Norway Killer Anders Behring Breivik Demands Medal for Combatting ‘Islamic Colonisation’

Bruno Waterfield, Telegraph (London), February 6, 2012

Anders Behring Breivik smirked and raised his arm in a right-wing salute as he was led in to the Oslo district court on Monday handcuffed and dressed in a dark suit for the final hearing before his trial on April 16.

Breivik read from a prepared statement as he boasted that his killing spree, carried out with a bomb, a rifle and a handgun last year, was a “preventive attack against state traitors” who supported immigration.

“I acknowledge the acts but I plead not guilty. I do not accept imprisonment. I demand to be immediately released,” he said.

“We, the Norwegian resistance movement, will not just stand by while we are made a minority in our own country.”

The 32-year-old Norwegian repeated his admission of carrying out the worst peacetime massacre in Norway’s history but denied criminal responsibility and rejected the authority of the court.

On July 22, 2011, Breivik set off a car bomb outside the government headquarters in Oslo and then travelled, dressed as a police officer, to Utoya island, outside the capital, where he opened fire on a Labour Party youth camp.

About 100 survivors and relatives of victims watched in disbelief during the court hearing, as the killer demanded both his freedom and an official military honour for his attacks.

A psychiatric evaluation last year found Breivik criminally insane but a second review was ordered amid widespread public fury that he could be found mentally ill and sent to psychiatric care. Breivik has refused to cooperate with court psychiatrists.

Unless he is found insane, Breivik faces terror charges, which carry up to 21 years in prison.

The right-wing extremist has claimed he’s a commander of a militant organisation aiming to overthrow European governments and replace them with “patriotic” regimes that would deport Muslim immigrants.

But police have not found any trace of this supposed network of “Knights Templar” and say Breivik carried out the attacks on his own.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7RORAJVG7LJJZECDJIILHJBE7U So CAL Snowman

     Oh please this guy was a “Manchurian Candidate” pure and simple.  His role was to discredit White Nationalists and ALL conservatives as insane, hate filled bigots.  Just another useful tool in the war against White Western Civ. 

    • Anonymous

      Nelson Mandela admitted his guilt in perpetrating the same kind of terrorist acts- and he’s widely considered to be the most beloved man in the world:
      http://worldohistory.blogspot.com/2007/12/church-street-bombing.html 

      Mandela’s actions didn’t “discredit” the ANC. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephanie-Galonska/100000365443540 Stephanie Galonska

      What happened was literally, a day or two after the dhs video showing White Men as ‘terrorists”.  You could very well be right.

      • Anonymous

        I doubt it. Firstly, blaming white people for terrorism and racist violence is something they do constantly. so it’s not really such a coincidence. And is it really so hard to believe that a white person would object to the invasion of their country so strongly that they’d murder a whole lot of the political activists that made that invasion happen?

        I know white people are known for turning the other cheek and being non-violent. But there’s a bell curve, and some white people are capable of violence if pushed far enough (and if they dose themselves with steroids). We shouldn’t be surprised by this.

        The arguments against allowing the invasion of islamic fundamentalists are still just as strong as they ever were. We shouldn’t act like they have been discredited. Our peaceful arguments are as strong and credible as ever.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7RORAJVG7LJJZECDJIILHJBE7U So CAL Snowman

    100% agreement about the possibility of other shooters, I would say there is a near 100% chance that there were other shooters….

  • Anonymous

    Brevik killed 70 odd people in the name of combating multiculturalism. In other words, he did terrible things to combat an evil. It is definitely a setback in the fight against multiculturalism. It will be hard to convince people that being against multiculturalism is not the same as being in line with Brevik.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think it’s a setback. People see the harm of multiculturalism every day. Everyone knows what it’s like to be censored by political correctness when you just want to tell the truth about something. People have sympathy for those like us that just want their right to free speech.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephanie-Galonska/100000365443540 Stephanie Galonska

    The only thing I’m sorry about is his choice of Victims.  Why didn’t he do this to those who breed the fastest?  This, I would like to ask him.

  • Anonymous

    was a “preventive attack against state traitors” who supported immigration.

    The man is obviously a bit crazy but he is not a liar.

    • Anonymous

      If by “a bit crazy” you mean he’s a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, then yeah, I agree with you.

    • Anonymous

      He’s not the slightest bit crazy or schizophrenic. He’s just a bit cold and rational, and a bit juiced with steroids. We don’t agree with his methods, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t come up with them by clear rational thinking. He made a strategic choice that he thought would pay off in the long term. He was aiming to be a kind of Che Guevara figure by the year 2083, and by that time the horror of his actions probably will have worn off and he will be seen as a heroic fighter to aspire to emulate. It does make sense if you look at historical examples.

