International Centre for Counter-Terrorism on Commander Breivik

The ICCT (International Centre for Counter-Terrorism) recently published a research paper titled: The Anders Behring Breivik Trial: Performing Justice, Defending Democracy. Read it here:

In their introduction they state the trial upheld the democratic values of Norwegian society – in stark contrast to Breivik’s values. The tone is set with this statement, it should be self-evident that nowadays all it takes for a nation to be democratic is for it to proclaim that, it is in fact, democratic. Iran uses this strategy with great success.

In the first paragraph these 4 researchers get their facts wrong by claiming Breivik’s defense pursued an insanity plea. Breivik never instructed his lawyers to pursue an insanity plea.

The paper further indicates that the researchers argue from the position that Cultural Marxism is right and Breivik is wrong. From this point of view any form of terrorism is by definition immoral, and subsequently the function of a televised trial is to prevent further terrorism, and a means to soothe the masses. There is no mention of the widespread claim that political correctness sky-rocketed in Norway after 7/22.

It’s interesting to note that the concept of democracy has become increasingly totalitarian. Possibly because in its current form democracies are the ultimate political equivalent of communism. Each individual has one vote regardless of their individual worth, like under communism (in political theory) each individual earns the same wage regardless of their individual worth. Under communism the strong must be subdued by the weak, which is only possible by grouping and mobilizing the weak as a numerical majority. Intellectuals who pursue power and support the doctrine are welcomed with open arms, intellectuals who oppose the doctrine are vilified.

This applies to these researchers as well, if they would classify Breivik’s actions as morally right their careers would be finished. Subsequently they held many polls, yet failed to ask the most important question a terrorism researcher should ask: Do you support Breivik?

Where the current system differs from Stalinism is that we experience totalitarianism with a velvet glove, meaning that minimal totalitarian force is applied, which creates the illusion that freedom prevails. In reality you will be locked up and silenced if you successfully express unpopular thought, though most people use self-censorship to prevent this from happening. There’s no need to kill people if a fine or a visit from the anti-fa is enough to shut them up. What sets Breivik apart is that he did so much damage that the threat of prolonged incarceration no longer affects him.

In such a system it’s important that sentences are never final, so there is always the glimmer of hope. This typically forces a political prisoner to reject their ideology and embrace Cultural Marxism, and beg to be released. As was to be expected Breivik refused to engage in self-censorship and continued to propagandize himself as a hero in his letters, so his freedom of speech was taken away from him. This leaves prolonged isolation and other forms of torture as the only means for the system to force Breivik into compliance.

The researchers claim that the trial creates a unique opportunity to bring several parties together: terrorists, state representatives, the judiciary, the audience, surviving victims, terrorist sympathizers, etc. However, they fail to mention that sympathizers were barred from the courts, nor do they mention that Breivik and many of his witnesses were not televised whenever they took the stand. All that the people watching from their TVs saw was Breivik making his “far-right” salute, sobbing witnesses, psychiatrists explaining how Breivik is sick in the head, and ‘experts’ who make a living by stringing politically correct half-truths together.

An important keyword that is used is that the population at large must ‘cope’. People have to ‘cope’ with terrorism, ‘cope’ with multiculturalism, and people have to continue to participate in the meaningless materialistic consumption society that has been created for them. The highest achievable goal has become to keep the Multicultural Experiment running, that things must remain orderly, pleasant, and polite as we march on towards our collective suicide. Orders are Orders. This is a strong sentiment during the trial, expressed in the statement that ‘Breivik cannot be allowed to change our values’. Values believed to be eternal and absolute, but which in reality were introduced between 1945 and 1968.

The researchers summarize the prosecution strategy as discrediting 2083, discrediting Breivik’s person, and glorifying the victims.

The researchers held another survey and of those questioned 24% believed Breivik to be insane, 16% agreed with the prosecutor’s strategy, and 13% believed Breivik to be unaccountable.

The researchers once again claim that Breivik instructed his lawyers to work towards an insanity plea, but they do not back this up with any sources. It’s unclear why they want to perpetuate this lie, and go as far as inserting a source that is completely unrelated to their claims.

The researchers mention that Breivik wanted to use the trial as a platform to propagandize his ideology. They recognize that Breivik seeks to delegitimize the system. They also fully quote Breivik’s final words in court.

The researchers mention the 40,000 people who sang the rainbow song, but fail to mention how entire classrooms were emptied out for this ‘demonstration’. This was of course not a demonstration, but a display of political correctness and political power that proves Breivik’s point that we do not live in a democracy, but in a totalitarian world where your rights end where the emotions of a Cultural Marxist begin.

The researchers mention the ‘Russian Breivik’ who was completely unrelated to Breivik, but do mention the Polish and Czech militant nationalists who were arrested. They are also incorrect in their low estimate of the influence of Breivik in White Nationalist circles, in their defense it’s difficult to take notice of the self-censorship that takes place unless you’re right in the middle of it and observe when messages in support of Breivik get erased, and supporters get banned. Not that Stormfront matters: Breivik is the future; the line in the sand has been drawn that separates the adults from the children.

The researchers polled people as to their satisfaction with the trial, and the obvious conclusion is that Breivik won. This because the goals of the Cultural Marxists for the trial (revenge, prevention, symbolism, truth, stability, democracy, and closure) were not satisfactorily met, while Breivik’s goal (presenting both perspectives) was.

The researchers tried to determine the trauma caused by 7/22, and noted that particularly women, immigrants, and the elderly are frightened.

The researchers conclude that overall the trial was a slight victory for Cultural Marxism, but they don’t seem very convinced of their own right, as if they’re aware they’re trying to put a positive spin on it to secure future funding for research projects. They disregard their scientific objectivity when they assert the official Cultural Marxist answer to 7/22: Democracy won and Breivik lost.

We’ll see about that.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: