Note to Readers:

Summary of Ecology of Peace Problem Solving: The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

[5.0-5.6] Anders Breivik Psychiatric Report 2011-11-29, by Torgeir Husby & Synne Sørheim



[5.0-5.6] Anders Breivik Psychiatric Report 2011-11-29, by Torgeir Husby & Synne Sørheim

Breivik Report | 2011-11-29 | Torgeir Husby & Synne Sørheim

"[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit. Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... The subject says in the conversation that he knows the truth that is hidden from others. He believes that there is a civil war in the country. He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media." 



[Breivik Report :: 1.0-2.4|2.5-2.6|2.7-4.2|5.0-5.6|5.7-5.11|5.12-9.0]



5.0 The subject’s background and testimony

The conversation structure:
When the experts were to start conversations with him, the circumstances were carefully discussed with Ila prison. On behalf of Ila, prison governor Bjarkeid wanted us to make observations through a glass wall. We could not accept this and therefore we were allowed to sit with him in the same room, but with guards present. Ila wanted the conversations to take place in company for safety reasons, fearing hostage situations otherwise, especially regarding the female expert. The experts decided that for many reasons we found it both necessary, advisable and inevitable that the conversations took place with both experts present. This was not an assessment based on the resource situation only (although it took a significant amount of resources to organize the meetings regarding staffing and rooms, etc.) but because we after two meetings realized that we neither intellectually nor emotionally would be able to carry out one-on-one talks. It was a very demanding situation to be in conversation with him and it was necessary for us to switch the focus between actor and observer to be able to carry it out with quality over time. It was also very difficult to stay focused and of vital importance that we could structure this together. It was thus an active professional assessment that the results of the assessment this way would be better as we could talk and observe and complement each other.

We prepared for each meeting independently but based on the agreed topics and could thus reflect on each topic separately.

5.1. The first interview with both experts on 10 August 2011.

Introductory remarks
The first conversation with the subject took place at Ila prison and detention center, where the subject is in custody. The experts met as by appointment and were, as stated above, taken to one of two adjacent rooms, separated by a wall with a window. For security reasons, the prison had decided that the subject was to be placed in one room and the experts in the other.The sound between the rooms was to be transmitted via a PA system.

The experts found this unacceptable and on the basis of professional considerations related to the quality of the forensic psychiatric study, we asked that the decision be changed. This was granted. After an hour of reorganization, the experts met the subject in a large room. There were three conference tables between the experts and the subject, and two prison guards were present during the conversation. The subject showed up in transportation belts with his right hand free. He brought with him a small note and some blank paper.

The conversation lasted for nearly three hours.

The subject shook hands with the experts and was smiling at the beginning of the conversation. He says that he is not informed of the experts’ arrival and that he has not discussed aspects of the forensic psychiatric examination with his lawyer. He is wearing a striped sweater of the brand Lacoste, is well groomed and with a direct, somewhat staring look.

Briefing of the subject
The subject was initially explained the formal aspects of the forensic psychiatric observation. He was informed of the experts’ function for the court and that the experts are not subject to the same confidentiality that normally applies to physicians. He was informed that the experts only investigates information relevant to the assessment of his health condition during the observation period and at the time of the criminal acts, including the risk of future violence. He was also informed that the experts are not investigating the facts of the case, nor assessing the question of guilt.

The subject expressed his understanding and acceptance of this, but did not appear appear significantly interested in these matters. He said however immediately that he assumed that all forensic psychiatrists in the world envied the experts the task of evaluating him. He said with a smile: Of course I know the procedure. The experts asked why he smiled at this. The subject answered: I never thought I would even hear it being said. I know psychology very well. Have studied it for several years. Have worked in sales, it’s the best way.

He then quickly states that he has seven questions the experts have to answer if he is to cooperate in the investigation. He was asked about the background for the need to ask questions to the experts and elaborated: I do not want to contribute to my own character assassination. Multiculturalists see the experts as politically correct. It’s like the psychiatrists after World War II. Ideological bias has the individuals as their lackeys.

The experts explained that answering questions of a personal nature is not compatible with the role of an expert in a criminal case. The subject disagreed completely and said he would find it difficult to cooperate in the investigation if he did not hear the experts’ world view. He said: If you are ideologically on the left, you are biased. He repeated that after the Second World War, dozens of anti-communists were imprisoned.

The experts tried using multiple approaches to reject the subject’s requirements for interviewing the experts before we could proceed. The subject was not responsive to arguments. He continued to mention examples of what happened in Norway after World War II. He mentioned players such as Hamsun, National Samling, Labor and the forced resignation of the Minister of Justice. It was difficult, at times impossible, to follow him and a number of times the experts had to ask him to clarify.

It emerged that the subject believed that he is a threat to the current regime. He added: The powers are oriented in a Marxist direction and after the war they sent the Minister of Justice to the mental asylum. The subject believes that the example is a direct parallel to his own situation.

The subject then started to define our political opponents. He explained that cultural marxists, such as the political parties Rødt and SV, make up 30% of our opponents. Suicidal marxists, the political parties Venstre and Høyre, constitute 65%. This includes the liberalists and they do it because of naiveté. And then we have the global capitalists, they make up about 5%.

The experts asks the subject what questions he wants answered. He looks at a little note he had brought with him and says: There are seven questions. The first one is: What do you think about Hamsun and the justice minister’s forced resignation after the Second World War? The second is: Do you think all national darwinists are psychopaths?

The experts stop the subject and ask for an explanation of the term national darwinist. The subject makes references to the 20′s, and says: The term national darwinist has been used before, in the 20′s, it was a big part of the UK’s way of thinking.

The experts say they are confused about the subject’s terminology. The subject elaborates: A darwinist is a pragmatist. With logical cynicism with regards to political decisions. A political problem can have two approaches, men are pragmatical, logical, while women use emotions to solve the problem. Darwinism looks at man from an animal’s perspective, and act from a dog’s eyes.

The subject goes on to say: One example is when the Americans nuked Japan. They used a pragmatic approach. Better to kill 300 000, but save millions. We believe it is suicidal humanitarianism. The experts want to know who the subject is referring to when he uses the pronoun we. The subject smiles and says: We are the Knights Templar. When asked by the experts, the subject says that he himself has created the concept of suicidal humanitarianism. He adds: There are many vacuums within political analysis, and the term is meant to fill a void.

The experts ask the subject to continue with the series of questions. He says: Question number three is whether you experts believe that the U.S. military command lacks empathy. Question number four: Explain the essential differences between pragmatism and sociopathy. The experts ask what the subject means with the word sociopathy. The subject smiles and says: Isn’t it the same as psychopathy, then?

The subject says that the next questions are of a more personal nature.Question number five: Are you nationalists or internationalists? Number six: Do you support multiculturalism? Number seven: Have any of you had associations with Marxist organizations in your lifetime?

One expert asks how the subject would determine whether we were speaking the truth, if we had answered the questions. The subject smiles, and says: I already know. Thousands of hours of sales has enabled me to predict with 70% probability what the person I’m talking to thinks. So I know that none of you are Marxist-oriented, but both are politically correct, and support multiculturalism. I can not expect more.

The experts ask if the subject guesses or knows what others think. I know, says the subject, that is a big difference.

The subject says that he has read a lot of psychology. He explains: I am accredited 15-16000 hours of study, the equivalent of 9 years of studies. I can differentiate between east-enders and west-enders and assess that by looking at the clothes, make-up, watches and other small details to determine where in Oslo people come from.

The subject says he will accept the experts and concludes by saying: I think I’ve been lucky.

The experts then requests the subject’s consent to collect health information about him from the organizations where he might have received treatment. It appears that, beyond a few contacts with his general practitioner, he has not received treatment, neither from physical nor mental health services.

He agrees that information may be collected about him from XXXXXXXX, which he, without being sure, assumes is the name of the center where he has his family doctor. He says he has consulted his doctor just a few times in recent years because of issues related to difficulty falling asleep, pollen allergy and minor infections. Other than that, he says he has been healthy.

The experts inform the subject that they will look into his family, upbringing and early childhood together with him. He is willing to contribute to this. He is in this part of the conversation generally accurate, but somewhat hesitant and not very enthusiastic. He explains himself distantly, using a formal language, even about personal matters. He speaks coherently and is not visibly tired. In the following, the subject’s own information is reproduced as it was given to the experts.

About his background and family, the subject says that he was born in Oslo, at Aker Hospital. He lived in London for his first year, where his father XXXXXXXXXXXXX. After that he has been living in Oslo. He has a half sister, XXXXXXXX, born in 1973, whom he grew up with.

The subject’s parents were married, but were later separated XXXXXXXXXX. His mother, sister XXXXXXXX, and the subject moved back to an apartment his father owned XXXXXXXXX in Oslo.

The subject says he was first looked after at home by his mother, but that he started in Vigelandsparken kindergarten when his mother started working. He is not sure how old he may have been then, but thinks he was three or four years old when he started kindergarten. He remembers the time in kindergarten as good and mentions that he had a best friend there, XXXXXX.

The subject has never lived permanently with his father. He knows that there was disagreement about where he should live when he was very young and has been told that there was litigation about the care, an issue his mother won. After the divorce, a few years followed where he did not meet his father at all. Later, he visited his father and his new wife during holidays.

