances.
Breivik made half a million Euros selling fake diploma’s and went to great lengths to evade Norway’s high taxation rates. It’s shown that Breivik lost about fifty thousand euro in the stock market and has a twenty-five thousand euro credit card debt obtained when he ran out of funds April 26, 2011. According to one of Breivik’s letters a good portion of his mail exists of bills.
15:32 Sorensen goes through the cost of procurement Breivik: Uniform (£ 5500.76), Equipment (£ 80,282.81), Weapons (£ 39,032.42), Ammunition (£ 8150.75), Bomb (£ 133,868.02).
This totals up to about fifty thousand Euro. Sørensen confirms that Breivik had funds in 2006.
15:38 Breivik has a final comment.
I have explained in the police interrogation that I had a cash reserve of 300,000 located in two safes. The police have not taken a position. And I can confirm the Sabbath, of course, related to SunCom-holding. The dates correspond so it can see.