The Norway Killer Trial: Week One

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.


Pages: 1 2

The first week of the trial against the confessed mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has been completed in Oslo. The way it has been carried out has intrigued visiting foreign journalists in both positive and negative ways. A representative of the television news channel CNN was impressed that Norwegians take “pride in the fact they are a society who will respect Breivik’s human rights, even when he showed no respect for the lives of others.”

Many are shocked to find out, though, that the maximum penalty one can get in Norway for any crime is 21 years in prison. That’s in total, not per murder, although there are admittedly mechanisms in place for keeping a person locked up indefinitely if he still poses a threat to society.

If Breivik is judged to be sane he will thus get just a few months in a comfortable jail for each of the 77 murders he committed. Is that a sign of a society that values human life, or is it a sign of a society putting the rights of criminals above those of their victims?

On April 20th the terrorist described in horrifying detail and with shocking indifference the dozens of individual murders he committed during his shooting spree on the island of Utøya outside Oslo. Yet he had cried publicly only a couple of days earlier when the court showed his own rather silly and unprofessional propaganda movie.

The political commentator John Olav Egeland said that Geir Lippestad and the other defense lawyers worked hard in court to make Breivik appear as rational as possible. The purpose of this was to have him declared sane, as well as “to spread the responsibility for the actions Breivik has done.”

I finished reading his manifesto a week before the trial began. I was struck by how much he has quoted the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and how little focus on this there has been in the mass media — as opposed to the fact that he cites some Islam-critical writers.

Calling Breivik “the Wikipedia terrorist” is perhaps an exaggeration, but he certainly uses this source very extensively, from discussing weapons and body armor, to the nuclear reactors he fantasizes about blowing up. He admitted during the trial that the English language version of Wikipedia has been his main source of education. It has probably shaped his strange and imprecise political vocabulary, too. For example, he employs the term “national anarchists,” which is not commonly used in major publications.

In his long statement in court he quoted in a slightly modified version the American President John F. Kennedy: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” This was also highlighted in his 1,518-page so-called manifesto, in which he quoted another former US President, Thomas Jefferson, that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” These quotes are more militant than anything ever written by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Andrew Bostom, Melanie Phillips, or myself.

On page 1,120, ABB cites the American Declaration of Independence from 1776 in favor of his views. This document was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson. He mentions the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right to bear arms, and thereafter refers to Mahatma Gandhi and the quote “Disobedience of the law of an evil state is therefore a duty.”

The Western mass media have widely portrayed those quoted in Breivik’s manifesto — against their will  — as dangerous right-wing extremists. Do these alarming extremists include Thomas Jefferson and Gandhi?

On page 1,164 Breivik quotes the Marxist leader Fidel Castro, who has ruled Cuba for half a century, as stating that “I began the revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I would do it with 10 or 15 individuals with absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and a plan of action.” Mr. Castro represents a totalitarian ideology, and although he is a revolutionary Socialist, he has not been blamed for inspiring Breivik.

Breivik is the anti-Nazi who admires neo-Nazis, the anti-Marxist who admires Marxist revolutionaries, the anti-Islamist who openly admires and emulates Islamic Jihadist terrorists, the non-religious person who thinks he will be canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church for murdering unarmed teenagers, a “perfect knight” who calls his sister a slut, and a modest man who believes that his candy-eating habits are of geopolitical importance.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.villapepita.pl hotel w górach

    terrible crime. This guy is a psychopath

  • harrylies

    Some people are grossed out by two men having sex. Some are grossed out by a black and white having sex, even if they are married. Europeans were grossed out by Jews living in the Thirties and Fourties. We know what happened.

    Now some people are grossed out by immigrants upsetting the ethnic balance. Many of these "immigrants" are children born in the country. Shouldn't be surprised that someone may take action. What is the "peaceful" altenative? The government killing people.

    Some Amerricans are grossed out by Mexicans. The only people with a right to be grossed out are the Indians. Everyone else is just like the Mexicans.