About his mother, […]

The subject’s mother was alone with his sister before she met the subject’s father at a gathering of common acquaintances. The subject says: Morally, I do not support. I am not a fan of more than one marriage. Apart from that, he says about his mother: She has been hard-working and has done a good job with XXXXXXXX and me.

In a period from the subject was 12 to 24 years old, his mother had a boyfriend, but the couple never lived together and never married. The subject thinks it was his mother who ended the relationship. The subject says: XXXXXXXX was kind and nice, sort of a substitute father, he worked XXXXXXXX. He moved to XXXXXXXX after it was over with Mom. The experts ask if the subject has had any contact with XXXXXXXX after the relationship with his mother ended. He replies: No. In those phases I had to prioritize financial contacts and business contacts higher than XXXXXXXX.

About his father, […]

[…] then lived several years in Oslo. As the subject understands it, his father met his first wife, XXXXX, in this period. His father had three children with her, all of which are the subject’s half siblings.

[…]

The subject says he has had sporadic contact with all his three half-siblings through his childhood, but has never lived together with any of them. […] In the period from the subject was six to 14 years old, he traveled twelve times to visit his father in France. There he also met XXXXXXXX. He says that he in recent years have largely met his half-siblings on his father’s side in Norway in connection with a joint dinner during the Christmas celebration.

[…]

The subject’s parents were married for a short period around the time of his birth. After the subject’s father divorced his mother, he married his third wife, XXXXXXXX, who the subject describes as his stepmother. […] The subject says that his stepmother helped his father to have contact with the children because the father himself was not socially adapt. The father and XXXXXXXX divorced when the subject was 14 or 15 years old. […]

[…] The subject says he appreciated the step-mother and has had regular contact with her also after the divorce. The subject says that the stepmother was employed as XXXXXXXX after the divorce from his father, […].

The subject’s father XXXXXXXX married his fourth wife, XXXXXXXXX. The subject says that after he turned 16, he has not had regular contact with his father and thinks this is possibly due to the father being unable to forgive an episode where the subject was arrested for tagging. He also believes that from the same age, there were conflicts because the father would not pay a parental contribution to his mother, but he does not know more about this.

[…] He has no further information on the father’s life after all contact between them was broken when the subject was 22 years old.

About his sister XXXXX, the subject says that he has lived with the six-year older half-sister throughout his childhood. Because the age difference between them was so great, they did not have so much to do with each other before they grew up some more. The subject says: She had her mother for herself for six years, so it was probably a transition when I arrived.

The subject says that there was never any trouble with XXXXXXXX when growing up, that he knows about. […]

[…]

The subject started in Vigelandsparken kindergarten when his mother started working. He is not sure how old he may have been then, but thinks he must have been two or three years. He remembers the time there as nice and remembers that he had a best friend. The family consisting of him, his sister XXXXXXXX and his mother, lived in his father’s apartment XXXXXXXX in Oslo until his mother bought an apartment at XXXXXXXX when he was five or six years old. He continued in the same kindergarten until he started school.

The subject does not know about anyone in his family having had or having a mental illness of any kind. When asked, he denies that anyone in his family have ended their lives by suicide, or attempted to do so. He denies having tried to commit suicide himself, or wanting do it now.

Current status by both experts on 10 August 2011
The subject is awake, in clear consciousness, and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically evaluated to be in the normal range. The subject uses numerical values and percentages to a greater extent than is common in regular speech. He uses a technical, unemotional and not very dynamic language in the conversation.

He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, related to issues surrounding his own individual significance and/or his actions.

The subject has lightly glaring eyes and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression and a somewhat rigid body language as he moves very little in the chair during the hours of the conversation.

The subject believes he knows the thoughts of people he is talking to. The phenomenon is considered to be psychotically based, despite the fact that the subject explains he has learned the technique through thousands of hours of sale.

The subject believes he is in a position to set conditions for the experts’ discussions with him. He portrays himself as unique and a focal point for everything that happens, as he believes that all the psychiatrists in the world envy the experts their assignment. He compares his situation with the treason settlement after the war. The phenomena are considered to be an expression of grandiose ideas.

The subject appears to have an unclear identity feeling, as he switches between describing himself in the singular and plural.

The subject uses words he points he has constructed himself, such as national darwinist, suicidal Marxist and suicidal humanitarianism. The phenomenon is considered to be neologisms.

The experts have initially had difficulty in following the subject. In the part of the conversation in which he presents himself, he exhibits his political message and his mission with a slight association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. As the conversation changes topic to biographical information gathering, this is less pronounced but still present, as the subject at a number of occasions drifts from the subject and must be brought back with a question. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.

The subject appears without depressive ideas in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness or thoughts about death. He denies experiencing sadness, joylessness , reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is thus no evidence of depressed mood.

The subject does not exhibit increased psychomotorical tempo or perceived high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax. He has no mind or voice strain. He is affect stable. There is no indication of lack of impulse control, either verbally or physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood.

The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.

The subject appeared without objective evidence of auditory hallucinations. He was not questioned about sensory disturbances. The occurrence of hallucinosis could consequently not be assessed with any quality.

5.2 Second interview by both experts on 12 August 2011

The experts meet the subject, like the last time, in a large room at Ila prison and detention center. The visit was approved by the Norwegian Correctional Services to take place without the use of a glass wall between the subject and the experts. As in the first meeting, there were three conference tables between the experts and the subject and two prison guards were present during the conversation. The subject met in transportation belts, with his right hand free.

The conversation lasted about two and a half hours.

The subject is asked to tell us more about his childhood and says that he went to Vigelandsparken kindergarten until he started school. When asked, he says that he does not know of any concerns about his behavior or development during the time in kindergarten.

He asked if he knows whether there was any evaluation by him at the National Center for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The subject replies that he knows that there was a court case regarding the custody of him between his mother and father, but does not know that there were concerns related to his situation or functioning in that regard.

About his schooling the subject says that he started at Smedstad school at the usual age. He remembers the name of his teacher, and says: Everything was normal until the 5th or 6th grade. Was a favorite of the teachers. Was among the three best in his class, and progressed quickly through the curriculum. Was smart. He confirms to have had friends, and believes that they were four or five who kept together.

From when he was 11, the subject got closer to the friends XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX. He also became close friends with XXXXXXX, a Muslim neighbor in the housing cooperative in which he lived. The subject says: From that age, it became more about forming alliances, to secure a social position. I was a leader from the 3rd class, both intellectually, in ball games, and games like Nintendo. Was among the very best both academically and socially. Asked to elaborate, he explains: Was among the best form to relationships with others, there were several leading figures, but I was the glue in the gang.

The subject says: New groups gradually evolved and things got to be more Darwinian-minded. Alliances that eventually were built happened because of my “efforts”. But I was not the figurehead. Asked about what put him in this role, he explains that it was due to his excellent communication skills.

The subject denies that there were concerns during the time at Smedstad school about his social, academic or behavioral development.

The subject started at Ris Junior High School in the 7th grade. He believes that friendship with XXXXXXXX at this time was bad news and affected him negatively. He said: The school and the teachers were good, but I got into the Hip-Hop environment at school, it was the climax of my rebellious period. We tagged. We did not respect the teachers decisions. The subject says that today, it is pathetic to think about the fact that he acted tough to impress losers. The subject adds that the Hip-Hop-environment is a fundamentally anti-authoritarian and liberal culture, with a direct line to robbers and murderers. It is idealized gangster mentality.

The subject says he was caught tagging on two occasions. The first time was in 1994, when he and two friends tagged at the bus station in Skøyen. This was reported to the police. He was also caught a year later, aged 16, by a railroad underpass at Storo. The incident was filmed by a security company, and reported to the police. The subject says that he realized how serious this was after having a conversation with the police. He decided to stop tagging.

As a consequence of breaking up with his former environment at Ris School, he was no longer friends with XXXXXXXX overnight. He adds: I was also the glue in Hip-Hop gang and XXXXXXXX looked at me as a threat. He was hateful and bitter and took over my network. Had to leave the community in disgrace. When asked how this happened, the subject is unable to give concrete examples.

The subject adds: You learn to be civilized in junior high. It is a sensitive period. Kids are mean and cynical. And the civilizing project begins in junior high. It’s evolution.

The subject says he after this decided to focus more on school. He adds: If I had given it my best, I would have received almost exclusively top grades. But because of the social belonging and an episode where I hit a teacher in the chest, my grades suffered. He believes to remember that he left the school with five Mg, and four G grades.

The subject is asked to tell us what would make him fit to receive special good grades if he had focused on school. He explains: There are hereditary conditions, of course. And what you focus on, you succeed in. The curriculum was easy and I had very good results at school. I could still have been exceptional with a better effort. Lots and lots of top grades, anyway.

The subject applied, and was accepted at Hartvig Nissen high school after completing junior high. He says: It was a huge success socially, but I struggled to catch up with the academics. I attracted many more, met many people who wanted to build networks. The subject does not remember the results of the 1st year of high school, but says: It went well. But people were a bit frivolous and it was a bad academic environment.

The subject says that he was a socially dominant figure in this period and is sure he is remembered in a very positive way from this period. He decided that he would change schools and says: Did not want the liberal teachers from Hartvig Nissen. Wanted discipline, conservative teachers. He therefore started 2. grade at Oslo Handelsgym, general studies. He adds: High School is more civilized.