      I could never go down that path, since it goes against my whole personality, and I am much more at home in the peaceful realm of ideas, but I do not think he was crazy. He may (or may not) have been wrong, but that doesn’t make him schizophrenic.

      Faking schizophrenia to DWLs who can’t comprehend your views is not particularly hard for a cold calculating person.

  • Anonymous

    This reminds me much of Timothy McVeigh. He had a grievance with the ATF and so he bombed a federal building. The irony is that Clinton was getting ready to slash their budget, halving their size, when McVeigh’s bomb sent a panic through the intelligence and national defense community, winning the ATF a $100,000,000 contract. And no one is going to care about your motivation or ideology after you have killed that many children, intentionally or not.

    Violence as a means of self-defense must never be taken off the table. But this man has given the Muslims in Europe and their leftist enablers a story to latch onto, something to bring up each and every time a Muslim commits an appaling outrage. Even if the anti-Muslims commit only one crime for every hundred committed by muslims in Europe, that one crime will always loom larger in the public’s mind, unfortunately.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/7RORAJVG7LJJZECDJIILHJBE7U So CAL Snowman

      McVeigh couldn’t blow his hat off his head if his brains were dynamite…….  Although you are 100% correct about that ATF contract.  All they needed was a sap to pin it on, and they found McVeigh and said, “hey here is a disgruntled ex-army vet that the square community wont care about at all.  In fact we can make him a crazy white nationalist, all the better!”

      • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

        The explosives that did the damage were sophisticated, and were placed inside the Murrah building.  No truck full of animal dung could have done that.  The reason why I’m saying that is that there are a lot of alternate theories running around out there, the trouble with most of them is that they depend on the truck bomb narrative being true.  And that’s why I don’t believe most of the alternate theories.  Obviously, the laughably lame official explanation also ends with the truck bomb.

  • Anonymous

    As much as I dislike and keep my distance from Muslims  and rag-heads, I couldn’t do something like that guy did. Be better to stop them from entering, and the ones in the country already, shun them, isolate them, make them uncomfortable – like they do to us in their country.

  • Anonymous

    Your comment only makes sense if Brevik was a member of some sort of organized group.

    If there was such a group, then sure, parents who are members of Norway’s Labor Party might think twice about involving their kids in party youth meetings. But there isn’t any group.

    Thus, I doubt any parents are losing any sleep. Why would they?

    That’s one of the (many) problems with the “lone wolf” strategy. Such attacks get written off as one time incidents of a crazed lunatic, and then it’s back to business as usual.

    We know there isn’t an organized group behind Brevik because killing children is about the stupidest, most counter-productive thing such a group could do. Any organized revolutionary group has one goal: to win popular support. Killing children is the exact wrong way to do that. Obviously. Condemnation of what Brevik did is almost universal in Norway, just as it is around the world

    And because condemnation of what Brevik did is so universal, I don’t see anything to gain by waffling around on whether what he did was good in any way, shape, or form. The last thing the pro-white movement (or whatever you want to call it) needs is to be associated with someone who massacred scores of children.

    Wash your hands of Brevik and move on. It’s as simple as that. Defending any aspect of what he did is a losing proposition.

    • Anonymous

      He made a point not to kill children. He only killed people he thought were over 16.

      And it is unlikely that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. I have friends who have schizophrenia, and there is no possible way they could do something like this that required years of careful planning. Schizophrenic people get angry about something minor and start arguing about it, then they quickly lose track of which side they were arguing about and start arguing the exact opposite without even noticing. It’s not just delusions, they also can’t think in straight lines anymore. Their brain makes random connections between things that the sufferer perceives as being the result of normal thought.

      I don’t think your strategy is correct. I think we should adopt a “no enemies to the right of us” strategy. We obviously don’t agree with people to the right of us, but we shouldn’t be attacking them either.

      • Marcy Fleming

        Your comments are all BS. Read Dr. Thomas Szasz’s Schizophrenia:The Sacred Symbol Of Psychiatry. There is no such animal.
        This guy is simply a criminal mass murderer.
        End of discussion.

      • Anonymous

        Okay, he killed “teenagers,” not “children.” Is this better to you?

        Your quarrel over whether Brevik is a paranoid schizophrenic is between you and the team of psychiatrists that diagnosed him as one. I’m just reporting the facts.

        Rather than using your own anecdotal experience with schizophrenia as some sort of proof, you should investigate their diagnosis and see if you can disprove it somehow. Check out Brevik’s wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Psychiatric_evaluation). You will find plenty of links to get you started. I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

        Criminally insane or not, he is a mass murderer and we should not want to have anything to do with him.

        Last, your strategy is strange.

        You have a sense of loyalty to a tiny number of people who sympathize with a mass murderer. This loyalty is misplaced because 1) you owe them nothing and their power is insignificant, and 2) it puts you in a position of having to defend losing arguments in favor of what Brevik did against the entire rest of the world that despises him.