    • tarleton

      and some folk are grossed out by idiots like you

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Are you grossed out by the muslim men raping white women to shame them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqOydLrpqGE

  • Schlomotion

    Fjordman, aka the red diaper baby / white nationalist, Peder Nøstvold Jensen, listed at Hope Not Hate as the supporter of that skinhead hooligan gang English Defense League, has made his slender career off of Gisele Littman's "Eurabia." Although he tries to cover his rear end by dismissing Anders Breivik as a "violent psychopath," he contributes to the racist blog Gates of Vienna and quotes Littman even more than Breivik does in his manifesto. Littman also has 17 chapters in Robert Spencer's The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, proving that they are all intellectually in bed together.

    In probably his most craven act, Peder Jensen states that Anders Breivik quoted the Declaration of Independence, as if Americans might be fooled into conflating the ideals of our Republic with the horrific racism of Jensen, Littman, Spencer, Bostom, or Frontpage Magazine. He is essentially taking the Declaration of Independence hostage and thinking that no one will dare take a shot of vilification at him for fear of also hitting the Declaration. Such pusillanimity will not be accepted as we can tell the difference between our own ideals of freedom and the xenophobic tripe that he and the Hasbara have cranked out to enrage and embolden their impressionable drone Breivik into his massive act of plagiarism and murder.

    The main difference, perhaps the only difference between Jensen and Breivik is physical fitness. Breivik excelled during his military conscription, and Jensen floundered at it. Jensen took the chickenhawk's path of writing incendiary anti-Muslim bigotry and pleas for pro-white ethnic cleansing on his blog, while Breivik took lots of vitamins and cutpasted Jensen's writings into a pdf. Jensen, raised a soci.alist, has retained his hatred for culture by choosing white suprematism over "multiculturalism." Frontpage has retained its soci.alist hatred for culture, even after laundering its name "Center for the Study of Popular Culture" into David Horowitz Freedom Center, by acting as a whitewasher for people like Jensen and therefore Breivik, and by being a clearinghouse for Jewish racism.

    • DAS

      Go screw yourself,troll.Cant debate with those people because they would rip you a new arsehole.

      • Schlomotion

        Sounds like the kind of faceless violent homophobia you would expect from English Defense League. Are you their local representative?

        • Atlas_Collins

          Hey Schlomo? Why is it only "white-majority" countries are expected to bow to the leftist ideal of 'multiculturalism' and accepted millions upon millions of dusky immigrants from backwards third world schitholes?

          • Schlomotion

            For that answer, you will need to read Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald. http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/archiv/pdf/macdon

            It even starts on page page 1.

          • Atlas_Collins

            Ahhh … those pesky jews again, huh?

          • Schlomotion

            Oh sorry. I didn't realize they were Gods and we mere mortals were not allowed to mention them.

          • Atlas_Collins

            Oh, no, Schlomo, I really meant "pesky jews." I get bashed here all the time for wondering aloud why it's OK for jews to be all ethnocentric and have a "jewish state" that we non-jew Americans are supposed to blindly support with out tax dollars. It also seems to be unpopular to point out that we non-jew Americans are supposed to happily send our young men off to die in proxy wars against other greasy semites to protect Israel.

            … and whatever you do, don't mention the words "shoah" and "myth" in the same post or the long knives come out.

          • Schlomotion

            I misunderstood. Maybe FPM can have a forum and people from all sides can debate it without having to fly out to Los Angeles.

          • zionista

            maybe you two Jew hating slugs can go out on a date – you already have much in common

          • Schlomotion

            Your comments always seem to cycle back to dating. Why is that?