The experts ask why he uses words such as networking, evolution and civilization when he talks about his own schooling. He says: It is the result of psychology studies. He believes he started studying psychological literature in his early twenties.

When asked to talk about his further education, he says: It was as expected. Tough, and there were cliques then already. Chose to focus on friends from Hartvig Nissen. The subject says he was not a leadership figure at Oslo Handelsgym. He did, however, make some new friends, including XXXXXXXX, whom he says has been his best friend since. He adds, laughingly: At least up to July 22.

The subject says he worked hard at school. He believes he covered the whole curriculum for the second grade in six months and got bored when he started in the 3rd grade. He left school in December 1998. Prior to this the school had reported that he had to improve his attendance. The experts ask what he now thinks about not completing high school. He says: It was an ambitious decision. Had decided that I would never have a boss, I would get rich and start my own company.

The subject has not completed any formal education after this.

About his professional experience, the subject explains that he started at Acta Marketing at the beginning of high school. His job was to book meetings for people with assets over a certain size. They bought lists with phone numbers of people who had more than 500,000 in assets.

He got the job, 17 years old, by a girl he met at the Tusenfryd amusement park. She got me an appointment with her father and he set up a meeting with Acta. The management evaluated my rhetorical skills. I got much better results than 7 years older students. The subject smiles. I quickly became an employee representative in Acta. It can be verified. I was exceptionally good and would raise millions for the business.

The subject says he worked about a year for Acta Dialogue Marketing. He says he quit because he wanted new challenges and had learned all he could learn there. He began as part-time employee in Direct Response Center (DRS) in the middle of the second grade. He did customer service and direct support. As an example of the work he performed at DRS, he mentions calling people on a list in connection with the sale of Mc Music CDs and Riverton book club.

In the autumn of 1998, while he was still a student at Oslo Handelsgym, the subject also had an extra job at Telia. Parallel to this, he started his own company. […] He quit school, and says: I worked back-office from home. The concept was brilliant. While I worked for Telia and was well regarded, I had access to a database of foreigners in Norway. It was A-priority customers, the heaviest customers. I copied the entire database and so we were to call the customers and offer them cheaper calls.

The subject says that the company had thousands of customers, but a conflict developed between me and my partner, XXXXXXXX. He was incompetent. We shut down after one year, it was “break-even.” It was a failure. The subject can not explain specifically what caused the business idea to fail, but says: I learned a lot. When asked to explain what, he says: Do not start a company with people you know. And not without sales experience, psychology and administrative experience.

The subject was asked how he acquired capital for the firm. Needed a minimum of money, he said. We had an office in the basement at home. He adds: I had accumulated 100,000 in 1996 from small jobs and saving hard. Had been watching the stock market since I was 15 and analyzed an IT company when I was 17. Put all my money in options in the company, but the market collapsed in 1996 and I lost everything in a month and 10 days.

The experts ask how it felt for a young boy first to lose so much money and then to shut down his fledgling company. The subject says: Most people say that success must go through several rounds of failed projects, so that was positive in the long term. I worked even harder to build up seed capital again. When you are aiming for a goal, you bang your head against the wall until the wall or your head breaks. Must suffer when you have ambitious goals.

The subject adds: If you know the great financial successes within the visionary directions, one sees such things as ordeals and hardening processes. I got hardened and balanced and this provided a good foundation to become a very good leader. And I learned that I did not have enough knowledge of business and psychology and had to start reading.

The subject explains that he joined DRS again when he was 19 years old. He says: I advanced. Besides the work, he began to study. He studied various subjects, and bought books online at Amazon.com. He says: In two or three years I though about formalizing and accrediting my education. You only need to pass exams in Norwegian, history and social sciences to get a high school diploma after the age of 20. But I let it slide, and so I eventually decided to be ordinated in the Knights Templar instead.

The subject says that totally he has accredited a total of 96,000 study hours while I worked, in addition to writing. Have been working really hard.

About being called in for military service, the subject says that he first received it while he was running his company XXXXXXXX in 1998 and 1999. At this time, his mother was seriously ill and he used caring for her as a reason in an application for delay. After several years of correspondence, he was finally dismissed in 2003. He says he regrets this in retrospect. It would have provided a good knowledge of warfare. Would love to have it. Perhaps the world could have been changed then.

About relationships and girlfriends the subject says that he had several girlfriends from 16 years of age. Not much long-term relationships, maximum six months. There were some girls on Tåsen, around the Berg neighborhood. The subject then begins to speak of other people, key people for him in this environment. The experts ask him again to tell about his girlfriends and the subject says: XXXXXXXX was the name. And I dated XXXXXXXX. And I do not remember the details but got to know XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX it came to dating with them, too. The subject thinks he took at least one of them home on a visit to his mother and that he had his first sexual intercourse during this period.

He denies ever having had sexual experiences with boys or men. He says: The last ten years there has been no opportunity for relationships, due to the ordaining of the Knights Templar. I have not been sexually active after 22 years of age. I regard the body as a temple and will instead focus on long-term relationships.

The conversation is ended, and it is agreed that his employments after he finished, shall be reviewed at a later date.

Status 12/8/11 by both experts
The subject is awake, in clear consciousness and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically assessed to be in the normal range. He uses a technical, non-emotional and not very dynamic language in the conversation, as he describes his upbringing and childhood in terms of networking, alliances, social position, civilization and evolution.

He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, when related to issues surrounding his own individual significance and/or his actions.

The subject has a light glaring look and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression and a somewhat rigid body language as he moves very little in the chair during the hours the conversation lasts.

The subject describes himself through adolescence as having very good communication skills, as a huge success socially, a leader, socially dominant figure, with exceptional skills in the extra work he had in addition to high school. The phenomena are considered as expressions of delusions of grandeur.

The subject uses through the conversation some words in unusual ways, as he talks about the accreditation of education, youth as a civilization project and quitting high school as an ambitious decision.

The subject leaves the topic on several occasions and must be brought back with questions. The phenomenon is understood as a slight association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.

The subject appears without depressive ideas in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness or thoughts about death. He denies experiencing sadness, joylessness, reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is thus no evidence of a depressed mood.

The subject exhibits no increased psychomotor activity or perceived high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax. He has no mind – or voice strain. He is “affektstabil”. There is no evidence of lack of impulse control, either verbally or physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood.

The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.

The subject appeared without objective evidence of auditory hallucinations. He was not questioned about sensory disturbances. The occurrence of hallucinosis could consequently not be assessed with any quality.

5.3 Third interview by both experts on 23 August 2011

Like the last time, the experts meet the subject in a large room at Ila prison and detention center. The Norwegian Correctional Services has approved that the visit takes place without the use of a glass wall between the subject and the experts. As in the first conversation, there were three conference tables between the experts and the subject and two prison guards were present during the conversation. The subject showed up in transportation belts with his right hand free.

The subject greets the experts in a friendly manner and begins by saying: I have read the foundation of psychoanalysis. I work with a lot of experience and have written everything in the compendium. He wonders if the experts have read his manifest and says now do you begin to get a good foundation for my psychoanalysis? The experts explain that our role is to answer the court’s mandate and that this is probably not equivalent to a psychoanalysis, neither in form nor in content.

The conversation lasted for nearly three hours.

About his involvement in political work, the subject says that he joined the youth organization of the Progress Party (FPU) when he was 16 years old. He explains: I was in a bad environment before it, Hip-Hop and concerts at Blitz. Was close to the Norwegian-Pakistani gangster community. I was “the cool potato.” I fasted, and witnessed much of the A and B gang’s activities. Hip-Hop, Blitz, gangs and gangsters, it was a soup, in a way.

The subject says that what he had experienced was low-intensity jihad. It was the Pakistani gangs who took the subway to the western parts of Oslo, robbed, raped, mutilated and went back to the Muslim enclaves in the east. Furuset and Holmlia and places like that.

The experts ask what the subject’s role in this was. His replies: Was never a part of it, but heard about it. And I was present twice when it was “Muslims against Muslims,” but I was not an active part. Was part of the Tåsen community and Muslims came by to its territories. Those were anarcho-jihadists.

The experts ask the subject to explain his terminology. The subject explains: It is from Al Qaeda, the gangster community where anarcho-marxists, which are blitzers, someone who serves the people. The experts still do not understand the terms. The subject elaborates: anarcho- is short for anarchism, it can be anarcho-marxists, anarcho-jihadists, anarcho-nationalists. The subject says he has created the words himself, because they were missing.

The subject then gives a very detailed explanation of how he when he was 15 heard about and partly found himself on the fringes of the communities where these groups were involved in fighting, raping, threatening and making mutual agreements. He emphasizes that he never personally was in contact with the A-and B-gang, but knew people through his friend XXXXX who could mobilize friends from there.

The subject says that this laid the foundation for his political interest, because he saw low-intensity jihad up close, and saw how necessary vigilantes were demonized as Nazis. It was a reprehensible system. A pragmatic approach was needed.

The subject says that everything intensified after the break up with XXXXX. I interpreted it as if he wanted me to convert. He despised everything Norwegian. We had built up a network of contacts and XXXXX began to slander me and wanted to burn the bridges to my network.