        The right question to ask is who elected Brevik to go out and kill 69 people? He doesn’t represent us. We ought to resent him and what he did for making our jobs harder. Contrary to how our enemies like to portray us, there isn’t a large wing of racialists advocating lone wolf acts of mass murder. What Brevik did was confirm a stereotype our enemies use to keep us out of the debate. Thanks dude!

        Again, there is nothing to be gained by defending Brevik, that is, unless your goal is to be hated by as many people as possible.

  • Anonymous

    He’s just highly intelligent. While he claims he has a whole organisation, I strongly doubt it. I think he organised the whole thing slowly and carefully over a few years by himself and then went out and murdered people by himself (with help from some steroids).
    I suspect there is nothing more to this case than what Breivik (aka Andrew Brewick) wrote in his manifesto. He didn’t like what was happening to his country, he fought back and killed a bunch of people, and he got caught.

  • Anonymous

    The explosive was explained in the manifesto. He did a huge amount of research, pretended to be a farmer, got a huge amount of fertiliser, and made a bomb. He’s a high-IQ white man. White people are perfectly capable of basic science.

    White nationalists and those opposed to the Islamic take over of their country are always the target of crackdowns. But we haven’t done anything except tell people the truth, which is supposed to be a basic human right in our countries. We shouldn’t back down one iota, and we shouldn’t stop peacefully telling the truth because of this.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FWMCMK6U5OWRHYIYJAF2TPFL2U thomas

    Che Guevara mass murdered how many in furtherance of his beliefs and he’s celebrated as hero in most of latin america. I’m by no means calling Breivik a hero or defending what he did, but simply want to keep this matter in perspective.

  • Anonymous

    Breivik is a sick, disgusting person who deserves the death penalty.  He deserves no publicity and simply should be put under. Killing innocents (of any race or background) is wrong, and not part of our message. The Norwegians allowing this man to live is a prime example of how weak and spineless their liberal society is. He does not deserve a comfortable room and recreational activities. He deserves a coffin. Traditional justice is effective and should be resurrected. With capital punishment, far fewer people suffer and die. While we’re on the subject of Norway, I would like to mention the new Norwegian series called “Lillyhammer”. It is shown on Netflix and some other outlets. It depicts a Sopranos type gangster who is relocated from New York to Lillehammer. It is something of a risque, dark comedy. The series mildy touches on “youth” crime and Muslim/African immigration. They try very hard to correctly portray violent “youths” as blond haired teenagers, and may briefly pan to a Muslim/African accomplice. Occasionally race realism filters through some of the plots as well. Watch the series to formulate your own opinion. If you have Netflix, there is a way you can leave comments on this and other features. Do leave appropriate comments about this feature to help spread racial awareness. Right now, this feature is popular and your comments will be read by millions. I’m sorry to get off the exact subject, but I always think of ways to help save Scandinavia. Thank you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Fuller/100000350790668 John Fuller

      So that’s your alternative? Leave comments about a show. I can see the people flooding to our side already.

      • Anonymous

        If millions of people will read the comments, yes. Spreading awareness will bring down tyranny. Spread the word by whatever peaceful means necessary. It has worked in the past and will work now. What is your suggestion? Kill innocent people? Ask the Palestinians how that is working for them. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Fuller/100000350790668 John Fuller

    So to all the people condemning this act, what is the alternative? I would really like to know what can be done in the next 25 years, at the most to change things. Is the media all of a sudden going to let up and give us a voice? Are the illegals going to decide to stop coming on their own? Are millions and millions of our people going to wake up all of a sudden and think for themselves? I’m wondering what it is and when its going to happen. Obviously this guy felt he didn’t have a voice in his own country anymore and this was the only way to be heard. Lots of people have heard him now and hes made his point.
    I can just see it. In 150 years a bunch of brown kids are gonna be taught how white people wernt willing to use any means necessary to preserve their culture and that’s why there not around anymore. But hey at least we wernt ever called “terrorists” by the system/media who hates us and is out to destroy us.

    • Anonymous

      What is the alternative to going on a lone wolf-style mass murder spree?

      Pretty much anything will be a better alternative, but to be more precise, the answer is gong to vary depending on where you live. 

      Let’s look at the case of Norway:

      Norway has a population of approx. 5 million people. Recent immigrants to Norway number about 500,000, or 10% of the population. Sounds like a lot, but only about half of that number are immigrants from non-white countries like Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Vietnam and Iran, plus others. So out of a population of 5 million people, my estimate is that there are about 200,000 to 300,000 non-whites living there, around 5%. If anyone knows better, I’m happy to be corrected.