          • wctaqiyya

            Lemme try. First, the state of Israel is their business, how they run it, who they let in, what laws they pass and how they prefer to eat chicken or matzo balls. You know, just like Switzerland or Zimbabwe. I agree that tax dollars sent abroad should be a choice on our tax returns or something. But, since our government is elected by the people, it's decisions are, in theory, our collective decisions. Support for Israel may make better sense as a matter of policy when you leave aside the 'pesky Jew' element you object to and consider that Israel is the only really civilized country in that area. I suppose you could stretch the definition of civilized to cover some of those other countries but such a stretch would also cover some stone age cultures. So….
            And I'm thinking civilization is worth supporting, even if it's pesky. Your resentment about wasteful and foolish wars in the ME are shared by many, including me. But, you should blame the ass-hats in Washington, not Israel. The Bushes did those wars for any combination of a dozen reasons and none of them were for Israel. You can see for yourself that Obama loves them too and he does not favor Israel. You might as well say we went to war as proxies for Britain or France since they advocated for those wars more than most. One last point, not all the liberal Jews in America and in Washington speak for Israel, many are anti-Zionists. Those Jews have their own agendas, sometimes pretend to speak for Israel, but do not. In the end, it's just our opinions. But it's more funner to have opinions based on facts, no? Cheers.

          • Schlomotion

            I agree with this.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    If Brevik is anti-islamist, you would expect he would have killed Muslims, but he didn't.

    • Hamlet MacBeth

      I have found the more I read about this whack job and the travesty he committed, the more this whole scene doesn't make any sense.
      Now just supposing, based upon the Islamic tenet of taqiyya, Breivik was a convert to Islam. Create an open anti-Islam viewpoint for all to see on social media prior, then wage jihad against Norwegian civilians. The blame will fall on the "counter jihad" movement and you get your kills while Islam escapes blame. Sounds like a ridicules conspiracy theory I know, but the whole thing doesn't make sense.

      • Sceptic

        Nah, that is far-fetched. It is not in the interest of Islam to inform non-believers about the concept of Taqiyya or Nashk. Breivik has raised a lot of obstacles to Islam and Marxism by raising the awareness of ordinary people. Assume that he has already awoken 10 million people into a state of slight disbelief and (god forbid) thought and reflection. Now imagine the cost of all the propaganda and force required to put these non-believers back into their multi-culti zombie daydreams again. Massively disproportional. Breivik has proven that he is worthy a master degree in Al-Qaida economics.

  • ctyankee

    I am glad to here Fjordman speak on this subject. He has been wrongly blamed for Breivik's crimes.

    I don't care what "Hope not Hate" says.

  • dave

    The scary irony is that even if Breivik was inspired solely by anti Islamic conservatives, not one of them advocates violence of any sort, Islamic theology does blatantly and yet this never gets questioned by the media, their violence is always due to 'western foreign policy'. This level of dishonesty is dangerous and simply exposes how desperate the left are to indoctrinate the masses.

    • Schlomotion

      It's the way Charles Manson excelled at committing murder. You simply vilify the target repeatedly, point out the target, explain how they are causing the sky to fall, publish all their information and then let your minions take up the cue. Then you can deny ever having given the order. Breivik is Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Peder Jensen's Tex Watson. These guys kept saying now is the time for Helter Skelter against the multiculturalists, then Breivik did their bidding.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Schlock said above:

        "You simply vilify the target repeatedly, point out the target, explain how they are causing the sky to fall, publish all their information and then let your minions take up the cue."

        Nice summary of the modus operandi of islamists and socialists which has resulted in hundreds of islamofascist terrorist attacks all over the world.

        • Schlomotion

          Yes. They seem to share a modus operandi, these jihadists and these counter-jihadists. It must be institutionalized thinking.

  • Atlas_Collins

    'Multiculturalism' is leftist code for the extermination of white people.

    • Schlomotion

      I disagree. Jews were pretty tough peddlers of multiculturalism until ten years ago. Are you saying Jews are trying to exterminate white people?

      • Atlas_Collins

        Maybe not "white people" per se … but certainly the cultural traditions and the achievements of western civilization are in somebody's cross hairs.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Schlock, Like Muslims are tough peddlers of CHEAP oil.

      • ebonystone

        The "tough peddlers" of multiculturalism have been, and are, almost exclusively white Christians. There isn;t much in the way of multiculturalism coming out of Africa or Asia.