The experts ask what specifically happened at the break up between him and XXXXX. The subject says: He lied. And said to a girl that I had said she was ugly. It came to a confrontation, and XXXXX threatened to use violence.

The subject says that this led him to understand the Norwegian values. He joined the FPU and read about the party’s ideology. He adds: Was very much against the PLO. As long as the state is sending money to the PLO, tagging Oslo Tramways can be justified.

The subject says he gradually became more active in the FPU, and at age 19 got to be vice chairman in FPU – Oslo West. He says with a smile that he quickly became known and he is sure that everyone there remembers him from that time.

About his work commitments from 1999, the subject explains that he obtained new capital raised through his second engagement in Direct Response Service (DRS). Almost parallel with this he met XXXXX, he was 15 years older and a brilliant businessman. He became a kind of mentor. I got help with a business plan. He adds: And then I met XXXXX daughter of Marxist XXXXX at that time. She became a capitalist. The subject decided to build a series of outdoor boards in Oslo.

He started the company Media Group, and hired an acquaintance, XXXXX. The friends XXXXX worked with capitalization. They created databases of potential investors, he explains. Many meetings were held with potential investors, but they were unable to obtain capital.

[…]

In this part of the conversation, it is difficult to follow the subject in his reasoning, but it appears that he ran the company for a year, until he was contacted by Media Group and Media Max, companies that wanted to buy the leases the subject’s company had been able organize. He says: They eventually bought XXXXX a kind of compensation, received 150,000 and 50,000, was left with between 100,000 and 300,000 in early 2000. He says that he transferred his company to Media Max.

In the following period, the subject says that he became more active in FPU, and was living off savings from Media Group. He says he had a strict study regime and read the university curriculum for the MBA program in the period from 1999 to 2000. Knew people who were or were to about start the business school BI and then I got the syllabus from them. The books were in English.

The subject believes he has read the curriculum for the title “Bachelor of small business and management”, although he skipped some subjects on the list of required reading he borrowed. He read economics, finance, business psychology, management, sales and marketing strategies.

In the autumn of 2000, the subject went back to working at DRS and says that he became manager of the business department. He also worked actively in the Progress Party’s Frogner department.

In the spring of 2001, he used the accumulated capital, and started a new company, this time with a bike board, where the plan was to get an unemployed academic to ride around the city with billboards mounted on a bicycle. The subject estimates that he spent six months on this and created a prototype in his basement. A board (large advertising poster, experts note) would be attached to a trailer, which then would be attached to a bicycle.

The subject got a contract with Platekompaniet, but failed to build the device solid enough. After only one day of bicycling, the poster was blown off by the wind and hit a lady. The company was shut down and it earned no income.

In the summer of 2001, the subject got a seat in the board of Frogner Progress Party. He decided to pursue a career through the Progress Party. He was elected for two boards, The Supervisory Board for Majorstua nursing homes, and Deputy to the Board at the Uranienborg school. He attended one meeting of the nursing home board, but never at the school board. He did however attend all the events organized by the party, both courses and meetings.

The subject says he spent a lot of energy on building alliances and made a very good impression there. He got to know a lot of people. Salesmen like me tend to do exceptionally well, he adds. The experts ask in what way he did exceptionally well. It was the social bit, the subject says. It was through socialization. Unfortunately, I never got to prove my skills, but everybody noticed that I was exceptionally good in discussions.

The experts ask how the subject noticed that he did such a good impression. The subject smiles and says: A person can say five words and it tells me 2000 words. So I understood. They would have described me as an aspiring young man.

The subject says he was still working for Direct Response Services in the autumn of 2001, in a department called SMT, where he became responsible for Bankia Bank. He says he knew all the people in the company at this time and that one of his superiors, XXXXX, probably would have said of him that he generated a lot of money. His own company was still registered, but it was inactive after the failed bike board project.

The subject says that this fall he was nominated for a seat in the city council. When asked about the process leading up to this, the subject says that he was to be interviewed by the nomination committee. The subject says: I got the support of some, but Gøran Kalmyr was in the picture. I was more popular than him, but ended up on 20th place, I think, or 23rd, and only the top two make it to the list for the municipal election. This was the nomination for the election in 2003.

After this, the subject was unsure whether he would continue his political career. The topics he was interested in, military affairs, immigration and culture, were not as prominent in local politics. I would be a better fit for the parliament group, he says, adding: But I would have had to get my education accredited before any nomination to Parliament. The press requires it.

The experts ask if he wanted to end up higher up in party politics. Most people in politics have ambitions to get into government or become prime minister, the subject says. So I did, of course. Was planning to get into Parliament, possibly in government. If I had worked hard, I would for sure have made it into the city council the next time. But politics was just a side mission. I wanted to see how quickly one could climb. That was not a problem.

The subject says that he at this time had concluded that Europe had to be rescued from a Muslim takeover. He started reading a lot of ideological literature.

In the spring of 2002, the subject gave up his involvement in the Progress Party. He justifies this by saying that he had lost confidence in the democratic processes. At that time I knew so many members of parliament that I realized that the Progress Party would never be in a position to change Norway. The party is edited and it would be impossible to become prime minister through democratic processes, he says.

Unofficially, one can say that it is due to two factors, he says. One. To get in position, you need to be clean. Two. Secret manifestations may evolve. Sleeper seeds or cells. For me there was a progressive build-up of motivation. The tipping point was the NATO invasion of Serbia in April 1999. The story Norwegians know is distorted. There were 5000 jihadists who slaughtered Christians. The media were dominated by Marxists and this has not been emphasized. I thought that next time NATO will bomb us, when we want to deport Muslims. I think something similar will happen in Norway and Oslo.

After he was out of party politics, he began to discuss politics on the Internet. I got to know people online, he says, and joined a network. He adds: I was very ambitious at the time and wanted a leading role. So on May 1st 2002, I was a Norwegian delegate in London at the inaugural meeting of Knights Templar. The subject adds that this is a pan-European parent organization. He says: I decided to save Europe when I was 23 years old. That is to head down a road where it is not easy to turn back.

The subject explains that he had first thought to be a funder for the organization Norwegian Defense League. I made one million before I was 24 years old, he says, and 6 million before I was 26. I wanted to give something back to my people. I decided to devote my life to Norway and Europe.

About his involvement in the organization Knights Templar, the subject says that he discovered it in April 2002. He says: The term or name was not used then. I can not tell you much about it. When asked about what he can tell, the subject says: I got to know individuals through the Internet. This was two or three weeks before the London meeting. Had to subsidize the travel myself. There was a Serb in Liberia. I was to give my proxy vote through him. The subject smiles and laughs loudly. Those were very particular circumstances. I spent three weeks in Liberia. The journey was perhaps a test for me, physically and mentally.

The subject explains that he then went to London and took part in a ritual similar to first degree Freemason rituals here at home.

The subject is asked by the experts if he has also participated in other meetings through the organization. There were two other meetings, he says, before and after Liberia. I wanted to choose the revolutionary road. I was asked. So I went. They wanted delegates from as many countries as possible, and I was selected after trials in debates, discussions, and other trials. I can’t say more than that, he adds.

The subject adds that he regarded the trip to Liberia as an opportunity to shape an ideology. Was trained theoretically by a Serb there. It was theoretical, not physical, revolutionary science. I prepared for the meeting in London.

The conversation ended with agreement to continue the topic later.

Current status by both experts on 23 August 2011
The subject is awake, in clear consciousness and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically assessed to be in the normal range. The subject uses numbers and values to a greater extent than is common in normal speech. He uses a technical, unemotional and not very dynamic language in the conversation.

He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, when related to issues concerning his own individual significance and/or his actions.

The subject has a light glaring look and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression, and a somewhat rigid body language as he moves very little in the chair during the hours the conversation lasts.

The subject believes to know what people he is talking to think about, as he believes to know how former peers from the Progress Party would characterize him now. The phenomenon is considered to be psychotically based.

The subject believes to have been close to a number of known and disputed and/or criminal gangs in adolescence. He mentions both the Hip-hop community, the A- and B-gang, the Blitz community and the Tåsen community. When asked to give examples, he is vague, but quickly makes the generalization that what he had experienced was low-intensity jihad.

Similarly, he believes that the example where his former friend XXXXX allegedly said erroneously to a girl that the subject thought she was ugly made him understand the Norwegian values. The subject is by this assessed to be giving personal, private and trivial matters a general political importance.

The subject refers to the entire Norwegian population as my people. He believes he in 1999 needed only a year to read the entire curriculum for the MBA program, and did exceptionally well in the Progress Party. The phenomena are considered as expressions of delusions of grandeur.

The subject has constructed the words anarcho-marxists, anarcho-jihadists and anarcho-nationalists because he believes those terms were missing in the language. The phenomenon is considered to be neologisms.

The subject appears to have an unclear identity feeling, as he switches between describing himself in the singular and plural.

The experts have initially had difficulty in following the subject. In parts of the conversation, he is exhibiting a moderate association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.

During the interview, the subject expresses thoughts about the Progress Party being edited and the story of the invasion of Serbia distorted by the media. The phenomena are considered to be paranoid delusions.