      So if you want to keep Norway Norwegian – or at least white – then what should you do?

      For starters you should work to stop immigration of non-whites into Norway as much as possible.

      How do you best go about this?

      Should you go on a killing spree where you kill the teenaged children of members of the pro-immigration Labour Party?

      Or should you work to support a political party that makes a strong, sane, well-reasoned argument for why Norway should restrict immigration?

      Some argue that electoral politics are hopeless and that anti-immigration parties can’t win.

      Well, that’s certainly not the case in Norway. The second largest political party in Norway, the Progress Party, has a firm anti-immigration position. Together with the ideologically similar Conservative Party, the two right-leaning parties were expected to gain majority support in the 2011 elections. They didn’t. Care to guess why? 

      Way to go, Anders.

      So to answer your question, what’s the alternative to Brevik? Again, the answer will vary on where you live. In Norway’s case – a white country with a relatively small immigrant problem compared to many other white countries – Brevik is a disaster, or at best, a completely unnecessary annoyance.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Fuller/100000350790668 John Fuller

        Wow, its that easy huh? So just “working on stopping immigration to a country” is all it takes? If that’s all it takes why hasn’t it been done then. Oh so the only reason these great patriotic parties of Norway didn’t come to power were because of this guy. Why wernt they already in power? I guess your going to tell us next that all we have to do in America is get a conservative in office and all our woes will be done with.
        You live in a delusional world where you think things in real life are as easy as putting up a comment on a website. But please, entertain me with your strategy for America. I’ll even make it easier for you and give you a 50 year timeline. What can we do in 50 years to make this country a better place for white people?

        • Anonymous

          Based on my understanding of current Norwegian politics there’s no reason why Norway can’t solve its race problems by simply stopping immigration of non-whites into Norway. Norway’s race problems don’t extend much beyond that (otherwise Norway is a whitopia with one of the highest standards of living in the world – higher than the US, in fact). 

          But if you know better what Norway ought to be doing other than changing immigration policy – something which can easily be handled at the ballot box (and almost was in the last election) – please enlighten us.

          As far as the US goes… well that’s a big can of worms, isn’t it? 

          Personally, I think the US is in uncharted territory when it comes to having such large numbers of different ethnic and racial groups sharing a modern, advanced country. Anything could happen, but I doubt it’s going to end well.

          As far as what I think should happen, all I know is that white Americans need to become racially conscious and prepare themselves for the inevitable – that moment in the not so distant future when they will no longer be the demographic majority. Whites in the US are simply not racially conscious enough at the present time to do anything else beyond simply getting their heads out and seeing what’s coming down the road at them very, very soon.

          It kinda goes without saying that “by preparing themselves” I certainly do not mean that whites should go on lone wolf-style mass murder sprees. That would be absolutely the wrong thing to do at this point time or anytime in the near future. 

          And in general I think the lone wolf strategy is pointless. If some sort of resistance struggle is needed in the long run, there are plenty of historical examples which show how to get the job done. I don’t think lone wolf mass murder attacks figure prominently in any of them. It’s a sign of desperation more than anything else.

  • Anonymous

    So basically, what you’re saying is that Brevik was attempting to make the right look so contemptible and bad in the eyes of the general public that followers of mainstream conservative parties will be so hated that they have no choice but go underground and become outlaw revolutionaries.

    It strikes me as a ridiculously weird and convoluted strategy.

    And if I were a conservative in Norway, I would look at Brevik’s desire to see me shut out of electoral politics and say, “Thanks a lot, a-hole! Who made you King of the Conservatives?”

    Look, don’t make this so difficult on yourself. There are plenty of well understood examples of how to stage a successful revolution, if that’s what you want. Go and study them.

    I doubt there have been many successful ones that were based on a strategy of trying to alienate as much of the population as possible.

    • Fr. John+

      Viktor- Breivik was for Israel, Gay rights, and other NEOCON political positions. He is no more a right winger, or a ‘conservative’ than Barney Frank. He was a Manchurian Candidate. And, some would say, he caused God’s will to be done, by eliminating the ‘lineage’ of some of Norway’s most liberal individuals, as God clearly decrees in the pages of the Christian’s O.T.

      That he committed a crime, no one doubts. That he’s not insane, many people believe. That he has caused much confusion, all are agreed upon. But he’s NO conservative.

  • Anonymous

    I’m going to applaud the motive and make a strong “no comment” on the act.

    When pressed about what to do about brutal Muslim invasions, atrocities against our people in our White European homelands – I present the example of Count Dracula -Vlad the Impaler, the deeply respected folk hero of Romania who used the very violent tactics of the Muslims against the Muslim invaders and against those who aided the invaders. To this day, Romanians and Serbs are two groups of people who can be counted on to take a firm line against Turk/Muslim invaders.