        • Schlomotion

          I beg to differ. Up until this big recent burst of Jewish Nationalism, it was all Boasian cultural relativism and television casting of Black people as Judges and Presidents and white people as janitors and carjackers. It seems like Zionists shifted in the 90s from trying to be the pimps of the Balkanized plurality to becoming the Saviors of the White Race from Islam. The funny thing is that nobody asked for these services. I am expecting that in the next ten years, Zionists are going to shift again and become the chief disseminators of Islam in the US. They will get degrees in Arabic and Koranic studies, and an army of Adam Gadahns and Yousef al-Khattab aka Joseph Leonard Cohens will tell us how to do Kosher Islam.

          For more on Jewish Al Qaeda, check here:
          http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/48925123-070C-411E-A

  • wctaqiyya

    Fjordman spends a lot of time and space on the sources of Brievik's inspiration. He even concludes that Brievik greatly admires Marxism, Islam, Nazis, Gandhi, Jefferson and Kennedy. I must disagree. It is far from certain that the use of a few quotes from each of the major contemporary political theories indicates his allegiance to any of them. Rather, It seems more likely that he displays famous quotes from famous people principally to justify his violent actions. Any admiration he may feel towards a particular political theory is a secondary consideration. This is so because all of the quotes serve to justify his actions, not to gin up support for any specific political theory. So, it appears that Brievik wants to justify the use of violence when peaceful means of opposition are foreclosed. That peaceful means were foreclosed to Brievik is at least arguable and more likely true than not. The evidence for this is found where Fjordman informs us that speaking against Islam or Islamic immigration is now a criminal offense in much of Europe. This allegation, if true, certainly precludes peaceful opposition to the immigration policy Brievik opposes. And you can hardly organize a peaceful political opposition if stating the objective of the organization is a criminal offense. So, Brievik's thinking, up to this point, is consistent with reality. Not just as he sees it, but also as Fjordman sees it. Like it or not, Brievik is as cogent and sane as Fjordman. So far.

  • wctaqiyya

    Next, the issue of Brievik's targets. Does killing the children of the leaders of Norway make any sense as a political target? It would seem to be a perfect target. First though, I'm wondering why it's even considered a serious question to wonder about Brievik's targets? I wonder that because nobody ever questions why the Saudi terrorists targeted the twin towers? Or questions why suicide bombers target children all the time? They targeted the towers to make a big statement, do economic damage, kill many people and induce terror. They succeeded. They target children to induce terror and fear, and it works. Brievik is not a moron, he saw what works best and followed suit. No real mystery here. Although I might add that the Norwegians seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Instead of being shocked out of their obliviousness, they insist all the more on ignoring the explosion of drug dealing, rape, murder and robbery in their cities. Instead, they insist on pretending the Muslim immigrants are not responsible for almost 100% of that criminal activity. They just keep bringing them in. I think some of them might even blame Brievik for the Muslim crime wave. Well, cultural suicide is probably a lot like individual suicide, when they really wanna do it, nothing can stop em. Too bad Brievik didn't consult with me before his ill-considered rampage, I would have told him to forget it. Stick a fork in Norway, they're done.

    As for the sanity vs insanity debate. I guess Brievik is just as insane as the millions of Muslim terrorists all over the world. By which I mean, he is, despite his horribly misguided actions, sane.

    • Glennd1

      Great commentary. You'll see my comment challenges people to actually look at the politics of what he's doing. I am willing to kill to maintain my liberty and my property, and protect my family, friends and countrymen (less and less for my countrymen though). I do think that there is evil the world that must be stood against. I'm not convinced that killing a bunch of kids at a political summer camp is justified, but to pretend it's all just "crazy" is stupid. He picked that target because there are a large concentration of leftists there and he means to hurt leftists. That they are the children of the elite leftists of his country makes it a more attractive target if he's really trying to inspire a leftist crackdown on the right. But we won't have any real conversation about this in the news. And as you point out, meanwhile, Islamists are killing innocents by the bushel on a daily basis…

      • wctaqiyya

        Yep, not gonna justify what he did, but it's obvious what he was doing it for.