During the conversation, the subject says he participated in meetings in Liberia and London in 2002, having been asked to come to the meetings as a delegate from Norway. He appears to be covering up and secretive when asked to describe the meetings. The same is true when he is asked to explain how he communicated with the other meeting participants in advance. The phenomena are considered as possibly self-deluding or as auditory hallucinations.

The subject appears without depressive ideas in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness or thoughts about his own death by suicide. He denies to have experienced sadness, joylessness, reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is therefore no indication of a depressed mood.

The subject does not exhibit increased psychomotorical tempo or perceived high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax. He has no mind – or voice strain. He is “affect stable”. There is no evidence of lack of impulse control, either verbally or physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood. The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.

5.4 Fourth interview by both experts on 25 August 2011

Like the last time, the experts meet the subject in a large room at Ila prison and detention center. The Norwegian Correctional Services has approved that the visit take place without the use of a glass wall between the subject and the experts. As in the first conversation, there were three conference tables between the experts and the subject, and two prison guards were present during the conversation. The subject showed up in transportation belts with his right hand free.

The conversation lasted for nearly three hours.

The subject initiated the conversation by saying that he wanted to explain the radicalization process better. He had been thinking about the topics that were brought up during the last conversation and wanted to elaborate on these. Originally, the agreement was that the conversation was to address the the subject’s future practical life, but the subject felt he needed to elaborate on other topics. This was granted.

The subject was very excited during this conversation, verbose and smiling. He had to be significantly structured, so that the experts could understand how the various topics were related. He explained:

At Ris School there was a victim of bullying, XXXXX. I used my social capital to protect him. I confronted the bullies, threatened them, I acted on my conscience, then as I do now.

The basis of the operation is that I am a prisoner of conscience, I can not sit and watch as we are losing our country. My people and their civilization are destroyed and I can not be looking at that. We, and I, are driven by conscience and love, not hate.


The experts request an elaboration of the term the operation. The subject says he is using the term about the events with the bomb by the Government buildings and the shooting at Utøya island on July 22, 2011.

It was like with XXXXX when my power was known, from the 9th grade. The higher grade wanted to attempt to humiliate us, but tried to stir up a fight, but I was central and fought for our grade. I was in the ring long enough to make the higher grade respect me and my power.

The experts ask the subject to explain how others could feel his power at that time. I had to take responsibility, the subject says. It was probably the value of the network that was most important and I had dominated the higher grade. It is in junior high you learn the honor codes, “don’t get angry, get even!”

Another factor the subject believes contributed to his radicalization process, is that he is a guy who get upset about things and with great knowledge of communication. And I can learn from physical and mental lows. It is a condition for becoming a good leader, he says.

A third factor the subject believes contributed to his radicalization process is that he was involved in eight clashes and also heard of 18 friends and friends of friends who were harassed and raped by Muslims in Oslo. He says: The view on political Islam changed as a result of my meetings with Islamic culture. He corrects himself and says: Maybe there were as many as 60 cases where I or acquaintances were victims of Islam in Norway. He adds: My information curve went up.

The subject further says that starting from when he was 22 years old, he studied political science at the on the Internet. It taught me about the demographic threat, he says. There is a war between Christians and Muslims and Islam is trying to take over.

He also believes that he was an entrepreneur at an early age and got to experience the bad treatment entrepreneurs are given by the Marxists in Norway.

He has also developed contempt for Marxist system failures, as in the Norwegian school. He saw a lack of morality and sexual anarchy, which also contributed to his radicalization. As an example of this he mentions XXXXXXXXXXXX. It was a direct result of the Marxist, sexual revolution.

He adds: In Scandinavia, England and Germany, women have too many sexual partners. All women become whores. I want to change Europe. Want to implement standards closer to Islam with regard to sexual morality.

Yet another factor the subject believed had contributed to the radicalization process he calls matriarchy. I have despised feminism since 2002, he says. It leads to dysfunctional families, and destruction of the nuclear family. The Marxist revolution is to blame. I grew up with two women, he adds, and it was a very feminist family.

The collectivist society and the anti-elitist attitudes also radicalized me, he says. I’m an individualist. Altogether, this led to me on May 1 2002 to decide to take the revolutionary road. I had understood that the media would prevent the Progress Party getting into power and I gave up democracy.

About his current role, the subject says: I am a leader through my compendium. It will be an ideological Wikipedia. It consists of a historical part, an ideological part and a military part. In addition, it has personal photos. The subject says that there is a picture of him, his mother, and his sister in the rear of the compendium. It is a shining symbol of success in the socioeconomic area, he adds.

The experts ask whether he has become a good leader now. I am a leader who is a beacon. With our French brothers, there is a language barrier, but I have worked with British nationalists, which is why the manifest is in English. Utøya island and the government building was all about publishing the manifest, to reach the 350,000 militant nationalists who are the audience. It will help the British to gain power in the UK.

The subject goes on to say: I am a leader in terms of being an ideologue. History will tell whether I will be recognized. The main objective is to distribute revolutionary literature. And everybody who has published a theory which is followed is a leader.

The experts ask if the subject’s leadership started even before 22 July 2011. The subject says: Not a conventional leadership, with the exception of two other cells. We have set up a special organizational structure.

The experts have difficulty understanding what the subject means and ask for an explanation. After the ritual one becomes Knight Chief Justice, “Man of law”, he says. It is a constructed concept. Can not take credit for everything, but I made that myself. A Commander is a man carrying an operation on his own shoulders. One must have professional qualifications.

About the Knights Templar, the subject says that it is a military order, which finances, plans, and conducts operations. He says that the organization was formed on ordination meeting where he attended in London in 2002. We were 12 people there, he says, from all over Europe. The basis for the organization is recruitment and it happens via the Internet.

The subject says that the inaugural meeting was in London and he arrived as the proxy for the one from Liberia. I met three or four people in London. The ritual was rather disappointing, but it was a proper ordination and delegates from several countries, even if I only had access to three other people. He corrects himself to that they were four people who together created a strategy. Everything happened in one day and he vowed to change Europe.

The subject smiles: From now on, all it takes is access to the compendium, he says. If you read it from the first word to the end, you will be radicalized. The manifest is both a tool and an application. The entire standard difficult recruitment process is being replaced. This is much more effective because the compendium is structured so that you are automatically radicalized.

When I left the meeting I knew I might have to take lives, he says. In advance, I had become convinced that Norway had to be overthrown with violence, the mother of all changes. If we do not save the European civilization, it will be overthrown and collapse. I had to help save the country.

Asked to tell what will happen if he had not intervened, the subject says: We would have lost enclave by enclave. Everybody in Oslo West would have to move to Bærum first, then down to Vestfold. So there would be violence and murder of everybody, and the Christians would be exterminated.

The subject says he received 60 pages of written documentation at the inaugural meeting in London. The rest of the compendium is my interpretation of what I have learned and been through. And then you can be Commander by having others under you in other ways, such as giving tombs to the martyrs. Logistics is important. We have to arrange practical things around the fallen martyrs.

The subject is asked how he sees the development of the ideology he presents in his compendium after 22 July 2011. He says: We shall not execute civilian brethren, but many civilians will die anyway. The purpose is to take power, but it must be done in consultation with the police. The subject explains that a civilian is someone who is not a political activist. He regards political activists as legitimate targets.

The subject says he is unsure how the operation will be reviewed by his peers. Mistakes will be made, he says, in the choice of time, place, and targets for our operations. Because of that, short-term, ideological disasters may occur.

In our organization, a person can become a one man army. I am a dedicated, independent, organizational cell unit. Single-cells do not cooperate with other cells. What is unique about us is that we focus only on single-cell operators.

The experts ask how his cell was activated. The subject responds: The commander in England said: “I want you to activate now.” The experts ask how and when this message was given to him. The subject smiles and says: I’ve already said too much.

The subject says he will explain more about the ordination process. One sacrifices a life of freedom for a life of suffering, he says. I swore an oath that I would dedicate my life to the struggle. At first I was planning to be a funder and we encourage that each person chooses how to carry out the battle. There is no support, either vertical or horizontal. Do not want to involve others.

The experts ask how the subject received his orders to turn activate his cell. The subject responds: I could have tried to hide that I was given an order, he said. But it is pure pragmatism to tell.

The experts ask who the subject is referring to when he uses the pronoun we. It is the 120 million supporters in Europe, he says. 15% of the population. Sometimes it is used on the Knights Templar, or I refer to the three in Norway.

The experts ask the subject if he has ever used thought transfer or telepathy to communicate with his peers. The subject laughs. It does not exist, he says.We are using technology. We communicate with the technology that makes it possible to mask IP addresses. There is such technology in the United States. It can not be traced.

The experts ask if the subject has ever heard voices. The subject laughs aloud, and denies this. But the codes in the compendium are found, I’ve heard, he says. The encryption is conventional. It is therefore only a limited method of communication. But one must have a scheme and a corresponding encoding scheme. So the codes are easy to crack and are not much used by us.

The experts ask again if the subject can explain how his own single cell organization was activated. The subject says: Well, I must say that it may have happened by enabling myself, for example one minute before, or it can not be ruled out that someone from abroad activated me, for example, three months before. The subject smiles mysteriously. I cannot let you know this, he adds.

