9:03 The court is set.
Today we have two experts on radicalism, and a couple of hours where Breivik addresses the court and answers questions.
4 The first witness is Mattias Gardell. He is a researcher at the Department of religious history in Uppsala with an interest in nationalism.Gardell claims Breivik is heavily inspired by Fjordman, even though it’s well known that Breivik radicalized long before Fjordman entered the scene. He adds that only three pages were taken from the Unabomber’s manifesto. He confirms that words that Breivik supposedly made up actually exist, and that Islamophobia is not a phobia (doh). He argues that Breivik’s conservatism is influenced by American conservatives, that anti-feminism plays an important role in his ideological worldview, and that Breivik doesn’t see a Jewish problem and believes Jews should live in Israel and possibly expand into Palestinian territory.
Gardell makes a connection between the Knights Templar and the KKK as both are inspired by the Templar Order. He confirms that Breivik had extensive contacts with the EDL in England and that many share Breivik’s view that a civil war is inevitable.
12:47 Next one up is Nikolai Brandal, historian at the University of Oslo.
He identifies three types of terrorism, those that want to return to old values, those that want revolutionary change, and those that desire elements of both.
He identifies four stages of radicalization, with the first stage being the development of a black and white worldview.
I disagree with him here as the Cultural Marxists are extremely radical, making radicalization (an extreme black and white world view) the norm in Western society. What I observe is that some people are raised with, or adopt along the way, different fundamental truths, from which in fact a de-radicalization process begins. Some people will have a stronger desire for truth or integrity than others, and subsequently have a stronger desire to fight against the totalitarian rule. From this perspective the seed of doubt was planted into Breivik somewhere in his teenage years, and from there a perfect storm grew forth that culminated in 7/22.
One critical error in Breivik’s strategy from my perspective is that he doesn’t directly address these fundamental truths, there’s reason to believe that such an approach would be futile as people have been conditioned to instantly reject any attack on their core values. On the other hand Breivik’s relatively low obsession with truth and subsequent rejection of the democratic process indicates a fundamental difference between him and the average keyboard warrior (been there done that) trying to win the Internet.
Breivik will address the court, as usual his comments aren’t allowed to be broadcast.Breivik cleverly uses his lawyer Lippestad to ask him a series of questions that result in additional speaking time for issues he wants to address. This being the case I’ve edited out the questions, boring answers to boring questions, fixed up the language, and turned the address into a somewhat coherent statement.
Anders Behring Breivik Court Statement 2012-06-04
Breivik is finished.In summary Breivik explained his radicalization in closer detail, mentioning negative experiences with Muslims starting as early as age seven. He also mentions about 40 violent incidents involving Norwegian nationalists, calling them heroes, and it demonstrates that resistance is the rule rather than the exception, though 7/22 is of course on an entirely different order of magnitude.
A better insight into Commander Anders Behring Breivik’s motivation is provided in this statement. While he cares about truth to some degree his strongest and most primordial desire is honor, and he absolutely despises the suicidal self-depreciating cowardice of the Cultural Marxists. He is unable to stand idly by while his nation and people are being deconstructed.
Meanwhile his psychiatrists confuse his courage and honor with paranoid delusions of grandeur, as cowardice and prostration are the highest achievable virtues in all totalitarian states.
16:14 The court is adjourned.