        • Glennd1

          Listen, I'll go even farther. If a mortal enemy were trying to take away liberty across the entire society I lived in and killing their children might stop them, that might be the most moral action to take. So many people misunderstand morality. Killing is not a priori immoral. The reasons must be examined and weighed. Me, I'm more in agreement with you. We have already collapsed our societies in the West. The real question that smart people should ask themselves is, what's next? My guess? A more authoritarian state, not a lesser one. I don't think human beings are capable of governing themselves, and I also think many want a 'daddy govt' to take care of all their worries. Sad, so freaking sad. So, I won't run around shooting people cuz I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference to the outcome. I'm getting my wealth out of the dollar, out of currency and into real assets to the degree possible. I live in rural New Hampshire and am stocked up on food, water and ammo. The majority of my fellow countrymen saw fit to elect a huckster and fraud like Barack Obama – 'nuf said. What do I have in common with such people? Absolutely nothing.

          • wctaqiyya

            The question about when violence is justified is not easy to answer. Your point about the futility of individual action is well taken. It's not worth it and individuals are just too easy to ignore or dismiss, as we see with Brievik. It's no accident that Norway first tried to have him marginalized by calling him insane. My thinking is that Brievik still had options short of murder. Even if speaking out is a crime, he could have made a statement by speaking out, getting arrested and becoming a living symbol against the government's suicide policy. He seems to have property and money so he could have moved and organized opposition from abroad. Or, closer to our thinking, maybe it was just time to leave and forget about the lost cause. So, when do we justify individual violence? Maybe we can't, but if so, that bar needs to be set very high. Lately, I've been thinking Uruguay. New wealth from gas and oil, great food, decent basic services and Brazil is right next door, just in case. Cheers.

          • Glennd1

            Our founders thought liberty was worth killing for. My father's, and his father's generations killed tens of millions fighting back the Germans, Japanese and other Axis forces. We currently think killing is justified in Afghanistan, including innocents (a part of war that is unavoidable).

            I'm with you in that I'll leave the U.S. before I'll fight it out in the streets with a bunch of leftists who will never agree with me. I actually think the best solution would be to divide the country into three parts. The first would be the one with a social safety net and every govt program those leftists can dream up. The second would be a Christian Communitarian set up with prayers in school, 6,000 yr old dinosaurs, regular citizen drug tests/polygraph examinations and laws against sex outside of marriage. The third – my desired destination – would simply have the limited government our founders visualized, one which protects my rights as visualized by classical liberalism and protects me from externalities other citizens impose on me. I wonder how many Americans would want door number 3?

          • moray watson

            Being arrested for speaking out would be like a bug splatting on a windshield. The truth is no defense in a human rights/hate speech case. But he gets to speak his truths if he murders 77 people. Rather effective.

            And he didn't kill muslims. So guess what the muslims have no voice in this matter. The muslims can't object to his trial. Again, rather effective.

  • Glennd1

    I have a perspective that nobody seems to want to discuss. Is Breivik's concern valid? Is he correct that the multi-cultis and Progressive/Socialist/Marxists are hell-bent on taking away our freedoms and destroying our way of life? I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying that one has to take his politics seriously for a moment to understand this case. I mean, just take the camp he targeted. While killing children is obviously horrific, was I the only person unaware and horrified that leftists send their children to camps now to brainwash/indoctrinate them at a young age? I see my progressive friends trying to program their children's politics now, and I'm stunned by it.

  • Guest

    He didn't go after Muslims because he is sane and truly understands the real enemy is the liberal elite class who are importing the Muslim menace. He did a good job of culling the future liberals. The good part about liberals is they do not believe in propagating the,selves, so in some ways they are like the ebola virus and will allow themselves to die off. He was trying to help this along. Most of you just don't get it. Very dealy hard times are coimg caused by the liberal elites. Because you do not have the guts to kill for your cause, you will eventually die or be converted. The Jews waited too long to rise up against the nazis had they known what was coming, I doubt they would have hesitated to kill a bunch of future nazis. He will someday be recognized as a hero. I am very glad he will get a light an easy sentence.