About the organization Knights Templar in Norway, the subject says that it consists of three people. We have a strategy ready to come to power, he says laughing. I look at the stage I’m in now as part three and the operation is not over for me. Our brothers will take power in 15 years and so we can plan a coup d’etat.

The experts ask what has qualified the subject to take power in Norway. He says: It is my 15,000 study hours. The goal is to take over Western Europe. The subject becomes very enthusiastic, saying: A guardian council shall be established with national sovereignty. The Guardian Council will reverse the damage that has happened to our country. National commanders will recognize me as an ideological leader and one option is that I will be the new regent in Norway.

The conversation is ended and there is consensus that we will come back to this topic.

Current status by both experts on 25 August 2011 
The subject is awake, in clear consciousness and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically assessed to be in the normal range. The subject uses numerical values to a greater degree than is common in speech. He uses in the conversation a technical, non-emotional, and not very dynamic language.

He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, when related to issues concerning his own individual significance and/or his actions.

The subject has a light glaring look and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression and a somewhat rigid body language as he moves very little in the chair during the hours the conversation lasts.

The subject gives detailed information about what he calls his own radicalization process. To explain why he chose the revolutionary path, he mentions among other things an experience of a fight in the schoolyard during junior high school, the fact that he heard about a number of friends and acquaintances who were harassed and raped by Muslims, XXXXXXXXXXXX and that he grew up with his mother and sister. The subject is by this considered to attribute great political significance to personal, private and trivial matters.

The subject presents the idea that if he and his organization do not intervene, everybody living in Oslo West is threatened by violence and murder. He believes that all Christians will be destroyed and must evacuate to Vestfold. He believes that civilization is about to go bust. The symptoms are considered to be paranoid delusions.

The subject refers to the population of Norway as my people. He believes that the compendium he has written is of such a quality that anyone who reads it will automatically be radicalized. The subject believes that he shall change Europe and save society from ruin. He wants to be either the leader, or the new regent in Norway. The phenomena are considered as expressions of delusions of grandeur.

The subject has constructed the words Knight Chief Justice and domination, because he believes that the terms were missing in the language. The phenomenon is considered to be neologisms.

The subject appears to have an unclear identity feeling, as he switches between describing himself in the singular and plural.

The experts have occasionally had difficulty in following the subject. He exhibits in parts of the conversation to have a moderate association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.

The subject appeared without objective evidence of auditory hallucinations. He denied hearing voices, or having experienced telepathy. He says however that he received an order from the commander in England who said: I want you to activate now. He appears smiling, covered and secretive when asked to elaborate on this. He describes contact with peers through technology that can not be traced. The phenomena are considered as possible self delusions or auditory hallucinations.

The subject describes in the conversation that many people, both legitimate targets and civilians, will perish. He believes that Norway must be overthrown by violence. The phenomena are considered to be extensive thoughts of violence and killing.

The subject appears without depressive thoughts in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness or thoughts about his own death by suicide. He denies experiencing sadness, joylessness, reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is thus no evidence of a depressed mood.

The subject does not exhibit increased psychomotorical tempo or perceived, high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax. He has no mind or voice strain. He is “affect stable”. There is no evidence of lack of impulse control, neither verbally nor physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood.

The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.

5.5 Fifth interview by both experts on 30 August 2011

Like the last time, the experts meet the subject in a large room at Ila prison and detention center. The Norwegian Correctional Services has approved that the visit take place without a glass wall between the subject and the experts. As in the first conversation, there were three conference tables between the experts and the subject and two prison guards were present during the conversation. The subject showed up in transportation belts with his right hand free.

The conversation lasted for nearly three hours.

It is agreed that the topic of conversation will revolve around the spring of 2002, since we left the collection of anamnestic data at that time during the third conversation. The subject was willing to do so.

Throughout the conversation it turned out that the subject constantly had to be helped to keep to a chronological presentation, as he would otherwise very quickly start talking about Knights Templar and his compendium. When he talks about topics from his compendium or the Knights Templar, the subject is stimulated, with blushing, fast and verbose speech, frequent smiles and easy laughter. The subject is not so interested in other topics.

About the spring of 2002, when the subject was 22 years old, he says: This was the end of my immoral period. I took a settlement with my life and my sexual morality and began to go in another direction. I decided to go in another direction and use my future capital to stop the islamization of Europe.

The subject says he decided to make 30 millions to fund the cause. I realized that no one else would take responsibility and took the lead. Revolution starts with one step.

The subject says he made his first million one year after the decision to stop feeding my own ego. I wanted to save Europe. I changed at the time. After so many years of hardening in business, I was ready to get positive results. I had undergone a remarkable development, both intellectually and in terms of knowledge.

About the autumn of 2002, the subject says that he started a new company on his own. The experts ask if his future, economic earnings were reflected in his tax records. No, the subject says. At the end of 2002, I ran the company “e-commerce group.” The money was generated in the U.S. and the Bahamas, on anonymous debit cards. It was already decided that I would use the money for moral work.

At that time, the subject lived with friends XXXXXXXX in Oslo, where he had a home office. The company was created while he was working for DRS and was involved in outsourcing of software services. He says that he does not remember exactly when he left DRS/SMT, but thinks it must have been around this time.

Over the New Year in 2003, the subject moved to XXXXX where he lived in a two-room apartment by himself. It was a “best location”, he says, had a good time as bachelor as close to Bogstadveien street as I could be. It was a social transit place, where all the friends from Oslo West kept stopping by. The subject says he had a Polish cleaner for the first years in XXXXX, but that his mother cleaned for him the last year before he moved back home to her in 2006.

The subject says that he hired a person in his company here in Norway, but that he can not say his name because he was paid in cash. In addition, the subject says that he eventually hired more programmers in Indonesia, had two employees in Romania and two or three employees in Russia. The subject said these were employed in 2003 and 2004.

About this period, the subject says that one of his employees was really good at programming, he showed me a lot. I studied IT and language and there was plenty to pay attention to. He says: The business concept of “e-commerce group” was to provide online services where you could find programmers in low cost countries.

The experts ask how he got assignments for the firm. The subject says he used search engines with keywords. “Search engine optimization”, he adds.You can program homepages so that they will be listed at the top of search pages. The experts do not fully understand how this generated jobs for his company. I came in contact with the customer, he says, adding: I did not program, the others did the work. I sold the employees’ intellectual capital and was left with the profits. I delegated as much as possible. As the workload increased, I hired more people.

The subject adds that he was humble in the beginning. I thought, okay, I’ll get 30 million before I’m 30. A family would be irresponsible, I would “betray” all. Let’s say that Labor began moving all Muslims to the West End, should I move to Bærum then, and be a coward?

The subject says that in the period 2002 to 2006, he only had thoughts of being a funder of Knights Templar and the struggle. He adds: It was not until 2007 that I decided to become a martyr.

In the years I lived in XXXXX, I was also into aggressive ‘trading’ of stocks, the subject says. Two million were channeled and released, but I lost a million or two, put a lot of eggs in one basket. The goal was 30 million. But I realized after the loss that I would not achieve the goal of the 30 million, so I gave up my plan A, which was to finance the organization Knights Templar. I began to despise the whole “game”.

The subject says that in the period from 2003 to 2006, he made an insane amount of money and got as many women I wanted. When I was 24, I had earned 1 million and when I was 26 years, I had earned 6 million. He spent the money in Norway, using anonymous debit cards. When asked, the subject believes that he channeled and spent about three millions in Norway.

The subject says that in this period he worked long hours, partied a lot and did some traveling. He describes having a good relationship with his mother, his half siblings and his sister XXXXX. He wrote essays, participated in online discussions and practiced writing from scratch. The subject adds: I wanted to be the perfect knight and the aim was to contribute to Knights Templar.

The subject says he gradually withdrew from the “game” and put less emphasis on his social life. In 2006, he found out that the annual 144,000 it cost him to live in a two-room apartment was not worth it and decided to move home to his mother XXXXXXXXXXX in Oslo.

The experts ask again how his tax records from this period look like. The subject responds: I did not take out a salary. It does not look like I earned much. I had finished the project in 2006, it was not going well enough anymore and it went bankrupt. I had to lay off the employees.

The experts wonder if some of the six million earned are still unused. I think there was one account in the Bahamas and three in Antigua. Do not quite remember. There were two million in the bank in Antigua when I finished. They are all spent now. I used 700,000 to finance the operation.

The subject says that he spent largest amount of money in the period from 2007 onwards when he wrote his compendium. He says: It cost two million. It went to living expenses for four years. I took out money from Antigua to live, so there is nothing left of the money anymore.

The subject moved home to his mother in 2006. The idea of martyrdom was born when I moved back home to my mother, the subject says, but it was put on hold for a year because I wanted to give myself a martyrdom gift, and play World of Warcraft (WoW) for a year first.

The subject explains that he compared it with someone deciding to take a break from the career to take a year off sailing. (WoW is a role play where the player by connecting to a server, is participating in an online game with communication with other players, expert’s note)

The subject had already begun to play a year before, while living in XXXXX. For one year he played 10 to 12 hours a day. He turned the day around, playing at night. He says: I was in one of Europe’s top “guilds”, he says. (Fellowship or group of players, expert’s note). The subject adds: I got tremendous experience in the course of that year. I learned about information, logistics, distribution of work.

The subject says: Headhunting to recruit the right people to “guilds” was a big job. He participated in several guilds and says he had a leadership role in all. The subject smiles. We were of course the best, he says, everything I touch becomes the best.

The subject says he stopped playing full time in February 2007. At this time, he was living in his bedroom at home with his mother. He stopped playing because he began to write. In addition, it took more and more time to be online to seek information and to read what others wrote on blogs and websites.

The subject says that he informed his mother that he was not at work because he was writing a book about European conservatism. The subject says that he did not reveal to his mother that he was working on organizing a military takeover of Europe. The book was initially also moderate. The subject says that he in the period 2007 to 2009 stepped down his social life to a natural, pragmatic closing. Had to ensure “secrecy” and tried to create a “cover” by saying I was playing.

The subject estimates that he was into 25 to 30 sites where there were political discussion activity at this time. He smiles and says: Got to be an expert in argumentation techniques against Islam at this time. He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored.

In the period from February 2007 to November 2009, the subject spent most of his waking hours writing. He says: That was the writing phase. I still played WoW, but a lot less. I had a very good relationship with my mother. We ate together, there was otherwise little contact. Spent most of my time in my room. What I wrote was becoming increasingly politically incorrect.

The subject says that he already in 2002 had vowed to live for the struggle, but for a long time it was unclear in what form this should happen. Around the time of moving to mother, the idea was reinforced. The subject smiles. Plan B became Plan A in 2007. I started the book and eventually realized I had to become an activist, not a funder.

The experts ask what the subject means by the word activist. The subject responds by that he means planning and carrying out executions. He adds: This is not the same as murder, as you say. I completely disagree. When the compendium was almost completed in 2009, the thoughts emerged that it is necessary. This is why the military part of the compendium is written last.

About his compendium, the subject says that he from 2007 wrote Part 1: History and Part 2: Ideology first. Part 3, military section was written last and the operational part, with a description of the operation, after that again. The plan about necessary executions emerged as I wrote in 2009, he says.

The subject talks enthusiastically and quickly. The truth of the victors after World War II was to be known. Everything should be documented. When I started, the perspective was not decided, but I would find the truth. About 30% of the compendium is “cut and paste”. The hidden part of the history was to be documented.

The subject says: The work is outstanding. Our, the crusader nationalist version, the real truth. The only real alternative to National Socialism. We, the revolutionary order, will take over Western Europe during a 60-year period. The work is the first step, a groundbreaking start. It can not be read without the reader being radicalized.

The subject continues: Our entrance, with new history and new ideology. The experts ask who the subject is referring to when using the pronoun we. He responds: I – we, it’s the same. Knights Templar, the revolutionary order.

The experts ask how the subject was in contact with other members of Knights Templar while working on the book. The subject looks down. Will not say who or where, he says. When it comes to those who are ordained, I can not talk about or name them. I got 60 pages of documentation at the meeting in London and later there has been minimal contact. They have contributed a minimum.

The experts say that the use of the term we is unusual, if it is true that the subject has largely been alone on the work. The subject can not explain this, but continues to speak using the we form.

The subject maintains that he in all the years since 2002 have had extensive communication with others over the Internet. He denies that what he read on blogs, discussion forums and games was directly aimed at him and adds: No, it was beyond their mandate.

He says he has received something in code, but it has been less than 1% of the time I had to decode material on the net. The subject smiles and adds:The police are so interested in it. You can believe what you want. It was not up to me to interpret it, not to invent it. The subject goes on to say: Important things within the Knights Templar are coded, but we use a very primitive method. Mostly we used safer technology, such as encryption on servers.

The experts ask the subject to explain why he said it was his martyrdom gift to play WoW for one year. The subject smiles. It was only half clear at the time that I would become a martyr, he said. The civil war had to wait, I’m probably pretty selfish. But it will come and we expect to take power in Europe, he says.

The conversation is ended.

Current status by both experts on 30 August 2011
The subject is awake, in clear consciousness and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically assessed to be in the normal range. The subject uses numerical values to a greater degree than is common in speech. He uses in the conversation a technical, non-emotional, and not very dynamic language.

He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, when related to issues concerning his own individual significance and/or his actions.

The subject has a light glaring look and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression and a somewhat rigid body language as he moves very little in the chair during the hours the conversation lasts.

The subject claims to be the perfect knight, who will save Europe. He claims to have been among Europe’s best online players. He considers his previous engagements in various business ventures to have made insane amounts of money, although this did not appear from his tax records. He claims he was having a number of employees in his companies, even though he can not name them. The companies were closed down and went bankrupt. The ideas are considered as grandiose delusions.

In addition he exhibits a wealth of psychotic delusions of a grandiose nature, exemplified by the ideas of his own sovereignty related to his written work and the work’s overall impact on a future civil war and the seizure of power in Europe.

The subject says he has been searching for the truth about the time after the Second World War, which he believes is concealed. The ideas are considered to be paranoid delusions.

The subject uses the term martyrdom gift. The phenomenon is considered as neologisms. The subject uses English words and phrases. Examples include trading, betray, secrecy and cover. The terms are related to the subject’s experienced identity as an expert, as well as a financial and commercial success.

The subject appears to have an unclear identity perception, as he switches between describing himself in the singular and plural.

The experts have occasionally had difficulty in following the subject. He exhibits in parts of the conversation to have a moderate association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.

The subject appeared without objective evidence of auditory hallucinations. He denied hearing voices or having experienced telepathy. The subject denies receiving messages through the Internet directly aimed at him, but confirmed to have had extensive communication with others through technology that can not be traced. He confirms to have interpreted codes. The phenomena are considered as possible self delusions or auditory hallucinations.

The subject describes in the conversation that he since 2009 has seen himself as an activist, who plans and carries out executions. The phenomena are considered to be extensive thoughts of violence and killing.

The subject appears without depressive thoughts in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness or thoughts about his own death by suicide. He denies to have experienced sadness, joylessness, reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is therefore no indication of a depressed mood.

The subject does not exhibit increased psychomotor tempo or perceived high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax.

He has no mind or voice strain. He is “affect stable”. There is no evidence of lack of impulse control, neither verbally nor physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood.

The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.

5.6 Sixth interview with both experts on 1 September 2011

Like the last time, the experts meet the subject in a large room at Ila prison and detention center. The Norwegian Correctional Services have approved that the visit take place without a glass wall between the subject and the experts. As in the first conversation, there were three conference tables between the experts and the subject and two prison guards were present during the conversation. The subject showed up in transportation belts with his right hand free.

The conversation lasted for nearly three hours.

The experts initially ask how the subject is doing now. He answers: Battle morale is at 30% now. It was 100% before the operation. The subject has made the scale himself. He reports that 0% is indifference, 10% is unlivable, 20% is OK, 50% is the upper limit of fighting morale in the prison, and 60% are days when one is a bit demotivated in freedom. It is my personal measuring scale.

When asked, the subject denies feeling gloomy, weak, depressed, sad, regretful, self-blaming, ashamed or worried. He does not experience lack of initiative or lack of joy. He has not had and does not have thoughts about wanting to end his life or harm himself. You misunderstand, he says. The scale is all about fighting morale in relation to our revolutionary way. I’m doing fine. The use of such adjectives as you mention are not used. It does not work.

The experts then ask which variables in him change when fighting morale goes down. He replies: It’s the serotonin level. Dipping tobacco, smoke and contact with a PC increases the serotonin level. And I’m looking at phase 3, the trial, as an important motivation for my future life.

The experts ask if the subject can describe some feelings that he had in the period where the fighting morale dropped to 10%, which he says is the lowest level it has ever had. He says: I never reached the apathy limit.

Despite repeated questions from the experts, the subject is unable to find terms that could describe his emotions at that time, or now. He is also unable, even after repeated questions, to identify concepts that could describe his emotions in the days before the criminal acts. The subject answers all questions of that nature by referring to strategy, morale and reward systems.

The subject says however that long-term research has shown that one can keep morale up by using smoke, dipping tobacco, music, candy, good food and coffee. The best candies are “Krokodiller” and “Heksehyl”. It is also good for the revolutionary fighting morale to watch your favorite series on TV.

The experts say that this sounds like fairly normal stimuli for most people. The subject says: No, this is a military strategy in single cell structures. It is an essential part of the single cell – reward system in revolutionary science. When you are active so long as a dormant cell, you can not engage in pep-talks. I have used the system during the last four years. New military strategies open a need for new reward systems.

The subject says he has tested the system on himself. He is asked for examples, and says: Used an iPod when I went for a walk. By listening to ideological songs I got motivation. He adds: During the first period in prison I had nothing, not even candy, and my serotonin level dropped.

The subject says he has used the reward system over many years. In practice, I had no one to talk to, he says. After the ordination, everything had to be done by myself alone.

The experts ask the subject if he has ever used drugs. No, I have never used drugs, he replies, with one exception, I have used marijuana twice in total. Both times when I was using steroids in 2010.

The subject denies having ever used the drugs amphetamine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, GHB, or any kind of addictive drugs. He has had a moderate consumption of alcohol, with few intakes over the recent years.