    • wctaqiyya

      It's one thing to organize and make political noise as a group, it is entirely different to decide for yourself who will die. If what Brievik did is justified, it opens the door to anarchy. I prefer to hope that people in America will wake up in time to oppose our suicidal policies in organized groups. Refuse to pay for it, resign from the military. If the federal government policies are truly immoral, stop subsidizing them. Organize your lives so the computers can't automatically steal your money and dig yourself a foxhole job in the cash and barter economy. Make yourselves judgment proof. Elect officials you know and like for town councils, mayors and freeholders. Look down the road a few years, you won't be giving up much because the government gravy train is tapped out. None of Obama's health care policies have a chance in hell of working and everyone knows it. Most government power should be local anyway and if we control the local stuff, the rest will fall in line. This is the kind of thing I need to see attempted before I endorse violence. Having said all that, I see that Obama is busily working to mold official policy to cover for Muslim honor killing, to silence Islamic critics and ram mosques though anywhere they want them. What a guy.

    • trickyblain

      History serves as a great predictor of the future. I can't think of a single person who history judges a hero whose most famous act was the slaughter of innocent, unarmed teens.

  • Ghostwriter

    In my opinion,Anders Breivik is no hero. He's a demented,bloodthirsty lunatic who deserves to be either in jail or the lunatic asylum. This guy is a prime candidate for the death penalty. A shame that Norway doesn't have it. Breivik deserves to get it.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Those kids were innocents. I blame Norwegian media, politicians, "progressives" AKA neo-national SOCIALISTS for creating future Quislings.

  • steven L

    It seems clear that B is warning the Norwegians and the West! Political correctness will destroy the EU and the West. After all one communist trick will win: political correctness.

  • Steve Bronfman

    For 50 years the Western elites and governments have imposed mass immigration and multiculturalism upon Western societies despite survey data showing that native populations oppose such policies. These policies have lead to social failures in every Western society with rapes (e.g. Almost all rapes in Scandinavia are committed by immigrants), ethnic crimes, ghettos rife leading many natives to despair about the future of their very countries. The lack of assimilation combined with cultural relativism and politically correct policies lead many to resent their governments, elites and media. The great irony is that the immigrant communities are usually ultra conservative in nature but ally themselves with the political left in the Western societies who in turn openly rely upon these communities for support to retain government despite becoming increasingly distant from their original "working class" native political bases.

    Is it any wonder that, in a society which has never debated these issues, such a political party would be a target for “right wing” terrorism especially considering it gave up any moral enmity towards using violence for political ends with its open support of Hamas and Hezbollah?

    • Schlomotion

      This is why the US needs to close the border with Canada and send the irredentist spoonbenders to the Seagrams Museum of History.

  • curmudgeon

    a few months in prison for each murder, you say. lets see. the lockerbie murderer served 12 days per murder. but that is ok, because the lockerbie killer was muslim, therefore the best of people. i am surprised they didnt give him a medal and a pension. brievik, on the other hand, was alerting us to the fact that we are being conquered by islam, which will surely be followed by enslavement, and ultimately the murder of everyone not able to convert to the religion of pure evil. hang him. noone should be allowed to oppose pure evil.

  • Yusuf in Obamastan

    Perhaps Brievik's biggest inspiration for waging his war was the paradm of the perfect man, that infamous Apostle of Allah, Muhammed? Is Breivik's Manifesto an updated Koranic inspired manifesto? Breivik's left wing critics should be asked to admit that leftist multiculralism and Islamist propaganda groups are to blame for Islamic terrorism. If they say no there is no connection, ask them why they blame conservatives for Breivik's isolated action when there have been so many more Islamic terror attacks and acts of Islamic brutality such as female genital mutilation, acid thrown in the face of women who decline mairage,"honor" murders of women, Church burnings, suicide bombings, etc, and of course nearly always repressive Islamic governments all over the world.

  • NoIslam

    how many muslim Breiviks did islam produce with it's unholy scripture?

  • Kevin Stroup

    In the end, the Norwegians are doomed. Breivik is but a mere thread on the grand tapestry of Norwegian history. The Muslims are slowly killing the Norwegians and all they do is navel gaze. Doomed.

  • Tom

    I agree with author. I can’t understand the killer, he should be forever in Prison. Tom from opiniepl.pl blog.