The subject himself adds: I have used the energy drink “Red Bull” and also eaten “ECA stack” pills a total of five times in my life. Three of the pills I took two weeks before the operation on 22 July 2011, and then I took a pill the same day as the operation took place, maybe 30 minutes before. The subject explains to the experts that “ECA” is a mixture of ephedrine, caffeine and aspirin. I ordered the components and made it myself. Use it to improve performance and stay awake.

The subject says that he has used anabolic steroids a few times in his life. The subject says he had his very first experience with steroids when he was 20 years old. It was a short cure, he says, and I did not repeat it later.

The last two years he has used a total of three steroid cycles. I wanted to build strength and speed, he says.

The first cycle was from February to May 2010, the subject explains. He says he only used steroids and that he gained about 7 kg.

The second cycle was from December 2010 to February 2011, he says. He used the drug Winstrol. He gained about seven kilograms also this time. The subject says he trained a lot in parallel with this, trained hard and got bigger.

The third cycle was from 27 April to 15 June, when the subject says he took four Dianabol pills daily. It is muscle-building, he says. The subject says that from 15 June to 22 July, he took a total of five pills daily with Stanozolol, which is sold as Winstrol. Winstrol preserves muscle mass, he says.

I took them, and I trained because I was planning to become a one man army, he says. We are really against using steroids, but it is allowed as a military strategy, the subject adds.

At this point in the conversation, the subject starts saying that if Labor had changed its immigration policy in time, his operation in Norway would not have been necessary. Then we would have helped our Swedish brothers instead, he says. The experts ask what the help would have consisted of in that case. There are, as in Norway, major problems with robberies and rapes. So an operation there has to be adapted to the local conditions, he says.

The experts agree with the subject to attempt to complete the collection of anamnestic data. The subject consents to this, and the topic of our Nordic brothers is thereby abandoned.

About the year 2009, the subject explains that he completed his compendium in November. He says: I tried to get the more moderate essays published, but I had no publisher. I sent a couple of essays to the newspaper Aftenposten, but they were not accepted. I told my mom and friends that I was on tour to get publicity for the book. But in reality, I was travelling to buy weapons.

In February 2010, the subject was working with “e-mail farming”, and says he got 9000 friends on Facebook, as well as 6000 e-mail addresses. The goal was to distribute the compendium online, via 10 000 e-mail addresses.I was careful about websites that use very strong symbols, the subject says. Had to make sure I stayed away from the sites monitored by PST (the Norwegian Police Security Service).

I saved the compendium and the e-mail addresses in a very safe place, the subject says. All evidence must be removed before the next phase. All tracks must be deleted from phase to phase. When asked the subject says: Will not say where the chip is located. In principle it may be wise to keep some copies of the compendium, just in case. I believe there is technology that can locate chips of this type.

The subject goes on to say: The police has the technology to wiretap your phone even if it is turned off. The battery must be removed. The police has a type of remote control, it is remote controlled from their side. There is no electric circuit in microchips, but some types can send rays anyway.

About surveillance, the subject says that he for the last three years – 2009, 2010, and 2011 – was afraid he was wiretapped. He says: There are many different lists for monitoring. I was looking for a way to verify whether I was on such a list. Thought I could already be on the watch list of a European intelligence agency. So I regarded it as a test when I was buying weapons, then it was unlikely that I was on watch lists anyway. But as long as it did not cost anything, I just as well took out the cell phone battery.

The subject says that he also took the battery out of his cell phone during a visit to Prague in 2010. I was good at hiding clues, he said. When asked, he explains that he took the battery out of the phone both to avoid being registered on the base stations, and to avoid wiretapping. In general, the last year I tried to leave the phone at home, he says. I also used technology to hide my IP address.

The subject says he has been thinking a lot about wiretapping the last couple of years. I took my precautions, he says, but did not see any certain indications before June 18, 2011. Then I put together a number of factors.

The incident happened while the subject lived on his farm in Østerdalen. That day I realized I was being watched, he says. First I saw a police patrol by the road, then I saw a car with an extra antenna, and I had the feeling it was a civilian police car. It was suspiciously parked, 17 kilometers from the farm.

Now the PST is on my farm installing cameras, the subject thought at that time. It was unlikely to be local police, since they had a civilian police car. They were parked next to a bus stop and there were two men in the front seats.

When I got home, the barn door was left wide open and the subject thought there still might be someone inside the house. He waited for 20 minutes, and says: I thought about fighting my way to the Glock and then keep fighting. But I thought it was too much opposition, and that it was better to surrender without a fight.

It appears that the subject on this day was sure that surveillance cameras had been installed on the farm. He went searching for cameras inside the house when he got home. He says: Checked for cameras on all potential places. They have stopped using microphones now, they use tiny cameras instead. I checked all the cracks and all the holes, natural places, but I found nothing. I thought it would be rational for them to install cameras, as they did with Al Qaeda. Plenty of evidence there.

The subject says he has had thoughts about surveillance by cameras since February 2010. At that point, he considered getting detection equipment to find any cameras, but ended up searching carefully around him.

About the influence by infection, the subject says that the thought of infections became more relevant from 2010. The subject became more and more irritated with people who walk around infecting others. It is irresponsible. I’ve always been a healthy person, he says, I have never been ill and I am proud of it. A hypochondriac mentality is the same as a losing mentality, in my opinion.

When asked about how the surroundings noticed that the subject was annoyed with infectious people, he says that mom noticed it. The subject says he purchased a face mask, which he used at certain times in the apartment at home with his mother. Do not think it could have been worn for more than maybe half an hour all in all, the subject says. He does confirm, however, to have been so worried about infection that he discussed the use of face masks indoors with his general physician.

My mother managed to infect me anyway, he says. Was annoyed at both her and her acquaintances.

In the period from February 2010 to July 2010, the subject went into what he calls the armor phase. He says: I made ​​a prototype body armor for a potential battle with Delta (police special unit, experts’ note). I bought a box and put in it four bulletproof vest inserts, a pair of self-made bullet-proof pants, a bulletproof vest, and bulletproof shoes. And then I added smoke grenades and other things into the box, and drove to the Swedish border.

The subject explains how he found a deserted dirt road near Kongsvinger, and buried the box next to a mosquito pond, so hunting dogs could not find it. Hunting dogs are in fact bothered by mosquitoes, he adds. The subject says he spent a whole day digging and made a hole a meter and a half deep. He put the box in it, and camouflaged it with a rotten tree root on top. He says: It was terribly hard work, but I made it.

In July 2010 the subject started what he calls the weapons research phase. The subject says he spent a lot of time to familiarize himself with various issues relating to weapons. From the end of August 2010, this phase transformed into what the subject calls the weapons acquisition phase.

The subject says he realized that he had to document all the phases in the compendium. He says: Not for my own sake. It was for recruiting, for victory.

The conversation is ended.

Current status by both experts on 1 September 2011

The subject is awake, in clear consciousness, and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically assessed to be in the normal range. The subjects uses numbers and values ​​to a greater extent than is common in normal speech. He uses a technical, unemotional and not very dynamic language in the conversation.

He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite, and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, when related to issues concerning his own individual significance and/or his actions.

The subject has a light glaring look and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression, and a somewhat rigid body language as he moves very little in the chair during the hours the conversation lasts.

The subject is not able to recognize or describe his own feelings. He appears thus to have alexithymia.

The subject ascribes his own use of normal stimuli like iPod listening, smoking, drinking coffee, and eating candy as military strategies in single cell structures in revolutionary science. He believes that watching a favorite series on TV is good for the revolutionary fighting morale. The subject thus interprets personal, private and trivial matters to have significance for geopolitical matters. The ideas are considered as delusions of grandeur.

During the conversation it is revealed that the subject since 2009 has feared that his phone has been tapped by a European intelligence agency. Since 2010 he suspected that surveillance cameras had been installed at home. He has considered acquiring detector equipment to find the cameras, but settled on doing a careful search. He has believed to be monitored by civilian police. He has felt vulnerable to infection. The ideas are considered as paranoid delusions.

The subject appears to have an unclear identity feeling, as he switches between describing himself in the singular and plural.

The experts have occasionally had difficulty in following the subject. He exhibits in parts of the conversation to have a moderate association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.

The subject explains that he from February 2010 has made body armor to prepare for a possible battle with Delta. The phenomena are considered to be thoughts about extensive violence.

The subject appears totally without depressive thoughts in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness, or thoughts about his own death by suicide. He denies experiencing sadness, joylessness, reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is thus no evidence of a depressed mood.

The subject does not exhibit increased psychomotorical tempo, or perceived high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax. He has no mind or voice strain. He is “affect stable”. There is no evidence of lack of impulse control, neither verbally nor physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood.

The subject denies the use of addictive drugs or illicit drugs, except having used marijuana twice in 2010. He confirms having taken a total of three anabolic steroids treatments, the last from April 27 to July 22, 2011. The subject denies using steroids or drugs of any kind at the time of questioning. He appears with no clinical suspicion of intoxication.

The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.

» » » » [ Breivik Report :: 1.0-2.4|2.5-2.6|2.7-4.1|4.2-5.6|5.7-5.11|5.12-9.0]

No comments:

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]

:: Fair Use Notice ::

FAIR USE NOTICE: The Norway v. Breivik blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the EcoFeminist vs. Breivik: Beyond Left and Right Wing: From an ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant’ Argument. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to Norway v. Breivik Blog at: [EcoFeminist]